Ordinary Meeting - 20 February 2020 Transcript

Start of recording ¶

00:00:00

00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, so we carry on with the P&E recommendations. Item number eight is the Environment and Sustainable Development Department update for the second quarter. Item number nine was the confidential item about the environment levy proposed land purchase. We have a recommendation that the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations be adopted, except we're dealt with otherwise. Move Councillor Jackson, seconded Councillor Stockwell. Put the motion all those in favour. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. We go on to the Services and Organisation Committee meeting recommendations. Item number one was referred to the General Committee. Item number two is the proposed lease tenancy for the Peregian Digital Hub. Item number three is the Human Rights Policy and New Delegations. Item number four is the Capital Programme delivery status for January. Item number five is the Infrastructure Services Department update for the second quarter. Item number six, Noosa Holiday Parks update report up till the end of December. Item number seven is the Corporate Services Department update for the second quarter. Item number eight is the Peregian Digital Hub half yearly report to the end of December. Item nine is the Community Services Department update second quarter. Item 10, Executive Services Department update second quarter. And 11, Operational Plan Progress report for the second quarter. The recommendation is,

00:01:00 that all those committee recommendations be adopted. Can I have a mover? I'll move, Mr Chair. Moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded Councillor Jurisevic. All those in favour? Aye. Aye. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. We go on to the General Committee meeting recommendations. And item number one is a development permit for an MCU for a service and utility type three tower situated at 244 Tablelands Road, Cooran. Now, I understand that our solicitor has provided some additional wording, so that is on the screen at the moment.

00:02:00 I assume that councillors have had an opportunity to view this. It's been distributed. So moved. So moved with those proposed changes. Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded Councillor Stockwell. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Jurisevic? No, if there's any need to. Anyone wish to speak to this? I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Aye. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. Item number two is the overview of planning appeals. Item number three is adoption of consolidated versions of the Noosa Shire Council Label Law No. 1, Subordinate Label Law No. 1, and Subordinate Label Law No. 4. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes, Mr Chair. I would like to see this one considered separately. Mayor Wellington: Certainly. Okay. So we're dealing with item three separately. Anyone care to move and second? Move Councillor Stockwell. I have to move it. Okay. Seconded by myself. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell, care to speak to it? I think it is just a due process.

00:03:00 Following on from our extensive debate and consultation on this matter, this is just the procedural step of adopting the consolidated version of what we've already resolved into Local Law No. 1, and I'm quite happy that staff have undertaken the administrative process to complete the policy process and that it is appropriate to resolve in this fashion. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: I wish to speak. I'm going to say that I'm in favour of Noosa design principles and the look and feel of Noosa, and therefore putting limits on signage. We certainly wouldn't want to end up looking like we're full of signs. But I'm not going to do a backflip. I voted against endorsing these signage laws in December, and I will do so again now, as they are the same laws that we saw then. It is important in a democracy that even if it is a minority voice, that it be heard. And I think in this case, some of the smaller businesses are the ones that are most impacted

00:04:00 by the changes in a negative way. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wilkie. Yes. I'd like to compliment the staff for all the work that they've done in pulling these local laws together. They were extensively debated prior to going out to public consultation. Again, after coming back from public consultation, the public feedback was taken on board, even though the local laws actually, as a subject matter, have been taken on board. And I think this is a starting point to reflect the signage laws that were in effect in the old Noosa Council. This Council, after taking into account feedback from the public, have actually relaxed some of the laws. And instead of requiring an A-frame to be on the footpath, sorry, on the lease area only, they can also have one on the footpath. And also, instead of a four metre maximum, it can also be a six metre maximum in the industrial area. They were adopted unanimously last year. They are very important laws, and I compliment the councillors because they have felt very

00:05:00 deeply and thought very deeply about the impacts it does have on the business community, and so have the staff, and I commend the local law. This is a procedural motion that has been gazetted with the state government, and I thank colleagues and staff for the work they've put into this. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Like Councillor Jackson, I don't oppose the... I don't oppose the... I don't oppose the overview and the fundamental elements of the signage laws. But when this matter was debated, there were a number of issues, including further restrictions to signage that were being introduced as a result of the change to local laws that I objected to. And as a consequence of that, I'll continue to object in principle against the introduction of these local laws on signage. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Who's to speak? Councillor Glasgow.

00:06:00 Councillor Glasgow: Now, look, I haven't voted for this in the past, and I will continue my consistency, and I will not vote for this for the sake of exactly kind of what Councillor Jurisevic said. I think it's a little bit kind of Hitler, us and them, and I don't support it. Mayor Wellington: Okay. Thank you. The motion before us is largely bureaucratic, really. It's about completing a process that stems from previous Council resolutions, and I October 17th last year. Whether I disagree or agree with the changes to the local laws is neither here nor there. What I do support is that we have a decision of council and that decision of council now needs to be followed through because it represents the will of the council. I just want to point out that in my role as Mayor I'm often called upon to support council's position on all sorts of matters and those matters are not always ones that I have voted in favour of. However once a matter becomes a resolution of council it becomes the will of the council and in my role

00:07:00 certainly as Mayor I am required therefore to support that. I therefore don't talk about my personal position, I talk about what the council has determined because that is the will of the council and the position of the council and I view this matter today that we're dealing with now in much the same light. Fundamentally we have a democratic position of council, that position of council I believe should be supported. So I'll be supporting the motion. You care to close Councillor Stockwell? No thank you. I'll put the motion all those in favour. That's Wilkie, Stockwell, Wellington. Those against? Jackson, Glasgow and Jurisevic. As it's a tied vote it's up to the Chair to make the casting vote and the casting vote is in favour of the motion so the motion is carried. So we move on now to item number four which is the Noosa Community Health and Wellbeing Plan.

00:08:00 Item number five is a development permit for building works accessible against the planning scheme for a detached house situated at 102 Lorikeet Drive, Peregian Beach. Now I understand there's some new wording here? Yes. Councillor Stockwell? I believe it has been circulated to Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the council so we did have a discussion at the general committee. Don't speak to it please. I'd like to move the motion with the addition to what the staff recommendation as you see there in Ive May which is with the inclusion of two additional conditions to read as follows. To protect the vegetation and the coastal dune from damage or degradation during construction temporary fencing or the like must be installed along the coastal bandleys. Boundary prior to commencing any building works on site and maintained until completion of the building and 28 no vehicle parking access or storage of construction materials

00:09:00 is permitted within the adjacent or shore reserve at any time. Mayor Wellington: Seconded Councillor Wilkie you care to speak to the motion Councillor Stockwell? I do so in essence Deputy Mayor Stockwell: what the additions that have just been added are seeking to make it very clear to the development applicant and hopefully their contractors that the beach foreshore reserve is for the enjoyment of the public. It's not an extension of a building site and it's certainly not somewhere where vehicles chainsaws or any other equipment should be entering. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak Mayor Wellington: to this motion? Okay then I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Aye. Thank you that's carried unanimously. We move on to item six which is the financial performance report for January. Item number seven is a further report relating to development application for reconfiguration of a lot one light into 23 lots at 28 Enie Creek Road Noosaville which of course is the Shire Business Centre.

00:10:00 I'm going to begin this process by declaring a perceived conflict of interest as prior to my election to the Sunshine Coast Council I was a co-respondent with the Sunshine Coast Council in an appeal against a refusal to expand the Noosa Civic Shopping Centre. I advise that the appeal was for a significantly different development application than the application currently before council. I believe I can consider the current matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote Speaker 2: on the matter. Mr CEO. Thank you um councillors as you're aware Councillor Wellington has now declared a conflict of interest and he's the chair of the meeting um it would be appropriate I'm aware that there are two other councillors who are going to declare a conflict as well um to my suggestion is one of the other councillors who is not going to declare a conflict of interest should be chair of the meeting and um I'll move the Councillor Wilkie as the deputy mayor

00:11:00 appointed as the uh acting chair can I make a suggestion that councillor Jackson yeah so in terms of chair Councillor Jurisevic has moved it it'll be appropriate I think for Councillor Glasgow to second that um if he was so inclined um to Councillor Wilkie really be the the chair so it's been moved by councillor jerisolic and seconded by Councillor Glasgow that councillor Wilkie assume the chair for the consideration of the conflict of interest declarations no so the council there's other councillors who are yet to declare a conflict also can't vote on this so all those in favour of appointing Councillor Wilkie so that's councillor Wilkie and councillor Drudlich and councillor Councillor Glasgow, so Councillor Wilkie will assume the chair for the consideration of the remaining issues associated with the conflicts of interest. Councillor Wilkie: Do any other councillors have conflicts of interest in this matter, please? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I need to declare also a perceived conflict of interest in this matter.

00:12:00 As prior to my election in the council during my earlier time as Honorary Secretary of Ms Park's Association, I was signatory to a submission regarding an application on this site. I believe I can consider this item impartially in the public interest and request them to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jackson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as well. As prior to my election to council and during my time as President of the Noosafire Residents and Ratepayers Association, I was a signatory to a submission regarding an application on the site and made public statements regarding that application. I believe, however, that I can consider this. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We'll handle these one at a time, starting with the Mayor's conflict of interest. I'd like to move that the councillors note the perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Wellington, and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter, and Councillor Wellington may remain in the meeting room for debate and vote on this matter. I'll move that. May I have a seconder, please?

00:13:00 Seconder. Seconder. Seconder to Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? Speaker 7: All aye. Councillor Wilkie: That's Councillor Glasgow, Jurisevic and Wilkie. That's carried. The next item, I'd like to move that councillors note the perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Jackson, and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter, and Councillor Jackson may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. May I have a seconder, please? Seconder, Mr Chair. Seconder to Councillor Jurisevic. Thank you. Councillor Glasgow, Jurisevic and Wilkie, that's carried. The final conflict of interest, I'd like to move that Councillors note the perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Stockwell, and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter, and Councillor Stockwell may remain in the meeting room

00:14:00 for debate and vote on this matter. So second second, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. All those in favour? Councillor Glasgow: Aye. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors Glasgow, Jurisevic and Wilkie. That's carried. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, I'll resume the chair. Thank you very much Councillor Wilkie. Now this matter was deferred from a decision at the General Committee to the ordinary meeting, so the motion remains live. That was moved by myself and Councillor Stockwell. However, Councillors, I'm aware that once again, our solicitor has suggested some additional wording, and so my suggestion is, the cleanest way to deal with this, and I need a unanimous agreement here, is to withdraw the motion. So I'm happy to withdraw it. I now need to know if Councillor Stockwell, as Seconder, is willing to withdraw it. And if all other Councillors are willing to, happy with me withdrawing it,

15 minutes in ¶

00:15:00

00:15:00 then we start with a clean sheet. So that's a yes from Councillors, Jurisevic, Jackson, Wilkie. You happy with that, Councillor Glasgow? Aye. Yeah, okay. So we have no motion before us at the moment, folks. Are there any questions to staff before we move to a motion? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I will ask for some questions. Yeah, Councillor Jackson. Mayor Wellington: We have a bevy of staff. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. I thought you were released. Oh, I need to stand up one time. I do have several questions. Sure. I guess we made a decision to, I guess we made a decision to, defer discussion and debate on this particular item, as we all became aware that there was a new replacement infrastructure agreement tendered, which was intended to address many of the issues that were not, which were being caused by

00:16:00 the 2003 infrastructure agreement. So my question to Kerry is, can you tell us whether that agreement that has been tendered addresses the issues that staff have made requests about? Speaker 4: So the proposed new infrastructure agreement that was submitted to Council late last week does not alter officers' recommendation. What the infrastructure agreement does do, the changes compared to the infrastructure agreement that's assessed in the report. It provides for the works that are required to support the subdivision. So the works that cannot be conditioned because of the existing infrastructure agreement, it pur decorates for those. The proposed infrastructure agreement

00:17:00 no longer makes reference to the draft planning scheme, meaning infrastructure agreement no longer makes reference to padres. The infrastructure charges will be payable once development on site exceeds Master Plan 2. The infrastructure agreement no longer includes dedication of the transit lot to Council at no cost. The proposed infrastructure agreement though does not address the planning scheme and the State requirements for protection or offset of koala habitat. And the infrastructure agreement, our review of it, shows the number of minor issues and changes that would be required to the infrastructure agreement before it was suitable for Council to sign. Mayor Wellington: Do you mind if I just ask a question on the tail end of that? Perhaps either Kim or Kerry could answer just for the sake of those who don't quite understand. The decision we're being asked to make here, the infrastructure agreement has bearing on but we're not actually deciding on an infrastructure agreement.

00:18:00 We're deciding on a subdivision application. Would you care to elaborate on that one of you? Speaker 4: So the application before Council is for a subdivision of the Shire Business Centre land. So that's a matter that Council needs to sign off on and decide on. The infrastructure agreement has been proposed by the applicant because when the site was developed for Noosa Civic, stage 1 of the Shire Business Centre, there was an infrastructure agreement signed by Council at that time. That infrastructure agreement prohibits Council from conditioning future applications, any contributions or infrastructure charges where development remains consistent with the Master Plan 2 and also prohibits Council from conditioning any works external to the site. So this subdivision includes a number of works external to the site

00:19:00 and so there is need to vary that original infrastructure agreement and that's why the applicant has needed the infrastructure agreement. Mayor Wellington: However we're not dealing with the infrastructure agreement. Speaker 4: However there's no requirement for Council to include that in their reasons of refusal because it's the application that Council has to decide. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Sure. I'll just continue then. So just to confirm that of course this means that the new replacement infrastructure agreement is not really before Council because currently the application before Council is based on the old infrastructure agreement. That is the application that is before Council. Yeah. That's correct. Speaker 3: That's correct. Councillor Jackson: That's correct. Okay. I just want to confirm also that I happen to know that in the website of News & News there was a report of our previous meeting that ratepayers would lose $4 to $10 million in infrastructure charges

00:20:00 as a result of the proposal and I gather that will be in the paper tomorrow. But the new infrastructure, replacement infrastructure agreement that has been put forward which was not on our table today would actually not cause that problem to ratepayers, correct? Speaker 4: That's correct. It removes reference to the draft scheme and so it therefore removes the issue raised by officers around those infrastructure charges. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you. I have more questions but if somebody wants to ask. No. Keep going. Speaker 7: Keep going. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I don't know. Speaker 4: Carly, have you got some of my little photos there? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. I'd like to just look at the infrastructure agreement. Speaker 1: The original. Councillor Jackson: No. This was the 2003 infrastructure agreement. So here it seems that there were contributions made under the infrastructure agreement deemed contribution to public open space.

00:21:00 Mayor Wellington: So this is a question. Councillor Jackson: It is. 12.6 hectares. And also deemed contributions to open space that would be private open space, 2.3 hectares. And these were taken to be the contribution of the applicant to community infrastructure. Okay. And to meet the environmental needs of the land. Is that correct? Speaker 4: So that clause comes from the existing infrastructure agreement signed by Council in 2003. So that infrastructure agreement, as I've suggested to Council, prohibits Council from conditioning any further contributions to be paid or requiring dedication of land in the future. The infrastructure agreement, though, does not prevent our assessment against the state and the planning scheme requirements in terms of environmental requirements going forward.

00:22:00 Councillor Jackson: And so while Noosa Council agreed to this infrastructure agreement, you're saying at the moment we don't have to continue agreeing to this infrastructure agreement? Speaker 4: That infrastructure agreement. That infrastructure agreement remains current. What I'm saying is that agreement was signed in 2003, around the time the first stage of Noosa Business Centre developed. Since that time, there's new requirements. There's a new planning framework out there. So there's new requirements around offsetting koala habitat. And the legal advice is that it's very appropriate for Council to consider those matters in looking at some division. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I also have a question about, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, the type of vegetation that's, um, located in the area. I understand that it's actually not original native vegetation, but regrowth. And I also understand it's categorised as Category X, um, regrowth vegetation.

00:23:00 So I wonder if you can explain to us what Category X actually means. Speaker 1: Through the Chair. Um, Category X is a vegetation, um, label that describes, um, regrowth vegetation. That's not recognised under the Vegetation Management Act. That's notwithstanding that, um, it's recognised as koala habitat under the Nature Conservation Act. So we've got one Vegetation Management Act that prescribes it as regrowth vegetation Category X. But on the other hand, you have the Nature Conservation Act saying that it's a habitat for koalas. Councillor Jackson: Right. Speaker 1: Under the State Planning Regulatory provisions. Mm-hmm. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Thank you. All right. So just, oh, sorry. I probably didn't totally understand that. So if it's Category X, is it therefore allowed to be cleared for development? Speaker 1: Under the Vegetation Management Act, yes, it's, uh, it's Category X and it's in an urban

00:24:00 area. So the Vegetation Management Act doesn't apply to it, but the State Planning Regulatory provisions do apply to it. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Thank you. Um, I'd also like to ask a question about the Environmental Offsets Act. Speaker 4: I think we've got another little slide on that one. Councillor Jackson: Thanks. It's 14. 14-2 there. Yeah. So aside from the original infrastructure agreement, there's another act element here, which I understand is relevant. And that is that there is an Environmental Offsets Act. And that there are aspects in there about whether, um, an organization such as Council can, um, require further contributions when already those kind of contributions were made in the

00:25:00 past. Um, and this act says when a decision under the other act about whether to impose an offset condition, the administrative agency must consider offset condition has been considered. Um, that has been imposed already, but therefore cannot do it again. Um, and I'm interested in a comment on why this particular, um, aspect of the Environment Offsets Act is not being respected. Speaker 4: Um, environmental offsets came in after, um, the infrastructure agreement was signed in 2003. So they came in around 2008, approximately. Um, there's something there that I'm not quite sure about. It's, uh, a state requirement that's come in. So there's been no offset ever provided around the site as envisaged by the Environmental Offset Act. Um, so there's, there's, there's no environmental offset that's ever been taken. Um, so it's valid for Council to ask for an offset today.

00:26:00 So Council has had legal advice around the issue. Um, and the advice is that it, um, the infrastructure agreement does not stop us from asking for um, the development to address the koala habitat on the site and to ask for an offset. Mm-hmm. Mayor Wellington: Got more? Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jones? Um, I do have one more, actually. It's called the Environmental Offsets Act Usageual Impacts, which is another slide. And I guess this is linked with the concept of category X that we were talking about. How, it appears that really one of the arguments, um, where a council would need to, who's going to approve something is that, um, the, if you wish to charge more, um, additional to what's already been given, which has been substantial in 2003 or whenever it was, um, that in fact it has to have significant residual impact.

00:27:00 And I'm still concerned that if it's category X, how can it be defined as residual impact? Speaker 1: Um, as, yes, through the Chair, as stated before, it's, um, it's a, it's a, it's a, because category X is a status under the Vegetation Management Act, but under the Nature Conservation Act, which the koalas are protected under, is the, um, where the provisions of the state planning regulatory provisions kick in for koalas and the, the area is mapped as containing, um, koala habitat under that, um, particular mapping. So, um, the significant residual impact test is that they will, um, they will, um, they will be clearing of koala habitat and that has not been offset, um, so when you go to the koala, um, offsets page, web page of the, um, Nature Conservation Act, there's a, um, a calculator table and it's basically three times the area that's to be cleared that needs

00:28:00 to be offset. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. Speaker 1: So three times. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Stockwell? Uh, yes, just a, a clarification on that, you said they are mapped under Nature Conservation Act. Is that affected by the recent announcements? Um, I know they were mapped at the time the application was submitted, have, uh, have, has that changed? Speaker 1: Yes, it has changed. The mapping has been amended to exclude all category X, um, vegetation from that, um, planning framework. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And for further clarification about those changes as part of that, they said the applications currently before us have to be considered under the old provisions, is that correct? That is correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other questions? Uh, yeah, we've got one from the CEO. Sorry, one for, one for, one for staff in the first place. With regard to those two acts, can we, uh, find out when those two acts were actually, um, uh, came into being?

00:29:00 Speaker 1: The two acts that you referred to, of course. Uh, the Environmental Offset Act 2014 came into effect in 2014, the, um, Nature Conservation Koala Regs came into effect in, uh, I might have to take that on notice, but I think around about 2010. Councillor Jurisevic: So, just to clarify, both have been, uh, since, uh, the original infrastructure agreement was put in place? Exactly. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Okay. I'm going to move, uh, the staff recommendation, uh, with those changes. I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Glasgow. Um. Now then. Hang on. Sorry. It's going to take a long moment, right? Speaker 2: It's worth doing. Mayor Wellington: It's worth doing. Speaker 2: I agree. Okay. Mayor Wellington: All right. The motion now reads, settle back and relax, everyone, uh, that Council note the report

30 minutes in ¶

00:30:00

00:30:00 by the Coordinator of Planning to the special meeting and the further report to the General Committee meeting dated 17th of February regarding application RAL18 dash, or stroke, RAL18 dash, 0023 for a development permit for reconfiguring a lot, uh, situated 28 Eany Creek Road, Noosaville, and refused the application for the following reasons. One, the proposal is inconsistent with Schedule 11, whoop, don't do that too much. Right. Uh, Schedule 11, Part 2, Section 7 of the Planning Regulation 2017. As the development is situated in the koala-assessable development area and does not avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in circumstances in which any significant resistance may be made, the residual impact of the clearing is unable to be offset. Two, the proposal is inconsistent with the Biodiversity Assessment Benchmarks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Part E of the State Planning Policy, as the development will adversely impact upon koala habitat, with koala populations recognised as being matters of both national and state environmental significance.

00:31:00 Three, the proposal is inconsistent with Assessment Benchmarks 3 and 4, Natural Hazards, Risk and Resilience, of Part E of the State Planning Policy, as the development will adversely affect and facilitate an appropriate disaster management response and recovery capacity and capabilities, as the emergency access points are unable to be implemented. Four, the proposed development will adversely impact upon koala habitat, does not maximise the retention of existing vegetation, and proposes to prematurely clear significant vegetation inconsistent with the needs of the community. Contrary to overall outcomes 13.7 , 13.7 , 13.7 , 13.7 , 13.7 , 13.7 Point 5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the overall and specific outcomes of the Noosaville Locality Code in the following respects. i. The proposal does not provide a satisfactory pedestrian and cycle network for the future development of the area

00:32:00 and fails to provide satisfactory linkages with the existing development in the Shire Business Centre. i. The proposal fails to ensure a high level of residential amenity as it does not provide for acoustic fencing to lot 17, 18 and 19 or provide any noise mitigation measures to existing planned equipment and loading dock areas and fails to address the future amenity of lot 21 contrary to specific outcome 01. i. The proposal does not retain suitable existing vegetation to ensure future development will be within a park-like setting contrary to specific outcome 03, 022 and 01, 025. i. The proposal will adversely impact on the site's environmental values contrary to overall outcomes and specific outcomes as listed.

00:33:00 Point 6. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the reconfiguring of lot code. As i. Insufficient provision has been made for walking and cycling linkages with the existing development in the Shire Business Centre as the proposed network and linkages are unable to be implemented contrary to overall outcomes and specific outcomes as listed. ii. The proposed lots will have significant adverse impact on the natural environment and will not retain the site's natural environmental values contrary to overall outcomes and specific outcomes as listed. Item 7. Bushfire mitigation measures. Item 8. Bushfire mitigation measures do not satisfactorily address the risk of bushfire contrary to overall outcomes and specific outcomes of the natural hazards over Lake Oad. Item 9. Bushfire mitigation measures result in the removal of vegetation contained within OS3 as detailed in Schedule 4 Shire Business Centre map of the Noosa Plan. Item 10. The proposed development is contrary to the draft Noosa Plan provisions which support the refusal of the development application for the same reasons as those applicable under the current Noosa Plan because of non-compliance,

00:34:00 with requirements for pedestrian cycle lengths and appropriate response to the site's natural hazards and protection of the site's environmental values including vegetation retention. Item 10. The proposed development cannot be conditioned to comply with the above assessment benchmarks. Item 11. There are no matters that would warrant approval of the development application notwithstanding the non-compliance of the assessment benchmarks. ii. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63 of the Planning Act 2016. Is there any questions? This is the largest development this Shire is likely to see for some time, if not forever. We therefore shouldn't be rushing the approval process. What hasn't been mentioned tonight that should be mentioned of course is that if we fail to make a decision tonight then the application is deemed to be approved.

00:35:00 Therefore, we do need to make a decision tonight to ensure that we get an approval. We must take a determination this evening but as I said we shouldn't be rushing the process, I accept that some councils would quite like to approve the application, I'm sure they have good reasons for that But from where I sit there are matters that need to be resolved and those matters do have serious ramifications for future Noosa councils and for Rape L hatte And apart from all the ones I just read out that left my mouth dry there are two in particular that I want to particularly focus on Firstly, our legal representatives argue that Koala offsets are payable by the developer to the tune of $1,150,000 or thereabouts. The applicant asserts that the offsets are not payable and this difference of opinion really can't be resolved here on the floor of chambers because it needs to be resolved by legal representatives who have a more detailed understanding of the arcane planning regulations

00:36:00 than I think we councillors do. But I do not wish to forego the opportunity for this community and the environment to enjoy Koala offsets to the tune of more than $1,000,000. So I think a refusal is appropriate so that we can see whether or not this very significant win for our local Koalas is possible and according to our legal representatives it is. The second one is, as I mentioned at the General Committee, I believe that if we approve the application with accountability, the current design, we're actually squandering the opportunity to achieve the very overarching design feature that we were so careful to put into the new planning scheme and that is a new village-style precinct in a park-like setting. The motion and the staff recommendation identifies that the proposal fails to retain suitable existing vegetation to ensure that future development will be within a park-like setting

00:37:00 and to me this is a very fundamental and very important element of the proposal. The vision that we're all discussing and that we have discussed right through the development of the planning scheme. I don't want to see another bland development with just more concrete and bitumen that ignores its setting. That is not the Noosa way and it certainly doesn't meet the basic tenets of the Noosa design principles. The Noosa design principles state without adequate green spaces and vegetated buffers, we do not meet the natural landform, the following principles. The natural landform, the natural landform, the natural landform, the natural landform, and landscape should not be compromised by unsuitable development. Developers are encouraged to build on and strengthen our uniqueness by continually innovating and open space will remain a priority and so on. Ingrid Jackson before, Councillor Jackson before she became a councillor, is quoted in the Noosa design principle saying that Noosa's success is founded on quote, maintaining core values and principles. And I don't see that the subdivision designs that we're being presented with are as

00:38:00 maintaining core values of Noosa. Again, it looked to me like the applicants are simply treating Noosa as they would treat any development in any other shire and the way that they have treated Noosa arguably with the Noosa civic development which completely ignores its setting and certainly isn't park like. We have one and only one opportunity here to get this subdivision right. So I think it behoves us to do it properly. So therefore, fundamentally, I want to see the Koala offset matter resolved and I do want to see some greater effort. Within the proposal to achieve the park like setting that we envisaged, not just another subdivision that could be found in any urban setting anywhere across the country. And if we don't aim for the best, then I believe we do Noosa and the community a disservice. Thank you. Councillor Glasgow: Can I please answer the question, Mr Chair? Yeah, sure. Fire away, Councillor Glasgow. This is the trouble about it. I can't see the vibe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can't feel the vibe. Nothing.

00:39:00 Councillor Glasgow: Anyway. Mayor Wellington: You vote on the vibe. Councillor Glasgow: Well, look, I agree. This is very difficult. Mayor Wellington: Is this a question? This is a question, Mr Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, yeah, question. Thank you. Would the Koala offset, would the Koala offset apply if this application were to be lodged tomorrow? Speaker 4: Under the state planning regulations which changed on the 7th of February, anything lodged tomorrow would not require an offset under the state planning regulations. Thank you. However, our planning scheme envisages that the vegetation would either be retained or offset. So our scheme has requirements around the vegetation. Mayor Wellington: Does that answer your question, Councillor Glasgow? Councillor Glasgow: Yes. And just one more question. If this is approved tonight, do we have any, do we have more or less conditioning on them if not approved? I don't know.

00:40:00 Mayor Wellington: I don't know. I think the question is, I think you, perhaps Kerry, you can talk to the fact that we don't actually have conditions ready for an approval and what happens if it's not, if the, if this motion succeeds, what the next stage is in discussion with the developers, please. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. So, officers do not have conditions prepared for tonight, if Council wants to. So, the application has been recommended for refusal. It takes some time to prepare conditions, especially for this subdivision, it's a major development. So, we have no conditions prepared that would be ready to go tonight if Council wanted to approve it. What Council officers hope is that we have been able to resolve a number of matters over the last few months with the applicant. We have resolved stormwater, traffic, bushfire.

00:41:00 So, it is hard to say whether or not we will be able to resolve a number of matters over the last few months, given more time through an appeal process that we will be able to resolve the final issues. So, it's hoped that we don't need to go to a trial, that we can come to an agreement with the applicant and have the subdivision on the Shire Business Centre proceed. Councillor Glasgow: Are you happy with that answer, Councillor Glasgow? Yep. Thank you, Kerry. Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. I have a question also. It's of Kerry, or Coyle, and it's related to a statement made by the Council of Wellington that Noosa Civic is not a park-like setting and that we want this area to have a park-like setting. Can I just understand whether in the various things that have been offered by the applicant, including the most recent new replacement infrastructure agreement, whether those issues of park-like setting has been addressed?

00:42:00 Speaker 4: So, the current application has some measures to try and achieve a park-like setting. Officers say that doesn't go far enough. There will also be an opportunity on some lots as they develop. They may choose to retain some of the vegetation in those lots. But overall, I don't think the proposal achieves the park-like setting that the scheme envisages. The infrastructure agreement does not address the park-like setting. There's nothing in the new infrastructure agreement that was submitted. That would help resolve that matter. Councillor Jackson: I still need to ask. So, I need to follow up here first. So, I'm a bit confused. We are saying we're doing reconfiguring a lot. And, of course, that simply subdivides. And then there would be development applications for each little lot, which would then have to address many of these things in their own right. So, can I understand whether that is not the point at which those things will still be

00:43:00 able to be managed by a council? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 4: I'd suggest there's two points to achieve this park-like setting. At the time of the subdivision, it would be appropriate that areas of existing trees be identified that are going to be retained in the long term to achieve that park-like setting. There's also an opportunity through the future development of those lots to identify vegetation. So, I'm saying it needs to be addressed now as well as in future stages. Councillor Jurisevic: So, just to follow on from that. So, just to follow on from that. I was going to ask essentially the same question. So, in the current subdivision application as it stands, what element of retention of vegetation is there and what future clearing is likely to occur in the stages going forward? Mayor Wellington: The National General Committee.

00:44:00 Speaker 4: Yes. So, on page 36 of the agenda, there is a map that shows the extent of proposed clearing to create the subdivision. So, all the areas that are yellow are identified for clearing. So, the applicant proposes to clear those ones to create the road and put services in and to ensure stormwater management works to get the lots to drain to the roads. So, the areas that are in green are the areas that will remain vegetated for a period of time until they're developed. So, there are some small strips of vegetation to be retained as part of the subdivision. That was proposed round about here. So, adjacent lot 6, 9 and 10 is proposed to be retained. Here is marked as red, I think. Is it red?

45 minutes in ¶

00:45:00

00:45:00 Are areas that are in green that will remain vegetated for a period of time until they're Councillor Jurisevic: So have any, within that, have any significant, any of the significant trees currently on the lot been identified for retention within the plan so far? Apart from those large areas that don't? Speaker 4: Apart from those areas just pointed out, no. To achieve the stormwater management, there are some areas that would be required to be cleared. Councillor Jackson: I'm also wanting to just ask, in the southeast Queensland plan, this area has been not only

00:46:00 now but previously defined as a major centre, and also in the Noosa plan, which is what we're considering this under, this is defined as the Shire Business Centre, which is going to be called the Noosa Business Centre in the new Noosa plan. Wouldn't there be an expectation that there will be clearing and development if this is going to be a major centre in Noosa? Speaker 4: Definitely. A fair bit of the site needs to be cleared to make way for a Shire Business Centre. But it has to be done in a balanced way to achieve the park-like centre and to address the environmental values of the site. Councillor Jackson: I'd also like to ask, because there was a comment by Councillor Wellington about the Mayor Wellington: previous Noosa Civic. I'm a bit worried about you having an argument about my comments with the staff. Councillor Jackson: I'm not having an argument. I need to ask a question. And that is, I myself also feel that the huge car park at Noosa Civic is unfortunate and

00:47:00 could have been nicer as a park. But do I understand, or is it correct, that Noosa Council won't allow multi-level car parks? So you have to have the big car park instead? Speaker 4: We have some multi-level car parks in Noosa. But yes, there has been a long-term preference to avoid them because typically multi-level car parks have not been designed well. They don't look very attractive. They also represent what we see in cities a lot. And we try to avoid images that we see in cities because that's not the character we are looking for in Noosa. But it's not that we won't support them. It's done in the right way. Councillor Jackson: So does that mean that when Noosa Civic, which is part of the Noosa Business Centre, was developed, that it was required to have a large car park, which is basically, you know, tar and cement, rather than something multi-story, which would have taken up a lot smaller footprint?

00:48:00 Speaker 4: I can't answer that one because I wasn't involved with stage one for this project. So I wasn't involved in this discussion to know what was discussed with the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Only to reiterate what I said at General Committee, which was there seems to be, over the last few months, both staff and the applicant genuinely have attempted to negotiate a satisfactory result. The sticking points are ones that I don't believe either can be resolved around this table. Particularly the difference of legal opinion in regard to coiler offsets. I, like the Mayor, are averse to trying to reduce the potential for environmental gains through the development process. And I, like the Mayor, think that a higher level of urban design for the next large stage

00:49:00 of Noosa Business Centre is highly desirable. And if we can get to an agreement, we can do that. With a larger area of retained vegetation, which achieves the fire management objectives, as well as a reasonable development footprint, I think that is also a matter that is worth fighting for. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie? Thank you. As has been alluded to, there's been a lot of genuine consultation and negotiation on behalf of the applicant and also the Council staff. They are moving closer every time towards a resolution. But this matter is only before us here because a request by the Council staff to extend the decision making period to March 20 was not agreed to by the applicant. So that's why we find ourselves here tonight forced into making a decision on an application that still has significant conflicts with the Noosa Planning Scheme and state planning

00:50:00 policies. But I would like to hope that after this decision is made tonight, the negotiations in good faith can continue to reach a resolution that everyone can be satisfied with because it is a very important decision. Mayor Wellington: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic? Look, I'd like to concur with the comments of my fellow councillors and I'd like to compliment the applicant on their approach with this and their willingness to try and negotiate the outcomes with staff over the many months that this has been going on and also with staff for their time and patience in taking this decision. I think it's a very significant development application to the level that we've got it now, which is getting close in many ways of achieving the outcome. But like the other councillors, I see a point of law here with regard to environmental offsets and I'm not prepared to make a decision here, nor to override the opportunity of environmental offsets for such a significant site to be forgone.

00:51:00 So I will concur with the staff's recommendation in this case. And I would also like to make a point of order that we are not prepared to make a decision here. I do hope that following this process, that ongoing negotiations can get us at least somewhere closer to a point of resolution. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I would like to speak. What is before us is a recommendation to refuse an application to reconfigure a lot. And we saw this in October. We are dealing with an application here as it was when we saw it last time, without being able to take any action. And we have not taken into consideration any of the negotiations and the new developments that have since been offered by the applicant. In fact, the applicant had proffered since then two versions of a deed of variation to the original infrastructure agreement. Variation, yeah. Which addressed most of the many requests, many requests made by council staff about this application.

00:52:00 However, staff rejected this deed of variation, so they do not form part of what's on the table before us. Also, when I had a meeting with the applicant before the general meeting, I was also told that there's a matter of acoustic fencing, which they would be willing to comply with. Last Thursday, when the general committee agenda came available, the applicant provided staff with a new alternative infrastructure agreement in place of a deed of variation. And this infrastructure agreement addresses, as I understand, the need for a new infrastructure agreement, and all the infrastructure and technical matters that have been requested by council staff. So it really addresses everything. And so unlike the previous deeds of variation, it does not prevent council from charging further infrastructure charges when developments are made under the new supply, which is considered

00:53:00 of higher density. The only bone of contention left is the 2003 infrastructure agreement, which is the one that the council has agreed at the time that no further charges or no further land had to be dedicated as a result of what was already done. When it comes to the insistence on further payments of 1.1 million in offsets, I have obtained a statement from the Council of Councils. I have also obtained and read the relevant sections of the Environment Offsets Act, and I've also obtained and read the advices received both by Noosa Council and by the applicant. I consider myself bound, I was told I'm bound by confidentiality regarding the advice that

00:54:00 was given to Noosa Council. I note that Councillor Wellington stated, and perhaps not so bound by confidentiality as I, stated that our legal representatives argue that COAL offsets are payable. Now I would like to say that I won't be bound by confidentiality, but I would like to say that in fact what I have read does not say that legal representatives argue that offsets are payable. Kerry Coyle earlier today made a statement. He made the correct statement, and that is that it is possible to apply and, you know, the things that Conor has been speaking of, that there are reasons to ask for that. But, you know, I'm a bit concerned that confidentiality gets breached here. Also I can say that to me I am not convinced that section 14 of the Environment Offset

00:55:00 Act can be considered confidential. I'm not convinced that it can be ignored and that additional offsets should be paid. I also believe that the infrastructure agreement should be honoured by council staff. And that's partially because I think if an agreement is made, it should be honoured. And partially because I think that I am extremely impressed by the large amount of concessions that the applicant has already made to council about all the things that they will contribute, which cost a lot of money. Many of which will be given to council, like the road in Hofmann Avenue and other property, which will be handed over to staff, just like it was in 2006 or 2007 or whenever that other development was done. So it's not as if the applicant hasn't done everything they can, and there's only one thing left, and council refuses to budge. I therefore do not really support the refusal.

00:56:00 I think the infrastructure agreement should be honoured. I understand it needs a bit of tweaking. I think that's minor. It can be fixed. I would prefer to be voting in favour of repairing all this and being able to approve it. Obviously, I cannot suggest approving what's on the table, because that's not the new replacement infrastructure agreement. Therefore, of course, we have all these recommendations pointing out to all these problems, because those problems have to be fixed. I think that's minor, can be fixed. I would prefer to be voting in favour of repairing all this and being able to approve all this and being able to approve all this, because those problems have not been put in the application originally, but in fact, have been already negotiated and have been resolved. So, normally I think what I would have to do is abstain, but because the Local Government Act calls an extension, a refusal, to vote against, I've decided, what the hell? I'll vote against.

00:57:00 Mayor Wellington: Councillor Blaisdottir, do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Glasgow: Yes please, Mr. Taylor. This is very different from the key issues talked about, about software changes and other things. Very simple. We vote for, we lose all negotiation powers. This is the last, most critical spot, paramount. We get it right. Very simple. It's not about infrastructure or quieter offsets. A very wise man said time is against us on this development. Very simple. In six months down the track, we could have the ultimate solution to saving money, but we don't. We have the situation in front of us, and we need to negotiate, whether it be in law, lawyers' offices, downstairs, in the planning offices, or in a court. We need to get this right. By submitting an approval, we don't. Simple. We lose all control of our conditions. Yes, they want to do the job. It's not that complicated. We say yes, we lose our right to condition things. We say no, yes, we have some negotiations. And we get it right. Please, remember, we get the last, biggest, single site in Noosa to develop right. This is not like just slapping up a couple of cafes in a nightclub, like Hastings Street, sorry.

00:58:00 This is ultimate. So, I feel for the applicant, I feel for Council, I feel for time, I feel for the watch, but we have to get this right. I'm sorry. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll close then. Councillor Jackson talked about us not taking into consideration, recent changes with regard to the deed of variation, because it's not on the table today. Well, it's not on the table today because we're not actually dealing with the infrastructure agreement or the deed of variation. She mentioned that the new infrastructure agreement addresses everything, yet the motion clearly points out that it can't address everything, because most of the issues that are being addressed in the motion are to do with the development, not the infrastructure agreement. They are things about pedestrian cycleways, impact on the environmental values, bushfire mitigation, et cetera.

00:59:00 I have been accused of breaching confidentiality and I find that offensive. Staff noted in the General Committee on Monday and again tonight, that our legal advice is that the koala offsets are supported by our legal representatives. There is nothing confidential about that, given that it's already been in open session and discussed. So, I am offended by that accusation. Nevertheless, if Councillor Jackson had been seriously wanting to approve this development, she might have perhaps worked with staff to come up with some conditions for approval. As staff pointed out, that request has not been put to them at all. Nevertheless, it seems that the majority of councillors, given their talks to the motion, are going to support the motion. So, I'll leave it at that. I'll put the motion. All those in favour?

60 minutes in ¶

01:00:00

01:00:00 Hold on. Councillor Glasgow: Hold on. This is the motion for refusal or an amendment? Mayor Wellington: Refusal. Refusal. There is no amendment. No amendment. Okay. Okay. Carry. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's Wilkie, Stockwell, Jurisevic. Speaker 2: I think Councillor Glasgow had said aye. Mayor Wellington: Was that an aye, Jess? Aye. Aye. Councillor Jackson, the motion is carried. Folks, we still have to deal with all the other items that were referred from the General Committee, and so we have the usual on-the-bus recommendation that may be adopted. I'll move it, Mr Chair. Move Councillor Wilkie. Seconded. Councillor Stockwell, I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. Now, there are no further ordinary meeting reports. There's no confidential session, as usual. However, we move on to public question time, and Mr Brian O'Connor has his two questions at the ready. Councillor Glasgow: G'day, Brian. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I call you Councillor O'Connor, sir?