Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yes, please, Kathy. Councillor Jackson: Oh, hi there. I wouldn't be moving into your space. Councillor Pardon: Had my daughter not left in my car with no petrol in it. What the kids will do. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right, it's 10 o'clock, so welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. For those in the gallery and those watching at home, any motions passed today only have the status of recommendations to be forwarded to the ordinary meeting on Thursday evening where they'll be ratified as decisions of the local government. We have no apologies. Do we have any presentations or deputations? No, not yet. Welcome back, Mr CEO. May I say thank you to you. Tomorrow, as Councillor Stockwell said, it's your birthday, so we'd like to please join me in singing him happy birthday.
00:01:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Brian. Happy birthday to you. Mayor Wellington: Hip, hip, hip, hip, hip, hip, hip, hip, hip. Councillor Jurisevic: Practicing that. Now that everybody's turned off. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Now, we have a large agenda today because all the items from the Planning and Environment Committee and the items from the Services and Organisation Committee have been referred here due to those meetings being counselled thanks to the bushfires down at Peregian Beach. So, the first item on the agenda is the Update for Infrastructure Charges Resolution and welcome Kim, Kerry, and Luke. Councillors, do you have any questions for the staff? I'll move it. I'll second it. Moved, Councillor Wellington. Seconded, Councillor Glasgow.
00:02:00 Now, Luke's regarded as one of the foremost experts in Queensland in this arcane and very hard to understand topic, so we're in full confidence in your report. Mayor Wellington: Are you speaking to the motion, Mr Chair? No, no, sorry. Forgive me. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Mr Wellington. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: No, I'm just, as you were saying, thanks very much, Lord. Great job. Well done. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Oh, yeah, I will. Councillor Cardin. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Mr Chairman. Yeah, look, in the report, I understand the charges overall have gone up only a couple of percent and thus basically representing inflation. The point I'd make is with regards to LUD, you need a special brain to work out these charges as far as I'm concerned and LUD's been doing it for, I don't know, how many years? 2001. 2001. Almost 20 years. He had hair before he started. And if you look at, I guess if he was getting it wrong, we would have a lot of challenges.
00:03:00 And when you get to page 11 in the report, in the charges resolution report, it gives you some idea and why I struggled when I got to high school. Wow. And then item two there, where it says, an infrastructure charge that may be levied for material change of use or building work for residential development is generally calculated as follows. Now, you've got LCR equals in brackets, SUM in brackets, ACR multiplied by QR in brackets for each defined use minus C. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You don't understand. Councillor Pardon: So logical. Makes sense to me. Which I've put beside my comment, which adds up to infinity. So you can see, I guess, an example of the complicated sort of formulas that LUD works
00:04:00 to with regards to get fair and equitable charges for development contributions. So thanks, LUD. Thank you very much. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Joosley. Question, if I may. Thanks, LUD. Clearing Noosa Council charge for Noosa No. 3. We've gone through one and two, getting most of the principal issues underway, I assume. And talking about charges No. 4, is there anything significant in this? Or are these just basically catching up with some of the minor issues that were still outstanding from the previous two resolutions? Speaker 2: The charges are exactly the same as they would be today. It just makes it straight up front and no indexation for us to issue it. So these would be the charge amounts that get issued from now on. So there's no difference to what actually goes out today. The only other change, really, is because of Unity Water, have their own charges resolution.
00:05:00 So there's just minor references to that. And the rest is just the minor corrections. Essentially housekeeping? Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Pardon: Just a question, if I may, Mr Chair. Probably to Kim. Yeah. I'm going to ask the question to Kim, or the planners, whoever can answer it. So the money for the infrastructure charges, in the past, we struggled to collect some of this money. Is there any way that we can sort of have some sort of bond or money up front, if you would say? Speaker 2: No. Infrastructure charges, they're covered, so they're a rate. So they're actually issued. Yes. They issue a copy of the charge notice to the property owners. We've been doing that since 2004, to advise them that it is a rate on the property. Only becomes payable if the development proceeds and is completed.
00:06:00 If they don't pay by the time, then it gets transferred to rates, and then interest starts applying. And if it's still outstanding after three years, Council has the choice to recover it through selling properties, if necessary. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 2: But that's been in operation since 2004, under our ICP, our Coastal Major Road Network. Councillor Pardon: Just another question, if I may. My understanding is, probably to the CEO, we suffered, say, the Noosa Council, and the Noosa people suffered an approximate loss in infrastructure charges from the amalgamation, or the de-amalgamation, of the infrastructure charges. I think, from memory, it was about 11 to 12 million that wasn't collected, or was probably collected, but it didn't come to Noosa when, in the de-amalgamation process.
00:07:00 Is that right? Yes. Speaker 5: What happened was that up until the 15th of March 2008, the Councils were collecting, or Noosa Council had collected, I'll call them development contributions, probably it's a term that we'll come back to. Had those in a cash register. And obviously, during the amalgamation years, between 2008 and the beginning of 2014, whether there's any development, then funds were also collected, during that period. When we came to do the de-amalgamation split, there was a fair bit of argy-bargy between Sunshine Coast Regional Council and the emerging Noosa Council about how the cash reserves were to be set up, and whether or not specific funds which were raised in a particular area should be returned to those funds, and whether or not they should be returned to those funds,
00:08:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: A motion to close, Council, to put the motion as a favour against the motion carry. Next item is, thank you, Lord. A minor change to development approval for operational works prescribed title extension to existing jetty 180 Remember Terrace, Noosaville. Council Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, question. It seems to me that this business has been going on for some time.
00:09:00 Theàm sure be well over a year. Can you just advise me if this is correct that it was in July last year that it came to Council's attention that the jetty didn't comply with its conditions because it abutted the edges of the lease area rather than was set back to the edge of the lease area. That that advice was given to the applicant and the applicant didn't accept that advice, Thank you for your time and therefore a show cause notice was sent to the applicant. Is that correct? Is that the way it happened? Speaker 1: Yes, it is. It did come to our attention around July last year through looking at aerial photography, that it wasn't compliant. We raised it with the applicant at the time who indicated that they and the builder had measured it and it complied with the approval.
00:10:00 It was clear from the aerial photography that it didn't. It's a 2.6 metre difference, so we proceeded to issue a show cause notice to the applicant, asking them to either demolish or make application for the changed structure. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Council, yes. Relating to this, obviously, Patrick, in your report there seems to be an explanation of what... I mean, wrong, but then we recently had a letter from the applicant, the lawyer, who seems to have described it in a different way. There's been an error of some sort, but do you have an understanding of where this error has... how it happened? Speaker 4: To be honest, I'm a bit unclear because the original plans that were proposed by the applicant had a setback of 1.4 metres in the original application, and then through discussion...
00:11:00 Through discussions with Council, that was amended to 2.6 metres, and then what was constructed was essentially to the boundary of the lease area, I think about 3 centimetres from the lease area, so it's not like... The advice that I was given was that they constructed some wrong plans, but I'm a bit curious because the plans that we saw only had a 1.4 metre setback originally. Right. There was never a plan that actually had it constructed to the boundary, so... You're not the worst one. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. How does the 2.6 metres get arrived at? Speaker 4: As part of that original application, the applicant was advised that we had concerns with the setback that was proposed because it would result in craft that we're refuelling being outside the lease area. Yeah. And the advice that we received, and it's detailed in the report that came from the applicant, was that a distance of 2.6 metres would be suitable, that's specified in page 16, so there's a comment, the widest vessel in their fleet that could possibly moor on the end of the jetty is 2.6 metres wide, our client would be happy to reduce the length of the jetty pontoon by a minimum of 2.6 metres, enabling the widest vessel to moor, so it came through discussions with the applicant.
00:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, that was a letter from the... Speaker 4: That was an email from the applicant who was, I think, the actual pilot, I think they're called, that were engaged by the owner. Councillor Jackson: So, may I also ask, as I understand it, from the applicant, they have, they're the only diesel fuelling station on the river, is that correct? Speaker 4: As they've advised, that's the case, that's correct. I'm not aware of any other... Councillor Jackson: And the resultant from that is that there are boats that... the water police come there, the coast guard and fisheries boats come there to get diesel, which apparently have an ongoing account here at this Pelican jetty, and those boats range from being 4.5 metres wide to 8 metres wide, so I'm actually wondering about how...
00:13:00 how can this be that such large boats have to get diesel somewhere, and this seems to be the only place. How relevant is it that there be a 2.6 metre setback, given that many boats that come there have... are bigger? Speaker 4: Well, I suppose that's contrary to the advice that we received in the initial application, where we were advised that the widest vessel on their fleet that could possibly moor was 2.6 metres. So, at that time, we base our decision on the advice by the applicant. Councillor Jackson: Right. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Joyce? Yeah, that seems to be the description. It seems to be a discrepancy. I mean, the vessels in their fleet versus other vessels that may refuel there is... seems to be some point of discrepancy. So, there was no mention at any stage of other vessels apart from their own fleet vessels? No, this is the only communication that I've...
00:14:00 And the other... the other part that seems to come up is the discrepancy between the terminology of mooring and tying up for refuelling purposes. I mean, is there any differentiation in the... approval with... or in the Act with regard to how mooring being more permanent as opposed to tying up for refuelling purposes, how they are perceived? Speaker 4: There's no definition of mooring in the planning scheme. We have reviewed the definition within the dictionary and it doesn't indicate that the mooring has to be for an extended period of time. Speaker 1: I think it's relevant to note also that the scheme asks for all... commercial activity inside the lease. So, it doesn't make reference to mooring, docking or the like. It says commercial activity. All right. So, I think any boats refuelling there would have to be considered part of the commercial activity of that jetty. Councillor Jurisevic: So, following... Sorry. So, following on from Councillor Jackson's question with regard to if this is then
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 built to specification of 2.... the plans that were submitted at the 2.6 metre setback and we have vessels that are greater than 2.6 metres refuelling there, does that mean we have ongoing illegal activity regardless? Speaker 1: Well, there's two matters here. There's the lease conditions, which is really for the State to determine and then their conditions suggest that activity has to happen inside the lease. And then it would come back to the Council approval for operational works, which asks for all boats to be moored. So, we would have to look closely at the definition of mooring versus docking versus tying up boats. And you'd go... Because it's not defined by the planning scheme or, as far as I know, the planning regulations, we'd have to go to the Macquarie dictionary. It's usually what the lawyers do then for their definitions.
00:16:00 Councillor Jurisevic: My question... My question still relates to if we currently apply the 2.6 metre as per the plan, would that suffice for the vessels that are there? Should we be reviewing the 2.6 metres in these discussions? Speaker 1: Well, it is a condition. It is a condition at the moment. So, it remains unless the applicant seeks for a change in that regard. So, yeah. So, it would... If Council refuses this application, then that condition would remain on the approval and we'll have to review it at that time. Councillor Wilkie: Council, last one. I had a question. Yeah. On that... Yeah. Councillor Glasgow: We've got the ferry pulling up at the boathouse, it's outside a little bit of the leased area. You've got Ricky's, which is just outside of Downlands, and a Sofitel.
00:17:00 I did do some investigation, T-Boats actually has a 4.1 metre setback from their leased area, so the ferry is pulling up. So there is already this commercial operation happening outside of these leased area boundaries. If we open up this can of worms here, with, you know, we're not, I can't say what it says, it says mooring and whatever it says somewhere, I can't recall it. We're not mooring there, we're only having an activity plonging in and plonging out. Are we opening up a can of worms and we're going to be reviewing all these jetties, or is it just this particular one? Speaker 1: I'm not sure I agree that there is a can of worms. So review of it, this is the only structure that's been built. Some of them are built to the edge of the lease, the others are built inside of it. So the boathouse at the time that was in was argued that that was a boat and not a structure. Some councillors will remember.
00:18:00 So it actually has no operational works approval for jetty as such. So they argued at the time it was a jetty, whether it's, sorry, a boat, whether it still remains a boat or is now a structure, that's something we're going to have to look at, but if you look at the Sofitel, the jetty for that is built well inside the lease area, not to the edge. Ricky's does not have a lease, so it's a bit different again. So yeah, there may be some areas where boats are being moored or docked outside the lease, but nevertheless the structures are well within that lease area and activities outside that lease falls back to the state to manage. Not to the edge. Councillor Glasgow: So just following on from that, do you know, we have a one location harbour town where we pump effluent and so forth out of houseboats and so forth, what's that, what's that called? It's a pump out facility. It's a pump out facility, which is a council facility, right?
00:19:00 Where we, LAO happens to grow up. No, no, no. Not a council. Private. Private is it? Yeah. From my understanding, does that operate in the same situation where everything happens inside the lease area? Because from the very small investigation I've done on it, the boat. Speaker 4: Is that Mill Street? Is that at Mill Street? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Speaker 4: There is one on Mill Street. Yeah. Slipway. Slipway. Slipway. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Well, I think from aerial photos, the infrastructure and that is set back inside the lease area as well. Councillor Glasgow: But from what I saw the other day, the boats were coming up, so the houseboats are quite wide. They're still operating outside the lease area, much like this fueling station is. So is there not just some sort of common sense approach where these people are pulling in, getting fuel, and leaving in quite an easy, fashionable manner? So exactly what's happening with the pump out station, where they're actually, the houseboats
00:20:00 are quite big and they look, I haven't seen the exact detail, but they look like they're outside the lease area in some way. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. I obviously don't know that. Speaker 1: I mean, what we can say is the jetties and structures are all built well within the lease area. This one is the one that's outside the square and built to the edge. There may be activity outside the lease, but the jetties and the structures are well within Councillor Glasgow: the lease. Isn't that the common sense approach to say, look, you know, you've got a metre and a half of a houseboat getting outside this pump out station and you've got maybe... Councillor Pardon: Oh, no, I was going to move it, but I won't wait. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got one more question. Yeah, that's a good one. Yes. I would presume that the Company of Pepe was environmentally relevant activity, and I would presume that the environmentally relevant activity could not take place outside its approved area, which would be that they couldn't put a nozzle over their lease boundary.
00:21:00 Would that be correct? Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it's any longer an environmentally relevant activity. So the state had a green tape on the lease area. It was a reduction program some time back. So potentially it was at one stage, and so that approval would still remain current, but it's not potentially any more than... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They're not ERAs, or they're still ERAs and they don't need annual inspections? Speaker 1: It's not ERAs. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 1: The approvals still exist, though, and continue on with those... Can we just research that a bit further? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because for me... We can have a look, yeah. The biggest thing is... Well, one of the things is that we haven't talked about is the question about marine Councillor Pardon: pollution as well. There's a next question? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's about whether there is also then a flow-on in terms of the nature of the activity to any liability. There might be a question for Thursday on marine pollution and the Company of Pepe will be outside of the lease area. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Councillor Jurisdiction? The other concern, sort of addressing what Councillor Glacier was addressing there,
00:22:00 is that the activity here will actually occur in navigable, trying to get that word out, navigable mobile channels. Speaker 1: That's right. Extending further out into the river. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. So I've got two more questions. One is actually this about the extending further out thing, and again, back to the fact that it seems that some of the boats that come there will extend further out anyway, and it's the only... Do you think that there will be... I'm not sure whether this 2.6 is so important. Can you sort of explain why it matters? If they're going to stick out there anyway. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Well, the Planning Scheme seeks that all commercial activity for these leases occur inside the lease area. So when we're looking at applications for jetties or expansion to the jetty, we try and seek to ensure that that scheme requirement is met.
00:23:00 So when the applicant first proposed an extension to this jetty, it had a setback of... Speaker 4: 1.4. Speaker 1: 1.4, which we certainly considered inadequate, seeing that most boats would fall outside it. At the time, the applicant submitted 2.6 metres was sufficient to fit all their boats, is my understanding. So that's where the 2.6 metres came from. It came from the applicant. We took them at their face value, that that was the width. So, that 2.6 metres came from the applicant and the intent to try and keep commercial activity in the lease, which is a scheme requirement, but also the lease requirements by the state. Councillor Jackson: And is commercial activity the action of fuelling or is commercial activity the very fact that a boat has arrived? Speaker 1: Well I think it's any activity associated with the jetty.
00:24:00 So certainly it would be fuelling, loading or unloading passengers if that's the business that's occurring in that lease area. Councillor Jackson: Assuming the actual passengers are unloading in the lease area and it's getting off the boat. This is what I'm wondering, I mean the boat itself isn't commercial activity is it? It's the, if you're unloading the people are heading on to the jetty and they're getting into the leased area. So is that really not the commercial activity? Speaker 1: Well I see whether you're... You know, tying up your boat at the end of the jetty and collecting fuel, that that whole activity should occur in the lease, otherwise some of that activity is occurring outside of it. Councillor Jackson: And one other question is around, as I understand it from the applicant, is because this is a fuel system, it's not just a matter of trimming it, it would mean reinstalling the whole diesel fuel system because of the nature of such a safety issue.
00:25:00 Which would probably cost about $150,000 to redo. Is that something that either council can take into consideration when making decisions about having to change something? Or would the courts likely to take that into consideration of whether that amount of cost is really worthwhile? Speaker 1: Well, the Planning Act actually goes there in terms of saying, you know, if there's a need to change something, that people's personal financial, or people's personal circumstances, including financial, is not a relevant consideration to planning applications, to impact accessible applications. It's not quite specific in terms of going there in terms of change applications, but the thought is that that would follow on down the line to the next application to a change application as well. So the thought is the courts would give very little weight to that issue for the applicant.
00:26:00 I mean, they may raise it, and I'm not the court to know what they'd say, but certainly the thought is they wouldn't give a lot of weight to that. Councillor Jackson: Well, I did put forward that I would move a deferral motion in response to the request of the applicant, so I would like to do that. Councillor Wilkie: To answer the question first, the act of deferring this sort of application, does that trigger a deemed refusal? Speaker 1: No, it doesn't. Oh, sorry. It would trigger a deemed refusal if the applicant lodges something with the court, otherwise it can just sit there for council to make a decision. Councillor Jackson: There's no time critical element in that? Okay. So, yeah, I'd like to move the deferral motion. Councillor Wilkie: So I'll move Councillor Jackson, seconded by the councillor.
00:27:00 Councillor Jackson: So really we're just removing the motion and making it a procedural motion, to be fair. Mayor Wellington: Couldn't I, for the sake of those watching, perhaps Councillor Jackson could read the motion out. It's quite short. Councillor Jackson: Sure. The council note the report by the coordinator of planning to the Planning and Environment Committee and Read English, of course. And that was done on community data. And that was done on community data. Regarding this application, to make a minor change to an existing approval for extension to an existing jetty situated in Jetty 180, Guilby Terrace, Noosaville, and agree to defer the matter to a future council meeting as requested by the applicant to allow further discussions and determine if a resolution can be found. And the question here that we just had, I think there seems to be a fair bit of ambiguity around definitions and around what the issue really is, and I suppose the question of whether there is some solution that could be found.
00:28:00 So, because there's no time criticality, it would seem a reasonable thing to say that we accept a recommended referral, get the lawyers to talk to each other about the legal matters, and to do this before going to the expense of going to court, which of course is a much more complex and serious matter. And so I suggest starting with that opportunity to just defer and have a discussion and try to see if it can be understood better. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Anybody wish to speak against the amendment? Councillor Lange? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I won't be supporting the amendment unless someone convinces me otherwise before
00:29:00 we get to vote on it. This isn't really... I don't actually accept that there's ambiguity here because we're dealing with a planning matter and we're dealing with a condition relating to a planning approval, and that condition was clear. In fact, amusingly, the condition was actually written by a member of the committee, and it was actually recommended by the applicant, and that is to have a 2.6 metre setback. I remind councillors that in July last year, once the structure had been built, advice was sent by council to the applicant that the structure wasn't meeting its conditions, and the applicant disagreed with council, which ended up with council having to issue a show cause notion. So it's not really... The issue isn't really about how much space do boats have and how much of the boats will go over the two... You know, over the... Over the lease area, et cetera. This is really about the fact that the applicant established and recommended the conditions. Our staff took that recommendation on good faith, wrote it into the conditions of development.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 The applicant has not met the conditions that they recommended themselves and is now asking for a pre... In fact, they're not just asking for a pre... In the correspondence we've seen, they have said, we're going to appeal the matter. I don't believe we should be making decisions either on the boat. I don't believe we should be making decisions on the basis of threats of legal action and appeals. The applicant, as I say, originally suggested the 2.6 metres. They didn't meet their own recommendation. Arguably, they are in error. And I believe, therefore, that a deferral is not actually going to change anything, because if they're not still willing to accept the fact that they made a mistake and that mistake needs to be repaired or altered in some way, then we're just going to be battling back here in a month's time with exactly the same report. I cannot see that anything's going to change if we're dealing with a planning matter. Put the business of how much of boats are over the lease aside, in dealing with the planning
00:31:00 matter, we're going to be back in the same situation every month. I can't support a deferral. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Plaster. There is a lot of ambiguity around this, I believe. The fact that we're even talking about the word ambiguity means there's ambiguity, so... A month... A month... A month, look at this again, is not a huge timeframe in the scamming thing. This is the only jetty on the river supporting the Coast Guard, the Catalina, many other boats pumping diesel. There's a big industry around us and, you know, if we've got the positivity of losing this jetty or this industry, it's going to be a big downfall for the river. And a month in the grand scamming thing is not a long time. From my knowledge, there has been some... paperwork and some plans and some blaming of who's doing what, but it's not quite clear yet, so I think we need another four weeks to kind of iron those things out, exactly where the indiscrepancy comes from and the ambiguity, I would say.
00:32:00 You know, there's a lot of stuff written in that report, like, you know, navigational hazard. Who made that call? Was this a professional maritime person in the planning scheme? No offence, but I don't even think this comes out of a boat. So... You know, there's a lot of... There's a lot of stuff... Mayor Wellington: Mr Chair, I'm sorry, point of order. The councillor should not be making disparaging comments about... Councillor Glasgow: Sorry, I retract that. You're right. My apologies. Thank you, Chair. You know, and I just think, for the grand scamming thing, this industry is here and in four weeks is not going to be a long time to sort of iron these creases out. And like I said, there's a few things now that I don't... It doesn't come clear to me. And ambiguity, I think, is... Sure. So I fully support the deferral. Councillor Parr. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. I won't be supporting the deferral motion before us, Mr Chair. The... Normally... Quite often, I've supported deferral motions if I think there's some sort of negotiation
00:33:00 and going forward. But I don't support deferral. But basically here, between now and Thursday night, what we do today, what we sign off on today, what motions we move and support today, there's time between now and Thursday night. Thursday night's the final vote we have here of council. If there's some new evidence or, you know, new plans or something goes forward between now and Thursday night, it can come before us. And we can have a look at that time. So there's time to have a look at it. And people want to discuss or find ways forward. But I won't be supporting the deferral. I agree with the Mayor's comments that we're kicking this around. It's been kicked around since July last year, obviously, because that's when they were told they're not meeting their planning performance, their conditions.
00:34:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'd just like to ask a question based on Councillor Parr and his... Discussion there. Would the staff be open to meeting with the applicant between now and Thursday night to discuss any new situation or evidence that may be pertinent to this application? Speaker 1: We're always open to meetings. But I'd have to suggest this application has been around for a year. There has been an on-site meeting where there was no solution put forward. What we have before us is a letter from P&E Law challenging us on our decision-making, which I think is very important. It's been reviewed by our solicitor, who doesn't agree with their solicitor. So I don't... I wouldn't recommend that Council defer the matter. I think the best position is actually potentially to let it go to appeal, because then there's formal mediation in the court. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Kabi. Sorry. You're going beyond what I asked.
00:35:00 So the answer is you would be open to a meeting with the applicant to discuss any new information that may pertain to this application. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I have a related question to Councillor Wilkerson, and relating to what Councillor Priden said. And in that, Councillor Priden said that some evidence was available before the ordinary meeting. Is there a process that that is the case? That if there was further information brought before the ordinary meeting that could be provided to councillors? I'm not sure what Councillor Priden meant there. Speaker 1: Sorry. Just to ask you a question again? Councillor Jackson: Yes. Sorry. Councillor Priden said that he would welcome any additional evidence before the ordinary meeting, which might change things. Is that actually part of the protocol? Is that possible for some additional evidence to be provided before the ordinary meeting? Speaker 1: Yes. That's always possible. So if the applicant put forward a way, an alternative way to resolve this, I think that's
00:36:00 something we could consider between now and Thursday. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Also, I guess I shall add. I have a question that I wanted to ask, and it's related to Councillor Wilkie's question. My understanding from the letter from the applicant is that they were seeking for the lawyers to talk to each other, not just for staff to talk to the applicant. Is that something that can happen? Speaker 1: Well, I'd suggest a preferred way to do that is through an appeal and a formal mediation process that the court register oversees. I think that's a preferential way to have lawyers speak. I don't know if Brett wants to say anything on that. Speaker 5: Oh, yeah. My experience is that having lawyers talking and going back and forth before an appeal tends to drag things on. You don't generally get a resolution, which is the experience I've had over the years. I don't know why, but that's what tends to happen. Whereas you get to the hard edge of an appeal and things tend to coalesce a lot better, and you get a resolution through a formal court mediation, sometimes much better. It's one of those inexplicable things that people expect to get a number three opinion.
00:37:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Further to that question, if I may, Mr. CEO, that would also require some sort of a time Speaker 5: frame to be applied to some sort of process. Yeah, and that's perhaps why it tends to work better in a formal mediation, because there's a framework, a time frame that tends to bring that together. Councillor Jurisevic: And, Councillor? Yeah, I'll speak to the deferral motion. I won't be supporting it. Talk about ambiguity. It only adds another element of ambiguity in not giving any time frame with regard to when that matter may come before Council. And for this process to go on, I think, as staff have alluded to, there is a formal process and a mediation process that this can go to. It's clear that if there was a building application before us on land and a developer had developed to the boundary when a six metre or other setback had been required, we wouldn't be accepting that application. And I think the same rules apply here. I think it needs to go through due process to get to a result.
00:38:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. We'll talk. I think, as councillors, we always find it somewhat difficult to make decisions where we know it's going to cost unexpected resources to the applicant. But, in this case, any other developer who made an error of this magnitude would have significant costs in reconciling it. If this was a petrol station on the land they built to the boundary and they required it to go to the ground, we wouldn't be accepting that application. If they required cars to pull up on the road, there is no way we would be allowing the use to continue. So, the clear matter is they've had a year to resolve it, or more. They've made a fundamental error, like a very fundamental error, that is mind-blowing to suggest that it was in any way something that shouldn't have happened.
00:39:00 And, of course, the consequences are very, very significant. The consequence of it is that their change approval is one suggesting something that we haven't approved on the river before and we shouldn't do for the future. So, I can't... I don't think there are... I think it's a fairly clear case that won't alone be resolved in one way, and that will be true if they approach us. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I have some sympathy for the applicant in this case. The... As it says in the report, the applicant indicated changes are... I don't know. Are required as a result of the builder constructing the jetty incorrectly and locating the extended structure within the required 2.6 metre setback. Have you heard from staff? The applicant's builder advised they had measured the jetty and it complied. So, if there is any expense to be borne here, I was... If you take this on face value, it would suggest that there is some...
00:40:00 I don't know. I think in the report, there is some talk to take place between the applicant and the builder. The builder has not constructed the jetty according to the... According to the conditions. And that is a great concern for... That must be a huge concern for the applicant. But the 2.6 metre setback was requested by the applicant, agreed to by the applicant. The state lease conditions, the noose of planning scheme requires there being adequate setback and that all commercial activity takes place inside the lease area. The... I don't see it as ambiguous, but if there is more discussions to be had and there is more information to be presented for the planners and councillors to consider, there is a time frame between now and Thursday night when that can take place. And we've heard that the staff are always open to meeting with the applicant to discuss any new information that might be pertinent to the application. So, unfortunately, I won't be able to support this referral motion.
00:41:00 We'll just see the original paragraph up there, please. I do note that there's no date by which this has to come back to the council. So, it has gone on for a year, and by the wording of this motion, it could go on for an indefinite period. And that's not to benefit. Good question. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'm the mover of the motion, and the motion, thank you, is provided to me by Kim and that's Kerry. And we did not include a time frame, but I would be very much welcome in the time frame. So, I'm not sure. I simply took advice and have given the motion that was prepared for me by staff. But as a mover of the motion, I would have...
00:42:00 I would have no difficulty adding in a time frame if that could be appropriate with, you know, I can't amend because I've moved the motion, but if both of us, the seconder and mover, agree to an appropriate time frame, we could put a time frame if that's an issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just come forward and reduce to any others that's not appropriate? Can't I just be moved, seconded, and discussed? I can't amend it. Councillor Wilkie: No, no, that's not quite true. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just quickly reading it. Are there any standing orders? Speaker 5: No. So, section 26.4 is Councillor Stockwell's motion. A motion, remember, may be withdrawn or modified by the mover thereof with the consent of the seconder and council. So, if the council meeting agrees and the mover and the seconder agree, then it can be modified. That's right. But if the Councillor Jackson and Councillor Glasgow had agreed to this, everyone else would need to agree before that motion.
00:43:00 Councillor Jackson: Okay. Well, could we just do that? Could you recommend an appropriate time frame? And we'll just go through this one process and see if that would be okay. Well, no. I guess the question... Well, should we say the next council round? Next round of council? Speaker 1: Yeah. Next round of council. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So, if we could... Oh, no. Jess, would you be happy with that? Yeah. So, instead of saying... Councillor Glasgow: Next month, you mean? Yeah. Next round. Councillor Jackson: Next round of council. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So, then... Yes. Well, I guess the question I have now is do all councillors consent to that change? Yeah. Fine. Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Pardon: No problem. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have to... I would be against it because I think it's process-wise. I don't like it... I don't think that after you have a debate that you try and change motions to respond to a point made in debate. I think that's not a good process. Therefore, I won't support it.
00:44:00 It's a good standing order. I don't care. We can talk about against it. Oh, okay. Councillor Jurisevic: The change here, whether that changes anybody's opinion on the recommendation at the end of the day, we yet to accept. So, I mean, we haven't voted on it yet, so... Speaker 5: Yeah. So, as I said, under that new provision and our new standing orders, that amendment can't be modified without the consent of the mover, seconder, and the council. Mayor Wellington: We have a dissent, therefore it can't be changed. Speaker 5: But what I think the council has said is correct. If this is lost, then you can move the alternative away. We're just delaying the amendment. We've got another motion to come before us, Brian. But there you go. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, Councillor Jackson, you have the right to close. Good principle, I can hear you. Councillor Wilkie: Your motion... Councillor Jackson: Yeah, sure. I'll just close by saying that I'm always seeking for ways to resolve issues at the lowest cost and the lowest hassle, so I thought this would be an appropriate thing to do,
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 given the request in the afternoon. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillors Jackson and Glasgow. And those against? Cathy, you're pre-empting the voting there. She is. She does listen to the debate. She does listen to the debate. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Councillor Wellington, Pardon, Jurisevic, Stockwell and Wilkie. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And to avoid Councillor Jurisevic's consent, I'll move the motion recommended by staff. I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: Motion moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wellington. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't speak to it. I'll... If there's anything to respond to, I'll do that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion? Councillor Wellington? No. Councillor Hamilton? Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Look, as has been noted, the fact that it's on water is neither here nor there, this development. As other councillors have noted, if it were on land, there would be little question about refusing to accept the fact that the development didn't meet its conditions.
00:46:00 It's been mentioned that the builder is not constructed according to conditions. I remind councillors that the applicant, not the builder, the applicant insisted that it was built and did comply. He did not comply with the conditions when he was advised by staff that it didn't. Therefore, it is the applicant's responsibility, not the builder's responsibility. And given that the applicant has already engaged legal advice, it seems that the legal process seems to be the obvious way to resolve this, not through any other process. They've already decided that. By sending a legal letter to councillors, they've decided this is a legal matter. Let them go to appeal. That's the way to do it. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic? Yeah. So, as I said, we've got an application from the council and their builder. The builder clearly hasn't built to the plans as provided. And I think that's something they need to resolve amongst themselves more so than with council in the first process. And secondly, I don't think the 2.6 metre setback that was applied is going to be adequate
00:47:00 here anyway. So, I think there's going to have to be some major modifications for this to comply as a fuelling station for all the vessels that do pull up there in the long run. Councillor Pardon: Mr Chair, planning is not my strong suit and I, like Councillor Jackson, if we can find a way forward that suits all parties it would be good, but I don't think given what's happened here that that's going to be that simple, thus so I support this motion. The interesting thing, remembering back, there was a lot of argy-bargy amongst councillors and staff with regards to this setback and we've actually given ground I think to find, we actually give ground because
00:48:00 it was 1.4 metres that the applicant you know that's what was envisaged and we said no and then the applicant actually you know sent a letter and advised us that they would pull it back to 2.6 which so we've actually, in my opinion, trying to remember back that we've given ground on this particular application. We actually tried to find a way you know to give a bit to help out this applicant and thus the 2.6 was arrived at. Now that's not an arbitrary figure, it's where we've landed I guess in negotiations with the applicant, so people are quite right to say well boats are you know three and a half, four metres wide and thus some will be outside. That's true,
00:49:00 but that's not relevant to what we're discussing here. We've given ground. What we said is we're trying to keep everything inside their lease, boats, usage inside the lease and when we got to 2.6 many of us would have known that vessels are wider, there is wider vessels. So you've given a bit, you're saying well you can park a bit in the river anyway because 2.6 doesn't cover the width of a lot of the big vessels. So whilst we've given a lot of ground to this development application then we find there's a mistake and there's no setback virtually. What three centimetres, so which is kind of ridiculous. So you know sometimes when you try and land in a give-and-take position or find a good position and that's arguable with the 2.6 that we that we agreed to, what was a good position. And then on top of that we have
00:50:00 the Noosa River Plan and what we're trying to do there with regards to the river. Clutter etc and we're trying not to push more vessels if you use that word or have more clutter out into the river. So you know it doesn't tick any boxes this. I think it's it's a lose lose. Whilst I feel for the developer but they seem to be saying the builder made a mistake. Well I'll be still looking for him somewhere if he made that big a mistake because that's quite a mistake to make. It's it's a big mistake and so they need to be talking to thrash this out. Anyway I support the motion before us. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell would wish to decide whether to apply. Okay I put the motion to those in favour. Councillor Wellington, Jurisevic, Cooroy, Cooroy.
00:51:00 Stockwell, Pardon, Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Jackson and Councillor Velasco. So the motion is carried. We now go on to, thank you. Now go on to item three which is the development application material change of use for 16 ancillary dwelling units at 64 Pateway Drive Noosaville on page 25 of the Planning and Environment Committee's Agenda. Council's questions for staff. Councillor Jackson: I have a question. Councillor Jackson. It looks like an application for units. But then I notice in the report there's been some previous approvals of units in the area.
00:52:00 Three ancillary dwelling units and two ancillary dwelling units previously. Can you just fill us in on what that's about? Speaker 1: Well caretakers residents are currently supported in the industrial area. So there is a genuine need for caretakers residents in the industrial area and there's been some approved on other sites and as the applicant points out, three in some cases. Okay. And this is something we have only just started seeing recently where people have, typically we've only had one ever proposed on a site. In recent times we've had some industrial sites propose three caretakers residents and while we accepted that that was potentially required, when we got an application for 16, we just realised this is not just a caretaker's residence, it's a multiple dwelling. Okay.
00:53:00 So I think it's just a sheer number that really highlights to us that it's not really caretakers in this instance, that they are multiple dwellings. And certainly the size of the units and the size of the tenancies is also highlighting that because they're not really supporting it when they're the size they are. Mayor Wellington: I've got a question for staff. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wharton. Mayor Wellington: I understand that elsewhere we have had situations where people have chosen to reside in the industrial area. And that has created conflicts as a result of noise and amenity issues. In fact, I think there might be such a situation behind a certain brewery in the industrial area at the moment. Can you confirm whether or not this has occurred before in terms of conflicts between residential use and industrial use? Speaker 1: Yeah. We have had instances where we've received complaints about someone residing in the residential area, in the industrial area. Without a caretaker's approval.
00:54:00 That's the only one though I recall. Speaker 5: I think Tony's question is more about whether or not people who are actually residing in those have ever had complaints about adjoining the... Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't recall any complaints related to that. Councillor Wilkie: Can I stop her? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I know it's on page 32 of your report. You... At the time I was writing the report, you referred to the settings of the draft funding scheme. Considering we've now taken the next step of publicly responding to... Yeah. ...the major submissions and on today, if those changes are made public, we should pay attention to what is in the draft funding scheme. And I believe it may have changed from what's in the report. So can you just highlight just what might have changed in the draft funding scheme relating to the caretaker's accommodation that might be relevant to this decision? Speaker 6: There has been some strengthening of the provisions in the draft planning scheme around caretaker's residence and their purpose.
00:55:00 They are, by all accounts, around caretaking for a property in an industrial estate where the business or the needs of that business require caretaking potentially overnight or for 24 hours. So there's been some strengthening of the provisions, to be clear, about the purpose of caretaker's residence. There also has... And subsequent to that, with the strengthening of the code provisions, we have actually proposed that the caretaker's residence going forward, if they meet those provisions, are no longer impact-assessable but can be code-assessable. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: From recollection, there was an area criteria about one every two days. That's correct. Sorry, Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 6: Yes, that's correct. To be more specific, the draft planning scheme says that one caretaker's residence per 2,000
00:56:00 square metres of property. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Two questions. Firstly, are you aware of concerns raised by residents in the residential zone that is aligned beside this subject site of their concerns? Are there any concerns about noise and amenity in their residential area as a result of this industrial area? Speaker 1: Yes, I have seen some correspondence from residents who adjoin this site. We didn't seem to know that the site was going to be developed for industrial. But there are a number of provisions in that approval to help protect their amenity, if I'm aware. Mayor Wellington: And that's as a result of what sort of conditions? Are there any concerns about noise and amenity in their residential area as a result of this industrial area? Speaker 1: That's right. So, no windows and openings on that side, a fence, substantial setback, sort of buffer
00:57:00 area, all activity to occur away from that boundary. Mayor Wellington: And all of this is in order to protect the residential amenity from whatever activities occur in the industrial area? That's right. That's right. The sort of protection that couldn't actually occur if the residential area was sitting on top of the industrial area. Speaker 1: Exactly. A lot changed. A lot more difficult to do. They're not very compatible where you've got industrial and residential on the same site. Mayor Wellington: And a question for Kim Rawlings. In our consideration, referring to the new Noosa plan and how it deals with the interrelationship of residential and industrial at the business centre, the Shire Business Centre, I understand that we have made a determination to ensure that residential is further removed from the existing industrial area at that site. Is that right? Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
00:58:00 Mayor Wellington: And again, in order to avoid conflict between industry and residential? Speaker 6: Yeah, absolutely. There's an existing industrial area that abuts the Shire Business Centre. And in order to respect that and maintain the integrity of that, we have removed potential residential from the draft planning scheme to avoid any reverse amenity impacts. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Dewison. So, just to follow up with Councillor Stockwell's questions. A really good question. I really don't see the dimensions of the property here out laid. So, given the new provisions in the or the clarifications in the draft planning scheme with regard to the number of caretaker's residences that would be permitted for industrial allotment of this size, what would be the maximum number of caretaker units allowed on this site? Speaker 1: I don't know. I believe the provisions still say one per site.
00:59:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That would be my understanding of it. At the moment, there are something like 42 industrial lots here. Do I understand that correctly? And the potential for 16. We've got one to 42 numbered. Speaker 1: Oh, tenancies. Councillor Jurisevic: Tenancies, yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So, 42 potential tenancies and 16 ancillary dwellings on top of that. Speaker 1: That's right. But the scheme is per site, not tenancy. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. So, that does seem, yeah. Just to get a... Councillor Wharton. Mayor Wellington: I'm happy to move the staff recommendation as a motion. I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Wharton, seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Wharton. Mayor Wellington: This is clearly an attempt to create an industrial community within the residential zoning. And it's inevitable... Sorry. Other way around. A residential community in an industrial zoning. Thank you. What did I say? The other way around. Other way around. I'm sorry. I'm going to walk backwards for the rest of it. Obviously, it's going to generate conflict. It can't help but, and we're creating a rug for our backs if we approve it.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I'd point out too that 10 of the units actually have floor areas greater than 50% of the industrial use that they sit above. So, it's hardly subordinate. In fact, it becomes a more primary purpose of the land. And it's not the purpose of the land to be residential, but rather industrial. There's no... There's no way in the world that we should be approving this, given our endeavours within the planning scheme to get this right. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Driscoll. Look, I'll concur with the Mayor's comments there, but also the information from staff that on the site of this site, if a caretaker... If a caretaker residence was to be approved, that one would be sufficient to manage the entire site. It really... The caretaker residence are not a given. It has to be a purpose, a rhyme and reason, a purpose for a caretaker's residence being associated with an industrial site.
01:01:00 And that purpose is to manage activities that may go into the evening and the rest. It's not designed to provide a living residence for someone on site as a consequence of there being that capability. Also, here, I mean, the numbers clearly overwhelm the number of residents that are living in the site. So I can't support the concept of 16 residential units on an industrial site in any way, shape Councillor Pardon: or form. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Pardon. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Mr Chair. Yeah, I can't... I support the refusal, of course, for all the reasons so far that have been said. With regards to complaints up there, I was in amongst... There was three different people living in the site. One of them was living in one of the complexes that I think Michael Contori sometime back was dealing with. There was a motor mechanic, a young girl, and there was also a furniture importer.
01:02:00 They were all living in the one complex. And this did cause some angst and complaints. So from my history, I do know there's some complaints. Others... You know... It's up to other people to put forward if they've been in amongst them. But certainly, I've been in amongst complaints in the industrial... The conflict in the industrial area. Also, I've been in amongst, as most councillors have, non-conforming uses in the industrial area. That's been a pretty heavy topic. And in the planning scheme we've endeavoured, or the proposed new planning scheme that we've gone out to the public with. We've proposed to... Do some changes. I had that written down, that one caretaker and the 2,000 square metres. Councillor Stockwell cut me grass there.
01:03:00 I was just trying to show that I was actually listening. And those meetings. And had taken some small part on board. I thought you weren't good at planning. Oh, I know. And he's done me like a dinner there. But anyway. Look. The... The... The... The... The... The... It shows the innovation of people really. Me, I'm thinking backpackers immediately. 16 and units in there and I love it. Opportunities. And good on them for being innovative. But the conflict, it just doesn't fit. It won't fit. And we will have conflicts. So, I support the refusal. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's interesting. It's a good idea in the wrong spot. There is a probably demand for places where people can live upstairs and have some sort of making or creating space downstairs and we've acknowledged that, we've acknowledged that by actually making provisions quite flexible in all the centre zones and that's where I think it's far more appropriate I think as a number of councils have mentioned the primary constraint behind living in an industrial area is that you can't expect to have anything else but an
01:04:00 industrial amenity. So if someone wants to be clanging at 10 o'clock at night and that approval allows, you don't get to sleep until 10 o'clock at night as a caretaker. But I think trying to do this in this location is not the right spot. We do have to protect those other businesses around that may be adversely affected if we all of a sudden start introducing large numbers of people living on site. That's why I support the recommendations. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington, do you wish to close? Mayor Wellington: No, it's fine. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the motion in those in favour. That's Jean Armas.
01:05:00 Right, we're now moving on to item four, Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 1802 of 2019, Refusal of Application for Operational Works for Signage at Unit 1, 100 Reeney Street, Noosaville, page 35 of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. The council's questions for Kerry or Kim. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, a general question to Kim Rawlings. The reason that council is developing a local law to deal with advertising signage as opposed to our previous situation where it's partly in local laws and partly in the planning scheme. In other words, we're taking it out of the planning scheme. And the reason for that is so that it can be more prescriptive, so we don't end up in this sort of situation. Is that your analysis? Speaker 6: Yeah, in simple terms, yes, that is correct. At the moment, we regulate signage both through the planning scheme and a local law. Council's introducing a new local law to have a one stop shop, I guess, for advertising signage, but also so that it can be a lot clearer and more prescriptive
01:06:00 about the requirements about signage. That's correct. Mayor Wellington: So in that regard, issues. Explain to me the situation with regard to setting precedents now, given that we're going to be changing both the planning scheme and the local law. Is there a concern on your behalf that we are establishing precedents in our interpretation of our planning scheme? In a situation such as this, would that have flow on effects, in other words? Speaker 6: I'm not concerned about that, setting precedents here. We are 80% way through a local law with a local law coming in in the next few months, which will provide very clear provisions around signage, including the size of signage.
01:07:00 So the signage has been removed from the planning scheme. The new planning scheme's out. It doesn't regulate signage anymore. So I'm not that concerned about where Council might land on this report in terms of setting a precedents. I'm not sure if Kerry wants to add anything to that. Okay. Thank you. Because we're moving to another, a different regime. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor George. Councillor Jurisevic: Two questions. With regard to the frontage to Rennie Street. There is another block and it appears in the imaging here that there seems to be some fencing around it. Is there a development application or is there a block of land there that could be developed, which is in front of that sign? Speaker 1: Yes, there is a block of land in front of that sign and it has an approval to develop. So I'd expect when it does develop and the visual analysis even recognises that that sign will be partially hidden even more.
01:08:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Curious. And in the original development application, there was a signage application in amongst that, or signage design in amongst that, that is more in keeping with the second image rather than the first image on page 37. Is that correct? Speaker 1: No. It's on page 37. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, yeah. A sign at the front and a sign at the side as opposed to one large sign on the other Speaker 1: side. That's right. With the original development application. It showed two four square metre signs. Councillor Jurisevic: So either way, the signage as it stands there doesn't meet the original. Speaker 1: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Original approval and the original application by the applicant. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'd like to pursue the precedent issue just a little further. I don't want this to seem like an inquisition. But is the sign, if we accede to the staff recommendation, will the sign meet the original
01:09:00 conditions in the new local laws? Councillor Jackson: No. Mayor Wellington: Right. No. So are we setting a precedent now by accepting a sign that is larger than what our new local laws will accept when it comes to dealing with the local laws? Because we've already said we'll accept a bigger sign. Speaker 6: No. Under the local law, they are the, under the planning scheme, we'll start there, the planning scheme. The size requirements for signage sit within a performance based system. So we go through a process of assessing whether it meets those requirements and the outcomes and the visual analysis. Mayor Wellington: And it becomes an interpretation of the outcomes. Speaker 6: In some way. Yes, it does. Under the local law, that situation doesn't occur. The size requirements are prescriptive and they need to be met.
01:10:00 If signs are proposed above them, they're prohibited. Mayor Wellington: So the fact is, because we're judging this against the planning scheme, it doesn't become a precedent for our dealing with the local laws. That's correct. That seems to be what you're saying. That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Pardon, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Pardon: Just a question. So how big is the sign that we're signing off on? What's your square metreage? I've read it. Sorry? Speaker 1: Eight square metres. Yeah, that's what I thought I read. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. 8.792. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, something like that. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I was going to wipe the bullet and move it. Councillor Wilkie: Whoa. Okay. Wow. Councillor Stockwell. Second. Second of Councillor Pardon. Councillor Stockwell, you have the floor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This report is the reason why we've gone to local law. From a planning perspective, this is the worst two-hours. We had a 100 metres of street in the Shire for signage and we made an offender achieve
01:11:00 that result through a planning appeal process. And if that, a lot of signage got approved through appeal we would be wasting great payers money to take this one further. I don't agree with the sign, but I understand that in the context of everything else around it, which is contrary to the overarching aims that we've had. We've had the signage in this place for a long time. It's purely a contextual issue is that, from a planning perspective, they will be argued that in the context of where they sit, it meets the outcome as well or better than others in this close proximity. And taking it further, I don't think we'll be rewarded. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Joyce. Question for staff. I notice that the reason for now approving this oversight sign is the visual impact assessment report that was put together by the applicant. Is this something that we'll still, going forward with the now being local laws, which is being referred to here, that we'll have any more weight on signing with regard to what will and won't be approved as opposed to the finite figures that we have for now?
01:12:00 And have had for some time? Speaker 6: The local law, the sizes in the local law are prescriptive, fixed. As per existing? We're unlikely to find ourselves in the same sort of situation going forward because it's quite clear in the local law that these are the size signs, the sizes for signs, and if they're above that, then they're prohibited. Councillor Jurisevic: But aren't they quite clear in the planning scheme as of currently? Speaker 6: No, they're not. They're in the performance-based system and they're acceptable outcome. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, so that's why the visual impact assessment report has more bearing in this situation than it will in the local law.
01:13:00 Speaker 6: That's right. And taking from what Councillor Stockwell said, that's exactly why, one of the reasons Council is moving to regulate signage through a local law, because it provides much more certainty and is clearer around dimensions. And size of signs. Councillor Jurisevic: And something like a visual impact assessment report then becomes a subjective nature depending on who writes the report, one would think. Councillor Wilkie: We'll take that as a common one. Thanks, Barry. Any other councillors wish to? Councillor Jurisevic: That's probably me speaking to it. I think that's all that needs to be said. Councillor Glasgow: I'll just reiterate what Brian said. You're right. I think that's all that needs to be said. This is not worth the drama, but I also believe it's also the industrial state too. I don't know any tourist that goes, checks into the Sofitel and then goes for a drive down Rainy Street and looks at all the signage in this area.
01:14:00 We have to have some leniency to the business down there. It's a common sense approach. Again, it is great now that it's going from planning into local laws for these reasons. But I can't get off the fact that this is still the industrial state. And if there's an area we want to do have these, I might say, relaxations, it's here. Because like you said right before, it's already set prisons in the whole street. So yeah, I'll be supporting it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Clarke? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Mr Chair. Yeah, I'd endorse Councillor Glasgow comments a fair bit there with regards to, we've already had debates over signage. It's why I think way back I'd proposed that we do a precinct based, if you like, have a look at the industrial centre as a different precinct with regards to size of signs.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 And I'd propose probably six square metres rather than the four square metre signage that is through the rest of the Shire, CBDs, etc. Mayor Wellington: Point of order, Mr Chair. Do you agree with the approach to the advertising local laws rather than the actual application before us? Councillor Wilkie: Well, I'm going to allow Councillor Farmer to continue. It's where we're heading. It's pertinent to some questions that were asked earlier in this, while we were discussing this topic. So it's all up to you, Mr Mayor, or Councillor Farmer. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I think the local law was mentioned in debate here. So, yeah, look, so with regards to this, it's way over six, it's eight point whatever. But given the situation where we are now, I'll support it.
01:16:00 But it'll be interesting to debate on signage going forward for the council. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have any councillors wish to speak? Councillor Lamb? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'm just going to say it. I think now is the time to debate our approach to signage across the Shire. And not just stake a claim here and now about how we're going to approach advertising signage in the industrial area. We have that debate to come. I'm pretty certain there's going to be seven very different views around the table. And those views are appropriate to make at that time, not at this time. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: It's always very careful not to. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion before us? All right. I'd like Councillor Stockwell just to close. Put the motion in favour. Change. That's carried unanimously. Item five, which is the Planning and Environment Court Appeal. Right. Refusal of application for material change of use for office, restaurant and shop at Six
01:17:00 Cairns Street, Peregian Beach. Page 60. I'll move. Planning and Environment Committee meeting. I'll move. Councillor Lewis? Mayor Wellington: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder? Yeah, I'll second it. Councillor Wellington? Chair, do you wish to speak to the- Councillor Jurisevic: No. I think the report speaks for itself. I think we're contrary to the planning scheme and that we should continue to refuse this application and defend the appeal. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington? Mayor Wellington: Just to say that it's appropriate to defend our decisions. That's exactly what council should be doing. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to this motion? Mayor Wellington: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: All those in favour? Again, that's carried unanimously. Item 6, Environmental Grants Policy, page 62. Thanks Kerry. Thank you. All right.
01:18:00 Welcome Craig. Nice to see you, thank you. Okay, yeah, Councillor Glasgow is taking the lead. Councillors, questions for Craig or Kim? Yes. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I have a question. Craig, I do recall that at the time we did the interim decision about the first round of environmental grants, that we included biodiversity and waterways, wetlands and coast themes, but we didn't include sustainable living and climate change adaptation and resilience. And I noticed this new policy, again, does not include grants for sustainable living and climate change and adaptation and resilience. So I'm wondering if you can explain that. Speaker 3: Yes, certainly. The intent, when we originally workshopped and decided that we were going to include the environment grants policy, was that it would provide grants to deliver the environment
01:19:00 strategy, which has four broad areas. It has our biodiversity and waterways and wetlands, it has our sustainable living and climate change. But at this stage, all the funding we've allocated has been through the environment levy. So all the money we are going to be providing this financial year will be focused on those first two elements. The intent of the environment grants policy was to be broader than that, though. It was to enable future councils to be able to use the existing policy to be able to provide, perhaps, alternate sources of revenue to provide grants for those areas. That was the intent of the policy. The policy was worded poorly, the original environment grants policy, because there were a couple of areas where it had picked up wording directly from the environment levy. So it was contradictory. The intent of bringing it back was just to clear that up. It won't make any changes to the delivery of the multi-year environment grants this financial year. There will still only be four areas within the strategy that are aligned with the environment levy, because that's where the funding's coming from. Councillor Jackson: So that's why sustainable living and climate change adaptation are not in there.
01:20:00 Speaker 3: They're still not. Councillor Jackson: They're not aligned with the levy. Speaker 3: They're not aligned with the levy policy. And for this financial year, we haven't allocated funding to those areas. But we may in future, and this slight rewording of the grants policy will enable us to provide future funding under those, as long as it doesn't come from the levy. Councillor Jackson: We're working on page 68, which says priority funding areas may be influenced by the source of funding available, such as environment levy, general levy, and other kinds of levy. Speaker 3: That's right. So for the moment. Councillor Jackson: That's important. Speaker 3: That's correct, yes. Councillor Jackson: And I also have another question. There's something that's been crossed out in the old policy. Grants will be for initiatives, capacity building, and projects that conserve or improve ecosystem health. That's on page 65. And biodiversity in the Shire. All initiatives funded by the environmental grant program will have tangible and measurable outcomes. That's all been crossed out. And I'm wondering why. Speaker 5: Page one of the policy. Councillor Jackson: Yeah.
01:21:00 Speaker 3: Okay. Gotcha. Councillor Jackson: I'm looking at the track changes version. Speaker 3: Yep. No, that's fine. I've got that here in front of me. Broadly, the main reason to cross it out was for the same previous comment, where it said it would be for projects to conserve and improve ecosystem health and biodiversity. For the grants policy, that was considered too narrow, because we could potentially bring that in. There was no specific reason to remove the tangible and measurable outcomes, but they're outlined within the guidelines that sit underneath the policy. So again, there was no specific reason for that to come out. Councillor Jackson: Okay. But narrow. That is captured in the guidelines. Speaker 3: It is. That's correct. But there has to be. Absolutely. Yes. That's not the concept. No. No. No. Absolutely not. And that wording's directly from the environment levy policy. Good point. So obviously, while funding comes from the environment levy, they do definitely have to have very measurable outcomes. Councillor Jackson: Right. Speaker 3: And you'll notice in the... Guidelines. The guidelines, there is an area there where we ask applicants to identify exactly how
01:22:00 they're going to measure the outputs and successes of their projects. And it's allocated quite a high degree of score, because we think it's important we're properly able to measure and evaluate any grants we fund. Councillor Wilkie: Just a further question. Given that the environmental grants policy is one that's to be on Council's website, and likely to be read by applicants, whereas the guidelines are more likely to be read by the staff, is there any problem with including that sentence, which has been struck out, all initiatives funded by the environmental grants program will have tangible and measurable outcomes? Yes. Is there any problem with reading that in? Speaker 3: There's not. Although the experience with the community grants is actually the guidelines that are read much more commonly. So it's actually, when we go out to the community and say, here's our grants program, it's the guideline, not the policy, that'll be the most public-facing part of the document. And certainly with our experience with the community grants, most people don't read the community grants policy, but they very much read the guidelines. Councillor Wilkie: But if there's no harm in it, we're comfortable with it remaining?
01:23:00 Speaker 3: Perfectly comfortable. Yeah. There was no specific reason. Yeah. I'm comfortable. There's no specific reason to exclude it. All right. Councillor Jackson: Do we need to do something around that? Councillor Jurisevic: If you want to advance the motion. What you'd do would be... What's that challenge with the D? Speaker 6: So add that CEO, delegate to the CEO? Delegate to the CEO? No. Speaker 5: That's... Mayor Wellington: No. No. Substantial. Need to word a D. Speaker 5: What do you do? What you do is at the end of A, where we're adopting revised environment grant policy by Detachment 1, with the additional words in, with the following additional words to be added under the heading of Council policy, under the heading of Council policy, and then colon dash cap. Okay. And then in these additional words, it's all initiatives funded by the environment
01:24:00 grants program will have tangible and measurable outcomes. And we'll put that in. Councillor Jackson: So we need to move those and then not? No. Speaker 5: No one's moved anything yet? No. No one's moved anything. Oh, okay. You can leave them with that included if that's what the council did that. Yeah. So move Mr... Councillor Pardon: I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. So move Councillor Jurisdict, seconded Councillor Pardon. I still have a question. Oh, sorry. You have to speak. Yeah. Joe. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the change is done. I think this is, in essence, still an interim move towards the ultimate grants program, but I welcome the changes that have been introduced in this grants program. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jackson, you have a question? The grants policy, sorry. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I do have a question. It's related to the... It's relating to the guideline, which I think is also here. Isn't it? Note, multi-year guideline. Back...
01:25:00 I have a look. The conservation land guideline and the revolving fund guideline and the private land conservation guideline were all given to council to adopt in previous meetings. In this case, the multi-year collaborative... Sorry. The... Yeah. Multi-year collaborative environmental grants operating guideline was given to council is not being given to council to adopt, but rather to note. And I'm wondering why it's not being... We're not being asked to adopt. Because... Yeah. It would seem to me that this... By just being asked to note... Oh, sorry. That's the... I shouldn't speak to it. Okay. Speaker 3: Question. The guideline for the multi-year collaborative environmental grants is very much a public facing guideline, in the same way that the guidelines for the community grants are. And none of the community grants guidelines had been adopted by council. So this is consistent with those that because they're public facing, they'll have minor tweaks and changes every year. We actually could have developed them and delivered the program without bringing it
01:26:00 back to council at all. We just felt it was really worthwhile getting council input and having people across on how we were going to, I guess, roll out this program. So it's consistent with the community grants guidelines. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. I do have another question. And that is relating to the 1.2 million grant that council has agreed to give to TNC, the Nature Conservancy. Is that in some way captured in this grant policy? Speaker 3: That's a good question. I'm just trying to think. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 3: It's not... It's not different to how we addressed it when it originally came forward. I'm just trying to think of the... I'd have to review the actual wording on the policy. Can I take that on notice, Ingrid, and have it provided for you by Thursday evening with that? Speaker 6: Sure. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Just rather than sitting here and read through.
01:27:00 It formed the basis of the report that went up with regards to the oyster project. But I can't recall the specific wording that we fell back on. Councillor Jackson: Well, my question, though, is related to that. Clearly, there is a grant and there is an agreement. Speaker 3: That's right. Yes. Councillor Jackson: But my question is, does this policy in some... This is a grant policy. Is that captured in this grant policy, that sort of grant that was given? That's the question. It is. Speaker 3: It is. It is. But can I just... Yes. I'll just... If I... I'll pull out the wording specifically for you and provide it to you by Thursday. That's okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just a clarifying question. Are you asking is, does this policy enable the granting of that particular grant? Yes. That is the question. Speaker 3: Yes. It does. And I just need to pull out the wording. I answered that question previously, but I can't recall the exact wording, and it took me a while, so... Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Pardon: Well... Councillor Parker. Oh, just to the motion. Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, look, this environmental grants policy, to get the policy changes, I suppose, over
01:28:00 time in council, it's been a lot of years that I've supported changes, so to give the opportunity for the community people, members out there, not only members, but individuals to apply for grants, and so I'm pleased to see the progress and the way we've framed this policy. Or we haven't, but I'll thank Craig and staff for framing it, but councillors endorsing it. I think some of the... In the past, when people were against, I suppose, taking the policy changes, they were saying, you know, we need to get it out of the environmental levy, the grants, and changing the policy so we can use some of the environmental levy for these particular projects. I think the rigour now that's put around this policy, I think, is very good.
01:29:00 And I think it gives more opportunity to actually enhance the biodiversity of Noosa Shire. And I thought it was a good comment from a councillor. And I think it was a good comment from a councillor, too, with regards to, to put that in the motion up front, with regards to tangible outcomes, because although it's said it's within the document, it sort of smacks you in the face today, and if you haven't got tangible outcomes, you know, what are we doing here, or what's the community groups doing? So I think that was important as well. So I really think... I think we can get some good future outcomes where we're getting some good outcomes. And I think out of this, yeah, we'll do a lot of good for the environment here, so thank you.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Juris, Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'll speak in favour of the proposal. I think this is another key step in the process of how we've reviewed where we were at the beginning of this term. And it's probably the last key. Deliverable from my checklist of what I think we should have achieved. So that's great. I think the best thing that will come out of this is in the name of the grant and its collaboration. And I think that's the key step that perhaps the council grants haven't previously encouraged. That's about the small and large environment, natural resource management, sustainability groups getting together and saying, how do we work with council or beside council to achieve that? And I think that's going to be an outcome through a long term project. And I think to have a meaningful impact for most projects I've been involved with are at least three years up and on. And that's going to be the key changes. It will be funding projects that do have an increased capacity to achieve meaningful outcomes.
01:31:00 It's a good step forward. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Juris is it yours to close? No, it's always him. Okay. Put the motion those in favour? Against? That's carried. Thank you. Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Kim. Now moving on to items referred from the services and organisation committee. Starting with the council meeting schedule. I'll move the vote, Mr Shen. Second. Moved by Councillor Jurisic and seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Speaker 1: I do have a question. Councillor Wilkie: Jo, you'll need to speak. Oh, sorry. Jo. Councillor Stockwell is leading the chamber. Do you want to? I've got some tritons in the chamber. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask if we just have a momentary break while the councillors get some throat lozenges sorted.