Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Welcome everyone to the special meeting. I'll call the meeting to order. This special meeting has only one item to consider. Attendance-wise, we appear to be missing Councillor Stockwell. We're hoping that he will appear any moment. Otherwise, everyone else is here. The item which we're dealing with today is a Planning and Environment Court appeal to change development approval conditions at 215 David Loway, Peregian Beach Beach. Councillor Wilkie, you want to go first? You've got something to say, haven't you? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have something to say. No, yes. It's probably all you want.
00:01:00 Look, I'd like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter. As defined under Section 175E of the Local Government Act. D. D? Where are we? Up there, yeah. Due to the current President of the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association, Barry Cottrell, providing a 200-day donation to my 2016 election campaign in February 2016. I would also like to note that the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association did not provide a donation to my election campaign. Nor am I a committee member or a general member of the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association. And as councillors will have seen in this report, the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association is a co-respondent in this court case. I believe I can consider this item impartially and in the public interest. And I'll leave it to my councillors to determine whether I remain in the room or not.
00:02:00 Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillor. I also wish to declare a perceived conflict of interest in the matter before council. I too received a $200 donation from resident Barry Cottrell towards my 2016 election campaign. I'm aware that Mr. Cottrell is the President of the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association. The PBCA was a co-respondent with council in the appeal case which resulted in the agreed conditions of development that are being considered today. As the report to council notes, there is no formal role for the co-respondent in the decision to be made by council today, as there is no requirement under the Planning Act for them to be notified of the proposed change to the court-issued development approval. However, staff have chosen to inform the co-respondent and indeed have attached the PBCA's response to the report to council. I am aware that Mr. Cottrell also made the position of the PBCA known to councillors via email. I can confirm that I am not and nor have I ever been a member of the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association. I believe I can consider the matter impartially and in the public interest,
00:03:00 but I accept that the decision as to whether I remain is now subject to determination by my fellow councillors and I'm happy to answer any questions and I think we'll need a new chair for this. Speaker 2: So councillors, both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, have actually declared an interest. Normally, if the Mayor would declare an interest, the Deputy Mayor would automatically assume the chair, but we've both declared a perceived conflict of interest. It's up to the meeting to determine who you wish to chair the meeting for the purpose of considering these two declarations. Councillor Jackson: I'll move that Councillor Glasgow chair. Speaker 2: Alright, I'll second. So we've got a mover which is Councillor Jackson, seconded by Councillor Pardon. I move that Councillor Glasgow chair the meeting for the purpose of considering these items. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to that? Can I ask all those in favour? Against, carried. We note that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor didn't vote in relation to that.
00:04:00 I'll hand over to Councillor Glasgow. Would you like me just to outline the process for the council? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, we've only done this a few times, what's it going next? Speaker 2: Yeah, so as you're probably aware that the process, and you take them one at a time, and perhaps my suggestion would be to take them in the order they were declared, that Councillor Wilkie be considered first, and what the council would need to do is to determine, and you can ask questions of Councillor Wilkie, but you can determine whether or not you believe there is a perceived or real conflict of interest in this matter. Obviously then the second part of that is if it's a perceived conflict of interest, whether you believe that the councillor can remain in the room and participate in the debate. So that's a matter for the council to consider. And in doing so, neither Councillor Wellington or Councillor Wilkie can vote in relation to that consideration. Councillor Glasgow: Alright, we'll do Councillor Wilkie first. Does anyone have any questions for the young man?
00:05:00 Are we standing? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just ask a question of Councillor Wilkie. I presume this is a similar conflict of interest which you previously provided, with regard to Mr Cotterell. Can you recall, my belief is we did accept it as a perceived conflict of interest, and remained in the room, but you will have a better recollection than I as to the last time this conflict arose? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, Mr Chair, the last time I declared this as a perceived conflict of interest was in relation to the granting of the ELI for the Fission Beach Surf Club, and councillors on that occasion resolved that I could remain in the room. Councillor Pardon: Anyone else? I'll just repeat this. Yeah, look, I do remember the last conflict of interest declaration, and that's correct as I understand it, that Councillor Wilkie has put forward there.
00:06:00 For me, as I've said over time, in a public meeting, councillors put forward the reasons why they declare, and that's fine. As I've always said, councillors live and die by their own sword and their own words and deeds, so I don't have a problem with Councillor Wilkie remaining in the room. Councillor Jackson: Look, I might also say that I think the conflict could only potentially be perceived, and that's because, in fact, Mr Cotterell or the PBCA are not actually the ones about whom the council has to make a decision. We're making a decision about the Tomco development and the request for a minor change. So, as I can see, what's brought this in is that Mr Cotterell's letter is included in the report,
00:07:00 and so there could be a perception of influence. But, yeah, look, I'm okay with that. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, my understanding on this one, I would accept it as a perceived conflict of interest. I believe consistency in past discussions on similar issues before council with regard to a perceived or real conflict in this manner and the relationship with Mr Cotterell from Councillor Wilkie have resulted in a perceived conflict of interest, and I think we should stand by that resolve and continue on in that matter. Councillor Glasgow: All right. Anyone else? No? Well, we'll put the motion in. Someone would need to move. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that we acknowledge that Councillor Wilkie has perceived conflict of interest, but he may remain in the room. And second it. Councillor Glasgow: Don't want to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No? Councillor Glasgow: Go on. Don't want to close? No. Okay, I'll put the motion to a vote for Franklin Centre Room.
00:08:00 Passed unanimously. Speaker 2: And then you need to do the same process for Councillor Wellington. Councillor Glasgow: Okay. Anyone have questions for Councillor Wellington? Speaker 2: Okay, so I want to move that, please, and second it. I'll move it. I'll second it. So just to clarify that what Councillor Jurisevic is moving is that there is a perceived conflict of interest and that Councillor Wellington would stay in the room to participate. Is that correct? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Yeah. Anyone want to close, Joe? No. I'm just in the same light that the matter has been of this potential conflict has been brought to us. In the previous matters, regarding matters in Caprigian, I see that to be consistent with the past decisions and I see no difference in the conflict in this time, so I'm quite happy to move that there's a perceived conflict of interest and for Councillor Wellington to remain in the room. Okay. Sorry. Sorry.
00:09:00 Councillor Glasgow: Sorry. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, that's okay. Look, similarly, as with Councillor Mulkey, I think in this case, because we're not having an application from these PDCA or from Count Barry Cudderall that it is because they've put forward a report that's on the agenda, I don't agree with the concept that it's the same as with the EOI because with the EOI there was a possibility and it looked very clear that Barry Cudderall was involved in one of the associations that had put forward for the EOI. So that was a different case, but in this case there's no question to me that this is a perceived conflict and that it is reasonable for people to stay in the room. Councillor Glasgow: Okay. Anyone else? No? I'll put the resolution to a vote. All in favour? Passed unanimously. Councillor Wellington, you can remain in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll resume the chair.
00:10:00 Mayor Wellington: I'll resume the chair. Councillor Jackson: Oh, you don't have to vote for that. No. No. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, councillors. We go on now to consideration of the matter before us. Any questions for staff on this? Councillor Jackson: I do have a question. Yes. I have several questions. It starts with actually something you've stated as you opened as well as what's written in the report. Can I just be clear? Are we still dealing with an appeal process at the moment or is the appeal finished and is this a later activity? Speaker 1: So the appeal has finished for Tom Coe. The judgment was issued with conditions in June, July this year. So that component has finished. But this is commencing a new matter. The applicant has made an application to the court to change that court approval. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify, we're not dealing with an appeal at the moment. We are dealing with a request.
00:11:00 Okay. Speaker 1: Well, it is an application to the court. So I guess I have framed it as an appeal. But it is an application to the court because ultimately the judge will decide it. Councillor Jackson: Right. Speaker 1: So council won't make the decision. No. I understand that. We can decide whether to support or not support the proposed change. But ultimately the court will make the decision. Okay. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify again, and I still find it odd to call it an appeal when it's not an appeal. Just to clarify, it's not an appeal. So I've read in the report that the co-respondent under the Planning Act did not need to be notified of a proposed minor change to the court issued under the development approval. So why would that be? Why don't they have to be notified? Speaker 1: Well, we'd have to ask the drafters of the planning legislation to fully understand that one. But that's the rules in the planning legislation.
00:12:00 There's no requirement for the applicant or for council to know that. Right. Councillor Jackson: So it would seem to indicate that the appeal is over because the co-respondent does not have to be involved. Is that right? Speaker 1: Yes. The appeal is over. That's right. Councillor Jackson: Okay. As the appeal is over and there was no requirement to notify the co-respondent, how did the co-respondent from the previous appeal obtain a copy of the applicant's proposed minor change? Speaker 1: So I think we've explained that in the report, but I can expand on it. The council offices chose to notify the co-respondent of, firstly, the pre-request response that we received, and then also of the application to the court. So we chose to notify them because they were co-respondents to the appeal.
00:13:00 And they did not need to be notified. You know, they made a significant contribution to the appeal. So I felt that was the courteous thing to do for our residents. Councillor Jackson: And can I ask if you, as staff, asked the ex-co-respondent to put a submission in? Speaker 1: I'm just trying to recollect the wording of my email, but I think I just suggested the timeframes around how it would work and indicated they may wish to comment. Councillor Jackson: So as the appeal is finished, and you felt it was courteous to invite the ex-co-respondent to be aware of this, why is it that this was published publicly, their letter has been published publicly, on not only today's agenda but the general committee agenda in September, as the correspondent doesn't appeal to have a role as the appeal is finished, so why is
00:14:00 it published? Speaker 1: They made quite a detailed comment to council on the proposed change, which they made a summary of in the report to council. Because it was such a detailed comment, we instead also chose to include a copy of their submission with the report to council. So by default, it's been published online as part of the council report. And so did anyone else get invited or allowed to make a submission? The co-respondent was the only one involved in the appeal, so no, I didn't choose to notify anybody else. I only notified the co-respondent to the appeal, given their significant involvement in the matter. Okay. Councillor Jackson: And did the applicant get invited to make a submission?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 1: Okay, as part of the pre-request response notice, there was a detailed submission to council and their reasons why council should agree to their proposed change. Then when the application's been made to the court, at the time we wrote this report, there was no other documents on the court website that we could add. Councillor Jackson: So what is the standing of the ex-co-respondent, or the president of PDCA in this case? What is his role or standing in relationship to this decision that council is making about whether to support or not support? Speaker 1: So an application for a minor change to the development approval, which is what the applicant is asking the court to decide, the rules in the Planning Act are around assessing the
00:16:00 application against the planning scheme and any other relevant matter that the assessment manager, or the court in this instance, considers relevant, so I think it is relevant for council to consider. Councillor Jackson: Okay, and what weight would you as assessor have given to the co-respondent's submission in the staff report? Speaker 1: What weight, we would give it weight like any other submission to an impact-assessable application. We would look at the reasons they have included as to why council should and shouldn't support their proposal. So we would give it similar weight to a submission, and that often means going back to the planning scheme requirements that are relevant to the assessment of the application. Councillor Jackson: So this is not an impact-assessable application? No, this is not an impact-assessable process, however, as I understand it, because you did not invite submissions in general.
00:17:00 Speaker 1: So the applicant has lodged an application for a minor change to the court, so it's not required to follow an impact assessment process. Now, the office's advice and recommendation to council is that this proposed change is not a minor change and should go through an impact assessment process, which would offer the opportunity for all of the community to contact the council. So that's a comment on the proposed change. Okay. Councillor Jackson: No. I don't have more questions, but I'm happy to let someone else ask a few before I move on. Councillor Jurisby? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. The report and the recommendation states that there is little in the way of short-term accommodation in the Peregian Beach area. I'm wondering if staff can provide us with an idea of how many motel-style accommodations exist in that end of the Shire. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's probably something I'd have to take on notice, Councillor Jurisby, to know for certain, but I'm at least, I'm aware of at least one other one on David Loway, which
00:18:00 was approved as a motel, but I'm hearing it may be permanently let at this stage, and certainly quite an older one. I'd have to come back to you. Councillor Jurisevic: So as far as the planning scheme goes, how does a motel differ from something, another form of short-term accommodation, such as a resort, for example? What would be the differences between a motel and a resort, as far as the planning scheme is concerned? Because there are a number of, I understand there are a number of resorts in the Peregian Beach area, or resort-style accommodation. Speaker 1: Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but perhaps if I answer it this way, in that there can be a range of short-term visitor accommodation, from caravan parks to backpackers, flight attendants, to flash packers, to motels, to, you know, resort-style accommodation. I guess I consider resort-style accommodation as quite high, you know, more high-end than a motel. A motel tends to be overnight or one or two-day accommodation, where resorts, people might
00:19:00 stay for a couple of, you know, a week or two, because there's more facilities there for them. So motels tend to be not fully self-contained all the time, not necessarily a kitchen. They may have a kitchenette. But not necessarily fully self-contained. Some of these units in the motel that's proposed, some of them are self-contained, but some are not, from memory. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all I was trying to clarify. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I'm going to ask a related question there, because in the staff report it refers to tourist, tourist accommodation, which I think is the terminology under the new, new supply. Is that right, Patrick? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jackson: And there's a discussion or a reference to sites identified for tourist accommodation in our retention developed for that use to maintain diversity of choice in housing and visit accommodation and affordability in the local area, and then goes on to look at outcomes.
00:20:00 And I'm thinking back to things like, say, Gympie Terrace, which is zoned in the new Noosa plan for tourist accommodation, and of course the diversity there isn't that every single development has to have a diversity of accommodation, but rather that the fact that it's zoning allows for a variety of different developments, which then provides that variety. So I'm a little bit confused about the use of the language in this report, arguing that this particular single development has to offer a variety of affordability and a variety of types of accommodation, when normally that tourist accommodation doesn't have that. So I'm wondering if there's a possibility that the zoning goes across a number of developments and implies there'll be a variety of developments. Speaker 1: I think to answer that question, it's probably easier to have a look at performance outcome PO8, which is highlighted a little bit further on in the report.
00:21:00 And so that's quite specific to this site, where it actually says, provides for a diversity of short-term accommodation types, including low-cost visitor accommodation to cater for a range of visitor accommodation experience. So my understanding is it does that, because this is quite a large site, it's not a small site where you might expect only one type of visitor accommodation on the site, whereas this is a lot greater area and more opportunities to provide that range of diversity. Mayor Wellington: So what you're saying, Kerry, is that the planning scheme can zone for an individual site that is specific to that site? Speaker 1: Yes, and it does do so. Yep. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify. So outcome PO8, I've now found it in my notes here, outcome PO8, what does an outcome PO8 mean? Is that something that has to be adhered to, or is that an outcome that is a preferred outcome? Speaker 1: It is an outcome of the scheme, so it's a performance outcome, so that is what the scheme
00:22:00 seeks to achieve. It's not just one solution as such, so it is an outcome of the new scheme, the draft scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So last week I read a report on a recent court case regarding staging that I thought was relevant because the court held that it does, in that case, that the change to the staging of development wasn't consistent with the intent of the approval. Can you give us a bit of background on that court case and whether you think it is relevant to this particular application? Speaker 1: Yes, so it was a court case between Sunshine Coast Council and developers of a supermarket and a unit development where they applied to the court to change their approval to essentially stage the development. So the development as currently conditioned was not staged, it was to be built in one stage, so it's a little bit of a difference between that proposal and this one.
00:23:00 But they applied essentially to build the shopping centre first and the units in the second stage. So the matter went to the Planning and Environment Court and first council. Council was asked to do a pre-request response notice. The council actually agreed with the proposed change, but the court did not. The court did not agree that it was a minor change on the grounds that the main reasons, the applicant was putting forward, were financial ones, that they wanted to see, the applicant said that the unit development couldn't be funded up front, they couldn't secure any buyers, they wanted to build the shopping centre first and make some money and build the units second. So the court found that because the proposed staging led to some uncertainty as to whether those units would ever be built.
00:24:00 And because of that, the court decided that they wanted to do a pre-request response notice. And because of that uncertainty, they said they considered it would result in potentially a substantially different development because those units may never be realised and built on the site. And the conditions put forward by the applicant at the time were not sufficient for surety for the court to agree and accept that proposed minor change. So there are some differences between that proposal and this proposal. This development is approved. The staging with the motel first and the holiday home second, or alternatively, build the lot in one go. Obviously, there's some differences around use types, but that's essentially the primary difference. Oh, I'm sorry. And the other issue, the applicant, to be fair to them, has also put forward a reason, not just financial reasons, but they've put forward the reason that they wish to change the staging due to control.
00:25:00 And they've also put forward the reason that they wish to change the staging due to the construction reasoning, because if they build the motel first and then seek to build the holiday home second, it will impact on the operation of the motel. So that didn't feature in the other proposal. So there are some differences, but I think it's a useful one when we look to uncertainty, because that's what officers are saying in respect to this proposal, that building the motel last does not give us any certainty that it will ever be realised. Councillor Jackson: I just have a question directly related to this. So I have also read the report provided through the newsletter of Collins, Biggers and Paisley. There was some what strike me as differences, and I'd be interested in your comment. So if the conditions set out, it says, this condition set out by council contemplated the prospect that stage two of the development would not commence.
00:26:00 And as a result, there would be no development. There was condition to be providing for lapsing of the uncompleted aspects of the development and condition to see providing for landscaping conditions in relation to stage two of the site if it was not developed. So that was in that example. They actually had conditions that allowed for what happens if they don't build it, a landscaping condition. So isn't this is this the same as this one? That seems quite different. They had conditions about what happens if it lapsed. Speaker 1: I did say there are differences between them, but this one has also a lapsing conditions similar to the other one. So this one will lapse within eight years, eight years, if the development is not completed within that time frame. The applicant on the Sunshine Coast one proposed it would also lapse if the development hadn't been completed.
00:27:00 It was a shorter time frame, but nevertheless, the same similarities. Are you following? Well, I'm following. I am listening. Are you still talking? Yeah. In terms of the landscaping, yes, this proposal doesn't include a condition around the landscaping or the remainder of the site like was proposed for the shopping centre. But as I indicated, those conditions were not accepted by the court as being appropriate or satisfying their concerns. Councillor Jackson: And I think there was something else that seems different, and I'll check with you. It says the development of the land was not able to commence, and the, sorry, the town planner expressed that development of the land is not able to commence. And then it was due to difficulties experienced by the applicant securing contracts for the sale of the proposed residential units. So in other words, that development, they were trying to sell the units and then seemed not to be successful. And so they said, we don't want to build them at all.
00:28:00 This does seem diametrically opposite to this particular request, because as I understand it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not the case. In this case, they're having trouble selling the units and the builder and the developer has said, I'll build them myself. And he's gone to the bank to see if he can build them. Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, some differences there. What the developer has said to officers is that they cannot fund the motel first. They need to be, the bank will not fund them for the motel. The bank will only fund them for the units in the, to build them first. Because I understand the bank has indicated that it's then easier for them to sell off those units, if there was some financial hardship that the developer incurred. But nevertheless, it raises issues of funding, like the court case that we're referring to. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Barnes. Yeah, question, just to follow all.
00:29:00 So, question. The council, if I'm understanding right, Sunshine Coast Council, decided to agree with the developer, if you like, and then the court disagreed. So the question is today, council agrees with the developer. What's the chances of the court, when I heard the appeal is supposed to be sort of over, so that's the question. What's the chance of the court then overturning the decision of council? I don't think, I don't think staff can answer that. Speaker 2: I can actually answer that. You can have a crack at it. Yeah, I used to play in the space a bit for a number of years. Essentially, the court exercises an independent mind. So they've got to be satisfied that it meets certain tests. So they'll go back and look at it independently. They'll hear the arguments from both parties. But they will need to determine that.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 In these cases, the onus is on the applicant and the developer to actually show that it's not a minor, sorry, to show that in any view it's a minor application or minor change. But the court's got to be satisfied. They don't just rubber stamp what the parties would say. They'll hear the arguments for and against it and they'll make their own determination. Mayor Wellington: But it's still not possible to say what one's chances are. No. Councillor Jurisvic. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm challenged by an element of what's in the recommendation. I'll ask for an understanding on staff with regard to it. It reverts to the low cost accommodation intended for the site. With regard to the motel, is the motel being built to a particular star standard as part of the development application? And as such, can we determine what the room cost may likely to be relative to other motels or short-term accommodation in the area?
00:31:00 Speaker 1: I can only say that a motel, I would consider, and it does depend on how they fit out the motel at the end of the day, but a motel is typically considered low to mid-cost, probably more mid-cost than low, not necessarily high, particularly in this location, I would think, adjacent to the IGA and its loading docks. You know, it's not, it's a bit removed from the beach as well, so I would tend to probably classify it's likely to be more mid-range cost. But yeah, that's probably as far as I can comment. I don't know for sure what it can, you know, what likely cost it will be at the end. Councillor Jurisevic: But there's, but there's nothing in the development application stating what star rating that the motel may be built to, three, four, five star type rating? Speaker 1: No, and definitely not. We wouldn't be able to condition that. So you can only look at the building style, what facilities it proposes, the size of the room, its location, to help you try and determine what range it might be.
00:32:00 Councillor Glasgow: Thank you. Yes, I'm a bit disillusioned with this sufficient, sufficient authority, assurity, sorry, sufficient assurity that you read in the other case. With the Sunshine Coast Council, and we struggled from the conversation we had last week, we struggled to find that, to get with that. What's our lawyer called? Wakefield Sykes? Wake? Is that the lawyer? Wake? Yeah, our lawyer. To get that in this contract, to be able to get that sufficient authority, I can't say it, sorry, authority. Speaker 1: Assurity. Councillor Glasgow: Assurity. To get that sufficient assurity here in this, you can't get it from the lawyer. Is that, was that what we understood on Friday? Speaker 1: Yeah. I've had, I've had several conversations with our solicitor, Wakefield Sykes, who was the planning solicitor for this matter and our other planning appeals, to ask him if there's any way that council can have some assurity that this motel would be, would proceed.
00:33:00 You know, can there be an agreement between the parties? Can there be a bond as such put up? He's advised that no, there's no way that we can be sure that this would occur. He said that trying to impose a bond around that matter would be not lawful. If the applicant would agree, the court probably wouldn't impose it because it's not lawful. So, our officers have explored that to see whether there's some way to give assurity because that's, that's really the basis of officers' concern that if the staging's changed, this motel won't proceed. And he hasn't, there's no lawful way that we can do that. Councillor Glasgow: Okay. So, we got it, it's zoned out. We want to have this use there, the short term and the motel. We can't get the assurity to get it there. Is there any other form that we can get it through the way, you know, for instance, if they do all the civil works first, that's kind of thing, because I'm not in the game
00:34:00 of, you know, DAs or developers. Is there any other assurity that you can get in there of the way he builds it? To ensure that the motel gets . Because we want this use, is that right? This is the use we want there, isn't it? This is not contrary to the planning scheme. We want this medium to low scale, low scale, 22 or 30 from memory, is it? Motel rooms, is it? From memory? Yeah, about that, 22 or 30. Small, this is, this is a use we want there. We want the short term also at the back. But we just can't get the assurity to do the motel first, but we, we can't get things working in more of the planning. The civil aspect with the, you know, what happens from downstairs or how they do things to get the operational works and all things and get that stamped off. They put the services and the concrete in the ground, they've got to build a damn motel eventually, haven't they? Speaker 1: That was part of the case put forward by the developer in relation to the Sunshine Coast
00:35:00 case that they were proposing a lot of the infrastructure in the first stage. So the court didn't accept it in that instance. And certainly with the beach road holiday homes, there will be a lot of infrastructure built with the first stage. So similar comparison, but the court at the end of the day didn't accept it on that other proposal. In terms of the uses for the site, the key use that we really want to see on this site is the motel. It's not necessarily the beach road, they're holiday homes. We do have a lot of other holiday homes in Noosa. It's, they're not necessarily needed or necessarily going to serve what we need for the area. It's the motel that is missing from the area. That's the key to this development and why officers are saying we shouldn't change the staging. Mayor Wellington: Kerry, I think there was a broader question in there about whether staff considered whether there are any other opportunities to be able to ensure that a motel gets constructed through a condition process. The suggestion was operational works, but are there any other options?
00:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, my question that follows on from that may allude to sort of what you're trying to say, along the lines of what Councillor Glasgow was, yeah. Is there, if the civil works were undertaken and the services were provided to accommodate a motel, does that, would that not provide sufficient surety that a motel is the only thing that could be built on the motel site? Speaker 1: The very simple answer to that is no. It really doesn't assure that a motel will be built or the uses could still occur. So we have considered all options to try and look at that and certainly with the beach road holiday, sorry, the holiday homes, you know, the majority of, yeah, the majority of infrastructure is built with the holiday homes first. You know, the stormwater devices are built, the acoustic measures must be built, the roadway, the entrance into the site is built. So a lot of it is built, but it still doesn't give you the assurances that the motel will
00:37:00 eventuate. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Chemby? Yeah, Kerry, funding of course is all important for an applicant. What weight does the court place on the applicant's financial circumstances in determining staging? And if you, if you can refer to that court case you mentioned previously. Speaker 1: So in the court case, it was the funding issue that gave the court the most concern and gave them concern that potentially it wouldn't happen because the reason, the primary reason that developer put forward for the change in staging was about funding, a little bit different to what we're seeing here, but nevertheless, it was about funding. Typically, my experience with the court is that the court does not give financial reasons very much weight in deciding matters. And certainly the new planning act and the SPAR used to say for impact accessible applications, which this one was, a person's financial, personal circumstances are not relevant to
00:38:00 the decision making and shouldn't be considered. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. Councillor Wilkie? Thank you. You mentioned construction phase interruptions as one of the applicant's prime reasons for changing the staging. What options does the applicant have to ensure that unit construction doesn't interfere with motel operation if the, if the, if the staging stays the same, as in motel within the first stage? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I, I consider the applicant has, has some, a number of options. I think that the applicant has the option of one, changing the staging plan around, changing, sorry, the, the site layout around so the motel is built in a different location. Two, you can construct the whole development in one go. Three, you could construct the motel with say some of the holiday homes to provide a bit of buffer from them. I think there's a number of ways. So the applicant could address that if they were so concerned about that issue.
00:39:00 I have to also say it's not unusual for this to occur where you've got development next to a construction site. It's not, it's not ideal for anyone's business or operational, but it's not unusual that this, this does occur. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie? One more question please. If the motel is permitted to be built in a later stage, is the applicant within its, sorry, if the, the applicant is given permission to build the motel in the later stage, is the applicant within their right to submit a new application over the balance of the site after the units are built? Speaker 1: Yes. The applicant could come back to council and ask to change the approval again and seek, say, more holiday homes to be built in place of the motel. There's nothing to stop the applicant from making that application. And I think it gets more difficult to resist that if we don't insist on the motel being up front. Just, just quickly. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Councillor Blaster?
00:40:00 Councillor Glasgow: So we're making a decision on here. You said that on, this is like a very arbitrary comment of maybe the applicant might build holiday homes, or maybe he might not even do this, or this seems, you know, is it common in this sort of planning 101 to make decisions on what maybe the market might or might not do? Do you often make, do you understand what I'm sort of saying? Like, do you often? If we're talking something different, we're just saying like a zoning of something from whatever it might be, different A to B. And we say, oh, maybe the market might do this. Do you still make those decisions with what you do? And because this whole, maybe the developer might do this, maybe they might do that, just doesn't sort of fit with me. If it's a use that we want on the site. Speaker 1: What officers are saying is the proposed change to the staging creates uncertainty that the motel will be delivered. So that's what we're saying. And we're saying that that is not a minor change, because it will not necessarily assure
00:41:00 that the motel is delivered. So that is relevant. And that court case that we've been talking about goes to that, because it talks about the court are not agreeing to the proposed change to that development, because it created that uncertainty. So it's certainly a relevant matter. It's not something that comes up a lot for us in planning. Would you like to deal with more concrete things? No. But nevertheless, that uncertainty that we've raised has been recognized by the courts. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to follow up what Councillor Glasgow has just talked about, because in the staff report, there's also some quotes of a consulting planning expert that council has been using in relationship to this development. And the planning expert's comments are quoted. And the words are along the line. The lines of, or are, the proposed change may affect the ability of the proposed development
00:42:00 to operate as intended. It may result in the removal of a component. It has the potential to at least arguably result in substantially different development. The proposed change may not be a minor change. So I would support similarly to you. You're not out here saying you're asking a question. No. But the question is, is this evidence that is being used? I mean, this is the planning expert being put in the report as evidence. The planning expert, is this evidence that there will not be a motel built? Speaker 1: We provided those comments in the report, because that's what the advice we had obtained from our expert planner, who was our expert planner for the court case previously for this development. He was asked to provide advice on this within a very short time frame. So I would assume this is why. He has put May and rather than not come out and so clearly said.
00:43:00 So I've provided it to you because that's all the information we have for that. And that's what he said. But we were under pressure to provide a response to the developer about our position. We said we get a second opinion. We tried to keep that advice quickly and moving for the developer. And because of that time frame, I expect that's why he'd come out and not being so definitive. Councillor Jackson: So he has not been definitive. He's said maybe, maybe not. Yet when I read the report, it says, oh, well, we agree with him and therefore we won't go along with supporting this. So in a sense, you're agreeing that it may or may not be true. And yet the way it's written, it's as if the motel won't be built. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You seem to be arguing about the wording in the report. Well, I'm trying to understand how... The report is quite, councillor, please. The report is quite clear. And as you've read from the report, the report makes it clear what the consultant's position is, whether or not you choose to accept the consultant's recommendation or advice is up
00:44:00 to you. But it's quite clear in the report. Councillor Jackson: Did the consultant advise not to go forward? Is that what he... I mean, everything I've read was that he just said maybe. So what did the consultant advise? Speaker 1: The consultant... Was asked to comment on whether he considered the proposed change a minor change. And if so, did he consider the proposed change appropriate? So he responded within a few days of giving us that advice. So we responded quite quickly. Officers have obviously had a few weeks to consider this. So we have formed our own opinion about the matter. So we're not just relying on our consultant's advice. We have our own opinion. And that's what we've put forward and recommended to council. Mayor Wellington: I mean, I don't think a consultant can be categorical about what's going to happen into the future. So they're obviously going to use terminology that allows for some latitude in terms of what may happen.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 No consultant will be able to say what's going to happen. Councillor Jackson: Well, I hear you speaking and not asking a question. But can I ask, then, how can you categorically kind of be suggesting that this applicant is likely to default on doing the motel? I mean, would you... Mayor Wellington: I don't think anyone's making a categorical statement. But you can answer that, Kerry. It's a matter of likelihoods, Kerry, in your argument. Speaker 1: Yeah, but we have to take a position. And we have said throughout the report, potentially, that's in our recommendation as well. So we had to take a position at the end of the day to make a recommendation to council, just like the court did in that decision. I mean, the court decision and judgment was about potentially. So we were saying and using the similar words as that judgment. Councillor Wilkie: Mr. Chairman, I have a legal question for the CEO. And it goes to the question of the difference between evidence and proof. Could it be argued that the consultant's advice is evidence in support of staff's advice,
00:46:00 but not proof that a certain outcome will be assured? Speaker 2: I would look at the risk of giving illegal advice. It really comes down to terminology to some extent. Evidence occurs in a courtroom when you get tested. What we're getting at the moment is advice. They're two different things. So advice is untested in the court. What we're doing, we're getting advice from our staff, qualified staff, and from a consultant. It turns into evidence when it gets before the court and it's tested. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Stockwell. I'm going to move to staff recommendation. Thank you. Do I have a seconder? I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. Can you speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do, sir. Yes. I understand that there may be councillors who wish to facilitate this development in the way that the applicant has requested, but I also understand that we fought a fairly lengthy and costly court battle to achieve an outcome, and that outcome for me was underpinned
00:47:00 by the fact that this site was providing a motel. If the applicant had come and said, well, we will provide some holiday homes, I doubt that the council would have settled in the way it did. And staff have already said that. They've said that in their opinion, the planning need is for a motel development. And we refer to what is now a very advanced draft of the planning scheme, which quite clearly says in POA that we want a site, this site, to have a mix of tourist facilities, accommodation uses. I think it's very important to understand that the condition within the settlement that the motel was to be developed in stage one was not a by chance occurrence. It was by design. It was to achieve the outcome that is needed for the community to drive our economy.
00:48:00 It is there because it makes good planning sense to fill a gap in what we are doing. And that's what we are currently providing in that part of our Shire in terms of tourist accommodation. We know that there's lots of examples in history where the motel or the resort or the other forms of accommodation are put to a later stage and 20 years down the track haven't been built. We've been talking about one recently. This is the uncertainty that staff's talking about and to me there is no reason at this stage for council to vary from the start to the end. It will be tested in the court and we are not meant to be coming up with a legal interpretation. We are meant to be listening to the advice of our staff and determining whether the outcomes that we've set down for our planning scheme for the Bridging Beach can be achieved by the proposed change to the development staging. And for me, I believe there is sufficient uncertainty that that won't be achieved that
00:49:00 I think that the staff's recommendation is the most appropriate one. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I will. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Well, I do not agree with the staff recommendation, which is against supporting the requested change. To me, the request does appear reasonable, simply changing the staging to build the villas first and then the motel. And as I understand it, this is based on the bank's willingness to pay for the construction of the villas, which the applicant had hoped to sell off the plan for. But it wasn't getting anywhere. So now he's willing to bear the cost himself. I'm concerned with this agenda originally being labelled as an appeal and which I do believe was misleading. The appeal is over. I seriously question why the correspondence to the finalised appeal received a preview before Council even ever saw it and was published. His staff was published in two agendas.
00:50:00 This appears to distort what staff have given us a third party submission published. Which was not required under the Planning Act. And furthermore, the arguments made in the report and separately in a staff email are not substantiated with any firm, solid evidence. There's a lot of maybes and perhaps and potentially. The consulting planning expert's advice was not definitive, only stating that changes may have the potential to at least arguably result in a substantially different development. That is not evidence. And it does certainly not show that.
00:51:00 And furthermore, I don't think the staff report is offering evidence of what the demand and supply situation is. And in fact, there is demand for a range of housing for short-term letting, and I think that's evidence through what council is doing about short-stay letting across the Shire. So, after the significant appeal process, which has cost council around a million dollars, and a planning and environment court mediated outcome which has agreed, where the applicant has agreed and gone a long way toward meeting council's requirements, remembering he originally wanted permanent accommodation, and he's gone along with visitor accommodation, and a substantially different design.
00:52:00 I see no... I see no reason for prolonging this process even further, costing more money, and putting more obstacles in the way of the applicant's ability to proceed with the approved development. And as a result, I will not vote for the staff-recommended motion. Mayor Wellington: It's no longer a staff recommendation. We are now talking to a motion. Oh, okay. I will not support the motion. We will support Councillor Stockwell's motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair, a question to the CEO, if I may, for some legal clarification with regard to something the council said, but also with regard... Yes, we'll add that to how the... The process then continues. No matter what happens today, any decision goes back to the court for ultimate decision, because this has been a court appeal process by which the final decision has been made by the court. No final decision or any changes to this can be made by council without the court's indulgence,
00:53:00 or the court's decision. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Effectively, what's happened... We've had a court appeal which has now been resolved. Both conditions relate to that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. This application originally lodged back in December 2016 attracted much interest because the old caravan park site in the heart of Bridgian is the last significant parcel of undeveloped land in Bridgian village. Council's long term strategy is reflected in both the current and the draft planning scheme intends the site to provide some low cost accommodation and to play its part in supplying a variety of
00:54:00 accommodation types to suit a range of budgets and indeed this project has come a long way since the original application was refused in October 2017 for being in conflict with the planning scheme. The then layout did not address the fire hazard overlay which has taken on special significance after the recent event and the scale and character of the buildings were not in keeping with the eastern beaches locality and contrary to the intent providing some low-cost accommodation. Again because of the significance of the site when the applicant appealed this refusal in December 2017 the court action triggered an immediate response from the Bridgian community who quickly raised $40,000 to enable the Bridgian Beach Community Association to participate as a co-respondent on their behalf in order to keep the residents informed of the court process and support the council in defense of the Noosa planning scheme and I raise this and mention that figure just to show the depth of
00:55:00 feeling and interest in this particular application. Extensive mediation involving all parties followed with the council in June 2019 approving settlement of the appeal in agreement with the applicants changes to the layout with motel units and visitor units more consistent with the Noosa plan strategic intent to provide a range of visitor accommodation choices. The court ordered conditions agreed to by the applicant, the council and the community representatives as the PBCA included a clause stating that if the development was to be staged the motel was to be built in the first stage. This was to ensure that the lower cost element of the accommodation would at last be provided. For me today's discussion goes to broader principles that if a planning scheme represents a contract that is a clear agreement between the planning authority the community and the development industry and the
00:56:00 current and draft planning schemes were the guiding documents underpinning the mediation that took place between all parties to reach that mediation outcome. The Bridgian community raised $40,000 in a matter of days to suit the Noosa planning scheme defended including the strategic intention that some low-cost accommodation be provided on the site and a range of accommodation types to suit all budgets be included. It's well understood that luxury dwelling units that make up the balance of the site are already very common in Peregian Beach but motels are not. So taking all steps to ensure a motel is completed is a prime consideration. If the conditions were changed to permit the motel to be provided at a later stage there is no assurance this will happen as the applicant would be entirely within their rights to not build it and submit a new application. If Noosa Council has to put a position to the planning and environment
00:57:00 court about this application to change courts approval I must support the position recently agreed to by all parties including the applicant the community and the council. Ultimately the court may and likely may decide the outcome but I must support the conditions agreed to by all parties after months of extensive mediation. In order for the community and industry to have a clear understanding of the significance and strength of the Noosa planning scheme I support the planning staff's advice which has reflected the Noosa planning scheme's intent very admirably in this case and the community who have dipped into their own pockets to back the long-term strategic intent of this council and its current and future Noosa plan and I agree that what is being sought is not a minor change. I support the motion. Councillor Jurisevic. I've been involved in the building industry for a long long time over the years from a very
00:58:00 Councillor Jurisevic: A number of applications that have come before us that have latched over time. So a development application and a planning approval, there's no surety that anything will get built. I've seen development applications come to us after being approved, coming back for minor and may changes over the years. So again, that first approval is no guarantee that what ultimately gets built is what is We've seen a vast array of changes with regard to surety of what actually gets developed. But I empathise to a degree with the developer on this one, I see the challenges, the financial
00:59:00 challenges that are extended to all developers. Banks aren't making money any easier to come by. But my understanding on this one sort of leans towards where Councillor Stockwell headed with his argument. I think I was swayed to a large degree by what he said. The approval in this case rested primarily with the motel accommodation. I don't think Council would have ultimately gone to settlement had there not been a motel element to this component. The caravan park was the low cost accommodation. I think it's a shame for the community the caravan park has been lost over time. I think that was the principal low cost accommodation provision for the region. Caravan parks unfortunately are a dying breed for some strange reason, yet caravanning seems to be increasing in popularity.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 So a motel probably the next best option. And principally I think the reason why that Council agreed to it was because it was a good idea to support or take the judgment of the court without fighting further and accept that that was the inevitable income with the short, the 20 or so short term accommodation units in there to be an addendum to that motel provision on the site. So I won't, I'll be supporting the staff recommendation, even though- Sorry, I've got a motion. Mayor Wellington: It's no longer a staff recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Mayor Wellington: It's now a motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you for that. Thank you for correcting me. I'll be supporting the motion that is before us, that follows the staff recommendation with regard to trying to ensure that the motel is the first element built in this development. Councillor Pardon: That's Hugh. Councillor Clark. Nice to meet you. Mr Shen. Yeah, look, tough one, councillors, on the face of it.
01:01:00 The wisdom of Job sometimes to sort these things out. And I agree with councillor Jackson. I agree with you. I agree with you in the subjectivity of the writing here, whether it's a planner or whether it's someone looking at, you know, the economic impacts, et cetera, et cetera, and many of the things we deal with are subjective. The key, I suppose, if I look, when I went through page eight, basically at first off the top of my head, it doesn't matter to me which is built first. Not really. I don't care. Stage one, switching around. That's okay. On the face of it. And if I look at page eight, where you go through, change may be considered a result of substantially different development if the proposed change, things like A, involves a new use.
01:02:00 Well, it doesn't. And you can go right down that list to I. And really, I don't know. That's why a judge does this stuff. Someone who's very experienced. Because if you go down that list, there's not a lot of things where you can say, well, this is a major change if you go down the list. Impacts on traffic, et cetera, et cetera. And that's why, pardon, I'll never sort it out. And as I say, and I asked a question about that other court case, about our legalities and where we stand and whatever. I don't know what the court might do. Because the staff that was brought up, that was brought up in the debate, and we all had a look at that. So it was fair to ask that question, I believe, about legalities, et cetera. That aside, no one can tell us how a judge will decide the case. I've not seen anyone that can foresee that.
01:03:00 The critical thing, I suppose, in the report for me, when I got to the court, I said, well, I'm going to go back to page nine at the bottom, where it said, it's noted that the applicant recently agreed to the proposed conditions and the court order was issued on the 21st of June 2019, approximately two months prior to the application being lodged. It's also relevant to note the applicant proposed the current staging. Now, that makes it tough, doesn't it? That makes it tough not to support these staffs or the motion before us, in my opinion. So, having said all that, thank you. Let's go. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, like I said, it's a tough one. It's a real, real tough one. But we're always talking about, you know, following the Noosa plan and continuing with our decisions to always follow the Noosa plan. And staff wants, they want this, right?
01:04:00 This is low to medium cost residential. This is low to medium cost residential. Sorry, not residential. Short term accommodation. And Joe put it right. Caravans are a dying, a dying breed. Caravan parks are a dying breed. And maybe in 50 years' time, we'll turn around and go, where'd all the motels go? We've only got one damn motel left at Peregian Beach. You know, it's, get with the times. Things are changing. Caravans, caravans are changing. And obviously, everyone going into short term accommodations now and Airbnb and peer to peer and those type of things, motels might be on the way out in 50 years. You never know. We've got to get with the times. And it's a shame that the caravan park's gone. But it's great that this low cost, medium cost, short term would be in there. Yes, it's not ideal with the short term, but that's the market, isn't it? That's what has got to be done there to make it work and to make it viable. I'm like Councillor Jackson too, this whole maybe, what if, might do, don't know, I could
01:05:00 do this, I could do that kind of talk. Doesn't seem viable to lose something that's going to be really, really progressive in Peregian Beach. It's so short-sighted to think Peregian Beach's not going to need a motel in the next 50 years in this site. So I don't think that's a plausible cause to deny it on those, oh, he may not do that, or that may not happen, or I don't know, that doesn't seem like the right, even in what Councillor Jackson said as well. So I can't support the staff on those, it's not a motion, is it? It's a resolution on the fact that we may, we may lose it because he may not do this. Absolutely. And the applicant may not do that. What if he did do it and we had a great 30 bedroom motel there and we had people coming up that could afford to live there and bringing Peregian Beach and the community alive with just
01:06:00 average Joe families running the mill, Bob and Jane, having a good time in Peregian Beach, not spending $400 a night in Hastings Street. So I can't support it, I'm sorry. Mayor Wellington: Look, it's important to note that we're not assessing the year. We're assessing the applicant. We're assessing an application. And the reason we don't, as you're all aware, assess applicants is because whatever decisions we make, if we approve, developments actually carry through with the property, not with the applicant. So, of course, we can make a decision here and the applicant can choose to sell it and whatever decisions we make follow through onto the ensuing owner or owners. Now, in this case, the applicant has argued that there's a need to stage the development, because if the motel's constructed first, its operations may be impacted by the construction of the 26 dwelling units. However, we have to keep in mind the fact that the applicant, in fact, proposed during
01:07:00 the settlement of the appeal, they proposed that it be constructed simultaneously. It was their premise that it would be all constructed at once. And I appreciate that there's difficulties with financing it and I feel for them, as do other people. However, as staff pointed out, we don't normally make planning decisions on the basis of finance issues faced by a developer. They're matters for the developer, not the council, in terms of financing. They're matters, in fact, that developers have to consider before they bring applications to council, ideally. From council's point of view, we need to make planning decisions on what we believe's best for the community, not just the applicant. And, indeed, that's what our planning scheme aims to do here, to determine what the community, and here I mean both the resident and the business community, are likely to benefit from in terms of what's idealised for this site. And the scheme has identified a need for greater diversity of tourism accommodation at Peregian. So that comes down to the question, then, how important is this proposed motel to the accommodation
01:08:00 mix in Peregian? And, arguably, the motel only partly provides the affordable accommodation that we would idealise. Certainly, it doesn't make up for the loss of the old accommodation mix in Peregian. But, obviously, some diversity will help to provide what the planning scheme idealises as a range of visitor accommodation choices, and what the new plan, the draft plan, refers to as diversity and choice of visitor accommodation. You could argue that the advice from the consultant isn't definitive, but there's no way it could be. No consultant is so definitive that they can actually be prescient enough to tell you exactly what's going to happen in the future. No one knows if a development plan is going to be effective or not. Whether a developer's going to sell a block, whether they're going to go belly up, or what their circumstances will be. So I think it's a bit churlish to critique the advice by suggesting it wasn't sufficiently definitive, when there's no way, in fact, that it could be definitive.
01:09:00 I think that Councillor Jackson has a point in terms of the topic of the report. It does suggest this is a court appeal. In fact, it would have been better if it had been reworded, and we'll look at this maybe at the end of the future, that it is a change to development approval conditions relating to a planning and environment court appeal. But the appeal and the appeal numbers still have to be in there, because what we're looking at is the changes to conditions there. The addition of the PBCA position in the report was a decision by staff, and I understand it was shared with councillors by email, certainly I received it anyway, so we would have received it whether it was in the report or not. And it's not uncommon for council people to do that. It's not uncommon for people to consider stakeholder positions when we're looking at development applications. It's then up to each councillor to determine whether or not they should take on board those opinions. It's up to us. There's nothing wrong with receiving opinions. I mean, we've got a mountain of them in relation to the planning scheme, and it's up to us
01:10:00 to determine. And it's not uncommon for people to email us with their opinions, too. So, personally, I don't see it as onerous to have to consider the position of a community group that staff have chosen to attach to the report. Whether or not we give it weight is up to us, because ultimately the decision is ours. We ask planning staff for advice all the time, and again, we can choose whether to accept or reject that advice. I don't think we should question their ability to be able to provide frank and fearless advice, because that's exactly what we're asking of them. And in this case, it's up to each of us to determine whether or not we choose to accept that advice, and the advice of the consultant, and or any opinions on this matter. And having weighed all that up myself, I'm going to support the motion. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question. Certainly. Motels. I used to stay in those in the 60s. Are there any motels these days in Noosa Shire?
01:11:00 Speaker 1: Yes, there's a couple. Where are they? I don't know. Well, probably the closest one to us is Noosa Drive on the right-hand side as you're heading up the hill. There's a motel approved in Bridgham. It's built. It's an old one. I think it was built in about the 70s. Speaker 2: Anchor Motel, Water Rock. Just across the bridge here. Yeah, Water Rock. Anchor. The one just over the bridge. Councillor Jackson: No kitchens, just rooms. Councillor Pardon: No, Anchor has a kitchen. Councillor Jackson: Is that a motel? Councillor Pardon: There's a kitchenette. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, there are older ones that are approved with kitchens and the like. So, yes, there's a few in Noosa. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Can you close, Councillor Scott? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will close. I think there's some important debate that's had. And the key thing to me is, one is, Councillor Wilkie outlined some of the history. And what it showed was that the local community, through a very long-standing relationship with a well-respected community organisation, raised $40,000, as well as the hundreds of
01:12:00 thousand dollars of ratepayers' money that this council invested to get the right outcome for this site. And the right outcome included a motel as the primary objective, as one of the primary objectives. And, Councillor, I was going to mention about the short-term accommodation for councils. It's also important to note in the report where it says that the joint export report economic need report. Highlighted that the proposed motel will have a particular focus on its conferencing facility to help assist you. Councillor, you're in response mode. Yes, I am. You cannot introduce new motel. I can, because I'm responding to Councillor Glasgow saying it's for the Jarrablo. So, I'm saying, in fact, it's more. Fair enough. Okay. So, and there is relatively little commercial accommodation provided within Peregian Beach. And that there is some need for motel-style accommodation and related conference facilities. We know that Tourism Noosa have highlighted that as one of the gaps in Noosa. So, there's another reason, not just for the short-term moderate cost, but to bring
01:13:00 the conferencing facility on as the first priority. I also think it's really important to commend staff for seeking the views of the co-respondent. It may be that under the minimum requirements of the legislation, we didn't have to, but as a councillor, I think it's very, very, very important to understand what our community thinks. And particularly when that community has invested $40,000 of their hard-earned to get to an outcome the council's happy with. So, to me, the fact that staff have asked this enriches our ability to debate this and my understanding of this issue. And well done. I urge your support for the motion. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'll put the motion. All those in favour. Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Pardon, Wellington. All those against. Glasgow. And Jackson. The motion is carried. And that concludes today's meeting.
01:14:00 Thank you for your attendance, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.