Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Well, good morning everybody to the General Committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians on the land on which we meet, the Gabi Gabi or Kabi Kabi people. I pay my respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. We have an apology from Councillor Joe Jurisevic. Do we have any presentations? No, not today. Thank you. And the first item up this morning is the proposed Local Law Amendments advertising devices. It's proposed that these amendments go out to the Local Law, or go out for public consultation.
00:01:00 And the staff have made a recommendation. It's very important that we reach a consensus on what we think should go out for public consultation. Councillor, do you have any questions for staff? Councillor Jackson: I'm going to start with something that's not completely a question. Anita, on Friday when we were working through the Local Law, we discovered there appeared to be an error in the Local Law compared to the plain English version that you had written for us. Can you explain that in a few words? Speaker 6: Yeah, so it's with regard to shopping centres and what we are proposing. The intent is that we allow 10 square metres per frontage of building to internal car parks and to street frontages. In addition, 10 square metres per outward facing tenancy as well on a sliding scale. On review of the Local Law provisions, that intent wasn't captured 100%.
00:02:00 So I've spoken to the lawyers. We've got a new clause redrafted just to ensure that intent is clarified. So that it is 10 square metres on each frontage. So, yes. Mayor Wellington: On that, the current wording is the sign face area of an individual device must not exceed four square metres. So is that still the intention, that individually they cannot be more than four square metres, however the total area can be 10 square metres? Speaker 6: That's right, that's correct. So there's no change proposed to the individual sign face area of the shopping centres. It was just the total permitted on each of the building frontages and for each tenancy. Councillor Jackson: As I understand it, and please make sure that I'm right, the way the actual legal words were written failed to include the fact that the shopping centre could have signage of the shopping centre on each frontage. And indeed the impression is there's just one frontage on the whole shopping centre. Speaker 6: Total. Correct. So the wording has been changed to capture that the intent is 10 square metres for each of those
00:03:00 building frontages to the car park and or street frontage. So it's plus plus. Excellent. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Now. Speaker 3: So when you say it's been changed, we'll need to pick that up today. Yes. Speaker 6: I've only just printed it off, but yes, we've got it here. So there's a general. Maybe Cathy could type it up. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: So it's not an amendment made by us. It's actually a correction. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. But it can go in. It needs to be. It needs to be included maybe in the original motion. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, it only came in five minutes ago. That's all right. Mayor Wellington: I'll ask another question if that's all right while that's going on. Yes. I note that in the shopping centre conditions, there are no size restrictions for the pylon signs. Can you explain the thinking behind that? Is that because the civic signs already awful big?
00:04:00 Speaker 6: No. So the pylon provisions would revert back to the general pylon provisions. So if you go back to the criteria. Oh, I see. Okay. And so that would apply, which is a five metre height limit and four square metre frontage. Yeah. But it's just not specified under shopping centre. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we all right? Speaker 3: So it's probably best for the board to include the issue we just talked about in the original motion removed today, and then we can make amendments from there if we work through each of the issues.
00:05:00 I'm just getting that all marked. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is Bob, isn't it? So just clarifying, the current requirement under the plan was a $920 signed application. The proposal coming back here is that a minimum application fee goes down to $150 for three signs, is that correct? So they won't require both. So in terms of those, people have to apply. There'll be a significant reduction. There'll be a significant reduction in the cost, but the flip side of that is that there will be an annual licence under the by-law, which will be something that's introduced, but that if they're compliant, you can get a 30% discount off that fee.
00:06:00 Speaker 6: Correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're right. Speaker 6: So the intent there is, yes, to recognise how long it takes for us to assess the application and provide an incentive for fewer signs, lesser fee, just the standard minimum fee, and then any approval would require an annual fee. If they can demonstrate compliance, so they would need to issue a compliance declaration, they would get a 30% discount if it's done, they're complying and paid on time. Councillor Wilkie: And further to that, if they're currently complying, will they have to pay an initial licence application approval fee? Speaker 6: No. So any existing businesses with compliant signage that would require approval ordinarily under the local law will receive an approval. At no cost. At no cost and without approval. At no cost and without application. They would just need to then be issued with an annual renewal fee. Mayor Wellington: While we're waiting for the challenges to be typed up, I wonder if, through the Chair, if we could ask Jamie to outline where he's at with the audit across the Shire, how many properties he's done, how many more to do, and what the repercussions have been to his audit so far.
00:07:00 Speaker 2: Sure. So I'm currently just finished the Homemaker Centre. Acres and a moving... Down Mary Street Road. And on to the River area as well, straight after that. Once I've done that, I'll head out to Peregian, the Peregian area. Continue out there. And once I've finished out there, we're looking at a bit more hinterland with Cooroy. Mayor Wellington: So what areas have you done that already, please? Speaker 2: Sorry, so I've already done Tewantin, Noosa Heads, which includes Haysing Street, and... Speaker 3: Noosa Junction. Speaker 2: Noosa Junction, Sunshine Beach area, and a good part of Noosaville at the moment.
00:08:00 Okay. So still got a little bit to go in respect to the coastal area, and then head out to the hinterland a bit after that. Mayor Wellington: And I understand that thus far something over 80% of properties have been found to be compliant anyway. Yeah, yeah, correct. And of the 20% that weren't, are you finding generally people are willing to be compliant to bring their signage into? Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's some businesses that act immediately. I mean, we deal with each individual business requirements as in regards to how long they've had their signs up there for, how much time they may need to reduce the amount of signs and replace the signs altogether. So we've done that. We talk to the business owners in regards to what kind of timeframe you may need, as long as it's a reasonable timeframe, and we work with them on that basis, basically. So yeah, we do get some people that are immediately on to that, and others just need a bit more
00:09:00 time. So we're looking at some that have got three, six months, some are closer to a year, where they need to just get those finances together again to be able to do what we're asking them to do, basically. Mayor Wellington: But we're giving them a good deal of tolerance, obviously. Speaker 2: Yes, definitely. A good deal of tolerance. Correct. Yeah. And we do let them know that. It's just that some businesses say, oh, well, I'm going to have to do it anyway. I might as well just do it now. Whereas other ones are saying, yeah, I'm going to definitely need some extra time on this one. So we've given up to a year on some of them as well. So a good deal of tolerance and a lot of follow up on those. Yeah. Councillor Pardon: Frank. Yeah. I'm glad to hear that. The cost of some of those things. Yeah. The many thousands of dollars. Yeah. And we know how tough it is out there. Question. At the moment, my understanding is the sandwich boards are allowable. One sandwich board. Currently. Yeah. Business. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I might just ask also just a general question regarding shops that are along the street.
00:10:00 Is there a change to the signage rules proposed here? No. No. Speaker 6: Not in terms of permanent signage. Yeah. So they still, individuals sign face areas four square meters. Yeah. And the total maximum on a sliding scale of 0.75 square meters per linear meter of frontage is maintained. Right. It would just be whether we had any of the proposed temporary signs, which are proposed to be prohibited, such as an A-frame or flag, which we're proposing to prohibit. Yeah. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I might just, we're still waiting. So Anita or Jamie or Gwen, can someone talk to why it is that you think that A-frames should be removed? What are the problems with A-frames? Obviously, there's aesthetic. There's also dangers in terms of cluttering, footpaths and that sort of thing. Do you want to talk to that? Yes. Councillor Pardon: Please excuse me, Mr. Chair. We're going to have a debate. No. Mayor Wellington: I'm not asking. I'm just asking the staff's opinion as to why they're making a recommendation.
00:11:00 It's not a debate. You open the door. It's up to the Chair. All right. Up to the Chair. Councillor Wilkie: It's a good question. I'll allow the question. Speaker 6: So in terms of what was causing the greatest visual clutter within the streetscapes in Noosaville and that increase in terms of signage, probably the three main culprits in that were the two of them. The temporary signs, which create a lot of visual clutter, which is the A-frames and the teardrops, and then weekends and either side of weekends, the real estate point of signs. What's happened there is that they've multiplied with people exceeding the allowable number of one per tenancy, and it's meant to be placed on the tenancy itself, not in public land. So it's being placed on public land, and there may be in real estate. I think we just said today, 50% of cases have more than one A-frame sign.
00:12:00 So there's a compliance issue there. And I guess in terms of that amenity, particularly along some of our gateways, such as Nisi and Mundy Road, it's quite visual and it has a huge impact in terms of it's quite detrimental to the amenity of the Shire. And then, Jamie, you found public liability issues with trip hazards. Yeah, totally. Yeah. Speaker 2: I think that's a good one. Speaker 6: Yeah. And being placed within the footpath street network, you've got to navigate sometimes walking down the street to go around these signs. Speaker 2: And just the constant follow up and be able to keep people on top of that as well. Thanks. Councillor Glasgow: James? Yeah, just on that question too, in regards to if we're asking about sort of implications of what these signs do, the real estate point of signs, I believe a bit of a hot topic right now. Is it just a visual clutter type arrangement or actual safety?
00:13:00 Or is it just the fact that they're just getting everywhere more and more every month? And we're just in a... Speaker 6: Glenn, would you like to... Yeah. Speaker 1: Through the Chair. Councillor, I was just driving along Leslie Drive on the weekend near the Noosa Springs roundabout, and there was 17 small pointer signs along the street. Not only is it visual clutter, but it was also along the corridor. So people walk as well. Councillor Glasgow: Did you say Leslie Drive was it then? Speaker 1: Yes. Leslie Drive. And yeah, so there was one after another. The other one was on Paul Street. Every weekend there's eight to 10 there. And they're right on the verge. They're on the median strip. And I think it's visual clutter. And I think the other issue is that most people are GPS these days, so they don't actually need that type of wayfinding sign. Okay. Tony then. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. On the same issue, Glenn, I've received a request from a major real estate agent in
00:14:00 Noosa to have these signs banned across the Shire, which is unusual coming from a real estate agent. But I understand there's more than just one real estate agent has made that recommendation to start. Is that correct? Speaker 1: I believe that is correct. Speaker 6: We've received six similar emails from... Okay. ...individual real estate agents. Mayor Wellington: So six real estate agents have requested that there be no directional signage for open houses, et cetera. Correct. That's interesting. Thanks. Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. Yeah. I just have a question relating to what I asked before about normal shop fronts and streets. Just so that everyone understands, including our audience, how does that work when you said it's a maximum of 10 square meters of sign per 0.75 linear meter? Can you just give us an example of that? Can you just explain that a bit? Speaker 6: So it's related to the width of the tenancy.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 So measured along that tenancy boundary where the business occupies. So for instance, a tenancy with five linear meters of width would only be able to achieve 0.75 square meters times the five meter width in total sign face area. So the sliding scale is about recognizing the scale of the building in that it's relative to the size. Right. So it would only be large buildings and with the width of... I think it's... Councillor Jackson: 30. Speaker 6: 13.5. 13.5 meters wide. Would a 10 square meter total sign face area be achieved? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. So it's got to be at least 13.5 to get 10 square meters or larger. Correct. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify there, if it's a 10 meter frontage, that would be allowed 7.5 square meters of sign.
00:16:00 Correct. Yep. In total. Councillor Jackson: Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Which with no sign larger than four square meters. Yep. Councillor Jackson: Correct. Correct. And just to clarify that, some have painted or whatever you call window signs, tinted in some way onto the window. Does that count as one of those signs for the 10 square meters? Speaker 6: Yes. So a maximum window sign allowance is four square meters with no greater than 50% of the glazing of the window covered. Councillor Jackson: And that'll count into the amount of... Speaker 6: Total sign face area. Yes. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I'm not ready to go. No. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We've done the complete... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Stockwell. I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Glasgow.
00:17:00 Speaker 5: So, councillors, just to clarify, essentially the only change in this is that it includes the word for each. Previously the clause read as if it was the total, so we've had it redrafted to include that it relates to each shopping centre frontage. Speaker 6: It also specifically refers to the building of the shopping centre, so that it doesn't, for example, with the village shopping centre, they have a frontage to Mary Street, but there's no building frontage to there, so that frontage is not counted. It's just a driveway. Yes, so it has to have a building that fronts that particular street or car park area. That doesn't make sense to me, sorry, can Mayor Wellington: we just pursue that? Sorry, Anita. I mean, it is a building, it's just the side of a building or the back of a building. I mean, building frontage, it's the word frontage
00:18:00 that is the critical term here, is it? Because it doesn't say that. It's a street. Speaker 6: So with the example of the village, it has a street frontage and it has a car park frontage, so the allowance there would be 10 square metres for each of those frontages, but Mary Street is not regarded as a frontage because there's no building that fronts it. Mayor Wellington: But the word front in the wording relates to the word street, not the word building, so I'm just going to take up that very issue of village shopping centre. It has a street frontage on Mary Street. It has a street front boundary. Therefore, what you're suggesting is not captured in the wording, I don't think. Speaker 6: So if you go to B A, it says if the building comprising the shopping centre has one or
00:19:00 more street front boundaries, 10 square metres for each shopping centre building with a street Mayor Wellington: front boundary. And the building has, it's not suggesting that it's the front of the building, it's suggesting that any part of the building on a street front. So therefore, the back of the building is part of the building that has a street front boundary. Speaker 6: That's correct. That's the intent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Except in the village, you've got a row of, you've got the Chinese restaurant and the other buildings have lots between the building and the street. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm talking about, I'm sorry, not Mary Street. I'm talking about, sorry, Gibson Road. I beg your pardon, I've thrown you a curveball there. The Gibson Road boundary would be captured in this then? Correct. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Just to clarify, in that case, because I've discovered, we discovered the other day, there's a difference between the council mapping and Google mapping in terms of the name of the street. And on Google, the part that's the back of the back entrance is actually called
00:20:00 four. And on the other side, it's called Gibson. And then there's also Gibson that's running up to the roundabout. So there are two bits of Gibson or two bits of salt water, which is not clear which, because the building is square and it has four sides. And it's not totally clear now which is called the street frontage and which is not. I'm not sure the word is perfect. Okay. Okay. Speaker 6: In that instance, I believe from a planning perspective, we regarded that as one frontage. Yeah. Sorry, I might just ask Lisa, who did the approval for that. Is that correct, Lisa? That was regarded as one frontage, that Gibson Road slash, if it's called, partly salt water. It's Gibson Road. Yeah, it is actually Gibson Road. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: They have a pile on the signs in place of this.
00:21:00 Speaker 6: Okay. So in addition to that allowance, one pile on sign per street front as well. Councillor Wilkie: That means one, in this instance, for the example we're using, one for Gibson Road and one for the car park? Speaker 6: One for Mary Street. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: One for Mary Street. Yeah. And you're distinguishing between signage allowable for the buildings itself, Shopping Centre building, and also there's signs for each individual tenancy. Correct. If they're facing the street or the car park. Speaker 6: Correct. Yeah. So there's the, I guess you'd call it the premises allowance of the 10 square metres each frontage, plus each individual tenancy has an allowance of, similar to any other tenancy in a street scape, which is the four square metres individual and up to 10 square metres on that sliding scale. Okay. Speaker 3: My suggestion would be that we've got the motion to approve that.
00:22:00 I'm just wondering how you get the mover to speak to us and if there's any amendment that would be possible to come after that. Yeah. There's a few amendments. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I shall speak. And we've started, interesting, delving down into the detail where I thought it was important for this to try and identify why we're going back to a by-law from the planning scheme. And this all started in 1983. And to me it's one of the quintessential policies of this Council that has made a significant difference to our economy. In 1983 Bryce Design, one of the leading designers in Queensland at the time, did a study of the tourist signage within Noosa Shire and he said, the dilemma for Noosa Shire Council and the community as a whole is how to preserve the uniqueness of the natural environment around Noosa alongside the many administrative and commercial interests. This will be achieved only through the cooperation of all who live and work in the area. However, it is the responsibility of the Council to take the lead in preparing guidelines for
00:23:00 a coordinated approach and where necessary to enforce standards. Still the main reason we're doing it today. He went further. He suggested that other cities have declared themselves nuclear-free. We suggest that Noosa Shire adopt the principle of being free of visual pollution. Addressing policies on advertising, streetscape furniture, building colours and plastic pendants would be an aid to observation of the tourist signs. And obviously we have now got the Noosa design guidelines. And we've done that. We've, you know, took till 1988 to get the first bylaw engaged into commercial signage. And plastic pendants were then the thing that, you know, used to litter the streetscapes and car yards. And we've got a new form of those in terms of the teardrop signs, you know, what I consider some of the new cane toads of the advertising industry proliferating throughout the Shire. And I think it's really important that we remember the standards that were set in the 80s.
00:24:00 That led to what is Noosa today. And when I asked one of the two architects that was on that council some time ago about what he thought was important, he said the original intention was that people driving around would feel like they were in a national park where they had just allowed to live in. And they had the council signage had green for rainforest and beige for sand. So we were just custodians. Not sand. Sand. Not sand. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. So we were just custodians of a well integrated environment where the natural environment predominated over the built. I think that's important. And I think I'll finish on the one last thing is it is only a bylaw. And bylaws, sometimes you think it's just about how we enforce requirements. But what we're actually doing here is we're setting up a framework which helps embed the sense of place that our residents and rate payers have. And a sense of place is really important in how people living here think about the world
00:25:00 they live in and how they want to work to achieve a common goal with council. And to me, I'm just going to finish on what a sense of place does. It's the particular experience of a person in a particular setting, feeling stimulated, excited, joyous, expansive and so forth. It's the spirit of place, the combination of characteristics that gives some location a special feel or personality. Settings. A person's immediate surrounding, including both the physical and social environments. And to me, this bylaw gives us back the right to more forcibly control the way that signage helps to achieve our sense of place through both the dual mechanisms of both amalgamation where I suppose the principles and policies weren't as strongly adhered to and the fact that we went into a planning scheme environment where it was impossible to prohibit certain things. We have seen over the last decade a gradual diminution of some of those high quality,
00:26:00 high standard approach to signage in the Shire. And this is the framework which will help us bring it back. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Warmington. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to speak in favour of the motion. I agree with Councillor Stockwell's history and the signage regulations were brought in under the Playford Council in the 1980s. One of the key aspects of that was that the signage regulations were brought in under the Playford Council and the two main attributes that sets Noosa apart is in fact our approach to public signage. I just want to remind Councillors that it's easier to relax conditions following a public consultation process than it is to tighten them. Once we've received the submissions on proposals, inevitably it becomes almost impossible to make something like signage laws more restrictive. You can only respond really to submissions on proposals if they're not in line with the regulations by making them less restrictive than what is being presented for consideration. So if there are individual issues where there isn't clear consensus, my suggestion is I
00:27:00 urge Councillors to go with the more restrictive option because we can always wind it back later when the consultation's over. The staff have based their recommendations on this significant history that Brian's talking about of signage control measures in Noosa. And as I say, these historic restrictions are absolutely integral to the look and feel of Noosa and its attractiveness to both business and locals. So I want to support that history and the efforts that have gone on for the last few decades in Noosa and therefore I support the motion. Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. I would like to ask some questions. And the first one is back to what you've just done to fix a problem that appeared in the local law as it was written. I'm not clear at all. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. The difference is between one and two there. Can you explain that?
00:28:00 Speaker 6: So if you go, if you look at B itself, it talks about whichever is the lesser of. So this is about the sliding scale issue. So point one talks about the allowance of being up to 10 square meters per frontage. Being the car park frontage or the street front, street front frontage, public street frontage. And then the second point is, so the comparison is the second point, a combination of those signage on a sliding scale. So the maximum is 10 square meters. However, if that frontage is, as we discussed previously, less than 13.5 meters wide, they may not achieve 10 square meters. So you have to go back to B to say which is the lesser of those two combinations, and that's what you get. Councillor Jackson: But looking at two, it doesn't refer to
00:29:00 each street front. It's back to sounding like it's only a one-off. I mean, it's not clear in two that we're talking about each street front, is it? It doesn't say each. It was talking about each shopping center building. With a street front. That's a building. Not a frontage. Councillor Wilkie: With a street front, yeah. Councillor Jackson: So each, a building has street front boundaries, but it's talking about each building, not each boundary. And that is confusing because I believe what you intend is that each frontage is allowed 10 square meters, up to 10 square meters, depending on the sliding scale. But at the moment, it's saying each building is allowed up to 10 square meters. That's how it's written. Councillor Wilkie: Each shopping center building with a street front boundary. Councillor Jackson: Well, the shopping center building, some don't have a street front boundary, so Noosa Fair doesn't. But that, let's say Noosa Village.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Noosa Village, which is the one that has street front boundaries, has two street front boundaries, but it doesn't say each boundary. It just says the building. So you could only have one 10 square meters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could I suggest an amendment? I'd be happy to, because I think there is some lack, you know, potential lack of clarity. Each shopping center building with a facade with a direct street frontage. So it's, I think what Councillor Jackson's talking about is there's only one building per, you know, if it's got two street frontings, you've only got one building. But what we're actually trying to do is if the building has a facade, it's a big building, it has a facade to two street frontages, then it gets one per street frontage. So it's the face of the building, not the building itself. Councillor Jackson: That would work. Speaker 3: So what would that entail? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Each shopping center building with a facade. Yeah. Oh, each shopping center building facade with a direct street frontage. So each shopping center building,
00:31:00 two A and B, yeah, two A and B. Yeah, that's getting better. Yeah, facade. Yeah. And I would suggest with the word, with a direct street frontage. And you'd repeat that in the B. Councillor Wilkie: What frontage? Frontage instead of boundary. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, frontage is better than boundary, isn't it? Speaker 6: Yep. Councillor Pardon: But then you've got one or more at the top. Speaker 6: You've got to change A and B. Councillor Pardon: You've got to change A and B. It doesn't work. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, you wouldn't have to go up top. Councillor Pardon: Well, they're okay. No. No. Is that okay or not? Speaker 6: You would need to change one A and B as well, because you're comparing apples with apples. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Second thought. Each building providing you with a shopping has one or more off-street parking areas. Yeah. Speaker 3: And then you need that. And 1AB. When I leave. Councillor Jackson: Yep. This one? Yep. Yep.
00:32:00 Yep. Yep. Councillor Jackson: Yep, that's correct. Mayor Wellington: You need direct. You need direct? Direct. You need direct? You need direct? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then after that, a potential amendment to increase. Speaker 5: And then we have. Speaker 3: And then we have to. And the A as well. The A as well. Yeah. But it'd be the same. But it'd be the same. It'd be the same. Mayor Wellington: 2B. Shopping Centre Building, Passage. Councillor Wilkie: Is that complete? Shopping Centre Building, Passage, with an on-street parking area. Yep, there's the move on seconder of the original motion, happy with that then. Jess, John, Ingrid? Councillor Jackson: Yes, that's good. Thank you.
00:33:00 Go ahead. I still have one question. Okay. Yeah, okay. So I have a question about the Noosaville and Cooroy industrial areas. Can you just explain how it's proposed that that's a bit different than normal chops on the street? Speaker 6: In terms of the proposed change put forward, we're proposing to increase the individual sign face area for the Noosaville and Cooroy industrial zone, excluding Noosi Eumundi Noosa Road and Walter Hay Drive as gateways to Noosa. So the difference there is that it's recognising the industrial nature and use of the area. And also, the larger size of buildings. So again, the proposal is for a maximum individual sign face area of six square metres, but also on a sliding scale. So if you've got a smaller building, you may not be able to achieve a sign greater than four square metres up to the six.
00:34:00 So again, it's measured about that tenancy width. So I guess the difference is, it's in terms of other areas, across Noosa, it's the land use and the built form are reflective of industrial uses, not within a main street format. And so we saw that there was a case for some difference in individual sign face area compared to say, a main street environment of Noosa Junction. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thank you. So the difference between that and now, is that at the moment they'd be allowed four square metre signs. Correct. Here they would be allowed six square metre signs, but it would only be up to a maximum of ten square metres. Yes. Which means that you could have one six square metre sign and one four square metre sign. That's it. Speaker 6: Correct.
00:35:00 Councillor Jackson: And this includes window signs. Speaker 6: Yes. Yeah. Yes. Councillor Jackson: So just as an example that we, well, I think it was last month or the month before, we had an application before us for signage at some property in Noosaville industrial area, which had both a window sign and a larger sign, which had not complied with the current rules. But do you remember the size of those signs that were there? They've already been, they're there already. Speaker 5: Pat. Do you remember the size sign of those signs? I don't remember the size of the last month's industrial estate sign. Mayor Wellington: I thought it was around six square metres. Speaker 5: I thought it was larger. I thought it was eight. Here we go. Councillor Jackson: I got it here. Oh, Brian started it. I'll get it. Speaker 2: I think it was eight. Speaker 3: I think it was eight or nine. Speaker 5: I think it was nearly nine. Yeah. Speaker 3: Is that the red one? Yeah.
00:36:00 They were red. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 2: So, that one is eight, and I took up four windows. Really? Speaker 4: Sorry. Speaker 2: Okay.
00:37:00 Councillor Jackson: I'm going to propose an amendment because I think if we're going to allow six, which seems reasonable in large buildings, Mr Chair, she's talking to the motion already. Okay, well I'll propose the amendment and then I'll speak to the amendment and you've got that information, it's allow a maximum of total sign face area for tenancy of 12 square meters in the Noosaville and Cooroy industrial area. It's not a new item, it's actually, it's only the one of the first one, Speaker 3: sir, the one with B under your note there. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, we're doing them one at a time. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, well I'm going to do them one at a time, thank you. Let's move that down. All right, so this is not a new item, this is actually. No, I'm just changing, sorry, we're just wording that we have. Yeah, okay.
00:38:00 So, just hold it. Okay, well that, I'm not actually, I don't, this is not how you read, this is not actually the actual local law wording that I'm changing. I'm just adding new information to it. Speaker 5: It's on the assignment. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, if you're reading it, I'm going to do that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: While we're looking at that wording, it was 8.792 square meters. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. The two's very important. Councillor Jackson: Thanks for that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Made all the difference. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Yeah, yeah. So that was it. Mm-hmm. Okay. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. There's nothing to do with that stuff at the top, because that's shopping centers. I'm talking about industrial value. So adding a new item. It would be D. This has nothing to do with a shopping center. It's not a new, I'm sorry, it's not a new item. It's an amendment to the global law. Mayor Wellington: But in terms of the motion, it's adding a new item.
00:39:00 Councillor Glasgow: Yes, it's a new item, A in our motion. Councillor Jackson: Oh, it's a new item. I'm sorry. Speaker 5: Yes. We're going to have to change this. Mayor Wellington: So adding a D. Yeah, it's the easy way. Speaker 5: It needs to relate to section A. Yes. A2. A2. Councillor Jackson: Well, no, it's not related to shopping centers. No, but it would be another cost. No, I'm sorry. This is nothing to do with shopping centers. Yeah. A. So I'm not going to add it to A. A is about shopping centers. Speaker 3: It is a new item. I have a suggestion about how we manage it. It's a new item. So Catherine, back up. Yeah, I'll just do two. Catherine, back up. We're saying that we're making the local law subject to the following changes to section 10B. I think what we should do there is say subject to the following changes. The first one's about 10B, and then we'll make other changes as we go. Oh, yeah. Councillor Jackson: That's what I'm about to do, Dan. Yeah, right.
00:40:00 There's no subject to changes. I didn't reword the local law. I'm simply, I think what any of us will do is just point to what you suggest. Speaker 3: I think at the very end, if we go through these amendments, if they're successful, if we go through them, at the very end, we'll then authorize the CO to make consequential changes to the local law. Speaker 7: Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Got that. Speaker 3: So this would be the A. Yep. To the 10. Yep. And then the B. Yes. So that's the amendment, is to add a new B to that provision to allow. Councillor Jackson: Allow them actually in total sign phase. Yeah. For, sorry, for per tenancy of 12 square, here is down the bottom, cross communities in the Noosa, Nooa, Cooray industrial zones, excluding the Mundy, Noosa road and Walter Hay Drive. So the only difference that I'm proposing is to make in the industrial zone, and not
00:41:00 on the main road, which is top-rankly invisible, but in the industrial zone, given that we're suggesting that the- Mayor Wellington: So, Mr. Chair, if- Second. Councillor Jackson: Oh, do a second or a third. Mayor Wellington: Exactly. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Are you happy with the wording there? Councillor Jackson: The wording is the wording. Mayor Wellington: Can we get the wording right before anyone speaks to it? Councillor Jackson: Allow them in total sign phase, per tenancy of 12 square metres in the Noosa- Mayor Wellington: Why are we including, Mr. CEO, all of that going, when all we really need is- We need to do- Item 2 be amended and item added, yeah. Speaker 3: Because I could change the item 2 to say, originally- Mayor Wellington: From change to changes, yeah. You could put changes in the original, no one will care, and that gets rid of all that guff. Councillor Jackson: Well, no, we need the amendment, though. Mayor Wellington: I know, the amendment B. So you add item B. Normally, in an amendment, you don't- You change it, yep, you're not putting all the- You don't put the whole original motion in an amendment. Speaker 6: No, but I'm changing this from subject to following changes. I'm saying that this was just saying before, it was just saying-
00:42:00 Councillor Jackson: Oh, we have to change that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have to make that A- Build one, so then we won't do it again. Speaker 6: Yes, I have to make that A, and then- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mumsy, okay. Speaker 3: Well, otherwise, there won't be a B. That's a trouble, yeah. Mayor Wellington: There, all right. Councillor Jackson: Okay, so we're really only changing, oh gosh. Okay, doesn't matter. So the thing that's different here is that I'm suggesting, oh, I'm even- All right, we need a seconder. Seconder. Councillor Glasgow: I'll second it. You can't. You can't? Jess, you seconded the original motion, so- Councillor Wilkie: Oh, you can't second it. And movers of, seconders of amendments can move subsequent amendments, can't amnesties. Councillor Jackson: Yes. Speaker 3: Yeah, correct. It's only the original- Yeah, I'll second it. You're a seconder, you can't move it away. I'll second it. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thanks. Okay, I shall- Councillor Pardes. Thank you, Councillor. So what I'm suggesting here is that as we are recommending that industrial zone building, which are generally quite large, are allowed to have a six square meter sign, and as an example, we had one a couple of months ago which had already installed the sign and
00:43:00 a window sign, and the sign was 8.- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 972. Councillor Jackson: 972, so it was bigger than what is being recommended. It was two meters square meters bigger than what is being recommended, but it's being recommended that we allow up a six square meter sign, and at the moment, that would be a sign with six square meters, and then any additional sign, like a window sign, could have to be less because they'd only be allowed up to 10 square meters. Depending on the width of the building. And I'm recommending, and obviously it depends on the width of the building, that with a large building, that it would be reasonable to allow two six square meter signs, whether they're window signs or wall signs. So seeing that we're moving towards a six square meter sign in an industrial area, why not make it two of them?
00:44:00 And that's why I'm suggesting up to 10 square meters, and clearly that's up to- 12. 12 square meters, because of the, yeah. So that's what I'm suggesting, and the reason is that I can't see a logic in not allowing that, and I think in terms of visual amenity, it is an industrial zone, the buildings are industrial buildings, I don't see that that in any way is against municipal design principles because of the environment. And I also think that in many cases these signs have to be visible from the road, and I think the building we happened to look at two months ago was actually quite set back from the road, and I mean the whole idea is that drivers can see them and catch them as they drive, and it's not a place where people are walking around and eyeballing things, so yeah, so I think that would be a reasonable thing to offer instead of limiting it to just one six square meter sign.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Councillor Pardon: So, yeah, just a question to start. I can see the intent, but in the local law, there doesn't mention a sliding scale here, so in the local law, is that captured, or how would I put it, the size of the building, to say there'd be two or three tenants to all go that solid? Under that amendment there, I'm just not seeing that, so to capture that. So is that within the local law idea? I know it's an awkward question. Councillor Wilkie: Are you asking does the sliding scale still apply? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I guess, because that's an obvious question, I guess, for the size of the building. Speaker 6: So, yes, the recommendation was with regard to where it says 10 square meters to change it to 12,
00:46:00 and then the rest of the provision talks about the sliding scale. If I captured that correctly. Councillor Jackson: That is what I thought, because Anita didn't give me new wording for the local law, she simply gave me words that would show what's changed. So because it says maximum total sign base, that word maximum implies the intent that that is in the sliding scale as per the existing proposed local law. So, yes. Captured. Captured, yeah. Mayor Wellington: So can I just ask questions for clarity? So this amendment is suggesting that we increase the total maximum of 12 square meters. Can you just, for the sake of clarity, Anita, explain what the recommendation is currently in the local laws with regard to tenancies in Noosaville and Cooroy industrial zones, in terms of numbers of signs they can have in the maximum signage area,
00:47:00 what is being recommended right now? Speaker 6: So in terms of the total maximum sign base area, no change is proposed. So it is to maintain the current 10 square meters. In terms of individual sign size, the proposal is to allow for an increase from four square meters, which is the current provision, up to six square meters. In terms of the number of signs on the building, we don't have any maximum number of signs, just the total area that they've got to not exceed. Mayor Wellington: And in terms of, another question if I may, Mr. Chair, in terms of the current planning scheme stroke, local laws provisions, what is allowed in Noosaville and Cooroy industrial areas at this point in time? Speaker 6: So currently they're allowed up to a maximum of 10 square meters of total sign face area, and for individual signs, four square meters.
00:48:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Speaker 6: Sorry, on the sliding scale for the... Mayor Wellington: Yeah, look, I've got concerns here, because what was being referenced earlier is an issue that came to this council where a business had put in a larger than prescribed sign, and the reason that we didn't support the business in that case was because, in fact, they had breached their own conditions for the development approval. So in fact, it was a very different scenario. This was a scenario last time where we had a developer who had built a, or renovated or whatever, their industrial premises, and then gone ahead and put in a sign that was over and above the size that was allowed under the approved development conditions without them having challenged the development conditions. Therefore, I don't see it as a useful kind of yardstick by which to judge what size signs should be,
00:49:00 because it was clearly a willful act of breaching the conditions of the development approval. I have concerns that what's being proposed here, to some extent, undermines the work that our excellent signage control office has been engaged in for the last couple of years. Remembering that the audit of businesses found that over 80%, in fact, were compliant. And I have to say, I've received almost zero blowback as a result, of Jamie's efforts dealing with businesses in the Shire to get them to conform to the current requirements with regard to signage. If this was a major issue, we would be getting a lot more feedback, and I'm just not getting it. In fact, I think I've had maybe one or possibly two businesses in the last three years contact me about signage issues.
00:50:00 So if there isn't a problem, what are we trying to fix? What's being proposed? What's being proposed is over and above what's being recommended by staff, and really businesses elsewhere in the Shire are going to look at these industrial estates and say, if they can do it, why can't I? And it just creates confusion, and it requires Council to be continually answering to the question why it is that there are such different signage regulations for different areas. The more consistency we can get here, the better. It's simpler. It's a more level playing field. And as I say, I'm just not receiving lobbying to increase the signage in the industrial estates. It's just not happening. Councillor Pardon: Mr Chairman, the Mayor's analogy is quite correct there with regards to that particular issue, developer non-compliant. I guess in a way, if I think back, I don't think I started a lot of this.
00:51:00 I did suggest at meetings of Council that we should look at the industrial site as a different site, because it is zoned industry, and thus the buildings up there tend to be constructed in a different way, and also very large buildings, obviously. So staff have had a look at that and done a good job, I'd say. I'm pretty agnostic with regards to this particular amendment. Either way, I don't think it would do a lot of damage, but I won't support it. I'll go with the staff. There has been an increase. They've had a look at it, and there is opportunity for bigger signs now up in the industrial estate. So I think we've achieved the objective I was sort of thinking of going forward. So, you know, I think we've achieved the objective I was sort of thinking of going forward.
00:52:00 So it's like when we start on this journey. Four square metres. Is that the correct size? Is it five? Is it three? Pick a figure. Who makes the judgements? It's in the eye of the beholders, I guess, and what people think. So arbitrary picking four. Councillor Jackson: Can I just say, I've got a bit of a concern here. My motion is not about size. It's about the size. Councillor Wilkie: It's just me talking about the maximum. You're talking about increasing the maximum. Councillor Jackson: Councillor, pardon me, I'm talking about size. Councillor Wilkie: You're talking about increasing the maximum to 12 square metres. Councillor Jackson: Councillor, pardon me. Councillor Wilkie: My ruling, Councillor, is that this is all very relevant and pertinent. Councillor, pardon me, should go out and continue this discussion. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, the motion talks about 12 square metres, an increase from 10 to 12 square metres, the amendment, sorry. So I was just talking about analogy. Is 12 square metres correct?
00:53:00 Are you correct there? Is 10 what the staff are proposing? It's a bit of, you know, a bit of this and a bit of that. Who's right, who's wrong? As I said, it's the way you see the big picture or the little picture, I guess, or the little sign or the big sign. So, but I just, I think we've got it right. Staff have got it pretty right. So I'm happy with that. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wasn't going to speak. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, I'll speak. You will. Commercial and competitive pressure has for decades always demanded bigger and more commercial signage. And this is Shire Council and its community representatives have successfully held the line against such pressures for decades. And why should we give in now and allow bigger and more signage?
00:54:00 Minimising and resisting the pressure to increase commercial signage is undoubtedly one of the principles that has shaped Noosa's character and will continue to set Noosa apart into the future. I go back to basic principles. How do Noosa's design principles, which we all endorse, apply to this decision? As indicated by this report, the planning scheme up to this point has sought to embody and enact those principles. And the whole thrust of the planning scheme has been to minimise and reduce signage wherever possible. There's been no call to increase the total amount of signage in the industrial estate to 12 square metres. This is a document. We're proposing to put a document out for public consultation. I'll be very interested to see if anyone requests 12 square metres. There'd be 120 that the total amount of signage allowed in the industrial estate would be allowed to be 120% of what it is currently. As indicated in this report and the enormous amount of work staff have done over the years to uphold these standards,
00:55:00 it's clear they've seen reducing and minimising commercial signage as a clear direction from policy makers and the community. And they've worked to make that a reality. And that's embodied in their recommendation. This report that proposed local law is intended to make it easier to hold the line against the lamperous push for bigger and more advertising signage now and into the future. And why now would we be allowing signs to be bigger at a time when their need as a wayfinding measure has been largely replaced by websites, Google Maps and online searches? Signs are still required on site but I've never heard any compelling argument that they need to be bigger for people to find a business. The audit currently underway shows 82% of businesses are already complying with the current standards that seek to also create a level playing field.
00:56:00 Why would we change course now when there's absolutely no need to make commercial signs bigger? And what are signs for? They could help people locate businesses. How more often do they do it now? Online searches first. How big does a sign have to be? If after driving to an address you can't see 10 square metres of signage on a business, then you can argue that it's 12 square metres. You're not going to see that either. If you allow 12 square metres over time, almost everyone will notice the change in Noosa if commercial signs are allowed to grow to 120% of their current size. And for what reason? No good reasons, I would argue. What will it do to Noosa over time? I can't support any proposal that undermines one of the key points of differences for Noosa. And over time we see Noosa's urban landscape resemble that of every other developed coastal community in Sydney.
00:57:00 Councillor Glasgow: I agree with our beloved Mayor. It's a very slippery slope to be going down. This is no precedent here. I proudly say I have zero blowback on people going on about this new policy. I repeat, zero. Only people emailing me and companies emailing me saying yes, I agree with certain aspects of the signs in terms of the real estate signs. It's a really slippery slope to be going down to suddenly be going from 10 to 12. I'll state again that our motto says different by nature. And that's right. I've recently just spent some time on the Gold Coast. I've recently spent some time in Byron Bay. I've recently just been to Brisbane. And we are engulfed with neon and lights and signs and coffee and booze and pokies and all of that stuff. Councillor Pardon: All the places you go. Councillor Glasgow: Coming back to my beloved Noosa where I cut my teeth in these streets.
00:58:00 It's heaven. So I will never support anything more than what we've already got. It's a great situation. It's a great team that we've got to my front and on my direct right. So I'm very happy with the current situation. So I won't be supporting it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Angela, do you want to talk? Councillor Jackson: Certainly. With a right of reply. First of all, I would like to say that I am the first to vote against someone who does not comply with an original approval with a condition of signage size. And I certainly supported all other councillors in voting against the application that the sign be accepted when in fact it was conditioned to be small and did not comply. The only reason I brought up that other sign that we saw two months ago
00:59:00 is just to highlight that I'm not recommending a sign of that size which I keep forgetting what size it was. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 8.792. Councillor Jackson: Okay, almost 9.792. So that is not what I'm recommending and I'm certainly not recommending ticking off, allowing people to not comply to signage regulations. What I am recommending is simply that given that our own staff who have done a good job here have recommended that in this industrial area where there are big buildings doing warehouse type stuff and all that manufacturing that those it's logical to allow them to have 3-meter signage instead of just 4 square meters allowing them to have a 6 square meter sign. I'm taking that little teeny step further and saying well if we're allowing them a 6 square meter sign why not give them that extra
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 couple of meters so they could have instead of just having a 6 square meter sign then another sign that's only 4 square meters and they probably have more than one face on their building then they'd be allowed up to 12 square meters. In other words, it's mathematics. 6 plus 6 equals 12 whereas when we've increased it to 6 but don't allow 12 we're not really somehow being quite as logical. I'd like to also say that some of the statements that have been made by Councillor Glasgow and perhaps also by Councillor Wilkie are extreme exaggerations of my intent. I'm extremely committed to Noosa design principles I certainly don't want it to look like Nicklin Way and I'm certainly not looking to see increases of huge amounts of signage all over Noosa. I'm looking here specifically at the industrial area. You will note that my recommendation is to exclude Eumundi Noosa Noosa Road and Malta Hay Drive
01:01:00 which is the entrance to Noosa and that's already in the local law and I support that. So this idea that this is the slippery slope towards massive signs all over Noosa is absolutely ridiculous. I will be calling for a division on this vote and I think all I'm doing is a reasonable recommendation in no way am I suggesting larger signs in Noosa. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the amendment those in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, in favour. You are in favour. Councillor Wilkie: That's Councillor Jackson in favour, those against? The amendment's lost. Speaker 3: Before you go on, I assume we're going to get some other amendments just so we don't run into that same issue about having to replicate that I suggest that the original mover and the seconder confirmation accept that we'll make that change
01:02:00 subject to the following changes and we break those paragraphs out Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm certainly comfortable with that. Councillor Jackson: Rather than having we have to amend the whole thing Yeah, it's clunky. Speaker 3: provision and then that would make it easier as more amendments come forward. Fixes my problem, thanks. One of your problems. Everyone's happy with that. We'll make that change. Do you want me to move my amendment? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, it comes from Councillor Pardon: an amendment. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll just wait till it comes. Just wait for a moment. Yeah, there's no rush. Stop that. Yep. And that'll be amendment number two, which will be from Councillor Parry. Councillor Parry.
01:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Speaker 3: Frank, can I suggest you read this out? It's not very long, it would make sense if you were watching at home.
01:04:00 Councillor Pardon: Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay, include, you want to start item A, et cetera, that item A, be amended with a new item B, to be added to read as follows, include a sandwich board, dash A-frame signs as temporary self-assessable advertising devices, with the following criteria. One, the advertising device may only be used when the business is open, and two, a maximum of one advertising device per tenancy is permitted, and three, the advertising device must be placed on the property to which it refers, or where this is not practicable or possible immediately adjacent to the property, and four, the maximum size permitted is 900 millimetres by 600 millimetres, or 0.54 of a metre.
01:05:00 Oh, the square metre. Mayor Wellington: Can I ask a question before we proceed? Anita, in terms of the current regulations regarding apron and such like, is this rose instating what is currently described under our local laws? Speaker 6: Yes it is. Councillor Pardon: I haven't got a seconder. Oh, sorry. Well, sorry. Thanks, sir. Yeah, councillors, as Councillor Stockwell pointed out in his opening remarks, that we should maintain the standard in Noosa. Well, absolutely we should. So there's nothing I've proposed here that changes the standard. This is what's allowable now. And what's being proposed here is, in the changes of the local law, is that this be prohibited on page 20.
01:06:00 It says, it has a list of, starts on page 19 of the Administrative and Other Supporting Local Laws report, there's prohibited advertising devices on page 90, and on page 20 it says sandwich board or A-frame. So it's under, in this consultation we're going out in this draft, it prohibits a sandwich board. So what, from my point of view, is that we should maintain the standard. From my perspective, it isn't a status quo. We're taking sandwich boards away. Now, in the discussion as we hear about all the signage on side of roads and real estate agents and signage, signage, signage, all I'm proposing here is, status quo, it gives opportunity to the little businesses in the towns and villages here,
01:07:00 to put, you might be able to find them, but how about their little specials, coffee $3.50 a cup, the little cupcake for sale, etc. That's what they put out, their little specials out on the footpaths or wherever, in front of their shops, throughout the Shire, as they have done for many years. And the Mayor talked about Glovacs or complaints. I don't get any complaints. Complaints about sandwich boards, etc. And if there's more than one now, they should be taken away under the local law. The law is they can only have one. So if this is a big deal, we should be fixing it up now. We don't have to wait because you can only, that's the law is the law.
01:08:00 So we talk about standards. The size of it sets a standard. The size of the device. It can only happen. When it's up, the shops open. So there's already a list of standards up there. Sizes, where you put it. So for me, as a tourist town, I don't think the little ads on sandwich boards for coffee, cake, etc. Are a big deal. And in fact, business is flaming hard out there. It is really tough. And so we proposed to go forward. To put a charge on businesses. $52.50. That's with this account. So to me, just in a common sense approach, I'm now going to charge you for your signage. But you're not allowed to have these little sandwich boards anymore.
01:09:00 But it doesn't, just doesn't fit for me. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question. What are some of the, what are the, what are some of the, what are some of the, what are some of the critical advantages of having local requirements such as that for sandwich boards? Sorry. What are the advantages, if any, of going, from an enforcement perspective of moving from town planning provisions to a local rule in terms of signage? Mayor Wellington: Generally you mean. Do you? Councillor Wilkie: Not specifically? Mayor Wellington: Generally. Councillor Wilkie: This may be in or out. We might. Speaker 6: So under a planning scheme. No, no. The provisions are performance-based, whereas under local law, they're prescriptive. So if it's prohibited, it's prohibited. There can be no application made. There's no appeal rights where a sign is prohibited. I guess the advantage is that it's much more definitive. More easily enforced.
01:10:00 Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Tony. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, look, this is a tricky one because Councillor Pardon's absolutely correct that at the moment we do allow eight frames, one per tenancy. Unfortunately, they tend to proliferate somewhat and the users don't always stick to the regulations in terms of ensuring that they don't encumber people using footpaths and pathways, et cetera. But the reason staff are now recommending the prohibition of eight frames is obviously because they have a problem that they have to deal with. It's not we councillors, it's the poor staff who have to go around dealing with the errant eight frames and their owners. And the fact that they see a problem is obviously why they've come to us now with a suggested solution, which is to make eight frames prohibited devices. It's certainly true, and my personal observation is that they do frequently interfere with pathways,
01:11:00 that they can... look unsightly, particularly where they're clustered together. They're not always in good repair. They end up, particularly where there's a number of shops in a small space like an arcade, they do end up getting quite prolific. And we've seen that locally here in Tewantin. And as we've heard, there are also public liability issues in terms of these things when they... should they blow over or should people run into them on public footpaths, et cetera. There is a cost, obviously, also to Moosa Council to be continually policing them, and it seems that eight frames are one of the advertising devices that are a continual bugbear for council. And even when we have regulations approving them, still require constant monitoring and a significant cost to ratepayer to ensure that businesses are sticking to the regulations. I revert back to what I said at the beginning
01:12:00 to the substantial... That is, it's always easier to relax prescriptions that restrict signage following the consultation process than it is to further restrict them. So although I don't have extremely strong opinions about this, I think we should err on the side of the staff recommendation and test the water to see what our residents and local businesses have to say about the issue. So I'm not going to vote for the amendment. I think it would be far better if we go out to consultation with a prohibition on A-frames and see whether or not that is acceptable to the majority of people. Councillor Wilkie: I'm Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just have a question that was prompted by items three there and Councillor Arden's commentary. The way the by-law, the draft by-law is going to work,
01:13:00 currently proposed, would that prohibit a temporary catch of the day type sign in A-premises? So by the fact that in here it's talking about on the property or immediately adjacent to property, does that mean that effectively the by-law would prohibit A-frames or the blackboard signs in your premises as well? Speaker 6: Correct. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Sorry, I just heard, can I understand the word blackboard signs? Is that an A-frame blackboard? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, if it was like a temporary sign inside the business, would be prohibited if it was a sandwich board. Oh. And so, yeah. And then a subsequent question, the ostensive, the real problem, as I understand it, is the A-frames,
01:14:00 the blackboard, the blackboard, the blackboard, the blackboard, the blackboard, the blackboard, on the footpaths, in public land, and also cluttering around the opening to arcades. Is that the problem which we're seeking to address by prohibiting them, that they're getting cluttered? They're put out in the breach more often than in compliance and all that sort of stuff, but it's not necessarily the stuff inside shops or? Speaker 6: Well, I guess it depends on the premises itself. The homemaker is an example where those A-frames are in the area. Those A-frames are actually within the property. Oh, yeah. And then I guess if you look at Gimpy Terrace, some of those signs are in public land, but some of them might be in the lease area as well, so strictly speaking, within their tenancy. So I guess the intent is that whether it's on the property or on the public street, it is creating a visual clutter and adds to that increase in signage.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, my question is more, I agree with that, is the ones within a building, but anyway, this amendment doesn't go there, so we can once again see if there's any great suggestions coming out of the consultation period. Councillor Wilkie: Another question to start. If this amendment was to be passed and went out for public consultation, and then was approved as part of the local law, given that it will be enforced under a local law, would you feel you would be better equipped to ensure that the number of sandwich boards will be more in line, in keeping with what is intended under the local law, that you'd be able to enforce the placement of the sandwich boards better, that the proliferation of sandwich boards, you mentioned some businesses have more than one, that the system will be more likely to work in a manner in which it was originally intended?
01:16:00 If it's managed under a local law? Speaker 6: So, I might just answer that. Currently, this advertising device, which is a temporary one, is managed under a local law. So, all temporary signs, all temporary signs are managed under the local law. Permanent signs are managed under the planning scheme. It's bringing them all under the one umbrella, which is the local law. Councillor Wilkie: So, Jane, is it still an absence term, they're always chasing up these sandwich boards? No. No, no. We know it. Yeah. Yeah. And you work for Town Planning and Local Laws? Yep. Speaker 2: No. Town Planning. But I've got the authority. I've got the authority to work on the local laws. Councillor Wilkie: So, you're saying that staff currently have a range of issues, even though it's managed under a very prescriptive local law? Speaker 2: Yeah. Still issues. Correct.
01:17:00 Yep. Speaker 3: Any other speakers for the motion? Any other speakers for the year? Councillor Jackson: Well, I have a statement also. My understanding is that there's a lot of work to be done. So, my understanding is that the aim of the changes to the rules in this case, regardless of the fact whether it's coming out of the plan or whether it's already in the local law, is to, that one of the aims is to de-clutter, and that clutter actually is not in keeping with the design principles. And whether it's something that we did in the past or not, I don't know. I think that the design has not been the only criteria for the decisions about what's been put forward to us by staff about what should happen. I actually support the idea of de-cluttering.
01:18:00 I do think that signage has its place, and obviously it's important to businesses. But I think there are ways to communicate whether, how much a copy costs without having a sandwich sign. Yeah. So, in this case, I won't support the motion, because I'm actually supportive of reducing clutter, and generally reducing signage, as long as it's a reasonable approach. So, I'll ask for a revision, and I won't be supporting the motion. Councillor Glasgow: Right. Councillor Jackson: Jess? Councillor Glasgow: You have a question? Question. Jamie, would you agree that when you have, you know, you've got a lot of work to do, you know, for these conversations with businesses about this A-frame in particular, I won't name names. You and I have had quite a few discussions over this over the past years, that once you get sort of in with them and you reiterate the fact that, you know, about our sign policy,
01:19:00 that they usually do come to the party and end up agreeing that it is a slippery slope to go down, to consistently be putting the A-frame out in the location where it can't be. And in that case, would you agree with that? And then they end up putting it back onto their boundary, or pulling it in, or whatever the actual... Would you agree that's a one-off conversation and things are done, or it's an ongoing process? Yeah, it's an ongoing thing. Speaker 2: I have that conversation with everybody. And generally, a lot of the time, they'll stick with that for a month or two, possibly three. Then it just all starts going back out to where it used to be before. So, just that constant follow-up. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Another question. The businesses that are currently in arcades, they've been putting their sandwich boards out on the roadside, I understand, to direct traffic down the arcades? Speaker 2: Yeah. That's what I've been doing then. Councillor Wilkie: And what are you proposing to...
01:20:00 The proposal is to remove... It has to have sandwich boards. You're proposing another solution to that? Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. So, we're proposing an additional sign type, being a multi-tenanted arcade sign, which will allow for tenancies that are inside to advertise their name in a multi-tenanted framework up to two square metres. So, that could be placed on the facade of the building, whereas currently, they don't have any provision for that. It's really the tenancies who are outside who have that allowance. So, that's an alternate that we're proposing, specifically to deal with the arcades. Councillor Wilkie: Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the intent of the motion is one that we always have to consider, is are we placing
01:21:00 restrictions on small business that... Yeah. In some cases, effects to substantial... Yeah. ...will affect them to a point where their business is a little bit less viable. And there is no doubt there is places in the Shire where an A-frame board could be appropriately located, appropriately designed, so it wouldn't create clutter. And unfortunately, you know, the experience since the 98 campaign... These are the types of signs which are the most consistently put out in breach of what the requirements are, tend to lead to the clutter, tend to create an ad hoc appearance around our commercial centres that takes away from the intent of what we're trying to achieve
01:22:00 by having a policy on signs. And in that way, it would be a shame that... Yeah. ...those businesses who could benefit that have been abiding by the current rules would be seen... Could be seen to be disadvantaged. But I think that when you look at it from the bigger picture perspective is we're reviewing signage laws to go forward. Staff have identified the most common form of breach, the most common form of clutter are these temporary signs, not just A-frames, but also the teardrop signs. That now is the time to say, no, this is the standard we've set now. This is the new level playing field. As long as the same rules apply to all businesses, then they won't be disadvantaged.
01:23:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Pardon makes some excellent points, advocating on behalf of the business owners who do become business owners. They do have the capacity to tell a bit more about the character of the business and their offerings. But then again, the points that Councillor Jackson made about decluttering the streets and the design principles, which are... A big tenet of the design principles is about reducing signage wherever possible. This is a document that's going out for consultation as a policy. This is the first point. I'll be very interested to hear what comes back. But long term, I would like to see Noosa streets cleaner and with less visual clutter. I'm not saying it's not going to be, they're not going to be hard times ahead during this consultation process, but as a principle, I have to be consistent and support this move
01:24:00 towards reducing signage. Advertising signage. So, despite Councillor Pardon's excellent arguments, I am inclined to not support this amendment. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Pardon wish to close. Councillor Pardon: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, I do. The Mayor was in error when he said ratepayers should have to pick up the bill. Business being charged for the signs. $15 million. $52.50. With discount. Collecting about $90,000 from memory. So, and the big problem I hear is, well, there's more than one sign. There's creep. Well, if you collect the $90,000, you can pay someone to go out there and sort it out.
01:25:00 That's what it's about. You've got a tax and the collection pays for an officer to look at the whole thing. That's what it's about. You've got a tax and the collection pays for an officer to look at the whole thing. And actually regulate your policy. I mean, that's what's happening here. Let's be clear. And, you know, no different to regulating barking dogs, et cetera, or dog attacks. We've had 30 dog attacks a month. So what are we doing? We're putting on more staff to actually regulate and assist out there. No different to what's here. So it's no impact on the rate payers. It is small businesses who already pay a number of rates, the house rates, the business rates, and now another $52. And for that, we take away a little sandwich for it. I'm glad someone called it a vision on this. I'm real happy. Thank you.
01:26:00 Councillor Wilkie: That'll do me. Council Pardon, Council Glasgow, Rosie Gates, Wellington, Jackson, Wilkie and Stockwell. Mayor Wellington: It's not full cost recovery. Don't bring me. Speaker 2: I have some more questions to ask. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: Mr Chair, this time relating to shopping centres. Anita, can you tell us, with the new proposed local law, which of our shopping centres are actually defined as shopping centres? Speaker 6: So the definition of shopping centre is the same definition that's in the new NUSA plan. So it talks about an integrated complex. And so having spoken at length with those strategic planners, that's an internal shopping centre where you've got an integration of facilities
01:27:00 and network of plaza and pathways. So those internal shopping centres that are existing in NUSA are the Civic, the Village, the Fair, NUSA Fair, and the NUSA Junction Plaza. Councillor Jackson: Okay. And which of those existing shopping centres have already got development approval for the new NUSA? For their signage, which exists? Speaker 6: So NUSA Civic have, as part of their approval, they're required to prepare a signage management plan. And that's what has, guides their signage. And the provisions, so that plan identifies sign areas, sorry, sign zones where signage can go.
01:28:00 And then the provisions of the formal local law apply. So that's pre-NUSA plan. And with the NUSA Village, they recently came to Council, had approval for a review of their signage. And one aspect of that is in appeal. In terms of NUSA Fair, I'd have to get back to you on NUSA Fair. And NUSA Junction, in terms of what their approval says. Councillor Jackson: So let me know. So the question I have related to that is that will this local law, which of, so there are only four shopping centres. Perhaps I should start you. Do we expect, under the new NUSA plan, more shopping centres? Speaker 5: No, we don't expect any. Councillor Jackson: So we've got four shopping centres.
01:29:00 Do we, would this new local law apply to the, those shopping centres where they already have approvals? Speaker 6: No, it's not retrospective. So any approvals that are current, continue to be current and are deemed approvals under the local law, where they're compliant with their approval. Mayor Wellington: Can I just double check on your answer there in terms of this side of Cooroy. There's a potential for small scale shopping centres, is there not? Speaker 5: Yes, there is. Sorry, apologies for that. There is a potential for a small scale shopping centre, and it's likely that we would consider signage as part of that development. I should also clarify, of the four that Anita talked about, there could be redevelopment of those. So they would be considered a shopping centre, new development, and potentially they could re-look at their signage as part of that. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you. Okay. Yes, so I still want to ask,
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 can you just explain to us now, we've gone through this, trying to understand, so what is it that you're proposing for new developments, or people that come with new approvals for shopping centres? What signage can the shopping centre, we're not talking tenancies yet, but what signage can the shopping centre put up about the shopping centre? Yep. Speaker 6: So the proposal is that each building facade, as we've just changed it, that addresses the street, or an internal car park arrangement, can have up to ten square metres of total sign place area. So that's on a sliding scale, so if they've got a short frontage, then they may not reach the ten square metres.
01:31:00 And each individual sign continues to be what is currently allowed, which is four square metres. Councillor Jackson: So the shopping centre, in this case, the shopping centre might be called Noosa Civic, or Noosa Village, or Noosa Junction, is allowed four square metres to save the name of their shopping centre. That's what we're saying. Speaker 6: They can use that allowance to have signage for the name of the building, or a tenant, or whatever they like. It's not restricted per se, as in what the signage can be about. So it's just the allowance of ten square metres. Councillor Jackson: Okay, because I'm a bit puzzled, because when I read the local law, it refers to shopping centres, and then separately it has another set of rules about tenancies within shopping centres. But it doesn't say that shopping centres imply that it could be used for tenancies or whoever or whatever they want.
01:32:00 Speaker 6: Well, I guess it's silent on it, so... It's silent. Yeah. But the other reference to tenancies is clear that it's specifically outward facing tenancies. Councillor Jackson: That's right. Speaker 6: So any tenancy that faces the car park, an internal car park or a street, has that additional allowance of ten square metres per ten square metres. So I guess there's nothing in the local law that says that the shopping centre allowance couldn't be for a tenant, like an anchor tenant, or a shopping centre name. It's just silent on it. Councillor Jackson: Okay, so... Speaker 6: It doesn't regulate the content. Councillor Jackson: It doesn't regulate the content, although I have to say when I read the local law, it doesn't tell me it's not regulating the content. It refers to shopping centres and the signs, and then it refers to tenancies and the signs. So it looks like it reads like it's about shopping centres.
01:33:00 I mean, it's all very nice for you to tell me... You're telling me that there is a flexibility there, but the law isn't written that way. So I've got a concern about that. Speaker 5: It's... I mean, our current planning scheme and our current local law also doesn't say that it regulates the content. That we... It's not our practice to regulate the content. We regulate the size, the type, the shape. But there's no requirement in either of those documents that we regulate the content. So that's been carried through, that we haven't had a practice of regulating content of a business and how they utilise their signs. Councillor Jackson: So a shopping centre could... Just to clarify and to understand, so that means that the moment your proposal is a maximum of 10 square metres per streetfront and or... and car park area front,
01:34:00 and streetfront has some definitions which seem to be a bit questionable, but anyway. So we've got streetfront, car park, and they can have up to 10 square metres with signs that are four square metres. Correct. So they can have two four square metre signs and a two square metre sign. Yes. And it doesn't matter what it says. Speaker 5: No. That could be used for tenancies that are internal to the shopping centre or it could be used for the name of the shopping centre. Yeah. Speaker 3: In practice what generally happens is they have part of the leasing arrangements, some of their key or core tenancies tend to have a higher attraction value for the tenancy of those tenancies out there. Okay. So that's a commercial arrangement for the higher tenancies and then the leasing is done. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So that's left... I didn't understand that. I certainly thought when it said shopping centre in the local law it meant it was a shopping centre sign
01:35:00 because it refers to shopping centre sign. I'm not totally comfortable that it doesn't, but in that case that changes my proposal because I was proposing to make an amendment to allow the shopping centre sign to be six square metres and an anchor tent to be allowed six square metres. Is that correct? Yes. So I will, I think, therefore have to combine what I was going to propose because I was under the impression that the shopping centre sign didn't include the anchor tenant. But if it does, I would then therefore propose that the shopping centre anchor tenants could be allowed six square metres signs whether they're inward facing or outward facing. So that changes the existing proposal of the leasing agreement. Correct. And I would then have to recommend six square metres. I'll arbitrarily go for
01:36:00 12 square metres maximum in that case. So it has, oh, sorry, I have to look over here. So I originally could fold it to two, but I don't think Now it seems that the shopping centre sign incorporates the anchor tenant. Speaker 5: That's right. So you may only need the first one. Councillor Jackson: But the first one may not cover the whole. Increase the maximum shopping centre sign base area for individual centres. Six square metres on each street. I would have to add to that the maximum of 12 square metres. Up to. Up to 12 square metres depending on the sliding scale. Speaker 3: So if I understand correctly, you'd get rid of the second part of what you're proposing, which is that. Yes. And then incorporate at the end, so you leave that cap.
01:37:00 And then at the end of street frontage, each street frontage at the, in the second line there. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Speaker 3: You put in that maximum of 12 square metres. Councillor Jackson: Up to a total of 12 square metres. Up to a total of 12. 12. 12 square metres. But I think I would like to make clear, and I'm not comfortable that it's not clear, in the local law, that increase the maximum of shopping centres. Speaker 3: Let's get the third part. Okay. Speaker 6: What's this? I don't know. Speaker 3: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01:38:00 Councillor Jackson: So, my concern here is twofold. One is that it doesn't, that there shouldn't be, because there's specific other local law statements about outward facing tenants, but this doesn't state that this might include the inward facing anchor tenant. So, I would prefer to have that incorporated in some way, because I'm not happy that it's not here. So, you would need to say maximum shopping center, well, no, you should suggest. Speaker 3: Just explain that again. Councillor Jackson: My concern is that the definition of shopping center is not, is not clear, because I'm being told that shopping center might ultimately sign out of the anchor tenant, but I don't see it there. I see shopping center, which to me is the
01:39:00 word, it's a civic, it's a village. I would like to see the wording to also say, okay, so the maximum shopping center sign face, including inward facing anchor tenants, or anchor tenants. Yeah, for anchor tenants. Mayor Wellington: There is a definition in the local law. Shopping center means the use of premises for an integrated shopping complex consisting mainly of shops. Councillor Jackson: Well, the integrated shopping complex is in the city. Thank you. Signage or something. Yeah. Thanks. It says here what it is. A little bit lost here. Shopping center means the use of premises for an integrated shopping complex consisting mainly of shops. So, the name of the shopping center is the city. Speaker 6: Sorry, that definition is about the use, not about the sign, so that then refers back to if you're doing that use, being a shopping center, this is our sign allowances.
01:40:00 Councillor Jackson: All right, so perhaps I need an additional C that says the shopping center's sign faces can also, the shopping center may include tenancy signs in their sign fund, is that okay? Speaker 5: Yeah, we, maybe we need to change the definition to be, to be clear about that, but yeah. Speaker 3: What Ingrid's concerned about, at the end of the first line there, increase the maximum shopping center sign face area for individual advertising signs, open brackets, including anchor tenants. Yeah, signage. Close brackets to six meters. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Speaker 3: Does that cover your part, Ingrid? Councillor Jackson: I believe it would. Yeah.
01:41:00 Speaker 5: Is it just internal anchor tenants you're talking about, Ingrid? No. No. Okay. Speaker 3: That would be, that would be. Yeah. Yeah. And then we can test that through the amendments that people have, is that all right? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: People working on wording, would it be better to say increase the maximum sign-face area for individual advertising devices in shopping centres? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. On shopping centres. On shopping centres? Yeah. To delete shopping centres from the top. Okay. Well then we have, that bracket thing doesn't work then. No, because there's another, this is, I'm sorry, this is confusing. Because there's another statement in the local law that front, outward facing tenancies are allowed up to ten square metres of signage with four square metres signs. So they're also on the shopping centre. So this is only specifically to that bit that's not external facing tenancies.
01:42:00 Speaker 3: So maybe... This is a set of brackets that's including internal. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. The confusion then becomes if you have an external... Speaker 5: Yeah, no, you're right. It actually does need to refer to shopping centre signage. So that's a defined sign? It's a defined... Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 5: That's right. Speaker 6: I think it's to increase the maximum allowance for sign-face area for individual advertising devices on shop... Yeah, because it probably needs to refer back to the shopping centre provision. Sorry, I just... Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Well, there's two things. There's a defined size and maximum allowance. There are two things. So it's increasing the sign size to six and increasing the maximum allowance.
01:43:00 And the totals. Yeah. Councillor Pardon: Why don't you break it into a B and a C. I think we should have two. Break it into two parts. Councillor Jackson: Back to two parts. Yes. She does. Councillor Pardon: She does. Might be simpler. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I thought... No. Yeah. I think that's true. Yeah. Break it up. Yeah. Make it sign size one and an allowance here. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: We were so well prepared for this item. It's tricky, and you're just going to work through these one at a time. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
01:44:00 Councillor Jackson: Does that work? It does, but I'm not sure why the word allowance is in B. That's probably not anymore. No, that's right. Here's a shopping centre sign area for individual. It goes down to a shopping centre between internal and internal signage. Just six square metres on each signage. Yeah, and allow up to 12 square metres. Okay, that's, I think, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that it wasn't, I didn't understand. I didn't understand that definition of shopping centre signage that has been explained today, and that's why it wasn't ready with this one. So, that is my proposed motion. Speaker 5: So, we need it on each street frontage. Yeah, for each. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I think we need a little bit more on C. C, yeah. Speaker 5: We need that to say on each street frontage. Oh, yeah. On each street frontage.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Yeah. Speaker 3: And. Speaker 6: I think to be consistent with the previous change we made, it needs to say on shopping centre building facades. Speaker 3: Yeah. That's true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I think it has to the lower one, oh, just say that, yeah, okay, that's fine. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I'm ready to go now. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: All right. You have the floor. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I have the floor? Well, I guess what I, I'm going to suggest being this, it's a slight increase in sign,
01:46:00 you know. Yeah. It's a slight increase in size for the anchor tenant and the shopping centre itself. And the reason is that shopping centres are generally quite large buildings. And people are usually driving by in a car. They're not necessarily walking nearby. And I think it's quite reasonable to have signs that are readable. And in addition, I think it's quite reasonable to have the shopping centre sign and the anchor tenants have a bit of a pride in that. And I think it's quite reasonable to have a higher level of visibility than the other tenancies that they exist facing, which are more like ordinary shops and they happen to be a shopping centre, which is how they're being treated with the horse brand new design. I think it is quite reasonable to treat shopping centres differently than normal shops in the streets. I think they are large buildings whether you like it or not and they exist, but they are
01:47:00 And I think that a slightly larger sign, 6 square meters is still quite a small sign for a large building. It's still managed, it's carefully managed. My understanding is that the, and again, I'm not suggesting this, but the approved signage that we just approved recently for Noosa Village is the Woolworths BWS sign is 10 square meters. So that's, for those of you who remember that sign and we think about Noosa Village, 10 square meters. So we're not even looking here at a 10 square meter sign, we're talking about 6 square meter signs, up to, and up to 12 square meters, two of them, which might be Anchor Tendon and Shopping Centre itself. So, yeah, I think that's a reasonable way to look at the business of being a shopping centre, the business of having an Anchor Tendon.
01:48:00 Remembering that, the reason they're called an Anchor Tendon is that that is the draw card for why people go to that centre. The other shops go in there very happy because they can cluster around the Anchor Tendon and they know people are going there to, whether it's food or whatever, they go in there for that Anchor Tendon and then the other shops, they're not in there. But the Anchor Tendon is the big draw card. And I really think we need to be thinking horses for horses. Rather than treating the shopping centre in the same way that we treat any other shop on the street. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I've got a query about the wording still, I'm afraid. I'm wondering why the word in brackets, internal, needs to be there because to me it suggests you're talking about signage inside the building. Speaker 4: Yeah, it's confusing. Mayor Wellington: If you just take out the word internal, it might resolve that issue. Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm happy with that. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a question, as it stands in the industrial state, they are allowed six square metres?
01:49:00 Currently? No, no, I mean, sorry, as the draft by-law stands, it's six industrial. Speaker 6: For individual, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the failure of Councillor Jackson's previous amendment restricts that still to 10 square metres. So if we're trying to make it consistent with industrial state, we would go with, I don't know, 10 square metres. I think we would support item B but not item C. Is that how it would be? Councillor Jackson: You're speaking to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm asking. Councillor Jackson: That would be Kurt. Kurt. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the motion. I probably would support item B but I don't support item C. Speaker 3: Is that the right? Mayor Wellington: I'll speak to the motion. Tony? Look, people know what's in a shopping centre before they go there, particularly locally. It's pretty clear. The anchor tenants are usually a Woolworths or a Coles. You know, a shopping centre is a shopping centre. They have pylon signs outside which note all their tenants.
01:50:00 I don't see the need to increase the overall signage area on the exterior. I oppose the increase in signage at the village shopping centre when it came before council. And I don't see the need to add more visual clutter just because it happens to be a shopping centre as opposed to any other business. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion you wish to place? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will. Yeah, I don't think this is the same as an industrial estate. I think this is, and the one that flashes by my mind a lot is this village which of course has more than one side. Some of the others have not got more than one side and we need a management plan anyway to manage that. But, yeah. I actually feel that there is nothing wrong with six square metres. It's not a huge sign. And the idea that everyone knows it's there.
01:51:00 Well, we actually have a very large number of visitors and those visitors go shopping. That's part of what they do. They go on holidays and they need food to cook. So people are driving by and looking for that. And I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to have six square metre signs for the key wording in a shopping centre. A very large building. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I took the amendment. Those in favour. Oh, I've got a call in provision. Call in provision. Those in favour of the amendment. That's you. Oh, that's you. Councillor Jackson. Those against. Wellington, Stockwell, Pardon, Glasgow and Wilkie. The amendment's lost. The amendment's lost. I'd like to have a, have a turn. Councillor Glasgow: Anyone else ask?
01:52:00 Speaker 3: Number four. Number four. This is getting long. I'm sorry. You've got to try. Mayor Wellington: You've got to try. That's right. Councillor Pardon: You probably win. Mayor Wellington: I'll second. Councillor Pardon: You can't. Mayor Wellington: No, yes I can. I beg your pardon. Sorry. I kept my powder dry. Councillor Jackson: Brian. Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Brian's out of the room. Happy for me to start any questions about the wording. Mayor Wellington: I'll ask a question of staff while we're waiting for Councillor Stockwell to come back. If this amendment were to get up, what impact would that have in terms of Jamie's current efforts to get compliance in places like the industrial area?
01:53:00 Would it mean he would have to go back to a whole lot of? Premises. Speaker 5: No. No, but it's status quo, so no. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. We haven't done a lot with the industrial area at the moment, so. Depends on the conversation. Yeah. Speaker 5: So the industrial area hasn't been undertaken yet, other than where we've had. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. They only did say done some of Noosaville, so I assumed that some of it had been done earlier. Speaker 2: Yeah. Only a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 5: And some businesses have been done based on complaints. So there are some businesses in the industrial state. But if you're referring to Councillor Wilkie's proposed amendment. Mayor Wellington: Correct. Speaker 5: Then that is what the status quo is. Currently is, yeah. So Jamie's audit would be enforcing the status quo.
01:54:00 Current arrangements, which it is. Current local law and planning scheme provisions, which is that provision. But in the noose industrial area? That's correct. Yeah. It's still the same. Same. Yep. Yep. So that would be as is now. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 5: Just so. You wouldn't need to go back and not do anything. No, I wouldn't, no. No. Councillor Jackson: So if this was moved and supported, carried, what would change in the proposed local law? Speaker 6: So the only change would be to the proposed six square meters, the proposed increase to individual sign-based buildings. That's the only change. Councillor Jackson: So that's all that is. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: That's reducing. Yeah. Speaker 6: It's maintaining the status quo. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Yep. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: All right, councillors. The proposed amendment is to retain the maximum sign face of four square meters for individual
01:55:00 advertising devices, as is currently the case throughout Noosa Shire, regardless of zone or location. And I do that because the audit under way, and I don't think it's going to change As indicated there's 82% compliance. I understand the proposed increase from 4 to 6 square metres in the recommendation is in response to staff noticing a very small number of businesses in the industrial estate which had non-compliant signs and this would capture that. But given that 82% of businesses generally are happy to, are complying, are willing to comply, I don't see a compelling argument to increase the sign face area from 4 to 6 square metres and bear in mind that this is what's proposed to go out for public consultation.
01:56:00 I'd also be very surprised if there's a huge push back from the community to increase the sign base, individual sign face area from 4 to 6 square metres and we can take that into account after the consultation period. But given the high level of compliance with the current arrangements, I see no good reason to increase the sign face area for individual signs and again to be consistent it is, it is inconsistent with the whole thrust that we're trying to do which is reduce and minimise signage. Speaker 7: Tony. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, look I like this because it supports the current and historic approach to signage in Noosa. I've heard a number of councillors here today, this morning, saying that they don't want to increase visual clutter.
01:57:00 This ensures that we don't increase visual clutter. So I'm absolutely supportive of maintaining the status quo which has served us well for a number of years. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'm ambivalent about this. I ran this up the flagpole and happy to run it up the flagpole. It was just a common sense approach that I took with regards to the size of buildings in the industrial estate and treating that as a precinct on its own. So, whether we hold the status quo or not, I'll probably vote against this, seeing I ran it up the flagpole originally, but I have no particular gripe either way in regards to that. And we talk about maintaining the status quo here, and we don't talk about it on sandwich boards. We ain't maintaining no status quo here.
01:58:00 Let it go, let it go. When it suits. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't be supporting it. I think, as with the sandwich boards, you look at the thrust of what you've been trying to achieve and you identify at this point in time are the areas where we need to review and change our settings. To me, this one, when you look at the bulk and scale of buildings in... In the industrial estate, a six-metre maximum sign pace area does not appear to be clutter, it does not appear to be oversized. If we had it everywhere, you would find that it would give appearance of visual bulk because there'd be so many little tendencies trying to get to the maximum sign pace area. We've still got the sliding scale, it doesn't change the sliding, you know, that allows this, the extra two square metres to come into place.
01:59:00 We've still got the sliding scale, it doesn't change the sliding, you know, that allows this, the extra two square metres to come into place. And I think we've got professional staff recommendation, which suggests to me that they too see the wisdom or the merits in considering this from a urban design perspective, that it won't contribute or diminish the overall objectives of our long-standing sign policies. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. Well, I, um, agree with Circuit County Council of Stockwell that, I think it is... And the only effect of this motion would be to not allow slightly larger signs in the large buildings in the industrial estate. I don't disagree with that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the size of building, the bulk of building, and the type of building environment. Until then, I'm on an agreement, I don't wish to issue them at this stage.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Councillor Glasgow: I'm very much on the fence here. Very, very much on the fence. I can't be persuaded. Either way, maybe someone's got a little piece of cake somewhere in the fridge. I've got some nice biscuits. Status quo is right. Our sandwich boards were status quo and they got tanked as well. So it is in the industrial state. I agree. Things are going very well there at the moment. I think Jamie's got everything under control. I just need 30 more seconds. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've just got to cancel the jury's in a key like that.
02:01:00 Councillor Glasgow: I'll wait to hear your reply, please, Councillor Wilkie. Convince me. If you've got better than cake, even better. Councillor Jackson: Was that your speech? Councillor Glasgow: Is that all right? Councillor Wilkie: Just checking. The whole thrust generally of these proposals is to minimise and reduce signage. This seems to be inconsistent with that. It's going the opposite direction. It's actually proposing to increase the amount of signage allowed on one individual sign. The other concern I have about it is, is it equitable to allow an individual sign basis in one precinct only to be larger than everywhere else in the Shire? And I suspect that there'll be, you know, it'll open the door to other businesses arguing that they should be allowed to have a similar increase in their individual sign
02:02:00 buses as well. So it may, there may be unintended consequences is all I'm saying. So in summing up, it goes against the thrust of this policy, which is to minimise and reduce signage. And it's only being allowed in a pre-existing setting. So it's only being allowed in a pre-existing So it's inequitable in that sense and it may open the door to others wanting the same sort of latitude and it could have unintended consequences for staff down the track. And also at the other point we have the vast majority of businesses are already complying with the four square metre limit. So what is the problem we're trying to fix here if it is not an issue? I'm saying this, all we'll be doing today is ratifying the form of the draft policy to go out for public comment.
02:03:00 If there is a big pushback to six square metres, we're going to have another debate and we can rectify that later. And there may be a range of aspects to this particular problem. We'll prosecute me in a couple of months' time. So I ask you to support the amendment. I'm smiling. So I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? So in order to be consistent with the way I've voted on all the other issues today, I'll be supporting the amendment.
02:04:00 Mayor Wellington: And clear it, carried. Councillor Glasgow: Just to reiterate, this is for public consultation and to our beloved viewers, right, this is going out to public consultation and coming back, correct? Yeah, you get another bite at the cherry. Taking in mind what public feedback is. We can bring Sandwich Boards back, Craig. The amendment is carried. Craig? Speaker 3: We can bring Sandwich Boards back. Here comes the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Here comes the motion. Other motion, other amendments can be moved today. But I don't know how the council's wishes are moving on. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'm going to move the one that's on the screen, which is procedural matter to ensure that the City Council can move the amendment. And I'm going to move the one that's on the screen, which is procedural matter to ensure that the City Council can make the relevant changes to the document before it goes out to public consultation. Speaker 3: Yes, second. Seconded by Councillor Pardon.
02:05:00 Mayor Wellington: I don't need to speak to it. No, it's very straightforward. I'll read it out, though, for the sake of those at home. To delegate authority to this Chief Executive Officer to make consequential and clarification changes to administration and other subordinate local law amendments, subordinate local law number one, 2019, prior to consultation with state government agencies and public notification. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions or comments, councillors, on that amendment? We'll put the amendment, those in favour? That's carried. Councillors, we have a motion before us, and Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wellington have spoken to the motion. Any other councillors wish to speak? To the motion? Yeah, I'll pass it over. I will, Mr Chairman. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, look, Mr Chairman, the general thrust of the motion, I support the general thrust
02:06:00 of the motion. The amendments that we've talked to, et cetera, a lot of stuff there's at the margins, and various opinions of councillors, and that's fine. I think that's a good thing. I think in the big picture, and that's what we're looking at here, to maintain fairly much the status quo. There is some changes there, but at the end of the day, in the big picture, what we're trying to achieve here with the local law gives us a bit more punch and strength to administer. I think it's cleaner that way, rather than the old way within the planning scheme, et cetera. And a combination of both with regards to regulation. So in the big picture, we live in the biosphere.
02:07:00 I hear this more and more these days. Obviously, there's some message getting out there. You get it in emails. No one knew what it was. They probably still don't. But they certainly talk about it now these days. And this is just part of our, I suppose, in the big picture. And I think that's a good thing. And I think that's the key to the future, keeping Noosa a little different. As Councillor Glasgow said before, different by nature. That's us. And it is a draft. And we'll see what comes back. And if change is required then, then Council can take it on board and actually make those changes. But the cut and thrust, we live in a beautiful Shire. We know that. And we do have an obligation. So, well, I think all councillors realise, and the past councillors, and not only the councillors, but the general public, many people out there, they recognise that we have
02:08:00 an obligation in the big picture to try and look after the place. And tourism, this is a big part of it. Visitors, signage, et cetera. And without them, even though it's a big part of it, it's a big part of it. So there's certain problems, we might say, or people might say, that we have with the great influx of tourists that we do have. Without them, we'd be in a very poor state. So this will add to our visual amenity of the Shire. And in the big picture, I think it's good. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Frank. Thank you.
02:09:00 Councillor Jackson: I'm generally very supportive of making sure that this signage is well managed and that we don't have too much clutter and that certainly we want to keep it a beautiful place. I also believe that it's important to be aware that signage has actually got a purpose. It's not just there to please or displease councillors and council. It's really about local businesses and ensuring signage is visible to passers-by and to drivers-by and actually achieves the purpose, which is to alert people to what's there and to attract people to what's there. I'm very much looking forward to the feedback from the community because I think this is what it is. And I think it will be very important to hear what people have to say. And at the same time, being that I like to be consistent, I won't be supporting this particular iteration because I think there's been a regression to a one-size-fits-all approach quite unnecessarily because I do believe that certain buildings are very large and could quite reasonably be allowed a slightly larger sign.
02:10:00 So I'm not going to support it. I'm going to support this and so people know I haven't supported it and I will call on the vision. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yes? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, it's really all been said by all six of us. It's a hugely controversial issue. Signs in Noosa. I think this is a great policy. It's come up with some good decisions today. Although I'm a bit bummed about our iframes. We'll go out to the public. I do like the way that it's done. It's the public consultation. It's going to go out and come back and I'm sure there'll be a lot of discussion about it then again. But yeah, I fully support what's the process been happening. Like I say, we are different by nature and it does me so proud to go to these other places and come back here and see our beloved Shire just not caked in crappy signs.
02:11:00 So I really, really can really appreciate the effort that Jamie and all you guys doing. I can't wait to have this policy concrete and see what happens in the next meeting. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, I too would like to start by complimenting the enormous amount of work that staff have done putting these recommendations together. I think it also takes into account the changing nature of the way we locate businesses. In the online space, people, before they set out, leave their homes or resorts or units, they do Google searches as to what to locate, the type of businesses they want to find. And they only need to search for the type of business they want to find. And if you're a resident, you only need to find it once and you know where it is from there on in. So, if anything, the need for signage is reducing over time, not getting bigger.
02:12:00 So therefore, to my mind, signage doesn't need to become bigger or larger. It's actually, in fact, its need is reducing. So I think what the whole thrust of this policy reflects the changing times. And I think from an amenity perspective, Noosa, I think it's really important that we're about to embark on a consultation process. It is a genuine conversation with the community, where the feedback will be considered and there could be changes made as a result of that. I think that because of one of the strengths of this council is it sees the community as a source of wisdom, knowledge, different ways of thinking. They're a resource to draw upon. And I think that's something that we need to focus on. They have a lot of knowledge. And they really help inform the direction of the council. The consultation process is genuine. And I'm looking forward to hearing what comes back.
02:13:00 And before determining the final shape of this policy, it will be done in collaboration with the community. Brian, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, but before I do, I looked for... I normally write down all the things I disagree with to do in my closing speech, and I only had one here. And it was what I questioned. When we said the current by-law is silent on content, I thought... I sent a player off on Friday night for using offensive, insulting, and abusive language. Do we have any triggers in the by-law that would allow us to control, if necessary, any signage that was objectionable in that regard? Speaker 6: I believe that is governed by... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't know whether it's legislation or another body, but I can find out for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, maybe just for Thursday night, just in case we have to slide something in there. Okay. And I think over the past two hours, 14 minutes, and 36 seconds, we've well and truly identified
02:14:00 one thing, and that's that all the people sitting around this table who get to vote are fairly unanimously in support of the broad general direction, continuing on the path of setting Noosa different by nature as a result of our signage policy. The differences we have are, as I think Councillor Parton mentioned, at the margin. We've got a few areas where some people think we've gone a little bit too hard and others where we haven't gone a little bit far enough. I think that's good. I think we will soon find out if the lack of objection is reflective of a business community that also identifies with it. I would suggest that many of the business people in this Shire have not been exposed to the story, have not been exposed to the 1983 studies or the 1988 sign policy that came
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 in. And so it will be an educational experience. I don't think it will be smooth sailing when this goes out. I think there will be a little bit of angst in the press. But I think when people understand why we do it and what the outcome of being a business company is, I think it's great. I recently went on holidays and the only time I took a picture of a streetscape was when it was really obvious that they had really strict sign policy because it actually added to the experience as a tourist of that place. And I think that's where we have to get to. Your ability to attract people through signage is a result of design, not as a result of the number of signs or the size of signs. And I think this by-law will hopefully push people to start thinking that way. So I will support the motion.
02:16:00 As I mentioned. And I will support it as amended, as was obvious. The final one, I think, is, yeah, if we stick with the situation normal, that's good. But I actually was convinced by a couple of things. It may be worth considering bulk and scale, but we can see what the feedback is on that. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion those in favour. That's Wellington, Stockwell, Pardon, Glasgow and Wilkie. Those against? Ingrid. Thank you. Council, I want to call a five-minute recess. That's a very good decision. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
02:24:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Kim, I noticed that in the report produced by CSIRO, that report refers to the original stages of this project, which were given to us in October 2017, and I know that we approved the first stage for 38,900, but there are further stages.
02:25:00 Okay. So, you're talking about developing the institute concept for 44,000, and then stage three, a business case for 45,000. Can you just sort of update us on where we are up to now, and also what you are proposing in relationship to these other two stages and the costs of those? Speaker 5: Yeah, sure. So, the outcome of this report refers only to stage one. So, we're at stage one. You will recall that... In the original decision to proceed with investigating this concept, it was proposed to break down the investigation process into three stages, so it allowed Council to evaluate what came out of each stage. This is the outcome of stage one only, and the report's actually recommending not to proceed to stage two, as proposed by CSIRO.
02:26:00 In the original form that they proposed, but rather proposes some further work, as outlined in the recommendation, which is a further phase of investigation, I guess, but it's not proposing or not recommending to move to stage two, as originally proposed in the CSIRO proposal. Councillor Jackson: Well, thank you. Okay. I also have another question. The CSIRO have suggested, after all their research, that there are three types of sustainability institutions which exist in the world, and they put forward those three options. Can you explain those three options, and also how your recommendation relates to those, or differs from those? Speaker 5: Sure. The work undertaken through the CSIRO investigation looked at three types of institutes,
02:27:00 and case-studied a large number of types of institutes across the globe and nationally, and they looked at what they termed university-led institutes, community-led institutes, and then like a business-based institute. And categorised them as community-led institutes. And categorised each of their case studies into which one of those types of models, I guess, each of the institutes fell within. That work then informed, I guess, a range of models that they felt were, could be pursued by Noosa Council, if we were deciding to advance the idea of an institute, and proposes then three models of varying levels of sort of complexity and investment. Okay. So during that process, and into the last few months of last year, it became very evident that there is already a range of activity and investment and institutes and organisations
02:28:00 working in Noosa and in the region that are pursuing the sorts of outcomes that this original concept was trying to achieve. So it was through that process. So I guess the case study process and the Stage 1 analysis that CSIRO did, and then some substitute work that we've done internally that's looking at work that's already happening in the municipality and surrounds, where we've actually come to, I guess, a proposal that let's not pursue the idea of the institute per se as it was originally intended at this stage, but let's spend some more time, I guess, using the roles that we have as council in terms of facilitating and connecting and coordinating, given what we now know is happening across the municipality.
02:29:00 And you'll see in the attachment too, we've outlined just a sample of the energy and activity that's happening across the Shire, and that's not exclusive, no doubt there's more, that was only, you know, some work we did. But it was enough that we were able to do that. It was enough to say there's already many organisations and institutes and local communities and individuals who are currently investing time, energy, money in seeking to address the types of issues that we were wanting to address. So we might be better at this stage to connect those organisations, have a deeper look into what those organisations are looking to address, and put together a coordinated effort, understand that better first, collate all the effort that's happening, all the research that's
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 happening and make that more accessible, and then take another look at that point about what that tells us and what gaps there might be before we proceed. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Wellington: I'd like to move the... Sorry. We only paid for the first stage of the CSIRO investigation and although we waited quite a long time for the delivery of the outcome of that investigation, it has in the interim allowed all sorts of interesting developments to occur in the Shire. That includes Earth Tech at Peregian Digital Hub, the University of the Sunshine Coast CIDZL or Centre for International Development, Social Entrepreneurship and Leadership has
02:31:00 appeared at the J, Zen Inc now have a shop front presence in Noosa Junction, there's a possible deal being mooted between Noosa Council and CQU through an MOU process, there's been a shift in focus very much by Tourism Noosa towards sustainability in the last year and a half and also the arrival of the Sustainable Planet Institute and a whole lot more. So one thing that great that has come out of this decision to engage CSIRO is it's kind of focused Council's attention on this area in a very real and tangible way towards a range of possibilities and in that regard I do want to thank Kim Rawlings in particular and her staff but particularly Kim who's very much driven this investigation, kept it on track and done a fantastic job in spite of her massive workload, so thanks to Kim. As the motion notes there is more work to do by Council, this is mostly acting as a
02:32:00 sort of a conduit or facilitator connecting all these different parties that have been identified making sure that they are aware of each other for a start because a lot of them aren't. Secondly to ensure that where possible they work in tandem and make sure they complement each other rather than collide or compete with each other and I think Council has a very opportune role there to ensure that all the different people who are working to advance sustainability in this area and globally are working harmoniously and are aware of each other's presence and what's going on and that can only be to the benefit of the organisations themselves. So in the short term whilst we're not necessarily creating or building a Noosa Sustainable Institute, the idea might simply be a virtual institute, maybe a web presence but certainly some sort of portal that keeps all these different groups connected and I think that's a fabulous outcome.
02:33:00 Speaker 3: Can you pop up that one called Country Walls and I think I've already heard a lot about Councillor Jackson: it but I think it's worth looking at. Right from the start when we brought into our first induction program there was an encouragement to be aware of different levels of roles of council going from recognising people and efforts to advocating about issues to enabling things to happen to partnering or to delivering. I think that's a great point. So those are sort of the hierarchy. So I'm just thinking Kin, what are you recommending, where does your recommendation fit into this hierarchy for what we might do now? Speaker 5: Sure. Before I answer that directly, we also work with three other roles and you'll see them come through the environment strategy, a range of documents now.
02:34:00 So we'll include Lead, Facilitator and Planner. I guess the recommendation or the way forward is that council enable and facilitate a level of coordination to connect up all the effort that's happening at the moment. So it really probably sits in enable, it may lead to partner but at this stage it sits in the enable. Deliver, not deliver. It's not deliver. Yeah. At this point, no. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. And I do have another question. The report by CSIRO had an ethics declaration notice which told people that if they were interviewed they may end up being, their names may end up in the report so people will know who was interviewed. And I noticed that some community members were interviewed but we have not been told who they are. Can you tell us who was interviewed?
02:35:00 Speaker 5: Yes, I can. So you'll recall that stage one actually didn't include community consultation. Stage two was the, if council proceeded, was really, stage one was really about an investigation and analysis of case studies. But as we went through that process and with, you'll see in the report that there was a number of internal workshops with a number of people across the organisation who are undertaking research or trying to address these challenges at the moment. And a range of questions were coming out through that process around how this concept would relate to other organisations in the community that are happening at the moment. So to, I guess, assist the process and to CSIRO who don't, didn't have a local presence here, I guess, it was felt valuable for them to at least talk to a couple of key organisations. At my request, even though it wasn't part of the brief.
02:36:00 So there were, there were only a few organisations spoken to. So there was representatives from Tourism Noosa, given that it was changing its sort of mandate, it felt appropriate to speak to Tourism Noosa. Representatives from the Biosphere, Noosa Biosphere, and Michael Tarrant, CCIQ. CCIQ. So it was, it was, it was Dick Barnes and Karen Hussey and Michael Tarrant and the former CEO at the time of Tourism Noosa, Damian Messingham. Councillor Jackson: Thank you very much for that answer. I also have a funny little question. When I was reading the report, it refers to the USC Sustainability Centre has in the past been a good example of a university led model. And I was a bit surprised by the words in the past. Mayor Wellington: Do you want me to speak to that?
02:37:00 Speaker 5: Tony could speak to that. Yeah, if you want to. Mayor Wellington: I was discussing the Sustainability Centre with senior staff only a fortnight ago, and it is not the same, it is not receiving the same level of university support as it has done in the past. You may know that Professor Tim Smith no longer heads it. It is in a sort of hiatus a bit at the moment where they're reconsidering what direction it may have. So I in fact suggested that the words in the past be included rather than now because it's not quite doing today what it was doing a few years ago. Speaker 5: Yes. And staff also involved in doing some of that work looked into that and they were set up as a particular way, but they are transitioning. So I guess it was to reflect that. It was a good example of a university led model at the time, but it is transitioning. Councillor Jackson: Oh, thank you for explaining. I also have a couple of questions about the actual recommendation wording.
02:38:00 Under C, where it says undertake further engagement and consultations with key local organisations, institutions, members and experts. The word local is there. And I noticed though that at the same time, the institutions that were listed in the report, some of which included people that perhaps or organisations that perhaps were not local, like UQ. And I noticed though that at the same time, the institutions that were listed in the report, even UCS is not local to Noosa. So I'm wondering, is that word local, limiting us to everyone just being local? Mayor Wellington: As it's my resolution, my motion, I should talk to that. Yes. If you don't mind. And I don't see it as being an either or situation. It does commit us to dealing with what's on the ground locally in Noosa, but it certainly doesn't exclude the opportunity to go beyond Noosa and talk to other institutions or organisations. Councillor Jackson: Or even to a new organisation. Mayor Wellington: But the motion does not suggest that it's exclusion. It doesn't suggest exclusion. Councillor Jackson: Because I feel, well, okay, I shouldn't speak to my thoughts, so.
02:39:00 Other question I have actually is, it's still in C, and it says engaging in consultation with new groups in this space to advance the idea, but it doesn't actually say what the idea is. So I'm wondering what advance the idea really means. Mayor Wellington: Again, I see that. It's advancing the idea of a sustainability institute. Councillor Jackson: So you're looking at the idea of a sustainability institute as being delivered, not just coordinate and facilitate and connect. Is that what you're looking at? Mayor Wellington: Well, if we're getting to semantics here, it may be that the delivery is simply the coordination process. Oh, okay. So there's no... If it ends up being a virtual institute, it's simply a website. If it ends up being a portal, then, you know, the delivery is connecting people.
02:40:00 Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Sure. Okay. Well, I'm okay with that then. Yeah. That's good. Thank you very much. Oh, I had one more question. Sorry. It says, and further... Tony. Further identify activity and research, what should be captured. But I noticed in the... Maybe... The supplement. Sorry. Cathy, there is one other one that I have as a slide, which is some... A little arrow. What do they call it? New stages. New stages. That one. Yeah. It's a bit hard to see. You can make it bigger. That would be helpful. But the wording in there, I rather like, in the first stage, and that is engage... Scope? Hang on. There's something... Oh. Engage to inform development of... Agenda for future research and action is in there. And it's not reflected in the wording in the motion, which says identify activities and
02:41:00 research to be captured. So I just wondered... Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Look, I think you may be getting a bit too prescriptive in terms of the wording of the motion. The motion's intent is that there is more work to do by council, and that will involve... Yeah. ...you know, looking at what's available... Yeah. ...et cetera, et cetera. Okay. So, again, we're not excluding any activity at all. It's simply to acknowledge that we have more work to do, and that it will come back to council when we've done that further work. Speaker 5: And I guess section four in the report unpacks the resolution a bit more with the actions, which does... Really important. Yeah. Yeah. In the new report. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Yeah. And I guess related to all of this is a question, and that is that, as we're saying here, we would endorse the activity, is there a budget attached to this activity? Speaker 5: No. At this point, it's not proposed that there were any further financial allocation, but
02:42:00 we, particularly in my department, directorate, and more broadly across the organisation, are seeing a whole lot of synergies with a range of other work that we've got going on, including some of the new strategic documents that are coming to the... The environment strategy, the implementation of the local economic plan. I point to Anthony, sorry. So there's synergy with the work we're doing now. So we propose that this work be done in-house, and is aligned with the work that we're doing over the next few months in terms of better understanding what's happening locally and creating these connections to address the outcomes that, I guess, the environment strategy for instance is seeking to achieve, and some of those other broader strategies. Speaker 3: So it's a different staff time, but specifically... Speaker 5: Not a budget. No. And currently no budget for the portal, even though... No. That we... No. We haven't determined to do that yet.
02:43:00 No. Yeah. Oh, okay. Do some scoping of that and bring that back to you. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Lovely. That's all my questions, so perhaps I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, I'll hold it. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, you speak. Coral. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I don't care. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillors, yeah, support the motion, of course, before us here. And even some of the questions from Councillor Jackson there. It's the journey. It's the journey we're on. It's... And, oh, it's a big journey. If we think back, way back when I looked at page seven of the report, and benefits, benefits to Noosa that could bring, and things that I read here with regards to reinforce Noosa's brand as a leader of sustainability, raise the profile of Noosa, potentially attract highly qualified professionals and their families into Noosa, potentially from all over the world.
02:44:00 See the innovative start-up community focused on sustainability technologies and solutions. Well, we've been doing a bit of that as well. Yeah. And already we've seen the seeds that we've put out there growing everywhere. And talk about seeds. When you see the amount of collaborative, we want to be collaborative with all those different institutes, whether it's universities, groups, smart people, if you like, the amount out there, it's terrific. So we're at the beginning. I think it's a good step. And I'm keen to keep going, following this process. Step one, if you like, in the report, where we have a portal here, online presence, and we can gather. It's interesting that because we've got that much information all over the place from that many groups. So where's the repository? How do we capture that in one particular area?
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 And then everyone can go to that repository, and there it all is. So I think it's terrific. And while reading the introduction here, while the federal and state governments can provide an input guidance on sustainability measures, the true leadership needs to come from local councils and communities, where on the ground sustainability efforts can achieve the greatest outcomes. And if ever I've been saying this all my life, with regards to CSI, who I have the greatest respect for, I've solved that many problems for this nation, over way back to war days, etc, when they were first conceived, you give CSI a problem, they usually can solve it. So I have that respect for them. And to have them involved, going forward, and we had them in the Shire, actually, at Cooroy, they'd set up there to look at timber.
02:46:00 So I never want to get too far away from them again, if we have opportunity to work with them and the universities, et cetera, et cetera. One thing I thought we might be able to do, where we talk about in the report, enhanced science, technology, English, arts and maths, STEAM, activities with local schools. And I thought going forward Noosa Council might have a look at some sort of bursary that we could put up, you know, the best scientific kit, something like that. I think down the track we should have a look at creating something like that to help an individual or a few individuals go through uni, et cetera. I think that would be a good thing and sets a bit of a platform as well.
02:47:00 I mean, you know, backing up your young people. That are actually going to benefit us in the future, I think, may be something we can look at. But certainly I was excited when I went through the report. The Biosphere, my councilor Stockwell was a member of the Biosphere right back when it was discussed that we should have a look at getting an Institute of Sustainability in Noosa. And that's a huge call. It's pretty massive. So I think when you go through the reports that you, once again, back to the journey, you ain't going to do this in five minutes. This is a big, big deal. But let's work along and over the years and time, see where we end up. But I think it's a terrific start. And thank you, Kim. And start with the work.
02:48:00 Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. Yes. Well, I would like to, you know, I would like to say thank you. I would like to also thank you for what you've done in terms of analysis here. I think the key statement in your report, which I shall read, is that there is already a significant amount of activity, investment, research, and action occurring around sustainability. And that what is lacking is coordination of this effort, correlation of data and research, shared access to research and outcomes, and clear strategic directions and strategic identification of key sustainability goals. And what is lacking is a broader understanding of the challenges and a broader general awareness of these. I think what you've done with your analysis is gap analysis. And you've identified and we can be very heartened, as Councillor Cotten says, that there is so much activity. And the reason I put up that hierarchy of council roles, I very much support council being an enabler. And I think that we've identified the impact that there are a lot of organizations doing
02:49:00 their own thing. But they can't really do it themselves. So I'm actually very supportive of the idea of being a facilitator, a connector, a coordinator, and collating things, and playing that sort of blue role, and I think that, to me, in terms of ratepayers' money, I think that's what council is about. I mean, I don't think we should be pretending we're suddenly researchers or a university or, you know, that would be going too far. We've got those experts around, and why not somehow bring them together and capitalise
02:50:00 on that? So I'm really happy with what's proposed, and certainly support the idea. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Ingrid. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's interesting how this particular topic has evolved. I remember back in the early days of the biosphere, where Ben McMullen, the then Environment Manager, worked with a number of universities looking at bricks and mortar down near the Jay. And I think where we've got to now is realising that perhaps our needs, are not necessarily requiring bricks and mortar, that what we really need is a relationship-based approach to sustainability research, and at the end of what I'm going to say, I'm actually going to suggest we don't call it an institute. I think my own trip through this maze is probably important in that where I got to is that, to address sustainability problems, is the old way of doing science is largely outdated, you know? Yeah. I looked at the concepts of post-normal science, where the problems are so current, are so
02:51:00 complex, that if you wait until you have full scientific certainty in using normal statistics, you're likely to miss the opportunity to actually effect the change you want. I look at participative action research, and when I look at the list of potential collaborative interests in this space in the report, I can see that as being the real opportunity. We have to decide. You know, you're saying there's no council in this. We will get the maximum benefit at this stage unless we do consider why Council wants to invest. The easy one, as mentioned, is there's a whole lot of utilitarian types of research will help Council do its job better to meet the current challenges in front of us. But it is also important to understand that if you want to lead, you need to attract the best minds. We can't possibly in a small organisation that we have, have all the knowledge about all the opportunities
02:52:00 that lay ahead for us to leap from our current understanding into what might get us to the future quicker. And so to me, having a coordination role is really important. Pardon my own, I mentioned, I was quite chuffed to see that there's still a thing called the Permaculture Research Institute of the Sunshine Coast. I'm sitting here because I was the initial coordinator of the Permaculture Institute of Tewantin, which probably went to that. It was a plum job. I got a block of land with a dam, no power, no water and a Bondwood Caribbean. 32 years later, I finished my PhD that had a strong flavour on sustainable agroecology at the Sustainability Research Centre, which is mentioned here. And I think that's one of the reasons why you do do it. You do want to attract both young minds and you want to attract the leaders in the field to focus on the issues for our Shire. And unless you create the environment,
02:53:00 the collective or the collaboration, which creates the melting pot where these people are attracted, both investors and deliverers, you won't get there. So to me, that's really important. When I started my PhD, I actually had an offer from a sandstone, from Griffith, and what was then called the Institute of Sustainability, Health and Regional Engagement on the Sunshine Coast. And it was because the Sunshine Coast said that Sustainability Research Centre saying it wants to address the problem of its own regions that I chose that one and not the more prestigious ones. And I think that's what we can have a look at is, what is it that will attract people to our Shire that will help us answer those questions? So we've talked about what we possibly could do. I used to coordinate the Mary River Researchers Forum biannually, which would bring all the people who have done research in the Mary River to address their issues and get the people who are most likely to use it to say, oh, what does this mean for us? We used to bring scientists from overseas
02:54:00 and then discuss it with participative action research, things that answer the problems in front of us that I think we should be looking at. I have to, I'm not, I should, something way back, I want to put a place on record that I could have been involved in the Biosphere much longer than I actually was, because the first time I was asked to stand, Councillor Pardon moved the motion not to the Environment Executive Board's recommendation, but we'll bygones be bygones. And you can see why. So I finished, I said I was going to finish where I, about what we call it. And part of my research is about the Small World Network Theory, about when you create a rich node that people want to connect to, that that all of a sudden starts to influence the whole system. And to me, I think what we call it going forward is a sustainability research hub. Not the Institute. Institute's an old-fashioned thinking.
02:55:00 Councillor Glasgow: Thank you, Brian. Thanks. No, it's all been said. Councillor Warren, do you wish to close? Mayor Wellington: Very briefly and amusingly. I'm fascinated that Councillor Stockwell says he's only here because of the Tewantin Permaculture Group, since they kept Brian alive somehow, and I'm going to take that up with him. Yeah. And find out what their elixir of life is. He also cited that he was involved in agro-something, which probably explains the ants in his pants. I'm not sure what aggressive tactics Councillor Stockwell was referring to. But look, all jokes aside. Councillor Wilkie: I thought it was a Sesame Street character. Mayor Wellington: A drummer. Started with the agriculture then. Look, Councillor Stockwell suggests there was no council investment at this point in time. In fact, there is. There's considerable investment, obviously, by staff. There's considerable investment by councillors now thinking around this issue.
02:56:00 And there will be considerable investment if it requires funding down the track. We can look at it either in terms of next year's budget or if it needs to be beforehand, we might be able to find something in a budget review. But basically, we are, as has been suggested, on a path, and it's fantastic that we are on that path and that we're all committed to that particular direction. So I thank all my fellow councillors for that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Tony. We'll put the motion those in favour. Against the motions, Kayleigh, unanimous. Thank you, Kim. Next item, Report Directed General Committee, which is the Request for a Negotiated Decision, Notice for Multiple Housing Type 4 Conventional, 17 dwelling units at 25 Kauri Street, Cooroy, page 3 of the General Committee agenda. Welcome, Patrick. Thank you very much. Councilor, do you have any... Speaker 7: I'll put the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Jackson, seconded by Councillor Wellington.
02:57:00 Do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: I will briefly. I'd like to say that I'm really happy with the outcome because I think it's a fair and reasonable thing that the developer who is working on 25 Kauri Street doesn't have to upgrade things in front of 21 Kauri Street, but only has to do the appropriate work relating to the curb and culvert. So I'm really satisfied that the applicant went through a negotiation and decision process, that they put forward an engineering drawing, and that that has been a satisfactory submission here. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Custis, wish to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to say that when this came up, it was noted that this is an opportunity to create some affordable housing in Cooroy, and I think what the staff report has suggested is that they've come up with an alternative solution that doesn't adversely affect the actual achievement of the stormwater system or the road network.
02:58:00 So while we're reducing the cost, which will help hopefully be passed on to the future owners in terms of the purchase price, we aren't placing any greater impost on the local residents in terms of stormwater or safety on the roads. Councillor Wilkie: I think we've reached the point. I'll put the motion as in favour. Yes. The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you. We move to the next item four in the agenda, which is Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 4339218, Development Approval for Operational Works Signage at 140 142 Eumundi Noosa, Noosa Road, Noosaville. Can't get away from signs. Signs. Oh, there we are again. If that doesn't sound correct, this is the applicant. There's a motion. Mayor Wellington: No one else will. I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie: Second. Mayor Wellington: Second. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Speak to it.
02:59:00 No thanks. No. The other Councillor wishes to speak. The motion goes to favour. Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: The motion is carried. Thank you. Speaker 3: Andrew. Councillor Wilkie: Nice work Andrew. Next up we have the financial report for April 2019. Trent. By Trent. Here he is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Absolute have some questions for Trent. Councillor Jackson: Oh yeah, I have a question. Ingrid. Hmm. Well, a couple of questions. On page 18 under operating revenue, I notice the general rates and tourism, whether you have below budget, you know, can you explain that because I would have thought those were things that were totally predictable. Why would they be below budget? Speaker 7: At the start of the financial year Council, there was a budget for- We make an estimate of any potential growth in our, and obviously evaluation flow through impacts on our rates.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 With our general rate this year, we had one of our larger commercial rate payers question their evaluation through state government. And you're seeing the flow through impact of that come through in the financial statements year to date. Now we do have a, we do, as we get towards the end of the financial year, we put a supplementary rate run through. So you might find that the variance might decrease marginally as we get to the 30th of June. Councillor Jackson: Okay, so it's just estimate versus reality. Yes, yes. Thank you. Also I noticed that waste management contract services are below year to date budget. And I'm wondering about that one too. Because it was, again, seemed predictable. So I'm surprised it's below budget. Speaker 7: Some elements of the waste contract are obviously driven by volumes. Take up of green waste services, timing of contracts for crushing of our concrete, timing of mulch, the mulching services.
03:01:00 So the bulk of the variation you'll find year to date is in those crushing and mulching services I think as well. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I have a question about page 18 also. Interest received, investment revenue, 125,000 above year to date budget. Did the interest rates change? And why did they do that variance? I mean, it's good, but why? Speaker 7: The main reason we're obviously generating more revenue than what we anticipate is due to the timing of the capital works program. So more money in the bank than what we expected for this time of year. As projects are unfortunately delayed, obviously it works. So it's a good thing. It's in our favour to some extent because it's more cash in the bank invested. The second part of the question about the interest rates, they do move. It's obviously hedge to market movements. We actually have seen a decline in interest rates over the last three months, moving down
03:02:00 slowly. We've been quite fortunate that the funds that we've invested at the moment are either A, fixed and term deposits for a 12-month period, which means they're generating quite a good return compared to what's being offered now currently. And QTC is still offering good rates. So we are in a bubble where we're doing quite well in terms of just that timing of those term deposits. Speaker 4: The other thing to keep in mind with our interest is that we model our interest revenue for the budget 18 months ago. And we assume in our model that we're spending, as Trent just mentioned, we're spending what we need to do to deliver services, capital and operating. So as soon as we don't spend things that we need to do to deliver services, capital and operating. We have levies that are unspent, which we do. We have had, i.e. environment levy, heritage levy. That cash is sitting constrained. However, we still allow to make money on that. So we invest it.
03:03:00 So we're always going to probably be conservative with our interest revenue budget so we can use it to fund new emergent stuff through the year and budget reviews or even put some in the kitty at year end. So it's fairly standard for local government. So, yeah. I'll keep on trying to reduce that levy interest. Councillor Jackson: I just have a question on page 19. And it's about the waste education program, which is 66,000 below New Year's Day budget. And I'm just thinking we have a waste reduction and recycling plan. And I would have thought education was a very important element here. So I'm just wondering if you know why it's so limited. It seems quite a different law. Speaker 4: I would suggest we take that on notice. That was my question, too. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It appears to be a priority that we need to look at.
03:04:00 Speaker 7: Frank, can you get Wayne to send that out? Sure. I'll ensure the response comes through tomorrow. Yeah. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. For the purposes of consistency and the absence of Councillor Jurisevic. Staff training. I know that staff training is underspent. We spent by $45,000, noting that a further $58,000 is committed. But will that take us up so that we're fairly close to budgeting staff training by the end of the financial year, Mr. CEO? Speaker 3: No. Thank you for the question, Councillor Brian Jurisevic. Yeah. You'll see in the report that we've got the training budget where it will be fully spent by 3 June. We'll change about how we'll manage that. And, yeah. We're on track. Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Jackson: One more. Yes, in group. Page 20. I think I know the answer, but I'd better ask it. And that's about development assessment, legal appeals, $110,000 above year-to-date
03:05:00 budget. Can you explain, please? Speaker 7: So we set a forecast at the start of the year as to what our cost of our legal appeals for development applications are, both in terms of legal costs and consulting. Flowing through the numbers this month is the BR3. That's about $10,000. So we've got a little bit of a budget adjustment. So we did actually reassess where we thought our legal appeals would be, bearing in mind this is a piece of work we do in March, April, early April. So we had taken up an extra few hundred grand in legal costs, BR3. But they're higher again. So we've had more of that come through. It's year-to-date. And some of that may be timing in terms of when those legal costs are incurred. We'll take that on notice and discuss that with the development assessment manager. Speaker 3: So the case, you might have called it the Kenman case, which is the one on David Lowell Way with that subdivision just near Carpswild. It's at the top of the hill there. So that just finished a two-week hearing.
03:06:00 And we've got one more day to go when we come into adjustment. So that's the main one that we'll be affecting. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, these are guesstimates. Original guesstimates. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: And we'll be looking at what we set aside in the coming financial year. Yeah. That's it. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Someone move it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move it. One second. Seconded by Councillor Jackson. Any councillors wish to speak to this? I will. Congratulations. Thank you. Trent, Michael, very responsible financial management. Underpins everything we do. Thank you. It enables us to maintain a very ambitious program, operating and capital and services. So thank you. Any councillors wish to speak? Motion. I'll put the motion as in favour. Gained. Motion's carried.
03:07:00 Carried comes to be item six, Queensland Treasury Corporation review of council liquidity. Right. Trent? Tony? Mayor Wellington: I'd like to move it then. Second. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Pardon. Tony, would you speak to it? Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Look, if ever there was a clear demonstration of this council's excellent fiscal management, this is it today. I mean, this is kind of slipping through at the rear end of our general committee agenda, but it's actually a very significant moment in terms of this council's financial history. It received a sort of... What we're agreeing to today is received as a very significant moment in terms of this matter, if you like, from Queensland Treasury Corporation in terms of their review of our liquidity. And what it means is that we'll be paying a large amount of our historic debt that we inherited at the amalgamation. That debt being historic is at a far higher interest rate than would be the case today
03:08:00 should we take on similar debt today. So paying it down not only makes good sense, it's also a fantastic saving for our residents. Notwithstanding the fact there are some costs in paying it down, but overall, it's still a significant win in terms of the outgoings of this council. We'll get much better bang for buck paying off that inherited loan than we would if we simply continued to invest the 10 million that we're looking to pay off in interest bearing deposits. So again, I say it makes good financial sense. And it still leaves us with a $10 million buffer. For emergency purposes, etc. So it's not like we're cleaning out the piggy bank. I just want to point out that during the debate over the de-amalgamation in the lead up to the 2013 referendum, there was an incredible scare campaign used, suggesting that Noosa rates would skyrocket, that the new Noosa Council would be financially bankrupt or a
03:09:00 basket case. And of course, there are still some detractors of council that continue to assert that Noosa Council's financially moribund. But today's decision is clear evidence of a well-managed and financially sound council. Not only have we been able to keep rate rises to at or below CPI over the last five years, but we've also improved services from the services that were being offered under the amalgamated council. And on top of that, we're in a strong financial position that allows us to pay off this historic high interest debt. Today, Noosa ratepayers enjoy lower rates than if they were still on the stock market. They enjoy a responsive council that I would argue is more transparent, more communicative and more responsive. And that provides better service, as I say. And that now offers ongoing financial security. And that security is evident in the decision we're making here.
03:10:00 Councillor Pardon: Thank you. Yeah, I'd just like to endorse the Mayor's comments there and thank staff, I call it staff, for a terrific outcome here. The opportunity for a council to pay back $10 million, who's been prudent for a lot of years, this money doesn't just drop into your lap without being very prudent. And so, at the end of the day, to be paying off $10 million at 6.2%, whatever we've got, we're up to 6.29, we're up for, and we can rebuy around 2.5, 2.7, depending on the time alone, et cetera, et cetera, going forward from the QTC. So on that equation, financially, why wouldn't you pay it off? For me, it's a no-brainer. But in the big picture, across the nation, we see councils in debt, we see big governments
03:11:00 in debt, state governments in debt. And yes, we're in debt for about $35 million, and we're going to knock that off, $10 million off it. So when they're going, big governments are going down the gurgler, increasing debt, here's a council knocking off a third of its debt. So once again, thank the staff, CEO, et cetera. And councillors here and councillors before, that were here before, when we de-amalgamated. And the Mayor was right, the naysayers said we wouldn't be a basket case. And I think going forward, with the $10 million surplus that we'll still have, we can build
03:12:00 future surpluses going forward, especially when looking at our businesses and opportunities to grow our own businesses, rather than rely on rate revenue, grant revenue. Because as we all know, as I've mentioned before, if the big governments are going down the gurgler financially, there's a risk to councils. And thus, paying $10 million and being in a small debt and reducing your principal repayments also is part of your business, and lessens your risk going forward. So I think that's a no-brainer. I think we'll keep looking for them opportunities. Council owns land across the Shire. It has opportunity, it already purchases land, it has other opportunities to purchase and grow its own business, whether it's caravan parks, camping grounds, et cetera, et cetera. So while building the pie, income if you like, with one hand, and reducing your debt with the other, man, that's a very good way to go and shows this council is very prudent
03:13:00 and very strong. And I think that's a very good way to go and make some pretty good decisions. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question to start off with. A few people have mentioned naysayers at the time of amalgamation, or de-amalgamation, sorry. The CEO and the director may recall that there was one treasury organisation, I'm not sure if it was Queensland Treasury Corporation or the department more generally, that did a model that sort of conflicted with two people with local government experience who assisted modelling for the Free Noosa Movement. Is this the same corporation that did that modelling? And if so, can we be happy they got it right this time? Speaker 3: Yes, it is, and yes, you can. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Nicely answered. I do so, because I think there's really important to understand that since this council was
03:14:00 reconstituted, I think leading up to last year's budget, at minimum general rate, there's been an increase in the amount of money that we've been able to make. We've been able to achieve this despite a disputed lack of return of development contributions of many millions of dollars, to be able to, five years in, pay off a debt at a high interest rate of $10 million. Part of the reason we've done it is not just that we've done it with the government, we've We've been able to, the organisation and the staff have very effectively gone out to get grants. And I think, once again, at the time of the last budget, I think I worked out that the grants we got for the previous year equated to a rate rise of about 10%. So it is a really good example of what effective financial management can do.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 So I've been thinking long and hard of what to say to those doomsayers at the time of de-amalgamation, some of which still have the view. And my insightful PhD tells me there's only one word, and it's, ha! Councillor Wilkie: Can I get technical, Brian? Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. I actually have a question, and I think you may have answered this once before, but I'm going to have forgotten. We have a loan here, which is the historic loan relating to the de-amalgamation, $27 million, which is currently bearing the interest of 6.29%. And meanwhile, the money that we hold is not earning, I don't know, it's earning between 2% and 3% interest. New borrowings from, according to your report, would only be about 2.5%.
03:16:00 Why is it that we're, if we've got $20 million in reserves as a surplus, we're not actually paying off a bit more of that $27 million, which is at 6.29%, and then considering that we could re-borrow in need at a lower rate. Why are we limiting our... Paying off to $1 million, to $10 million? Speaker 7: I'll answer that, Councillor. So, the initial piece of modelling work we did with Queensland Treasury, they obviously identified that we had a $20 million surplus of cash above what we need. So, they have modelled that we still keep enough cash to keep afloat between both rate periods, plus a three-month buffer, we call that interest, a rate coverage buffer. But over the 10-year cycle... They forecast that that remaining $10 million, based on their current projections, would rindle down.
03:17:00 So, if we aggressively use up that entire buffer, and we have an unexpected, it could be we need to fund the other 50% of a project, it could be a disaster, an emergent disaster, or any kind of situation like that where we need to instantly access a larger bundle of cash than what we need. We also have the uncertainty of what the market will do in the sector in terms of... Which also look good right now. May not be in the same position in three to six months' time. So, the conservative position is initially now, in June 2019, to pay a portion of that off. And we can reassess the position in six or 12 months' time. And then each year, we come with the budget process and actually reassess what our equity and our debts should look like to make sure that what we're looking at is the current sort of forecast financials in terms of capital, in terms of what the market's going to be.
03:18:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question. When Noosa Council reconstituted in January of 2014, what was its, what debt did it have, what was its debt level from day one? It was, I think, smack on 40 million, 40 million, yeah. Okay. So from that day onwards, Noosa Council has consistently reduced its debt, its net debt. And the, and also the report talks about cash at hand at two, two times a year after the rates are collected, about 80 or 90 million cash at hand, and that comes down over time. That includes constrained funds like levies and funds used for wages, capital works and things like that. So the 20 million free cash that it talks about. It's cash that is, is unconstrained.
03:19:00 That is, it's just, it's not linked to rent or a project or levy or, it's free cash. And that's, 10 million of that is what we intend to use to pay off some of this inherited debt, which was locked in at a very high interest rate, over 6%. Can you tell us, by doing that, we're actually creating a saving for rate, an ongoing annual saving for rate payers. Can you tell us what that means? Speaker 7: For, so with that remaining $27 million loan we have, there's seven years left on that loan. So for the next seven years, we'll save, the net saving on interest between what we invest, what we pay. Next year, it's $270,000, based on what the rates are at the moment. So if the market continues to drop and interest rates continue to drop, as we move through the next year, it might be larger. But at this point in time, it's jumping 70%.
03:20:00 So it's going to be $270,000 per year. Yeah. Ongoing. For the next seven years. Mayor Wellington: Which is equivalent to 0.6% rate. Correct. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Can I just ask, will that take into consideration the fact that we no longer have the money in the bank, in the interest? Correct, yes. It does. Speaker 7: Yes. So it's the net difference between what we're earning at 2.3%, 4.4%, if it's determined Speaker 3: by the rate. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So even though Mercer Council inherited the debt, our cash at bank has always been greater than the debt. Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. There's always been a very liquid council from day one. Correct. Thank you. Do you want the councillors to speak to the notion? Councillor Jackson: Well, actually, I would. I'd like to say that, similarly to what has already been said, that I think that the fact that we haven't reserved 20 million, in addition to all the other money we need and have to hold for various reasons, demonstrates good financial management.
03:21:00 And I actually think it makes a lot of economic sense to pay off some of that high interest loan. And I think that's a good thing to keep in mind, because obviously, if we can save money on the loans that we're paying off, so much the better. So, yeah. Look. I think it's probably, the council can be congratulated as well as staff for, well, certainly for your good advice and for good money management. Thank you. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. I'll just say, basically, reiterate the exact same things as my colleagues have said. And unlike Councillor Pardon's always saying, looking forward, this is a perfect example about looking back and just about how good a job you guys have done. And I think it's probably, the council can be congratulated as well as staff for, well, in the past, I guess, in a situation. And for once, we can say, looking back, instead of looking forward, now we can be in a situation and say, let's look forward, because you're right, we're paying off this huge debt and it's putting us in such a tremendous situation and position.
03:22:00 And people forget we are still a very new little council and we're running like a business where it leaps and bounds in front. And the CEO always reminds us, doesn't he, if we had these policies at 20 or 30 years under our belt, which we don't. We have, you know, six or whatever years. So I just, yeah, it's just a big thank you to you two and especially to your team. Nothing else must be said. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Tony, would you like? Mayor Wellington: Only for some thank yous. And, of course, thank you to our fantastic financial services staff, and Michael Shave in particular, who's been a rock through the last five years. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of my predecessor, Mayor Noel Clayford, in, you know, setting up a new council on a really solid footing that was certainly far from extravagant and has allowed us to, in fact, build upon the foundations that he created during his mayoralty.
03:23:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion as a favour. The vote is carried unanimously. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Trent. Thank you, councillors, for your patience.