Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome to the General Committee Meeting. We've cleared the meeting open. We begin by acknowledging the conditional owners on the land on which we meet, the Gubbi Gubbi and the Kabi Kabi people. Paying respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. We have a number of items referred to the General Committee Meeting this morning from the Planning and Environment Committee. The first item is the development application for material change and use, entertainment and dining business, type 3, bar and clientele court, Cooroy. There's a report direct to the General Committee on this item on page 3 of the General Committee of January. How are you doing? I hear you're well and well.
00:01:00 The item is in the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Do you have any questions for Stella? Councillor Jackson: I do, Mr Chair, and I'm going to ask some questions that I originally asked the Planning and Environment Committee because not all councillors attended that meeting. So for the sake of clarity, can you explain, as I understand it, there is a situation where this is a distillery and the distillery hasn't been built. And there's also a request to be able to buy another distillery's distillery. Can you explain whether the distillery itself has already been approved? Speaker 3: Yes, so the distillery itself can operate under acceptance, I'm sorry, under the approval of the General Committee. Although it was approved in 2018, which was type 2 industrial. So the distillery business can go ahead and operate. The application in this instance is for the bar component.
00:02:00 So in this instance, council determines that the staff have determined that the bar uses a separate land use. And then it's been approved to operate on that same site. Councillor Jackson: Can you also explain the difference, what's in the agenda, or in your report, refers to it's allowed to operate in a distillery tasting, but it's not able to have a bar. That's the recommendation. So can you explain the difference between a tasting room and a bar? You know, the two things. Speaker 3: So a tasting area would be a small bar. It would be a very small area in conjunction with that primary industrial use of the site. And it would be, as I say, a very small component. It could comprise of a small bar area to facilitate the mixed endurance and that sort of thing.
00:03:00 But it certainly would be of the size of the distillery and still an industrial component. Whereas a bar that is proposed in the size and scale is considered a separate use in this instance. So it needs to be scaled down. So it's a size issue. Speaker 7: Yeah, and the primary difference we've drawn is the sale of alcohol. So if you sell alcohol for consumption on site, then it would be a bar under our planning scheme. If it's a tasting area and just offering free tastings, then we wouldn't consider it a bar. Councillor Jackson: And that's how it's defined in the planning scheme, the difference. Not clear. Speaker 7: No, there's no definition of tasting area in the planning scheme. There's only a definition of what's considered ancillary. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Speaker 7: So it just has to not constitute a new use. Councillor Jackson: So what we've seen, for example, I know in other industrial areas where, say, somebody is manufacturing food for catering purposes,
00:04:00 but they were allowed to have a cafe where people consumed and bought the same sort of thing that they were also supplying for other purposes. Isn't that sale? Speaker 7: That's right. And so they have actually been required to apply for a cafe for separate approval. If they're just making food on site for sale elsewhere, then that can constitute the industrial area. Councillor Jackson: And because I did ask a question that thank you for answering by email, because in this case it's not wine or beer, you can't just taste gin, vodka or whiskey, but in many cases the tasting would be more appropriate as a mixed drink. If it's not a bar, but it's only a tasting area where they're not selling but just tasting, can they offer mixed drinks for a taste? Yes, they can.
00:05:00 And what kind of license do they have to have for that? Speaker 7: It's under their producer's license, which is what they require for their distillery. So they don't need a separate license. It would be the same license that's required to operate the distillery. Councillor Jurisevic: So, yeah, my first question follows on that. So much the same as a winery would have a cellar door for tasting and sales, means bulk sales, i.e. bottle sales and the rest of it, the ancillary use as bottle sales would be permitted under the current activity as opposed to bar sales with mixed drinks and the like being sold for consumption with food at the bottom of that. Speaker 3: Yeah, so essentially the intent of this tasting area is to provide an opportunity for the public and the like, restaurant owners, to come and try the product. The intent is not necessarily for it to be an open bar as such.
00:06:00 So it's recommended for the product. It's a proposal to be scaled down, obviously, to meet that sort of interpretation. Councillor Jurisevic: The three breweries that we have operating in our industrial area at the moment, do all three of those have bar licenses? Speaker 7: All three of those have a development approval for a bar hotel. Councillor Jurisevic: For a bar operation. Yeah. That's right. Does the space permitted for that to you, to be undertaken, exceed the 20% of spaces permitted under the planning scheme for ancillary use? Speaker 7: In terms of their approval, no. In terms of how they're operating, one in particular probably does. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. So if this was scaled down to no more than 20%, or I think we've even talked about increasing that to some degree, 30%, if it could be scaled down to that activity, that would be more of an opportunity to approve the use, or the application as it stands?
00:07:00 Speaker 7: Not quite. So this proposal is under the 20%. So it's not necessarily the size of it. Councillor Jurisevic: The bar area, according to the report, is well beyond 20%. Speaker 3: No, that's incorrect. It is less than 20%. That's not what the report says. Not in my reading of it. Is there a page over in there? Speaker 7: No, it is less than 20%. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure that it said the bar area exceeded 20%. I might have that wrong, but that was my reading of it. First time reading it. I was looking around and I said I haven't reread it. Councillor Wilkie: There is a quote on page five. It says, the applicant proposes the use area of the bar is 39 square metres, but review of the offices indicates the bar actually has a use area of 55 square metres. Thank you. Is that still under the 20%? Speaker 3: Well, the applicant suggests on page seven, the proposed tasting area is 39 square metres and occupies approximately 20% overall. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: That wasn't my reading of the proposal.
00:08:00 My reading was that they were exceeding the 20% and that was part of the problem. Speaker 3: In this instance... Speaker 7: Yeah, you're right, Joe, in that the industrial use, if you look on page nine, there's a table there on page nine and it talks about use areas. The industrial use area is 170 and the bar use is 55, so that would be more than 20%. Exactly. Councillor Jurisevic: That was my reading of it. That was one of the reasons for refusal was that it exceeded the ancillary uses space. So, I've got that correct? Correct. Speaker 7: Yes, it exceeds the 20%. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. So, again, if that ancillary use of that bar area were reduced to no more than 20%... Speaker 7: It wouldn't overcome the other issues that staff have raised. Councillor Jurisevic: That's not the only issue, but it is one of the issues. That's right. Thank you. Speaker 7: Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I understand a couple of the other issues and that would be parking for the purpose
00:09:00 of that business as well as the potential for what they call reverse amenity noise being caused by industry. Can you explain if this is intended to just happen on Friday nights and weekends when probably industry isn't operating, why there's a concern about parking and about noise? Speaker 3: Sorry, would you mind repeating? Councillor Jackson: Repeating myself? It's going to be... It's been recommended to be open, I think, from noon to midnight on Fridays and... No, that's sideways. No. Speaker 3: Fridays at 3pm onwards. Councillor Jackson: 3pm to 12. I mean, weekends 12 to midnight. Is that right? Speaker 3: That's correct. Councillor Jackson: Yes. I'm just wondering why we're... A couple of the reasons for refusal have to do with this being in conflict with the
00:10:00 other industry activities on site in terms of parking and noise when actually it's likely that is not a time when the industries are working. Speaker 3: That's correct. So as the report suggests, potentially that can be resolved by a condition or a number of conditions in relation to car parking specifically. Now, the noise and amenity issues do not necessarily, or not necessarily can be resolved by conditions because in this instance, the site comprises of 39 tenancies, as we suggested in the report. So potentially there could be reverse amenity impacts given the number of other businesses that may be within that immediate vicinity. Whereas the other examples of existing breweries, they're on their own site or a share, perhaps, adjoin one other tenancy, perhaps. So the issues or potential issues are far greater in this instance, or considered far
00:11:00 greater. Councillor Jurisevic: But having said that, one of the breweries, from my understanding, has restricted operating hours and to facilitate not conflicting with existing businesses and the opportunity for parking to be utilised, on-street parking and the like, utilised outside of the business hours of other operations. Speaker 7: So the others were conditioned with their hours to ensure there was sufficient car parking on-street. Councillor Jurisevic: So there was one in particular that had the hours. Yeah. Speaker 7: So that was the reason for the hours. Yes, that's right. Condition. The other sites, though, are a little bit different to this one in that they are, they do have their own separate sort of site. They have their own access. Whereas this site has 39 tenancies. It's two out of 39 tenancies that's proposed. So it doesn't allow as much separation as the other approved industrial areas, the ones in the municipal industrial area. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Technical one.
00:12:00 So we discussed that environment. The fact that the CODI principle would suggest that we can place a fair bit of weight now on the draft planning scheme. And on page 11, there's a specific quote on the draft planning scheme. In item H, it talks about food and drink outlets occur only where directly ancillary to and associated with bona fide industrial activity on site are limited in scale and extent and do not locate on the western side of Gateway Drive or on land fronting Taylor Court. Now that seems fairly specific, suggesting there's a strategic intent not to have food and drink outlets. So my technical question is. Yeah. Am I right in suggesting that food and drink outlets are of a fine use under the current planning scheme but not under the new planning scheme?
00:13:00 I don't think there's such a thing as a food and drink outlet as a defined use under the Planning Act of Queensland. Speaker 7: Yeah. No. Well, you're right. There's different definitions under the current scheme to be used. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So that is. So my reference to drafting or otherwise, a reference to a food and drink outlet would include what we consider to be a bar. Speaker 7: Yeah. No. A bar under the new scheme is defined separately to a food and drink outlet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But is food and drink outlet a defined use in the new scheme? Speaker 6: Yes, it is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is? Speaker 6: We would have to check that. I think Councilor Stockwell might be correct. Okay. So he's talking about that the reference to food and drink outlets being like a broad reference here and what uses under the new scheme would then fall under those. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's right. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll do the search myself. Councillor Jackson: So I have a related question also, and I think this is not for the development assessment
00:14:00 staff, but perhaps for the strategic staff. So Kim, perhaps. In the new supply, which is not yet, of course, finally adopted, there seems to be an intent to allow a range of this sort of activity in the venture dry, dry food and drink outlets in the enterprise precinct, and perhaps also we've talked about them being allowed on Hofmann Drive as a brewery of this sort. Has there been a reason why, to me that is meeting the new and modern way of retail and including multi-use where you've got manufacturing and retail and combining and that whole thing which is changing in our society. Is there a reason why in Cooroy that hasn't been moved forward in the new planning scheme
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 and been held in the old fashioned way about industry, whereas Noosaville has kind of done a bit of a movement forward into the modern concept? Speaker 6: Yes. So the planning scheme, the objective of the planning scheme around industry is to find a balance. So still to ensure that we have adequate industrial land for genuine industries that need to be located where they might be metal manufacturers or mechanics or spray painters, those sorts of things. So we did work to establish what our industrial land needed to be and the provisions that needed to be in place to preserve those areas for those uses. And also, you know, another objective was to look at what's happening particularly in
00:16:00 some of our areas in terms of the Noosaville, really the Noosaville industrial estate and provide some locality specific provisions that reflect, I guess, what we were seeing happening there and still provide some parameters around that still being core for industry but some flexibility to allow those sorts of uses. And I guess this site in Cooroy is seen more as to provide the more, as you say, traditional industrial areas and that it was important that the planning scheme provide some provisions that both protect that in those areas. So it wasn't a let's look at all our industrial land and apply the same thing because there are multiple objectives that we were trying to achieve. So I think it's important to look at what's happening across the areas and the localities and what the nature of the industry that they were intended for. Councillor Jurisevic: But one of the things that can be prevalent in an industrial, you know, a true industrial
00:17:00 area is industrial activities seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Whereas in somewhere like the Gateway Drive Precinct where the unit holdings are smaller, more boutique in nature with regard to their size. Wouldn't that be a bit of a challenge? Isn't that more along the lines of the type of development that's happening here with the multi-tenancy type development? They're not large industrial spaces, although the other land holdings may be that, but within this land holding itself, they're smaller, multifunctional tenancies with regard to their size. Speaker 6: Yeah, there are some similarities, Joe, in terms of the floor plate and what's happening there. But like I said, you know, a core objective of a planning scheme is to preserve land uses in the appropriate zones, you know, and to preserve industrial land is a key tenet of
00:18:00 our planning scheme. This location was considered to be more appropriate, as you can see, with quite specific locality provisions around providing for, you know, ensuring we have available land now and in the next decade for those more traditional, if you want to call them, industries. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just drawing similarities between the type of unit style complex within that precinct and this particular development overall. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell has a third question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think I'm answering my own question. So my recollection was incorrect. It must be the other way around. The food and drink out there is defined under the Quintessence Act. It's a provision that was highlighted in the plan planning version 4 and it is a premises used for preparation of sale of food and drink to the public for consumption on or off the site.
00:19:00 The use may include the ancillary sale of liquor for consumption on site, but it doesn't include a bar, club, hotel. So the provision that was highlighted still gives an indication that the food and drink outlet would be discouraged under the new scheme in Taylor court. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes. That is correct. But also a bar is identified as inconsistent under the draft scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: Having said that, one would expect in an industrial area that a food and drink outlet would be an essential outlet somewhere within the industrial area so that the people that are working there would have somewhere to go and get something to eat and drink from. Speaker 7: Yeah. I have to agree with you. Given the distance out of town, there's probably a need for a lunch spot there. Certainly if the service station doesn't proceed yet. Councillor Wilkie: Well, Councillor, sorry. You have one more. Councillor Jackson: As we're talking about industrial areas and how they differ, there is another whole industrial precinct in Cooroy. So if this particular development had theoretically been seeking to develop in the other part
00:20:00 of Cooroy's industrial area where there was a bit more distance between blocks and buildings, would that have been more feasible there? Speaker 6: Strategically, yes. Here in terms of who did the provisions for that locality. She did that. She did that. Michelle, come up. Councillor Wilkie: I'm talking about Jarrah Court. Yeah. Jarrah Court. Yeah. Speaker 5: So I guess when we looked at Cooroy, it was the same as what Kim said. We looked at all our areas in terms of what should be preserved for traditional industrial development. And that includes land that's already serviced in good proximity to freight and rail routes and those types of things. So Cooroy obviously is a location that has good access to the highway and those types of things. Particularly in Androya. And I guess balancing out that and what we did in the precincts in Noosaville, we thought Noosaville has a location that's more closer to centres and public transport and more population
00:21:00 that would frequent those more likely. So also we look at future demand for industrial land and Noosaville is low in the future whereas Cooroy has a more, I guess, medium term demand for industrial and traditional industrial land that allows those uses to happen. So proximity to the highway would be a major factor in that. Yeah. That's correct. Yeah. How did you know it had a higher demand? We did some analysis for the state government, broad scale analysis about industrial land we needed to provide for the land, industrial land. It's a key plan. It's a key plan. So that was part of our rationale behind when we were preparing the scheme as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I would suggest the parcels out there are tailor-coordinated to the state of pre-agriculture. Larger parcels of land in the ... Yeah, they are. They are. Yeah. Than what you would find in our ... Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly. I guess they provide that diversity of land size if we had larger scale industry coming out.
00:22:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell has another question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. On last Tuesday, I asked her whether the item B there, which was advised the applicants may wish to establish a pasting area that is ancillary but incidental and subordinate to the approved industrial use. Such an ancillary component would not include the sale of them just for consumption on site. I ask, is there any way to provide a little bit more guidance around that? Have you had a chance to think about that, or do you think that's as far as we can go in terms of a motion in that regard? Speaker 3: So in that regard, it's suggested that that resolution stay as drafted, or as prepared there. The only clarification we do suggest is to include food within that recommendation as well, so the sale of beverages or food. So that was put forward in our email to councils as well. Speaker 7: Yeah. So there was some information sent round to councils in the email, just decrementing whether we could come up with a guideline for ancillary.
00:23:00 We felt that the provision suggesting no sale of beverages or food was quite a naturally controlling one, to ensure it remained ancillary. We did consider whether we would try and place a floor area or a percentage on it, but we were reluctant to do so and let that be. We can consider that. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, we thought the ancillary users would have put a percentage limit on it anyway. Speaker 7: We did consider putting a percentage and applying that. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm suggesting they may not meet any need, because once it's ancillary, there is a percentage limit already applied. Speaker 7: Where there's a percentage? Is it there? No, there's not. Councillor Jurisevic: No, that's for retail sales. Speaker 7: Oh, you mean the 20% industrial? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. The 20% industrial. We've already got a percentage limit. Yeah. Once it goes beyond that 20%, it's no longer an ancillary use. Speaker 7: Well, I'd actually consider 20% of the use quite substantial, and probably a little bit more. Councillor Jurisevic: According to the planning scheme, that's the ancillary use limit, so it doesn't matter what we think. That's what's in the planning scheme.
00:24:00 Speaker 7: Well, that's for the retail sale of products from site. This is a whole other separate use. I know it sounds similar, but it's a little bit different, John. Councillor Jurisevic: Retail sale of alcohol by an alcoholic establishment is its retail component, one would think, as opposed to some manufacturing leather goods being a leather good, I think. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor, we have a ... Councillor Jackson: I have another question. I'm sorry. Yes, Ingrid. I do have another question, and that is, I understand from having had the applicants contact me as a councillor, that they had spent something like $15,000 in council fees and having a planner put forward this application, when they were told they would have to ask for bar if they wanted this ancillary use. I'm just wondering if there would have been an opportunity for them to ask for bar if they wanted to ask for bar, and if there was an opportunity to tell them this was an inappropriate thing to do and not to go ahead with spending that money. Speaker 7: There was some preliminary advice provided to the applicant before they lodged it.
00:25:00 It was a discussion, an email between council's planners and their planning consultant. The planning consultant chose not to have a pre-lodgement meeting, so that would be an opportune time for council officers to provide feedback on the likely prospects of an application. But the applicant's planning consultant didn't have that meeting, and so they had lodged the application before there was really opportunity to provide any sort of further feedback to the applicant. Councillor Jackson: So there's no feedback in the emails that you've referred to? No. Speaker 7: Yeah, there was an email. What did it say? It was a preliminary meeting, and the advice given at the time was that we considered the site may well be too far located outside of the town, and didn't want to go there. We didn't have good access, you know, pedestrian access or public transport access back to town. So that was the feedback provided at the time. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is matched by the conditions that are in the reasons for review.
00:26:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. And look, it was only a preliminary advice. It wasn't a full pre-lodgement where officers would consider it more fully. It was really only preliminary advice at that point. Councillor Jackson: Was that just verbal advice? No, there was an email. An email? Speaker 7: There was an email. Councillor Jurisevic: Was there a recommendation to go to, to approach for a pre-lodgement meeting before progressing in that email? Speaker 7: I'm just looking at the officer who gave that advice. No, I'm not sure. Speaker 4: No, I don't think the actual email contained that specific email. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Perhaps in the future, is that something we should be referring people to more frequently to go to? Yep. When we see the type of use being put forward, that we should be able to? Speaker 7: Yeah. We generally do. Our planning consultants are quite aware that we have our pre-lodgement meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I understand that. I mean, the proposal. But if you put it in like a whiteboard in writing, then there's no sort of saying, well, you didn't suggest that. Speaker 7: Yeah. We can, we can do that, certainly. Councillor Jurisevic: That might be my cause. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All right. Brian? Actually, I'll move the staff recommendation.
00:27:00 Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Stockwell, second to please, second to Councillor Jess Glasgow. Speaker 6: Councillor Wilkie, do you want the additional? Is Councillor Stockwell? What are you looking for? What are you looking for? Do you want that extra? Councillor Wilkie: And food inserted in that? Speaker 6: Food? On the screen. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: All food? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Has it been seconded to you? Yes. Seconded by Jess. You're happy to include all food? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. My fourth on the screen. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, you have the floor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. The applicant's submission on page seven is something that I agree with, and that is that there is a reasonable expectation that the distillery would include a small tasting area to present the taste and self-product. The matter at hand is that we believe that the allocation and size of the area that they call a testing area. And that the testing area allows for a use which is consistent with the definition of
00:28:00 the bar, which I also agree with staff, is not in the strategic intent for that particular industrial area. I think it's the item B clearly clarifies that an ancillary tasting area with sales of the product being manufactured on site is consistent with the industrial use. That in this case, it is just that it is not an appropriate location to do the same sort of thing as we have seen in a number of breweries in the Nussel industrial estate. And I think our new planning scheme makes that quite clear. I think the new planning scheme does identify the precincts where we do try and encourage these more mixed-use enterprises, and Taylor Court is not one of those. It's one where we are encouraging smaller forms of industry. I know that it is developing quite fast, and there are a lot of genuine industrial and
00:29:00 trade-related activities going to be moving in there soon. So I think that is another important principle, that if you're going to say this is a place for industry, that we don't risk reverse amenity. And we also, I suppose, in our rural areas, we're going to be looking at, we're going The activities like bars and other ones where you do want to attract people into close to where the services are in the town centre, not some distance away from public transport, away from any services that may be needed in terms of a licensed establishment. And so I think that that's an unfortunate but sensible approach to restrict the use to a tasting area and not to a bar. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah I can share with the comments made by Councillor Stockwell there. The proximity of the of the industrial area to the highway is one that is likely to happen. To attract businesses that are going to operate on a different time scale to perhaps the other industrial areas. More transport related and the like because of the proximity to that highway. So I'll concur with the comments from Councillor Stockwell on this one. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to comment? I'm in agreement with the recommendation under the, not only under the current Nurses Planning Scheme but also the draft Nurses Planning Scheme. A tasting area is entirely consistent in an ancillary use with a distillery such as this on this site. A tasting bar not only is entirely consistent, it does not even need a town planning application nor would it need a separate licence. It's entirely appropriate to take place there.
00:31:00 A bar would be in conflict with the Noosa Planning Scheme and the future Nurses Planning Scheme. Rather than if any of us wanted to approve a bar out there. This would not be the time and place to do it. But perhaps in the future planning scheme, via amendment, change the planning scheme to make it a consistent use. But as things stand now, the current planning scheme and the future planning scheme, a tasting bar is more appropriate. So I fully support the staff recommendation. Councillor? Councillor Jackson: I just need to check something. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Kerry, I just heard a statement saying that they wouldn't need a bar. They just need an additional licence. But I thought from your previous email that they do, they need a special producers licence. Or is that the same licence they have? Speaker 7: Yeah, they just need one licence. Councillor Jackson: One licence for the distillery and the taste. Speaker 7: For the distillery and that would cover them for the tastings as well. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Stockwell used a class.
00:32:00 Yeah. Put the motion to those in favour. Yeah. That's Councillor Jackson. Speaker 7: Juris... I'm ready for the ordinary meeting. So maybe some minor amendments. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you, Kerry. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to item two. Speaker 5: Thank you, Michelle. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Which is a multiple... Thank you, Michelle. A multiple... Oh, sorry. A minor change to the development permit, the material change of use, multiple dwelling, 10 units at 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. And this item is the subject... There's a further report. Director General, isn't there? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll go with the first question, if I may. Certainly, John. Is it or is it not a minor change? I'm trying... Yeah. I'm confused by all the information we've been getting. It seems in the last instance, it's not a minor change. It is a minor change, sorry. Speaker 7: That's correct. It is a minor change.
00:33:00 So... Councillor Jurisevic: So why the discrepancy with what we originally were told was not a minor change to what is now considered a minor change? Speaker 7: Yeah. So originally, officers recommended and advised council that it wasn't a minor change on the basis that some of the proposed car parking was on the adjoining property outside the easement. That's part of the guideline, the statutory guideline around minor change. But we've had council's planning solicitor review the matter. Mm-hmm. And the advice is that it may constitute a minor change, given that it's very... It's only a small overhang, if you like, into the adjoining property. It's the same property, same owners. RACV own both properties. Yeah. And it may be considered minor. It really doesn't raise any additional impacts. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I might just also ask, and that's more for the sake of people who might be listening
00:34:00 in the audience. My understanding is that since this application was put forward, there's been a new state level koala conservation mapping put forward, and that actually has implications for this site. Yeah. Can you explain that a bit? Speaker 1: Yes. Through the chair, councillor. Yes, it's been mapped as a koala habitat area under the draft's SEQ Koala Strategy 2019. Okay. It's been mapped as a koala habitat area under the draft's SEQ Koala Strategy 2019 to 24. Any clearing of koala habitat would need to avoid, mitigate, and offset the clearing in that sort of hierarchy. We believe the current layout does not achieve that, and so it's good to address these contemporary standards, and it hasn't been addressed in this current layout. Councillor Jackson: Can I just check?
00:35:00 I understand there's some issues. There's a condition being disputed about the new Noosa plan, saying that the new Noosa plan has been mapped based on council's koala mapping, not on the basis of the state mapping. So does council's mapping also have this as an issue? Speaker 1: Do we know? Yeah. I'm quite sure it is listed, but . Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that's the same scenario that we've been talking about at the Shire Business Center site, is it not? Speaker 7: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is different, though. This isn't the category X men. No. No. The term is different. It's a remit. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. So there is a difference. Speaker 7: There is a difference. Yeah. In this instance, the changes to the regulations that happened in February placed more of a burden on the site in respect to koalas. Councillor Jackson: So this application, which was made earlier, would still be covered by the new state legislation, which we are currently disputing?
00:36:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, Council is able to place weight on new regulations before an application is decided. So it's Council's, or the assessment manager's, choice as to how much weight they provide to the new regulation. Councillor Jackson: So in the case of the area along Mississippi, we are struggling with a state that in fact Council's original mapping is what should be valid and in the new use of plan, but in this case we want to use the state mapping as one of the reasons for not doing this minor change. Speaker 7: So does your question relate to the lottery config for me? Councillor Jackson: Yes. Are we, in this case, using the new state mapping? As a rationale for not approving? While at the same time, in another scenario, we are arguing that we don't want to adhere to the state mapping?
00:37:00 Speaker 7: No, we're doing the same thing. So for this current application, the current planning scheme identifies the site under the biodiversity overlay. Does it map it as koala? Yes. And also maps it as koala habitat. The regulation comes in and also suggests maintenance of that habitat as well as offsets. The other scenario for the lottery config of the Shire Business Centre, the scheme mapped the site as biodiversity and koala habitat and Council advised that we should give weight to that. You may recall officers indicating that because the regulation had changed, that may not play a big feature in the appeal. We'll probably more rely on the planning scheme for that one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a question? The history of the site is, as far as I read it, is it wasn't made under the current planning scheme.
00:38:00 It was made under the planning scheme from before 2006, 14 years ago. But it would have been 2006 or 2007, the last time the community had an ability to make submissions on a proposal on this site. Is that right? Yes. The decision that this seeks to override, if we were to approve this, was to say no, enough's enough. You had 14 years, well back then we were 18, 13, 12 years to develop. You haven't done it. If you want to develop this site, you need to put a new application. That's basically where our position is as well. Speaker 7: No, we don't need to sign that as part of this application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know, but that's our previous decision that's currently being appealed for. Speaker 7: That's right. It's about whether we can accept the proposed change as being consistent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And they've done this before too, in 2008, their representations made, is that right?
00:39:00 Speaker 7: Yes, they sought extensions back then. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In 2011. And then, so we've had this running proposal, but when you get down to it, the principle that this is an impact accessible development application that should have community input, if you weren't living in this community 14 years ago, you haven't had a chance to have your site. Is that right? Speaker 7: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element of this for me, page 27 of the original Planning and Environment Committee agenda, the diagram, figure three there, has a comparison of approved and proposed building footprints. If the proposed building footprint fitted within the approved building footprint, would we be seeing this here for us today? Or is this still a matter of Poana offsets and the rest on what will be cleared in that space? Speaker 4: Well, the change to the building footprint, if it stayed in its previous location or its current location, there's still a range of matters that the application needs to address.
00:40:00 That's the question I'm asking you. Councillor Jurisevic: If it stayed in the approved footprint, would we see it here before us today? Or would it be, we're dealing with issues of Poana offset and the like? Or if it stayed within the approved footprint, it wouldn't even be here, but it would be approved and continue on? Speaker 4: Can I just clarify the question, please, Joe? So you're saying it was in the same footprint, but they were making a change to the application by virtue of the change to appearance or the like? Is that what you're suggesting in terms of it being in the same footprint? Because, I mean- If they were changing a layout within the footprint or something like that? We would still be asking them to address the matters which were raised in the extension to the current application by where we said that the material that had been submitted with the original application was outdated or didn't stay in the approved footprint. Councillor Jurisevic: That's correct. Thank you. That's all I wanted to clarify. Councillor Wilkie: Question. It's been flagged that there's not compliance in terms of height of the buildings, and that
00:41:00 elevation plans have not been provided. So, in the absence of elevation plans, is the applicant asking us to approve this development application without knowing how high these buildings actually are? Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. They've indicated that the height variation is due to the minimum floor requirements, the flooding for the site, which we do agree with some height variation for minimum floor requirements, but the issue is they haven't told us what the height is. So, we can't approve a height variation and consider it unless we know what it is. Councillor Wilkie: As professionals, would you consider it negligent to give approval without knowing what a height limit is? Speaker 7: Definitely. Definitely. Yeah. We wouldn't know what we're referring to unless we know what it is. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Further questions from the staff? Well, we have a motion before us. Do the councillors wish to move the motion?
00:42:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the motion. Councillor Wilkie: The councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I just recommend we'll start. Speaker 7: Sorry. We flagged at planning committee that we had received amended plans from the applicant after this report was finished. Would councillors like us to go through those amended plans? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Between now and Thursday? Yes. Speaker 7: Okay. We've got some plans here to show you. Yes. Please. Councillor Jurisevic: By now? Yeah. Speaker 7: I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 4: So, on the 9th of March, we were provided with these plans. Not an overly significant change to the current layout. What the change has involved now is that they're advising that all the trees, or the removal of the majority of trees within the development footprint, to prevent conflict with the proposed buildings and residents, visitors, and staff. So, we've got a plan to keep trees in the long term. We raised in the original report that whilst you're proposing to keep trees, the practicality of being able to keep them in terms of construction and then the risks that they may pose in the
00:43:00 future would be problematic. So, they've acknowledged that and they've talked about clearing all the trees regardless. That's correct. The provision of a 10-metre-wide koala corridor along the Noosa Drive frontage, which is to be re-vegetated with koala food and habitat trees. That's the green-hatched area of planning, yeah. And that's similar to what we've identified as the replanting areas in the original application. There's been no supporting documentation provided with these plans in terms of any ecological assessment or stormwater assessment. And we had misgivings and concerns with the first round of plans that are before you in the application in terms of the capacity to re-vegetate this area in light of the bushfire management requirements. Yeah. And also in light of the fact that there's an acoustic fence that's required to align with the frontage of a property boundary set back about two metres. They also have relocated the units within the site to provide a three-metre setback to the existing open space area to the west, while allowing for access to the proposed
00:44:00 garages and carports. Well, we've got a concern in that area about the capacity to provide linkage for the koala for the movement. We consider that the three-metre corridor wouldn't address that. And they've made a change to the location of the visitor spaces to the north of the site to contain them within the easement, which would address that minor change issue that was raised in the original report. However, as we know, it would still be a minor change. Councillor Jurisevic: When you're talking about linkage, is you're only talking about through the development, because there's a substantial swathe of trees and koala habitat on the east side of the site? Or do you mean to the left, as we look at the diagram there, that already exists? Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is one of the most critical linkages across that. This is where they all funnel down to. Our koala expert has said any, like, you know, you've really got to maximise the retention
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 of koala food trees through this site to otherwise our nooses populate the site. So the whole location pretty much will go extinct. Councillor Jurisevic: And there's another parcel of land across the road, which is part of that connectivity you said? Yes, that's right. Has there been any suggestion of adding any other forms of connectivity through planning staff or through the developer with regard to aiding koala movements from that other parcel of land? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, our environmental services section did a body of work about koala connectivity and impacts on koala to... Koala infrastructure, road corridors. So there are suggestions along this about getting increased lighting and slowing speeds down through it. Councillor Jurisevic: Anything underneath or over the top? Speaker 1: No. They didn't go that far in investigating going underneath the bridge, which would be
00:46:00 quite a good... But it gets water immentation. So, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Document on the road. That's sort of, you know... Some of the major infrastructure change. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: So could I, related to what Joe was asking here, just looking at it in the picture here, and I know this area well, we've got the RACV up there at the top of the picture, and then we've got quite a busy road, and it's a drive with the roundabout, and that continues through to the farmer's market, et cetera, and what they seem to be intending to build here is between the RACV, which is already there, and the busy road. So where is it that the koalas, let's say it's not there, where are they actually walking to and from? Where is this connectivity that is there? Speaker 1: Can you go there and... Yeah, sure.
00:47:00 Councillor Jackson: Thanks. Speaker 1: So the main activity is through this area, coming down through here. They've set up a lot of... There's some auxiliary activity through here, there's a 10-metre setback, but it's primarily through this area here. And they're going to where? They cross across... They cross? Yeah. They cross the road. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Historically, the Maori, when we first started getting interested in the koalas in the 80s, the significantly larger population at the Noosa International Park would make their way through here, through the Noosa Islands Park, come down through here and end up in around where Noosa Springs is. Yeah. And they were migrating different times of year. Yeah. And that was the first time that we ever heard the koalas ate Melaleuca cinquenervia down there, because that was different feeding advantages. So that's sort of, that's that principal corridor for the coastal population, isn't Yeah. Speaker 1: So basically by developing this area in this current footprint, you'd only be
00:48:00 reliant on the wetlands. Councillor Jackson: And would that other side of it travel to where they are going? Speaker 1: Sorry? Councillor Jackson: If it's with the development or... Yeah. Would the koalas have access through that other core, continue being able to walk to where they're going? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, whether there's enough food resources there or it's, yeah, because they're basically going, you know, cutting two thirds of the area around. Yeah. It's not considered sufficient. Councillor Jurisevic: And it's wetlands to the left? Yes. Yes. It's a desert. It's a desert. Councillor Jackson: It's not this food habitat there. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. The main road, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Patrick, can I ask another question? What was the point you made about acoustic fencing before identifying that? Speaker 4: The original approval requires an acoustic fence adjacent to the front boundary, within
00:49:00 two metres of the Noosa Drive boundary. So the construction of that fence is likely to compromise existing food trees in that area. Speaker 7: It's likely that the fence would have to be set back for 10 metres to allow for that corridor along the front to facilitate crossing Loosa Drive. Councillor Jurisevic: And that would be consistent with what's in the existing development, which is a 10 metre setback with a pathway. Speaker 7: That's right. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Currently it's required to be 2 metres. Speaker 7: Currently, that's right. Councillor Wilkie: Preferred to be 10 metres. Speaker 7: Yes. RACV fencing is set back 10 metres. So it's got a corridor along Loosa Drive. So that's what we're looking for here. And it just facilitates the crossing of koalas across the road.
00:50:00 Councillor Wilkie: We're moved by Joe. Seconded Councillor Glasgow. Speaker 7: Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: There's more. There's more. Speaker 4: So we did meet with the applicants last week to relay our concerns with the plans. The amended set of them that have been put forward. And then on Friday morning, we got another set of plans or another site plan, which is now on the screen. Oh, that's different. So the change in this instance is actually the corridor to Loosa Drive has been reduced from 10 metres to 8 metres. They have provided an 8 metre corridor to the southwest. They have intruded into the open space conservation zone. There is patio encroachments to units 2, 3 and 4 into the 8 metre southwestern linkage.
00:51:00 And they advise that subject to further advice from a water quality expert, they believe they could get some treatment in between units 1 and 2. Obviously, not had a lot of time to review these. But having looked at them. If you look at it, you can certainly see similar concerns with the current proposal and the amended plans. It's interesting that the setback to Loosa Drive has been reduced to further compromise that linkage. Initial review of the linkage to the southwest is still of a concern. They haven't demonstrated that that's going to be satisfactory. Speaker 7: So these two new plans really don't address all the issues that the report raises. So the recommendation remains the same. We've suggested to the applicant that it's good. They want to keep working with us to try and find a layout that works. But they really need to withdraw their current change application and start again. Councillor Jurisevic: They seem to be reactive in nature too with regards to trying to find something in the short term to appease staff sufficiently.
00:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: And your preferred position would be that a new application is made, be a material change of use, impact accessible? Speaker 7: Ideally a new application would be made, that's right. That's right. Impact accessible. Councillor Wilkie: Now why would it make the MCO impact assessment? Just to give you a bit of insight. Speaker 7: Yeah, because the planning scheme identifies the assessment type for all development and the scheme would require impact assessment for this site. Councillor Wilkie: Because what's the zoning of this site? Speaker 7: Well the zoning's got a mixed zoning. Currently it's open space conservation and semi-attached housing. But the scheme calls up impact assessment. So when we consider the development on the site, we can really consider the impact on the site. Yeah, it's quite a significant site. Very significant for Koalas. And it's very prominent on Noosa Drive as well. Councillor Wilkie: Is there anything else we need to know about sub-plans? No, there's no more plans.
00:53:00 Speaker 7: No, I'm going to ask a question now. I'll just resign for councillors. Yes, yes. I will just remind councillors that we are required by the court to decide this by the 20th of March. That is the mediation agreement. Yeah. So whilst the applicant wants to continue discussing plans, which is good, we have a court date that we have to meet. So it's important that we do make a decision now if they don't withdraw because of the application. Councillor Jackson: So for one councillor, Wilkie was asking you about, have you pronounced in some way that it would be appropriate for them to put forward an application for a material change of use which was impact assessable? Speaker 7: Yes. We've proposed that they should, because there's been discussions, there's been two meetings about a new application, and we have suggested that they proceed with that application. They are keen, though, to try and maintain this approval as all developers like to do.
00:54:00 So yeah, I'm not quite sure. We've also talked to them about ideas that officers have as to how they might best meet the scheme requirements on this site. So we've put forward a number of ideas for them to consider, but we're not there yet. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I'm just conscious that we were just talking about the Cooroy application that costs so much money and got knocked back, and similarly, if we were, if council were inviting an application which is most likely to be knocked back, I would just question having that kind of approach, if it's something that is unlikely to be viable according to the rules. And I think that's the key to all these issues to do with koala habitat and biodiversity. Speaker 7: Yeah. Well, the site can be developed. It is zoned for unit development, so council could not refuse all development on the site. You know, there is some development that should happen on the site, and that would be consistent with the scheme.
00:55:00 So I'm not going to discourage any application for unit development, because it's a consistent use on the site. Unlike the bar in Cooroy, that was an inconsistent use for the site. Councillor Jackson: So how could this be acceptable, if so far they seem to have given us several options, and it's, you know, saying it's consistent, but it's being knocked back? How could it then be acceptable? Speaker 7: By changing the layout around to maintain that corridor through the site, and, you know, adjacent, well, we think, the side that's closest to Noosa Inlet, and really maintain that corridor and widen that. So it may mean they might reduce the number of units down. We'll come up with a solution. We'll come up with an alternative layout. Councillor Wilkie: And would you also recommend some more specifics around building heights? Speaker 7: Yes. We've certainly had that discussion with them. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So you need to be certain about what... Speaker 7: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: ...what height... Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Any further questions of staff about the amended plans? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Chairman, I do note that the motion has been motioned seconded, and it actually
00:56:00 is in the underwriting. The standing order is acceptable to keep questions. Councillor Wilkie: It wasn't seconded. Councillor Jurisevic: It was seconded. He didn't actually second it. Didn't he? No. No, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't second it. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. More questions? Brian? No. I was just calling in. Okay. All right. Councillor Jurisdict. Jurisdict. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I support staff recommendation on this one. I can see that it's the size and scale of the applicant's intent on this site that is the challenge. A scaled down, slightly scaled down proposal here could easily meet the approvals or the approval area of the site, not encroached on the environmental outcomes that are intended to be used for Koala Corridor. And I said that the need for 10 units in this area is, of the size they are, is the challenge
00:57:00 in trying to fit it within this pass. I think they just need to... The applicant needs to go back to the site. They need to go back to the drawing board and look at the size and scale of their development in this instance. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my key point, which I focus my question on, is the principle of planning for high-profile sites with uses that impact accessible is that we at Council consider the submissions made by the community. The community hasn't had the chance to make a submission since 2006 or the year before. Community has changed significantly since 2006 and thereabouts. Legislation and requirements is constantly changing. I bring Council's attention to another high-profile development site where it was extended during this term of Council where the community was very upset that we didn't look at it from the perspective of the threatened species that occurs on it. That didn't come to Council per se, but it was a Council decision.
00:58:00 This is very similar. In its context. It is one of the highest profile remnant koala sites in Noosa, in the coastal part of Noosa. For those that have been around a long time, there is... It's not just development that are impacting on the koalas. That section of road there probably had more koala injuries and deaths than anywhere else I know of in the coast. So yes, there is probably a need to look at infrastructure as well across the road. But for me, I think there's a need to look at infrastructure as well across the road. But for me, that is the principle. This site hasn't been developed, hasn't had the community input since for well over a decade. And that is essential for me to make an informed decision about any development on this site. And therefore, I support the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Go. Councillor Glasgow: Yes, I'll go.
00:59:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Glasgow has taken another phone call and left the Chamber. Yes, I'll go. Yes. Councillor Glasgow: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: I might just say that I think you've obviously as a council seen this previously. And there are quite a lot of reasons for not approving. And I'm certainly understanding that. I'm also keen to support development where it's zoned appropriately and where it's So, the concept of having discussions seems to be the most important downlink because it's not satisfactory to encourage people to apply and then knock them back and I think a solution has to be found that they can put an application forward that's appropriate for the area. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, look, I support the staff recommendation for the reasons mentioned about the work that needs to be done around preserving the Kawara Corridor and also the time that's taken since the original material change of use impact accessible application was lodged back in 2006.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I do agree that a new application needs to be made. At the moment, this is one of the two to four percent. So, it's one percent of development applications that are refused. Consistently, between 96 and 98 percent of all development applications before Noosa Council are approved. All the applicant needs to do is abide by the Noosa Planning Scheme and the conditions contained therein. There is no shortage of very skilled planning consultants who can help an applicant in that regard to submit an application that's consistent with the Noosa Planning Scheme. They also, for me personally, I've yet to, I know, I'd like to support staff in this in giving approval to an application that has no clear, specific information around building heights or when it's being flagged that the heights are non-compliant.
01:01:00 That would be, I agree with the staff, that would be negligent. So, I cannot in all conscience support an approval for this application in its current form. I support staff recommendation. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Glasgow has returned. Joe, would you like to close? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Just adding that I'm a little confused at one of the points raised to go to encouraging applicants here. The applicant already has a development approval on this site. That's correct, Joe. There's no encouraging them. They already have an approval. It's just a matter of that approval being, meeting within the parameters of the planning scheme to meet the requirements. I'm just talking, so that's my understanding. That approval can be given provided that they meet the provisions of the site.
01:02:00 Councillor Jackson: Could we please ask a question in relationship to that? What councillor just said, and can you please clarify? Sure. All right. I will allow it. Yeah. Speaker 6: So, the applicant does have an approval on the site that has lapsed. They sought extension to the current plan. Councillor Jurisevic: That's correct. In the past. That's correct. I should have clarified that. Yeah. Speaker 6: But we are in appeal over that because we, council, refused that extension. They've appealed that and we're in appeal over that at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. I hope the motion goes in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay. Correct. Thank you. Good stuff. Good clarifying. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, my grandma's coronavirus thing sorted, so I'm trying to sort it out. Pardon? My grandma doesn't want to be hit coronavirus, she's in a hospital.
01:03:00 Your grandma? Yeah, I'm not a hospital doctor, so she's freaking out about it. I'm trying to dictate how to pick her up, how to get her home, isolation. That's fine. My dad's at work, I'm here. Sorry everyone. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks for letting us know. It's alright. Okay, we're all good. Okay. Okay, so item four now, this is a further report. Development application for material change of use, two detached houses and 12 multiple housing type or conventional, a reconfiguration of a lot, one into four lots plus easement at 27 Atunga Heights, Noosa Head. And this is a report direct to the General Committee on page six, the General Committee meeting agenda. Councillor has a question. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is this the first time in four years that we've had a hat trick for refusals?
01:04:00 Speaker 7: I think it is, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, the development application hasn't changed in any way, shape or form from that which came before us in June? That's correct. That's right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would, it's probably important in terms of information now, do we have a copy of the map or the site layout available to show or not? No? Is it in the report? Councillor Jackson: Yeah, the attachment. Oh, there it is. Speaker 4: The attachment line is the ploys or plans. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, that's right, yeah, so that was the original report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, the original report, which is some time ago. It's good to, I think, to just refresh our memories. Thank you. Speaker 6: So which one is it? Speaker 4: It's the attachment to the General Committee report. Speaker 6: It'll be in that report. Speaker 4: It's at the end of that, I think. Attachment what? Attachment one. Attachment one?
01:05:00 Yeah, at the very end. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, there's one on page, proposed site plan on page five of it. Yeah. You can go up. And page. Six. Yeah. Speaker 7: That would be fine. Is that all right? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Welcome back. Since the original report, the new planning scheme has progressed and it would offer no more support for this type of development than the existing scheme?
01:06:00 Speaker 7: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry if this question has been asked before. There's been no change to the application since it was refused by this council. Speaker 7: No change and no further information put forward. No, the council didn't refuse. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, sorry. It was recommended for refusal and the applicant withdrew. That's why I was asked. That's the first question I asked. Speaker 7: Well, they stopped the decision period, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, coming from memory, in dim distant past we had major landslides, slide slips that put sand all over Noosacroy Road and there's a drive down the hill. This is the country that contributed some of that sand, is that right? Or is this bad? Councillor Jackson: Oh, no. Speaker 2: I don't believe it was. Speaker 1: It's a long way away from the hill. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that was further up. Speaker 1: Oh, but, yeah, it was to do with the previous development to the north of the site, yeah, that led to a... Speaker 7: There has been a landslip on this site. There's evidence of it, but I don't think it contributed any damage.
01:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My memory was it was just up that way. I didn't know if this was part of the thing. Speaker 2: You're talking about the one that closed the road, that one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, no, that was further down. Further up there. Okay. But that issue is still there? Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Any further questions for staff, councillors? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so, councillors, it has been a while, but I recall when this development was advertised that there was considerable concern in the local community and those concerns, I think, are well justified. This is a type of development that has always set Noosa apart by not approving it. We don't try and squeeze things into sites that haven't got the carrying capacity. And in this case, the natural hazards as well as the environmental values suggest that the carrying capacity of this site is significantly less than what is proposed in this development application.
01:08:00 I think the grounds for refusal clearly set out the argument that it's not a good site. And I think it is one of those developments that really is something that hasn't been consistent with the way we look at development in Noosa since the 80s, and therefore I'm happy to recommend its refusal. Councillor Jurisevic: I concur with Councillor Stockwell, it's a fairly constrained site with regard to what can and can't be developed on the site with regard to slopes and that, and I'm happy to move on. Councillor Wilkie: No, look, reason three makes it pretty clear. The proposed development is contrary to the specific outcomes in Noosa Heads Locality Code, contrary to population density, gross floor area, site and other building height and setbacks.
01:09:00 That's it in a nutshell for me. I support the recommendation. Councillor Glasgow: I have a meeting of councilors who wish to speak. Councillor Wilkie: I have a meeting of councilors who wish to speak. I also have a meeting of councilors who wish to close by. I put the motion in those favour. Councilors Jackson, Jurisevic, Stockwell and Wilkie and Councillor Glasgow is absent. Thank you. Thank you Franissa, thank you Connor, Patrick, Kerry. It's excellent, thank you. Welcome Kerry Comptini. Item 5 category D bushfire recovery exceptional assistance assistance immediate support package. Page 10 of the general committee report. Thank you.
01:10:00 Speaker 8: Thank you council so this is the payment that we got notified of in early January so post our 2019 bushfire so initially we were advised of exceptional assistance immediate payment of 1 million dollars which was further topped up by two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars and this is report today is to approve the program of works which is the part of our condition of that funding you'll see it's a general program of works because the QRA understand the changing nature of this and that within that time frame it's difficult to get specifics regarding costing or feasibility etc there's also the situation that additional funding is being notified and so therefore it might
01:11:00 be that something that potentially would have been funded this might actually be funded out of another avenue. So just to clarify Kerry this is a proposed Councillor Jurisevic: allocation based on some preliminary projects being proposed if other funding alternatives arise that those projects can be funded out of them there may be a shift in the percentage allocation to each of those areas and the projects that are under that's correct allocation but just to just to get through the the process of administering that 1.275 million dollar funding we've got to go through this this understanding where we believe the money money will be spent Speaker 8: that's correct councillor civics so this is not like another ordinary funding in this case we provide put in an application that has costing around it
01:12:00 this is quite different the funding has already been received by council because it was in recognition of the immediate nature of the situation that local governments were in so that's what is quite general conditions around it because it's up to each individual council in terms of the impact on their business and their community as to how they spent it and they acknowledge that there's a change in funding scenario for example one of the items that we were looking at for this funding which was around some repairs and improvements to some of our evacuation centers there has been then a funding announcement that's come through last week the announcement of a grant and that grant program may be more suitable to that than potentially the 1.275 million so the process that we would have going forward is to take this list of suggestions and assess them for feasibility and actual costing and to then look is it appropriate to fund
01:13:00 them out of the 1.275 million or should we submit them as part of another funding Councillor Jurisevic: application for that changing funding is it was a million dollars originally and an extra $75,000 became available so that there's a it's a shifting shifting playing field where that those funds are available from so is it the case then Councillor Jackson: that what we have before us are general examples of the type of work that might be done rather than specific projects it would be the type these are the types of Speaker 8: projects that we've identified as being higher priority that could be funded out of this we imagine that some will definitely be funded out of this because there's no other funding arrangement so for example where we have been supporting residents with where they've got waste that they so we're taking skip the bins out there's no other funding arrangement for that and so it would come out of this funding but there are others for example some of the
01:14:00 economic development around tourism there's actually two funding packages for bushfire impacted communities there's a state one and a federal one the federal one has been released and the federal one has been released and the federal one has been released but the state one hasn't so we keep watching that space to see which is most appropriate to apply to for funding if at the end of the day we're not successful through those funding programs we would come back to the 1.275 million and then look at it for you using so can I just confirm also that Councillor Jackson: because the offer by the government was they had to be completed by June 22 and of course we placed that in there as the completion date that that's not really the completion date it's more of a 10 you know that's a final end date when it must all be completed but there may be once we've selected projects something we've done with a much
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 8: shorter time frame that's absolutely correct and indeed some because of the immediate need for in some areas the work is underway at the moment so you're absolutely correct Council Jackson June 2022 is the final date but some of those So we would start to do that work quite quickly. Councillor Wilkie: Question about the 10% factored in to allow the projects to be delivered. That 10% would be used to hire external project managers to deliver these projects? Speaker 8: It would either be used because we have to reallocate staff and then have to backfill those staff in their ordinary positions
01:16:00 or because we would have to bring in external contractors to do work. So some of this is about making sure that we've got the resourcing to actually deliver on these recovery activities. Councillor Wilkie: So it's an investment of 10% to ensure that we can deliver. $127,000 to get $1.275 million. Speaker 8: So that we can ensure that we can deliver on the projects. Councillor Jurisevic: That just shows the challenge that we have within the... resourcing of council. I mean, you know, a disaster of this type does take resources working on their normal activities out of the picture to fund data, I'm assuming. Speaker 6: I say. What was the question? What was the question? What do you think? Thank you for your question, Councillor Jurisdiction. Speaker 8: Resourcing in the recovery phase is very intensive. One of the funding packages that was announced was recovery officer funding out of the state government.
01:17:00 We are still awaiting clarity about that funding. So in the interim, we've got work that needs to proceed and we will be utilising some of that funding to make sure that this work can actually commence. Councillor Jurisevic: I could say that it does this. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, I'm interested in what you had in mind. I'm hearing your report as external consultation and there was an online survey in which you received 260 resident responses. I had another look and I noticed it before at the Noosa Council Facebook page which alerted people on Friday the 20th that they had to fill in the survey by Monday the 24th. They didn't seem to get much time to do that. And also, it's... It says there was a media release here, a press release, but I actually happen to have the Noosa News at home and there was no...
01:18:00 I've gone through the Noosa News in February, there was no alert in Noosa News, even if there was a media release. So I'm actually wondering how... That seemed like a very short timeframe to allow people to respond. So what other initiatives in order to get 260 residents, was that all that happened or did you actually seek a lot of other ways to get people's input? Speaker 8: So it's a good point that you raise. The timeframes are quite short. So the information about this funding was announced in January and then mid-January and then they let us know that we had to have the program of works in by the 27th of March. So we felt though that it was important to engage with the community. Other councils haven't gone down that path given the short timeframe, but we wanted to be able to do that. So we went out. We did a survey. We did a media release. We did do it on Facebook and we sent direct communication.
01:19:00 So for example, highly impacted residents got a letter so that they actually received a letter. Councillor Jackson: Asking them to fill in the survey. Speaker 8: Either asking them to complete the survey or to actually just share information with us, so their thoughts. So they didn't have to fill in the survey, they could just simply share their thoughts. And then we gathered the key stakeholders together in a round table to bring them together to discuss their specific ideas. I did request an extension of the timeframe from the QRA. However, they consulted with the federal government and said that they could not provide an extension. QRA acknowledged the difficulty of the timing, given that I said that it was important. We actually took it to a council meeting. And so that actually brought forward the date. But they were unable to provide an extension. So we undertook QRA. So we did community engagement as best that we could in the short window that we had. Councillor Jackson: So in some cases it was a four-day window for people to know about it.
01:20:00 Speaker 8: Yes. I mean, we certainly had the information out there earlier. But if they were picking it up from that particular Facebook message, it may only have been short. Our intention though is now, and this is why they're general examples of what we would do, is to actually now go out and undertake much more detailed consultation. So for example, one of the ideas proposed is to improve the park or I guess barbecue shelter facilities in Cooroibah. That that would be a way of spending money. That would bring benefit to that community, would bring community members together. We now want to actually engage specifically with that community to see whether that's something that they want and what that would look like if they do want it. So further consultation will occur. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. That's good. Thank you. Just following on from Ingrid's question, were councils required to do a public consultation
01:21:00 to compile this piece of work to send back to the state? Speaker 8: No. Thank you, council. They were not required because this payment I guess was made to council for council facilities and council services. We however, given that the impact from the bushfires is largely felt by our community, No. Thank you. we felt that it was beneficial to actually engage with the community, even though there was a very short timeframe. But there's certainly now scope out the other side to continue to do that. And that will absolutely be the case, for example, with our emergency services stakeholders who proposed some ideas that we all agreed we needed to actually workshop those ideas together to ensure that we were delivering the benefit that we hoped we wanted to achieve. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. The other thing is, I mean, whilst we've been talking about this for a long time, we've seen that we did lose a great amount of community infrastructure in this instance, from what I understand.
01:22:00 It gives us an opportunity to look at resilience and developing resilience plans perhaps within the spending. Speaker 8: So the community consultation that we did, that was reinforced to us, which is what we picked up when we actually did our initial recovery work, that the bushfires really changed a sense of fear. It was a sense of feeling and anxiety within our community around preparedness for an event like that. And that what they then really wanted is some more concentrated work on how better to prepare. Councillor Jurisevic: So that is something from that community consultation that we got from the community saying, this is the sort of thing we want. Speaker 8: Yes. So what did... So in the 260 respondents to the survey, 30% of those did not feel that they had now the ability to know exactly what they should do in an evacuation for a bushfire. Okay. So that helps us understand the scale of people's levels of demographic. Say, for example, there might be people who...
01:23:00 Older people living independently, but having in-home services that might be more vulnerable. Or it could be a community that is one road in, one road out. So that's the type of work that would also come out of this. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, it would be fair to say in our LDMG planning, we've got a lot of thought about flooding from parts of Australia. Speaker 8: So that's the work that would be undertaken. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillors, do we have a recommendation before us? Councillor Jackson: I might actually put a recommendation. It's slightly different. This is going to have another bit of words. And, Cathy, I'm just going to change it to saying, to future council meetings, rather than a future council meeting. Speaker 8: Because it's likely that it... Yes. No, that we're listening to you. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't know if I have no problem with that addition, I'll sing it then. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'll speak. This is extremely important to all of us. We've been faced with recent severe fire problems and we're concerned that this might continue.
01:24:00 So I'm particularly heartened that this has been supported by a grant as well as the council will contribute to make sure this really happens. At the moment the categories cover things like infrastructure, environment and hazard management and community connection and resilience. Clearly all important things that need to be addressed and the fact that this is going to involve more consultation as well as the most importantly the inputs from the Queensland fire services and other expert people means that we should be able to address things that are appropriate. I've added a little bit there to have this reported to council when specific projects are selected as at the moment it's a broader brush decision.
01:25:00 Which I think would be very important not only to council but for the public to be fully aware. Of what the wording at the end of the statement is and further request the chief executive officer to report the specific projects selected to proceed in each category to future council meetings. Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I said I'm glad we've answered the community on this one. I think the input that we got showed the areas of concern for the community, not just in having infrastructure replaced, but in how this is going to be implemented. I think that funding could better prepare them for future events of this nature. Whilst the additional wording I think is a little redundant because I'm sure that every bit of spending always comes before council for consideration in projects of this nature.
01:26:00 I'm happy to see the change there that alludes to the public that they will become aware of where this funding will get spent in the future. Councillor Jackson: I have a question actually in relationship to this, either of Kerry or Ms. either one. And that is that I was noted that today we are noting, we are not approving, so that the wording of the recommendation is that we note the report. And approve the program. Oh, we do approve the program. Yes. So was there an intent to come back and did council have to re-approve an expenditure or given that this is, we do have to re-approve the program. Was there an intent to do the delegation of the CEO? Was there an intent? No. Speaker 8: So our intention at this stage was to approve the program of work so that it could be submitted. Our understanding from QRA is that they may actually not even require any further program of works to be submitted and simply for it to be acquitted at the end.
01:27:00 Our intention then is to go through and do the feasibility and start to commence those projects. And then to regularly report back to council. To say these are the bodies of work underway. And obviously we've now got multiple funding streams and to let you know where those funding streams are coming from. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: If you're there to say that their intent was there, not just to see if the council would take the money, but to actually put some thought in process as to where that money would be spent. Speaker 8: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will speak to the motion. We would prefer not to have had to have this report. Right. Thank you. But I think it is also a good time to really place on record, from council's perspective, a huge thank you to what the community services staff have been doing since November. Truly, well above and beyond what a normal council worker people perceive as, that really
01:28:00 engagement has been really empathetic and really looking at the best outcome. And while the survey, per se, gives us some really good feedback, it gives us some really good direction on how we break up the dollars. I think there's probably a greater good, and my understanding of community resilience, and particularly after the disaster, is assuming control of getting that ability that we're part of that activity to decide how our future is going to respond. And that is building resilience. It is building leadership. And it's building connectivity. And so I think, you know, I'm sure the community service staff understood that when they went out to the community. But it is really important to understand that. Thank you. And I think part of that process of building resilience is about empowering the community to be more prepared next time. Councillor Glasgow: Absolutely. Yeah, I'll reiterate that. Brian, this is not the report we wanted to see at all. But 100% love to see you on it. You've been nothing but leadership on this career. And I congratulate whatever you've done. And this is really inspiring to see what we did last, had last, a few weeks ago, next
01:29:00 door, with all the figures and where it's going. And you've shown true leadership in this. So thank you. Speaker 8: It's a team effort. Councillor Wilkie: I'm going to pile on here and put the love and say that you and your team have brought great comfort and credit to the community. And not just because of the way you handled the crisis when it was underway and the comfort that you gave to the community members at the various facilities and the outreach programs that followed that. But I was particularly impressed that in order to get this, by a tick of approval, the QIA, this money. Consultation is not required about program works. But you and your team chose to write individually to the community members who were affected by the fire, the fires, and have input into this piece of work. And that you intend to do further consultation with those people, and the community generally, in getting more specific programs up and running.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 So thank you. Speaker 8: Our pleasure. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Just to close, Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: I don't really need to close. All right. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Against? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Kerry. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mr Graff. Oh, I've finally got the financial call. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CEO, a standing question. Oh, no. What is that question? Councillor Wilkie: Who's starting? Are you on there, Ingrid? Speaker 2: You'll be pleased to know that it's $43,000 of purchase orders with training on hand at the moment. Oh, no. This is still a bit beyond that. Yeah. But overall, in terms of what's been booked, we're looking good. Thank you.
01:31:00 Questions for Mr Graff? Oh, sorry. Just to flag that. The only rider on that is that I know that some of the training conferences are being cancelled at the moment. Over the next couple of weeks, they're going to be cancelled. That'll be a challenge. Councillor Jurisevic: That'll be a challenge. Of course. Didn't even think of that. We may not have opportunities for them. Correct. Speaker 2: I'm actually on a board that does a lot of that stuff. And we, this morning, made some decisions to cancel some things. So it's going to be difficult. Councillor Jurisevic: Grant, 17.9% behind on capital expenditure and we're below budget. It's the yellow one. Why are we so far behind? Speaker 9: Councillor, it's purely timing of capital programs. For example, if you look at some of our major programs, like Orealla Bridge, which is obviously construction commencement pending, further work around the landslip there, or the road issue. Then there's been major projects such as River Street Stage 3 with Rikon.
01:32:00 So normally this time of year, we're starting to kick through our budget reviews. Which would pick up those minor adjustments and move the program around and push out to next year. So at this point in time, nothing significant. But it's purely just some of those larger projects as best we could select going on. Councillor Jurisevic: Is the wet weather impacting on Goodchap Street roundabout? I'd have to take that one on notice. It should answer yes. Yeah. Yeah. One does question the timing of overhanging in a wet season. The tricky thing there, Joe, is- We have to fit it in somewhere here. Well, yeah. Speaker 2: And you also got to try and do it in a quiet period, which is normally February, March, until November 3rd. Councillor Jurisevic: We're also constrained by energy. I understand. We're also constrained by energy. It's no great time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And all the rest of it. I've got a question for Councillor Jurisevic. Does he recall when I suggested we started last spring when we needed to break the draft because I knew the rain had come? Councillor Jurisevic: Like washing your car. You want rain? Wash your car.
01:33:00 Councillor Jackson: Well, I have a general request, actually, which is related to this. And that is that we are, every month, receiving these very helpful reports, which clearly tell us where we're up to. And we're, as Brett de Chastel has just pointed out, C.O. has just pointed out, that some things will have to stop due to the coronavirus issues. Trent, will it be possible, as we go forward and receive these reports, for you to take a look and give us some trending in relationship to expenditure and income, revenue, that might be affected due to things like things stopping and not being able to be done due to coronavirus? Speaker 9: Councillor, yes. It will be something we will need to start tracking at this point, moving forward, depending on how, obviously, the next week and months pan out.
01:34:00 So, even from our funding perspective, I don't know. If there's any funding, obviously, recovery funding available, it's something we may need to monitor. This sort of impacts we track anyway in terms of budgets, overs and unders. So, it will form part of that. And obviously, as we're aware, that it'll obviously not just impact our costs for things like training, but also revenue impacts as well. So, we'll continue to monitor that. Councillor Jackson: So, would you then be able to report slightly? Aside from the standard report, which bundles everything together in a sense, would it be possible to somehow assess what the impacts are? Speaker 9: It would be something we could do periodic, I think, to do on a monthly basis. Too much. Would be difficult. And down to that individual transaction level. In terms of the high level impact, particularly if it starts to have a sustainability impact
01:35:00 on our cash reserves. And some revenue impacts. It's something we will need to be aware of and to report to Council. So, it's something we can do periodically. Okay. Speaker 2: And some of that would be quite easy to capture, for example. And we're not... Train that's not happening. Or, you know, we might need to close the pool. Yeah. And that's... It's clear. Yeah. But that's being clear and... Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Speaker 2: Or... Councillor Jackson: Because of the expenditure to keep it running and nobody can go there. Correct. Speaker 2: We probably need to turn our minds to that and just see... And the other question about whether or not there'll be funding available, because normally what we do in a disaster is capture all of our costs and then you cover it under the natural disasters, ND double RA. I don't think that would be the case here. I think we're all wearing our own costs and we'll have to manage that. Councillor Jurisevic: There's been no national declaration of a disaster in this regard, although a pandemic
01:36:00 has been declared. Yeah. Speaker 2: Can't be far off. Yeah. I'll watch this space, but I doubt whether the feds and the state will want to underwrite this one. I don't know. We'll see what happens. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Too early to tell. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. For the secondary impacts, can you tell us your assessment of how exposed our investment in the Queensland Treasury Corporation is in terms of the stock market having a little bit of a dipsy-doodle? Well, actually a huge one. But... Well, I haven't gone back. Speaker 9: We haven't looked into that. So I'd have to take that on notice and we'll extrapolate that more over the next few months as to what the impact will be. Obviously, being QTC compared to the commercial banks, who obviously have taken a quite significant dip over the last few weeks. We're obviously a lot more hedged in terms of gear gaining return above market.
01:37:00 But we will definitely have a dip. So I don't think there's going to be an impact on that. Councillor Jurisevic: At this point, I haven't looked into that. Historically, you've seen the stock market turn around and come back with resurgence over time anyway. Speaker 9: Over time? It just depends... It doesn't matter what their time period is. So for example, even just before this event occurred, the larger banks were offering return deposit rates and investment rates that were good between 0.3% and 0.5% lower than what we're currently getting through QTC. So if they're likely to take a dip, the middle close to its own level, it will still be above what the banks are getting. But I'll take that on notice for future reporting. So we can provide information on it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Trent offered some questions about waste budget estimates. Waste utility charges under rates and levies, $329,000 above year-to-date budget. That seems to be a lot. It seems to be a lot. But in relation to the overall budget, is it?
01:38:00 And are you comfortable with their estimates? Are they underestimating? Speaker 9: No. Councillor Wilkie: Are they estimating accurately? Sure. What's going on there? Why is it so? Speaker 9: So each year, as part of the budget process, we reassess all our rates calculations, the general rates, as well as we do a special piece of modelling. We get an external consultant involved to do our waste modelling. This year, there was obviously some changes to the waste budget. We had the levy come in. So with the levy, what we had to do to ensure accurate pricing with waste leaving for commercial and residential businesses, commercial businesses versus residential, as well as the fact that the levy didn't apply to recycling and greenway services, we had to unpack the levy. So you will see in the rates notices that we don't have the bundled service anymore. And we had to unpack that.
01:39:00 So a bit of the work in unpacking that was making sure we had at least a conservative baseline estimate, particularly for some of those mixed use and body corporate properties to ensure that if we were too aggressive with our forecasting, then we'd be coming back this time with the opposite issue to have. So when we forecasted, we were conservative in that forecasting. And that's why it's important. And that's why you've got the overrun that we've seen come through this year. Councillor Jurisevic: You're only talking about 3%. It seems like an enormous amount of money when you're talking such a large budget. It's a... Speaker 2: What you've got is the better of the two problems to have. Yeah. Oh, yes. Absolutely. Speaker 9: And we were aware when we did the estimate of how we were breaking out those body corps and those bundled services that we were on the conservative end. And then we also had to allow for the fact that we were unsure how much change management behaviour would occur in terms of people looking at their bin structure, particularly those
01:40:00 industrial businesses or the mixed use where they might have only had a single 240 recycling and a large bulk bin. Once they realised the price differential, they may have actually been encouraged to change their bin structure, which would have saved them money, but obviously then reduced their revenue. So we allowed for that in the bottom line. Councillor Jurisevic: And the work in progress is still happening, isn't it? Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Okay. So under sale of goods and services, waste management, disposal fees, and recyclable sales, $159,000 below today's budget. What's happening there? Speaker 9: What's driving that? What you'll find is the major driver for that will be the pricing for one of our neighbouring councils for gate fees actually dropped this financial year. So the incentive for any collection trucks that were, say, blocked off. So they were not able to return to their local government area for pricing.
01:41:00 So we've lost out, if you like, in terms of that we now have parity pricing, or more comparable pricing between the two areas for gate fees. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So down under materials and services now, on page 20. Yes. Waste management, materials, and services, $361,000 below the eye of the budget. Correct. Primarily due to landfill and collection contract, that expenditure. So that's the same principle. Speaker 9: So to... A couple of factors there. One is obviously it's in the same way that the volumes going through the door has meant less revenue, that obviously the volume based work involved for the contractor to do the work on site is less. On top of that, it's also about timing of some of the other waste management services on the site. So you've got concrete crushing, mulching. So it's also been about timing. So I think we're about due to start our next round of concrete crushing. So it's a timing issue there that we normally have. We're the volumes coming through. So the volumes of commercial industrial waste that get crushed through the concrete crushing really is down to timing of the works. For example, Orealla Bridge replacement. The moment we start that piece of work, the amount of concrete that will need to be crushed at the landfill will be significantly higher.
01:42:00 That's right. So it is a bit of a market forces on timing for those works. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Let's see. From an overview perspective, our financial management, considering the likelihood that we'll be in a technical recession and that the economic outlook will continue for some months to be poor, what risks and strategies are we likely to be exposed to and are there any strategies that we should be thinking about to ensure that from a financial management perspective, we're not going to be in a technical recession?
01:43:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, very good question. The short answer is we've already planned for it because we made a decision to get to what I call a QDC sound rating. So we have deliberately built up our reserves so we can withstand any financial shock. And that's why QDC come in and have a look at what our financial position is so they can say we are at that level. On a scale of one to seven, on a university sort of scale, we're at a five, which is what that sound is. If I was a council sitting at a three or a four, I'd be a little bit more nervous now in terms of what is my capacity or what is our capacity to handle a financial shock. So we're well positioned in being one. What sort of implications will there be? Some of the things will be people may not be as easy to pay their rates, as an example. So we might have less cash flow coming in. We're a little bit different from other businesses because our cash flow is protected. It's better than a first mortgage because if a property gets sold, we get the money and so on.
01:44:00 So we actually have security around that. It's very high risk unless that amount goes up over time and we don't take action to recover it. So Michael and Kelly and the team downstairs already look at that on a monthly basis to have a look at what our rate arrears are. At this stage, we're not seeing any difference between what we would normally have in terms of rate arrears and what we currently have, but we can monitor that into the future. Other things is, you know, discretionary income often gets mucked around. So will people still buy tickets to the J, you know, to go to shows and things like that. So some of those discretionary things might change. On the upside, I've always found when I've been through a recession, looking after council money before, you actually find that a bit more money comes out of the fund. But you can see that a lot of the state and feds in terms of infrastructure, they like to pump prime the economy. So there's opportunities around that in terms of what we can do to look at what's available.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Yeah, it's important to have our asset management plans. In fact, we've seen that at the moment, in the last couple of years with our Bridges program. You know, the states, sorry, the feds have been set to spend a lot of money on Bridges. That's one of their strategies. So we've picked up, I think it's five Bridges now, where we've got 50-50 funding. We wouldn't have had that otherwise. So it swings and roundabouts. But as I said, our council, with its financial sustainability policy, has better managed to handle that than probably three-quarters of the council can clean up later. Councillor Wilkie: So the residents and ratepayers' assets and equity is pretty secure. Speaker 2: It is. You know, the issues that we will face will be in the community in terms of impact on tourism sector, retail, all the discretionary type expenditures. So there will be some issues there that we need to manage. But as our own finances are concerned, we are in a very sound position.
01:46:00 Councillor Wilkie: Be able to continue with our good quality services and facilities. Speaker 2: There should be no impact on our capacity to provide services. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. No, sorry. Sorry, that's for Tony. Tony, we have a recommendation before us. Anyone care to move it? I'll move it. Move Councillor Velasco. I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Jurisevic. I wish to speak to it, Councillor Velasco. Councillor Glasgow: A fine report, Trent, as always. Keeping up to date with all our bits and bobs and the current climate in front of us. I look forward to the next report. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak? Speaker 2: I'll just add a couple more things. The other thing that will happen during this recession type or this downturn is I think there will be that continued pressure on interest rates. So our revenue from investments will probably be going down.
01:47:00 But at the same time, you know, we do have capacity to borrow. And I think there will be low interest rate environment for borrowing as well. Credit may be squeezed in a bit in terms of the fewer councillors. If you didn't have the ability to pay back, you might have trouble getting that. I think the State will start to have a look at some of those more marginal councillors a bit more closely about whether they'll extend credit. But our borrowing capacity is also very strong. Councillor Jurisevic: But having said that, I mean, we're always fairly conservative with our estimates going forward in the budget and the next budget due in June. So I'm assuming there'll be a conservative estimate in the returns on investment in the next budget. Speaker 9: Yes. I think in particular for the 2021 budget. Before we even entered the current situation with the pandemic, obviously, we'd seen the market decline in the interest rates anyway. And we were already prepared for the fact that we needed to reduce reliance, if you like, in the budget on interest revenue.
01:48:00 Because regardless of what cash is in there, the return was dropping down below 1% anyway. Councillor Wilkie: On that issue about the capacity to borrow, you've got the net financial liabilities ratio here. And the industry target is anywhere between more than 60%, it seems, a healthy range. This council's actual net financial liabilities ratio is negative 45.9. The comment in the graph here is anything below zero implies that liabilities are less than cash and other current assets. There's adequate borrowing capacity available if needed. So what does, in dollar terms, what does a negative 45.9% mean? In terms of how much could we borrow up to and still be in a safe range? Speaker 9: To start off, just from a common perspective, the negative basically means we have enough cash today that we could pay off our debt, then be in the clear.
01:49:00 But obviously, then we don't have any working capital to keep us afloat in the event of an economic decline where our revenue is dropping. So we obviously have that. We talk about, and the graph above it talks about cash cover. We need at least three to six months' worth of cash in the bank to cover us in the event that we don't have normal revenue flowing in through the door. Our current asset base is approximately $850 million, I believe, in terms of non-current assets. So we can borrow, if we needed to, up to 60%. Of that. If you like. That's the, that's that. Speaker 2: That's not a challenge, by the way. Speaker 9: So 40% of that. So it's that 60% ratio. So we could borrow, if we were, and if you use a private sector enterprise as an example,
01:50:00 often they'll have a level of gearing for their business. And at a point where they get beyond that 60% range, it's where it's obviously a risk. If you have a market deal, it's going to be a risk. If you have a downturn like we've got now, or interest rates do go through the roof like they did in the late 80s, that's where the risk factor is at that high end around the 60% mark. So we could borrow significantly if we needed to, but obviously for every million dollars that we do borrow, what that does mean year on year with the general rates is that there is an amount committed for 10 or 20 years, depending on the borrowing term, that we have to commit first and foremost through paying our debts rather than discretionarily towards service level changes or programs or anything that's coming through in the annual budget process. So there's always that timing factor in considering if you're borrowing now, it has a long term impact in terms of availability to spend elsewhere. So we try to keep that balance quite conservative.
01:51:00 Councillor Wilkie: So a lot of that is due to the financial sustainability policy that this council adopted, which committed to returning a small surplus. And also. Steadily paying down debt. Speaker 9: Correct. As well, as well as a capital program that's been primarily focused on renewals and making sure we have enough funding to cover those renewals year on year. It's a stable renewals capital program. Thank you. Speaker 2: So the other reason why we're currently sitting at minus 46%, which is a good thing, is it's also the timing. We've got a lot of cash in at the moment because rates have just been there. And that gets run down between now and tomorrow. Councillor Jurisevic: So that figure will approach zero. Speaker 9: No, it still sits steadily in the negative. Yeah. As we spend the money, that will go from 45.9 at the moment to 40. Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Yeah. Trend upwards. Trend upwards. Yeah. Speaker 9: And obviously with that earlier payment that we made last financial year, that's one position around the negative more significantly because we had less debt.
01:52:00 Yeah. But even though it's sitting in the negative, it's a positive. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. It's a very positive. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My question, I thank the CEO for his response because I think it is really important that each month we get these. It is a little bit of a lag indicator but our role is really big to look at the lead indicators of where our financial position might be and I suppose it will be the big challenge for the next council is to work out ways not only does it keep the finances of this organisation but is there a mechanism to play a bigger role in stimulating the local economy and the CEO has mentioned a couple of those. Normally during these periods you will have stimulus funding. Normally it is through public infrastructure. Having the right planning whether it be for bridges or we're starting the whole Shire bikeway strategy. We can start to look at, I suppose the next council will do it, but look at how do we best allocate that funding to have the, not just get the infrastructure built so we're ready to go when
01:53:00 the economy starts picking up but also to give local people the biggest opportunity to participate in that. So there's also I think a council role in looking at the sort of contracts that are left. Does that actually suit our local workforce to stimulate, to try and drive money into the economy and I think they're all going to be really big considerations in the coming months. Councillor Wilkie: Any further comments, questions? Well I'll put the motion to those in favour. Against? Carried unanimously. Thanks Frank. Thank you Mr Grant. Council, thank you for your patience and attendance the last four years. Councillor Glasgow: Yes, it's our last general committee for this council.