Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 1: To the US and UK. We also have a part time rep that's based in the UK, Sandra Leach. And for you that may know her, she actually has lived and has had a house at Tewantin for the last 15 years. So she comes back for two months a year. So she really knows Noosa. We attend ATE and we usually have a very strong presence there within the Queensland stand and a number of other trade shows and events across the world. We have a question. You've been very successful in attracting visitors from interstate and overseas from those markets. Yes. Who, what destination is your, are your prime competitors for those travellers? Absolutely. Well, the rest of the Sunshine Coast. Yeah. And potentially with Sundays, not so much Cairns. And then of course, Sydney, Melbourne. So for international travellers, we're trying to focus with them and with the partnership that we've got with the Sunshine Coast Airport and Visit Sunshine Coast is to fly into Queensland and and disperse throughout Queensland and maybe go to the Rock or Uluru rather than arrive in Sydney and Melbourne to the tourists and then maybe a couple of days on their way out up in Queensland. So what about the European, UK and New Zealand traveller? What international destinations? Oh, internationally. Well, we've got the rise of the likes of Bali, believe it or not. It's become very popular tourist wise. That beach and sands environment in Southeast Asia is very popular.
00:01:00 It's experiencing a lot of demand at the moment. And there is new resorts being established there? Throughout Vietnam, some of the most amazing amount of money has been spent in inclusive resorts. So the Da Nang area, it's incredible. I actually did a site inspection there myself two years ago on a holiday. But the all inclusiveness nature and the seamlessness of the transfers and landing in country is a is a very attractive proposition to international tourists. UK is our primary market. We certainly continue to do a lot of good work in there. What we want to do is make it easy for them to get here because it's such a long journey to get across the world. And certainly with the Sunshine Coast Airport, potentially becoming international, we want to make sure that we're targeting the right audience. As you would have seen, we actually just announced as part of the aviation partnership, extended flights from New Zealand into that airport.
00:02:00 Which will be, you know, a boon for us here at Noosa. So continuing on our and this is a little bit into the future. So our international marketing campaign for the rest of this financial year is to have a sustainable tourism market. So that means that we're putting money into this space that will continue will build up a market and will continue to work in that market over the next two to three to five years. We'll continue with the value over volume and building our international profile. We also you'll see in that second that last dot point alignment of personalities. That's social talk, social media talk for personalities that we're attracting people that are in our target market. So you know, high yielding travelers. We also do it through the development of packages and the winter campaign, which you would all be acutely aware of the huge success we had in Melbourne with the
00:03:00 painting a tram down there. Goodbye, winter blues come up and visit us, but also initiatives such as Australia's nature coast, which is an initiative between visit Sunshine Coast, the Fraser Coast tourism events destination, Gimpy region. And it is a three year program that we've all come together and said, let's package us up together because 97% of travelers these days want to have that natural experience and don't want to leave a footprint and have that sustainable experience. So we're going to be doing that. So we're going to be doing that. So we're going to be doing that. So we're going to be doing that. So we're going
00:04:00 They can have that with going to Fraser Island, with Rainbow Sands, the Kooloola area, and of course Noosa. So together we put together funding, and TEQ saw that this was an important initiative, so they matched the dollar for dollar activity that we did. So we're into the second year of that. It's a huge opportunity, and we package that up and then sell that at the trade markets overseas in our target market areas. So you won't see that advertising or that work so much locally. That's for our in-market areas, but that's an example of how the packaging to the trade works. And obviously the other mechanism that we have in attracting high-yield travellers that stay a bit longer is through our events. And we have 16 that we sponsor and work with, and those 16 events have to comply with our sustainability checklists. Otherwise they don't receive funding. But obviously the Tri, as you would all well know, is one of the most successful in the world, and has just recently won an amazing award for the Asia-Pacific region.
00:05:00 So a very high-quality event that attracts a lot of people worldwide. As to with the food and wine, which is now the eat and drink, brings all the foodies up from Sydney and Melbourne. And they're, as we've seen, the higher spending, longer staying travellers. So those events are really challenging. And they're really targeted to keeping those target market people in-market. So we also have a focus on product renewal. I would like to say product beginnings and renewals, because there's a number of different things and I'll go through that we're sort of looking at and we'll refocus the team's work this coming year to these initiatives. Obviously, we have our Welcome to Noosa, because there's nothing worse than turning up at an accommodation or a restaurant and having bad sleep. It doesn't make you feel good, it's not good for word of mouth, and it's a bad start to your holiday.
00:06:00 So we have a program where we train tourism industry and how to welcome visitors and how to connect and talk and make sure that you're listening to what they want and needs are. 2,430 completions and ongoing. There's another session this week. Noosa EcoCheck version one and two. We have sessions again this week, fully subscribed. This is a Facebook page. It's a fantastic program. It gives awareness to your day-to-day workers in the industry about what our industry is wanting to move towards and how they can help. We've had 600 completions and 19 hero members, and it's a full half-day, two full half-day intensive courses. So great that we're getting people along to that. Refresh Noosa. We could do better in this program. It is in its infancy. So far as it would need a good five-year program lead up.
00:07:00 But what it is, is actually working with each of our accommodation sectors to transforming their late 80s, early 90s look and feel and furniture into something a bit more modern and fresh. They were good years. They were excellent years. They were the best. And really, the furniture could be almost retro now and an attraction in itself. Longbow. Yeah, longbow. Longbow. Longbow. Longbow. Longbow. Longbow. So this is a project that I'm particularly passionate about, and I've looked into it. And we haven't had a big conversion rate. We've only had about 10%. And part of the work that I'll be doing in the early, in the new year is unpacking why it hasn't worked and looking at the barriers to entry. Obviously, the biggest barrier to entry is they're all strata-owned. So you have all different mums and dads and owners that own one room out of a complex. So, how we get through and get that communique happening to the strata owners is really important.
00:08:00 Speaker 9: I'm hoping there's an element of the other area with regard to eco-check and some of the environmental initiatives that you're doing that can be incorporated within this and actually reduce the waste and some of the other cost factors for those strata type units as well. Speaker 1: I agree. And, you know, a little bit of money. We've got some great upholstery lounge places here in Noosa, I've found out. There's a lot of local business that can help renovate and reuse and uplift current furniture and if you paint it or just bring it up to speed. So, there's a lot of different ways to make something look good. It's, I guess, the design eye that they might need some assistance with or packages. And we do have packages that we've put together that makes it easy if they just want to buy a package. But otherwise, you're right. Recycling and uplifting of current furniture is... Speaker 9: And zero emissions is correct. Speaker 1: And zero emissions is correct. Speaker 9: Which are actually benefits that the owners can... Speaker 1: Make the money from. Speaker 9: Can get their return on their investment.
00:09:00 Speaker 1: I agree and I think I'll come to that a bit later because I think we need to turn the messaging around about not saying come and learn about renewables. Come and learn about how you can save money. You know, it's the messaging. Speaker 9: And your return on your investment. Exactly. Continue to get a return on your investment. Speaker 1: Yes. So, the refresh program will ramp up next year and we'll have a two-year run at that, getting it really much more penetrated than it has been today. Educating our members is a big part of the work that we do. Global Ready Industry Program. So, workshops that we facilitate that helps suppliers understand the market better, especially the international markets. We have a second level of that show as well. Business Ready Program. It's how you maximise your own business and into social media. And Tourism Noosa Leadership Program where it's critically important that the younger tourism people in our industry today grow up through the ranks and take on leadership roles and skills and ability to take the industry forward.
00:10:00 And we do Building Better Regions grant with that to help roll those programs out. There's also a suite of programs that we're working with Queensland Tourism Industry Council in that space. As well as social media and IT. So, we use their roll out of their workshops and invite them to come and do them in Noosa as well. Another big important focus, particularly for next year for us, and one that's probably not as strong in our annual report and action plan, but will be, is our custodians. And I've been working with the Kabi Kabi people over the last seven weeks very closely because it is such a critical. Part of the work that I see Tourism Noosa should be involved in and it's partnering with our Kabi Kabi people to help them get tourism products to the to the fore. The walk obviously that councillor you spoke about before is a critical key opportunity and it is early next year that we're hoping to roll something out, but there's a lot of work involved with it too within the Kabi Kabi but also within just the business structure and how they'll operate.
00:11:00 So, I've met with the state government as well in this space and with the Kabi Kabi people and we've got an initiative where we've got a fully sponsored Kabi Kabi intern opportunity that will do a SIRT 2 business, sit in Tourism Noosa with us and we will mentor them and grow, but they'll also work directly to Brian Warner in the Kabi Kabi who looks after the tourism aspect to help get the business of the walk up and running. We've also called in DATSIP to help with business structure as well, so it's all done as a partnership only at the, you know, agreement of moving forth, it is a lot of work, does take a lot of time, but having an intern will certainly help mitigate a lot of that issue for us.
00:12:00 Next year is also the Year of Indigenous Tourism which is fantastic, that was announced at the Queensland Tourism Awards by the Minister Kate Jones, there will be funding associated with that so that we can tap into that as well. And help the Kabi Kabi people as much as possible. Product development, so new products, and obviously this was referred to also by council previously in the Noosa Trail Master Plan. But in our hands, there's about three of us that have the first draft hot off the press from late last week. So we'll spend some time over the next month reviewing that and making sure that it hits the mark. But essentially it's really a program that identifies underused trail networks that we can use to encourage dispersal for the tourists. And work with our hinterland colleagues and really get that dispersal story happening. Not only that, that's an emerging area for Tourist Demand is getting out in nature and bike riding, walking, and just being out there
00:13:00 having a picnic is high on the agenda. So we're very excited to help that one get up. The other one is in the Noosa Country Drive, which has been in operation since 2015, but it's really starting to ramp up now. And we've revised our website and our app. And we're always including new opportunities to visit other areas in the hinterland. Councillor Wilkie: It's expanded to include Gympie's. Speaker 1: It has, which is really exciting because Gympie's got some beautiful area in the Merra Valley and we're working collaboratively with our Gympie council representatives as well there too. Also, it gets them out of the downtown Hastings Street for the day and, you know, experiencing the natural beauty. Speaker 9: It shows it has, you know, Noosa is so much more than Hastings Street. Speaker 1: It really is. And I'm very passionate about the hinterlands. I think a lot of people at work know that now. So I think, you know, getting that dispersal out and having a real focus on the outdoors. So moving on to the third stream
00:14:00 of what Tourism Noosa is about, and that is sustainability tourism. Spend much time on the huge success of Trees for Tourism, working collaboratively with Noosa and District Landcare. This has been an amazing initiative and one that I think Council and Tourism Noosa can be really proud of. It is putting Noosa on the map Australia-wide. I know from my previous role where I had a bigger picture across the state and across Australia, this is by far a leading initiative and half the reason why I was attracted to Noosa, because we can actually make something happen and that make it tangible. Juanita has just been down to Tasmania, telling them what we are doing up here because it is that groundbreaking. And for anyone in tourism, if Tasmania is asking us how we're doing it, that's a very big thing to be proud of. 2,747 trees so far this year,
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 as well as wildlife habitat restoration, carbon emission offset. Great program, we're only going to ramp it up next year. Plastic Free Noosa, and some of you may be aware, in Council, we have had this partnership, you know, state government initiated it, but we did do it with Boomerang and Council and ourselves. What we've been able to negotiate, although it hasn't been signed off yet, but I'm sure it will be soon, is that we're moving that into just a pure partnership with Tourism Noosa and Tourism with Noosa Council, using grants. We've got funds available in the sustainability area from Council, and we will bring Chad, I'm sure you all know Chad well in the middle picture there, on as a full timer at Tourism Noosa to roll out the Plastic Free Noosa completely. So all good news and three million single use plastics eliminated from waste in Noosa alone from 2018.
00:16:00 It's fantastic, isn't it? Great news story. So another amazing project, and I think it's actually, you know, we're going to step up into a really good space now that it's the two people, the two entities are involved, and we have Chad on full time, even though he was working full time, working part time, he's now getting paid full time, working full time. So replacing mini amenities, that's another project that we've got underway. We're having some cut through, again, it's in its early stages and really convincing accommodation owners that it will save them money, because right now they're just hearing the message, oh, get rid of minis, get rid of minis. They're actually not hearing that message that it's actually saving. And we have got case studies that are underway. Darren at the RSEV has done this. We're getting actuals so that we can talk to people and show them how they've saved money and the environment at the same time. There's a bit of work to do in rolling it out still in Noosa for our accommodation providers.
00:17:00 We have been working with Queensland Tourism Industry Council. Just recently, they've agreed to roll this whole program out across the state of Queensland, which is sensational news. So zero emissions Noosa, obviously we all know about that, but it's focuses on transport, solar and landfill. So for us, the solar issue is probably, I think, again, in the previous session, there was discussion that there's a good uptake for our residents in Noosa for solar, whereas business was four and a half percent, I believe, well, tourism's 2% from our polls. That's absolutely shocking. And we need to do something about that. Again, it's the story. This is how you can save money and the environment. So what we're doing, and this is a bit into the future, but we're holding a solar for strata masterclass. And this is really targeting the strata again, where we see as our barrier to entry.
00:18:00 So breaking down those walls and explaining, not only, is it, is it environmentally sustainable, but it will save you money. And as you can see, we've got a fantastic lineup of experts to talk to the people that come along to that. So we'll be heavily promoting that. Additional speakers are our Mayor and our Wanita from Tourism Noosa. So other initiatives, you would have seen our beautiful O initiative, the water fountain, which makes the 13th public water refill station, which helps encourage people to refill their bottles and not use single put, single use plastic. The imagery on that is from an indigenous artist and her colours that she sees of Noosa, the pinks and blues, and it's the fifth O initiative. Sustainable events, and I spoke on that just previously, but the 16 tourism Noosa, we ensure that they have the criteria that they have to tick off and that we check
00:19:00 before we make any payment. Water bottles, cups, eating utensil stores, all of that, we monitor it. We measure it and we compost it, and we have a report at the end of each event. So it's a great initiative. One, again, that the rest of Queensland and up and around Australia are looking to us at how we do it and how we implement it. So leading the way by all accounts. So that really wraps up a lot of the initiatives. I know that there's a, a question from the council that was forwarded through. Would you like me to address that now? And I believe the question was, does tourism Noosa intend to seek sources of revenue other than the tourism and economic levy and membership fee? And the answer is yes, we do. I guess from when I've come into tourism Noosa, there was a lot of different ideas and programs on the board that will be looked at and planning for.
00:20:00 Some of them are, are not really project planned or have been thought through to the nth degree yet. So we've put them on the back burner just to really consolidate our work and get our vision right. But things that we already do have that will hopefully be producing revenue for us is things like the Eat and Drink Festival. And we do have a loan item for a significant revenue kick into the budget. Again, being my first Eat and Drink Festival, where I'll actually be behind the scenes and not the drinking scene, the meeting scene. We are going through that and working out and making sure that it is a viable event, that it is a community event and a foodie event and a visitor event, and that it makes money for us because we want to keep the longevity of it. It's great for the local businesses and it's a really important event to make sure that it's sustainable. So sustainable and revenue generating
00:21:00 to put back into our not-for-profit so we can do other things. We also have, and you'll be seeing this come out this week, is our compendium, so our hotel compendium, where we surveyed the membership to see what initiatives they would like us to do. And one of that was to have a compendium on Noosa, on products and services available in each of the hotel rooms. So we did that and we were oversubscribed. We had to double the size of it. So that led to an increase in revenue, which is fantastic. But it's quite, it's a copy book now, size. And that's getting printed this week and will be delivered to our accommodation sector and ready for the holiday season. Inside the front cover will be a room for the venue to put their own services in, like a slip-in area. And it will also have the country roadmap and just a map of Noosa inserted inside as well. So, and I think council also, put an ad in with some funding for our economic development area, which was great news.
00:22:00 So that goes out this week, as well as a video that we put together. We've just finished filming for the welcome to Noosa, for all the hotel screens. You know, when you check in and you turn the TV on. So it has a really good story and a welcome to country from the Kabi Kabi people, beautifully shot with the sunrise. So it should be a lovely welcome for people in their rooms. Other revenues, around merchandise sales that the Visitor Inspiration Centre will have. We're opening this week, the official opening and the mayor and councilor are all mayor speaking, but councilor- Mayor Wellington: If you could lock in your time. Speaker 1: I know. I know. And coming from state government, I capitulate very easily, but the minister has changed it three times now. So I have her word that it's at 11.30, 11.30 on Wednesday. So you're all welcome to come. Minister Kate Jones, Minister for Tourism, Innovation and Commonwealth Games. So 11.30 this Wednesday, please do come if you can.
00:23:00 So we've also ramped up the sales opportunity for the Visitor Inspiration Centre. A lot of people love merchandise. It's very fashionable these days. So having Noosa written on it, it's all sustainable products. It's all products that aren't available on Hastings Street and it's local suppliers, you know, other companies, you know, we've tried to maximise as much as possible. So we have been selling that at events and other areas. So it does give good revenue. So keep an eye out for that when you get there too. We are also moving back to accommodation sales through our website. We'd previously changed it because the website was having difficulties in accepting an e-commerce platform, but we've fixed it. So we'll go back to putting booking accommodation through directly on our web, which you can do through normal booking websites like booking.com at a 15% commission for most hotel accommodation services.
00:24:00 Ours is 11%, so it is cheaper for our members, but it also gives us a revenue stream. And we'll be looking in the first quarter next year, once it's ratified by the board, that we'll be putting our products and services so you can book directly through and 11% will come back to tourism Noosa. So that will kickstart again. We've only just got that up and running for this period onwards. We're also looking to reshape our membership structure next year. I've had some thoughts and we're sort of collectively as a team working out different ways we can get better value back to our members, different pricing structures. We've done a gold and silver in webs and other different add-ons, but we're probably going to uplift it a bit more and have a bit more value proposition for those that want to partake in that. Memberships are $128 a year for base levels. So we'll probably keep a low level one for those small businesses. And the solar program we do, we're collaborating with three of the solar providers
00:25:00 and we'll also do a commission style basis for getting the solar rolled out as well in partnership. So, and the other area to answer the question is grant funds. We have an opportunity to look at some grant funds throughout the next year, especially in the indigenous space, as I mentioned. Also, the tourism grant funds and working with our partners and stakeholders and membership here to maximize opportunities to get some funding to do work in their businesses. So that's sort of just a bit of an overview. There are other initiatives, but I have put them on hold for the moment just so we can consolidate, focus on our three areas and being a destination management business and just get on track first and then we'll look at that a little bit more. But I think Drew, you would like to wrap up? Certainly. Speaker 3: Just to add to the answer to the question, the board does look at different avenues of funding
00:26:00 from time to time, but I think that prudence tells us that we must act with great caution in that area. And we look to the core business that we have and the ancillary matters that arise from the core that you've just expressed that allow us to leverage some funding, but to diversify substantially from our core into under other revenue areas is something that whilst have been discussed, I think we need to be very cautious about. Yeah, to be very careful, to be competitive. Precisely, we don't wish to compete. We really need to stick to our knitting and understand what we're there for. So we are somewhat restrained as to how broad that vision can be. Having said that, I think that you can see from the slides that Melanie's presented and her comments that we can be justifiably very proud of what Tourism Moose has been doing, what we've done over the last few years and where we're going in the future.
00:27:00 We have a very broad community approach to numerous aspects of tourism and the benefits that flow from tourism. And I think it is a rather amazing accolade that people, people from Turrvinosa, particularly Juanita, given her environmental and sustainability brief, has been asked to go and speak in Tasmania. Other things that we're involved in, such as the soul of the strata, really does get to the core of the issues that the planet is suffering from and our concern and enthusiasm to do whatever we can to really further people's mindfulness about sustainability and the environment. Having said all that though, the board is consistently aware of its position, its responsibility under the company's code.
00:28:00 And we're looking again at our governance, our risk. We're going to have a, I guess, mid-session or mid-term review of what's going to happen in the next couple of years. We're going to have a review of our strategic plan this year. We don't expect anything to be substantially altered, but we do think it's prudent to reassess and realign ourselves with all of the criteria in that strategic plan, even though it has another two years to run. Councillor Wilkie: We'll revisit it. Speaker 3: And again, by the end of January, we'll be looking at our budget, our half-yearly assessment of how we're going, and we'll do a line-by-line so that we are, you know, very aware of our financial position. We take governance, risk and the administration of TN very seriously. We can leave the fun stuff up to Melanie and the team
00:29:00 to get out there and do the things that you've seen that the board are very aware of their obligations. So I just wanted to revisit that. So may I say that in terms of the funding deed, we have addressed, as I said, the cost of the organisation, the destination management and planning provisions. We've complied with the funding provisions, which are detailed in here, the reference to events that Melanie elaborated on. Our marketing contingency funds regrettably fell short of the mark in the annual report, primarily a timing issue. And also we were in a position from accounts receivable to actually cover that amount. But clearly we will make sure that that situation where our marketing contingency is less than the agreed sum
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 at any given time doesn't occur in the future. So I've taken that on board and it'll be something that we certainly ensure is complied with at all times. Regional projects and stakeholder collaboration, we've tended to and we comply with, and our reporting requirements from time to time to Council have been complied with. I would like Council to take on board, perhaps at the appropriate time when the budgets are being considered, that a CPI... You're assuming that Council Speaker 2: are considering the budget project, correct? Speaker 3: Yes. That's exactly why I've said that in advance. Speaker 1: We've written it up there. Speaker 3: Suck it in. Speaker 1: Yeah. Just to raise it, you know. It's an early pitch. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I think I was trying to explain it to people. Speaker 3: Never miss an opportunity. And so in the future, when the budget is being considered, we would appreciate it if Council might consider
00:31:00 a CPI review from time to time of the funding allocation to Tourism Mercer. And the... Speaker 1: For those ticks there. It didn't come out in the right place, but... I'm sorry. I think it's... Yeah. Mayor Wellington: So... Do you know some crosses, Miss? Speaker 1: Yeah. No crosses, no. Speaker 3: To finish, tourism nurses' plans from time to time transcend more than a few months or more than a year. We have processes in place that are looking at two, three, four and five years. And so security of funding well into the future is crucial. It's crucial on so many fronts. In general terms, it provides a stable platform for our tourism management, investing in projects, events, marketing campaigns
00:32:00 that span far more than one year. It provides stronger commitment to our environmental programs and it provides the tourism industry generally with confirmation of both Council's commitment and our commitment to the longevity of this crucial economic, social, cultural industry in the town. So, councillors, I would request that you look at our exercise of options favourably and extend the funding agreement for a further two-year term. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for listening to us. Could I have a seconder of a motion that Councillor Wellington chair the meeting while I leave the room quickly? I have too much water. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Okay, I'm chairing. I'm leaving the motion. Speaker 5: I'll second the motion.
00:33:00 Mayor Wellington: All those in favour? I'm only going to speak very briefly because we've heard so much already from Melanie and from Drew. But I do want to congratulate Tourism Noosa for another successful year. I also want to congratulate them on starting to make this shift towards being not just solely a destination management organisation, but also a, sorry, not just a destination marketing organisation, but also a destination management organisation. And I know there's been a little bit of pushback against that, but I think that's a really important indicator of how Tourism Noosa, sees its future role. I also want to congratulate Tourism Noosa on all the many sustainability initiatives, particularly as I understand it, being the first destination organisation to have a full time sustainability officer, which is a real feather in Tourism Noosa's cap. You know, as a destination, Noosa holds a fairly unique position,
00:34:00 not that we don't have competitors, but I think being ahead of the pack in terms of sustainability is going to be value adding to the Noosa brand and that value adding benefits business as well beyond the tourism sector. Obviously, I also congratulate you on endeavouring to include some sort of indigenous experience because it's really the missing piece here in Noosa. And I know how difficult that is to orchestrate, but I'm pleased to see that there's a serious effort being made. And I do want to thank Tourism Noosa for their cooperation over the last year on issues that we've shared, such as the Noosa Trail Master Plan, the value of Noosa research, plastic free Noosa, et cetera, and also the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group, which has been a partnership between the two organisations and indeed flowing from that the new vision statement, what is good for the resident is also good for the visitor, is something that trickled up through the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group,
00:35:00 looking at other destinations, et cetera. And I'm pleased to see that that's been embraced. I'm also happy to provide the reassurance of future funding as the original agreement did include an opportunity for a two year extension. So it makes sense to extend for two years. Obviously, we can't, whilst I appreciate Drew's desire for reassurance well into the future, we can't assume what a new council will do in two years time in terms of funding agreement. That will be up to them and those who are fortunate or misfortunate to sit on it. But congratulations. Once again, for a terrific year. Thank you. I'll pass the chair back to, I've moved it, Councillor Jackson seconded and I'm the only one that's spoken. Speaker 2: Okay. I think Councillor Jackson seconded the motion about who was going to chair. No, it was actually the motion that the council wanted to. Councillor Wilkie: So I have a motion to pass the chair back. I'll second it, yeah. Speaker 2: No, you've returned it. Councillor Wilkie: No, thank you.
00:36:00 Councillor Jackson: Oh, you don't have to do it again, yeah. Who would like to speak next? Yeah, I'd like to speak. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank you for answering the question I put forward in advance in such great detail. Thank you. And also, I'd like to thank you for the presentation because I have no questions left. You have answered all my questions. I do want to congratulate, like Councillor Wellington, Ters and Mlusa for the strategic shift from marketing to destination management organization, which is really about a, multiple bottom line approach and corporate citizenship. And I value that. And I think, you know, some of the things that are highlighted by Drew Pearson, which were about value of volume, distributing benefits throughout the Shire, customer satisfaction, environmental responsibility, and also, as Melanie highlighted, partnership with Kabi Kabia. To me, these things are really valuable.
00:37:00 And I also appreciated hearing that there's collaboration with the various tourism bodies, Sunshine Coast, Gympie, and Fraser Coast. I think these synergies are always going to bring additional benefits. I think, just to say that I'm very satisfied with the various initiatives. One that's actually quite close to my heart is actually Refresh Noosa. Before becoming councillor, I was chairman of a body corporate in Quamby Place, which started when I bought a unit in 2005. I've since sold, but it was pretty dismal. It was a 1981 building, looking daggy as anything. And I had the opportunity to bring it up to the modern day era. And I'm so therefore aware that if we want to maintain value over volume, bringing high-value customers to Noosa,
00:38:00 we actually have to maintain our accommodation as well. And there's not a lot of room for new accommodation. Urban footprint is limited, zoning is limited. So it's really up to owners, as you pointed out, to spend the money. And I think Refresh Noosa, which is offering cheaper or, what's the word, not cheaper, but bringing to, oh, it doesn't matter, bringing together specialists that can assist or products that can be offered mass, so therefore a bit cheaper is really important. I'm interested in the annual reports saying that in 2018-19, visitors spent 1.1 billion in Noosa. I think that is an amazing amount of money, which I can't even imagine. And of that, I'm interested to see that, of course, overnight visitors who are paying for accommodation spent 996 million.
00:39:00 But it's also important to note that day troopers spent 98 million. And to me, that's not something to be sneezed at. And also recognizing that we have people who are businesses supplying to each level of visitor. So I think all these visitors contribute to that. I'm very happy to support the two year extension of the funding agreement and yeah, thank you for all the work that's being done. Thanks. Speaker 9: Thank you. Joe. I'll head down. I said I'll concur with the comments of both the former councillors and I'll congratulate you on your ongoing welcome to Noosa, Ricoh, Chikway, New Noosa, plastic free Noosa, the Ricoh initiative and leading by example with the food and wine festival and in fact you
00:40:00 bettering council in the way that you're, in your successes that you've led to with plastic free events and I'm glad to see that is being progressed on with other elements like the triathlon and bringing Ironman on board as well to make them understand their role in that. And of course, I congratulate you on employing Maneja to the environment. I think that's a, you know, shows the leadership and I think other entities could take right from that. I said we've got to continue to take care not to strangle the goose that lays our golden egg here in Noosa. It's good to see that you embrace the role that is now undertaken across all pillars of sustainable tourism and that you have evolved from a marketing and to a management role. I think that's important. Thank you. And obviously also is a challenge of, thought with renew Noosa, of the challenge of online
00:41:00 platform with regard to other products that now are embracing an offering opportunities for accommodation. They don't get on board and don't play this game. Their market share will be lost. It's not guaranteed. The elephant in the room for me. And the one thing that hasn't been mentioned anywhere, you talked about the Sunshine Coast expansion, but what does that mean with regard to movements of those additional tourists and how we're going to get them? I think it's well and truly overdue for Council, Tourism Noosa and Sunshine Coast Council and Sunshine Coast Airport to get together and discuss how they envisage that these people are going to get to and from the locations they're going to get to. We're a large percentage of them are north of that airport. I see they talk about a light rail to their south, but there's no consideration of any movement of tourists to the north. And they are willingly bringing those tourists to the region.
00:42:00 Apart from that, I congratulate you on a well-presented report. You have an excellent presentation here and I encourage you to continue in those measures of sustainability for the future and some of those products that you are looking to bring. And the opportunities that, as you've discussed, Drew, the conflicts with regard to other revenue streams, but the opportunities that are there and looking not to compete with your own membership in that regard. But the branding of Noosa Tourism, sustainable water bottles and products like that are there. You've got a tourist information centre where they can be embraced. I look forward to seeing what the new year brings. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, Councillor, to this, if it would be. The aviation partnership mentioned on page 13, along the lines of sort of future looking collaboration that you're referring to. Absolutely. Speaker 9: Again, I don't think that we've had the discussion.
00:43:00 I think we need to open up that for to the greater role that those additional tourists and how they're going to be transported around the region. Councillor Sackler. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Thank you for the presentation. It was very comprehensive and I suppose it reinforces that strategic plan 1722 really did set you in a direction that is lockstep with the way that this council is looking at the future of the community. I thank you for the opportunity to give you another two years. And I do think the strategic plan covers what should be included. I do think there will be opportunity, particularly with an incoming council, to look at probably the business plan. I think it might play in certain areas. And as you're aware, last week I spent three days of the conference looking at sustainable destination management, some of the lessons I learned, I think, talks to a lot about what we need to do.
00:44:00 So the other and trends, public art street. Now this is the Twitterverse, social media and today they need street and public art by sharing roads by 149. But for us, sharing nature based photography saw an increase of 132 in 2018. Festival and events based in New York City. Okay, so, you know, the thing about restaurants is interesting, and it points to one of the key things I get at this conference in the sustainable tourism market is a lot of what we do has been based on what boomers thought were as a holiday, and what's emerging is what Gen Z and millennials expect out of the holiday.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And, you know, I've found out that I'm probably an aspirational adventure tourist, because it's not defined by age, gender, and income, it's defined by their passion for acquisition of knowledge, viewing, and determinant of social status, the use of knowledge to make sure informed decisions are better understood in the world around them, they're cultural capitalists, they spend more on travel, well-being, and education, proportionately than on material or luxury goods, they avoid the mass and mainstream market, have high expectations, and sustainability in their brands they buy, lead by example, key drivers of social change, aim to lead communities and environments with net gain, ensure a thriving planet for future generations to explore. Speaker 9: Sounds like great ideas. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, actually, this is for the young people, this is what they're expecting. Interestingly, at the conference, first time it was revealed, some economics done, which compared Noosa National Park with the rainforest up north, with Outback, and with Carnarvon Gorge. And what it showed...
00:46:00 Noosa, by far, had the highest proportion of respondents that said the National Park was the only or main reason they were visiting the destination, it was over 70 percent. Now, they said they had some concerns about that, and they're pulling apart the local visitations in there, the people who... But, that was really important, but it confirmed, once again, you know, the nature of the market, going to the National Park, $43 a person. Domestic overnight, $174 a person, so that whole thing about the market. International was only $101, but they stayed longer, the back pay. So, that's really important to understand, that between the day-tripper and the value for volume. I think the other key thing that I've got is that in Europe, what's emerging in destinations is they're making conscious decisions about where they market to reduce the footprint of tourism, and that's our challenge.
00:47:00 Value over volume is in tension with attracting international tourists, that some destinations in Europe aren't marketing to Asia for that reason. We can still do it, but then it makes tourism exponentially more important. And as I said to Stephen last year, and I'll say to you this year, there's nothing wrong with tourism, that extra zero isn't part of it. I agree. Or two. Yes. Okay? Okay. And finally, I suppose, we mentioned Tasmania. And I'm having my holiday, which was pitched all around a tourism marketing thing that came across my social media. It's at the six best mountain bike destinations in Tasmania. And the whole month is all around that. Oh, wow. And if we look at Noosa and Queensland, we are hopeless at mountain biking. And as I said, the trail. I agree. It's really important for Noosa. We can start at Noosa.
00:48:00 Just like I said last time to the NBRF, state and federal government have been hopeless at funding natural resource management in this neck of the woods. They also haven't really put a lot to developing experiences. New Zealand put $200 million into their great rides. And so I've been on one of those this year, too. And it is an exceptional experience that's causing revitalization of the small rural communities. Like the pub that was closed 10 years ago. And it's a great experience. The last thing I'll finish on, and I think it's the only conversation that came out of this conference, is that for ecotourism people, and there's a lot of them there, and I think it does reflect the new younger cohort who are travelling a lot, is they can't be satisfied just from enjoying nature. They want to make their experience fun where they're contributing to solving global problems.
00:49:00 And I think the last quote that I think we really have to think about how we do in Noosa is, it came from Richard Attenborough, and it said, No one will protect what they don't know about. It talks about that whole thing about what you get as a tourism product, and no one will care about what they haven't experienced, and that's why you want to do it. And to me, that's where we have to build Noosa. We have to build that this experience is for people who have that as qualities that they're aspirational to retain. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, it's a little sad. Councillor Glasgow: The joys of going last, I don't have to say too much, because it's all been said. As I can tell you, you guys are doing an amazing job above and beyond every year, and it's exciting to sit here as the youngest at this table to hear about all these gens, and I just googled gen Z and what they're up to then, and we're at the end of Z. I don't know what's coming after Z. Is it A.1 or A.2? Alpha. Alpha, that's it. Yeah, alpha, sorry. And on that, you guys have been, as very involved with Drew over the years and more, I so strategically think, I've thought so strategically of everything you do, it's great.
00:50:00 You've got eco-checks coming up, and it's exciting to think. Sometimes it does behold me you're only thinking three to five years ahead. I'd like to be putting zeros in front of that and thinking 30 to 50 years ahead. That's probably at the end of my lifespan, hopefully, if I get that far. And it's exciting to think where we'll be at then, at that time. There's someone who's just spent a few days out at the Central Coast and seeing exactly how a man would know exactly how you don't promote tourism in areas like... I do a good job of doing it badly. Yeah, Terrigal and Avoca, McMaster's, and I had a surfing comp at a little spot, a little bay called Littles, which is in... Little Co. Little, yeah. You going down there? Little, little... Excuse us. Sorry, we had it there in between McMaster's and Kilkoa, some little beach called Littles, and actually people walked there and went camping, and I couldn't believe it.
00:51:00 I got stuck with three cartons of beer to walk there. People walked there with, you know, tents and swag, and it was booming, but it was this little economy that it was just, it was just so part of it, which is great. And you guys have done that in Noosa, you know, umpties, you can't even count on your hand how many times you've created these little industries, and there's little economies in the Shire that's just booming, so I congratulate you and applaud you to make this happen, so thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, it has all been said, but you, tourism, I reckon the Noosa community can be really proud of its tourism body, you know, not only recognised nationally and internationally as leaders in the tourism field, but also within the community. The community itself, as Joe said, it's, it's led this community towards its first plastic-free events, and that's a direction that we're heading in more broadly, and tourism needs to be committed for that. You have a collaborative, cooperative approach, you're working with your partners in the region, and you're not, you're also prepared to have the difficult conversations, engage with the broader community, have the difficult conversations about how you manage the success of Noosa as a tourism destination.
00:52:00 And some of those discussions haven't been easy, but I applaud your willingness to have them, you took the, the step of, along with the Mayor, convening that forum for those discussions to take place, where a lot of fact, facts and data have been shared about the true nature of tourism and Noosa. I'm more than happy to endorse further two-year funding, not only to give tourism Noosa that funding, certainly, but also the many, many businesses in the Shire that depend on tourism for their livelihoods, and also the many residents and families that live here that also depend on tourism for their livelihoods. So, thank you for the work you've done, and it's a yes from me. Thank you. Thank you.
00:53:00 Speaker 9: Point 2, there is the word of missing after clause 2. Currently provided for in clause 2, the funding agreement. Councillor Wilkie: All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you Melanie. Thank you councillor, thank you.
60 minutes in ¶
01:02:00 Thank you, we're up to item three, reports direct to the general committee, the proposed local law amendments, advertising devices, post second round consultation. Hello, Anita Lakeland. Hello. Hello, Kerry Cawdor. Any questions for this staff? I'm happy to move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a seconder, please? Oh, no one's seconding it. Councillor Wilkie: Somebody's got a seconder. Anyone got a seconder? Well, we need it. If you're going to move an amendment, you won't be seconding it. All right, well, I will move. I will second it. Thank you. Council Wellington, you have the floor. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, well, there's not a lot to say. You know, we went out to public consultation. We had a significant number of submissions during that consultation.
01:03:00 We made some changes. We went back out, as a result of which we had only 11 submissions, two in support, two generally in support, and seven that raised a number of issues for consideration. But basically, there wasn't a big pushback, so I think we got it pretty right, really. There was no specific sector that were up in arms about our decision last time, so I'd just like to say I'd be really disappointed if we end up re-prosecuting arguments that we've already had previously, given the response that we got when we went out for the second round of consultation. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question to ask staff of CEO. If this, through amendments or whatever, were to change what we've proposed, would we have to go out to the consultation? Speaker 6: It depends under the local law policy whether it's considered to be substantial. That's the words it uses.
01:04:00 I would say a substantial change was one that hasn't been tested before in the community by either rounds of consultation, and it was a change in terms of the size allowances or the numbers that we've had. If we had a number of allowable signs on a particular tenancy, I would say if we hadn't tested either one of those with the community and that was a proposed change, I'd consider that substantial, because we haven't been out there and got feedback on it, basically. Councillor Wilkie: And it's important that these local rules are approved and ratified by the state government in time to marry with the planning scheme, because signs aren't regulated under the planning scheme, is that correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. The Minister doesn't have to ratify this. It's by adoption. But yes, with the intended commencement or the hoped commencement of the planning scheme in February next year, what we're looking to do with this is bring back a consolidated version of the local law in February to marry up with the commencement of the planning scheme.
01:05:00 If we were to undergo further public consultation as a result of substantial changes, that would push that timing probably out and we'd be out of sync. Yeah. It would be delayed. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Great. Any other questions? Question for Brian then. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, Anita, we could – the question's about how to interpret and whether the recommendation is adequate in regard to A2, which was that we remove the two-metre clear pedestrian walkway requirement for a sandwich board A-frame sign and instead state that clear pedestrian wheelchair and frame access must be maintained at all times. We've – I hope that's okay. What – a standard that might be suitable? Speaker 5: I'm not going to find out what the A2 logo that I'm looking for.
01:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I suppose to me that – the question is, if we were to actually nominate a width to achieve two-way pedestrian access to include a frame of the wheelchair, that graph – that series of figures would be the one that we'd be referring to. Is that right? Speaker 6: That's correct. That's AusRoads guidelines, but – and then there's the Australian standards – are different in relation to minimums, widths of footpaths, et cetera. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, if we were to – Speaker 6: This is the guidelines. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we were to seek to have two-way pedestrian traffic between a wheelchair and a frame of the path, we would be specifying a 1.5-metre minimum. Is that correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. And then, in addition, there is a clearance of 300 mil for things such as arms and legs and whatever that might be outside that area.
01:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: But does that mean two metres exactly? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I have a suggested change I'll do as amendment if people are happy. So, I'd like to move to item two, other – the motion as is, but there's a change to that point. So, I remove the two-metre criteria. There's a clear pedestrian and walkway requirement for Sandwich Board A franchise instead of a clear two-way, 1.5-metre pedestrian and wheelchair and frame access must be maintained. Speaker 9: Might I suggest the word minimum might be beneficial? Two-way minimum, 1.5-metre? Yeah. Yeah. What does it say, too? You've got to go one way or the other. Councillor Glasgow: We'll be able to reach the public. I'll turn it to staff, sorry. Mayor Wellington: Can I suggest you add the word wide after the 1.5-metre? Wide. Thank you as well. Wide. Wide. 1.5-metre is wide. Otherwise, we'll get lots of little sections of 1.5-metre length.
01:08:00 So, I'll move that as amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that amendment, please? Yeah, I'll second it for discussion. Seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think while I understand staff are concerned that there might be some that couldn't live to this, to me, it's a minimum. The primary purpose of a footpath is to fill our pedestrian access to the way it was worded would be unclear. There may be shop owners that said, oh, one person who walked past my sign therefore it filled up pedestrian access. I believe it's a minimum in our commercial areas that it is distributed way. I should think that we shouldn't have wheelchairs or cranes having to stop if they want to pass each other. Some areas, that would mean that some individual shops wouldn't have a site straight out in front of the shop. But, to me, I think it's a privilege to sign on public land. It's a mandate to allow public access on our footpaths and they shouldn't be compromised by signage.
01:09:00 To me, it's just a standard that I don't wish to vary. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question of staff? Would it be removal of the walkway for a two-minute clear pedestrian walkway in the area and being replaced with a walkway for a 1.5-metre wide pedestrian walkway and make that easier for businesses to comply with that? Because two minutes is a larger area. 1.5 is a smaller area. Speaker 6: I guess it would capture more businesses or provide more businesses with the option of having an A-frame on public land where they couldn't have that A-frame on private land on their own tenancy. Councillor Wilkie: So it makes it easier for businesses to comply. Councillor Jackson: Yes, sorry. Could I also ask, in relationship to the same matter, can you just explain, as I understand it, the change proposed was because you've identified that a lot of, well, some number
01:10:00 of locations don't have sufficiently wide footpaths to make it two metres. Are there a lot of... Are there a lot of those sorts of locations and how wide are they? So, you know, how much of a problem, even the 1.5, is it going to be for how many? Speaker 6: So, across the centres, locations which currently, because they're older centres, their existing footpaths currently are below two metres is Noosa Junction, Sunshine Beach Road and Lanyana Way. However, many of those properties within that street, particularly Sunshine Beach Road on the high side, have the option, they've got that second high footpath. So that's private land. So the A-frame in the first instance would have to be located there. So any of those shops that have got a setback, even though the footpath is narrower, would still have the option of having an A-frame and meeting that requirement because they
01:11:00 wouldn't be on public land. Gympie Terrace, again an older footpath, currently is 1.2 to 1.4 metres wide sections. But again, some of those properties there are set back and the first option would be the A-frame on private land. And surprisingly, but Sunshine Beach, Duke Street, there are sections there which fall under as well. And a small section of Pomona as well. I say not Pomona, sorry, Peregian Beach. Certain streets in Peregian Beach, so Heron Street, again an older footpath in some sections, according to our database of footpath widths without going out and doing the physical measurement. And that's why I suggested when we do a placemaking exercise and we do a full streetscape analysis,
01:12:00 we would have a better picture of the appropriateness or not. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. And can I just clarify how, what's the dimension of an A-frame sandwich board? Speaker 6: So the width of an A-frame is generally 600 by 900. So that's the width? The width, yeah. And then the height. Height. Yeah. 600 wide. Yeah. And... Mayor Wellington: So presumably they could make a narrower A-frame if they needed more space. Speaker 6: They could, yeah, tilt it. Mayor Wellington: Oh no, but have a 300 wide A-frame. They don't have to be 600. That's the maximum. Councillor Jackson: No, that's the maximum. That's the maximum. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I need a question because I've had a look at the... How much of an A-frame? The database, the GIS is... Not much of an A-frame. Not much of an A-frame. And if it was a scenario where we had a three to five metre wide footpath and we had grass and then a less than two metre concrete footpath and more grass on the other side, that would still show us having a footpath of less than 1.2 metres, wouldn't it?
01:13:00 Speaker 6: Correct. I believe the dimension is the hard stand portion of the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So I think that's... I struggle to see too many locations where it's a problem. But I think it's still important. Councillor Wilkie: Jess, you had a question? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Would this... Would it be enforced with like, say, what was happening in Tewant at the moment, how we've got those little marks in the ground? Or would it be up to every kind of business to sort of just delineate where they'd sort of be at? And then if... And officers came out, they would then check and go, look, you're at X location. Speaker 6: So a couple of the submissions did say that it wasn't clear as to the location with the use of the terms adjacent to the tenancy, the location if it was placed on public land,
01:14:00 and whether it could be on the grassed verge as opposed to at the tenancy. So that's why some of the wording has been clarified to say, you know, it could be on the grassed verge, that it abut the tenancy. And speaking with our signage compliance officer, that is the safest and most appropriate location for an A-frame, abutting the actual tenancy, so not on the other side of the footpath. So that's... It's been described there, but not through a marking system which, with a permit, that comes with, yeah, a designated dining area permit. However, it's possible in Tewantin. In a future placemaking program that, you know, particular centres might lend themselves to identifying more appropriate locations where we do designate A-frame signage areas for whatever reason, either that, you know, it could be a case that the footpath is narrow
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 in some sections and wider in others. But we haven't done that work to do that at this point. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Any councillors wish to add anything? I think I'll speak. Councillor Jackson: I appreciate Councillor Stockwell's concern, because I think we want to make sure that A-frames don't... You know, are not truth hazards and that it doesn't get in the way of people moving around. But I'm not actually convinced of the need for an amendment, because it sounds like the issue is only in certain localities, and most of them, there's ways around it, because of, you know, the higher levels of different... I think I'll speak. Two levels of Noosa Junction, and... So I actually would tend to prefer to wait for the placemaking process. I think the way it's written by staff still allows a single...
01:16:00 Insists on making sure that it's allowing a single stroller, wheelchair, or whatever, to get through. And so I'm okay with that, because it's only a few that are actually... Very few localities are going to be affected by that issue. So I don't think we need to change it, and I think we could just wait until there's a placemaking process and consider it at that point, which may in fact require some changes to the infrastructure. So, yeah. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 3: John? Speaker 9: Yes. Likewise. Whilst I appreciate the intent and the well-meaning of what the Councillor is trying to ascertain here by actually putting in a... A dimension. I'm a little challenged if there'll be localities where the dimension won't be able to be achieved. And also, it doesn't matter how wide a footpath is. There's always obstructions on footpaths. People stop and have a chat and all the rest of it.
01:17:00 It's not uncommon to stop and prop and wait momentarily, and I don't see that as being the world's greatest issue, is having to stop and prop for a moment while... It's not often that you're going to get two-way traffic coming up and down. So, I won't support that. Okay. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Look, like Councillor Jackson said, I'd be pretty excited to see the placemaking come out on this. This A-frame thing. I don't see it as an issue. It's not broke, don't fix it rule is applied. It's tight enough out there with business at the moment to sort of decipher where and where not to go. This kind of just complicates it a little bit to me. I can't support it on that reason. I believe that it's as efficient around there as it is, and it's just going to make it harder. So, no, I can't support it. I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: I also really appreciate what Councillor Stockwell is trying to do and stipulating that there
01:18:00 must be a two-way minimum of 1.5 metres wide. And also, the other part of the amendment is to remove the two-metre block from the walkway requirement. This actually will make it easier for businesses to comply and provide that pedestrian access. But also, at the same time, ensure pedestrian safety. So, there's wins on both sides there. So, the argument against it is that I think at this stage, although we all didn't necessarily get what we wanted to get, I think we're going to get what we want to get. It's been out to the community. They've made their submissions. We've responded and put into this final draft the changes that the community wanted to see. And to be tinkering with it at this late stage, I think, personally, I feel it doesn't
01:19:00 reflect the trust in the community and the process so far, even though we're perfectly entitled. And no, I don't think we're going to get what we wanted out of these local laws. Our local laws are perfect. I think for the purpose of the principle of not tinkering with the local law at this late stage, I won't be supporting the amendment. Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Ted, for this. You've given me my summation. There is no way we should be tinkering with what went out to the community. The community went out and had the two-metre, and therefore we didn't get very many submissions. The community liked what we put out, and staff, on the basis of the fact that it was a two-metre area, and staff, on the basis of two submissions, want to change it. That's tinkering. That's taking an adopted position by Council, which everyone supported only a couple of months ago, and the two submissions, we're tinkering.
01:20:00 What a load of nonsense. What a load of nonsense. What this does, it says that we put some very broad statement about pedestrian access in front of all of our commercial areas. We don't stipulate. We think too much about it. We think people should be able to walk past. We don't stipulate that we want to have good wheelchair access in front of our commercial enterprises. It puts the interests of the shopkeeper in front of the interests of the community. Specifying the Australian standard is the only sensible option, or leave it to what it was advertised. I'm sure I could have got a ... There would have been a lot more submissions if people didn't think there was going to be adequate pedestrian access, and I'm not satisfied that the wording suggested by staff is appropriate for a local law. It might be an appropriate outcome at a high level in a planning scheme. It is too nebulous. It is not specific enough for a local law, and I won't support it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? Amendment's lost. We'll go back to the original motion.
01:21:00 Councillor Wellington is the only person who has spoken to it at the moment. Councillor Jackson: I also have a question of staff, and that's in relationship to the concept of tenancies. As I understand it, there's a lot of discussion going on. As I understand it, there are some tenancies where there's more than one small business within the tenancy. Can you tell me how many there are of that sort, and where they'd be located? Speaker 6: No, I don't have a number on that, but some examples of where they are located are some tenancies down on Kewpie Terrace at the river, so some of the river tenancies there have a number of businesses operating at the river. Some of them are running out of the one tenancy building, such as various water activities or tourism activities, cafes, those kind of things and the like. Councillor Jackson: And I think there are actually some that are not on the river, aren't there?
01:22:00 Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Jackson: That are owned by one business. Speaker 6: Some of them are in the industrial areas or other town centres as well, but I don't have Councillor Jackson: a number on that. Okay. Well, I also would like to move an amendment. So, is that my amendment? Yes. I'd like to move this amendment that says, amend the self-accessible criteria for sandwich board A-frame signs to allow a maximum of one advertising device to be displayed per business operating from the tenancy. Speaker 9: Question for staff, if I may. Is that clear enough that it's referring to all of the sub-tenancies within the primary tenancy to have one sandwich board edge? Speaker 6: Yes, I believe so.
01:23:00 Because a tenancy is defined as one or more businesses operating from there. So, by stating that it's per business within the tenancy, I think that's clear that each business would be permitted to have one A-frame sign. It currently refers to one advertising device per tenancy. Mayor Wellington: Council, I've got a question too. Do you imagine that this would trigger having to go back out for another round of consultation and thus jeopardising the ability to bring in the new local laws that are on the side of the plan? Speaker 6: Yes, I think that it actually would be considered substantial because we haven't tested this scenario with the community. So, through either round of consultation and it is increasing the number of allowable signs, temporary signs per tenancy basically. I mean, in some instances it could be four or five A-frames per tenancy if each business
01:24:00 was to have one. So, yes, I think it would be substantial and require further consultation. Question? Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Ingrid. Yeah. Is there anything prohibiting the businesses operating from one tenancy to have their listings on the one A-frame? Councillor Jackson: No. Sorry. Can I just check what, as far as I can see, that's allowed at the moment for each business to have their own A-frame. Is that not the case at the moment? Speaker 6: No, it's one per tenancy. It's one per tenancy now. Oh, is it? It's just that it's, in some cases, proliferated in these situations. Speaker 7: Okay. And if I might just add, as part of the signage, we've been talking to a number of the businesses along the foreshore area, you know, where they have a number of A-frames out for each of the buildings. We've put to them a potential solution about having a small pile-on sign where they can actually list each of their businesses. A pile-on sign.
01:25:00 Councillor Jackson: A pile-on sign. Which would be part of the ten-square-metre list. Speaker 7: That's right. It is part of the ten-square-metre list. Yeah. And so some of the businesses are looking at that option and think that might work for them. Councillor Wilkie: It says, Brian, you have a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So you've identified one of the potential impacts of such an amendment is the Noosaville foreshore, whether it's coal miners or micro-businesses. The other ones would be the likes of Belmondo's, which might have six different... Is this actually a question? Yeah. Keep... Councillor Wilkie: Continue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry. I look... Councillor Jackson: I ask if it's a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm in the middle of a question and you're being rude. So the six, say, tenancies. So instead of having one in front of Belmondo's, this sort of an amendment would result in the ability to have six A-frames in front of the likes of Belmondo's. Is that what... Correct. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We need a seconder for...
01:26:00 Sorry. I'll second it for the sake of argument. Seconder. Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah, that means seconder. Now it's... You'll like to speak. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I'm suggesting allowing the A-frames for each of the small businesses that are on one tenancy. And I'm not doing this for me because I'm not actually myself a person who loves A-frames, but I recognize the need for small businesses to communicate to their customers or potential customers. And from what I've seen, those are usually important information to potential customers, passers-by. And I think the idea of just having everybody on one A-frame isn't really effective. I think when you look at the concept of marketing, you need to be able to actually communicate
01:27:00 what it is you're having as an offering. In fact, as has now been pointed out, it does already exist, but I wasn't even aware that it wasn't in line with the current rules. But I'm not convinced the current rules are necessarily correct. As far as I can see, you're giving an opportunity for small businesses to do a bit of marketing as people are walking through. And often because... I think we're mostly talking about... It seems we're mostly talking about people along Gidby Terrace. People don't really... Passers-by in Belmondo so much. But those are often visitors. And I think that's what we're talking about. And these are competitive things where people are trying to attract the market. So I actually think it doesn't particularly over-clutter. I walk there, as you know, all the time. And it's not like I feel overwhelmed by signage.
01:28:00 I'm not. So I think that is a reasonable thing to give support to small businesses to help them with their businesses. Councillor Wilkie: Jess, you have a question? Councillor Glasgow: Ingrid asked this question. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'm not going to support the amendment. Firstly, because it does apparently put us in the situation where we have to go back out for further consultation. And that will jeopardise the ability to bring in the local law with the new planning scheme. You know, the local law is intended to replace significant elements in the planning scheme. And a gap would be really problematic for our staff. And probably, you know, we're not going to be able to do that. It would be problematic for the Shire. But more importantly, there is no change to the current local laws. This would be a change to the current status quo, in fact, if this amendment were to pass.
01:29:00 The proliferation of A-frames to some eyes is fine, and to other eyes is an eyesore. I'm on the eyesore side of that equation. I actually don't like A-frames anywhere. I think they look cheap and nasty and tacky. But I've been willing to go along with, under, you know, some of the regulations that we have, you know, pressure from the business community, allowing some degree of A-frames to occur across the Shire. But if you've got, you know, six businesses working out of one site, and you end up with six A-frames, you end up with absolute clutter. And what we also have been told previously is that A-frames, of all their advertising advices, are the ones that take up the most time by our staff. Therefore, they're the most costly for ratepayers to regulate and deal with. And... And... I think that, you know, if we're serious about trying to keep this place looking nice and minimise visual clutter, then A-frames should be minimised also, and one per tenancy is the way we've approached it historically, and we should continue to approach it.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any councillors wish to speak to the amendment? You wish to close, councillor Jackson? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, I'll... I'll just say, look, yeah, we are entitled to our opinion on this. I'm actually the councillor Jackson. I'm Jackson. I don't find A-frames invasive at all. I walk everywhere around the Shire, and they don't bother me. I often see them to find out where to go, and new businesses are popping up. It's super tough, as it is, to run a small business, and this is someone who's had two small businesses and knows already. It's brutal out there, and I think every little bit helps. I don't see that there's going to be... I don't see a handful or a dozen A-frames cluttered up all over the Shire in every different spot. There is a few little spots here and there, but as I said, I've walked past them. I don't see it as invasive. I find it quite informative, and with our new laws, our people manage them well, so I will support it. I think it's... I think it's every business's right to have an A-frame out there, and we're so contingent
01:31:00 on it, and it's been like this for a while now, as you can tell. And there's a lot of people out there that find A-frames non-invasive, so I will support the motion on that basis. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions? Speaker 9: Joe? Yeah, look, I also appreciate the intent. I think we've gone too far down the passage of advertising the one A-frame tenancy situation. The level of communication that we've had, and I think it's a good thing that we've been able to do that. I think the challenge has always been the fact that we are not proactive, and haven't been proactive in regulating these issues, and talking to businesses of their obligations with regard to their signage. I think that's the shortfall of where we've been up until now.
01:32:00 And I'll reiterate that in my final arguments as well, with regard to signage in general. But at this late stage, I think it's a good thing that we've been able to do that. So thank you very much for that. I, in the same vein that you suggested earlier, Councillor Wilkie, I won't be supporting this amendment. Councillor Gashman. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will. I'm putting this... Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Sussman. He didn't indicate that he wanted to speak. Would you like to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Sorry. He had to coax him. The arguments have been put. The key thing is the evolution of...
01:33:00 We don't need big wooden boards sitting outside six, or five, or seven, outside everything every little shop, and particularly every little marine lease on the riverbank. People go to the riverbank to enjoy the river, to have a picnic. They don't go there to be bombarded with every small business having a 900 by 600 A-frame. Those micro-businesses are there because there's a natural attractor. They're a natural environment. It's our parkland. They don't need extra A-frames to be successful. They need an industry product and good service. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'll close. I think I'll just start by mentioning that one of the favourite argument methods in this council is posing a worst case scenario.
01:34:00 I don't, from everything I have seen, we're not going to see six and more A-frames in front of every single tenancy. Quite often it's only two, if it's two businesses. Also, the fact that it, I'm not sure what the message was from Councillor Wellington about attracting or challenging our staff to have to regulate and how difficult it is. I assume that was for A-frames in general, but I would suggest that they wouldn't have to regulate if there was fairness for each little business. And I think that it's not fair to have. Different, hello, to have different, you know, not to allow each little business to do that when they are a business. Normally, I would support Councillor Stockwell's idea that, you know, online is great, you know, real estate, for example, people will go online to buy a house.
01:35:00 But I think it's a little different when it comes to renting a boat or the other kinds of supplies that are available. I think it's a little different when it comes to renting a boat or the other kinds of supplies that are available. Along the terrace area, people come here on holiday and they haven't kind of looked up everything on the website. And they go for a walk and they're thinking, what are we going to do now? What are we going to do this afternoon? They see things and go, yes, I'd like to do that. So I think it's really, it is. And as we have limited, I mean, you know, just to kind of add to that, we seem to be defining street frontage, which limits signage. And as we have limited, I mean, you know, just to kind of add to that, we seem to be defining street frontage, which limits signage. So even for the jetty street frontage. So we're going to only count the linear frontage and not the backage, where boats are coming in, where people are seeing things from behind. So we're going to only count the linear frontage and not the backage, where boats are coming in, where people are seeing things from behind. And so that's going to limit the ability to sign on that, in those areas anyway.
01:36:00 Anyway, so to me it's about helping small business and that's why I'm suggesting it. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Glasgow, Councillor Jackson, those against. Councillors Wellington, Jurisevic, Stockwell and Wilkie. The amendment is lost. Go back to the original motion to which Councillor Wellington was then the only speaker. Councillor Glasgow: Can I ask a question? Councillor Wilkie: Yes Jess. Councillor Glasgow: There was a bit of a timing issue as this new policy came out and then the audit went out at the same time, right? There was a signed audit going at the same time? I mean, what policy? When was the last actual Shire-wide signed audit done? We're in the middle of that. Speaker 7: We're in the middle of that audit at the moment. I don't recall an audit in my time. I've been here since 2000.
01:37:00 Yeah. Councillor Glasgow: This is the first? Speaker 7: This is the first proactive one, yeah. Councillor Glasgow: And what was the reasoning behind that? Speaker 7: Well, the amount of signage had proliferated, essentially. It went unchecked during our years of amalgamation. It was quite noticeable in my offices that it increased. The extent of signage in the Shire and the non-compliance with signage required. So it was proposed by officers to council for that reason. Oh. Speaker 9: Sorry. John? No, yeah. Why don't you welcome us first, if you will? Councillor Wilkie: No, no, no. I'm chairman now. Righto. Chairman. Speaker 9: I'll have a crack and I know people won't be happy with this, but the draft local law was part of the original concept to introduce an approvals process and annual licence renewal fees as part of a more prescriptive local law approach as stated in the report. The approvals process and annual licence renewal fees have been overwhelmingly rejected by the community and subsequently by staff, but the local law intended to enforce the more prescriptive
01:38:00 approach remains. I won't support the continuation of the more prescriptive local law approach. What the report fails to mention is that council is still in the process of undertaking a signage audit, which I requested following claims that signage in Noosa was getting out of control as a means of determining what the actual level of compliance was, rather than rely on an example claim by a few people. What the audit has shown to date is that there is an overwhelming level of compliance with the existing signage regulation, somewhere close to 85% compliance before we began the audit process. A couple of councillors requested the audit be allowed to be completed to assess the situation and have data available before any suggestion of changes to signage regulation was to be considered, as it was not believed that the system was so great that it required an overhaul. This didn't occur and the audit included conversation with business on their level of non-compliance and rectification works required to comply. The subsequent audit and conversations with businesses regarding their compliance issues have remedied a great number of the issues regarding the regulations that they stand, not all of which I or many businesses agree with.
01:39:00 The current resulting level of compliance is yet to be reported, as the audit is yet to be completed, but will now be far in exceed of the original 85% compliance that existed. The system was on break, so why are we trying to be more prescriptive and prohibitive with our approach? The response in the report to requests for 100% window coverage to allow for privacy or UV protection of goods now allows for window tenting to occur. A step forward? Perhaps. But it seems inconsistent to me that the response against having a window area of a store completely covered was to enable visual product merchandising and interesting vibrant streetscapes, yet graphic design of merchant products is not considered to accomplish this beyond 50% window coverage. We don't seem to want a business to have modern ideas in terms of advertising devices. The irony for me is always that the product displays in windows are advertising devices. And are permitted. I get that some people don't like any form of advertising, but when the regulations become inflexible to a point that they prevent a business from reducing their signage by allowing
01:40:00 a window to display a graphic half the size of the allowable signage that could go on the building and reduce the cost for a business, it seems like the system isn't looking into its intent. And the example is one there that by covering that window, it wouldn't have been permissible. Only 50% of that window could be covered. Yet, the example on the right shows what is permissible under the size of signage allowable. It's my understanding there have been some considerations to signage to be in keeping with building size and scale under the planning scheme, where planners and applicants had some measure to be able to consider signage for larger scale developments. The local law will, in my opinion, reduce the opportunity for any government to do so. There have been two recent appeals on signage regulation where council's approach has proved to be challengeable.
01:41:00 One of which has resulted in mediation where changes represented those proposed by councillors in debate on the matter. The other introduced a new way of considering signage to a visual impact assessment. I believe this type of approach has merit, but no consideration of this nature seems to be considered. And I believe the local law is continuing to be implemented to reduce any further challenge of this nature. The audit of signage laws has required the Tewantin News Agency to remove two signs that were part of the character and colour of the main street that couldn't be seen beyond the other side of the street. It seems somewhat obsessive to me and fixated on dimensions with little consideration of character or years in tissue. The signs had an element of scale to the building facade and I doubt that anyone had an issue with the signage over the years that had been in place. The large white spaces that now replace the signs do little for me in the way of character or amenity to the streetscape, but these are the rules. I'm sorry, but I'm not supportive of removing the colour and character that some signs and forms of advertising can create. There has at least been support for an allowance of an element of larger signs in the industrial
01:42:00 area to allow for scalar buildings. But today at least one councillor proposed to bring us all back to the one size fits approach. My understanding from reports is that there were a significant number of submitters that wanted council to consider a precinct approach to character and amenity. Rather than a one size fits all. The industrial area consideration is at least one way to consider what the community asked for, but a long way from deliverable. Council seems to have an ongoing vendetta against the real estate industry, rather than a willingness to introduce an education process and work with agencies to minimise signage clutters or wayfinding to open houses. The current allowance of one single directional sign at the front of a property is no different from allowing one sign of the property to be sold. It's assumed that the world has suddenly evolved and everybody uses signage. I'm sure there will be a marked reduction in people attending open houses as a result, with neighbours and visitors no longer aware of open house opportunities in the neighbourhood unless they scour the net or papers on a regular basis.
01:43:00 Council's own wayfinding signs are ordering at the best and in need of upgrades. Thank goodness we've finally recognised this and are working on improvements, especially after taking nearly two years to consolidate their own formulation of signs leading into Pomona. We've had to debate the matter of A-frame signs, which was presented earlier today. But the signs remain, with additional measures of control to prevent them growing in great proportions following the public feedback. And we will now ban the scourge of big city symbolism and enemy of the Noosa look and feel in teardrop flags, because a few people don't like them. In 20 years of living in Noosa, I haven't heard one person complain about a teardrop sign outside this chamber. I see it as ironic and inconsistent that Council chooses to ban teardrop signs from the public to promote the planning scheme pop-ups used in taking the scheme to the public where their removal was proposed. I firmly believe that a number of changes being made are unnecessary. The issues that have been raised are all a result of Council not taking a proactive
01:44:00 approach to signage in the past, such as an audit, to work with and educate non-compliant businesses as to the issues and approach of signage in the Noosa region and make new businesses aware of the signage regulations. The additional compliance being achieved with the current signage audit is testament to this. Temporary signage for A-frame signs and real estate signs were always in the local law, and Council have always had a power to act in a proactive rather than reactive manner. The lack of compliance, in my opinion, stems from a lack of understanding of the signage regulations as they differ greatly from other regions. A more proactive approach and means of communication is all that is needed, rather than the greater controls and restrictions on business through the local law's approach. This has thrilled many areas of Council where a reactive approach leads to years of inaction that result in extreme measures to try to implement change to bring things back into line with the current regulation. A more proactive, collaborative, communicative and educational approach is, in my mind, a far better solution than trying to be a prohibitive, big-stick approach. I have long fought for a reasonable approach to signage and supported new ideas and concepts
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 from business in relation to activity and signage in particular. I continue to stand for those ideals in rejecting the changes to increase signage regulations and introduce an introduction of the more prescriptive and effective signage regulations. Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff. Speaker 9: I know that won't be in everybody's keeping, but that's been consistent with my approach on the issue of signage and local laws for my six years in Council. Thank you, Joe. Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff. The current audit, signage audit that's underway, can you tell us what role advice and education plays in this audit? Speaker 7: That's a big part of our time in this audit. We spend quite a lot of time talking to each of the auditors. The individual businesses, talking to them about what the requirements for signage are, helping them understand it and letting them know what they can do to advertise their business. So that's the biggest part of the audit.
01:46:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. And under the old Noosa Council, we had close to 100% compliance. Was there an annual registration fee and inspection process part of that? Speaker 7: Yeah. Prior to the Noosa plan in 2006, there was an annual fee and registration process. And, you know, there's a lot of work to be done on that. But there was an officer who did proactively audit signage at the time. It wasn't an audit. Councillor Wilkie: There was some proactive signage going on. And it was during the six years of amalgamation that the level of compliance fell from near 100% down to 85%? Speaker 7: Yeah. The 85% was given some time ago to councillors of the business areas that we had done at the time, Tewantin and the Junction, predominantly. We've completed more of the audit and we're finding more areas of non-compliance. So I suspect that percentage will have changed if we'd all put that back to council. Mayor Wellington: That's quite a good question. Yeah. The example that Councillor Jurisevic put on the screen of the building didn't seem
01:47:00 to be quite a fair comparison in terms of the window versus the other sign. Firstly, it wasn't a display window anyway, but could you elaborate on your position on Speaker 7: it? That's one of the businesses we're talking to at the moment about. It's not their signage. And they actually only have a very small frontage to the road. So the extent of signage is not representative of what they would be allowed to have on the building. It's not to change it from the window to the wall. So it's not representative of the facts. It's an exaggeration. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Can I follow up? I'd like it that you go back up there, because I think there's also a population area. So for that sign on the right to be compliant, it'd have to be no more than four square metres. Speaker 7: Yeah, that's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That door there would be about 2.1 by 900, which is about two square metres. I'm suggesting, Councillor, that above the maximum sign space area in one sign, if you
01:48:00 mislead it to this space. But that is not an alternative to working the window. Speaker 9: I apologise if I've mislead that. If I mislead the council in that, that was something presented to me by a graphic designer, and those were his dimensions. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'd like to... And, Councillor, you've always had a view on signage, but I think it's great we've had to go to debate now. It's unfortunate that you said it introduced a new prescriptive approach. It's unfortunate because it's not correct. The right term would be to reintroduce this approach. We've gone from a planning scheme that was performance outcomes, which resulted in a whole lot of perverse outcomes as a result of court action. That doesn't set the standard, that sets a reason, one of the reasons we're moving it out of the planning scheme. With science it's much easier if it is prescriptive.
01:49:00 But what we do know is what's in the local law as posed is very similar to the initial setting when Noosa first established controls over science. There are some differences. The current local law compared to 1984 is more relaxed on the way it treats egg frames. It's more relaxed in the way the size of science is relaxed. It's more relaxed in the maximum size of an illuminated sign by some distance, by some degree. And they're the ones that come to the top of my head. I think it's important to understand that there is very little difference between the sort of outcomes that we tried to get through the planning scheme and the sort of outcomes that are in the local law. It's a different way of controlling it which will reduce the cost of going to the planning environment court to defend it.
01:50:00 It's a different decision. And why should we defend those general provisions for signage that was established in the 1980s? Because that is part of what makes Noosa different by nature. That is part of what created this as a different destination to everywhere else on the east coast of Australia which allows the Mooroochie door. It is about saying that there is an overall economic benefit from creating an urban place that doesn't overawe you with advertising. And I used a research that showed that that 1980s, early 90s built the Noosa brand in terms of our urban design style with those Noosa design principles which started the control of the signage. And that Noosa brand in that research showed that it adds 70% to an average return from a hospitality or food business or accommodation business compared to the average across Australia.
01:51:00 That brand adds about 29% to the value of people in general retail. And that's why it's so important to protect the brand, to protect those urban design principles and to be very clear what is and isn't acceptable so that everyone goes by the same rules and regulations. But I repeat, this isn't the introduction of a more prescriptive approach. It's reintroducing provisions that have been set in Noosa since the 80s. And the only difference are ones that make it more easy to get different types of signs. Councillor Jackson: Could I have a question? A question. Yeah. The original intent and the reason this is hand in hand with the Noosa plan is to move
01:52:00 some of the rules that are currently embedded in the Noosa plan into the local law. Some of the local law already existed because we had local laws I think for temporary signage. Correct. But permanent signage was in the Noosa plan. So the whole idea was to simply move the permanent signage into a local law. As I understand it, largely the permanent signage, other than window coverage, has not significantly changed. It's more the temporary signs which have been changed, which is the original local law. So when you're talking about the necessity for having to re-advertise, if we went with the full idea that we currently don't do any changes until we reach a more placemaking approach, and all you were doing is moving exactly what's
01:53:00 already in the Noosa plan into the local law situation, would that still require re-advertising if it was exactly the same, which is already the rules? Speaker 6: If we hadn't advertised it, if there had been some change from what was in the Noosa plan. No, if there was no change. No change. Yeah. We would still have to have included it in the local law and notified that. Councillor Jackson: So you'd still have to go out with it, even though it's exactly the same. Speaker 2: If I understand what Anita's saying is it hasn't been through that particular topic, whatever that might be, hasn't been through one of the two rounds of consultation. Yeah. And hasn't been raised in that, then that's when the issue arises. Councillor Jackson: So even though, what I'm saying is if we already, but I'm not sure that we're getting this. So if we, there's stuff in the Noosa plan currently, which is a particular definition, there's rules about advertising. Yep. And if that was simply going to be transferred to a local law, exactly no change, does that
01:54:00 still require advertising? Speaker 2: The local law would require advertising. Yeah. Yes. Councillor Jackson: It would. Even though it's the same, exactly the same. Yeah. It's a different statutory process. If we're creating a local law. The process would require advertising. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Well, I think I'll speak then. Look, I'd like to say that I've really appreciated Councilor Jurisevic's exposition of all the various issues for businesses that are arising out of some of the changes that are being made to the local laws. And like Councilor Jurisevic, I have, you know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Whenever Council has had before it some development approvals or requests for minor changes or whatever to do with signage, I've always advocated on behalf of a rational, balanced
01:55:00 approach and case by case approach that suited that particular business. I'm certainly not into those worst case scenario pictures of, you know, dreadful signage all over Noosa. I'm very much into keeping the signage to a minimum, but I always wanted to consider the business needs. I think the, in the first instance, we were certainly told that the only reason we were doing a change in a local law was to bring things out of the Noosa plan. So it wouldn't be in the Noosa plan anymore, and it would be in a local law, which, as we understand it, gives the Council more ability to enforce. But it turned out. It turned out that it became a process of also changing the local law and making things more stringent. I'm pretty satisfied there has been consultation, certainly the business associations who represent
01:56:00 without election, without, you know, necessarily fully represent, but who had a say, so, I mean, I'd have to say that from what I've seen, there was. I mean, I'd have to say that from what I've seen, there was. I mean, I think that's probably an improvement in some of the things that were originally put out, and the second time around, a lot of that was taken on board. I'm also very aware that Council doesn't play by its own rules. I mean, just now, we're going to have our peak traffic go Noosa, and it's going to have signs all over the place, and, you know, they're directional signs, and we're not actually a, somehow we don't seem to fall under our own rules. I don't know why. I can't really buy Councillor Stockwell's argument that we're just going back to the 1980s because that's a bit back to the future for me and you know just before this we've talked to about Noosa tourism and about their refresh program and how the 1980s buildings are really daggy and out of date and needed to be brought up to speed and I think to sort of say well this is the best thing to do is to go back to the 80s I just can't really buy that.
01:57:00 So I think I will support Councillor Jurisevic's motion or amendment. Speaker 9: I haven't made an amendment. Councillor Jackson: No amendment. I agree with Councillor Jurisevic. Mayor Wellington: You're going to vote against. Councillor Jackson: I'll vote against. Yeah. Councillor Glasgow: I'm going to keep this pretty simple because it's been wrapped up. Councillor Jurisevic has got it fairly right. It's not broke, don't fix it. Real simple. And you know he's had 20 odd years. In my whole 37 years I've never had one single person hand on heart make a single signed complaint apart from my ugly mug election time. That's about it.
01:58:00 We all complain about that. That's pretty good hard evidence there why I won't support it too. It's detrimental for small businesses. As I said someone has had two small businesses already. It's there in the lifeblood of our community and it's just not broke. Don't fix it. No one complains about it. No one ever brought it up to me at all. I agree you can get out of control and everyone talks about you know Parramatta Road. Parramatta Road. I googled Parramatta Road last night while I was in New South Wales and it's a hell of a lot different than anything like Noos is doing. And this is never ever going to become Parramatta Road. It's just, it just seems like a vendetta against businesses too much to want to try and inflict all these little bits and pieces. You know I've had, I calculated on the rounds I did last, start of last month. It was about $35,000 to $40,000 of audits out there done about whether signs should be moved 200 or 300 mil.
01:59:00 You know there has to be a bit of a common sense approach. Based on here with comes to these signs. Like you're getting someone to pay $5,000 and move a sign 200 mil. That just seems bananas and it's a small business. It can be detrimental. So I just want, so I agree with Councillor Jackson and Councillor Jurisevic. I won't, I won't support this for that reason. I want to see Mercer Flourish for business and then they're the bread and butter of our community. They're the people out there that are paying our rates, putting the kids in school, hanging out here and living a simple life. So I want to see it continue. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Look, what I would say is it's easy to understand how something that's been in place, the general principles of the signage policy have been in place since the 80s. And that was, I believe, Councillor Stockwell's main point. There's nothing really new here.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 There's nothing new about what's been introduced. As he said, it actually has, it's more permissive than what was permitted in the 80s. Where A-frames were required to be on the lease area only, we're allowing them on the footpath as well. There's also a proposed slight increase of signage, maximum sign face in the certain areas of the industrial estate. This, and the other mistake I think decision makers make is they never think the one instance where they, they bend the rules or allow great decisions outside of the current regulation. They never think that's going to make the difference because what looks, what's there already is, is, looks pretty good and there's a high level of compliance. In the case of the signage, the high level of compliance is because there have been these very well respected commercial signage laws that seek to minimise signage in place in Noosa for many, many years. It slipped under the Amalgamated Council. And we're playing a bit of catch up there.
02:01:00 But Noosa looks, has a key point of difference because it has had these rather strict signage laws in place for a long time. They're proportionate. It's not a one size fits all for all businesses. It's proportionate to the size of the business. There is flexibility built into it. Councillor, and contrary to what Councillor Jurisevic said about a vendetta against the real estate industry, for minimising real estate and other real estate signs, it was actually the suggestion of key leaders in the real estate industry that suggested we minimise the signage on public footpaths. And I, we've embraced that and applauded that. It's a consistent and fair approach. The audit that's underway is not, they're not kicking down doors or taking a non-collaborative approach, which is what Councillor Jurisevic is accusing this council of. As you heard from the staff, the audit involves education, advice,
02:02:00 and they're generally guiding the businesses towards compliance, which slipped under the Amalgamated Council because they didn't have someone working. Point of order, Mr Chair. I believe you're putting words into my mouth. Speaker 9: I don't believe I said anything in colloquial. Mayor Wellington: The standing orders are being misquoted is not a point of order, nor is someone saying something which you don't agree with. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: This is why I heard Councillor Jurisevic. So, and putting the local, putting these signage policy under a local law is, makes it, clarifies it and makes it easier for businesses to understand what the requirements are. The feedback from the, we've responded, we've had two rounds of public consultation on this and we've responded to what the business community has said. They're very wedded to their A-frame. They are permitted, not only on their lease areas,
02:03:00 but also on the footpath. They do not, we've got rid of the annual licensing fee and the annual permit that's required. There is a greater signage face allowed in the, in the, in certain areas of the industrial estate. I think it's a very fair approach that takes into account the advice and guidance from the business community and also it has, we have to still respect Noosa's longstanding practice of minimising commercial signage where and when possible. The comment about Noosa Council not abiding by its own signage policy is highly debatable. I think this is about commercial signage and advertising devices. Now, I understand Noosa Council signage is wayfinding, to public spaces or community events. It's hardly, it's hardly an advertise, a commercial advertising device.
02:04:00 Far from the worst case scenario, there is no, I don't believe there's, the worst case scenarios that are spoken about is what happens when an instance of non-compliance supported by a councillor or councillors becomes a practice over time. It's what's known as the death by a thousand cuts. Whereas that becomes a practice over time, they transform, surely, they surely transform a community as if it was a regular policy right from the start. Now, I think there's been too much hard work done by previous councils supported by the business community to let this go by rewriting of history by this, by, you know, around this table. It's, some of the comments astonish me.
02:05:00 But, diversity of use is always welcome. The council stopped that question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's in part the worst case scenario question. It's, this motion doesn't get up and there is no local law approved without re-advertising. Once the planning scheme is adopted, we would have no regulatory control of signage. So therefore, things like the outdoor advertising could come in and put billboards throughout the Shire. Is that correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. There would still be the local law for temporary signage which currently operates, but there would be no regulation for permanent signage. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lange, do you wish to close? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, you've said quite a bit of what I was going to say, Councillor Wilkie, but look, I'm always happy to resist any further moves to make Noosa more like everywhere else. The elements that have long defined Noosa, as you say, will be lost by many small cuts.
02:06:00 And I think we have to determine the limits as to how far we're prepared to relax the longstanding standards of Noosa. And that's really what this debate is about. Councillor Jackson sees herself as rational, but I'm pretty sure Councillor Stockwell thinks he's rational too. So being rational is a somewhat highly subjective, somewhat irrational thing to think. But I don't think it comes down to rationality because one person's rationality is another person's irrationality. The Go Noosa signs that Councillor Jackson mentioned are temporary directional signs. They're not permanent advertising signs, which is largely what we're looking to deal with here. Councillor Jess Glasgow has said that he's never had complaints regarding sighting. I've had a lot. I've had many in my time on this council, including some by people who think that we've let things go too far and the place isn't looking like the place they once knew.
02:07:00 We're not inflicting any major changes. As Councillor Stockwell has pointed out, what we're trying to do is hold the line here. Councillor Jurisevic actually argued against bringing in a local law at this time. And as we've heard, that would lead us into an absolutely chaotic state because we are trying to migrate provisions for signage out of the planning scheme and into the local law and we'd end up with a vacuum which could be exploited. Councillor Jurisevic has a different approach. I accept that to signage than perhaps I do. I've said before he's quite happy to walk around with polo shirts and T-shirts covered in advertising, whereas I'd be very squeamish about walking around with a T-shirt advertising freely. A McDonald's restaurant or the like. So obviously everyone has a different level of tolerance and I accept that neither one is correct, neither one is rational, but certainly there are differences of opinion. I think we do have to look historically
02:08:00 at the approach that has been taken here and question why that approach has been taken and understand that that approach has actually served Noosa very well. And I also disagree about this notion about a vendetta against the real estate industry. As with Councillor Wilkie, it was the real estate industry that approached me initially and asked me to do something about the proliferation of directional signs. And we haven't had a major backlash as a result of our determination the last time this matter came before us from the real estate sector, so I hardly see that there's a vendetta. If there was a vendetta, I'm damn sure we'd be hearing from them. So I'll be obviously supporting my motion and we'll see where we finish up. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wellington. I'll put the motion in those in favour. Councillors Wellington, Stockwell and Wilkie against. Councillors Glasgow, Councillors Jurisevic and Councillors Jackson. As the Chair, I use my casting vote in favour of the motion and the motion is carried.
02:09:00 Next item on the agenda. Thank you, Anita. Thank you, Kerry. There's a Planning and Voting Court appeal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I would like to speak to the development and moving that to the last item on the agenda as some of the matters that might be discussed may need to be done in confidence and therefore it's more appropriate to do that at the last item on the agenda. Councillor Wilkie: All right. 134. Section 34 of the standard rules. The Chairperson has the discretion to move it to the end of the meeting. No, I've got no objection. So we'll defer that to the end of the meeting. Thanks, Kerry. Kerry, which means we'll move to item five, which is the new suspect shoreline erosion update. Welcome, Daniel, and welcome, Carl. Councillors, some questions for Carl or Daniel.
02:10:00 Speaker 9: Let me just go and find the questions that I did send out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to do yours first? Speaker 9: Okay. I've got to find mine first. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So the first question, I suppose, is how was the potential scenarios for on-page considered as part of this study and do we have any knowledge of what the predicted signal horizon is, obviously, the planning horizon and what we're looking at in the future? Speaker 5: Yeah. So the Noosa river mouth area is kind of really dynamic. And so while climate change was definitely considered within the options that were proposed, it was considered under how are the options adaptable, not just to climate change but to the dynamics of the river mouth in total. And so as part of the evaluation criteria,
02:11:00 one of the weight of criteria was that is the option adaptable to, you know, future consideration. So that's part of the evaluation criteria. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I think you had a map available. Can I leave it? My question here, this one, councillors, is the modelling of what will happen in 2014. Can you explain what the shaded area represents? Speaker 5: So the shaded area represents the highest astronomical tide, including sea level rise to the year 2040. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So the shaded area represents sea level rise to the year 2040. Okay. So we can see that, in essence, most of that area is going to be underwater on the highest astronomical tide. If we had a storm surge on top of that, you know, that meticulous structure,
02:12:00 what would it do in terms of protecting the houses on this parade if there was a storm surge that's already in the water and a storm surge that's on top of it? Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, it's likely that that land is going to be overtopped. I mean, the area that's shaded already is low-lying marshland at the moment and that area, some of that area gets inundated already. So it's quite a large extent of land there that's just above the highest astronomical tide at the moment. And unfortunately, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the Conchanger Patient Officer is away today. My understanding is, recently, since we've done this modelling, there may have been decisions that are in that level that we need to enhance our, that will increase the level of YPC level rise in the 2040. Are you aware of that? Speaker 5: I'm not aware of that, but the proposed solution
02:13:00 that's gone forward has been proposed because it's so adaptable to those needs you're considering. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, in terms of the assessment process, obviously, we've looked at the impact in terms of erosion. Generally speaking, the ecological impacts or potential ecological impacts of it, I'm particularly looking at the seawall option here. How is that handled in the assessment? Well, Speaker 5: in the assessment, environmental considerations went through two processes. So, one, they were evaluated just by themselves, both the potential negative and any positive outcomes. And then, they were also assessed within the risk assessment. So, if there was any risk, environmental risks that are in the option, that was scored within that. So, they were scored both by themselves and under that risk criteria as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I'm not
02:14:00 a estuary expert on fresh water. When I look at what was done there in 2006 in the Amalgamated Council and created a hard structure, if that was in a fresh water section of the river, I would have predicted that we'd get the erosion where we're currently seeing the erosion. So, in our modelling, have we done any modelling of what might be some potential unexpected or adverse implications for that structure in such a dynamic environment? Speaker 5: Yeah. So, all the structures that we looked at putting in there, we evaluated on the change to water velocities and change to water levels in different areas around the river. And that was evaluating for all the areas including Noosa Sound, Monor Point, Gympie Terrace, Noosa North Shore to have a look at all those populated centres as well as more locally as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And,
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 in the report, it's got a whole lot of different options in terms of sections that page 67, Speaker 4: was it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 67. It looked at a whole lot of different options, retreat, etc. In your report, you came down to one of which I find that I could never raise my hand for, which was the mention of a potential huge seawall. So, is there any great urgency at this stage to lock in a second stage intervention other than saying, well, can we proceed with the first stage and we use the lines they've identified where a more significant intervention may be required as the trigger for that sort of more detailed analysis of what group 5 and 3? Speaker 5: No, there's no need for it at this stage. We can, the report, in the report it says once we get to that second stage, just for consideration, there's kind of that, that seawall. Speaker 2: I think that's actually what the report says is that
02:16:00 option 1 is to have a look at whether or not to do the fan pumping and if that doesn't work then you've got to think about what plan B might be and plan B might be that to make that decision at that time. Speaker 9: I don't agree. I believe that the report actually says that the second iteration will be a hard structured rock wall along the beach. That's the way I read it. Speaker 2: Plan A doesn't work. Councillor Jackson: But that's not the motion. No, Speaker 3: I realise that. It says that it could be considered and there's no mention of a hard rock infrastructure wall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's another question. This is, I've always considered that seawall being a hard rock wall in, I think most people in the public would also think that. Is there, in your mind, that particular intervention could include something else? Speaker 5: Yeah, so in the work that we've done we haven't looked at materials that would build things out of. We've just looked at things like the structure themselves, where it would be placed and how it would work. So there's other materials and structures that we can build out of. Potentially in this site you would look at using geotextile containers, but the plan in general is to use softer solutions
02:17:00 to avoid that as much as possible so that we don't have to potentially give it at all. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that's, is that all the questions I answered? I've got a different motion that I will be moving when I let other councillors. Speaker 2: Can I just probably finish answering the question that Brian asked about, you know, what it is that's coming through this report. The recommendation that's framed is only that we're noting the report and not adopting anything in there. It's just consideration of the budget. Correct. It's just an alter. Yeah, other than referring the consideration of the pathway to the budget process next year. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I still think I could never have raised my hand with anything that foreshadowed the signal. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, in passing this motion as it's written, as it's written, there's no commitment to this or a future council to building a seawall of any nature. Speaker 2: No. What you're doing here isn't the wording of the recommendation that sits at the moment
02:18:00 to the council. We're simply noting the report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Speaker 2: And we're referring funding of an implementation pathway to consideration of the budget process next year. And that's one decision that we made . Councillor Jackson: So can I just check something with the pathway? Because my impression was that the concept of nurture, is it beach? Speaker 7: Nourishment. Councillor Jackson: Nourishment. That that actually would take a lot of years. This could go on for quite a long time. And that it only in the very worst case, and that wasn't working, much longer beyond now and not our current budget. There would have to be consideration of, oh my God, we may have to build something. So I'm a little bit unclear when it, when the motion as it stands says implementation pathway and funding, wouldn't the, would the motion be suggesting funding over dozens and dozens of years? Or is the motion talking about
02:19:00 next budget year? Speaker 2: I won't read at the moment. It's budgets talking about the 2021 financial year. So that's all. Yeah. And what would be needed then if the council wanted to go down the nourishment path? Yeah. And how long it might take, whether it's not a year or one year or whatever. Councillor Jackson: So it doesn't commit to anything else. Correct. If I'm wrong, Mayor Wellington: consideration can mean rejecting actually providing any funding in the 2021 budget. Correct. Correct. Speaker 9: Yeah. So, after beach nourishment, the second option is if beach nourishment becomes ineffective or unfeasible, seawall could be constructed in the approximate alignment of the red section in figure one. This could then become with sandy themed appropriate. That's, that's how, how I got to that conclusion by reading that. I thought that was the second option. So that's not, the reading, the reading of that is not correct then. Speaker 5: The second option, it says it could be, and that's the, that's the critical point. Speaker 9: But it's the only other option offered
02:20:00 as opposed to all the other options in the sense which seem to be more in line with geotextile walls or geotextile fabric type inclusions such as what we've done at Munner Point, which is where I thought Speaker 2: we would have gone secondary. To answer that question, basically, that's a decision a council might have to make down the track in four or five or five or six years. The decision at the moment is. And I, I understand you. That was just by. And the decision I think the council will need to make in the budget next year will be whether or not you want to fund any sand nourishment. Councillor Wilkie: And, and to clarify, sea wall can consist of geotextile bags. Correct. To confirm, Speaker 9: with regard to sand nourishment, the proposed figure is something like $1.2 million. Correct. How does that compare with what we do on Main Beach with regard to sand pumping operations that we have there, given that we've got a permanent pumping plant? Speaker 5: Yeah, so our budget for the Main Beach is around $400,000 to $450,000 a year to do Main Beach. And we get a pretty decent discount because we've got
02:21:00 a permanent system set up there that, that, you know, can move that sand much more cheaply than a kind of dredge operation. And then for other operations, we do some work in Noosa Sand Canals as well as Gympie Terrace which is around about $150,000 a year. Speaker 9: That seems like a, okay, I'm trying to work out where the $1.2 million comes in when we've got existing operations that aren't anywhere near that. The volume of sand would be significantly greater? The volume of sand Speaker 5: is considerably higher. Mayor Wellington: It's a different type of dredge. Speaker 5: Yes. Mayor Wellington: And just for the record, the sand pumping system for Main Beach is paid for out of a levy imposed upon properties in Hastings Street area. Speaker 9: So that, that leads to my second question. Is there any, I notice in the, there is some, there is at least one mention of utilising the existing sand pumping facilities as one of the, one of the possible solutions. Is that something that we could look at to see whether it's feasible to maybe put an additional arm onto that or something along those lines or? Yeah, Speaker 5: we did look at that but that option
02:22:00 really fell down on it. It's not flexible enough for us to be able to take sand from where we want it and put it where we want it without. Speaker 9: So you can't disconnect and put a different hose on or a different, different pipe network on or put a, put a, put a, I don't know, a T in or something like that to. Speaker 5: We could but we'd still need to bring a, a boat or a dredge barge up to deploy the sand anyway, so yeah. Just seeing that all Speaker 9: the opportunities we've been for. My other questions, we talked about dredging. One of the things that we've always and, and one councillor has always reiterated that we used to dredge in the past and we've always, this has always been the solution and the solution seems to be in, in line with what we've done in the past but the dredging permits to move sand will not get environmental approval. How would we get environmental approval for something that we've been told time and time again is not something that the environment, Speaker 5: all agencies can have a say.
02:23:00 But we did involve the Department of Environment and Science with this program as well and, and some of the solutions that were knocked out or included were based on their advice of what they thought was, was possible to get approval. It doesn't mean we've got any approval. It's got to go through all the agencies but at this stage the agency So at this stage Speaker 9: it's still something that could be rejected Speaker 2: by the state. Speaker 5: All modified correct. Yep. All right. Speaker 2: I'll let you know I think the risk of that's lower because they've been involved in the process. Because it's been involved Speaker 9: in the process. Okay. I see. Just trying to get down that path as to what the likelihood of success would be. Right. I think that's the question. So thank you for answering all my questions. Okay. Mayor Wellington: I'll move it. Move Councillor Wellington. Speaker 9: I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded Councillor Rusko. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Look. The way I read the motion that I've just moved is that it is to note the report and we must do that. We've paid for the consultation and we have to acknowledge the results of that consultation. And it refers the potential and it's only
02:24:00 the potential to fund any actions to the next budget which is when we'll be making serious decisions about whether or not we actually want to take action and what the costs may be associated with that action. I think it's important to understand that this is not going to be dealt with in isolation. All we're talking about at the moment is the CENT report. We do have to do more work. For example, as a result of the Skeletor Report which suggested that one of the answers to biodiversity in the river system might be opening up the river mouth to get rid of some silt in the river which is potentially smothering the biota in the floor or the bed of the river system. So we also obviously have to finish our work on the coastal hazard adaptation plan. All of these things are going to be playing into any future decision as to what we do with regard to the spit. I am,
02:25:00 like Councillor Stockwell, very cautious. I was actually, before I was on the Sunshine Coast Council, on the reference group for the Doggy Beach project and then when we amalgamated the Doggy Beach project moved suddenly from being geotech bags which could be removed into rock without any reference back to the reference group, without any discussion with anyone in fact. The Council simply made a decision to move from, and I am sure they had good reason, but the frustration was that no one realised that we were putting in hard walling there because the Council made the decision without reference to residents or even the councillors in fact as my understanding is. So we do have to be cautious about anywhere in the system where we start putting in hard walling. Including in the
02:26:00 berms on the main beach, the spit itself is an artificial construct. Every time we play with the river system we create unexpected repercussions and that's why we do have to be cautious. But I think accepting and noting this report and considering some of the things that the report suggests does not take us down a path towards making a decision about our actions. Speaker 9: Sorry, just a further question. Did the report, did the set take into consideration the existing geotextile barriers that have been put in and whether they are effective or whether their removal could be considered? Because that was one of the considerations as to being a temporary structure and their removal as Councillor Wellington alluded to. Speaker 5: So yeah, one of the early stages was looking at the whole system and how it's evolved and whether those structures have been successful and what they were trying to do. The conclusion from that was the large spit growing on the
02:27:00 western end has been fairly successful in protecting that end of the beach. The submerged structure hasn't been very successful in doing what it's supposed to do mainly because its crest level is lowered due to boat strikes as well as settling of the containers so that side wasn't as successful. But no, there was no discussion about whether they should be removed. Interesting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move to amendment. Oh, okay. And that is you see the change in red. As above plus refer funding for the implementation of the first bay of the Noosa Spit shoreline erosion management plan for consideration in the 2020-21 financial year budget process. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that please? I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Jackson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say I accept what both the CEO and the Mayor have said but if two highly learned and very intelligent councillors both thought the same thing. Who are you referring to?
02:28:00 When I read page 35 I see that stage two is a seawall and I don't want any motion that even passively says without a whole lot more explanation than an analysis links us into that. I don't think there's any problem with the way I did actually get upset yesterday but then realised that there was more information that I didn't read. You don't go to the end of the seawall Speaker 9: and you select the conclusion. It's somewhere in the middle. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The degree of analysis I accepted had looked at the environmental consequences at this stage and it's suitable for this case and I do acknowledge that the skill of the report also foreshadows some ecological benefit that may occur from allowing flushing clothes to remove certain sediment and that would be quite further analysis but I do think in terms of the decision before us
02:29:00 today that the amendment adequately covers council what it needs to decide on now. Councillor Jackson: I'll speak briefly as well. I have actually a different view than councillor Stockwell but I have the same I'm willing to second the motion. I actually think that it's really important first of all that council take responsibility for protecting existing houses and residents properties. The river mouth is already occupied by artificial as is the spit, Noosa spit. This is all artificial. It's not natural and yes we are having to live with that reality. I don't think that will go away. We have to manage that. So I'm actually I have no particular ideology about walls. I don't think the report is threatening
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 us with immediately putting a wall up let alone a rock wall. It's really saying beach nourishment is necessary and we've already reached the trigger point, the first trigger point. That's what it's saying. I think that that is something that should be supported. I'm really supportive of taking expert advice. This has been a huge project. We've been spending you know waiting for a year to see the outcomes. I don't think these sorts of decisions should be made in our position. I think we need to be taking serious expert advice about how we should go forward and I'm very satisfied with what has been proposed. There is no threat to put up a wall right now. What they're saying is in you know the worst case scenario there may have to be something like that done. But at the moment it's about the
02:31:00 beach nourishment. As far as I understand all this motion is meant to be about is the decision for the budget for 2021. I don't think any of us are going to be making any decisions for you know 10 years or 20 years from now. So I don't mind the wording being changed to looking at the first phase of the erosion management plan and budgeting for that in 2021. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Wellington. Yeah look I'm just wanting to quietly revel in a moment where Councillor Jackson seconds a motion report. And although I don't think that the amendment actually does much more than split a few hairs Councillor Stockwell is very adept at splitting hair. So I'll support him.
02:32:00 Speaker 9: Firstly, I'd like to thank the Councillor for including me as an intelligent Councillor. I'm sure that's not what you thought of me about five minutes ago. Look, I'll support this. I don't think it was absolutely necessary but I support the intent of that. I thought the first phase would be the only thing you'd consider in the next financial year budget let alone subsequent and future years implementation. But this adds a level of clarity to what may or may not be considered in the budget process. So I'm happy to support the minor amendment. Councillor Glasgow: Jess. Yeah me too. It's a mess. Stipulated at splitting hairs and you know the whole any hard service there does resonate poorly with myself as well. Council Stockwell's reiterated that right. Someone's been around that area a lot. So any
02:33:00 more concrete evidence of not making them happen I support. So yes, I'll go over it too. Mayor Wellington: Concrete evidence. Councillor Wilkie: Just to be different. There is no there's nothing in this recommendation the original recommendation that suggests that weds any future council to building a CDA whether it be rock or geotextile bag or not. I feel that this amendment actually limits the options for future council and I think it's up to them to make the decision about how much of a professional report they consider. I think Council Jackson made some very good points about we need to take professional advice about this. I acknowledge the implementation pathway
02:34:00 does not necessarily consideration of the implementation pathway does not wet us a future council to a rock wall. So for the sake of making that point Speaker 3: I'll Councillor Wilkie: I'll I'll against the amendment. Yeah. But Brian wish to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will briefly. I accept everything that Council Jackson says as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is a modified environment. It was constructed to protect houses in the result of the 1970s development. It is different to other so the eastern beaches but it is the decision to protect is one we haven't made under the Coastal Hazard Adaption Plan. So making a and in my mind I quite I still read that the original motion as technically adopting the two
02:35:00 recommendations which goes down the way of the seawall. I'm much less concerned about it noting that the seawall can be a a geotextile structure but I still think at this stage we'd be much better making the decisions about a protection retreat within the context of our Coastal Hazard Adaption Plan rather than on this individual site. I think the site will ongoing have a different trajectory than the eastern beaches but I still think it's better to make the strategic decision first and then see how this fits into the overall path of things. I do think that we are you know we should trigger action. We should take action. I I looking at the methodology and the approach it makes perfect sense to set the red line. One thing I haven't mentioned now is one of my concerns is depending on the timing of when that red line's crossed whether the the phase two implementation would already be redundant that it wouldn't have the effect
02:36:00 because Mayor Wellington: Point of order. The Council is introducing new material into a reply. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did push out of that. Speaker 4: I was going to give it Deputy Mayor Stockwell: an argument. Speaker 9: We are only talking about the amendment not the substantive Speaker 4: I will see. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour Councillor Wellington Glasgow Jurisevic Jackson Stockwell. Those against Councillor Wilkie. Is that a first? The amendment is carried. The amendment becomes the motion to which only Councillor Wellington has spoken. Speaker 9: Joe. Look I'll support the motion. As has been alluded my disappointment has always been that the the mouth of the Noosa River was was tinkered with by man many many years ago and there's so much man-made strife to hear the unfortunate consequence of which is that we're forever more going to be wedded to a man-made man-made activity to
02:37:00 overcome the the implementation of all those structures over time to continue to protect what what goes beyond and to continue to maintain Doggy Beach which has become a favourite of of residents and visitors alike. I see looking at the first the first page and I said I hadn't read the the latest in regard to the the likelihood of a channel being a a benefit for the benthic layer I always thought that that may pose other challenges of not being able to iterate that but I'm pleased to hear that there may be some some overcome for the silt silting that's there in and that could be implemented through through this and I guess we've got a lot of reporting and a lot of work to do before we get to the final levels of of any implementation plan before the budget and I hope it starts to get there in that in time. Okay.
02:38:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll just I'll just talk about I'll just speak more comprehensively No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As I said that's that's one of the risks and I hope that we're in that position where we only have to make that decision where the decision about whether to proceed or not that hasn't been the case since the day it was erected it was erected to as a result of the the significant storm events that occurred during the 70s we've been in the red line within 24 hours of a tropical cyclone moving down the coast that's been the case ever since it was erected so to me that's important to understand is that that the timing of when it's required will and the urgency with what we need to respond to at that time is should be factored into our decision so that's why I'm much more comfortable with the motion.
02:39:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lundford wish to close. No. The motion goes in favour. That's unanimous. Speaker 2: Motion's carried. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Daniel for the work you've done. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Absolutely. Thank you Daniel. Apology for the cranky Speaker 9: pants on. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 4: Don't blame me if I write it down the day before or what. Councillor Wilkie: Finance report. Trent. Welcome Trent. Speaker 5: Hello Trent. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Hey Trent. Speaker 5: On track. On track. On track. On track. Speaker 2: Page 39 councillors. I think that's the first time we've had one of those. I'm just looking Speaker 9: for staff training. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: For a very good reason. It's on track. Perfect. As I said, I think that's the first time this term that we've had to all agree. Yeah. Speaker 8: Certainly in the six months. It's usually after budget review councillors.
02:40:00 You'll find that we reset the numbers after budget review. We reset the numbers and that's the point. We reset the numbers. That one. Oh this is after budget review. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That needs to be Councillor Jackson: pasted. Speaker 8: Resetting expectations. So if you see an orange traffic light in there next month you know we're ... Speaker 9: So the question will be then as a result of budget review, what was the change to, I'm assuming, capital expenditure? Speaker 8: Capital expenditure? That would have been Speaker 9: the most significant change Speaker 8: to the budget review I would imagine? Marginal. Marginal. So we ... Ins and outs. Ins and outs. So we reset the capital program. So the net, the net change last month with the, as adopted at council was from 30.9 to 30.9 I believe. Speaker 9: Excellent. So we ... Excellent to hear that there's been very little change Speaker 2: in the capital program. Job at some of that was bringing some projects forward and pushing others out was reallocation. Speaker 8: Yeah. So there were some big movements but the net overall was to ensure that the capital program was still achievable.
02:41:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question in regard to our investment portfolio. Yes. With recent revelations around influence our decision to invest them or not under our ethical investment policy. Speaker 8: Councillor, regardless of recent issues in media with some of the major banks, before we even assess ethical decision making we're finding regardless that there's We are returning a significantly higher rate of return than any of the large commercial banks. Coming in at close second are those smaller banks and institutions that obviously have a lower credit rating such as Bendigo, Heritage and Suncor. The point of difference is anywhere up to 0.5% at present for the larger banks.
02:42:00 The big four are offering much lower. And we're getting 0.5% higher with our current investments with Bendigo and QTC. So at present, Questpac isn't in the portfolio. It doesn't look like it will be in the near future. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But the question I had was, would our ethical investment policy be influenced by the current relevant regulations? Because that might lead to our councillor decision about reviewing the policy next year. Speaker 2: No, it wouldn't fall into it. Councillor Wilkie: Joe. What? Nothing. Oh, what is it? Review by councillor Glasgow. I'll take it. Seconded by councillor Jurisevic. Wish to speak to it, Jess. Councillor Glasgow: Oh, just that you've done a tremendous job. Trent, all green. First time. We can be on track and kicking it off. I wish sometimes we could pepper you with more, more adverse questions. But finance guys are too damn good.
02:43:00 Jess. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Council is wish to speak to a motion. Put the motion to those in favour. OK. This motion is carried unanimously. Thank you Mr. Graff. Thank you. Kerry, welcome. We go back to item number four. Oh yeah, there's one more. I want to change the developing approval. Confidential. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move that we go into confidential session on the basis that I wish to discuss matters that are relevant to a current policy or issue.
165 minutes in ¶
02:59:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Councillor Jackson: Can I ask a question, even though I'm supposed to speak? Kerry, in the newspaper, News & News, there was a reference to council spending $47,000 on this defence of this appeal. I don't see that in your report, so I'm wondering whether that is the correct amount of the spend. Speaker 7: So in the finance and risk section on page 33, it does indicate what the current costs were at the time I was writing the report, which is $47,000. $43,000. Councillor Jackson: $43,000. Speaker 7: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: $43,000, $44,000. And that's how much is spent to date? Well, at the time writing the report. So there's more to be spent until it's finished.
03:01:00 Speaker 7: We may not have had all the invoices in for it to account. Okay. I see. Speaker 2: And there'll be the final appearance in court to get the consent order done. Of course. Sorry? There'll be the final appearance in the court to get the consent order finalised, but that won't be significant. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Okay. Okay. And perhaps in relationship to what looks to me like a liability, for something that I actually voted against, defend, you know, I voted against not allowing the pool. Why would we spend so much money defending and then finding that really it's something that could have been sorted out through conditions? Speaker 2: The answer to that is that there was a council resolution to defend the appeal, so staff have been committed to that council decision. In looking at those costs, most of those costs aren't actually legal costs. They're costs of experts, engineers, and so on, to have a look at what's being supported by their engineers. Yeah. So when you have a look at what we term court costs, normally the majority of costs are actually experts, not lawyers for one of them.
03:02:00 So until you get the proposal from the appellant about what they'd like to do in terms of selling, we have to get our experts to look at what their exports have been for, and that's what generally runs those costs up pretty quickly. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you. That explains it. Yeah. Thanks. Well, as I've moved the motion, I will speak. I don't really have to speak very much here. I think we've had several times in council discussing this matter of somebody wanting to build a pool. There have been changes in the law, legislation. Of course, we did know that their neighbors actually had some pools and other structures further forward. And then the proposed pool. But because of a more recent law change in the state planning, that no longer was taken into consideration.
03:03:00 And so the people were refused. I always felt that it would have been okay for them to build a pool, but we seem to have missed it. Mayor Wellington: Mr. Chair, could the councillor please speak to the motion, not to some past motion that occurred in a previous council meeting? Councillor Jackson: Okay. Can I see the motion? Motion, please. The motion is note the report and settle the appeal. Okay. So I'm very satisfied with the concept of settling the appeal. I'm glad there's been a solution identified that satisfies the law. And I think that's the way to go forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. The councillor's wish to speak to the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All those in favour? The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you Kerry.