Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Good morning everybody. Welcome to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians on the land on which we meet, which is the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people, and pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. We have no apologies for today, no presentations from the CEO, no deputations. Councillor Glasgow has to go to a funeral this morning and he has requested that we deal with item 7 on the general committee agenda first, which is the Noosa Civic item, so councillors have no objection to that. Mayor Wellington: I've got an objection to you referring it to the Noosa Civic item. It's actually the Shire Business Centre, not the Noosa Civic we're dealing with. Councillor Wilkie: What? Well, thank you very much Mr. Mayor. I stand corrected. It's the Shire Business Centre application.
00:01:00 So any objections to that being moved to item 1? We'll do that. So welcome Kim, Kerry, Patrick and Colin. Councillor do you have any questions for staff? Councillor Jackson: Goodness me, we have to get our brain around this change of agenda. Speaker 7: Just to clarify, I know when we were talking about the... Just before we start, councillors, I think there's a couple of councillors who may have to have a conflict of interest. Mayor Wellington: Oh, here we go. I beg starting. Thanks for pointing that out. Because I'm at the top of the page. It's all over the place. So I declare a conflict of interest in the matter. As in 2009, prior to my election to the Sunshine Coast Council, I was a co-respondent with Sunshine Coast Council in an appeal against a refusal to expand the Noosa Civic shopping centre.
00:02:00 The appeal was for a very different development application than the application currently before council. I believe I can consider the matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Jackson: We're not having to stand up. Speaker 7: We're having to deal with them one at a time. We're having to deal with them one at a time. We're having to deal with them one at a time. No, I think the appropriate process would be all the declarations be made and then you deal with them one at a time. Because having all the declarations made determines who can deal with the other issues and whether they stay. Good point. I think the councillors who have a conflict of interest should make those declarations, and then we work through them one at a time. Sure. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Well, I'm second. I'd like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter because prior to my election to council and during my time as Honorary Secretary of Miss Parks Association, I was signatory
00:03:00 to a submission regarding an application on this site. I believe I can consider this item impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Your turn, Brian. Yes. I would also like to declare a perceived conflict of interest as prior to my election to council and during my time as President of the Liz Chire Residence and Rate Pays Association, I was signatory to a submission regarding an application on the site and made public statements regarding that application. I believe I can consider the matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Speaker 7: So, councillors, the appropriate process would be now to consider those, probably the logical way of in the order that they were made. Those councillors who have made a conflict of interest declaration can't participate in that vote for your colleagues. Only the remaining three councillors, which is a quorum for this council, can consider
00:04:00 those issues. Councillor Jurisevic: I might have to clarify some dates with regard to when the submission was made as to whether I was treasurer of the Liz Chire Residence and Rate Pays Association. No. Speaker 7: Councillor Jurisdiction, you raised this last time. You came up and determined that you didn't have a conflict of interest. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. Thank you. I was just trying to remember. With Brian being President, I was just trying to remember. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move that Councillor Wellington has a perceived conflict of interest in the matter and may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. May I have a seconder for that, please? I'll second. Second. As Councillor Wellington went to Rate Pays to point out before, this is not the Noosa Civic application. It's a totally different application. So that's what I propose. All those in favour? Councillor Wellington may remain in the room. Thank you. Same for Councillor Jackson. I would move that Councillor Jackson has perceived conflict of interest and may remain in the
00:05:00 meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. May I have a seconder for that, please? I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Jurisevic: Anyone wish to speak to the motion? Yeah. Just be careful with the statement that it's a completely different matter, Councillor. The Shire Business Centre as a whole was reviewed at the time, even though there were different master plans. I mean, what's on the table here is an element of the original Noosa Shire Business Centre application. The shopping centre was one component of it. The entire Shire Business Centre may have been... I wasn't privy to the actual debate at the time, but it may be that the elements of the Shire Business Centre were in this. So a broad statement stating that it's a completely different matter. It may be a... Mayor Wellington: Different application, I think, is the word, not different matter. Different application. Councillor Jurisevic: As I said, that's why I was clarifying the language being used by the councillors.
00:06:00 Councillor Wilkie: So are you in favour of the motion that's before us, Councillor? I'm in favour of the motion. Just be careful. I'll be... Thank you. All those in favour? Against? The motion's carried. We'll move on to the final one. I'd also like to move that a perceived conflict of interest on behalf of Councillor Stockwell, and that he may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate involving this matter. Do I have a seconder to that, please? I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put the motion in open favour. Against? The motion's carried. Thank you. Speaker 7: All right. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisevic, if you will have some questions for start. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. When we looked at this area with the new unit plan in mind, we did take into consideration lot 21. But lots 17, 18 and 19 have still been... Still remain in the meeting room. They'll remain as high density residential? That's correct. Speaker 5: That's correct.
00:07:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Before we took them all off the table. That was the only question I had to clarify. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Well, I do have some questions. Yes, please. So I'll start. Perhaps start with I understand the staff have put forward a recommendation to refuse the... The... The... The current application as it has been negotiated. I'm just wondering, as I understand it, there's some issues that are reasons for refusal, and it would appear to be in particular to do with the infrastructure agreement that was made in relationship to this land in 2003 and continues to be relevant because it goes with the land. So I understand that infrastructure agreement. Can you clarify for us what would need to change in order for this to become an approval?
00:08:00 Speaker 5: There's two elements in the reasons for refusal. The one is that the proposal has not met the environmental requirements specified by the new plan or the state planning regulations and state planning policy. The second... And the... And in that respect, officers have been seeking an offset towards the climate habitat. But the applicant does not believe that that is payable, given land previously dedicated with stage one of the use of the system. The second component that is in the reasons for refusal is conditions of approval require works external to the site. And council has stopped from conditioning those works under the existing infrastructure agreement.
00:09:00 So to condition required works for bushfire in particular, but also pedestrian paths would require a deed of variation to the existing infrastructure agreement. So just on that, if I may. After the agenda... Okay. ...closed, we have received not a new infrastructure agreement, so not a deed of variation, but the applicant has forwarded through a new infrastructure agreement. It's... We've only had basic review of that infrastructure agreement, but it seeks to essentially outline at least some of the conditions that council has stopped from conditioning some of the works required. Councillor Jackson: So at this point, that's not on the table because we don't know what it is?
00:10:00 No. Speaker 5: No. There's been no time for officers to review that infrastructure agreement. And when did you receive that infrastructure agreement? Speaker 4: Late last week. Councillor Jackson: Late last week. Late last week. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Wellington, you had a question? Mayor Wellington: Yeah. Just for the sake of those who are unfamiliar with this situation, it might be useful, Kim or Kerry, if you explain why it is that it's being brought to this general committee now rather than staff continuing to negotiate with the developer. If you could talk to the deemed approval situation, please. Speaker 4: Yeah. Sure. This application is code assessable under our planning scheme, and it therefore is... There's a specific timeframe that if council don't make a decision under the Planning Act, code assessable applications go deemed approval. The decision-making period on this application is two weeks. Mayor Wellington: So if we don't make a decision on Thursday night, the application will be deemed to be
00:11:00 approved? That's correct. Thank you. With no conditions? Speaker 5: With no conditions. No. We have 10 business days to draft the conditions. Okay. But the conditions cannot change the development. It's approved as proposed. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, the applicant has forwarded more information, which... Yeah. ...staff would like to assess and may go some way towards satisfying your concerns. Staff recommended an extension of the decision-making period to March 20 to allow them to do this. The applicant has refused, and that's why the matter's before us now. Speaker 5: That's correct. So staff did seek an extension to the timeframe to allow discussions to continue with the applicant. The applicant has not agreed to that. They feel that... Yeah. Councillor Jackson: That's correct. So may I just clarify, in terms of order of events, we received as councillors and public
00:12:00 the agenda on Thursday at 1.30, it appeared on the website. So is it that before that, because that's what was written in the report, the applicant did not wish to further extend, is that that decision to not further extend was made before that? It was received after this was on the agenda. Speaker 5: Yeah. So officers requested that the applicant extend the decision period, I think it's in the report, but approximately two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, yeah. Maybe a little bit longer. At that point, the applicant advised us, no, they did not want to extend the decision period. Right. But they did seek to continue to want to discuss the infrastructure agreement with officers. Councillor Jackson: Right. Until the 21st. Yeah. Speaker 4: Right up until the agenda.
00:13:00 Until the agenda. Councillor Jackson: But then the agenda got put out and then you have received, after that, a new infrastructure agreement. There's been no further discussion by yourself or them about extension of timeframe in relationship to that. Speaker 4: No. No. Right up until last week, I was talking to the applicant and suggesting that we continue to extend the timeframe. And the applicant's not willing to extend the timeframe. Councillor Jackson: Okay. So as a councillor, I'm in a position of having in front of me a report, which I have read in great detail and believe I understand. I have met with yourself, Kerry, and Patrick, I have actually met also, which I believe others have met with the applicants. But there's something that we don't know, which is this additional document that has been put forward. So I don't know. So we're being asked to make a decision without knowing what's in that or whether that's actually
00:14:00 going to solve the problem. Speaker 4: So the additional information has been provided last week. That information is in a new format. So we had been working with the applicant on a deed of variation to their existing infrastructure agreement. The existing infrastructure agreement was made in 2003 and it has particular requirements and conditions in it that limit councillors' access to that document. This application, as the layout as proposed to work actually requires to meet the requirements of bushfire and access, actually does require some additional external works. The applicant's been agreeable to those external works and agreeable to Council amending with them. They've proposed to amend the original infrastructure agreement to do a deed of variation and enshrine those external works. What came late last week was a new infrastructure agreement, not a deed of variation to the
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 existing agreement. We haven't had a chance to review that or haven't had our lawyer look at that at this stage. So it's new information. And I guess that's been how this process has gone, I guess, over the last couple of months. There's continually been new information coming in. There's been new information coming forward and needing to be reassessed. So again, that's new information. At that point, the report was on the agenda. The applicant was fully aware of the timeframes right up until the day before I had advised them that the report's going. Is there anything you want to change? Is there anything? Do you want to reconsider the timeframe? And they didn't. They agreed that it was time to bring the application to Council. Councillor Jackson: I understand that. That was what they agreed. So our task today is to consider a new infrastructure agreement. We cannot consider what is before us. But we cannot consider this additional infrastructure agreement that's been put forward.
00:16:00 So we can only assume what we have in front of us. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: But just to clarify, staff have received more information which is listed in this report, apart from the infrastructure agreement. Speaker 5: Do you still need time to assess? No. We have just received a further infrastructure agreement from the applicant late last week. Yes. Yes. So there's been no time to assess. There's been no time to review that. Yes. I'm raising it today so the Council is aware. But it's too late to take that into consideration. The applicant has not, have told us they have no agreement to extend the decision period. So there's no opportunity for Council solicitor to review it or staff to review it. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: John? No. You've already asked your questions. Go ahead. Mayor Wellington: I was asking a question. You go ahead. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. So on that base, one would have to ask why, if you were negotiating a data variation to the original infrastructure agreement, a new infrastructure agreement would strike the
00:17:00 table. Is that a typical thing that you get from a developer with regards to a whole new agreement being put forward when a variation is being considered? Speaker 7: Yeah. I've done a few of these over the years. It's very unusual to get that change of direction at the last minute. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. The other thing is with regard to... Timeframes. We discussed this last in November with an extension to December. It's now February. I assume that the applicant has, until this stage, been willing to continue to renegotiate and extend those timeframes up until the 21st as it's coming in. Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Questions from the report that I've got? On page 40 of the report, it mentions, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway
00:18:00 down, it says, under the new, halfway down, it says, under the new, halfway down, and Can you do two things for me? One, define the difference between a koala priority area and a koala habitat area, explaining why it's in one and not in the other, and two, tell me what part of the north-eastern portion are you looking at, what lot number . Speaker 6: Well, 32. 32, yeah. So, yeah, okay. So, see up there on the top right-hand side, lot 23, that is listed as a, or mapped as a koala priority area, but it doesn't contain any koala habitat area. Not mapped.
00:19:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So, why would it be listed as a koala priority area if there is no koala habitat? Speaker 6: Because then it goes to the fact that it's all about putting in place safe koala passage through that. I think it's just to do with its connectivity to the lot 147 there, which is the national park. Councillor Jurisevic: Even with regard, okay, because it doesn't go actually all the way to the end of the road. Speaker 5: Yeah, just to answer, we don't understand the new state mapping around koala habitat. Council objected to the state mapping. Our investigation of the site says that is koala habitat on that triangle piece, lot 23, as well as the other portion of the site. So, we're not quite sure of the logic that's been used or the rationale that's been applied by the state to map lot 23 as a koala priority area and the other areas as koala habitat. What it does mean under the new regulation, an area that's mapped as a koala priority area and mapped as a koala habitat, is that it's not a koala priority area.
00:20:00 It means no clearing can occur and no offsets can be applied either. For which one? If it's mapped as both koala priority area and koala habitat by the state, it means that there's no clearing permissible by the state regulations and no offset available as an option to the applicant. Councillor Jurisevic: And both those, koala habitat area and koala priority area, are state defined? That's right. Thank you, that's like that. Next question. A little bit further down on page 40, specific outcome 01. It starts at the end of page 40. Environment enhancement area of biodiversity overlays protected from the impact of development by avoiding edge effects. Two, avoiding fragmentation. And three, maintaining vegetation in manageable and viable configurations. Doesn't the development do this by the requirement of a vegetative buffer around the entire site?
00:21:00 Does the system of the site as currently exists on the existing developed areas? Isn't that the point of OS3? Speaker 6: No, well, it's not to our satisfaction. The OS3 is a visual buffer. That's its purpose under the Master Plan. Councillor Jurisevic: So under the original Master Plan, what was considered permissible for the Master Plan to go ahead, that avoided fragmentation for koalas? Speaker 6: All right it'd be all about with the current proposal in order to get the stormwater drainage to work they're proposing clearing all the lots and all the lots in the southern portion to make them flow backwards so that doesn't retain any vegetation on the lots so there's no safe koala passage through the the sites or anything like that it's only around the periphery along Walter Hay Drive where Open Space 3 is concerned that's that visual buffer.
00:22:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm asking. In the original master plan by my understanding OS3 was the only koala connectivity that was provided? Speaker 6: It wasn't specifically for koalas. Councillor Jurisevic: Was there any other koalas connectivity provided? Not specifically for koalas. Thank you that's where I was going to Connor. The next question? Speaker 5: I think that's an important point to make Joe. The master plan started its inception in the late 90s and there was master plan 1 and master plan 2. So over time koalas have I guess come from common common to more vulnerable and so there's been changes around planning legislation to ensure we protect pilot habitat to ensure the long-term survival of koalas. Councillor Jurisevic: So the length of time it's taken from the original planning to this stage of this plan of this application to come to fruition has meant that the state has implemented a number of changes plus there would have been a plan scheme change in that time as well?
00:23:00 Speaker 5: Yeah that's right. Councillor Jurisevic: To move the goalposts if you like from the time the master plan was created. Speaker 5: Yes there was no state regulation when the master plan was done. That's right. Councillor Jackson: That was only in 2017 the state regulation? Speaker 5: No it was the state regulations 2017 but there was other provisions around koala hosts. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Yes. Yes. Hang on I'll just try to find my next question. Councillor Glasgow: I'll just quickly jump in now. I just at the start there when you talked about those contributions to stage 1a and 1 I was just struggling just clarify exactly what that is on the map. Can you make that up please again Kylie? Just from my understanding they're not prepared to pay in these stages 1 or 1a.
00:24:00 I've never heard of that. I remember we were talking about numbers and lot numbers and so forth. Is that? I don't, I don't, I'm sorry. You said in the beginning of the conversation before you they were not, they didn't want to pay for the initial contributions. Speaker 5: Yeah so since November in the report to council officers reported that a contribution was payable, an offset for koala habitat. At that time the applicant did not believe they should be required to pay that offset. And it's still their position that they should not be required to pay that offset. Councillor Glasgow: And that's for the whole site then? Yeah for the whole site. Just the same stage 1 all the way, the whole site. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Mr. Wellington. Mayor Wellington: I'm going to move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lunnington. Oh you're going to speak. Councillor Jackson: I actually haven't finished asking my questions at all. Mayor Wellington: I thought there was a big pause there. You're welcome to ask questions. I'm happy for. Councillor Jackson: Well you go ahead. Mayor Wellington: I'm happy for people to keep asking questions.
00:25:00 Councillor Jackson: Okay. I certainly have a lot of questions. Yes. But I've been polite and let Joe go ahead. Councillor Jurisevic: It's all right. I think I've got to be in the line. I did just want to check them. Councillor Jackson: Jess were you finished with yours? Yeah. Oh okay. When I asked about the things that would need to change in the deed of variation you mentioned you were seeking the offsets, I guess that's to do with koalas and also the matters of the works that are required external to the site that need to be conditioned and cannot under the current infrastructure plan. I understand though that there's also some issue around infrastructure charges because as I understand it the infrastructure. Yeah. Agreement says that the works that were completed by the then developer, which happens to be the same as the current applicant, were actually sufficient to cover off infrastructure charges and therefore there would be no additional infrastructure charges charged later.
00:26:00 Speaker 5: Can we just clarify that and what the staff position is on this? Yeah. So there's two elements in the current infrastructure framework. One is part of stage one of the Shire Business Centre. One is that no council cannot condition any further works external to the site and that was included in the infrastructure agreement at the time given the significant amount of works required and was constructed with Noosa Civic and the showrooms, stage one of the Shire Business Centre. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Can I just clarify what you mean external to the site? Yeah. That's right. Speaker 5: So not part of the lot. Thank you. The second component is that no further infrastructure charges or contributions are payable providing the development continues to meet the intensity envisaged under master plan two.
00:27:00 So the infrastructure agreement would stop council imposing conditions for contributions or issuing an infrastructure charge where the intensity of development remains consistent with master plan two. Councillor Jackson: And to clarify the concerns you have about this matter going forward? Speaker 5: Well, that's the existing infrastructure agreement which we have to all acknowledge. I guess the concerns that the report raises is the infrastructure agreement that we've reported to council, the one we had prior to finishing the report, proposed to change reference to master plan two to the draft planning scheme. Who suggested this, sorry? The applicant. Applicant in their deed of variation. In their deed of variation. Okay. Proposed that. Yeah. So what that would mean is that if council were to assign that deed of agreement, there
00:28:00 would be no infrastructure charges. Okay. So we would have calculated that difference based on the gross floor area allowable and stormwater impervious area as based on the applicant's assumptions of how the development would proceed of being equivalent to around $4 million. But if that was based on the highest and best use of the site under the draft scheme, the amount would be $10 million that council would forgo if they entered into that deed of variation. So that deed of variation was not acceptable to officers.
00:29:00 That seemed unreasonable and, in short, not a good deal for council and the community. Councillor Jackson: Can I just clarify this concept of foregoing charges? Given the infrastructure agreement already stated that it wouldn't be possible to charge any more infrastructure charges, and that's what we have now as an agreement. Is there a need for more infrastructure charges? Does that mean that if it were built to the density of MP2, we would also forego infrastructure charges? That has not been calculated into the $4 million and $10 million that you're talking about? Speaker 5: It has been. Councillor Jackson: Yes, that's right. So how much of the $4 million and $10 million is actually what would have happened anyway? Speaker 5: No, that's the difference. That's the difference. Between Master Plan 2 and the planning scheme. That is the difference. MP2. Yeah. So if you like, we've applied a credit for development able to be achieved under the Master Plan 2.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Jackson: Otherwise, it would have been even more. That's right. Yeah. Okay. Can I also ask about what was the actual work that the developer agreed to do at the time of the infrastructure agreement as a compensation for not having to pay offsets and pay for it for the infrastructure charges? Speaker 5: Yeah. So that's detailed on page 38 of the report for Council. And there's some dot points there. I can read those out for you. But dedication of 11 hectares of public open space, which runs along Enie Creek. Duplication of Enie Creek Road. Construction of Walter Hay Drive and extending to the motorway. And dedication of the construction of Walter Hay Drive and extending to the motorway. Land for the construction of Walter Hay Drive and construction of a bike network.
00:31:00 So it was considerable works. And at the time, Council felt that on balance, I suspect that those works were reasonable and to allow in recognition of that, they signed the infrastructure agreement. Councillor Jackson: And so the amount of money, we don't know how much at the time was spent, but considerable is the word for it. It's quite a large amount of money was paid. Council didn't have to spend money on any of this. Speaker 5: No. Councillor Jackson: No. Speaker 5: No. Councillor Jackson: And in fact, open space was dedicated, which is still dedicated now. 11 hectares. Yeah. That's correct. Speaker 5: It's considerable works. I mean, the development. Councillor Jurisevic: Was there a calculation of the value of those contributions at the time? An equivalent contribution, a calculation? Speaker 5: I don't know, Joe. Speaker 7: Yeah. I can't recall off the top of my head, Joe. I was here at the time. I just can't recall. I'm sure there would have been. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. And there hasn't been, nobody's been able to come up with a figure of that? No. No. No. Councillor Glasgow: So if we would have just quickly, just for argument's sake, at that time, these infrastructure
00:32:00 agreements paid and did done, just like we've done up there in 2003. And just to say, in the next 24, 24 months, it would have just continued with the development as it is today. None of these extra charges would have been on, come on board. Is that right? Because we wouldn't have had a new plan in place. We still wouldn't have been going to MP2. Is that correct? Speaker 5: Yeah. So the infrastructure agreement continues on. And there'll be no charges payable where it remained consistent with MP2. The draft scheme, though, allows a higher density. So once we reach that ceiling of MP2, there'll be charges issued for future development. Councillor Glasgow: But we're asking them not to construct as per the draft planning scheme, we're asking them to disregard that, aren't we? And just make things as MP2. Speaker 5: No. No, no. We're, in terms of the subdivision, we're asking the subdivision to comply with the current scheme, but also give consideration to the new scheme, the draft scheme. Councillor Glasgow: I swear there was some wording somewhere that we were meeting at, where we were asking
00:33:00 them to disregard any... That was from the deed of variation, to remove that wording from the proposed deed of variation. There was a clause there about disregarding any thought into the new planning scheme. But in essence, because we've adopted this new town planning scheme, we're building for that, this is the difference in terms of... So we're basically asking them to pay twice, aren't we, in essence? No. No. No. No. So they haven't paid the first time then? Speaker 5: No. No. No. They've built, yes, a considerable amount of works, which is recognised by the current infrastructure agreement. The works, though, were also required to make the site function, to give access to the site. Going forward, we're saying that it's an old infrastructure agreement, there's new planning requirements around koala habitat and environmental matters, and you need to quit complying with those requirements. Councillor Glasgow: Is this koala development target seven eight years? Does it need to be changed? Speaker 7: I know developments have gone along but this Springfield was a good example where I was involved in that in 2000, 1990 something and it's still going so some of those long term infrastructure agreements go 20, 30 years.
00:34:00 Particularly large projects. Correct. Or it would be an example of that to the centre. Or it would be kicking that off now. Councillor Glasgow: Just one more little one Ingrid. So I kind of see it as, I think you've mentioned too Kim, that basically all the technical stuff, tick, done, put in a box, do it. It's the external stuff that we're arguing over, infrastructure charges, pay this, pay that, pay that. But the actual zoning and the landings of the subdivisions, tick, put in a box, done that, they're ready to go with the technical stuff. It's just this little bits and bobs, koala, offset this, not there koala, koala tree there, not there, all this stuff. It's this side stuff on, is this going to stand up in court you think? Because this initially could end up in quite a big deal. We went a lot off and we're very proactive and challenging and winning I agree.
00:35:00 Councillor Wilkie: But so Jess it's your question, is this going to court? Councillor Glasgow: If it ends up in court, is this something tangible that we can defend? Speaker 5: So the issue here is that the subdivision has met a lot of the technical mandates. So they have addressed stormwater, they have addressed bushfire, they have addressed the traffic issues, they have addressed the lot sizes, all those issues that were raised in the last report. Councillor Glasgow: Which is basically everything. What they have not addressed is environmental matters. Speaker 5: So they have not addressed the environmental matters that the scheme and state requirements call up. So that is quite a significant issue. Now it's not exactly the same, but council has just won an appeal around a subdivision on 2 David Loway that was refused for vegetation reasons. And so council's planning scheme stood up in that appeal. So I would suggest we will have quite a strong case if the matter proceeds to court.
00:36:00 May I ask were the 2 David Loway I would be hopeful though that we would not have to go to trial and that if the matter is refused on Thursday that discussions could continue and we would work towards a solution. Councillor Jackson: I just want to ask a question in relationship to 2 David Loway. You said it may not be the same. Would 2 David Loway be anywhere near being a major business centre in the SEQ plan and in the Noosa plan? Speaker 7: No, it's a different type of application. But the principles in terms of relying on the environmental issues for refusal are probably similar issues. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Have I misread the report? Are there still some concerns about emergency access? Speaker 5: The emergency access has been included because they are works that cannot be conditioned by an approval.
00:37:00 They have to be in an infrastructure agreement. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Is the formula part of a variation? Speaker 5: That's right. And the applicants indicated they are agreeable to putting those in an infrastructure agreement. Councillor Wilkie: And what are your concerns about the timing of the installation of acoustic fencing? Is there a disagreement about that still? Speaker 5: There's disagreement over the acoustic report and timing. The applicant feels the acoustic measures could be implemented as part of future material change of use applications for unit developments on those lots. Officers don't agree with that position. The acoustic matters need to be addressed as part of the lot reconfink because the solution required will be an acoustic fence that has to go across several lots and potentially will have different landowners. So that matter has to be addressed now. And the other element with that is there's likely to be or there is noise issues coming from the loading dock and mechanical equipment on the shopping centre that needs to be further
00:38:00 mitigated. That cannot be done as a future application for a unit development on a lot because it would be on a separate parcel. So it needs to be addressed as part of the lot reconfigure. Councillor Wilkie: So is this an example of something you'd like to continue negotiating with the applicant about? Yes. Prior to a final decision? Speaker 5: Yes. That's something we can resolve. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Just to clarify on that. The reason with regards to units, a lot 17, 18 and 19 is because they are three separate lots and they could have three separate owners requiring that noise barriers are put in place at this stage. Regardless of the fact that each development may be quite different and the type of noise abatement required and the distances, the setbacks and all the rest of it may be quite different. To me, I can see what you're trying to say but to me the fact that each development could
00:39:00 be quite different could mean a different set of requirements of noise dams and noise abatements. So why would you need that up front? Speaker 5: The issue is exactly what you said. It's because potentially there will be future different lot owners and an acoustic fence only works if it's continuous. There's still likely to be future requirements on those residential lots individually as part of the MCU. They're going to have to design them to address noise. But the acoustic fence will serve a purpose for open space areas outside the buildings themselves. So that's important that it's addressed as part of a lot reconfiguration. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: So I have another question in relationship to the Environmental Offsets Act section 14.42. Which appears to state that Council could not impose payments of offsets for a matter twice. And as I understand, the infrastructure agreement took into consideration offsets and that the
00:40:00 agreement was that the works that were already completed at great expense by the developer or applicant would cover all that. So how is it that under environment offsets act? At 14.2, Council is now wanting to impose further COALA offsets. Speaker 5: Well, I don't agree with that position. So the open space land was dedicated at a time there was no offsets required. The provisions around offsets for COALA started after the infrastructure agreement. So I don't agree that Council would be taking a contribution twice. This would be the first step. This is the first time we've taken an offset for COALA contributions. Councillor Jackson: So what the infrastructure agreement at the moment doesn't have anything about, it has wording around payments, but not around offsets specifically.
00:41:00 It doesn't require. Speaker 5: The infrastructure agreement prevents Council from conditioning the offset. We can't impose a condition on the approval. That's all. That's what it does. That's what it does. It also says we can't answer any questions. We can't ask for any more land to be dedicated as open space. It also does that. Councillor Jackson: Right. Speaker 5: Okay. Councillor Jackson: I have another question in relation to the fact that today is a general committee meeting and Thursday we have an ordinary meeting and you have been in receipt of an alternate infrastructure agreement, which we don't know what is in it. Is there some information? Would it be possible to assess that for Thursday's ordinary meeting so that the decision of Council can take that into consideration? Speaker 5: We can ask Council's planning solicitor to review the infrastructure agreement.
00:42:00 I'd suggest so. The timeframe is too short for us to properly consider it. Councillor Jackson: Are there any options for further negotiations? Are there any options for negotiating a deferral? Because it just seems rather odd to be sitting on this. Speaker 7: I'll answer that. There are two alternatives. One would have been good to have a copy of the infrastructure agreement or the alternative infrastructure agreement put forward by the developer earlier than the end of last week. Well, okay. But here we are. And the second is that if the developer had extended the time, it would have given us more time to do it as well. But they're not agreeing to extend the time beyond Friday. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. And you have asked them, since you received the infrastructure agreement, to extend the time? Speaker 4: Oh, no. We haven't asked them to extend the time again. But we have asked them on numerous occasions, right up until the agenda closed, to extend the time. Because this was evolving. This was every day there was contact. So it was evolving right up until the agenda closed.
00:43:00 So they knew of our desire to get an extension to the timeframe. And we have asked them to extend the time again. But, you know, we're not willing to extend the timeframe. And as I mentioned in the beginning, the decision is due on Friday. And if council doesn't have a decision, then it's a deemed approval. Councillor Wilkie: Any more questions, councillors? Councillor Jackson: I think I've answered all my questions. Councillor Wilkie: We can always ask as the debate continues. Councillor Wellington, would you like to speak to the motion? Mayor Wellington: Sure. One of the more salient reasons for refusing an extension to the timeframe is that we have to give the application at this stage, as I see it, as the potential impost on ratepayers. Staff and the applicant have been unable, unfortunately, to agree to a data variation on the infrastructure charges, as we've heard. And the application, the applicant erroneously argues that the intensity of the development proposed, which aligns somewhat with our current and draft planning schemes, is no greater in
00:44:00 intensity than that was contemplated at the time of the old master plan 2. And therefore, the infrastructure agreement that would be associated with that very different approach would be no different in their assessment. However, a review of the intensity has found that it is considerably more in the draft scheme and also in the application before us. As a result, if the differences aren't factored into the data variation, Noosa Council, and therefore Noosa ratepayers, could be forced to agree to an extension. I'm not at this point in time prepared to approve a development application that is in its approach to infrastructure charge agreements, potentially robs ratepayers of millions of dollars. Of course, on top of that, as it stands, the application doesn't satisfactorily address
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 the draft scheme's objectives with regard to vegetation protection, nor minimising or compensating for the impact of koalas, and others may wish to speak more about that. And there are other issues at stake here too. There are issues such as the poor connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles, failure to adequately deal with noise amenity for the residential lots, etc. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that in keeping with what I consider to be the bare scorched earth approach of the existing Noosa Civic, with its acres of bakingly hot bitumen, and soulless buildings that ignore their surroundings, the application before us again arguably wants to take Noosa in that direction without taking Noosa aesthetics into account. It does this arguably because it doesn't succeed in retaining enough existing vegetation to create what it is that we've been envisaging in the draft planning scheme, and that is
00:46:00 a new village in a park-like setting. And until I see some suggestion that that notion is really being addressed, then I do have concerns. But I come back to my original point, and that is that I'm not prepared to support a subdivision that has potentially enormous financial benefits to the landowner by allowing significant up-zoning of the land, which is what's happening here. The land is being up-zoned, so it has far more value. It is also a more intense problem. It is a more intense development than at the time of the Master Plan 2, and that potentially means that ratepayers will be out of pocket due to insufficient infrastructure charges and contributions being paid. Councillor Glasgow referred to this as little bibs and bobs, but I wouldn't call $4 to $10 million worth of ratepayer lost income as little bibs and bobs.
00:47:00 Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Wellington just referred to the loss of vegetation as a result of this subdivision. I'm a little unclear and I would like an explanation of, as this is merely a subdivision application, which I believe subdivides lots, but it's not a development application, is it really at the subdivision point that it has an impact on the vegetation or is it really when those lots come again back to us as development applications that that really is when it all cuts in? Speaker 5: It's at both really. So the subdivision on page nine. There won't be nine. Figure five. I'll just find it. Page 36.
00:48:00 Oh yeah. On page 36 there's a plan that shows the clearing plan for the subdivision. So that shows you what would be cleared as part of the subdivision initially. So that includes obviously the areas for roads and services as well as a fair bit of substantial clearing for lots 10 to 15 in order to achieve stormwater management design. So, and obviously then as lots three and seven would be developed, there'd be further clearing occurring and lots 23 and 21, et cetera. What I would expect to see to achieve a parkway setting as part of a subdivision is areas that were identified for retention as part of the subdivision as well as ongoing future development. So there's been limited areas by the applicant in identifying that.
00:49:00 Identifying, sorry. Identifying areas that would be retained in a long term basis. And that plan on figure five shows you that. Those areas on the roundabout in front of lots six, 10 and nine are green. So they're indicated to be retained vegetation, which is fairly minimal. In a small strip across the front. And the other areas marked as, pink on the plans, are areas that the applicant would seek to re-vegetate as part of the subdivision. They're fairly limited areas, I'd suggest, in terms of achieving a park-like setting. Councillor Jackson: So is, I mean, as a councillor, I've been involved in having input to the new Noosa plan and I share Councillor Wellington's excitement about what the plan intends, which is a Shire business centre with a mixture of residential, commercial. Mayor Wellington: Point of order.
00:50:00 She's talking about what she approves and doesn't approve, which sounds a bit like an argument. Councillor Jackson: I am actually asking a question. I was just being polite to you. But anyway, whether I agree with him or not is relevant. So what I'm confused about is the statement that, you know, the big car park and the big concrete. I don't understand this because everything we've been looking at for the Noosa plan appears to have the need for development here in all sorts of forms, including roads and all this, and buildings. And I'm really confused about how we can develop a business, Shire business centre, which is defined as a major centre in the SEQ plan, without, and expect somehow it will be a parkland. I really don't understand where we are on this. I mean, this is a major business centre. So how can we be demanding it stay a park? Speaker 5: What the scheme says, both the current and the draft scheme,
00:51:00 is it seeks a park-like setting. So to achieve that, I'm not suggesting the whole site remains vegetated. Certainly it needs, the substantial need to be cleared to allow the Shire business centre to proceed. But I would expect stands of vegetation to be retained around the site to give that impression that it's set in a park-like setting. Now, the covenants around the outside go to that partly, but I would also expect stands in amongst development to achieve that park-like setting. Councillor Jackson: So, Kerry, in this drawing that we're looking at right now, the stands you're referring to, are they the little chains of greenery? Yes. So you can expect that lots will be cleared in order to build buildings. That's right. But it's the little chains that you're concerned about? Speaker 5: Well, that's the applicant's proposal of how they will achieve the park-like setting. Councillor Jackson: So that's acceptable, that sort of approach? Speaker 5: I'd suggest that they actually need to include a greater area to achieve a park-like setting.
00:52:00 Councillor Jackson: Right. Greater area meaning wider? Speaker 5: Wider areas. Councillor Jackson: For each lot? Speaker 5: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yes. I think, first off, I think we should thank both our staff and the applicant because in the time since we last debated this in December, there has been a lot of good negotiation and good faith, and as the report notes, we have really resolved a whole lot of the technical issues around civil engineering, around stormwater management, around bushfire management, and it appears to me that they're the technical issues where we now agree. There is two substantive areas where we haven't been able to gain agreement at this stage. The first substantive area is around how, this development approval will reflect the enhanced development potential that is afforded to these blocks as a result of the new plan. And as the Mayor has outlined, this is a significant,
00:53:00 oh, I should replace. This is the most significant increased development in the Shire as a result of the new plan scheme. And it would be a great tragedy for this community if we walked away from their long-held view that developers need to pay the way for the enhanced infrastructure required as a result of increased development potential. In the report, we can see there's a variation between $4 and $10 million. And as time goes on, that will be resolved as to what is the highest and best use of these sites and, therefore, what is the correct infrastructure charge. But we know as a result of this, as a result of what this Council has decided to improve the development potential of this site, that there will be increased demands on community infrastructure. Each budget time we come here and we look at things of how do we increase the district-scale sporting facilities, how do we improve the district-scale parks,
00:54:00 not just the roads, not just the stormwater management system external to the site. We know that we want to increase bike networks. They, trunk infrastructure like that is funded out of development charges. So that's the one key area. And it may be that we're moving closer. We don't know what's in the suggested new infrastructure agreement. But that is a non-negotiable for me. If we increase development potential, then the ability to charge for infrastructure charges for that increased development potential is non-negotiable. The second one is about the ability to claim environmental offsets. Now we do know and we accept that the site has a long-term commitment to development. We do know the infrastructure agreement as it stands was written before koala offsets came into place and before it became a vulnerable species. But we can be realistic and say that yes, a significant portion of the Shire Business Centre will need to be cleared.
00:55:00 But our community will demand that we do all that is legislatively possible to get the best outcome for koalas. And in this case, our existing and our planned new scheme both say the same thing. Where clearing is unavoidable, then that clearing should be offset. We are prevented from just conditioning this under the existing infrastructure agreement. We know that there's a difference in legal opinion between our legal advice and the legal advice provided by the applicant. So it's coming down, I think, to two simple points. Both those points result in that it's not going to resolve around legal argument. It's not going to resolve around arguments around this table. And unfortunately, in this case, making a decision is probably going to lead to a development decision or a development approval of some sort quicker than if we just seek to go round and round the table here. So while the legal process is unfortunate,
00:56:00 to me, as staff have indicated, it may be that once we get into that environment that these two issues can be resolved and the development will proceed. But at this stage, I'm not willing to support it until the realistic expectations of this community are met. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I would actually like to... Well, I'm going to check with the CEO on this one, but I believe I would like to move a deferral until the ordinary meeting in hopes that the staff can give us an indication of what the content of this revised infrastructure agreement is. I feel at this point, it makes it difficult to make an informed decision without that information. That's a reasonable approach? Speaker 7: There is a motion that you can use to defer a matter to a later meeting, and that would be... Father would probably have the wording up before I even look it up.
00:57:00 It's a procedural motion to defer and... Councillor Jurisevic: You can ask if it stays on the table as well. Speaker 7: Oh, no. Staying on the table relates to this meeting. Only the meeting. Deferring it is to another meeting. So it would be that the motion be deferred to... And you can specify the date and time, which would be the Thursday announcement. 20th, yeah. If that's what the meeting decided. Councillor Wilkie: So given that we don't make decisions today, we're deferring discussions. Speaker 7: You're deferring consideration of the matter. That's what I think... Councillor Jackson: Well, I guess there's different... So we wouldn't vote on the matter at this point. Speaker 7: What you'd be doing is if this procedural motion came, was moved and seconded, and if it was passed, then this meeting would stop considering this matter, and you would then consider it on Thursday night.
00:58:00 That's the effect of a procedural motion to defer to Thursday night. Councillor Glasgow: This is in relation to this new infrastructure agreement that we haven't been privy to yet, and we will get that tomorrow, so it's not... Councillor Wilkie: So the pivotal point is, as Jess said, is our council is gaining an understanding of the content of the infrastructure agreement, and its implications for this application. Will it be able to change the... Will it change the recommendation and then it's set... Recommendation for the... Speaker 5: Look, we have... Officers have had a preliminary view of the infrastructure agreement to know what's in it. The infrastructure agreement limits its content to only the matters relating to conditioning works, so it still does not include an offset for koala habitat, but it has requirements around works.
00:59:00 Yeah. So it... As I said before, it's a very short period of time. It's a short time frame to have the matter reviewed by council's solicitor and officers, so I'm not sure we'll have the answers for you, but we could at least tell you what's in it. Councillor Wilkie: You can tell us what's in it by Thursday night. And which could happen if we don't defer the motion to matters today anyway. Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The infrastructure agreement can be provided to council after this meeting. Yeah. What we won't have at that time is our assessment and our legal review. But councillors, I can circulate that. Councillor Wilkie: So a legal review of the infrastructure agreement and its implications for ratepayers and the council won't be provided by Thursday night? Speaker 4: Well, our solicitor is very busy at the moment. Yes. No, no, that's... We were trying to get some review on some other matters late last week. Yeah. And it's very busy, so we can only ask them... Make the request
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 that he starts looking at this and we get the information we can. But as Kerry said, we've had a preliminary look at it. It does provide for the conditioning of the works, which we'd outline, but it doesn't deal with the environmental issue, so that's still going to be on the table. And also, it changes the structure of... It was a deed of variation to the original IA. It's now a new IA. Yeah. We have not considered what that means. Okay. And that needs legal review. From a legal question? Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Good question. So could you please just make very clear if we defer a decision to Thursday night, you will not be able to provide a complete analysis of the infrastructure agreement that you were handed at the end of last week. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Well, that's subject to our legal... Because you're looking for... Mayor Wellington: I can't be on his behalf. Speaker 4: Absolutely. Mayor Wellington: Legal input. Absolutely. Yeah. And secondly, if it were to be refused
01:01:00 on Thursday night, the application, regardless of this deferral, that doesn't prevent you analysing the new infrastructure agreement and continuing to negotiate with the applicant? Speaker 4: No, that doesn't. I mean, part of any process of decision, an applicant can appeal that. So then we're in a negotiation process anyway. So I would anticipate that this would continue on. Speaker 7: The issue with the council is that time's not our friend at the moment. Yeah. We've got this situation so we need to make a decision this week. And the landscape in terms of what the developer has proposed in terms of the infrastructure agreement has changed and has keep changing over the period. So ultimately we need to make a decision on Thursday night, whether we like it or not. Councillor Glasgow: But on that question about the engagement of the staff, if it's refused on Thursday night and it goes on as soon as that engagement starts,
01:02:00 let's say Friday morning with the developer, is that a simple list between staff and the developer or is it straight into the lawyer ping pong because they're appealing it? Speaker 5: The applicant will need to lodge an appeal to protect their position. So I would expect that they will do so and they will seek some legal advice. The appeal notice sets out their grounds and it means both parties will receive a little bit more legal advice which I would hope would facilitate ongoing discussions and negotiations. Speaker 7: And I'd be more hopeful now than I would have been last December that if there was an appeal we'd be able to negotiate through an appeal. So I think it would be quite problematic to work that through for an appeal but I think the last few months have been able to deal with some of those technical issues. So the issues that are still
01:03:00 in dispute so to speak have been narrowed down and would be subject to negotiation through an appeal process and if they were resolved that would come back to Council for final sign-off in terms of any settlement in an appeal. Councillor Glasgow: And let's talk about the other I suppose is it approved on Thursday night and then we have no communication then about agreements and infrastructure charges and so forth about environmental aspects of it. Obviously there's no lawyers involved because the applicant has got the approval so does that communication just cease after that because then they can just continue on with exactly what they've got in their report. Speaker 5: Yeah. I strongly recommend that Council cannot approve it on Thursday night until they know the infrastructure agreement is satisfactory. So we need to we need to do both if we're going to approve it. We need to sign the infrastructure agreement and approve it at the same time if we want to support this development. We can't just do one or the other. So we can't approve it
01:04:00 and then continue discussions if we're looking to support it. Councillor Glasgow: So we've approved this $4 to $10 million just wipes straight back onto Council. It's the rate page. Pick up the bill. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. If not approved Councillor Glasgow: the bits and bobs and lawyer ping pong money we'll be paying will go back to the rate page and then it's either way we're rocking our court and rocking our place. Yeah. Mayor Wellington: Given that you've noted that the applicant was aware that this was coming to this week's round of meetings and provided you with the proposed infrastructure agreement only last Friday. Could you please detail how long it is that you have been negotiating with the applicant over this particular subdivision? Speaker 4: Well, the report does outline it in detail but we have been working with the applicant essentially
01:05:00 on a weekly basis on a weekly basis since October. Speaker 3: There's been Speaker 4: numerous meetings between the staff that met on site with the applicant. I've met with the applicant so there's been you know a number of meetings and negotiations to try and get to the point we are at today which have all been very productive and as was mentioned there's a lot of the issues are resolved from a technical perspective. It's come down to some the environmental issues and the I guess the mechanics of how we achieved some of the works through the infrastructure agreement. So you know it's been a quite productive process. It's been many months and it's been a moving feast. So when new information comes in it requires a new assessment. We've got a number of technical experts who've been supporting this process with us. So they've had to do assessment. So it's been
01:06:00 you know a bit of a moving feast. Councillor Wilkie: Ingrid would you still like to move your motion? Speaker 4: Well I have moved it. Councillor Jackson: Yes. Speaker 3: Well Greg there's two ways. You can do the procedural that the motion will be deferred or you can do a deferred consideration and what the motion is. Speaker 7: I'll do the third one. Speaker 3: Third? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I'll second it. Second it Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Jackson: Sure. I'm not going to speak long to this deferral motion. As I've just said I'm concerned not having the full information in front of me at the moment about this infrastructure agreement that's been put forward and I would prefer to be in a position of fully understanding that before making a decision on today's recommended motion. Councillor Wilkie: Now the Councillor wants to speak. Mayor Wellington: Yeah look I'm not going to be rushed in a decision about about
01:07:00 this very significant application without having a reasonable analysis carried out of the infrastructure agreement provided by the applicant at the 12th hour and I emphasise that notion of the 12th hour. They knew that we would be making a decision this week Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thursday. Mayor Wellington: The applicant has had months to be able to resolve many of these issues. Councillor Jackson says she's concerned that she doesn't have all the information in front of her. She won't have all the information in front of her on Thursday either because we won't have our legal advice and a thorough explanation as to the impacts and problems generated potentially by the new infrastructure agreement. If we're not going to have that analysis by Thursday we're still not going to have all the facts before us. Councillor Glasgow: You're down if you do, you're down if you don't in the situation. It's pretty simple isn't it?
01:08:00 And I can agree with Councillor Lennon in saying that we're really not going to have and you've pretty much told us that our lawyers are busy anyway so we're not going to get a full detailed description of the infrastructure agreement anyway are we? Is that, you can confirm that? Speaker 4: We will, we will try our best but I can't, we can't make commitments on his behalf. Well I can't, I haven't had the conversation Councillor Glasgow to say whether I can commit, I'm not even sure whether our lawyer's in court this week. Speaker 5: So I just have to suggest that I don't want to rush this matter and to try and review a legal document in the next few days. I actually don't think it's appropriate. We will try and do it but I think it's not appropriate. Councillor Glasgow: It's Monday, like we haven't been realistic. It's going to be tough Speaker 5: so you know Councillor Glasgow: we've talked and even the manager said before that got up Councillor Wilkie about calling it the civic. It is, it is the Shire Business Centre and Brian pointed it all out and his talk about how it's critical that we get this right. It's our last key
01:09:00 site to develop in Noosa and you know it's, you guys have been doing a bang up job since October I know and you're down if you do you're down if you don't we're going to lose out on money playing a little ping pong and little bits and bobs here and there that you know and lawyers aren't in hindsight I still guess that's a bit better than the four to six four to ten million that's proposed with the loss and infrastructure agreement. I just, I just really hope that you can sit down amicably with the developer in time to come and get this across the line. Because you know Brian pointed out really, really well in his speech before about just how critical this is and it's our last key site and I have got some good things and Ingrid pointed out too, how we, we're going to build a Shire business centre
01:10:00 but they're not their only tree then make it a big park which one do we want but we still can meet Councillor Wilkie: So Jess would you like the matter deferred to Thursday night or we keep debating it here we can still I've just made my talk talk about it that's right just like that you spoke to the deferral motion are you staying behind yeah just like that yeah are you in favour of that he doesn't have to stay he doesn't have to stay until he votes Councillor Glasgow: he doesn't have to stay Councillor Wilkie: until he votes Councillor Glasgow: why are you trying to squeeze it out of me sorry Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian I'm going to support the motion not just because I've already had the say but because if we're going to be litigated on Thursday night we might as well hold over all our arguments for Thursday night if Councillor Jackson wishes like a few of the other Councillors like to see just what even if it is preliminary what's in the mind of the developer in terms of the last minute
01:11:00 development agreement it might just help resolve what is in dispute and what isn't even if we don't have the full facts or full analysis of that revised infrastructure agreement so yeah I'm happy to defer because it's likely if we do or we don't we'll still redebate it on Thursday night and brevity is always good Councillor Jurisevic: okay I'll support the motion I mean at the end of the day the decision is Thursday night not today asking for some more information starting the legal process sooner rather than later two two visitors may mean we get an outcome sooner rather than later so I'm prepared to support this provided that Councillor Stockwell's communications already on this matter don't have to be three debated again on Thursday no I'm prepared I'm prepared I'm prepared to support it I mean at the end of the day the decision the decision doesn't get made until Thursday Councillor Wilkie: if we do defer Mr Closey no I don't
01:12:00 put the motion over the table against Speaker 7: Councillor Wellington it is just call it Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jackson Jurisevic Glasgow Stockwell and Wilkie against Councillor Toulonkin the motion's carried thank you Mayor Wellington: Connor Councillor Wilkie: thank you Patrick Mayor Wellington: you didn't have anything to do for the next few days did you Speaker 5: just a few applications Councillor Wilkie: so just to clarify what will happen between now and Thursday Speaker 7: so we will obviously liaise with our lawyers to see whether we can get the testing done of the infrastructure agreement that was provided to us at the end of last week I again want to manage Council's expectations that this is a significant piece of work involved in assessing what the difference is between a new infrastructure agreement compared to a variation
01:13:00 on the previous one as well as what I call the content of the agreement the two separate issues and what are the implications that's we need to get it right so we will have a look at that but I don't want to raise your expectations that we will have complex and comprehensive legal advice before the first analysis Councillor Wilkie: thank you right thank you we'll go on to item one on the agenda thank you Patrick thank you Connor thank you which is an MCU development plan for a material change of use service and utility type utility type We're situated at 244 Tablelands Road, Cooran. This is from the Planning and Environment Agenda, page 3, referred to the significance of the issue. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to move, if that's okay with you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, moved. Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Stockwell, seconded it. Joe, you wish to speak to it? Councillor Jurisevic: Just that I fully support the stance of staff on this matter. I mean, knowing where this tower is situated with regard to proximity of some of the residents nearby and the amenity,
01:14:00 I don't believe that NBN have taken every opportunity here to look at co-locating or other locations that may not be as imposing upon the community as we have been communicated by many members of the community. And I fully support the staff position on this matter. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I've got a couple of questions I'd like to ask. One is, this, we are presented with something that theoretically NBN could be provided, I assume this is fixed wireless, to 247 premises in the area near Cooran. How are these premises currently receiving internet, or are they? Speaker 2: As I understand it, they're currently, um, have access to ADSL, which is of a very low quality.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Councillor Jackson: That's through their telephone line, is it? Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. Um, and at this point in time, um, there is no plan to upgrade that, because the NBN rollout is occurring. So, that is my understanding, that's good. Councillor Jackson: So, there are, the people that are currently in this catchment for NBN have no other option other than ADSL at the moment. Somebody mentioned satellites. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, one of the people, the people that don't have ADSL access would have satellite access at this point in time. Speaker 2: That's correct. NBN, um, have indicated that those who don't have a line of sight to, um, a NBN fixed wireless, um, tower, um, have the opportunity to, uh, utilise the satellite, uh, network. Um, how that actually operates has not actually been made clear by the applicant. Um, we'd have to do much more digging with NBN themselves to try and understand that, uh, problem.
01:16:00 Councillor Jackson: So, they're saying it already exists, or something that may be coming up. Speaker 2: Yes. So, people, people that are up on, uh, Tablelands Road. Yeah. Um, many of those already have access to satellite NBN. Councillor Jackson: With a dish. Speaker 2: With a dish. Yeah. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And, um, so those people up there, they already have that access. Um, they'd receive no benefit from the tower, um, because they already have the access to the satellite network. Um, so it's only those down further in the, um, the lower areas. Yeah. Um, who would have a line of sight that would even get a benefit from the tower. Councillor Jackson: Okay. And just to clarify, so a tower such as this for the NBN has to be line of sight in order to. So, can I understand, are there many other options for location of such a tower? And I ask that because I understand there's an existing Telstra tower and there's been an issue with the co-location there because of steepness of the land. But also, I understand it's sort of a lower down, and I'm wondering whether, in fact,
01:17:00 it's, it's viable as for the, because of the line of sight. Speaker 2: That's correct. So, the existing Telstra tower is located just, uh, further down. It's approximately 100 metres, um, to the south west of the proposed tower. Uh, it's approximately 10 to 15 metres lower than the elevation of the proposed tower. Um, the existing tower has already been extended, um, to a total of 30 metres in height. Um, in saying that, if the co-location were to occur, the applicant maintains that they would only be able to access a maximum height of 20 metres. 20 metres above ground level, which would not give them sufficient, um, line of sight to enough people to be able to make it viable. Um, the applicant maintains that they have also looked at other sites, but they haven't disclosed all of those sites. So, we're not sure what was considered or what was discounted about those.
01:18:00 So, we would need more understanding of that if we were to, um, be supportive of, you know, moving forward with this one. Um, however, the line of sight issue is, yeah, it, that is critical to be able to, um, for patrons to be able to access these sites. Councillor Jackson: So, your report does indicate the suggestion that they should seek another site, and that's a possibility, you believe? I believe it is, yes. Um, have you got some knowledge that it is? Speaker 2: Um, there are a couple of, um, people in the area who have suggested that, you know, they think that there may be other sites. Some have even suggested that it may be possible on their own property where it doesn't impact, um, on the visibility, um, as much as it does currently. Um, and in one suggestion, it's been suggested that the back section of, uh, lot 298, sorry,
01:19:00 298 Tablelands Road has been suggested, and it actually sits in, uh, very similar to the way the current Telstra Tower sits in it. It sits in the, um, uh, concave, um, area of the, the, um, the landfall, uh, it sits in a very similar scenario, and be below the trees, um, so that you wouldn't have, um, the potential for the high visual impact, um, viewed from above. And that's, and that's the key thing with this particular one. It sits out on a knoll, and it's very visual from all aspects. Councillor Jackson: Is that something that, who recommended, or who suggested this might be an option? Speaker 2: Uh, the owner of that property has suggested that that could be an option. He maintains that he has tried to contact, um, the applicant, um, but has not had any receipt of that, um, acknowledgement yet. Councillor Jackson: Does this cause a conflict of interest to the submitter of that objection?
01:20:00 Speaker 2: I don't believe so. This came about very late in the, um, yeah. No. Speaker 7: Sure answer's no. No. Um, you often get submitters who are, you know, whether they're commercial competitors or people who have skin in the game, so that's quite common. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: John, just want to clarify a statement you made there. Yeah. The tower below the trees. Tower, the line of sight. Yes. As I understand it, cannot be below the trees. Otherwise it won't get on site. Yeah. It needs to actually sit above the trees. Speaker 2: I understand what you're saying. So, um, the line of sight, um, for the catchment that this tower is trying to capture, uh, the catchment is primarily to the south and the southeast. Uh, the current Telstra Tower, for example, um, it can be seen from the south and southeast. It cannot be seen from the north. Mm-hmm. So in a similar scenario with the current NBN, um, proposal, um, if it were able to be seen from the south and southeast.
01:21:00 Yeah. Yes. By the trees. Councillor Jurisevic: But there's no way that the tower can sit below the tree line. It must sit above the trees. No. That line of sight, where it may be screened from some properties by being. Exactly. It still has to sit above the trees. Speaker 2: Yeah. So where it's screened by trees, um, to the back side of where it's, um, proposed to sit, um, that would mitigate, um, potential visual amenity. Councillor Jurisevic: Just clarifying that the tower actually must sit above trees to get that line of sight. That's what I think. Yep. Jess. Councillor Glasgow: In that number, I don't know, man, 240 houses or whatever it services. Isn't that, just, man, that's low. You said it was chucking the tower up. Is that the sort of standard sort of amount that they'll go for? Is there, is there a benchmark where they won't go below? Speaker 2: I believe there is. I don't exactly know what that number is. The original number, um, proposed was approximately 360 premises and that was when the tower was
01:22:00 originally proposed at 30 metres, uh, sorry, 35 metres. Um, so essentially, um, NBN have made the call and said, we can still make it work or make it viable at 247. Um, but actually what their cutoff is, they haven't disclosed. Councillor Jurisevic: Could there be, there'd, it'd be fair to say, um. It'd be fair to say there are properties there that aren't populated. There'd be vacant, vacant blocks of land that could be populated in the future. Yes. So there would be future expansion possibilities up there. Potentially. Councillor Wilkie: Uh, councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I, I just support the motion. I think the, the principle, uh, that's getting lost in this is that our plan does try and keep the visual amenity in these areas of our hinterland at a very high level. And that's the key not just to make it, making the place liveable, but it's also a key to it growing our tourism product in the hinterland. Um, I wonder whether I should be declaring conflict of interest, because I'm also one
01:23:00 of these people that lives in a, a NBN black spot and had to put up with ADSL upload speeds of 0.2 megabytes per second. Um, but I'm not being serviced by this tower. Um, so I think there is, um, a need to look at this from a planning perspective. And I think the recommendation is right. I think also from a council perspective, we had some of the, uh, consultation with NBN early in the piece. I think it probably is time to try and get them back in in front of the councillors and talking about why it's taken so long, uh, for the whole of our Shire to be connected to a network, to a satellite or to Wi-Fi, because to me it's unacceptable from their behalf. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I might just say that I'm, you know, reading your report, you have written on page 32, the Noosa plan seeks to ensure that community is provided with services and infrastructure needed in the current age of technology, but not at the expense of scenic amenity values
01:24:00 and the rural character of the region. So obviously we are looking, hoping for a more win-win solution to this issue. I'm, I'm concerned about not just, um, this local government, but the local government in the locality, but others in the Hinshaw land where people often tell me about their problems with internet connectivity. Um, it's an issue in today's world. If they're not connected well, this can affect people in all sorts of ways, personally, in business, um, medically, et cetera. So I, I'd really like to see a positive outcome, but I also recognize that we don't want to, um, cause just visual disturbance. So I actually went out and had a look on Saturday morning, and the local neighbors in particular see this tower quite visibly, um, are likely to see it, um, and, um, it obviously also
01:25:00 from when you're up high or you see it sticking out a bit, um, but that probably worried me less. But, um, yeah, I mean, I, I support the motion that we, um, don't consider this an appropriate site because of the impact on, um. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Drissick, would you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: Uh, I'm going to follow up what Councillor Jackson, uh, said there. Um, yes, whilst we are trying to provide, uh, ensure that the services are provided to our community, I mean, a great number of the community here are prepared to forego the location of this tower because of, uh, senior community. So, uh, they are, and, and are receiving services in other ways, shapes and forms in the interim. I do, this isn't the first time we've had a, uh, uh, a tower issue before us and, uh, many of them have challenged, uh, the, the amenity for, uh, for, uh, uh, uh, a few residents in the, in the local area.
01:26:00 The proximity of this one and the number of objections to it, uh, is, is readily supported by me. I'll put the motion as in favour. Councillor Wilkie: So, the gates, it's carried unanimously. Speaker 5: Uh, councillors, just note that the reasons of refusal are being reviewed by council's planning solicitor. Um, so we might have some changes for you at the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you for your concise answers and advice. Thank you. Thank you. I thought we would. I thought we would. Okay. Next item is, uh, item three on the agenda, which is the adoption of the consolidated versions of the Noosa Shire Tower. Um, what happened to item two? How could I have missed that? Speaker 1: Planning Appeals. Councillor Jurisevic: Planning Appeals. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Anita. Sorry. Probably because of an overview. Councillor Jurisevic: You just, you just overlooked the overview. Councillor Wilkie: I overlooked the overview. Overview of Planning Appeals. I haven't marked it.
01:27:00 Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. Page 57. Thank you. Referred due to significance of the issue. Page 57. Uh, councillors, any questions? No. Councillor Jackson: I have some questions. Councillor Wilkie: Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: Carrie. I'm having read your report. Um, your report tells us that there's, um, 563,537 spent to the end of December on appeals, but Trent Brough's report in January for the end of December says that, in fact, 800,000 have been spent so far on appeals. So there's a discrepancy between your numbers and Trent's number. And also, Trent's report in January for the end of December said that the budget was 1.1 million, but your agenda item says it's 1 million. So there are two discrepancies, and I'm confused by that.
01:28:00 Speaker 5: Um, so the figures are, these figures in the report come from Trent's report, um, and the difference in, uh, for this financial year. The first six months, um, comes from, uh, I've only included the amounts relating to planning appeals resulting from development applications, not compliance matters. Those are the compliance matters that are with our legal team that, um, I guess explain the difference in the amounts. Councillor Jackson: So his covers all of that. Speaker 5: His covers all of that. That's right. Yeah. Um. Councillor Jackson: And so even the difference in 1.1 million compared to 1 million budget? Um. Speaker 5: I can't, I can't explain that difference because there was a million dollars included for this year's budget. We're having to look at increasing it slightly to cover this appeal. So I'm not sure where the difference is coming from. Councillor Wilkie: Through a budget review? Speaker 5: Yeah, possibly in the budget review. Councillor Wilkie: Now that Trent's report is from, being the last one actually, to the end of January.
01:29:00 Are your figures? To December. To December. Councillor Jackson: No, it wasn't to the end of January. It was the January report that I looked at. Not this month. Yeah. Yeah. I looked at the January report which is to the end of December. Same timeframe. Speaker 5: Can I come back to you on that one? Yes please. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Was it exactly 1 million dollars that was? That was. Allowed for or? Speaker 5: That was what was put in the 2019-20 budget. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Exactly 1 million. I was just wondering whether Trent wasn't rounding up an element of it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'm just looking at Trent's report now since it's the financial report. Speaker 7: Not this year. Not this month. Last month. Councillor Jackson was referring to the one within the. December. January report. Like the one in the February meeting. Councillor Wilkie: I'll beg your pardon. Sorry. Councillor Jackson: The January report is the one that refers to the end of December. The December. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: The one in this agenda.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Councillor Jackson: I'm just wondering, I don't hear you say that we win all our appeals. And I'm wondering, do you therefore define withdrawals and settling with amendments as wins? Speaker 7: Sure answer is yes. And the reason is that we settle, or sorry, in appeals withdrawn often people put in an appeal to protect their rights. So, you know, we give a refusal for example and put in an appeal and say well we'll have a good look at it whether or not we will be successful in challenging that in the court. They go away and get their advice and realise they won't be successful. So they withdraw that so the council's decision stands. Certainly at the other end of the scale, the ones where the council has gone through a full trial, it's been successful. This council will be one of the few that I'll be aware of that's won every contested trial.
01:31:00 The ones that are settled are a bit greyer in the middle. So some of those we get a good outcome where we say well the developer will pull back or agree to what we were after. And we have that outcome that we want from a planning perspective. And in a very small number of cases we've gone well, you know, this is an issue that might be contested. Is it a big planning issue or is it not a big planning issue? We want to spend $50,000 or $100,000 to contest two square metres of signage or whatever might be the difference. No, we'll settle. So in that sense I would have thought that the decisions the council made has preserved the intent or integrity of our planning scheme. Councillor Jackson: So 17 settlements may have some wins in both sides. And sometimes they're win-win decisions or you can't win them all sort of decisions. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I have another question, I guess a general one. And that is as 17 out of the 34, so half ended up with settlements out of court.
01:32:00 And, you know, we're constantly puzzling this thing of do we move into the appeal, do we reform? Do we do something? Do we continue to try and negotiate? And I just wonder if there are so many, 17 seems quite high out of 34 appeal, that ended up with a settlement and a situation where probably both sides gave, you know, give and take, whether that could be done without the expense and very long-term timeframe of an appeal process. Speaker 7: Well, that's a good question. In an ideal world, I think that would be right. But I don't think we live in an ideal world, unfortunately. So many cases, it's the structured process through the court mediation session that brings that to a head. Speaker 4: Like the timeframes imposed under the Act. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 4: Sometimes the timeframes against you where a decision needs to be made. Councillor Jurisevic: One would expect that a level of mediation and all that occurs before.
01:33:00 Speaker 3: Of course, always. Councillor Jurisevic: So that your settlement can't be achieved. That's only when the final outcome is to go to court. Speaker 7: And sometimes, to be blunt, you know, the council's forcing to make a decision through the timeframes. Otherwise, you're in a Dean approval scenario. Do you agree with that? Therefore, you need to work that through. Yeah. It's not an ideal world, but that's the world we live in. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Glasgow: My question was just pretty brief and it was basically a knowledge of local government. Brett, this is common in all local governments, fighting, not fighting, winning, losing. Do you have any other statistics of someone around our size, kind of what they're spending? Speaker 7: No, not off the top of my head. I know that, I think it was Sunshine Coast Council was up over $4 million a year. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Sunshine Coast Council just announced, yeah, just put out their figures and it's, yeah, it's full-time accounts. Speaker 7: But you'd expect that they're a bigger council? Yeah, of course. So you can see where your view is on that. Brisbane is astronomical.
01:34:00 I know that. But again, much, much bigger councils. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. But like, you know, I get a lot of questions about, God, you're tipping money down the toilet. It's like, well, we also win a lot, but it's pretty common business in market government to do this. It's not always just cut and dry. Yeah. And you said that. Speaker 7: I think the starting point is always to come back to what's the planning principle we're trying to defend and what's the planning principle we're trying to deal with and is that worth fighting for? And that's the question. And how much ratepayers' funding do we have to need to be able to defend the planning scheme? Because the other alternative is to say, no, we won't defend the planning scheme, therefore we'll have poorer planning outcomes that may be saved from ratepayers' funding. We actually want to get the best of both worlds and have the best planning outcome, defend our planning scheme in the court when we have to. But if we're taking the court, and this is what the recommendations alluded to, if we're taking the court to defend the planning scheme from an application that is absolutely contrary to the planning scheme, and we're having to pay ratepayers' monies to do that, we're successful, we're not getting anything back out of that process. That's the issue at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: The Noosa we live in wouldn't be the Noosa we're living in, have we?
01:35:00 Yep. Not defending the planning scheme. Speaker 7: And I think I've said previously with council, it was semi-flippant, but it's true, is that I'd rather spend this money and be successful than spend this money and not be successful in the court. We've got a very good track record. Councillor Jackson: Another question relating to the proposal. There's a couple of recommendations here. One is about seeking the local government association of Queensland to lobby the Department of State Development and Infrastructure Planning for a comprehensive review of the current cost provisions, with a view to including the ability of the local government to take the money of the court to award costs when a development proposal is found to be significantly in conflict in the planning scheme. Are we talking about awarding costs at the end of the court's trial? We're talking here about 34 appeals, 17 settled, X number withdrawn, and only seven went to finish the trial. So which bits of that are we talking about here?
01:36:00 Speaker 5: Yeah, we're only talking about at the end of the trial. Councillor Jackson: So if it doesn't go that far, there's no costs involved. Speaker 5: That's right. So we're talking about a lot of costs that can be awarded costs and have to go to trial for the cost to be awarded. Thanks. Yeah. That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just clarify a question? You may. That situation has existed in the past, has it not? That changed at some stage? Speaker 5: Yes, under the previous planning action. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 5: Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I'd like to move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Lasko. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there's two elements to this motion. The first is about what I believe is a sensible and community-minded approach to planning appeals. And that is that if a developer wants to take a council to court when it is really clear in their planning scheme that their development is in conflict with it, then they should be aware that they're open to paying the costs of council to defend that planning scheme.
01:37:00 Now, we know, not just in the case of the council, but in the case of the council itself, not so long ago, the Court of Appeal, was it, had reviewed decisions of judges in the Planning Environment Court and said, basically, you've got no right to override a planning scheme. You've got the right to judge whether the planning scheme has been implemented and is being interpreted correctly. And that's hopefully put a bit of a shockwave through some of the judges in the Planning Environment Court. But I do think that this concept that the ratepayers should have to pay up to, you know, the most expensive case we've had in front of us, the TomCo Appeal, which is over a million dollars. And this is where this concept came out of the community, saying, really, in that judgement, that our co-responder felt that it was quite clear that the development was inconsistent with what the planning team said, and it is inconsistent that the community should have to pay for a developer to try and break the planning scheme. And I agree. You might want to compare that to, say, the QIC Appeal, which is much more finely balanced,
01:38:00 quite large. It was over $800,000 out at the Noosa Shire Business Centre. And that one, as I said, the argument was finely balanced. But the way we won it, which is really important, is the judge said, the Noosa Shire Council has a history of defending and upholding its planning scheme. Who am I to differ? And that's really important in every decision we make. So I think we've got good news that we're winning most. The bad news is sometimes we probably should, if the State Government was acting the first, and the public interest, they would review the Planning Act. They would make the cost provisions reflect the ability, give the judges the ability to look at the nature of the appeal when this is considered a cost. But then there's the second element. The second element, and as a planner, it's one that I find incongruous, once again, in the current system of planning and building appeals. And that is the actions of the tribunal.
01:39:00 So the tribunal's different than an appeal in that it sets referees. And what we're arguing is that the referees should be more consistently appointed, that are more consistent with the purpose and have a better understanding of the subject matter of my words. So we have, in the last few days, received an email from staff which identified some of our experiences with the tribunal. And this varies depending on which referees are appointed to make that decision. But some of the things we've had to put up, they appear to have made up their mind before hearing from both parties. They've inappropriately quoted what other Council planning schemes allow and to attempt to apply it to the case before them. They're not, they're versed in planning laws stating that they must consider the applicant's personal financial circumstances, make statements and draw conclusions that go beyond their professional expertise. Thank you.
01:40:00 Thank you. Now, as a planner, I've worked in sections that have had building surveyors and they do their job well, which is about assessing structural adequacy. They have no training or expertise in interpreting or applying the principles of planning as outlined in a planning scheme. And to compare the results in the tribunal where we've, out of 26, we've actually lost 11. And out of four going to the tribunal, we've lost about one out of two. And that's probably because of the inconsistency in the referees' understanding of professionalism being applied. So I think it's really important that we do point out to the State Government that we're not, we're unimpressed with the way they're appointing their referees. We think the planners should be making decisions on the tribunal about planning matters. And those planners should be at the top of their game and not having people qualified to assess structural adequacy, considering the matters that apply to planning professionalism.
01:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just a clarifying question. Preferably, you would prefer to have people burst in planning law on the tribunals. What sort of qualifications do they tend to have, if any? Speaker 5: In our experience, they have a range of qualifications. So we've had building certifiers, building dividers, architects and planners. So we've had a range of qualifications. The experience level amongst them hasn't, they don't have a significant amount of experience from what I can tell. So it's varied a little bit depending which tribunal they're attending. Councillor Wilkie: The councillor's wish to speak to the motion. Is this a closed one? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can't debate any arguments. Councillor Wilkie: That's a favour. That first one you spoke, yeah. An against motion is carried unanimously. The second motion is carried unanimously. Speaker 7: Can I suggest we deal with the other items, the other planning application?
01:42:00 And now Kerry will be able to head off. She's got a few things to do. Sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: N plus one. Speaker 7: Yeah, so item five. Oh, good idea. Yes, which is the lorikeet drive. It just allows for a little bit of application to be done. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. That's page three of the general committee report. Yeah, they're not going to work. This one. Councillor Jackson: How are we supposed to somehow agree as a councillor group to vote to change the agenda? Or is that just something the chair can do? Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Is there any objections to us changing the agenda so that the planning staff can remain at the table? There's no objection. Okay. Speaker 7: Thank you. That's the order of the business can be changed at the discretion of the chair. Okay. But there can be an objection. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I have a question. In this area we've had the experience with development applications that tend to use the adjacent park land to store building equipment that might go over and interfere with vegetation in the park.
01:43:00 Is there anything in these sort of approvals that we can actually add a condition that says yes, providing that, or is that just a standard condition anyway that people breach? Speaker 2: In this particular instance, the planning scheme does seek to ensure that public access is not gained directly from the premises to the coastal area. The anticipation of that would be to maintain existing defined coastal access paths. Otherwise, you get incremental degradation. So we have been able to condition that no gates be included in a rear fence scenario.
01:44:00 So if that's what you're referring to, then yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's mainly during the construction process where the damage is nearly done. Like the builders might go and use it as their storage area. They might say, oh, the boss told me to go and cut down these branches and trees. That's the sort of thing that happens during the construction process. I thought we made it really clear. Yeah. Speaker 5: How about we include an advisory note in the decision notice that states that they're not allowed to use the council reserve for construction, to construct and storage. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Vehicles. Speaker 5: Vehicles for the ordinary meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that'd be good. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Does spend a lot of time in that area. There'll be a lot of time. Interesting. Okay. Okay.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Councillor Jackson: Well, I was interested in the comment about no gate because I understand at the moment there's no fence. I'm not sure why anyone would put a fence in or if it's a nice bushland area. So that gate thing doesn't necessarily stop people from finding pathways. No. Speaker 5: It's reflective of a scheme requirement, that one. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. There's no fence in the landscaping plan or anything like that. But I could revisit. I did question the mention of a gate there as well as to where the gate was likely to go. There's no fence at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. It's purely reflective of the planning scheme requirements. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, does anyone care to move that? I'll move it. Move Councillor Wellington. I'll second it. Councillor Glasgow just had a word. Councillor Wellington wants to speak to it. No, I don't need to. Motion. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Nadine, thank you. Kerry, go to item 3. Anita, you're really up this time. Yes, thank you. I promise.
01:46:00 I'm going to go to item 12. You're going to go to item 12? I'm going to go to item 12. Okay. No Councillor Glasgow is leaving the meeting, please. All right, condolences Jess. That's item 3. Adoption of consolidated versions of Nurses Shire Council Local Law No. 1. 2015, Supportment of Local Law No. 1, Administration. 2015, a Supportment of Local Law No. 4, Local Government Controlled Areas, Facilities and Roads. This is Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. Item 4, page 66, Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: Dorothy Dixon for the CEO. Council's already adopted the, or Anita it could be, has already adopted the local law amendments relating to advertising devices. Can I, for the sake of those who don't understand why it's happening before us, can you please explain why this matters before us today?
01:47:00 Speaker 9: Yes, in the last report to Council there was a recommendation that I bring back the consolidated version. So under the Local Government Act. Not only does Council adopt the amendments, they separately adopt the consolidated versions of those amendments into the local laws. Mayor Wellington: So this is a procedural matter. It's a procedural matter. Thank you. Happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Wellington. Second. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. What? Councillor Wellington. Oh. Mayor Wellington: I mean, I'll just say that it's purely a procedural matter. We've already had the debate. We've had a result. This is a matter of just accommodating that previous result so that it ticks all the I's and crosses all the T's.
01:48:00 Councillor Jackson: Well, I do have a question actually. And that is, here we are asked to adopt. Looking, I haven't got it myself. I think I'm at my fingertips, the wording of the recommendation from our previous meeting. So what is it that we actually did at our previous meeting? Speaker 9: So Council resolved to make the amendments. To make the amendments. And now they adopt the consolidated versions. So now we adopt. Councillor Jackson: That's right. All right. So it wasn't really adopted before it was made. Speaker 9: Yeah. Well, I guess it's maybe semantics in the wording, but that's the legal wording. And it has been gazetted as well. Okay. Councillor Jackson: It has already been gazetted. That's correct. Right. Oh. And does that mean that gazette will mean it's already a formal local law? Speaker 9: At the commencement date of the 28th of February. So Council's required to make the amendments, which then, within a month's time of making
01:49:00 that decision, has to appear in the government gazette and on Council's website. And that was undertaken. And this is just procedural in terms of those amendments have now been incorporated. Councillor Jurisevic: We've actually got to see the local laws written as local laws and amended local laws and where they sit within it. That's right. The grand scheme of all of the local laws, which we didn't see last time. Speaker 9: No. They were amendments. They were insert, delete, et cetera. Yeah. That's right. Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. It's a consolidated version. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I also have another question, and that's about the Recommendation Section B. There's information here requesting us to sign off on fees for applications for $150 per sign for Kylan sign, Paul sign, or freestanding sign, and $100 per illuminated sign. Is this in addition to what was in the local law that was made by Council previously?
01:50:00 Had we seen these figures in a previous Council meeting? Yes. Speaker 9: So previously, we did discuss the costs, the signage. However, that was based on, I guess, the early version, the first version of the local law, which had a greater number of signs proposed as requiring approval. So we envisaged a greater number of applications coming forward. And what was proposed at that time was up to three signs would be approved. So that would be $150. On further consideration of the time that it would take to receipt, assess, compliance on an application, it's now proposed at $150 per sign. We won't be getting too many of these applications anyway. The $100 per illuminated sign has remained unchanged. That was always proposed as that. Mm-hmm.
01:51:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Did we not have a fee for illuminated signs prior to this end point? No. Speaker 9: Currently? Or previously discussed? Councillor Jurisevic: Prior to these changes being made. Did we not have a... Speaker 9: Yes. We always had the $100 per illuminated sign. Oh, that's not new. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that's not new. That's not new. Speaker 7: It's always a cleaning system. Speaker 9: Why is it in here? Speaker 7: Just to adopt it. Okay. Adopt it for the new... Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Because it's new for the planning scheme to the local law. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can I speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: We've finished it? Oh, have we been moved? Yeah. Oh, sorry. You moved it. I will speak. I will speak. On consideration, I will say that we are now being asked to adopt, and we weren't asked to adopt before. So I'd like to say that I am in favour of Noosa design principles and putting limits on the signage. We certainly don't want Noosa to end up looking like Niclin Way. I do not do backflips. I voted against endorsing the signage laws in December and I'm going to do that again here in terms of adoption as they are exactly the same now as they were then.
01:52:00 The reasons that I was not supportive of the local laws is that we haven't simply transferred signage rules out of the planning scheme into local laws. The council is making quite a number of changes and I think some of them are particularly negative for smaller businesses. The things I do not support in the local law is things like not allowing any real estate directional signage except one and right in front of the property for sale. Council allows six at the moment and I moved an amendment to make it only four but that was knocked back. This new local law I consider goes too far. And in the end it particularly impacts on the smaller businesses. The big guys aren't affected because they have the prime real estate in central locations.
01:53:00 I also do not support not allowing sub-tenants of a tenancy to have A-frames while everyone else is allowed to have an A-frame. So point of order. Point of order. What's that councillor? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The councillor appears to be debating the motion as passed. Not debating the procedural motion of incorporating those amendments into the local law. The only relevant argument is about whether the process that we are going through is accurate. And in my opinion I don't believe that a procedural motion to consolidate it opens the debate up for policy debate anymore. Councillor Wilkie: I have to agree with councillor Stockwell on this case, councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Can I discuss this? What is the process here? Because I think we have made but we haven't adopted before. Councillor Wilkie: You can dissent from my ruling if you wish.
01:54:00 Speaker 7: That's the appropriate process. Just to explain the process. So there's been a point of order. The share has made a ruling. If you don't agree with it you can do a notice of dissension from that ruling on the point of order. That's the most appropriate way to deal with it. Councillor Jackson: There's been a dissent. Speaker 7: The chair has made a ruling on that. Councillor Wilkie: So you can dissent against my ruling. Councillor Jackson: Okay, I shall object to your ruling in that case. Mayor Wellington: Dissent from the chair's ruling. Motion of dissent from the ruling of the chairperson. Councillor Wilkie: That's moved by councillor Jackson. And I support that. Mayor Wellington: Hang on, you don't get to talk to it. Can I second her move? You don't get to talk to it. Councillor Jurisevic: Somebody has to second. Can I second her motion? Mayor Wellington: Yes, you're about to go on. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm supporting her. Seconding her motion. I'm going to second that, Joe. That's all I said. Mayor Wellington: Fair enough. Speaker 3: Can you second that, sir? Councillor Wilkie: Joe. Speaker 7: Okay. Mayor Wellington: Correct me if I'm wrong. Only the chair and the dissenter can speak. Speaker 7: Correct. So the only two that can talk to this are the person who moved the motion of dissent and the chairperson.
01:55:00 Right. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Speaker 7: Okay. So can I second that? Councillor Jackson: So I think it's very clear, while of course it's always difficult for people who are not lawyers to understand words, that this is the time we're being asked to adopt a local law. The content of that local law is just as much relevant as the fact that it's previously been made. We are still having to adopt it as a council. And therefore, if I object to the content of that local law, I have a right to speak on that behalf. I have a right to speak on the behalf of the community, particularly the ones that I consider are being disadvantaged through this local law. I don't see that adopting bans the ability to speak about the policy matter that is within the local law. Mayor Wellington: I've got a question, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yes. If you don't mind. The report, the council actually says, draft local law amendments for advertising devices
01:56:00 were adopted by council at its meeting on the 19th of December. So I would just like some clarification, please. Did we adopt them or did we not? Speaker 9: The specific wording was that council note the report, et cetera, and resolve to make the following changes. Oh, sorry. To proceed with the making of and make administration local law number one, 2019, as altered. So that's the wording for each of them. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Anita, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to pass this to the CEO. The report tells us that we have adopted that resolution. Therefore, do we take the report as read or not? Given that, not only were they adopted, but they have now been gazetted at the state level. How can the state gazette something that we haven't adopted? Speaker 7: So the state doesn't gazette things. The council gazettes it.
01:57:00 So we actually put it in the report. But it's in the state document, isn't it? No. The gazette is basically the state newspaper, for want of a better phrase, that deals with legal notices. So what happens to the council? This is what's coming up, I think. Let's put that into the gazette. Yeah, fair enough. So it's not actually made by the state through the gazette. It's the council who does that. So what the council has done is to proceed with the making of various local laws and make the changes that we had identified at that time. And the relevant part then is in paragraph F of the previous council decision. The decision is to bring forward the consolidated version of local law one, subordinate local law number one, subordinate local law number four, for adoption and commencement in early 2020 to enable a local law amendment to commence when a new planning scheme takes effect. Mayor Wellington: So the previous resolution refers to the term adoption? No. Speaker 7: No. It doesn't? No, it doesn't.
01:58:00 No, it doesn't. It talks to make. The provision in paragraph F refers to bring forward the consolidated version of the three local laws I've mentioned for adoption and commencement. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say we can't adopt them until? Speaker 7: Yes, it does refer to it. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say we can't adopt them until we actually see the final written version of the local law? Speaker 7: So what you have today before you for adoption, just to be very clear, is those consolidated versions of what the council resolved to make last year. Councillor Jurisevic: And how they would appear as a local law? Correct. Including the content. Speaker 7: How they consolidated version. Including the content. Yes. So now the Chair has the right to speak to the dissension motion. Mayor Wellington: Yes. Can I get a simple answer? The report says that the advertising, the amendments for advertising devices were adopted by council at this meeting on the 19th of December. You are now suggesting, Mr. CEO, that that is not correct. Speaker 7: What I'm referring to is not what's in the report, but what's in the council decision.
01:59:00 If you have a look on page... Mayor Wellington: Yes, I'm asking you whether or not the sentence in the report is accurate. Speaker 7: So can you refer me to that sentence, please? Mayor Wellington: It's the very first sentence in the report, Mr. CEO. Councillor Jurisevic: In the report before us today? Mayor Wellington: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, I see. Yes, it says it was adopted. The recommendation is to adopt. Speaker 7: Yes, I think we're getting a bit caught up in semantics. Yes. What happened, again, the best way to answer that question is to go to the heart of what the council decision was. And the council decision set out on page 67 is that the council proceed to make the various changes, and the council decision is to bring back for adoption and commencement the consolidated version. That's what's happening now. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So the use of the word adopt in the first line of the executive summary is probably incorrect, incorrect semantics.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Because the actual recommendations are to adopt. Speaker 7: Yes, look, I think the ordinary reading of any non-lawyer would be that that's what took place at that meeting out at Federal Hall that night, was the council debated and ended up with an agreed position in terms of what the advertising decision was. And that's the reason why I'm going to go to my next slide, which is the paragraph F, which is we are adopting those. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So I'll speak to the motion before us. What we agreed to do at the last council meeting was to proceed with the making of these laws. We had extensive debate about that at that time. This is essentially a procedural motion to adopt what we agreed to make at the last meeting. We've had, we had extensive debate at the last meeting. At that meeting last year about that. All parties had adequate chance to have their say on each individual aspect of these local
02:01:00 laws. And this is not, in my opinion, the forum to re-prosecute each and every one of those at this time. This, we did resolve to proceed to the making of these laws as debated. And we've had that debate. So that's why I ruled the one I did. And we've had that debate. And that we need to direct our comments towards the, this procedure that's before us, which is we adopt what we resolved to create at the last meeting, which was on 19th of December last year. So I'll put the motion. Oh, sorry. The dissension motion. Then put the dissension motion. Just, sorry. Councillor Jackson. No. No. Okay. Dissension motion. Speaker 7: Closed to speak. There's no closure. I think it's just each person speaking. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Those that are in favour of the motion of the Chairperson ruling the dissent of crime.
02:02:00 Those of Councillor Jackson and Councillor Jurisdict. Those against. Councillor Wellington, Stockwell and Wilkie. The motion's lost. So we, Councillor Jackson, go back to talking to the motion that is before us today. Thank you. Oh. Well. You have the floor. Councillor Jackson: I don't. Well, I'm not allowed to talk now. Councillor Wilkie: As long as we're not re-prosecuting what we did last, in December. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Well, I don't think I have anything more to say, other than the fact, because I didn't support the making of this local law, I'm not going to support the adoption of this local law. And I'm, I've only made a few comments about why that is. So. Councillor Jurisevic: I likewise won't be supporting the adoption of the local law for reasons that I iterated during the meeting when we debated this, because I can't mention them again now, which I think is an incorrect ruling.
02:03:00 But I can't further explain why I won't support the adoption of the local law as a result of your words. So I'll just leave it at that statement, for the reasons that I iterated at the time when I disagreed with. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anybody else wish to speak for motion? So what we're being asked to do... Council, why don't you open? Mayor Wellington: Oh, I didn't. Sorry, beg your pardon. Councillor Wilkie: Council, why don't you wish to close? Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'll just say, this is about accepting the democratic decision of the Council so we can complete a process that's already begun. And the failure to accept a democratic decision by Council is a failure, I believe, in the roles of any Councillor.
02:04:00 All of us have at times situations where we either... Councillor Jackson: Point of order. I believe this is moving towards fairly reputation damaging kinds of statements, which are an opinion, and I think it's inappropriate. Councillor Wilkie: Reputation damaging? Councillor Jackson: Yes. He's maligning people who choose to vote a different way than himself. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: But, Councilor Wellington, let's just keep your comments related to the motion before us. Mayor Wellington: Yes. The motion before us is about accepting the democratic decision of Council. That decision was made on the 19th of December. And it therefore behoves me, regardless of what I thought on the 19th of December, to support a democratic decision of this Council by voting in favour of this motion, which is simply to complete the process of that democratic decision on the 19th of December.
02:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion in those in favour. That's Councilor Wellington, Stockwell and Wilkie. And those against? Councillors Jackson and Jurisevic. We're now... Thank you, Anita. Thank you. We're now going to item four, which is the New Security, Health and Wellbeing Plan. Reason for referral, further consideration. This is on the Services and Organisation Committee agenda, page three. Speaker 7: Mr Chair, can I ask a very short toilet break? Council's been going for a while. We're just waiting for our staff to come up anyway. Oh, okay. Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.
02:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And councillors, we're back. Welcome back everybody. We're up to item four, which is the Newstead Community Health and Wellbeing Plan. Welcome Sunil, Kerry and Wayne. Councillors, the item's here for further consideration. Any questions for staff? Councillor Jackson: I might have a question actually, Sunil. You may not be aware because you weren't here, but when this report was first being developed, I was the councillor on the residents group, and we adopted it, sorry, whatever.
02:13:00 We approved it for the purpose of public consultation in December last year. I'm interested to hear whether there are some, anything significantly different about what is being presented now. Speaker 1: There was no feedback from the public consultation. Councillor Jackson: Oh sorry, that was December 2018, before your arrival. Speaker 1: No feedback from there. So the same draft was tabled at the SNO meeting with just one amendment, and that was around climate change, including the impact of climate change on human health and possibilities of the health and wellbeing plan being impacted by that. So we did the, with council of Brian Stockwell, the proposed amendment that we were able to do. Speaker 3: Okay. So I think, given this plan is quite different to a lot of our other plans that have more of a community level of involvement, this one was developed very closely with stakeholder groups that have their own plans in place, so we weren't surprised that out the other side there was little change.
02:14:00 Yeah. So that gave us a level of comfort that everyone's heading in the right direction. Councillor Jurisevic: And at the end of the day, this is really about cooperation, collaboration between all the entities that have responsibility, because they have specific roles to play with. Speaker 7: Yes. And what our role is, and what it's advocacy can be on. Yes. Yeah, that's what I think I alluded to about the SNO meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: So another question of mine actually links with this, and it's not that we're just advocacy. One of the great things about the report is that it differentiates the roles that council has. In some cases it has a carriage of something and a responsibility. In some cases it's advocacy.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 In some cases it's collaboration. And it's very clear. I'm wondering whether we, given that actually there are a lot of actions and there are a lot of responsibilities allocated through this report, whether there is thought given to resourcing and funding. Yes. Speaker 1: And for the various actions in the draft action plan, we'll go through the normal annual budgeting process for new initiatives, table it as a new initiative, and then apply for resources to council through that process. Right. Speaker 3: And there has indeed been, as part of the development of the 2021 draft budget, an inclusion of something for council to consider as part of implementing. That's correct. That will go away. Okay, good to hear. Councillor Jurisevic: Are there any significant actions that we need to address? Speaker 3: In terms of the initiative within the budget or the action within the plan?
02:16:00 Councillor Jurisevic: The action within the plan. Speaker 3: I guess from my perspective, what we've looked at is making sure that the works that we had started on, we're able to fully address within the completeness of what we should be doing. So for example, the things like the swimming pool. The swimming pool program and the inspection program, which sit underneath as part of that plan, doing those types of works, to then be able to fully engage with, for example, our health stakeholders, Department of Health, et cetera. Councillor Wilkie: At the portfolio meeting last week, in the plan itself, there are some statistics regarding that. There were reports that NUSA is having an unhealthy weight in NUSA, which puts it at a higher weight than the Queensland average. But there were recent reports that NUSA has the lowest obesity rates in regional Australia.
02:17:00 Were you able to compare the data in this report with any latest data that was sort of underpinned those media reports? Speaker 1: Not on obesity, but we did on the vaccination rates and all that through, just in terms of the data. We did a comparative analysis between Queensland, Australia, and NUSA, and those were changed and amended. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, no, that was one of the... Speaker 1: But not for obesity. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, yeah. Just curious that we've got, NUSA got headlines for having the lowest rates in regional Australia, and yet we're down here as having an unhealthy weight above the Queensland average. It's just an interesting disparity. Speaker 3: And so staff will be looking into where the data source was. From the information that was in the media, to see whether it's the same source of data or something new that's coming in. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could that be the different reference samples in that regional Australia, typically higher
02:18:00 levels of obesity than... Yes, possibly. Speaker 3: And so it's about trying to understand exactly where the data came from, what the sample size was, et cetera. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. All right. So, Councillor Stockwell, do you have a comment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, I do propose a motion that includes additional wording, and there is a lot, I did circulate it last, or I got stuff circulated, and these words have been suggested by, thank you very much, and it was to add to page 12. I'll read it out. You'll read it out. Yep. And the insert is to include a new section 7.5 to read, the World Health Organisation maintains that climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Australia's climate has already begun to change, and current trends indicate that this will
02:19:00 accelerate over the course of this century. A change in climate is expected to affect human health and wellbeing, including physical and mental health through direct and indirect pathways. Climate change can be framed as a risk multiplier, amplifier, sorry, that is, many of the risks associated with climate change are not new, however, they are likely to increase in severity There is no evidence available to indicate that the risks from climate change to health and wellbeing are not presently significant at a local scale, however, they will increasingly become so as the global warming accelerates. The Australian Medical Association has expressed strong concerns regarding the threat to public health and wellbeing from climate change. In particular, the elderly, as well as other vulnerable groups in the community, are more exposed to direct physical impacts of climate change and may require greater assistance from their familial and social networks and emergency services. In particular, the health and wellbeing sector is expected to be resilient to future climate
02:20:00 changes. Noosa Council is developing a Climate Change Adaptation Plan, which will contain actions and key indicators for adapting Noosa's health and wellbeing to climate change risks. The Climate Change Adaptation Plan is expected to be completed in mid-2020. It is proposed that the Community Health and Wellbeing Action Plan will seek to inform the climate change adaptation plan in the future. It is expected that the new action plan will include the relevant actions from that plan at the next level review of the action plan, including development of new initiatives based on updates to climate change projections, if required. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that. Mayor Wellington: So, Councillors, can I make a request that the mover makes a couple of minor tweaks to the wording, for the sake of clarity? In the last paragraph, the first sentence, be resilient to future climate change impacts rather than climate changes. Climate changes are simply the temperature change, but it's the impacts from climate that are of concern. And the next sentence, adapting Noosa's health and wellbeing.
02:21:00 Noosa is a shire, can I suggest the Noosa community's health and wellbeing to climate change risks? Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so, Councillors, the health and wellbeing plan, as drafted and presented in the plan, is a logical set of actions, it's a well-drafted document, but in my view, when I looked at it, it was silent on one of the most significant threats to the health and wellbeing of our community. And, like much of the East Coast, the unprecedented fires we experienced starting well before the normal fire season in spring are a clear reminder that climate emergency is not something we need to worry about in the future, it is here and it is now. Over the last five months, our community has experienced first-hand the primary impacts of climate change. For weeks on end, the summer, people around the nation were being told it is dangerous
02:22:00 to undertake outdoor exercise due to poor air quality. Fire chiefs and scientists from around Australia all agreed that the severity and longevity of the fire season was exacerbated by climate change. Now, I've got a diagram there. Hang on. I won't go that into the next one. But, that is the threats to health and wellbeing of climate change. We know that at-risk people in our community are being affected by extreme heat, that there are mental health impacts caused by the severe weather that created catastrophic fire conditions that, in turn, led to long periods of air pollution. So, my motion aims to put in place the acknowledgement of that risk and foreshadow the future of our climate change adaptation plan to take into account the priorities that emerge from our climate change adaptation plan. The literature has shown that secondary effects may occur after a period of time has elapsed
02:23:00 after an event. For example, I thought the cover of the next one of the climate change reports, this one, was perhaps a good indication. Councillor Jurisevic: I've only got it on one screen. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, you've got it there. That doesn't matter. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It says that humidity increases the survival time and feeding rate of disease-carrying mosquitoes and hence increases tremendous emission potential of diseases, such as Ross River fever. And it's interesting that, you know, we are having this current debate about the big influx of mosquitoes just at this point in time. But, as we go on, sea level rise may increase the number of times, well, it will, at times a salt marsh is inundated, and that makes breeding conditions more prevalent. A warmer spring may increase the density of salt marshes. It may increase the density of the allergenic pollens that can trigger asthma. And the tertiary impacts go on to more stretched out time and more difficult to attribute to a particular event or exposure. But they are the things like increased physical and mental trauma. But what's really concerning, I suppose, is we sit around this table and we are all of
02:24:00 a certain age, but the Australian Psychological Society has stated that 95 per cent of Australian youth believe climate change is a serious problem and they're extremely worried. After reviewing the research on climate anxiety among young people, the society called for governments to declare a climate emergency, which we've already done. Another survey of 1,595 high school and university students between 14 and 23 found that 82 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement, climate change is going to diminish my quality of life in the future. And one in five students said they were planning to either not have children or have fewer children because of climate change. Our colleagues at the Australian Psychological Society have said that climate change is a serious problem and that it's a real challenge for all students from across the city and gave them the opportunity to express their concerns, hopes and aspirations in a youth summit. That summit aimed to help the Shire shape its actions, or the City shape its actions
02:25:00 on climate change. Councillors, I believe we should be doing the same thing. We should be bringing our young people in and helping them address that anxiety by becoming part of the solution. We're fortunate we have a $1 million grant to help build the resilience of the community and that may be one way it could be spent in part. So I think it is clear that we need to be acknowledging the concerns about health and wellbeing. It's not just going to be youth. We've already heard that our seniors are also an at-risk population and I think it's important that we engage all our community and particularly youth in developing actions to address the risks. Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I do. I'd like to say that. I think it's important. I agree with the changes added in the sense that climate change is an impact on wellbeing. I actually would extend that to say that climate change is relevant in the issue throughout
02:26:00 all the strategies and plans that Council is working on. And I would even go further and say wellbeing is relevant in all the strategies and plans that Council is doing. So I was disappointed when the word was used. Wellbeing was removed from the Noosa River Plan draft. I think these are things that need to be considered. So I think this is a useful addition. I'd also like to talk a little bit about my experience as a counsellor on the reference group for the health and wellbeing plan. And I'd like to say I really found it an exceptional experience. The people invited to be on the reference group were all people with health and medical background or people in the academic world working with issues to do with health and wellbeing and also Aboriginal groups that were concerned with Aboriginal or traditional
02:27:00 people's health. It was an exceptionally high level of participation. It basically was a workshopping group. It wasn't just sort of a reference group. And the quality of the outcome was very much impacted by the quality of the people that were at that reference group. And I'd also like to give tribute to the work which was done in 2018. So we're late now. But it was done by Jeff Atherton and also Fox Rogers, who was there at every reference group meeting. But I know he had a lot to do with the preparation of this week's meeting. So I think this is an exceptionally well thought through report. It's very systematic. It's considered everything from the major frameworks internationally to Australia to the states and down to local level. And I'm very pleased that Sunil has now come to join us.
02:28:00 And I'm now going to carry forward with what I think is a very important document. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment. And I'll actually bring that up. Basically, the addition of extra information that Sunil was able to source for us. The wellbeing plan and the draft that was before us contains the immunisation lands for Mercer alone. But Sunil was also able to source the comparative data. The immunisation rights for Queensland and Australia, which helps show a clear pathway towards the work that needs to be done to. Speaker 7: I'm going to test whether it's the second one before speaking to John. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. I'll second. Seconded. Seconded. Joe, did you move the original motion? He's seconded the original motion.
02:29:00 Seconded the original motion. I second it. He can't second it. Seconded by Councillor Jackson. So it says written there, councillors. I'm going to read it out. Okay. So the health status immunisation rate percentage target to prevent outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease is 95%. For one year olds in Noosa, it's a rate of 88%. Two year olds, 86%. Five year olds, 91%. That's the information that's currently contained in the plan. And Sunil has been able to source additional information for the rates in Queensland for a one year old, 94%, two year old, 92%, five year old, 95%, and also Australia-wide, one year old, 94%, two year old, 91%, and five year old, 95%. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I clarify something, Sunil, on the figures that I've presented before us? Sure.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 So those figures that were there previously were 2017? Correct. Figures. And the current figures show... Actually a decline in the immunisation rates over the last three years in the Noosa region. Is that as I read, apart from five year olds... Speaker 1: Yeah, one year old and two year olds have declined with the 2018-2019 data, which was annualised. Councillor Jurisevic: It's interesting that one and twos are down and fives are up, don't any of you? Yeah. Good score. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's an interesting point you raise. There is a requirement for school-aged children to be immunised before attending school, is that? Yes. That's a good attribute for the five year olds there. Yes. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So, councillors, I'll speak to the amendment. It's just providing more complete information regarding immunisation rates, very of interest to anyone who reads the plan, but also gives the relevant agencies targets to work towards.
02:31:00 Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Put the amendment those in favour, against, carried unanimously, go back to the original motion, because Stockwell and Jackson have spoken to it. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I commend the report. It's well written. I commend the amendments. As such, I just wonder if there's any benefit in looking at data over time within the report to see falling immunisation rates or things like that, so that we can actually track data over a period of time, rather than just a snapshot as a comment for staff to consider. Speaker 3: Certainly one of the actions within the report is around data, and being able to better collate,
02:32:00 track and collate data, particularly with our stakeholders. And one of the challenges in this space is, who is collecting what data, and what does that actually look like? Because people collecting slightly different data means it's then very difficult to make good use of it, so that's one of the recommendations. Councillor Jurisevic: But I would think that having some indication of the tracking of data within the report may be beneficial for the future. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mr Close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do, and I suppose I agree with Councillor Jackson's statement. Firstly, that climate change is something we should look at across all our policies and plans. And secondly, I think we should thank both the existing staff and as Councillor Jackson did, those who have previously been involved to getting to this point, I think. I agree that wellbeing is a really significant aspect of our community. We're fortunate that in surveys done, that the wellbeing of our community is well above
02:33:00 state and national health. There's a range of reasons for that, but I think we need to plan to keep it that way. So I recommend a motion for all councillors. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Soto. I put the motion as in favour. Against? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Senator. Thanks, Neil. Thank you, Councillor Soto. Thank you, Wayne. The last report is the financial performance report for January 2020. Trent? Welcome. Speaker 7: I'd like you to answer Councillor Glasgow, sorry, Councillor Jurisdiction's question now, or shall I wait for you? Speaker 1: Oh, there's one. Councillor Jurisevic: Wayne? Oh, could you just hang around for one question? Is this a good question for you, relating to Wayne's? Councillor Wilkie: I think I have councillor's questions for Trent or Wayne. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I don't know if you're going to have one for Wayne. Sorry, I might have got that wrong, Wayne. I thought I had one for you. Speaker 7: You contributed well, Wayne. Councillor Jurisevic: No, sorry. Sorry, it was a flat layer.
02:34:00 Sorry. My apologies. This is a secret. I thought it was a waste question. It wasn't a waste question. I only wanted to see if you'd actually come back. Speaker 7: So, Joe, to answer your question, the training budget has a variance currently of $39,000. You'll be pleased to know that there's $43,000 on order, covering three areas of leadership development. I think I've mentioned that. We've got a network of our under 30, and we're putting them through professional development, about 20 of those, and that covers both the indoor staff and the external staff. So we're bringing them together once a month to look at their teaching personality profile and how to deal with others' communication skills and so on. So we've invested pretty heavily in them. And similarly, we've got to call our top 30 leaders across the organisation as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a question relating to that that goes on from that as well, seeing as you've brought us there.
02:35:00 I said, and yet we've been keeping on track until now. So it was disappointingly a slow fall, but I dare say with the emergencies and all the rest of it, we've had an issue there. How much of that staff training budget also relates to, or is that the pull that it comes out of, with regard to staff attending national conferences and interacting with employees and staff in similar organisations? Yeah. With relation to the type of management? Speaker 7: None of this budget you're referring to in that part of that report deals with that. Each of the departments has a conference budget, for want of a better phrase, where they send staff away to that. Councillor Jurisevic: How much of that do we utilise? Speaker 7: I couldn't answer that off the top of my head. Councillor Jurisevic: Can you take that question on that? I'd love to know what sort of attendance we have at conferences and the like, because I've often mentioned opportunities with certain things that I come across, and I don't know whether they get attended to or not. Speaker 8: Offhand counsellor, you'll find that we spend most, if not a little bit, on any given year. It's quite a competitive...
02:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I've never seen what we do spend, Trent, so it'd be interesting to know what the spend is and what the level of attendance of national or state conferences with regard to planning matters, for example. Sure. Speaker 7: That's it. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Yep. We've got a whole heap of questions. Keep going. Is anybody else here on or off? No, Greg. All right. I'll start at the beginning. Rates and levies. General rates, $145k above year-to-date budget. Waste utility charges, $333k above year-to-date budget. That's $478k of $1.13 million where we're ahead of budget. Where's the rest coming from? You mentioned two elements which are less than 50% of the... If you go up top, where... Somewhere in the report, we're $1.1 million above tracking hedium rates and levies. Right there.
02:37:00 Speaker 7: If you look at the summary on that same table, Joe, on the left, in the middle, 70 million is 102% of the annual budget at 68.7. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So we're one point... That's what I've got on. $1.3 million above our... Our annual budget. Annual budget. With regard to rates and levies. So you've mentioned two elements there, which constitutes less than half of that $1.3 million. Where's the rest? Where is the... One of the other benefits we're getting from rates and levies, seeing as they're the general rates and waste utility charges. They were the two most significant ones as far as I can see. Speaker 8: What you'll find, one of the peculiarities with our profiling of our budget for rates is that the money comes in and the revenue comes in in July and January, and then for the most part in August and February, we get a lot of the discounts and rebates recognised. So what you have is you'll have in January, we'll be above budget because we're talking
02:38:00 at the total year's worth of revenue, and then the following month, we don't actually recognise or we don't show the discounts that come through into the following month when they're actually paid, because the rate pay doesn't get their discounts. Until such time as they're paid. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 8: So when you look at that $70 million spent, $70 million earned and a 68.7 full year budget, we've got a basically, there's a revenue cut in our budget coming in in February, which is the discount. Not just an accounting, there's an accounting. It's just an accounting time. It's a significant amount of accounting. That's right. But most of it is in terms of all the other levies. And charges outside of the general rates and waste utilities. The variances aren't major. Some are marginally over, some are marginally under. It's mainly in the general rates and the waste utility charges. We've got the positive variance issue so far. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Second question.
02:39:00 I've got the most fees and charges. Building application fees 40k below year-to-date budget, which makes for an interesting correlation between development fees and building applications. They don't seem to follow. There's development. Development applications are on the increase. Well, that's an observation or anything you can attempt to do. Have we historically seen building applications following the development applications or? Speaker 8: It's something we'll have to take on notice and actually have a discussion with the community. Councillor Jurisevic: That was an interesting correlation that one's up and the other's down. I thought one would have followed the other. Speaker 8: Obviously included in the building. Speaker 7: Nor would they do, Joe. Speaker 8: My experience is they normally do. Speaker 7: There is a direct correlation. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my normal. Speaker 7: Well, in fact, there's often a bit of a lag. A bit of a lag. Yeah, the lag is you get the planning applications first and the building comes second. And then it carries over the other way. Councillor Jurisevic: I would have assumed to some degree there's a lag. But to see 40 as significantly behind is that when we've been having a constant flow of
02:40:00 above budget building application, sorry, development applications coming through. I'm surprised to see that figure. So it'd be interesting to do a little bit of analysis and see if there's any logic behind that or whether that's a consistency. Interest received. Comment. Interest on overdue rates and charges 54k above year to date budget. I said an indication of hard time for some with the level of overdue rates. Are our overdue rates at a level to be concerned about or any more or less than normal? Speaker 7: If you have a look on page 23, the last graph there, what covers that? 23. The rate of rears graph, see it's slightly up, but nothing. Nothing disturbing. Councillor Jurisevic: So that was the question that came through as I was reading through it. Speaker 7: You have a fairly typical profile for those depending on where the rates come into people
02:41:00 pay over time. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Investment revenue, not interesting to read, investment revenue 50k above year to date budget, despite the fact that we're at record low interest rates. So did we just budget conservatively? Speaker 8: The first half of the year, we still benefited from some of those term deposits that we had held for 12 months that we'd invested a year ago at a lovely 2.8% investment rate before the interest rates in the markets started to drop. So I dare say now that we're going back out to the market and reinvesting this month following the rate run, we'll find that the rates will be much, much lower. Councillor Jurisevic: So we would have budgeted fairly conservatively knowing that the low interest rates were on Speaker 8: the card. That's right. So we'll see that flow through over the next few months, councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: If everybody will indulge, we've got a few more on the expenses side. Employee costs, probably one for the CEO. Under expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages, 1.9 million, partially offset by additional spend on casual staff and external labour hire. Is that an indication of the length of time that positions are vacant?
02:42:00 Speaker 7: I'm just getting enough to deal with that. Councillor Jurisevic: Page 18, top first item in page 18. Can we get that figure coming through a bit? Have we got long lags in staff vacancies? Speaker 7: We've had a couple, but nothing, I wouldn't say it was generally across the board. There are some targeted positions where we might have difficulty recruiting. I think of one in our civil ops area, Cameron's old position. But generally, when we advertise, we're getting really good deals. Councillor Jurisevic: So how do we fill those vacancies when they're? Speaker 7: For lower level positions, they're advertised internally first, otherwise internally. Councillor Jurisevic: But for the length of time, how do we fill the void while that position is being filled? Speaker 7: Well, take for the external staff, that's where the external labour hire comes in. That's why that's up if someone's- Which you could do on some of those lower- Right. If you have two people in the truck, one resigns and moves on, then you can get someone else in.
02:43:00 And we do have a bit of a try before you buy policy as well, unofficial policy, where if you have an external staff member with a position vacant, we bring in a labour hire. And if they're any good, they tend to stay for a while and then end up applying for the job as well. If they're no good, we move them on. Councillor Jurisevic: Clearly more difficult with the upper level positions. Correct. So, hence there's probably that lag and that's- Yeah, we've had a couple. I think you've had one where you've had to go back to a- Speaker 8: Yeah, we have had some of the new initiatives, for example. Some of the specialist positions we had adopted in the budget this year for new initiatives have unfortunately taken us a long time to find the right person. So, whilst there's a gap in our resourcing, it's to feed a service level increase or to resolve a long-standing gap in our service level. So, it's not like we've had to start scrambling to cover those gaps in the short term. Speaker 7: And Joe, the advice I always give on that is that I'd rather take longer to get the right person than just take the first person. So, really- Councillor Jurisevic: Just understanding where that gap can- Speaker 7: But in terms of attracting people, we've not had real problems with attracting people.
02:44:00 Some of the particular sectors are difficult to manage. Project management is a good example. There's a lot of infrastructure construction going around and project managers are pretty desirable commodity out there. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, for someone reading this that may not understand it, that's an opportunity to explain why some of those occur. Parks and gardens operation and maintenance programs, $108K below year-to-date budget. I would assume that this will jump and probably exceed if we continue with the wet weather. Speaker 8: Yes, that's the plan as to why the budget is intentionally sitting conservatively on the budget. Councillor Jurisevic: Community property, $75K below budget. We need to get on top of the maintenance of those. We've got a lot of older buildings. At least one toilet block going up with a lot of others, so that's a concern that we start to get behind. And the Hastings Street maintenance level, $162K above year-to-date budget. I'm assuming that's due to timing of works prior to the peak holiday season, perhaps?
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Speaker 8: That's the new lighting installation, the contribution of the new lighting installation on Hastings Street is the primary driver for that. And the reserve that it's smutted from, is that the Hastings Street? Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other question I think I've got relates to total cash on hand at the end with $62K including funds held in trusts for restricted purposes. I thought we could ask for breakdowns on these figures to see what is and isn't restricted in future reports, not just the overall. Speaker 8: Do I apologise or I'll make sure I remember that for future reports? Councillor Jurisevic: Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought we had. Speaker 8: I missed it. Councillor Jurisevic: But it might be an interesting one to just break up. Speaker 7: Can I suggest we do that at the end of each quarter, rather than monthly? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, at least at some period that we see what has and hasn't. We can also see the movement then. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, that's it from me, thank you. Thank you, Joe. I think the council's got any questions. Speaker 7: Happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Moved Councillor Lellington.
02:46:00 I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, I do have one more question. My apologies. Going down into your attachment one, the statement of income and expenditure. Contributed assets, six, contributed assets, 6% of budget. It's a $10 million current budget item. Councillor Glasgow: Why contributed assets at such a low level? Speaker 8: So the contributed assets are those assets that we take on maintenance after a subdivision is finalised. So it's, it's roads or stormwater pipeline. Ultimately it comes down to the timing of when that subdivision claim is sealed and the assets come on maintenance. So what we've found so far is we've, we had a lot of the subdivisions, for example, some of the ones in the Hingerland towns. Those, those stagings of the subdivisions came on maintenance last year. It's a very good grove, I assume. Yep.
02:47:00 And what we've found so far this year is we haven't hit that trigger point with some of those subdivisions where it's come on maintenance and the assets have come across to us at this point in time. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a positive figure of 6% in the budget is over half way through the financial year, so that's fine. Speaker 8: And the $2 million is a year-on-year estimate. We don't, we don't know the speed of those developments are coming through. Councillor Wilkie: That's all right. Thank you. Would you speak to the motion, Councillor Lytton? Any other councillors, would you speak to the motion? Yeah. Thank you for the comprehensive reforming, Trent. Good job. If the motion goes in favour, carried anonymously. Thank you, Trent. Thank you. Thanks, Trent. Councillor Lytton.