Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the ordinary meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that today, or tonight, we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. I know that everyone is in attendance and there are no apologies. There are two sets of minutes for confirmation today. Firstly, the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 30th of April 2020 be received and confirmed. Do I have a mover and a seconder? So moved, Madam Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Taken as read and accepted. Second set of minutes of the special meeting held on the 13th of May 2020 be received and confirmed. Mayor Stewart: I'll move it. Thank you, Councillor Lepe. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? I have a petition to be
00:01:00 tabled by Debbie Campbell. The petition is for an enclosed dog area at Clarey Park in Tate Street, Tewantin. I move that this be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? There are no mayoral minutes. No notified motions, no presentations, no deputations. Item number eight on the agenda is consideration of committee recommendations. A set of recommendations is the first one is the planning and environment committee recommendation and we only have one item on there. Would someone want to move that? I'll move that recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move that recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you.
00:02:00 Page five, we move to the services and organisation committee meeting recommendations. I'll read the items one by one and if anyone wants to raise an issue or move a motion, please do so at the time it is read out. The first is the audit and risk committee membership. This was referred to. This was referred to the general committee. The second amendment to councillors acceptable request guidelines policy was also referred to the general committee. The third is the council's expense reimbursement and provisions of facilities policy. The fourth is the councillor representation of various boards, external organisations and working groups. Five is the community disaster response and recovery grants program. Item six, waste management, six-monthly report. Seven, community disaster response and recovery grants program. Eight, community services department update. Third quarter, 2019-20. Eight, infrastructure services department update. Third quarter, 19-20. Corporate services department update, 19-20.
00:03:00 Executive services department report. Third quarter, 19-20. Operational plan progress report. Third quarter, 19-20. I'll move it. Thank you. And I'll second that. Okay. All in favour? Thank you. On page nine of the agenda we have the general committee recommendations. I'll read again these items one by one and if anyone wants to raise an issue or move a motion please do so at the time it is read out. Audit and risk committee membership, amendment to councillors acceptable request guidelines which is subject to a further report at item three. Item three, the further report amended to councillors acceptable request guidelines policy. Item four, further report to the Planning and Environment Court of Appeal for the refusal of application for material change of use for at 244 Tablelands Road, Cooran.
00:04:00 Councillor Finzel: I declare a real conflict of interest in this matter to find under this section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009. As prior to election I signed a petition relating to this application. Councillor Wegener: I, Tom Wager, have a conflict of interest. I declare a real conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009. As I currently have an NBN tower located on my property and receive income from NBN via lease arrangement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good things come in threes. I declare I've got a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as a result of my relationship with Bill and Christine Tainch, who supported me during the 2020 election by undertaking letterbox drops. Mr. and Mrs. Tainch have since advised that they are now co-respondents to this appeal and I think it's appropriate that I leave the meeting for debate.
00:05:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone like to move, well, I'll just stop with Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone like to move the motion? Councillor Wilkie: I would, Madam Mayor, I'll move the motion and I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilkie: No, I think it's all been said. Mayor Stewart: Thresh that out. Councillor Wilkie: Monday? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, all in favour? No, thank you. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Back. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item number five, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to move. The staff recommendation from the general committee meeting and add the following to item eight.
00:06:00 Condition eight, one and two shall apply for 12 months commencing 22nd of May 2020, unless further extended by council in writing. After that time, if not extended by council in writing, condition eight, three and four shall apply. Condition eight, three noise emanating from the premises, including amplified or non amplified noise and patron. Noice prior to 10pm must not exceed 90 decibels. Fast response when measured approximately three metres from the source of noise. And four noise emanating from the premises, including amplified or non amplified noise and patron noise after 10pm must not exceed 85 decibels. Fast response when measured approximately three metres from the source of noise. I'm. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Mayor Stewart: Second. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wells. Councillor Lorentson: I'm requesting that the approval be reviewed after the first year of trial to assess suitability and performance and to ensure that this is a community approved and workable solution.
00:07:00 Firstly, I'd like to say that the Sunshine Beach Surf Club has a very long history serving the local community and the application before us has the potential for the Surf Club to represent a further example of this. Having met with the licensee this morning and representatives of the Surf Club, I know that this is a community approved and workable solution. This will be the case. The applicant requests a change to an existing development approval to amend a condition relating to acoustic requirements. He seeks to replace two very specific noise limits with a regulation 40 criteria used by the Office of Liquor and Game Regulation for licensed premises. The applicant argues that the current approval was given as the best possible condition at the time, which was prior to construction of the existing building in 2017. The applicant argues that the current approval was given as the best possible condition at the time, which was prior to construction of the existing building in 2017. I have two concerns with this application. My first concern is around the unknowns. The surf club has been operating for only three months. Its gross floor area has increased significantly and its capacity to carry more people has also increased.
00:08:00 My other concern is that if we approve the change to the existing development approval and get it wrong, we cannot go back and change it. By reviewing the approval after the first year of trial gives Council the opportunity to monitor compliance with noise criteria and ensure that music levels measured are consistent with noise predictions and, more importantly, with community expectations. Finally, to address the potential adverse impacts on residential amenity, I'd like that condition to require a provision to manage issues arising from complaints, including a hotline number, which has been tested and is manned throughout the club's trading hours. I've understood from the licensee that the surf club has provided residents with contact numbers in the past and take very seriously their role and relationship with the community.
00:09:00 It's therefore recommended that the approval be reviewed after the first year of trial. After that time, if not extended by Council in writing, then the original two conditions shall apply. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a question for staff. Just to confirm. Conditions three and four. And section eight, as the councillor has saluted, represent the existing conditions of approval. Speaker 3: That's correct, they are the original conditions of approval. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question. The existing conditions of approval, which would apply if they fail to meet the Office of Living and Gaming Regulation conditions in part one of two of the motion. I understand, is it true that the 90 decibel limit basically represents background noise and live entertainment and could easily be breached if there is some additional entertainment, such as a musician playing?
00:10:00 Speaker 3: The existing condition, the current condition would only allow conversations by patrons. It wouldn't allow music outside the walls and low-level music likely to be breached. So the proposed change requested by the applicant would allow low-level music to be played in the outdoor area. Councillor Wilkie: Could I ask the conditions that were originally part of the approval, which the applicant has sought to change and would be reverted to if they can't meet those conditions, which would be monitored by the Office of Living and Gaming Regulation. Does, do other surf clubs operate under those conditions or do they operate under conditions similar to the parts one and two of this motion report?
00:11:00 Speaker 3: Yes, they, the Noosa Head Surf Club operates under similar conditions to one and two as well. Bridget Beach Surf Club is an older group, so I'm not sure if there's any that are not sure. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Another question. Just in regard to the low-level music that you said would be allowed to be played, what time constraints is on that? Speaker 3: So there is a further condition currently included on the approval limiting the hours of operation of the outdoor area till 10pm. So after 10pm, everyone must go inside and they're allowed to operate until midnight. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask another? Sorry. Yeah, you go. If there was monitoring, sorry. If conditions one and two, which are monitored by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation, they've got, there's a sound limiting device, I understand. They've got their own methods of measuring sound. If they weren't met, does the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation have any, what would be their recourse?
00:12:00 What would be the steps they would take if these measures aren't being met? Speaker 3: So the conditions would be on Council's approval, so Council could enforce those conditions. It's one and two. Yeah, one and two. If we approve this change today. Otherwise, Liquor Licensing may choose to reflect the conditions on their approval and they have quite a compliance program in place for applications regulated under Liquor Licensing. So they actually impose quite a few fines if they're not compliant with conditions on their Liquor Licensing. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, if conditions one and two weren't met, Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation would impose fine. Are there any other measures they could impose? Any other restrictions they could impose? Speaker 3: Well, I guess they have the option of providing a warning, but it is their practice to issue fines reasonably promptly. Councillor Wilkie: Do they have the option of taking away Liquor License for repeated breaches?
00:13:00 Speaker 3: Yes. I don't know their practices fully. To answer your question for Council about that, I understand they could rescind the license. I don't know. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, no, no. Well, I'm on a roll. So if conditions three and four were to apply, that would preclude, say, local musicians being able to play at this venue. Right. Speaker 3: So three and four would not permit someone playing on a guitar outside or music through a speaker. They're likely to exceed the law's limit. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: My question's for Sunil. Sunil, what was previously the case? And to what has been proposed by the applicant, in this case, the surf club, what is the, in your opinion, the major difference? Is there a huge difference in regard to sound? Speaker 1: Sunil, I'll get you to come close to the people here who are watching at the moment. There is an eight to 10 decibel difference because we set a limit of 90 decibels before.
00:14:00 So that's the range that they are asking for, in terms of the proposed revised conditions. So, like I said the last time, is that the development was approved to extend for specific use that's outside dining, and that increases the size and the number of people in there. So I think the emission of, like I said, the normal noises that come from patron noise, gaming machines, parking, et cetera, they'll be within our existing conditions, not the new one that's been proposed by the applicant. And so they'll meet that. But once they get into music, which they're likely to do inside the venue, not outside dining, they're likely to reach that 90 decibels at every, all the time, I would say, because a normal standard rock band will give you about 100 decibels anyway. So you've got to control that. In order for them to do that, they'll have to shut down and close all the doors that's
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 leading to the outside to maintain that noise level. So, and like Kelly was saying, is for outside, they have a speaker with light entertainment noise, which is unlikely to reach the 90 decibels. Thank you. Up to 10 o'clock in the evening. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Another question. If this motion was passed after 12 months, if the council wasn't satisfied with the operation of these particular sound elements, this would lock council into, I don't know, two or three and four and not allow them to consider other options? Speaker 3: The alternative would be for them to come back and ask for further changes to the commission. So there's always that option available to allow them to come back and make a change. If they don't do that, they would have to comply with commission three and four. Right.
00:16:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just following on, and I seconded it and listening to it and reading it again, is there sufficient direction in this motion for staff to decide whether to extend or not? So as I'm just reading it, there is no, if they comply, we will extend or if they don't comply, we won't extend in the motion. So it's implied, but is there sufficient direction in the motion for staff to make a decision about whether to extend? No. Speaker 3: Okay. So I think it's adequate and inclined. It is implied. And certainly, any tasks would be against the planning scheme's requirements for amenities. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify something that was said in the questions going to and fro. With regard to being allowed to have music outside versus inside the premises.
00:17:00 I don't see anything within the conditions that would be allowed to have music outside of the premises where the music can or can't be played outside. Can you clarify the level of noise emanating outside of the premises that is allowed, and where the music can or can't be played outside the premises? Speaker 3: What officers are advising is that the existing conditions would not permit outdoor music outside of the premises. They wouldn't be able to meet those conditions, those noise levels. Due to the noise. Dividing the conditions. Councillor Jurisevic: But. But. But these would permit some level of external music up until 10pm, provided that noise levels weren't breached. Which include consideration for background noise. Speaker 3: Yeah. So the recommended conditions provide a little bit more flexibility and would allow increased noise slightly outside, which would then accommodate some music.
00:18:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. That explains it. Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to talk to the motion. I actually like that. I like the flexibility given in items, the first two items, I think, as explained by staff and the general committee. I think what they do is provide the flexibility to have an operation there that does provide a range of entertainment mixes at different times of day and different times of night, which won't have an adverse impact on neighbours. But I also like the concept of having a 12-month trial period to make sure that that's the case. It's pretty simple. I like. Yeah. They'll be much more attuned to meeting their noise management provisions if they know that in 12-month time we'll be looking over their shoulders and saying, how did you do? That's why I support it. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Look, I support it as well. I think it's a simple way of introducing the new limits that the search don't want and in the event that they've got 12 months to prove that they can manage sound for their
00:19:00 neighbours in that period of time. And in the event that it's not successful, we revert back to the original conditions. So it's a 12-month trial of these new conditions. Councillor Wilkie: I appreciate the intent of this motion before us, but I appreciate and I support the idea of a review after 12 months to see how they're going. But this motion before us actually commits us to a course of action that if there's difficulties and if there have been, if there's difficulties with the current conditions, it locks us in to imposing conditions that will not allow this venue to have live musicians as are allowed at other locations, doesn't allow us to consider other options of managing the situation. And items three and four in this particular, these conditions under three and four do not apply to other similar venues such as the Noosa Head Surf Club. And that would be unfair in my view to impose a condition on the Sunshine Beach Surf Club
00:20:00 that is currently not operating with some success at the Noosa Head Surf Club. I do support a review after 12 months, but not one that locks us in to imposing a condition that doesn't apply to other surf clubs and precludes the possibility of the surf club supporting local musicians. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A question to the CEO. The way I read it, there is the condition upon which extension wouldn't be granted is not specified. Therefore, there is still scope within this motion for alternative. Speaker 2: That's correct. And that's what Kerry said previously in her answer, is that they always have the option to come back if it would be, call it option one, so to speak, or if the next 12 months is not working, they can come back with an alternative. If that's not acceptable, then the default, if you like, goes to paragraphs three and four. But they always have that option to come back with an alternative.
00:21:00 It's up to the council to consider. Mayor Stewart: I think what Councillor Wilkie said is very valid. I mean, we don't want to discriminate based on where this venue is in comparison to other ones. I also wrote a report from one of our employees saying that our council has not received any noise complaints about the surf club over the last few years, but obviously the reopening and the renovation has only been since January. So obviously this is a trial period. But I mean, it has a very good reputation in the community. There's been very few, if any, noise complaints. I think a trial period is good, but I think it's very important to have that flexibility, as Councillor Wilkie said, so we can revisit that. And then if this is in, you know, if things aren't working or there's community uproar, then we have that ability to change it. So I think the 12 month trial period is worthwhile. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Mr. CEO, if amendment was moved that suggested a review after 12 months, would that be contrary to, would that be a negation of this particular motion?
00:22:00 If we change, if we amended this motion to read review condition 8, 1 and 2 after 12 months, commencing 22nd of May 2020, full stop, without committing us to taking this particular course of action. Would that be a negation of this motion? Speaker 2: I don't think you can do that because what that would do is if that condition then falls over, there wouldn't be a condition. That's right. You actually have to have that as your full day. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. The amendment would be, so the amendment would, so the paragraph here says it starts with condition 8 and 1, 8, 1 and 2 would read condition 8, 1 and 2 shall apply for 12 months commencing 22nd of May and be reviewed after 12 months. Speaker 2: Full stop. Yeah. What I'm saying is that if that review doesn't occur or there's an issue there, that condition expires and there's no noise control whatsoever. Is that, you understand? Yeah. That would be the case. So that condition would fall away, which is why you need to have that plan B, so to speak,
00:23:00 built in. Councillor Wilkie: Well, my intention is to have an amendment that will allow those conditions to continue but be reviewed after 22nd of May 2020, unless changed by Council. Speaker 2: Well, I think that's exactly, well, that's what the wording's doing at the moment. It's basically saying that condition 1 and 2 shall apply for that period. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Shall continue to apply. Unless reviewed by, until reviewed by Council. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: That's what it says. It's saying it's applying for 12 months until the 22nd of May 2020, unless it's extended by Council. So that will, so that continues at that point, to that point. Yeah. And then if that, if it's not extended, then Paragraphs 3 and 4 come into play. Councillor Wilkie: Well, what I'm trying to avoid is your Council being committed to applying 3 and 4. What I'm trying to do is have an amendment, my question is, if there was amendment that
00:24:00 required a review after 12 months, how would that be worded? A review after 12 months that doesn't commit us to imposing these conditions 3 and 4. Speaker 2: Having a review is not sufficient. If you're having a condition with a timeframe on it, then that has to be dealt with. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Speaker 2: And if it doesn't continue, then you have to have a plan B. So I'm not too sure that you can achieve what you're trying to achieve, unless Kerry's got an alternative view. But I don't think that, if you've got a condition, it's got to apply for a period of time or unlimited time. I've got a question. If it applies for a period of time, then it either gets extended or, as we said before, the applicant can put forward an alternative. Yeah. But you do need that fallback. Councillor Wilkie: The Council is within its right to review conditions after 12 months without there being a gap in the conditions applied.
00:25:00 Is that your understanding? Speaker 3: The other development that was applied to the timing condition have been ones that haven't commenced. So we've timed it so that the use lasts after 12 months or is extended further by Council. We've got a use that's already commenced, but this was the best way, I thought, to word it. I don't have an alternative for you there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My solution didn't work either. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't have a solution. I think the question is, is it the understanding of staff that the amendment actually suggests that after 12 months that the condition will be reviewed based on noise complaints and all the rest of it and we'll be allowed to continue provided that the noise complaints haven't been sufficient to cease those conditions
00:26:00 from applying and having new conditions or reverting back to the old conditions. Speaker 3: Yeah. Is there any other option we might put if you could say after that time is not extended by Council in writing conditions 8, 3 and 4 shall apply unless otherwise they're going to be changed by Council? It's just, I don't know. No. Councillor Lorentson: No. No. No. No. I repeat. Sorry, questions. So Kerry, my concern is, is it appropriate for the CERCOP to be asking for these conditions, given that it's just a newly constructed CERCOP and we really haven't understood the enormity or the impact, the true impact of noise on residential and business amenities? And that's where my request has come from. I have no doubt that the CERCOP takes, and I said it, they take very seriously the responsibility and the relationship with the community. They do only the good. My concern is...
00:27:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Madam Chair. I think the councillor is now talking towards the... Councillor Lorentson: There's quite a question in there somewhere. So my question is, is it unreasonable to ask for this review? Yeah. Speaker 3: Look, officers have recommended the change to the commission. And we've recommended on the basis of an acoustic report, an experienced operator in acoustic management mitigation strategies. So we have recommended that change. We are confident that it will work. But I understand that councillors may wish to repose the time limit on them, given the surrounding residents are quite close in on the opportunity. And it would provide the opportunity to councillors to have some assurance.
00:28:00 So it's a reasonable approach, but it's not one that we're recommending. Councillor Wilkie: Would it be an acceptable amendment? So if the line, after that time, if not extended by council, a review of conditions shall apply. A review of conditions shall take place. So after that time, if not extended by council, a review of conditions shall apply. So that's... Which it doesn't lock us into, it doesn't lock us into three and four. Speaker 2: I think the answer to that is no. Council doesn't have the ability, with our planning conditions, to change them at its will in the future. They've had a point in time so the applicant has certainty in terms of what they do need to comply with. So I don't think you can actually say that council deserves the right to change conditions into the future. It has to be part of the process. Mm. Mm.
00:29:00 Speaker 4: Someone asked me a question? Oh, yeah. Oh. Oh, you're not- Speaker 2: Can you have a comment on that? Oh, no. Councillor Wegener: Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Speaker 4: Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. That condition's not extended and it falls back to the current conditions that reflect the concerns that the applicant have now got. And our experts have said that it does limit their ability to do indoor and outdoor music. What would happen then is the applicant would then come back to us with an alternative. And there would be another process. I don't think there's a need to put a review in because what they would then do is go, we've defaulted to the current position, that's still not workable for us. How about this option? And that's the right process for them to do, seek a change in their conditions.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So what you're saying is in exactly the same way that they're doing currently, they would come back to us with a request to alter the condition once those conditions fall back? If that one didn't work. Mayor Stewart: Yes, that's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, we're going to ask for the motion to be put. Yes, thank you. Mayor Stewart: All those in favour of the motion by Councillor Lange? That's the process. Speaker 2: So if the councillor does wish to pursue, a procedural motion, you don't have to go through a formal process. You just can't request it. My suggestion, my advice to councillors would be to let the debate finalise through the normal process. That would be my advice. All right. So anyone who hasn't spoken to the motion should speak to it and then let the writer respond. That would be my advice. Councillor Wilkie: Well, we can, Mr CEO, your advice is always excellent. We do have a, if a councillor has moved a procedural motion, we could allow that to run its course as well and have it defeated.
00:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I did forget that that would cease, that the councillors are given the opportunity to discuss, so I'll withdraw the procedural motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I speak to the motion? Speaker 3: Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wegener, any comments, would you like to speak to the motion? Any more questions? Do I have to ask a question or speak to what speaks to the motion? No, you can speak to the motion. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Well, it's turned into a rather complex debate around how we proceed forward with this. And thank you, everyone, for your contribution. I guess that the main course from Councillor Lorentson is because you're concerned with the amenity of the area with regards to the noise complaints, but we also, I don't want to see this surf club limited if those conditions aren't applied across the board equitably. That would be my concern. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Finzel.
00:32:00 Thank you. Councillor Laston, do you want to go next? Councillor Lorentson: I sound like a broken record sometimes because I keep saying the same thing. We have a duty of care, due care and diligence. We also have a commitment to the community. To make sure that we take time in making decisions. There has to be a balance. We've got to consider what the community wants, and we've got to ensure that a surf club, a great surf club, flourishes. We need to find middle ground. I don't believe we have in front of us enough information or data to ensure that, to go ahead with this approval. My concerns, I've told them all the time. We've got these uncertainties. We're chartering new territory. We can't go back and change the approval once it's been approved.
00:33:00 I keep making reference in the general meeting. We've got an industry standard. We've got a community standard. The two must meet. The two must meet. We need to understand that if there is an erosion of residential amenity, if the community's unhappy, we've got to listen. We have to listen. This is why we're sitting here. Not to approve everything that comes through council. That's not our job. Our job is to think with the community. Go out and talk to the community. Find out what they want. And I've been out to the community. I've spoken to businesses. I've spoken to the surf club. And what I've understood, and that's why I've put this forward, is to move forward, to allow the surf club its conditions, provided it honours that condition after 12 months. Let's sit down with the surf club after 12 months, if what they promised they deliver,
00:34:00 fine. There's no issue. But let's meet the community and let them know that we're also looking out for them, not just the surf club. So, you know, again, I speak to the community. I stand by my commitment to the community. And I stand by my commitment to small business, that the two can work hand in hand. And this proposal is reasonable. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We didn't want him in our 615. . . . . . . . . Mayor Stewart: So moving to item number seven on the page 12 of our agenda. Item six, thank you, pardon. Sorry, page 11, item number six.
00:35:00 The application to extend the currency period of development approval for a duplex dwelling at Five Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach. I will continue to go through these unless anyone wants to move the motion. Item number seven, development application for reconfiguring a lot into two lots at 216 Black Mountain Road, Black Mountain. Item number eight, development application for material change of use for ancillary dwelling at 133 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. Item number nine, financial report April 2020. The recommendation is the general committee recommendations that again may be adopted. Councillor Jurisevic: Simon and Matthew. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? In that instance. There are no ordinary meeting reports, there is no confidential reports and there are no questions from the public. The next ordinary meeting of council will be held on the 18th of June 2020. That is all for this evening.