Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Noosa Council meetings since 2014: papers, decisions and recordings, and from April 2023 the video cued to each item.

General Committee Meeting - 13 January 2020 Transcript

Monday 13 January 2020 · 2 hours 26 minutes of recording · 2,527 lines · 13 voices, 5 named

This is a machine transcript of council's recording, produced by automatic speech recognition and not checked line by line against the video. Councillor and place names are corrected where a human has approved the correction; everything else is what the model heard. Quote the recording, not this page — every timestamp below opens council's own video at that second. Recording © Noosa Shire Council; the transcript is ours, made from it so the meeting can be searched and read.

Speakers: the machine separated 13 voices and names 5 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome everybody to the first General Committee meeting of the year. Hope everyone is rested and relaxed after a good Christmas. We have an apology from Councillor Brian Stockwell and our Mayor is in the building and not far away. We have no presentations, no deputations and because we haven't had committee meetings, we don't have committee meetings in January so items that would otherwise be presented for the first time to the Council in the Environment Planning Committee or the Infrastructure and Services Committee come straight to the General here today for the benefit of our guests in the gallery.

00:01:00 Any motions passed here today have only the status of recommendations that are forwarded to the ordinary meeting on Thursday evening where they will be ratified as a decision of the Municipal Council or not. So first up we have amendments to the Environment Levy Policy and Private Land Conservation Policy Guideline and we have Kerry Coyle and Dave Burrows. Welcome. Councillors, do you have any questions for our esteemed staff? Councillor Jurisevic: No, but given that it's our first meeting of the year, Mr Chair, I'm wondering whether we can relax standing orders and be a bit more informal in our approach with regard to... You're going to sing? No, just a bit of a conversation with staff as we gather some of these members. Councillor Wilkie: Well, as is tradition with the General Committee, it is not a formal meeting. It's more informal than the ordinary meeting. You won't be required to stand when you speak

00:02:00 and you can ask questions of staff prior to formal debate starting. But once formal debate does get underway, the standing orders do apply. So please, if you have questions for staff, feel free to make use of this time now. And remain seated. And sing if you wish. Speaker 8: Thank you, Caroline. Councillor Jackson: I do have a couple of questions. When I read over the changes to the guideline, I noticed that there's some changes to the Land for Wildlife Program, which isn't mentioned in the staff report. Specifically, there's a removal of the possibility of providing nest boxes, resource books and open property days. And I'm just wondering if there's a reason for the removal of that already.

00:03:00 Speaker 3: Councillor, the intent of changing it is not to exclude those things. It's just to actually make it more broader that we're able to provide incentives in line with the intent of the program. That would definitely include those things that were sort of admitted. It's just basically a technical wording thing, but we're certainly not excluding those things. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. Thank you. And the other question I had relating to that is also that in the current version of the guideline under Land for Wildlife, it refers for annual incentives program, but the word annual has now been removed. And I'm wondering if, again, that's a reason for that. Speaker 3: Well, the main reason is it's based on what the budget we're given. So, I mean, at the moment, this is the first year, the 19-20 financial year, when we've had a budget to deliver the incentives. And I'd like to think that that would continue every financial year. But I guess just for that possibility, that may not. But, you know, at the moment, we're rolling out the two incentives, which is provision of tube stock.

00:04:00 And there's up to 5,000 tube stock applications that come out and also for assistance with weed management. So it's proven to be a highly successful program with landholders and members. But I guess it's kind of like a trial year just to see how it goes. And certainly towards the end of the financial year, we'll be reporting on how we've done and putting in a budget bid for that to sort of be supported in the following financial years. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: A question, Dave, about the proposed incentives for the VCAs. So you're proposing that the minimum available annual incentive be $1,630 per year. Which was up from $1,500. And the maximum increased from $5,000 to $5,425. What was the thinking behind those amounts by increasing it by those amounts? Speaker 3: CPI. CPI increased over the last five years, which is around 8%. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you. Joe? My question along those lines, when was the last time it was increased?

00:05:00 Speaker 3: It hasn't increased since Noosa Council's become an entity. Councillor Jurisevic: No, it's well worth reviewing and looking at a CPI increase. Speaker 3: Definitely. Councillor Jurisevic: My other question was similar to Councillor Jackson's first question. Yeah, the change in the wording. My understanding is that, yeah, those other initiatives consistent with the intent to land for wildlife, such as free native tube stock, training assistance with environment weather and equipment loans, such as fauna cameras, would include the sort of things along the lines of nest boxes and the ... Absolutely. Is the intent ... Correct, yeah. It wasn't ... Correct, yeah. Outlined as clearly as it may have been previously ... Speaker 3: And it's also, if I could just say, it's also going to be driven very much by what the members want, so if they would like nest boxes, we can certainly provide that in the future. Councillor Jurisevic: And adjust the ... The other question I had is, why is Appendix 3 now, the Voluntary Conservation Agreement that was in the document previously, now essentially being deleted?

00:06:00 Speaker 3: It's just too wordy, really. It's a fairly large ... Well, there's actually three things. There's the actual covenant document, then the agreement document, then plus some ... Councillor Jurisevic: Just to remember from there, but there'll still be a Voluntary Conservation Agreement? Absolutely, yeah. Definitely, yeah. It remains unchanged. Yeah. That's what I was trying to allude to, that there is still a Voluntary ... I mean, looking at that, it almost appears that we're deleting the Voluntary Conservation Agreement, whereas in fact, it's just being deleted from the document, and the agreement will remain. Okay. Correct. Can you clarify? Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And Dave, one of the purposes of these amendments, as I understand it, is to increase the resourcing available, and also the options for landholders who want to turn their property over to environmental and mental protections. For the benefit of those who may be listening, can you explain the advantages of split zoning, please? Speaker 3: The advantages of split zoning. Financially, it's a lot more cost-effective than doing a conservation covenant, which, with survey costs and legal fees, can be up to $8,000 per property, at a minimum.

00:07:00 Nature refuges, again, it's a high-level protective mechanism, but it costs $4,500, and it's a part of the report. I've also noted that the Queensland government currently is not in a position to adequately resource the nature refuge program. And the other thing about the split zoning, it's actually under the planning scheme, and it's a very robust mechanism. It goes over successive planning schemes, so it's going to be zoned as environment, conservation, and management. So it's a high-level protection at a lower price. Councillor Wilkie: And that'd have to be introduced via amendments to the planning scheme? Speaker 3: Correct, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And you've also, part of the recommendations is that we ask for the nature refuge program to be adequately resourced. What form of the resourcing, is it the money, or staff members? Speaker 3: It's the staffing issue that the nature refuge branch has. They're not in a position to actually progress through because of the number of applications they're getting throughout the state. So we're just basically going to be writing a letter that sort of states how that we

00:08:00 really, and the council's got quite a number of nature refuges on their own properties, and we've got a number of private properties with nature refuges, so it's a good relationship we've developed with the state. So it's going to sort of acknowledge that, and then just request that it be adequately resourced. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Jack? Yeah. Will there still be incentives for people looking at the option to split zone their properties? Yes. Speaker 3: Exactly. There's still a VCO. There's still a voluntary conservation agreement. It's just a different protective mechanism. Councillor Jurisevic: So I just wanted to clarify that within each of those, that continues. Ingrid? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I just want to follow on from what Councillor George pointed out, and this may be more a question of the CEO. The current guideline for partnerships has a copy of the contract in it, which therefore is not in the contract. It has been approved by council, and then means it's an approved contract format and wording.

00:09:00 Given that, as Councillor Jurisevic pointed out, it's suggested to delete that part of the guideline, I assume the status of that contract would no longer have council people and council would no longer have a say in what the guideline, what the contract would Speaker 8: Good question. I'm just having a look at the agreement at the moment. Councillor, I haven't been through the agreement in detail. Would I be able to take that on notice and if there's an issue then we can deal with it on Thursday night at council meeting? I just need to go and have a look at whether there's any issues with that approach. Councillor Jackson: Well I guess the issue is not what's written there necessarily, although it may have been given there.

00:10:00 It's the zoning concept, but the fact that once it's not in the guideline, it is in the hands of staff with no requirement for council approval of what's in the contract. I think that's my current question. Speaker 8: Yeah, and the same question will apply to Appendix 2, which is the example of a covenant as well and I just need to have a look at that. Councillor Jackson: Okay, so we'll review that on Thursday. Speaker 8: There's no need to. We'll get some advice back to council before then. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we leave the matter on the table then, until Thursday? Speaker 8: You can do it a couple of ways, as always, for these things. One way is to deal with it as we, or what the staff are recommending at the moment, and then if there's an issue with that, you can make the amendment on Thursday and I'll have to deal with that. That's probably the cleanest way of doing it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, Dave, just making this comparison as you do in the report between the VCA and split zoning,

00:11:00 and I accept that the split zoning is probably more efficient and cheaper. Nevertheless, a VCA covenant transfers with the property title, correct? Yes. Whereas you refer to a high level of protection in the planning scheme where you have split zoning, but the planning scheme can be changed. And indeed, a new owner might request that split zoning be removed, for example, in the next review of the planning scheme. So it would seem to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that a VCA goes on in perpetuity, whereas the split zoning has the opportunity to be changed by council. Speaker 3: Definitely a conservation covenant or a nature refugee transfer with the title. But again, the zoning is on the property. And my, I'll just probably hand over to Kerry, but my understanding is that it had to be very compelling reasons to change the zoning back to rural, or whatever it was prior, you know, so. And it's the council who makes that decision. Yes, yeah, I appreciate that.

00:12:00 And the other, sorry, the other thing is. That's the point I'm getting to, though. The other thing is it's probably, you know, given over the five years, it could be an investment of up to $25,000 on the VCA. So that big investment would need to be protected. So that'd be foremost in council's thinking before they likely look at removing that zoning after putting all that investment into the property to manage its environmental values. Mayor Wellington: So maybe we could hear from Kerry if that's all right, Mr. Chair. In terms of the likelihood of council changing a split zoning at the request of a property owner when we're in a review or a new planning scheme mode. Speaker 6: I think both are potentially subject to a request to council to change. So one, the covenant. And a landowner could request that be removed from the title. As with the zoning change, that could also be requested of council. And council will have to consider each one at a time, depending on what reasons they put forward. The zoning, though, as we know, is not a simple process to amend the planning scheme.

00:13:00 It goes through state review and public notification. And so it would be one that we would have to carefully consider and not automatically just omit. So I think that the zoning is still a robust tool for us to use. And in this instance, a cheaper tool than the covenant process. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Similarly, it doesn't land for wildlife. It doesn't specifically hold the landholder to any covenant. So I mean, we already have an agreement with the landholder that has no effective... Correct. Can you with the next landholder. Mayor Wellington: But if the wildlife doesn't provide a real protection, that's just a voluntary participation in terms of the way you treat your land. That's nothing like having it either in a planning scheme or on the landfile. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm guessing you're suggesting that the split zoning is a step up from that

00:14:00 for somebody that wants to progress their land for wildlife too. Absolutely. At the next stage, perhaps, and actually give it a bit more protection. Mayor Wellington: So is there another possibility here that there is more flexibility in a split zoning because, for example, land for wildlife, you have to have a minimum of five acres, I think it is, otherwise it's not considered appropriate. Correct. Would there be any land size issues with regard to split zoning versus BCAs? Speaker 3: I think the only thing you need to do is look at your setbacks and dwellings because you've got potential bushfire management. So you'd really want to have that planning scheme designation a long way from any dwellings or infrastructure so you're not compromising. You're not compromising on any areas down the track in terms of safety of the people or safety of the dwellings or actually having to clear some of the conservation area as well. But definitely if the values are there on the smaller properties like rare and threatened species on site, it's certainly a very compelling argument. Mayor Wellington: Kerry, you look like you wanted to say something. Speaker 6: No, I probably agree with what Dave's saying,

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 that we just need to have a look at making sure we provide sufficient room for the house, on-site effluent and fire buffers and not have those in the open space. Mayor Wellington: So you can do a split zoning on a two acre property as well as on a 20 acre property? Speaker 6: Yeah, subject to meeting those fire buffers and all that. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, one would think that would be part of the agreement of the split is that fire breaks and all that and then it goes part of that before the agreement is complete. Speaker 6: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Council, we have a... Mayor Wellington: I'm about to move the recommendations to motion. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, moved, Councillor Wellington. Seconded. Seconded, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Welcome back, Dave. Great job. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was quick. Councillor Jackson: I'm going to move a minor amendment. Yep. Cathy has it ready, I believe. Cathy, I think we might remove that word and it appears a bit redundant.

00:16:00 I'm just... I'll read it. Oh, this way. Item B... Sorry? That item B... I can move it up next. Oh. Oh, okay. That's easier. That item B be amended as follows. B, approve amendments to the policy guideline, private land conservation partnerships as provided in attachment two with wording of the fifth dot point under the heading support for land for wildlife to read, and this is what's different. Oh, it's actually not different. It's the same as the current thing. An incentives program may consist of other initiatives consistent with the intent of the land for wildlife program, such as free native tube stock training assistance with environmental need management equipment loan, such as fauna cameras, nest boxes, resource books and open property days.

00:17:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to ask you to speak. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, you're welcome to speak when you're ready. Yes, I am. Unless this has any questions. I'm trying to ascertain where attachment two is. No, it's been seconded. Councillor Jackson: Well, attachment two... Councillor Jurisevic: I mentioned earlier... There's nothing new in the black writing. No, no. I wasn't questioning that. I have seen the environment levy policy, which was attachment one, private land conservation's partnership. I'm just trying to ascertain what attachment two specifically is in the document. It's in the guideline. It's in the guideline. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Well, I might just... Councillor Jurisevic: So where that fifth dot point fits in is all I'm just trying to ascertain. Councillor Jackson: Sorry. Briefly speak. It's actually on page 15, Joe. Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. I just found it. That's right. Councillor Jackson: I just found it. Yeah. That's the question I asked a little bit earlier. I'm just reinstating the wording that's already currently in the guideline, so it's not really

00:18:00 a change. But I just found that it was removed and I felt it was unnecessary to remove wording that seemed... You yourself, Dave, have said that that would be acceptable wording. All I've done is added back the nest boxes... Oh, okay. Right. I see what you mean. ...and all the copy days. All that is always... Okay. ...written in terms of such as or could be... It's not definitive that you have to get this, so it doesn't actually change the meaning or the content of what's written there, but I thought given that it has been written in there, I'd suggest keeping it in there. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Just a question. Again, the reasons for striking it out of the guideline was... Speaker 3: Just to make it less verbose, basically, just to make it more efficient, but it hasn't reduced the intent at all. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Yeah. Any other councillors wish to speak?

00:19:00 No. I'd be happy to support that amendment, because I think it... Councillor Monaghan? Mayor Wellington: Yeah. I only want to speak about one thing, and that is let's not pretend that nest boxes are necessarily going to be functional. I think you would know, Dave, that the only useful nest box is one that's regularly monitored. A survey of nest boxes around the ACT found that all but one of them had non-target species in them, mostly introduced species. Indian miners take over nest boxes, non-native bees take over nest boxes, et cetera. So if you have a nest box, you have to be prepared to toss animals out of it, particularly non-target species. And also, nest boxes in urban areas tend to actually encourage already common species in those urban areas, like possums, et cetera, not necessarily what people are wanting them to do. So I just... I'm happy to support this, but with the proviso that I'm sure staff will treat nest boxes with due caution.

00:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Put the amendment those in favour? It's unanimous. Okay. We go back to the original motion. The only person to speak to that has been Councillor Wellington. Any other councillors wish to speak to that? No, thanks. Put the motion those in favour? Against? Motion's carried. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, guys. Well done. Well done. Now we go to item two, which is a change application for a material change of use for entertainment of dining premises type 2 shopping salon 6 Thomas Street, Noosaville. And welcome, Tara Norley. Thank you. Okay. Councillors, any questions for Tara? Councillor Jurisevic: No. All right. You always need two seconds. Councillor Glasgow: Let's have one on the... Cheers. Friday to Saturday opening hours till 12pm.

00:21:00 Yes. In conjunction with the Noosaville locality code. Is that standard? I don't remember the... Oh, Junction, sorry. No, Noosaville. Is that standard in Noosaville? I don't remember it being that late. Speaker 6: It is. Yeah. It's standard for Noosaville. Councillor Glasgow: It is? Yeah. Just Friday, Saturday? Because from around... It's 7 till 10, Monday to Friday. Or no, Monday to Thursday. And then Friday, Saturday, 7 till 12. Is that right? Speaker 6: Yeah. Sunday till Thursday till 10. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Glasgow: Is that standard? Speaker 6: That's standard in Gimpy Terrace. Yeah. Because of the residential flex line. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. John. So, when did you make the change from the 1985 to allow a matrimonial? Speaker 3: And 83.6 Maximum Non-Residential Component. Is that in the 97 scheme?

00:22:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Comment at the bottom with regard, if you look at page 38 and the Noosaville, the built form, the gross floor area is proposed as $439 over $417.9 by the scheme. But at the bottom of page 34, it mentioned that in 1985 it was allowed a maximum of 1,306 square metres gross floor area. And I'm just wondering when that actually changed. Speaker 8: It would probably only be the 1997 scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: The 1997 scheme would have been that. Speaker 6: Yeah, it was in one of the amendments to the 85 scheme. I'm not quite sure of the time, but I'd say it was probably around the 90s when the strategic plan came in in 97. So this development was originally built in 1987, so it goes back some time.

00:23:00 The superseded scheme had a plot ratio of 0.8, rather than 2 is to 1. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, 0.8 versus? Speaker 6: 0.8 is to 1, compared to 2 is to 1, which was in place when this development was first approved. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the only question. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move. Move, Councillor Westford. Seconded, Councillor Jackson. Would you speak to it, Jess? No, that's all we've said. Councillor Glasgow: It's a good report. It's a good report, yeah. Okay. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to speak to it briefly. In here? Yeah, look, I'd like to say that I think it's good to see an upgrade of this 1987 building on Thomas Street. It reminds me of the Tourism New South Wales building. It's a new, fresh New South programme, which aims to encourage resort unit owners to invest in keeping their resorts and units updated, and that is actually part of Tourism New South's

00:24:00 valuable bonding strategy, which is about attracting visitors to New South who pay more, rather than more visitors. So I think these sorts of tourism areas, and this is one of them, a tourist accommodation area. It's important also, not just the accommodation houses, but also that the other services like restaurants and retail also keep up to date to attract appropriate customers. I think these old buildings along Thomas Street basically have the same problem as a lot of the old resorts built in the 80s. They are getting old and out of date, and then it can be daggy. So it's great to see this initiative to improve Thomas Street precinct. And I think that's more up to keeping with what is developing along the Imperial Terrace area. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, I do have a further question, if I may.

00:25:00 With regard to the infrastructure grant for the two car parking spaces, the rate of $15,000 per space contributions in lieu of provision of onsite car parking council policy, how is it envisaged that that money will be quarantined? With regard to where it will be spent and what is likely to be spent on, given our onsite car parking council policy? Speaker 6: Similar to council's infrastructure charges towards parks and roads, it's actually put in a separate account and quarantined each year to make sure it's set aside for specific purposes that it was taken. And the policy provides for a number of ways that the money could be spent, either through public parking, public transport, improvements to pathways and lifeways. In this area, there's limited opportunities to provide additional public parking, so I'd

00:26:00 suggest it's probably more likely to be spent on infrastructure towards public transport or pathways. Councillor Wilkie: We're going to stop here. I just wanted to thank you for the report, Tara, very, very good, and also compliment you for working with the applicant on this. You've acknowledged that the additions are in keeping with the look and feel of the area and it is a visual improvement. The additional floor space does, as you've said, does trigger the need for additional car parking and you've reached an agreement with the applicant about that, so thank you. Councillor Glasgow: Now the councillors speak. Mr Close, Jess? Oh, Jess has said the same thing, Tara. It's great to see even shop top housing on top is good for the area as well. And it's like exactly what everyone else said, it's a great report and it's going to invigorate this street in the next 10 years. Councillor Wilkie: That's it. Okay. I'll put the motion in those in favour. Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you, Tara.

00:27:00 Thank you. Thanks, Tony. Next item is Item 3, Development Application for Material Change of Use for Mixed Use Commercial Development at 218 and 20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. Welcome, Glenn Conforti. Welcome back. First day from holidays? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Happy new year. Happy new year. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Welcome to the grilling. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Questions for staff? Councillor Jurisevic: Off I. Given the changes within the new planning scheme, the proposal here still doesn't meet the proposed changes to allow for greater usage or greater opportunities at this site? Speaker 1: That's correct. There's a range of uses in the draft new planning scheme, but in terms of the proposed showrooms, the new planning scheme allows for 3,500 square metres of showroom on this particular site

00:28:00 on the lot along that northern border of the site. However, the new planning scheme allows for a showroom which is different to the showroom which the applicant is proposing, as the applicant has provided a tailored definition which includes a combination of a large format retail and showroom. So it's the nature of the goods which could be sold. And there's also a significant exceedance in the floor area that they're proposing when compared to the draft new plan as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So the total showroom, as they call it, is 7,835 and the maximum level of the planning scheme is 3,500? Correct. Speaker 6: And their definitions essentially equate to a retail shop rather than a showroom. Councillor Jurisevic: So something like a spotlight or an anaconda or a chemist's warehouse is not likely to

00:29:00 receive that? Speaker 6: An anaconda probably constitutes a standard showroom. A spotlight is more a shop though. Councillor Wilkie: A retail outlet. Speaker 6: Yeah. A chemist's warehouse would also be a shop. Speaker 5: One more bit. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Jackson. Seconded by Councillor Wellington. Councillor Jackson: The developments are being proposed on the outskirts of Noosa Civic on the other side of Hockman Drive. The development is being proposed on the outskirts of Noosa Civic on the other side of Hockman Drive. In the Noosa plan, the whole area is called the Shire Business Centre and in the new Noosa plan it's called the Noosa Business Centre. We all know that council refused the application and won the appeal against extending Noosa Civic to make a bigger shopping centre. Yet this applicant wants to do just that. Potentially extend the retail offering in an area which is not zoned for retail. Meanwhile, we still see empty shops in Noosa Junction and Noosa Civic.

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 Which suggests that adding further retail shops over and above the intentions of the Noosa plan and the new Noosa plan is not needed. The Noosa plan places a priority on diversifying the Noosa economy. With a focus on wellness industries, knowledge-based businesses, education and service industries, heritage and creative arts industries. Of course, the area around Noosa Civic also has some further potential for development but not for shopping centre, rather a main street with some shops and entertainment opportunities which will be more akin to a global village where people will be able to live, work and play. So the proposed retail, indoor sports and recreation and the food and drink outlet being proposed by this applicant are not consistent with the intent of the Noosa plan or the new Noosa plan.

00:31:00 So I agree with refusing the application. Mayor Wellington: Jeremy, please. Councillor Wilkie: Tony. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, great report, thanks Gwen, really thorough. Fantastic. Obviously, what's being offered here is predominately more than what we've been offered so far. We've been offered a lot of retail and as the report notes, that sterilises land that could be used for other business opportunities and ideally business opportunities with greater employment capacity. It conflicts with the planning scheme and we've been consistent in our support of our planning scheme to date. It also creates a whole new separate retail precinct, one that you kind of have to drive to because the pedestrian linkages are not there. That means it would actually likely take retail precincts. It would also have an impact on other retail centres. These sort of centres inevitably are designed around vehicles and you can go to them down Wurtala Way and that sort of thing.

00:32:00 And really it's almost, it's quite difficult sometimes to navigate through the car parks to get from building to building. They're really not designed for pedestrians at all. And we have the same problem occurring here. It also comes at a time when retail is shrinking or it's starting to shrink. Although I know the national November figures were up for retail, December figures completely undermined that and retail continues to shrink across the land. So there's so many problems with this that it couldn't be anything but a refusal given the design elements, the issues regarding building height and landscaping code and car parking, a considerable reduction in the allocated orders. It's recommended number of car parks, et cetera. So a great report and a good result I hope. Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm happy to support the staff position on this application in conjunction with what

00:33:00 both councillors have already said. I think this looks to supplement, not compliment, the existing retail and as such should be reviewed again and go back to the draft. I think it's important to see if they come up with a better outcome. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Look, great report again, Glenn. I think it's tremendous what you've written up here. There's umpties in our reports where we should be refusing this. All the way from, you know, zero pedestrian linkages there, the offsets, you can see it all from the road, from what street that's called again? Speaker 8: Hofmann Drive. Councillor Glasgow: Hofmann Drive, yeah. Sorry. Hofmann Drive. You know, it's over, it's over building height. It's just everything that's done is wrong. So it's, it's a great report and I think this is, this underpins exactly what Noosa's Noosa is because we've held our line on developments like this and I congratulate you.

00:34:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now, Ingrid, do you wish to close? Councillor Jackson: I'll just thank Glenn also for the quality report. Thank you. And um, yeah. Speaker 6: Through the chair, if I just may. Yes. We're having the um, reasons of refusal reviewed by council's planning solicitor to show they're as robust as they can be so there may be some changes put to the ordinary meeting around the reasons. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. So I'll put the motion as in favour. Okay. It's, it's carried. Thank you, Glenn. Thank you. Next item is development assessment fees and charges variations. I beg your pardon. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. Type 4 Conventional at 25 Kauri Street, Cooroy. And welcome Patrick Murthing. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that we've already approved this design and the second iteration of this design previously and having driven to the area, the infrastructure, the operational

00:35:00 work seemed to have been undertaken. So why is this back before us again? Speaker 2: So this application seeks to remove an access to the site from Kauri Street. There is no approval that reflects that at this stage. The applicant has an approval for operational works, has not provided the access to Kauri Street, I suppose in contravention of the current approval. They've advised if they had to remove that, if council wasn't supportive of this application, that they could do that. So just to reiterate that this application again seeks to remove that access in Kauri Street, which doesn't have current approval. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we see an issue with the removal of the access in Kauri Street? Speaker 2: No, as recommended in the report, we're supportive of that removal. Councillor Jurisevic: We're happy enough that the two outlets on Olivine Street would be sufficient to meet

00:36:00 the needs of however many units there are in the complex. 17. 17, I thought they were, yes. 17. Councillor Wilkie: May I ask a question? Yes. It's about the access. I was a little bit confused. Conclusion and reasons for decision on page 112 is that the changes seek to modify the access arrangements by deleting the Kauri Street access and retain the two access points from Olivine Street. But then in the next paragraph it says that it is recommended that pedestrian access from Kauri Street be maintained. I think you've picked up on my other point. I'm a bit confused. It seems... Contradictory. Contradictory statements. Speaker 2: So when the application was received, the removal of the access point didn't facilitate pedestrian access into the site, where previously they would have been able to come in through the driveway. So what we're seeking is a pedestrian link in that area to enable people to still be able to park in Kauri Street and walk into the site at that point, and therefore not

00:37:00 have everyone going into the site and seeking to park necessarily on Olivine Street. Councillor Wilkie: So remove the need for a pedestrian crossing. Speaker 2: For a driveway. Councillor Wilkie: A driveway. Speaker 2: Yes. So the vehicle access is to be removed. Yes. But a pedestrian footpath into the site is to be provided. Councillor Jurisevic: Having said that, my understanding from having driven up there is that the curb and gathering has now been placed considerably further into Kauri Street than the current alignment Mayor Wellington: of the road. I'm about to do that. Okay. Thank you. Can we get a photograph up, please? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Yeah. That was my understanding. So where are we going to park? Mayor Wellington: So this came up at the Cooroy Area Residents Association AGM a couple of weeks ago, and I next day took this photo. This is looking down Kauri Street with Olivine going off to the right and the developments on the right. And as we can see here, Kauri Street's quite wide at this point, but narrows when we hit the development. But it seems to me that that width is the same as the width of the Kauri Street beyond

00:38:00 the development. However, the issues raised at Kauri and Brett, please, Mr. CEO, I'd like a question on notice answered at the AGM for the sake of the issues that were raised by a number of residents at the Kauri meeting. And the questions are, why was the width of Kauri Street narrowed at this point where the development is rather than retained at the width that is at the beginning of Kauri Street? And why was there not an opportunity to widen Olivine Street, given that this development runs a significant length of Olivine and is now going to be a major access into the property? So if we could have answers from infrastructure and planning as to why that occurred, please. Why we're sticking with those road widths rather than using the opportunity to widen them. Speaker 6: We can probably answer that question now. You can answer it now. Speaker 2: Go ahead. I can confirm that the Olivine Street road width was required to be what has been

00:39:00 approved in part because of the trees that we're seeking to retain on Olivine Street, that any further widening of that road would potentially impact on the tree root zones. So if you recall, there were a number of trees- And they're being retained by the development. They're being retained by the development. In terms of the width of Kauri Street, my recollection is it was two and a half feet. So you would have to align with the alignment and the width of the road as you go further up the road. Yeah. Because as you come down the road, there was a little bit of a ... It was quite confusing the way the road was made as to where you would go. And if the ... I'm not really talking overly technical, but that was my understanding. Sorry, Tony, it was more around the alignment of the road. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. My understanding is it now aligns with the rest of Kauri Street and the anomaly is in fact this ... That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 6: There's also standards depending on the carrying capacity of the road or the intended function

00:40:00 and the amount of traffic it will carry. So this meets the standards in terms of the amount of traffic it will carry in terms of its road width. Mayor Wellington: Olivine, though, is more of a lane than a street, and thus it doesn't have the width that you would normally expect on a street with parking. Yeah. There is just room for two vehicles to pass by. There is no parked vehicle. Yeah. Is it being treated differently to other thoroughfares in the town? No. Speaker 6: It meets the standard for that ... the amount of traffic it will carry. So it meets the standard requirement. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I find that odd, given that there's commercial activity further up the road and community facilities further up the road. Councillor Wilkie: Question, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: That narrowing would be required. The other ... the question I've got relates to the need for footpaths. Councils ... Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the ... the operational works of footpaths is typically only on one side of the street. If we require the developer here to put a footpath on the second side of the street,

00:41:00 the likelihood is it will never continue under council direction in any other ... in any other direction along Kauri Street. So why would we ... why would we require the developer to put a footpath in when no other footpath is likely to connect to it? Speaker 8: That's probably a good question to ask on your particular original approval. Yeah, exactly. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I didn't see it. We didn't have operational works come before council, so council couldn't have asked that question. I'm now seeing the operational works in place, and I'm raising the question for the first time that I've seen it. Yeah. Speaker 6: It would have been a condition of the MCU when it came to council, but I'll go back and have a look for you, Joe. Councillor Wilkie: It seems that a lot of ... Can I have an answer on Thursday night, Joe? Please. Oh, great. Councillor Jackson: I'm just looking at page 110 under Statutory Instruments Planning Scheme Access, and I'm just checking whether the first paragraph there relates to what we're talking about, where it says that Olivine Street will accommodate 600 vehicle movers per day, and then it says,

00:42:00 as a result, the proposed changes represents a minor increase and will be significant less than 600 vehicle movers, for which the road is designed. Speaker 6: Yeah. I'm just looking at page 110 under Statutory Instruments Planning Scheme Access, and So it comes back to the standard of road and what the design requirements are for that standard of road. Councillor Jackson: So what is written here implies that the change of removing the driveway out of Carrie Street won't be a problem for Olivine. That is correct. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anyone care to move it? Councillor Jackson: I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move Ingrid. Also. Jackson. Seconder Jess Glasgow. Councillor Jackson: I don't even need to speak to this. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not prepared to support this. Given that the operational works have negated any parking on street and the request here to remove the driveway provides for on street parking, there is no on street parking to be provided. So I'm not prepared to support this at this time until I get further information. I'm sorry.

00:43:00 Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak? No. Okay, put the motion in those in favour. Councillors Glasgow, Wellington, Jackson and Wilkie. Against? Councillors Jurisevic. No. Okay, motion is carried. No. Next item 5, development assessment fees in charge, thank you Patrick, in charges variation for 1st April 2019, 31st December 2019. No. Hello Kerry, again. Speaker 8: Page 133. Councillor Wilkie: Page 117. Speaker 6: Yeah, I think there's something wrong with that. There's something wrong with that?

00:44:00 There's page 133. Councillor Wilkie: I noticed that on my own but I'm not sure what that is. Oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Jackson: I'm a little lingoist. Councillor Wilkie: I beg your pardon, yes. I haven't managed to... The agenda's... Councillor Jackson: 1 page... Councillor Wilkie: It is 133. 1 page 3. Councillor Jurisevic: And here's where I've got a question. Joe. Page 136. Thank you. The NBN approval. Which one, Joe? Which one? Page 136, the NBN approval. The paragraph 2 reads, the application is not considered a minor change under the Planning Act 2016. Paragraph 3, it's not considered a minor change. Paragraph 3 says due to the change being relatively minor in nature. Speaker 6: Which is it? It's both. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, now you're talking planning speaking. Speaker 6: Yeah, so a minor change under the Planning Act. It's got criteria for council to consider.

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 One of those is if it involves a new property. This does involve a new property because they're taking access through a different property. So it can't be a minor change under the Planning Act. But the only change in relation to this tower that they're making is the access, which is a relatively straightforward. That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Just the wording there seemed to be contradictory in nature to the two elements being considered. That's why I asked the question. It just didn't make sense when I read it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: You have further questions for Kerry, councillors? Do you have a motion? Does someone care to move it? I'll move it. Move Councillor Glasgow. Second. Seconded Councillor Wellington to speak to it. Jess? No, it's a win sense. Nothing really. It's just a standard business. Okay. Anybody else? Business is useful. Business is useful. All right. I'll put the motion in favour. That's unanimous. Kerry? Speaker 1: Thank you, Kerry. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Kerry.

00:46:00 Thanks, Kerry. Good. Next up, item six. The Noosa District Sports Complex Master Plan. Welcome Ash Sayward. And Amanda Tye. Thank you. Questions for staff and councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: There is a small parcel of land at Trutman Sign, you said, on Butler Street, and a, I believe, redundant electricity pole there that's now being used for council's traffic sign. Is there any provision in this to look at reviewing the need for that land? Speaker 4: So in terms of looking at formalising the car park, that eastern car park near the entrance

00:47:00 of the complex, that when we look at formalising that, then we'll definitely look at looking at that as a re-veg to offset any losses from within the complex. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Is there anything I can see that's not covered in there? Speaker 4: And in terms of the lighting pole, so a review and a need to provide lighting at the entrance of the car park, so of the complex, we'll look to see whether that pole is redundant or if that's something we need to keep in the structure. Councillor Jurisevic: Could be relocated perhaps or something? Speaker 4: Yeah, potentially, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. Would you speak to it, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. It's been 20 years over June of upgrade works at the sports complex. I'm glad to see the master plan with all of the stakeholders involved producing, I believe, a great future potential result for all involved at the complex. And I'm sure that many of the entities involved are waiting for this to be finalised so that

00:48:00 we can get on with resourcing the funds and the necessary works to be undertaken. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak? Mr Close, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I've said it all. Councillor Wilkie: All right, put the motion. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. Next item is the Cooroy Sports Complex. I'd like to move this one as well, Mr Chair. Move Councillor Jurisevic. I'll second. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Jurisevic: Ditto, my previous comments. Ditto. See you above. See you above. Okay. Well and truly overdue and some major works and significant works here to see the Cooroy complex meet the needs of the community for many, many years to come with some necessary upgrade work. Well overdue. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mr Close? Put the motion. Those in favour? The motion's carried unanimously. Great work. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Amanda. The only other comment is great work from the team to produce both those.

00:49:00 Mayor Wellington: That was unanimous, Kev. Thank you. Unanimous. Unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is item 8, financial performance report. It is on page 149 of the agenda. Welcome Trent. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just waiting to see. Yes, the first question I've got, you know what it is. Staff training, 28 table A budget. We've been on target till now, Mr. CEO. Why are we falling behind? Speaker 8: You'd be pleased to know that there's commitments of $23,000 in commitments have already been in order to be issued for

00:50:00 next round of training. And that was by 31 December. I can give you the breakdown if you'd like. Councillor Jurisevic: No, no, as long as it's limited, you know that. Second question, parks and gardens operations and maintenance programs, $161K below year-to-date budget. Why? Our service is not being undertaken. I mean, truly this is contractual. It's an ongoing maintenance work experience. I know we've had a dry spell. Speaker 7: Councillor, it's primarily due to maintenance of the parks and gardens as well as arborist costs. So in terms of the annual schedule of work, the annual schedule of work hasn't changed. It's purely about timing being slightly drier than usual and obviously coming into what could be more seasonal wet weather. As far as I understand it, the team has taken a conservative approach to ensure we have sufficient

00:51:00 arborist costs. Councillor Jurisevic: I assume it might have been the dry weather. Thank you for confirming that that's the likely outcome. The next one is public amenities, material and services, $77K below year-to-date budget. I mean, I've been hearing complaints about the Noosa Surf Club toilets over the holiday period and in general with regard to the upkeep of those. We get that every year, of course. But that's not only through the holiday period. It's been outside of that as well. Are we? Why would public amenity materials and services be below year-to-date budget when that could be an ongoing service? Speaker 7: Their budget is broken up into a number of different categories. We've obviously got the cleaning and the cyclical maintenance. The other one is reactive maintenance. Obviously, as we know, the amenities are subject to vandalism on occasion and other destructive actions. It's actually the reactive maintenance budget. It's below budget so far this year.

00:52:00 And the normal servicing has been occurring. Councillor Jurisevic: It's just we haven't had any vandalism or any... Speaker 7: We have. It's just below what our budget expectation has been for the year or the timing that we've allowed for that budget to be profiled during the year. Mayor Wellington: And for the record, I seem to recall those toilets get serviced three times a day. What's the time of year? Speaker 8: During the year, they're twice a day. These are the ones under the Surf Club. And then during the holiday period, they go up to three times a day. But we still do get a lot of complaints about just the sheer volume that's gone through there. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, maybe we need to review whether three times a day is sufficient at this time of year. Speaker 8: It's quite possible. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: One for the service level review. And the last, I think the last question. More lights in Hastings Street? Tree lighting replacement to be funded. Replacing tree lighting in Hastings Street? Speaker 7: That would be under the Hastings Street management plan. Yeah. So, as I understand it, there's been a program to replace the old lights.

00:53:00 Speaker 8: I thought we'd done. No, no, no. They funded out of the levy. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I know. But I thought that all been done. There's still more lights to be replaced. Speaker 7: No, it's all completed as my understanding is now, unless there's any more, any other further requests to come through. But that cost was mainly incurred in through September, October, November. Councillor Jurisevic: So, I'm trying to understand that. So, the tree lighting replacement to be funded from reserve in BR3. So, the work's been done. We haven't paid for it yet, is that? Speaker 7: The work's been done. We've just, the cost has exceeded the budget allocation for the Hastings Street maintenance levy. So, we've got the, we've obviously got the annual, the unspent allocation from the last I don't quite understand that the work had been complete. Councillor Jurisevic: So, I was wondering why we were still having an allocation of funds. That explains it.

00:54:00 Speaker 8: We have a report coming to the next round of meetings in February having a look at the history of our planning appeals over the last few years, what the costs have been, some of the trends and so on, and also what are our current cases under 101. We've got that coming up into the February round of meetings. Speaker 7: Now in terms of the comment about being offset by increased revenue, obviously separately within development planning we have our development application fees. They're a cost recovery fee, but obviously depending on when the development applications come through, our development planning revenue is above budget.

00:55:00 Now obviously most of that is used for the direct cost of assessing those development applications. But across the entire section of development planning, obviously overall revenue is up as well as the expenditure. Councillor Jackson: So can I follow up on that question a little bit about the appeals being a quarter million over budget now, which is halfway through the year. Do we have an understanding of how much more expenditure is likely on appeals in this budget year? And is there going to be an issue with the 1.1 million budget now? No. Speaker 7: At this stage we're expecting to put through a BR3 adjustment, a Budget Review 3 adjustment in April. At this point it's looking like we will exceed the $1.1 million annual budget. We, our finance and development planning work closely looking at all the different appeals that are currently in play, and based on when we expect those to occur, we do forecast a

00:56:00 year in position. I'd have to take on notice how much it currently stands at, and I could advise that separately. But what we'll do is a BR3, the intent would be that we would recognise what overrun we're likely to achieve by year end at the BR3. Because obviously our estimate now could change in two or three months' time if there's delays or some of those appeals are brought forward. Councillor Jackson: I'll just check. BR3, Budget Review 3 is in April, is that right? Correct. Yeah. Speaker 8: We just add to that, in the first six months of this year we had two of the significant trials underway as well. That was the one for Kenlon, which was the subdivision on Davidlow Way there, which we were successful in. And the other one was the Noosa North Shore Holiday Homes. Those two trials were actually in that period as well. Successful. Successful in that one as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So yeah, is it possible to get an update for Thursday night's meeting of the appeals to date and those yet to come? Speaker 8: Well, that's what I've got a full report coming to the February round.

00:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: You've got it on the February round? Yeah. Okay. Speaker 8: That covers historic, what we've been through over the last couple of years. Councillor Jurisevic: If we could do an update Thursday night, we've got a report coming to the February round, that would be nice. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: I mean, each year we have to make a guesstimate. So this has been discussed at the executive team level and we may need to reconsider the amount that we've been regularly allocating on an annual basis for legal costs. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the report will go along the way to answering Councillor Jackson's question with regard to what we spent and what we've got yet to come. Speaker 8: Yeah, I think Councillor Jackson raised this at the end of last year and said he'd get a report to Council and didn't have it ready for February. Sorry, to January. So February we don't want it. Councillor Glasgow: On that comment about we win them, it still costs though, doesn't it? Correct. Yeah. It's better than spending that money and losing them. Yeah. But it still costs, doesn't it? Win. So we kind of ... We don't win them all, but we win the majority. Speaker 8: No, I can only recall one loss in six years. We haven't lost one in this term of Council. One more. Councillor Jurisevic: I think we lost by non-signing. Councillor Jackson: What is the status of mediated ...

00:58:00 Yeah. Speaker 8: Mediated ... It's not a loss. Councillor Jackson: It's not a win. It's a kind of win-win. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Okay. We haven't had a court ruling against us in this term, no. Fair enough. Councillor Jurisevic: Fair enough. I was thinking ... Mayor Wellington: There was an issue from the previous Council that rolled over into this one, but as a result of decisions made on this Council, I can't think of a court. Speaker 8: No. In fact, the one you were talking about was the decision was the original Sunshine Coast Council. Yes. That was in the previous term. But in this term, we haven't had a court loss. Councillor Jurisevic: There'd be an element of cost towards all those mediations, though, as well. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Of course. It's the cost of defending the Nook and Peele of Noosa that you have to accept is going to be part of our ongoing costs. Speaker 8: And we'll probably debate it, we'll talk about it in the next round, but my observations of getting the staff to have a look at the history is that most of the appeals we've had where we've had to spend the big money is where the application doesn't meet the

00:59:00 planning scheme. We've refused it and then had that fight to defend the scheme, and that's where you have to spend a lot of money on it. And it's mainly experts, more so than pure legal parties. It's an issue for us. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Trent, waste disposal fee is $160,000 below budget. Are you getting any feedback from the staff about reasons why people are not taking their materials to the resource recovery centre? Speaker 7: I think one of the key drivers has been actually that when there's a difference in parity between outpricing and neighbouring councils, when you've got your domestic collection trucks, such as Clean Away or Remondus, or depending on the contractors used across those borders, in previous years our pricing has been significantly lower, so then it's been obviously cost benefit for some of those larger operators to travel the extra distance to dispose of

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 their general waste at the Eumundi Noosa Road landfill. You also have the kerbside collection. Councillor Wilkie: Does that play into it as well? Speaker 7: Not significantly. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 7: The biggest driver has been that there's more parity in our pricing between the neighbouring councils, so there's less of a cost benefit. Councillor Wilkie: Less incentive for people who live in other Shires to come and adopt here. Speaker 7: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. But the explanation given here in the comments is predominately timing of waste levy payments to the State Government. Speaker 7: There's a bit of waste levy as well payment in there, but it's that mix of the waste levy timing as well as the driver or the greater parity between the two areas. Councillor Jurisevic: But that means we've still got an ongoing commitment to pay that waste levy to the State? Speaker 7: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: It just hasn't, it's just a timing issue with regard to where it falls within the period of the annual budget. Speaker 7: So as the volumes move, so does our timing of when we expect that commercial waste to come through the gate changes, then so does our timing for when we expect we'll get recovered

01:01:00 from the waste levy back and forth between the suppliers and State Government. Yes. Waste bin recoupment revenue. Yes. What's that involve? It's replacement bins. People ask for replacement bins, but are paying for them? It's where we have assumed there'd be a certain level of, with the budget, we've assumed a certain volume of replacement bins during the year, and it's been lower than what we expected. Okay. It's purely that we haven't had to replace as many bins. And part of that could have been the change with the waste levy and the changes with the bin pricing. This year may have driven some of that. I'm not sure. Councillor Wilkie: I don't know. Could you explain a bit about the investment revenue 37,000 above budget, but the dot point below that's mentioned is downward movements in interest rates. So how are you balancing that? You're still managing to get, exceeding your budget expectations for interest returns,

01:02:00 Speaker 7: but the trend is downward. Yes. So there's probably two things driving that. One is up until this month. Yes. If you look at the 12 month trend on page 154, you'll see that the mix of funds. So this year, this month, sorry, our last term deposit that we had a 12 month term deposit is a higher rate. So last year with the issuing of the rates 12 months ago, we invested with a range of commercial agencies such as NAB, Commonwealth Bank, obviously paying quite a good rate at the time. And as we've had the downward trend, we've exceeded the market. Baseline for interest rate return because we've had our term deposits held and interest rates have dropped. So we've, we've bettered the market over the last 12 months, but that last term, those last term deposits matured this month. So what we're likely to see when we reinvest our July issue rates is that with that downward trend, we won't be exceeding market expectations as well for the second half of this year.

01:03:00 We are lucky though. The QTC, who we've got most of our cash with at the moment, is offering a rate that is quite competitive above what the banks are offering. So it's high return and lowest risk for us at the council. They obviously need the cash for reinvestment more than what the commercial institutions do at the present. So we'll continue to reassess each month whether there's benefit in reinvesting with the commercial agencies over the next few months. Councillor Jurisevic: And again, one of the expectations is those interest rates change. So too will our forecasts for expected revenue out of those. Speaker 7: Correct. That's right. So we might, we may find that the forecast for next year's budget may be much more conservative again, still, if we don't see any uptrend in interest rates over the next few months. And why would waste utility charges be significantly above budget? From my understanding, Councillor, I think it's on notice to confirm this for you.

01:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: Is that more customers than anticipated? Speaker 7: No, it's actually in relation to the forecast we used for the budget for mixed use properties. So we, when we changed the rating structure this year for the waste levy, and we did separate some of the combined bin service charge into separate charges, so it was clearer what the garden waste, recycling waste and general waste charges were to enable, for example, those larger mixed use properties to assess the benefit of changing their bin structure. We were probably a little bit too conservative in terms of understanding what that revenue mix was following the change. So it's a very, very conservative budget estimate there from our part. But not broke. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: General rate's 55k above year-to-date target. That means people have been paying their rates on time. Yes. More, or greater than expected. But the under interest, interest on overdue rates and charges, 56k above year-to-date

01:05:00 budget. Is that what you're saying? Is that from this year's rates or an ongoing- Ongoing historical arrears and rates counsellor. So that 56 doesn't relate to that 55k above? Speaker 7: No. What we're hoping is in the, on page, if I can find it for you. The overdue- Page 156 on the key performance indicators. We do actually report our rates and arrears percentage with the work that we've been doing to obviously inform and address the long-term arrears. Hopefully we can see that trend stabilised in the next 12 months as we continue to negotiate and work with . Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: And how has that been going over the years? Is it on the increase or is it staying fairly steady? Speaker 7: It's, at this point, it's staying fairly steady. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So I can't move a motion, counsellors?

01:06:00 No. Okay. Thank you, council. Thank you, Trent. Excellent report, lots of detail in there. Would you like us to vote on it? I'm speaking to them. Yeah, lots of detail in there. I appreciate the dashboard that you present, the graphics that you use. It helps with the understanding and the comments, the supporting comments and I'm impressed that you're willing to expand on those comments as well. So thank you very much. Thank you. It's all clear. My apologies, Mr Chair. That's all right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Against? Carried unanimously. Next item is Item 9, Local Government Legislative Reforms, Electoral and Other Legislation, Accountability, Integrity and Other Matters Bill, which is before the Parliament for consideration. Hello, Diana. Speaker 5: Hello. Hello. It's all the exciting stuff.

01:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: That's on page 116 . Councillor Jackson: I'd like to move that. Councillor Wilkie: Move. Councillor Jackson, seconded by Councillor Gerrissiti. I'd like to ask some questions, perhaps. Very good. Questions, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Diana, I know that these aren't ours, but there are some interesting things that pop up in this. Other proposed changes on page 165, councillors, in the event that filling vacancies, in the first 36 months, have a vacancy, to lift coloured wanted documents. Speaker 8: I know the local government association is taking up this issue with the state.

01:08:00 So the way it works is that Electoral Commission of Queensland, this is under the bill, Joe, what are you talking about? The Electoral Commission of Queensland would effectively offer it to the first person to see what they're interested. If they're not, then it drops down to the next and so on until they determine whether that's going to work. In some of the small and western councils where people have left the town- Councillor Jurisevic: This is what I'm alluding to. Yeah. Speaker 8: It's going to be quite practically difficult, I think, to deal with that. You might have a new job after two and a half years or whatever. So I'm aware that LGAQ is taking up that issue with the state, and they're suggesting that the by-election approach would be more sensible, or if you wanted to do the second candidate, the next candidate below the line, so to speak, they'd probably only apply for 12 months. I think they're taking that approach. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm alluding to. I think there's a time limit. It should be constrained. One would think a time limit would be preferred, too, because the next one is in the last 12 months, why appointment from council? Appointment from council. But why appointment from council?

01:09:00 I mean, who makes the decision from what range of potential candidates? Who then makes the decision on who a potential councillor candidate? Speaker 8: That provision's already in the current legislation. It can be used. But the way that it works in practice is the council would advertise and say, is anyone interested? In fact, Kip he did this in 2015, where they advertised for a vacancy. People could put their name forward, the council would then look at that and they'd do interviews or whatever, and then ultimately make the appointment or make that decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Page 166. I'm sure I'm not reading this the way it's intended. It says the council is to keep ROIs for 10 years after councillor's office or officer employment ends. That's for the council to keep those, not meaning that the register must be kept up to date for 10 years after leaving office or leaving a position, I see.

01:10:00 Speaker 5: No, it's just a record keeping. Councillor Jurisevic: It's just a record keeping, just a matter of record keeping for 10 years after the person's left employed? Speaker 5: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the third. Next one down. Agendas and minutes. Committee meetings must have minutes. Mr CEO, what does this mean for council's committee meetings currently? Speaker 8: Well, if you look at what we're doing in this particular one. We are currently doing the movers, seconders, who voted, and so on, ditto with the initial committees. Councillor Jurisevic: A more thing about planning and our infrastructure committees? Speaker 8: I haven't seen the details of this. As you see, this is what's proposed to be in regulation. So it depends on how they word that regulation, what the requirements are. One thing that might or might not change, depending on what the regulation says, is whether or not at the beginning of the meeting, the council committee would need to adopt its minutes from the previous committee meeting. But that will depend on what the wording in the regulation is. I'd probably be looking at all of this and very similar to the Belcarra 2 legislation.

01:11:00 They put forward a whole lot of stuff and only half of it made it through the parliamentary process. A lot of it changed. So it's only when the final format will come out. So these haven't gone through the... No, it's only a bill, a proposed bill. Councillor Jackson: These aren't even a bill. No, these are... Speaker 8: No, these aren't. These are in fact what they might be talking about. Councillor Jurisevic: These are just the proposals of what they're going to take to State Parliament. Speaker 8: In a regulation, this part's actually about what they might or might not put in a regulation. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought the next one on the following page with regard to informal meetings, have a policy about informal meetings that are required to publicly notify when and where such meetings be held and their outcomes. I mean, that's essentially just showing a diary of the meetings. Speaker 8: We don't know the detail. We don't know what they're going to put in a regulation or not. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming that could be covered by a diary, so it's something along those lines, with regard to when meetings are held and where they're held, so. But it also... because... and their outcomes. So that's an interesting one. Mayor Wellington: Well, we don't use workshops or informal meetings to make decisions, and obviously this is around the possibility that some councils are in fact using informal meetings to direct staff.

01:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, we public... the public know that by and mean a diary of when meetings are being held, so people are aware of what we're discussing and when. Yep. Speaker 8: I'm in a group with the Local Government Association having a look or giving advice to LGAQ about some of the practical issues around this. And it's my understanding that the department on the informal meetings is really trying to focus on... There are some councils who have what they call pre-agenda meetings, so the agenda's issued and then all the councils get together before a council meeting and talk through and whatever. And I think that's mainly where they're focused. But it really depends on how they structure this in terms of any wording in a regulation to find out what implications it will have or will not have for us. So it's a bit of a watch this space. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to ask a question about electoral gifts do not need to be recorded. Speaker 5: There's a separate electoral gift recording process that applies. So on our standard kind of like gifts register, you don't need to go down that path.

01:13:00 But if you do get electoral gifts, you need to record it through the ECQ. Yeah. Portal. So it'll still be registered somewhere. Absolutely. It's just some... Yeah. It's going to be online and I think that's one of their key initiatives this year with the election, that it all goes through their portal online. Councillor Jurisevic: It's up and running now. And it will have to be done within a certain timeframe. Seven days of receiving or something like that, I believe. Councillor Jackson: So it doesn't have to be in the councillor's register. No. Speaker 5: It's all... Yeah. It's through the ECQ direct. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. But those will stay live forever. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 5: Absolutely. It's in their record keeping system. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. And the reporting is... Yeah. Very strict timeframe to report on. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. So currently gifts between $500 and $2,000 need only be recorded in perpetuity. Speaker 5: We're about to... Councillor Wilkie: I saw page 166 above electoral gifts do not need to be recorded. The one above that is gifts between $500 and $2,000 need only be recorded for two terms.

01:14:00 Speaker 5: So that's under speculation. It's still something that may or may not occur. So it's a future regulation. Councillor Wilkie: Currently they're recorded in perpetuity, is that right? Speaker 5: I believe so, yes. Yeah. So now it might be limited in the future. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Again, about the register of interests. Speaker 5: Correct. Yes. Yes. Speaker 8: Correct. It's not about the disclosures under the electoral act. Speaker 5: Yeah. So I suppose they're trying to just figure out how does it all link up and work and where do we... Councillor Jurisevic: Given they had a 10-year timeframe earlier, two terms is eight years. That's getting towards that 10-year time limit. Seven years statutory declaration. From a legal sense, isn't it, Brett? You've only got to keep tax records and that for seven years. Speaker 8: It depends. There are different types of records. Yeah. And as a council, we have obligations to keep records, some forever. So council minutes, for example, are kept forever. Others, seven years. Others, 14 years.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 It depends on the class of documents. We have a classification system under the State Archives legislation that we're bound to. Councillor Jurisevic: I would suggest that that should be in line with the 10 years of... You know, once a councillor or an employer has left the employee, that's kept for 10 years after they've left as opposed to two terms. But they're still on council. It should still be relevant information while they continue to be a councillor. So perhaps that's something we could... Councillor Jackson: Can I just ask something about that, what Joe was talking about? It seems that one of them talks about what council has to keep. But perhaps the first ones, which are about gifts 500 or donations 500 or greater, is what must be recorded, which perhaps means if you, as a councillor, have a second term, you still have to record in your interest registry what you received the term before. Yes, possibly. Speaker 8: That's probably my regulation. Possibly, yes. But again, the devil will be in the detail in terms of what the wording of the regulation is. But overall, a lot of these changes are very good. But as I said, the devil's going to be in the detail in terms of what comes out in the regulation

01:16:00 and what makes it through parliament in terms of the bill itself. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got an issue with them, just the clarity on what some of them are referring to. Councillor Wilkie: Well, councillors, you can ask questions during debate as well. So that's all. I'll second this and we'll go round the line. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: All right. Yeah, I'll speak. It's great to see the Queensland Government continues to pursue a rolling reform agenda to strengthen the transparency, accountability and integrity measures in the system of local government and elections in Queensland. The new bill, which is a bit of a mouthful, the electoral and other legislation accountability integrity and other matters amendment bill, has strong penalties of up to two years' imprisonment for not declaring a conflict of interest or not keeping up-to-date register of interest. So it's getting tougher, and that's not a bad thing. It's interesting that the new prescribed conflicts of interest, currently called material conflicts

01:17:00 of interest, will be more clearly defined, with councillors not allowed to participate in council meetings. The new bill also requires that council members be given a chance to speak with council members about matters relating to a person or entity from whom they received gifts or donations totally more than $2,000 during the council's current or previous term. I'm also interested that the bill amends the Local Government Act to provide that a councillor may give direction to a local government employee who provides administrative support to the councillors. This appears to have been ambiguous before, because I recall right at the beginning of my introduction, as new councillors, we were told we would get some support from a shared assistant. So I think this clarification must be needed, if that wasn't clear. It's interesting, some of the things that Joe pointed out in the future regulatory amendments, the things that are in the pipeline and being considered, state government is looking at

01:18:00 requiring committee meetings to take minutes, as we've already looked at. Of course, back in April, there were a number of amendments that were in the pipeline, and in August 2019, I moved a motion for committees to take minutes, which was not seconded, and in August 2019, my motion again was lost about taking minutes for committees. So it will be interesting to see what the outcome of the deliberations are. Similarly, in August 2019, I called for informal council workshops, briefings, and discussion forums about council matters to be open to the public, and to have notes taken about council matters. So it's interesting to see that the state government is considering, quote, any new or additional information arising at the informal meeting or workshop to be available as soon as possible before the briefing session or workshop to all councillors and the public, and quote, councils to have a policy about informal meetings and required to publicly

01:19:00 notify when and where such meetings will be held and their outcomes. One thing that Noosa Council is definitely on the front foot on, that is currently being considered, is that Noosa Council already makes agendas and related reports available to the public at the same time as councillors, well in advance of council meetings, and I gather from seeing that that's something they're looking at, that we're perhaps well in advance on that one. I'd like to see Noosa Council get on the front foot with some of those other things, including committee minutes and openings. I would like to see that they're looking at those closed informal council workshops and briefings to the public. Why wait until council is forced to? Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors who should speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll just reply to that. It's not a matter of council being forced to. It's obviously driving change in other councils where transparency is not as evident as it

01:20:00 is in some councils, and where reforms haven't been made in the past. There are obviously challenges with the way that record keeping and minute taking is done within the agendas of some councils within Queensland, and I think we do a pretty good job of making all that information available. Again, with regard to committee meetings must have minutes. If that currently stands, but it's where, with regard to committee meetings having outcomes, and how committee meetings are going to play out, that's something that we need to look at and make recommendations, and the essence of what our two committees do forms the agenda of the following meeting. So in essence, there is a form of record keeping that does occur with regard to committee meetings at present. I look forward to seeing the bills debated in parliament, what the final outcomes will

01:21:00 be, and of course, as we've said, the devil is in the detail as to what they're trying to achieve here. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: It's really useful to understand, and I didn't fully understand it until I went to a number of national conferences, the degree to which in Queensland councillors are able to participate in the decision making in council, the degree to which they're expected to participate. On other councils in other states they don't get paid anywhere near as well as Queensland councillors and that's really a big problem. They tend to be people who have full-time jobs and just operate as councillors in a part-time fashion. That means they're not sitting here day after day having workshops the way we are, getting involved with staff the way we are, etc. It's quite a different approach. We are very blessed in Queensland to have a system where it's recognised that the engagement of the elected councillors within the council

01:22:00 actually leads to better decision-making. And where Queensland councils are remunerated appropriately. As a result of that, and I've compared with other states, most other states are lucky to have one or two workshops a month or informal meetings, whereas we have them on a weekly basis. So it is a slightly different structure here. I think it's fantastic that the state government's taking a close look at the issues around transparency and reporting. And, you know, it's obviously, it behoves us to see what the LGAQ's position is as well and, of course, the LGMA that Brett sits on to find out, you know, what other councils think about these supposed measures or proposed measures, I should say.

01:23:00 In terms of our informal meetings, we do not direct the council staff or the council through informal meetings. If anything comes out of an informal meeting that needs a decision, then it comes back to council in the form of a report. In terms of the portfolio committee meetings, we already take a record. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to turn that record in a minute, so it just means that we have to ratify it at the following portfolio committee meetings. Nevertheless, the results of those committee meetings aren't quite clear in our ordinary meeting agenda, where the recommendations from those committees are. Visible in the ordinary meeting agenda, which would not, which is not very different to the outcome of the meetings anyway. So I'm not sure that we're going to gain any transparency by having minutes from the committee portfolio committee meetings, though, if we do, there's no harm in doing so. In terms of the rest, but it'll be interesting to see where we all finish up.

01:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, just to expand on that point. We have a meeting of, a record meeting. The record of meeting, which is in the ordinary meeting agenda from the committees, it lists the, from the portfolio meetings, the record of attendance, the apologies, the conflict of interest, how the conflicts are recorded, how the conflicts are handled, and how each councillor voted on each recommendation from those portfolios. And as the Mayor said, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to reclassify that as minutes and ratify them at every committee meeting. But for those interested in seeing what happens, a record of what happens at the committee portfolios, all that information is already there on the public record. And Noosa Council has, for many decades, had a long-standing commitment to openness and transparency, and I look forward to what comes out of the reforms.

01:25:00 Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Jackson, Mr. Pace. Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask the CEO a question. I may be slightly confused here, but when it comes to conflict of interest, which is reported or disclosed in the planning and organised environment or the organisational services, and let's say something that's referred to general committee, I'm under the impression that it's only the ordinary meeting agenda that shows the conflicts of interest, not the general committee agenda. Speaker 8: The outcomes of the – I'll use the service and organisation as an example. The outcomes of the service and organisation committee, we would record a declaration of a conflict of interest at that meeting, if someone declared a particular item. It's those – that is what's reported to the ordinary council meeting. The actual item is not – so those minutes or those outcomes of that meeting aren't reported to this general committee.

01:26:00 They're only reported –. Councillor Jackson: They're referred to general. Speaker 8: So what's referred – yeah, what's referred is just the report. Councillor Jackson: Not the conflicts of interest. Correct. It's not a statute mentioned in the general committee. No, correct. Yeah, it's a minute or two later. So for those minutes, it'd be like going to the ordinary meeting. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: Mr. Closinger? Councillor Jackson: Well, yes, I guess just as a right of reply, yeah, look, I think the more our council can do to improve its transparency, the better. It is true that in other states, people just get all in their areas and work full time in their own jobs. But at the same time, as we do it differently, and we have hundreds of workshops, there'd be a hundred at least a year that we have meetings and workshops as council, which are closed door. I think some of the wording here, which is about any additional information arising and notifying the public, is very important. I think some of the wording here, which is about any additional information arising and notifying the public, is very important.

01:27:00 There are lots of things that we talk about that never get seen and it's something that we are elected representatives and we debate, we may not end up with, as you say, a final decision, but we are debating within those closed doors. So I think there is room for improvement there, but beyond that, what this is really all about is recognizing the importance of what the state government is doing here and I think we're all very supportive along that. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion those in favour? Against? The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you, Di. Very thorough report. Well done. Next is the final item, the update on the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group. A report for noting. Who wrote the report? Speaker 8: I did.

01:28:00 Put it together. Councillor Jackson: What would you consider then to be the status of this report? Speaker 8: It's an update report to Council on the deliberations of the group so far. Mayor Wellington: It was my, if you recall, Councillor Jackson, if I may answer that as well, if you don't mind. At the last meeting of the group, I suggested that this happen. Partly to put on record what the group's been doing, but also to add to public understanding of what the role of the group is and the many issues that have been covered. Councillor Jackson: So has the State Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group endorsed this report that was written by Councillor Wellington himself? Speaker 8: No, not per se. The report was circulated out to members of the group. But it wasn't endorsed as such.

01:29:00 Can you get everyone to sign off if that's what you're getting at? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. No. Mayor Wellington: There was no request for a universal endorsement of it. When I distributed it on the 9th of December, the intention was to see if there were any problems that anyone had or any omissions, etc. And no omissions were raised and no specific issues in terms of the content was raised between then and now. And that initial email on the 9th of December did note that the intention was to bring it to either the January or February round of council meetings. So here it is. Councillor Jackson: I'm not quite finished. Thank you. In your report, you say attachment one, which is the report that we're talking about. To this report, it's an update report from the STSRG regarding progress to date. Is it an update report from the STSRG regarding progress to date? Is it an update report from the STSRG or is it really an updated report from Council?

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, a representative report. Speaker 8: Well, recommendation A reads that notes the report on the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group provided with attachment one, which has been provided as an update on the deliberations of that group to date. Councillor Jackson: Oh, I was reading your staff report. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 8: It's the recommendation of what's intended. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So just to clarify. It's not an accord. Certainly. Or an agreement between all parties on the group. That's not an action plan. No. So. Representing the aspirations of the group. Mayor Wellington: So to be clear, no. There was never any intention that it would be an action plan. And as you would be aware, Councillor Wilkie, the group has attempted previously to come up with a written accord and action plan, but has failed to be able to achieve unanimous support for those endeavours. So this is really just to explain what the group's been doing and the various issues

01:31:00 that have been discussed. Hopefully by, you know, covering off on all the different attitudes or opinions that have been brought to the table. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillor care to move the motion? I'll move. Moved by Councillor Wellington. Seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Who's to speak to it? Tony. Mayor Wellington: No, I think we've done that. Except that to say that I do want to thank all of you for your support. Sincerely, all the participants in the SDSRG for their goodwill and their time over the last, whatever it is, just over a year and a half. I think the group, even if it hasn't come to an agreed accord, has still been an incredibly useful process in terms of airing a whole lot of issues and importantly quite often putting to bed some myths that have been floating around in the community about things like numbers. Numbers of events, road closures, impact of tourism, etc.

01:32:00 Combined with the value of tourism report that was carried out by Tourism Noosa with Noosa Council's support, I think it gives a really interesting picture as to not only where we're at tourism wise and the impacts of tourism, but also the difficulties of trying to come to a simple or easy approach to sustainable tourism into the future. Obviously, that means there's more work for this organisation to do or this cohort of community and business representatives to do. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillor's wish to speak. Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. I would like to move an amendment, please. Yeah. This one. It's an amendment. It's an amendment to item A, and it says that item A be amended to read, all the same

01:33:00 words but adding in, so note the report on the sustainable tourism reference group provided as attachment one, which has been written by Councillor Wellington and provided as an update on the deliberations of the group to date, but not endorsed by the group. Awesome. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you for taking the chat. Thanks. Councillor Jackson: Ingrid. Yeah, I'll just speak to that. I'm a councillor member of the sustainable tourism stakeholder reference group and have attended most of its meetings. When this general committee agenda became available to the public, five members groups of the sustainable tourism reference group sent the following emails confirming that STSRG had not endorsed the report and that the report is Councillor Wellington's. The Hastings Street Association, Noosa Junction Association, and Noosaville Business Association wrote, as advised, quote, as advised, when the draft report was circulated on 14th of

01:34:00 December, the timing to seek engagement with our committees and members was ill-opportune due to the approaching festive season. Our association committees are only reconvening later this month. As we have been focusing on our businesses over this peak time of year. Accordingly, the business associations can in no way endorse the reports until such time as our committees have a chance to agree and comment. Also, an email came from Michael Gloucester of the Noosa Parks Association who wrote the following, quote. It is NPA's understanding that the report going to Council is the Mayor's personal take on STRSG deliberations. NPA is entirely comfortable with any member of the STRSG reporting back to their organization

01:35:00 on general STRSG deliberations as the Mayor is doing now. So, back to my, what I'm saying, as a result it is my view that Council should show respect to the members of the group and that the motion should not contain any ambiguity in attributing the status of the report. This should be fully transparent. So, I propose this motion stating that who wrote the report and what the STRSG has, that the STRSG has not endorsed it. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Yeah. I don't have any problem with the new wording for that. I don't have any problem with the wording in the amendment. However, I would like to point out that the email that was only received a couple of days ago after I circulated to the STRSG members links to the report and the document, which they

01:36:00 had already received, states that it was circulated on the 14th of December, which is not true. It was circulated on the 9th of December. The document also says that the, that as advised, the timing was not ideal. Well, in fact, I was never advised of this. I have not received any correspondence from Hastings Street Association, Noosa Junction Association or Noosaville Business Association with regard to the timing of the document. And when it was originally sent out, it was published. It was pointed out repeatedly, in fact, with further correspondence that it would be coming to either January or February round of meetings. Although it hasn't been officially endorsed, Landcare written and said, we, Noosa Landcare, are happy to have this document as a report on the topics discussed. Zero Emissions Noosa said, first of all, thanks to Tony for a great effort in trying to encapsulate

01:37:00 nearly two years of ruminations by the STRSG. The report is Tony's and we should not attempt to rewrite it. And we should be very careful about what we write, other than to correct egregious errors. And no one raised any errors. So I don't have a problem with the clarity being provided in the amendment. However, I just want to put on the record that this was well circulated and people had plenty of time to either ask that there be an extension from the deadline that was already delivered at the beginning, which was the January or February round of meetings and correspond with me. And that didn't happen until the report ended up on the public record via the agenda, which is exactly what I said on the 9th of December was going to happen. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Look, I'm happy to support the amendment because the first question I raised when I saw this is there was no name associated with the report was who wrote it. Because it does give, given that there are so many varying groups and interested parties

01:38:00 within the sustainable tourism stakeholder group. It does, I think, give an understanding of where that perspective is derived from and whose understanding of the undertakings or the deliberations to date have been. One of the first things that comes to mind is what I consider to be a fallacy, the well established limit on population growth continually known as the population cap. And we all in here know that that's not actually the correct term. It's actually projected carrying capacity of land based on planning scheme uses. So those are the... Councillor Wilkie: Just as a point of order raised, speaking mainly about the amendment, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I am. That's why I'm referring to where the... Knowing who the author is and in regard to the points quoted within and the questionable

01:39:00 elements of it. I'm happy to leave that till the debate on the motion in general. But I'm happy to... Thank you. That's why I support the fact that it's... Knowing who it's written by and the perspective that it comes from is a big one. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We'll leave the substance of the report itself. Councillor Jurisevic: Happy to do that, Mr. Chair. Happy to do that, Mr. Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Jess? No, you're right. No. I'm happy to support this. The report is written by the Mayor. He's done an excellent job summing up the issues covered. But it's true. It was... It's not endorsed by the group. But the fact is it was not required to be endorsed by the group either. So it's a statement of fact. So I'll support the amendment. Mr. Closinger? Councillor Jackson: I'll just... Perhaps I'll mention that from feedback I received informally from the business association,

01:40:00 there had been an expectation that before going to council, there was going to be an opportunity for the public publishing the report, that there would have been an opportunity for the stakeholders to approve that publication. That's just a comment. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the amendment in favour. Carried unanimously. Go back to the original motion. Councillor Wellington has spoken to the original motion. Joe, did you wish to make your points? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll continue that. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that was the... The work done so far has been great and there's some very interesting information and some corrections of some misunderstandings with regard to the impact of tourism to some degree on our community. And I think the adjoining value of tourism report is a very interesting document to read

01:41:00 with regard to how many people feel that tourism is... You know, have negative impacts of tourism, but also the positive impacts on tourism on the community and how many actually value tourism in our community. So one of my reading through this report, that's why I thought it was important to understand whose perspective it came from, that I thought the population cap was a misused term and I think we should... We should cease using that and correctly understand that it's a projected carrying capacity of land based on planning scheme uses. But the report did raise some interesting questions, one of which for me was how often do we record vehicle movements in and out of Hastings Street? Do we actually have numbers on that on an annual basis, day-to-day basis, to see when and where those impacts are increased and what the...

01:42:00 It would have been good to have had past historical information to see what the impact is on the impact of the change we're making with regard to transport solutions is having on those numbers actually going in and out rather than the waiting times. The number of bed spaces available on current use rights was one of the first things that hit me in those opening paragraphs and it wasn't until page 19 that it was mentioned that we don't actually have those figures. That would be where we have the carrying capacity for residential residents, we don't have the carrying capacity for visiting, for visitor numbers. So I think that's a good point. As to the number of beds they can actually do and then to look at what the impact of the additional short-term living potentially is on those bed numbers, so there's information to gather there. I note that one of the Gold Coast Beaches numbers was quoted over Noosa Main Beach, but there are many more highly utilised beaches on the Gold Coast that would overshadow the numbers likely on our main beach. Ultimately, I think what we're seeing here, I said, I think the value of tourism report

01:43:00 that... goes along with this is a very interesting report to read and the statistics therein highlight some of the challenges for tourism going forward. Ultimately, I think Noosa's greatest threat is its own success, that we perpetuate that level of people wanting to come here and people wanting to live here because it's such a great place to visit and such a great place to live. That's it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, John. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I would like to move another amendment, Mr Chair. It's not that one. That one, sorry. All right. I think we need to put an and in front of the word on. This is an amendment again to item number A, number A being that we know that we are

01:44:00 going to report... Sorry. Oh, I've got to have a look. Pull up. Item A is noting the report on the sustainable tourism reference group, which we would now agree will be written by... I don't think you know the word. ...Council Wellington. Well, I think otherwise it would be confusing. Anyway, it doesn't... I don't think it matters. Maybe not. So, I guess the reason I'm suggesting this is because... I don't think it matters. In a previous time in council, when an issues paper was provided about short-term accommodation online platform issues paper, that also was asked for noting, and we had a discussion about whether noting is endorsing, and we clearly differentiated during that discussion that, in fact, noting is not endorsing, but in fact, if you looked at the short-term accommodation

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 platform issues paper on page two... Okay. ...it says endorsed by council. So, it had been sort of... Seemed to be written with the intent of endorsing. So, I just think, again, in terms of clarity, and again, to respect the fact that this paper has not been endorsed even by the stakeholder group, that it's good to write in that council at this point is noting and not endorsing the document. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So, I'm willing to... Oh, sorry. Councillor Jackson: I forgot. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 8: The long-interested... Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, I'll second for the sake of our... Jo. Councillor Wilkie: Second by Jo. Councillor Jackson: Sorry, that was my speech. I didn't... I forgot now. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So, you basically had your speech. Councillor Jackson: I've had my speech. Sorry. I didn't... I ran off and spoke. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry about that. Jo, you wish to speak? Councillor Wellington.

01:46:00 Yes. Mayor Wellington: Stating the obvious. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. It says exactly what it is. Yeah. Again, I've argued against this sort of amendment in the past for the sake of the fact that it is stating the obvious, that noting is noting. There is no endorsement or otherwise. The fact that we have clarified who the author of the report is, I think, is the most significant element of the report that wasn't covered. And, also, the fact that there is no endorsement or otherwise. I think that the report is not supported by the group as a whole. Certainly, I don't... I have, in the past, not supported these type of amendments on the sake that it's business as usual and the wording... It's wording the obvious for the sake of wording the obvious. I won't support it. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak? Wish to close? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I'll just mention again that previously when we had the short-term accommodation online platform issues paper, even though we were asked to meet with the...

01:47:00 The council did not note the paper in it had the endorse. So, I think it's really important to be clear on what the council is doing. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? Speaker 8: You want to call it? Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So, in favour is Glasgow... Oh, sorry. ...Jackson and Wilkie against Jurisevic and Wellington. Call it. It's carried. So, it's carried. Councillor Jackson: One more amendment. Councillor Wilkie: One more amendment. Okay. Councillor Jackson: I'm recommending adding number D. Recommend that membership of the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group be open to other community groups with an interest in the opportunities, issues, benefits and impacts of tourism. Mayor Wellington: Mr CEO, before we call for a seconder for this, I'm not sure that we can actually make

01:48:00 such a decision. Because the decision is not council's alone. So, that would be actually moving an amendment, something the council actually cannot do. We are not... Councillor Jackson: Cannot recommend? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, that's the right question. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 8: I think if the council is so inclined, it could deal with this. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Is there a seconder for this, please? Yeah, I'll second. Joe? Ingrid? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I guess the benefits and impacts of tourism are key matters for Ms. Shire. And I believe that participation in the reference group should be open to all relevant stakeholder groups, who are... For whom it's relevant. And not necessarily just those that were initially selected to be part of the group two years ago. The purpose of the group is important, and it should not be a closed chop.

01:49:00 And remember, over those last two years, there's been a lot of change. There have been some additional new groups formed, such as the Sunshine Beach Business Association. And I know that at the moment, the Peregian Beach Business Association is not in the group. There may be other similar organizations to do with the residence environment business that could be involved. The terms of reference state the aim is to develop a social contract between the tourism sector, Noosa Council, and the community. And I think that word, community, is broad. And we must remember that any group that is in the stakeholder reference group at the moment, they're not elected representatives. They're people who run a group. So it should be more open, is my position. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, Tony.

01:50:00 Mayor Wellington: Look, we put together a study. We do stakeholder groups all the time. And we don't open it up to everyone in the community, because you'd end up with a group so large that it would be very difficult and unwieldy. The decision about which groups should participate in the SDSRG was made by Noosa Council, Amateras and Noosa. I've only actually had, in two years, one other group come to me and ask why they weren't involved. And it's because that particular group was too small, really, to be representative, if you like. It wasn't a key stakeholder, if you like. Of course, you could argue for hours about which groups should or shouldn't have been invited. The decision was largely made by Tourism Noosa and Noosa Council to invite organisations which were significant players and of a significant size, and which covered geographically the whole of the Shire, making sure that we had good representation from business groups, from resident representative groups, and environment groups.

01:51:00 And it's already fairly unwieldy, as a room full of people with strong opinions. The alternative would be to hold regular kind of open forums, if you like, which would be to put them in the J and invite all the community to come along. And I'm not sure that you get a better result that way. Because it is much more difficult to have a one-on-one debate when you keep adding more and more people. This was one way of looking at it. There's lots of ways to skin this particular cat, and there's no reason why we can't, or the STSRG, indeed, can't have some open community forums where the entire community can come along and people can present and questions can be asked. The suggestion that it's a closed shop is a bit rich, I think, because the purpose of

01:52:00 these four, of the STSRG is that the individual representatives are supposed to go back to the group that they represent and give them information about what's been going on at the meetings. Therefore, the intention has always been that what goes on at the STSRG meetings trickles out into the community through the representatives that are on the STSRG. It may be that this hasn't been happening. Effectively, but we can't, of course, force the participants to carry out those sort of actions. It's also arguably not a closed, I don't want it to be a closed shop, which is why I've gone to the trouble of writing this report and bringing the report to the public agenda. And the only way to get it in the public was to bring it to council. That was, well, that was the best way to put it on the public record, what the organisation's been up to. I think that this is something that the STSRG can take on board. I don't think council necessarily has to recommend that it open up to other groups.

01:53:00 I think it's, I'm not prepared to recommend that unilaterally without discussing it with the STSRG. I think it would be up to the members of the STSRG to determine whether there are other groups they would like to invite to come on board, rather than council make a decision and make a recommendation to them. So I can't support the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: I appreciate the intent with which Councillor Jackson brings this. And I see there are some potential gaps in representation within the group. It's generally representative of a good cross-section and a good mix there. But I agree with Councillor Bellington's comments that I think the STSRG is going

01:54:00 If any group feels they could be a stakeholder in that, could approach the group for inclusion in. I said there doesn't appear to be a Tewantin representation, a Sunshine Beach representation, a Peregian Business Association representation, even though there's a Peregian business association which would, I'm sure in some degree, incorporate some of the businesses down there, so there are some potential business stakeholders. There's very little representation from places that do have, are impacted by tourism, like Boring Point, that have some tourism stakeholder inclusions, as they have well alluded to us before that we've overlooked. I think there is scope to look at other representations and maybe, as Councillor Wellington alluded to, a more open forum periodically to have other people look at the discussions there

01:55:00 and deliberations in there and have an input. But again, once a group becomes excessively sized and wieldy, it can become an unwieldy conglomeration there to deal with. And I believe the challenges that have been undergone in getting this group to the table have been sufficient at this stage. So, look, I don't know whether the word recommended suggests, you know, a suggestion that it's there is sufficient, but I'm happy to recommend that the membership be opened up to other community groups with interest if they see there's a need for it. I don't know whether it's an opportunity or a necessity to be engaged in the process. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question, Mayor? Does this reflect the attitude of the group already?

01:56:00 That is, if a group is currently not in the SDSRG, is really determined and wants to contribute and makes rights to the group and asks to be, participate in the SDSRG, then is the group open to accepting them? Mayor Wellington: I would assume so. However, there's not been a single group that's come to the SDSRG and said, we would like to join. I have had one very small community group come to me and say, should we have been involved? And I said to them, well, you know, given the area that you represent and the number of people on your group, perhaps not. And they were happy with that as an answer. They didn't go to the SDSRG and there was no formal. It was just in the discussion. So, no single community group in two years has come to the SDSRG or via me and asked

01:57:00 to be a participant on that group. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Can I ask a question of the CEO? Yeah. In relation to what Councillor Wilkie was just saying. As a member of this group, I've never seen this group as having any administrative role. Or acting like an association. It's been a group where yourself has been the facilitator, set the agendas, brought in speakers. The group would then come to the meeting and participate. But it didn't appear to be a decision-making group in the sense of somebody coming to the group, which in a sense doesn't have an entity, to ask questions. It seemed to be everything I've seen, it's been kind of facilitated from yourself and the children's and youth side. Councillor Jurisevic: And your question? Councillor Jackson: Well, Councillor Wilkie was asking if there was someone who might go to the group and ask for membership. And Councillor Wellington was talking about the group hasn't been approached.

01:58:00 But the group, I'm not so sure there's a group that has that form of responsibility. Councillor Wilkie: Or by the Mayor or the CEO. Speaker 8: So, if someone came and said, we'd like to be part of that, whether it's by the Mayor, myself, from Tourism Lutheran, or to one of the other members of the group, would it be good protocol for that to be run past the existing members? Yes. To make sure that, are you comfortable with that? Because otherwise, one of the benefits of the group at the moment is quite a good mix between the different stakeholder groups, you know, for environment, community, and business. And it's suddenly, whether it's the Council or Tourism Noosa suggested that four more groups from a particular sector was added. The group might feel uncomfortable. So, I think in terms of having... Councillor Jurisevic: This will go to balance. Speaker 8: Correct. So, I think in terms of if there was going to be a change, I think it would be appropriate for the group itself to provide comment or feedback on whether that would be a good thing or not. Councillor Jurisevic: So, further to that question, Mr Yeo, has the group only kept its deliberations within,

01:59:00 or have they gone out to other community organisations that may not be involved and sought their input? Speaker 8: The intent early on was, he'd made pretty clear, members of the group are not going It would be a good thing if the individual representative went back and spoke to their group. So if you're in XYZ association and this person was representing them, they need to go back and say, what do you think about this? Or bring their thoughts forward. It wasn't, and this is what the mayor was alluding to before, there wasn't a process per se whether they would go and consult more broadly with the community about their group that they're representing. That's probably the best summary I can give. Mayor Wellington: Can I, in terms of the, if I may, through the chair, just in terms of the formality of the group, it does have a terms of reference. And that terms of reference was agreed to by the group earlier on. So there are some set rules, if you like. Speaker 1: Yeah.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 Councillor Glasgow: I'll, Jess, I think it's been said pretty easily that, you know, groups come to Tony and they said, look, you're not really big enough, you don't represent a certain... cohort or however it might be, and that obviously wasn't accepted into the group. This is called this group, they sound pretty elite. We could call it a group, group, group. So, but, you know, that's always good to support open, you know, openness in any kind of these groups in the community. So I'll support it for that reason. And I believe that if someone did come to it, like Tony alluded to, is they would, they would not accept into group because, okay, they were too small. They didn't represent enough of the cohort in the community. But, you know, why not open up to anyone who wants to jump in there and have their two cents worth in this, I can't remember, STR. Speaker 6: Stateful. Councillor Glasgow: STSR. STSR. Speaker 6: Sustainable Tourism and Stateful Diversions. Councillor Glasgow: Sustainable Diversions Group, they want to get in there. And I trust that the group will make an educated and informed decision

02:01:00 if they should be involved or should not be involved. And I think it's a pretty good indicator that in two years that they've only had one person, one group, one group that it's probably not going to get much more in another two years. So open it up and see what happens. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, you'll come. I think the intention of this group was to be as representative and as open as possible to the key stakeholders who are grappling with this issue of Noosa as a successful tourism destination. So the suggestion that it's a closed shop, I have to say with respect, is to give an absolutely false impression of this group and the intention under which it was set up. The groups that are represented here, that's correct. They're not elected representatives like councillors are. They don't make decisions per se, but the people who are representative on these groups on behalf of their associations, they are elected and selected on behalf of their associations to be there.

02:02:00 To give comment, feedback and to report back to their respective associations. So in that sense, it is very permeable. It is consultative. It is open. There's a flow through effect back through their communities. I think the whole intention of the group is to be open and consult as possible. But I'm not against the amendment in principle. As I've said here, it does reflect the principle under operation currently. And I don't see any harm in the amendment. So I will support it. Councillor Jurisevic: Perhaps a question for Councillor Jackson. Seeing as you do sit on this group, and it's been going for the period that it has. Do you feel that a new entity to the table, given the complexities of the issue to date, and the understandings where it's got to a fairly amenable sort of an understanding,

02:03:00 or a balance around the table with everybody's perspectives at the table, that a new group would fit relatively easily into the ongoing discussions, considering they've been going for as long as they have? Councillor Jackson: I think my answer to that would be back to what the purpose of the group is. And the purpose is to gain community feedback, as well as understanding about the issues and benefits of tourism, and the things that may need to be done to manage things better. And I think that, therefore, any contribution to that is valuable. And I think that we're talking about a very broad community, with a diversity of people in it. And I'm not talking about having everyone in the community, just community members.

02:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: You may have to cover all the branding. Can you ask me the same question? Can I ask you the same question? Because you're on the stakeholder group as well. It's just that you're the one making the move. Sure, sure. I suppose I should ask both of you, or the three of you, the people that are involved here. Mayor Wellington: And my view is that, and I do want to correct something that was said earlier, you know, this group that came to me didn't come to me asking to be on it. They just wanted to know about how the decisions were made, about who was on it. In terms of bringing new people to the group, what we occasionally have is someone leaves an organisation and gets replaced, et cetera. The problem we have found is that you often need to go back and go over old ground every time someone new comes on. If you open it up to a new group, we go right back to the start to some extent because we've then got to cover up on all the stuff that the group's already investigated. And this tends to happen in an ad hoc fashion when you get replacement people. And that's one of the reasons, I think,

02:05:00 why making groups bigger and bigger becomes more and more unwieldy because you keep having to go back and retread. And we're already doing that, and some members are complaining about it already, that we're retreading old ground. But we have to do it whenever someone raises an issue who wasn't there for the discussion previously. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming that could occur if somebody was missing from the meeting as well. Yeah. Ingrid, you want to close? Councillor Jackson: Yes, certainly. I'm thinking in terms of what is the best way for this group to successfully achieve the ability to make a difference or feed to Noosav tourism and to council the concerns of the community as well as the things they'd like to see. I'm actually concerned about council's approach in general to reference groups. This one, very clearly, is an example where,

02:06:00 and it wasn't actually originally Noosa Council on Tourism Noosa. I believe it was perhaps the mayor and the CEO and the chair and CEO of Tourism Noosa who got together and worked out who they recommended would be in the group. And then councillors were brought into the picture afterwards. So it's very much a kind of top-down decision-making process about who's going to be participating in the first place. And I think that's a good point. And I actually don't necessarily support that as being the only way to fill a reference group that council's involved in. I believe there ought to have been some call for involvement as well. So that's sort of the overarching view I have. I would also argue that I believe Councillor Wellington talked about these being key stakeholder groups, but I don't think that if you went through that list of, you know, all the groups that are on there,

02:07:00 that they're all necessarily some kind of peak organisation and that they are necessarily highly representative. So, I mean, I think, sure, they're groups, but to attribute to them, perhaps in some cases being attributed more status than perhaps they really have in the community. I wasn't recommending more and more and more people, as was talked about. I'm really specifically talking about specific community groups that themselves have an interest in opportunities, issues, benefits, and impacts of tourism, and I'm using those words because those words are in the report written by Councillor Wellington and part of what the group is all about. Closed shop is about not allowing additional members. So Councillor Wellington's response saying, well, we, we published a report in this general committee agenda.

02:08:00 That does not change whether it's a closed shop or not. That does provide your information to the public, but closed shop is really about the fact the doors are shut. I heard Councillor, oh, I'll skip that, as Tony's explained it. I think the concept of, or fear of going all the way down, because there's a new member is, is a fur fee or a kind of a herring. We're going to have elections in March and there may be some new councillors too. I think the idea that somehow people who got in first are the best ones to be in there and that you keep the doors shut to others who perhaps should have been in there in the first place or new organisations that form that would be appropriate should be in there. And in fact, to gain buy-in with the community, the more, the better. The more you repeat that and help more people learn about these things, the better.

02:09:00 So the idea that some, oh my God, what a pain, we have to do it again. It's not such a problem. We're trying to educate. I don't see that by keeping the doors shut to potential other groups, that that makes it permeable. I actually think it's closed. And I would encourage when we're trying to see buy-in, we're trying to see collaboration, that we're trying to see collaboration. That openness is really the best way to do it. Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment. Does it favour? Glasgow, Jurisevic, Jackson and Wilkie against. Councillor Wellington, the motion, the amendment is carried. Back to the original motion. To which Councillor Wellington and Councillor Jurisevic have spoken. And the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Jackson: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The Tewantin's report on the Sustainable Tourism Stakeholder Reference Group explores issues to do with the impacts of tourism.

02:10:00 The report has not been endorsed by the reference group members, so the views expressed in the report are not necessarily their views. In fact, the topics were presentations made to the reference group over the two years as food for thought and discussion. As stated in the report, the terms of reference envisioned that at the end of this process we would have a shared agreement, a social contract, between the tourism sector and Noosa Council and the community. But, as stated in the report, quote, thus far such an accord has proven elusive. My concerns with the report are to do with the need to fact check and provide research evidence to underpin some of the assertions. The report tends to paint a gloomy picture and uses colourful language without any underpinning statistics.

02:11:00 For example, quote, Noosa must once again deal with what some perceive to be looming threat, that of ever increasing tourism numbers. Quote, community concerns have been raised about the impacts of that very attractiveness and the long-term repercussions of the village field that many cherish. Damning words, but not supported with data. In fact, the research commissioned by Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa, which is also appended to this motion, the value of tourism to the Noosa community, found 80% of Noosa residents indicated they approved of tourism because it is good for the community and the economy. More to my liking, Councillor Wellington's report goes on to make a more factual statement. And that is, quote, residents concerned included matters pertaining to traffic congestion,

02:12:00 access to public places and the impacts of events. So that's helpful and something that people can that can be managed and addressed. Regarding day trippers, the report states, quote, what is perhaps most interesting is the total overnight visitor numbers were up 8% on the previous year, and total numbers of day trippers were up twice as much, 17%. This may indicate the beginnings of a trend toward increasing numbers of day visitors. My response to that, no, it's not a trend. Comparing only a change from one year to the next does not indicate a trend. Statistical trends require longitudinal data for comparison. In relation to short stays, the report says, quote,

02:13:00 council's planning team received regular complaints about loss of resident amenity resulting from houses being led to tourists. My comment is that there has never been any data provided by council staff about these alleged complaints. And I can confirm that on 30th of October and several times thereafter, I, as a councillor, under the Local Government Act, have requested statistics about these complaints, and I have never received that information. Also regarding short stays, I don't know if I missed something. Also regarding short stays, the report asserts, quote, the other concern for council is that the increase in short stay properties has inevitably resulted in a reduction of properties available for permanent residents. But where's the evidence?

02:14:00 The only thing in the report is general statements about research in Australia and overseas and in Byron Bay. I'm particularly concerned that the report asserts about short stays, quote, those who view the matter through the prism of local economy, are most inclined to support a free market approach to short stay. Those who are inclined to view the problem through a social lens are more likely to focus on the negative impacts. This is an astounding assertion which appears to try to make out the matter is about big bad capitalism versus poor little people. It overlooks the fact that a major concern raised by residents, and rate payers alike, has been the diminution of civil rights if short-term letting is made difficult or impossible by the planning scheme. To be fair, I agree with some things Councillor Wellington wrote in the report.

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 I agree with the following, quote, there has also been unanimity on key issues in the stakeholder group, namely that both resident amenity and visitor experience are critical to the debate and that we need to start planning for the future now. Another one which I agree with, quote, solutions being employed in many places may not really be transferable to Noosa. And finally, I also agree, quote, whilst Noosa may not yet be experiencing the sorts of impacts that other tourist hotspots around the planet are facing, it behooves us to look towards the future and plan for the future. So I'm supportive of those statements. And I'd like to end with saying that it is important for Noosa Council to plan for and manage the impacts of tourism, but it is most important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

02:16:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Jess? Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, I think from my reading the report, you know, it was, Councillor Jackson summed it up pretty well just at the end there. You know, it's very important to plan for our future here in the tourism sector. And the report was, it had some pretty interesting information. I agree. But what I really, really enjoyed reading was the last bit of the agenda, which just had risk and opportunities. And it states, as indicated in the attached report, it is critical that Noosa properly plan for its future in light of current trends and future population growth in southeast Queensland. A failure to plan may risk and impact support, local lifestyle and visitor mix. That's pretty much just paramount and obvious. You know, it's booming in and around us at the moment. And we have to plan right for it, for our future now and our strategic long-term future. And I always talk in the 50, 60, 70 year future, like where's Noosa going to be?

02:17:00 Like where are we at now, 2020? You know, we were joking before about in the office about having 2020 vision, how fun that we're going to be. But imagine having 2100 vision, Joe. You know, that's a real reality. And I think any bit of literature and information that can come to the table and read over and have the information come to us is never a bad thing. Yes, some things haven't been endorsed. And it comes from the mayor's personal view in a lot of things, which is also, you know, the mayor is the mayor of the Shire. So he knows it better. I agree in this type of industry. I agree with anyone. So I enjoyed reading it. And I really enjoyed the last little bit of this opportunities too. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Jess. Look, just as a general overview, I think the formation of this group and this report, as summarised in this report, has been an ambitious and highly admirable endeavour on behalf of the Mayor of Tourism, Noosa.

02:18:00 And the aim has been to grapple collaboratively with the issue of managing the impacts of Noosa's success as a tourism destination. And it acknowledges a collaborative and open approach and that the best way forward is cooperatively as a community. The forum, the group, has provided a great opportunity to provide fact sharing and dispel myths. And one of the results of this has been a better informed community about this issue that has impacts for all of us. The report, the Mayor's report, is, from my perspective, highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to gain a factual understanding of the key issues that the Council and this group have been grappling with. And the group, because it provides an opportunity for stakeholders from business, community and environment

02:19:00 and tourism groups, there's a wide range of perspectives that are shared. So one thing I've gained from being there as an observer is you get the understanding that these issues are multi-sided depending on which perspective you're coming from. And of course, if these issues that we're grappling with were easy, they would have been remedied yesterday and perfectly. But it's not an easy undertaking that we're confronting. And I commend the Mayor, and I commend Tourism Noosa, and I commend each and every representative of these key stakeholder groups for their participation and signing up in this ambitious undertaking to grapple with the impacts of Noosa's success as a tourism destination. Councillor Lange, can we just close? Mayor Wellington: Yes, please.

02:20:00 Councillor Jackson's been on the SDSRG from the beginning, and she's never raised any issues about transparency of the group. She's never raised any issue about it being a closed shop. She's never raised the issue of adding members to the group, etc. This report, of course, was circulated to Councillor Jackson as it was the other members of the group, and she's had an opportunity to critique it before it came to Council. The only response I got from her was, thanks very much, Tony. Thanks for doing that, Tony. Look, because the report seeks to cover a range of views, it's inevitable that people are going to read it and they are going to agree with some things and disagree with others. They're going to be vociferously in disagreement about some statements and vociferously in agreement about others. So it's not surprising that Councillor Jackson found some statements she liked and some she didn't like. And indeed, the same is true of Councillor Jurisevic,

02:21:00 who found some holes in the report. But it is inevitably schematic because all it's trying to do is explain where we've been without going into great detail, without providing statistics, without going into enormous detail. It's not a book. It's simply a schematic overview of what the organisation, the stakeholder group's been up to since it was instigated. If this hadn't happened, if I hadn't brought this report, then the actions of the group and its deliberations would remain opaque to most people. The whole reason I'm bringing this report to Council is to provide, shed some light on what the group's been doing to explain the intricacies of the issues that the group's been grappling with. And no, it hasn't received endorsement from everyone on the SDSIG, but it wasn't seeking to necessarily. I think the salient thing is, though, that once I'd sent it out at the beginning, early in December,

02:22:00 no-one came back and said, remove this or you've missed this out. Nothing. I didn't get any of that from anyone. This went out to every single member on the SDSIG and no-one, including Councillor Jackson, no-one came back to me and said, this is wrong, you've left this out, this statement should be corrected, et cetera. That did not happen. With regard to referring to something as the beginning of a trend, that doesn't mean it's a trend, it means a question. Could this be the beginning of a trend? I'm not suggesting a trend already exists. That's why I've used the word beginning. Complaints about short stay to our staff and statistics on that. Councillor Jackson, this is a bit of a side issue. I know it's a concern of Councillor Jackson's, I appreciate that. However, it has been explained over and over by staff, that they didn't keep any record of complaints about short stay because it wasn't in their province to be able to deal with the issues. Therefore, there was no requirement on them to keep those statistics.

02:23:00 That's why there aren't any statistics about complaints about short stay, because it's not a matter under Council's control. So, in the end, I'll be damned, if you like, for setting up the stakeholder reference group. I can be damned for writing a report that some people don't like some statements that are contained in it. I can be damned for the flavour of the report. I've tried to, you know, cover off on various arguments. And in a way, when I'm writing about a range of views, writing about one specific view and using a certain language doesn't necessarily mean I'm colouring that viewpoint. What it means is I'm doing my very best, my level best, with the language skills that I have, to try and convey that point of view. And there are many points of view in this document, just as there are many points of view around the table at the SDSRG.

02:24:00 I think it's been a worthwhile exercise. I hope it continues. Whether it expands or doesn't expand is really up to the group. And, you know, so far, it has been difficult because, as Councillor Wilkie pointed out, if the answers were simple, they would have been enacted already. They are not simple. We will continue, I am sure, to have a range of views around this table and within the community. And it doesn't hurt us to grapple with issues that are seemingly unsolvable, just as we're doing with transport. So I hope you endorse the substantive motion, which is simply to note the report, noting that it hasn't been endorsed by anyone else, noting that it has been written by me, but if I hadn't done it, then no one else was inviting the SDSRG to tell the world what it's been doing. That's why I suggested that I write this report.

02:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that is the final item. Thank you, Councillors, Mayor Wellington: for your discipline and attendance and patience.

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

What was said

Latest