Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, good morning and welcome to the Aquatic Environment meeting for June, and we pay our respects for the traditional owners of this country, past, present and emerging. And so we move on to item one, which is mature change of use for a service utility, type one, operational works. It's the removal of vegetation in the ice terrier and buffer, located at 24 Russell Street, Noosaville, which is the boat house, or the fishery shed. Now, this has been requested to go to the general meeting, but if there's any clarification or information you'd like brought to the general meeting, now would be the time to ask questions of staff. Mayor Stewart: I just have a quick question. The upgrade and what's being proposed, is it no cost to council, is it? Speaker 5: That's right. It's all absolutely no cost. Warned by the state government? Okay.
00:01:00 Speaker 2: Well, my understanding is it's mainly the question of landscaping or the plant issue, that's the... Removal of the tree. Is that right? The cocoa tree? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The cocoa tree. Yes. That was the rehab for referrals, yeah. My question was, this one's just about the removal of the vet, which gives a bit of information about the vet. Is there any information to report about the building? Is that correct? And is the operation worthy of removal of vegetation in an Iperian buffer? Oh, it's in sewer change use angle, sorry. Yeah, it's both. That's why I was confused when you just talked about the tree. So, it is about the back dating of an approval. Yep. For the shed that was constructed, causing some significant community concerns. Speaker 5: Yeah. And at the time, they took out the meditation as well, that would have required our approval to remove it. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, that one's been referred to the general to allow Councillor Jurisevic and others to have opportunity to debate the issue. We need to move it.
00:02:00 So, Brian, just need somebody to move it. We need a second. Mover and a seconder to refer the matter to the general. You don't need to stand up in this one. Okay. So, move Councillor Wegener and a seconder? Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Okay. So, the next one is the sewer change use. Develop an application for a minor change to a fuel change of use of premises for service stations, convenience shops and food outlets. And 140, the 143, Monty Moosa Road, Noosaville. Moved. Moved. Councillor Wegener: I'm pretty excited about, you know, Rick's Bakery actually having fresh food being made there just, you know, in a small way, but the fresh of the food from a Cerveau, that's good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They did set a new standard for Cerveau food when they started up. So do we have any serious questions other than it seems straightforward that we're just adding, we're enclosing an area around the back of the bakery.
00:03:00 Which was an unmetered deck for further preparation of the retail product, that's it. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, just extension of kitchen space, right? Speaker 5: Yeah, kitchen and storage, really. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. And yeah, I think being there once or twice, it is quite crowded out the back with the new board production mode. Okay, so would someone like to move the staff recommendation then? Who's that? Councillor Wegener. Oh, it's the set up again, sorry. Councillor Wegener: It's only the councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's only the councillor. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wegener. That would be minute in hours. We move on to item three, which is a mature change of use planning environment court appeal number 219 of 220. And this is an appeal against the refusal and application for two detached houses and 12 multiple housing units and reconfiguring a lot. One year for four lots plus easement at 27.5.
00:04:00 Once again, this one has been requested to go to the general committee because of the significance of the matter. But do we have any serious questions or information you'd like brought forward to the Monday general meeting? Councillor Wegener: Well, Kerry, you know, there's people that are still thinking about the mini street, 20 mini street, and that was a code accessible, and this is an impact accessible. One more time, perhaps for me and both people watching, could you just explain the difference between the two? Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. So our planning scheme, the Noosa plan, identifies when matters are code assessment or impact assessment. Subdivisions throughout the Shire, reconfiguring a lot, are made code accessible throughout the whole Shire. The difference between code and impact is a code assessment application is a bound assessment. So it's a very limited assessment. It's not assessed against the whole of the planning scheme.
00:05:00 It's only assessed against identified codes in the scheme. Whereas an impact assessment application is assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. And it's also required to undergo public notification for comment from the public. Whereas code assessment is not required to go to a public notification. Councillor Wegener: That's a big one. And obviously, we've been getting plenty of feedback from the community about this development. And it mentions in here that the amenity, driving down Noosa Hill there, and will you be able to see this proposed development from the beach and from further back? Because right now, across from Coles Lodge, it's just that beautiful forest right now. Speaker 5: Yeah. So from outside the site, I don't think you'll be able to see this development. You'd be able to see it perhaps from Pepper's Resort, because it faces that hill, but it's
00:06:00 fairly tucked in. But it would be difficult to see. You'd certainly see it from the public pathway that runs alongside it, at the end of Otunga Heights. And from some of those properties that back onto that public pathway. But from outside, from the beach or Noosa Hill development, it would be very difficult to see. Sorry, from the lookout at the top, Laguna Lookout, you'd probably see a little bit from Laguna Lookout. Yep. Councillor Wegener: Because the minister, it says in the report here, that the minister actually overdid one of the, in 2005, it was okayed by the Noosa Council. But then the minister came and said, look, we need this 50-meter trail going through it to maintain the amenity, to maintain a wildlife corridor there. And I love that wildlife corridor. People use that path all the time, the whole upper area, they use that path constantly. Speaker 5: Yeah. So that original application was recommended for refusal to council at the time, but council chose to approve it.
00:07:00 It then was called in by the minister, because it had a state wildlife corridor identified through the site, so it had a state interest. And the minister chose to approve the application, but required an amendment to keep that 50-meter wildlife corridor through the site. The site no longer has a, it's not identified as a state wildlife corridor anymore. But it certainly serves a corridor through the area. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And then that last approval has lapsed as well. Speaker 5: That's right. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So why not have a state corridor anymore, if it still is mapped in our biodiversity overlay? Speaker 5: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's still mapped as koala habitat? Speaker 5: Yeah. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And from memory, it's lands of prone, so it'd still be mapped in the natural hazards overlay. Speaker 5: That's right. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And all those things are, once again, different to the mid-strength example, where we didn't have any overlays to refurbish it. Speaker 5: Yeah. That's right. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Kerry, in regard to reconfiguring of one lot into four lots, can you please explain
00:08:00 to me, lot four, 8,543 meters squared, proposed to be dedicated to council as conservation park, and access easement to provide access. In that conservation park, is that access, what we'll be talking about, that corridor, does that fall into that area? Speaker 5: Yes. It is essentially the corridor they're proposing to dedicate, the steepest part of the land and the waterway. But we say that the corridor isn't sufficiently wide enough, so it's not the 50 meters that the state originally recommended and required. But that is the area that's proposed to be dedicated. Officers, though, wouldn't recommend that council take on that land because of potential land slippage issues around that site. Speaker 2: Okay. Kerry, just a quick one. My recollection, there was quite a lot of submitters to this application. Yeah. Are we aware of any of them planning to or have already joined in the appeal?
00:09:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. There's numerous submitters that have joined in the appeal and become co-respondents to the appeal. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I ask? What's the purpose of that? There's an underlying reason why they've joined as co-respondents. Can you explain that? Speaker 5: Well, I'm not sure I can explain their rationale, but I guess I feel quite strongly that this proposed development is not appropriate and contrary to the scheme. Councillor Lorentson: Does it give them, like, an opportunity if the appeal doesn't go ahead? Sorry, if the appeal's refused, does it give them an opportunity to take on that land? Does it give them an opportunity to continue the fight? Is that the purpose? I'm just interested to know. Speaker 5: Yeah. So if council chose not to defend the appeal for some reason, those submitters could continue with the appeal and continue to oppose the proposed development in the court and essentially go to trial with the applicant on that matter. So they have a role in the appeal.
00:10:00 They will be invited to mediation at the time. They will also have the opportunity to put forward their own experts if they want to in a court situation, if they wish, and provide evidence to the court when that is heard in court. Mayor Stewart: Wow. Speaker 5: That's a voice. Yeah. So they have a very... They're a party to the appeal. Quite a significant role. They're a party to the appeal. What was that? Speaker 2: They're a party to the appeal. Speaker 5: Party to the appeal. Same as any other party. Yeah. So they have all the same opportunities or rights that we have in defending the appeal in terms of input into the appeal. Councillor Lorentson: And that's a very strong position that they're taking and making to the community that they feel very strongly about this application. Speaker 5: Definitely. And if they, you know, if they choose to have legal representation or engage their own consultants, it can be quite costly for them as well. As we know, appeals are costly matters to run. Yeah. Thank you. So, significant investment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would someone like to move that we first a general meeting?
00:11:00 I'll do that. I think I can stand up and know it. Thank you. Moving myself in. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Speaker 2: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Moving on. Speaker 2: You might need to call the vote. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yes. And all in favour? Oh, look. I think you need a new chair. You're an animal. Okay. So, we move on to Planning and Environment Court of Appeal number 363, about the refusal of a minor change to the government approval for a jetty at 60 Noosaville. Councillor Wegener: Do we have questions? It's, so, looking at Google Maps, this particular jetty is not viewed by the public other than the neighbours in that small little waterway there. Speaker 5: Yes. Yes, that's correct. So, the waterway is drainage reserve. So, that's council's trustee for that land.
00:12:00 But, obviously, a number of people use that waterway in Noosa Waters. So, and it's, I guess, it's loved by the residents of Noosa Waters. We quite often receive submissions and complaints from residents in Noosa Waters about works that are being carried out without an approval. Or, and contrary to the planning scheme. So, Noosa Waters Association is very, very active in this space around what works occur along that waterway. Councillor Wegener: And is it the, who notified us of the non-compliance here? Was there a complaint? Speaker 5: Was it the association? Or was it council? I might have to check for you, Tom. But, this one certainly came up to our attention because we do an inspection of all our approvals at the end when it's completed. And it was found to be non-compliant with the approved plans. So, whether there was a complaint also, I'd have to check for you. I'm not sure. I'll come back to you on that one. Okay.
00:13:00 Councillor Wegener: This is, I mean, it's a trivial matter. But, it's very, very important to the person who's put that dock in and wants the, that aesthetic going out to the water. And they do not want the aesthetic going out to the water. They want the aesthetic that, that they had the approval to put in. So, they went against their plan. Yeah. And put this thing in. And it's, this is a tough one because it really means a lot to somebody. And it probably doesn't mean that much to anybody else. But, we don't know that for sure. It, it would be hard to think that we had actually put this up on to appeal and appeal it. But, if there, if, you know, if there, if there hasn't really been any complaints for, for anybody, I, I don't, I think I would say let it go. Is that, is that the proper language? Well, I guess. I'm sure there's a more legal way of saying that. Speaker 5: I don't recall saying that in the court, really. Mayor Stewart: We must let it go. Speaker 5: There's a little bit more work to be done, I think, Tom. I mean, what I would like to do is have a discussion with Noosa Waters Association
00:14:00 and receive their feedback about the proposal. So, there's a little bit more work we can do around this before we, we go to trial and just seek some feedback from other residents in the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Okay. So, the principle, as I understand it, is that we've never had a set of treatments on the, the ranch and jetties because of the idea was to not make them a dominant feature if you start putting infrastructure on the access, on the gangways, et cetera. All of a sudden, the, the structure becomes the edifice rather than the waterway. Yeah. We are just, at this stage, agreeing to defend the appeal. We haven't been to mediation. And if we were to consider the views of others who may have had been impact assessment would have objected, that would occur as part, you know, lead into mediation. Is that right? Correct. Yeah. Speaker 5: And that will help inform us through mediation. Kerry, was it a brand new build of a house and the jetty at the same time?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 I'm not sure of the house, but certainly it's a brand new jetty that I can check, check out. Mayor Stewart: Because, because if it's a house that I'm thinking of and I know this property, it, the house is very much a Hampton style house. Yeah. So, in fact, the jetty being a Hampton style jetty would be actually fall in line with the whole look and feel. Do you see what I'm saying? So, I'm wondering if it, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Yeah. If it was a new build. And that is in alignment with what the house had. And if it's the house that I'm thinking of, it's a very wide part of the waterway. It's actually a very wide waterway. So, I'm wondering if that is the house is, is that, is that the one? Speaker 5: Well, certainly the applicant has said they've designed this to match their house. So, I'm assuming the house has some sort of Hampton's features that they're wishing to
00:16:00 replicate here in the jetty. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 5: I guess as Councillor Bryan indicated, there's been a practice of very limited structures on the jetty to keep it very low key and panned back on the ground. So, it's very simple with a horizontal line and vertical uprights and that's it. So, the, the practice is there and certainly there's consistency there in all the jetties along there. Yeah. So, this is going against that sort of consistency that's being created there and notwithstanding that it may match the house. Mayor Stewart: And I've asked you this and the answer's no, but I'll ask it again. Is there any reasons for a disability for having an extra hand structure there or hand rails or grab rails? Is that, is there, is there any reasons, mobility issues that they've cited or is it just purely aesthetics? Yeah. The applicant has put that forward to us. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, you make note that the hand rails is inconsistent with the water course works code.
00:17:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: It took me a while to find the water course works code, but I've got it in front of me and it just looks like there's, it says the application does not contribute, sorry, the overall outcomes under the water course works code states that it is the structure compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding areas and that's what's being questioned. But the other three conditions, is it designed and constructed in a way that ensures it's structurally sound? Yes. Is it safe for use? Yes. And does it adversely affect existing public access? No, it doesn't. Safety and navigation? No, it doesn't. Natural values of all the courses? No, it doesn't. The structural integrity, operation and maintenance of the existing structure in place? No, it doesn't. So, and then I had a look at the Noosa River Plan and it makes reference to visual, well,
00:18:00 makes reference to clutter, not visual clutter. So, as I'm reading all this, the only issue that we're really talking about is aesthetics. That's right. But it actually does meet the other requirements under the water course works code. Yeah. So, I went a little bit with Tom, where if the complaints only come from one or two people, it seems unreasonable to stop, to ask this person to dismantle these houses. So, a matter that I agree with Tom is unreasonable and, well, trivial. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I guess officers and council have been consistent in the past in terms of the type of handrail that they've approved on these jetties. So, if we were to approve that, that would finish and we would get all different styles of handrails along the, in the drainage reserve.
00:19:00 So, we just need to be conscious of that. Yeah. And that's why I guess I'm suggesting that we have a discussion with Noosa Waters Association, who represents all the residents in that area, to have a talk. Because if we make this decision to approve it, then it'll be difficult in the future to refuse others. So, that's why I'm being a little bit cautious around this. Speaker 4: Yeah. The other consideration is Kerry's going to check whether there were complaints. The reason this was treated... Speaker 2: Sorry. Speaker 4: Kerry will check whether there was complaints. But the reason this was triggered is because the owner built the jettie non-compliant with their approval. So, they had an approval that said they couldn't build it like this and they built it. We did an audit of the approvals and they picked up that it was non-compliant. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I suppose that's the other aspect of priesthood, isn't it? Yeah. We don't want to set a priesthood that would be contrary to the aspirations of the local community in terms of increased structures above the water.
00:20:00 But we also don't want to set a priesthood about not enforcing the conditions of the development approval because we have other jetties where that's happened which is more significant in the current life. And so, I think we... Yeah. To me, there's no... There's never... There's never a reason why you don't defend the field. If it gets to mediation and the matters can be resolved in this case without offending either of those two aspects of priesthood, then we can renew it. But I think the way to do it is through mediation process, not through a council or decision in the absence of any further information. But if there's disagreeing views, I think there's one thing to go to the general committee. Have we spoken to these people? Maybe just test that with the... Speaker 5: Yeah. I haven't had a conversation yet with them though. Okay. Councillor Wegener: So, Kerry, well, I would just love to know what the association thinks. Speaker 5: Yeah. I think that's the important bit here that we need to understand their input into this.
00:21:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Because if the association represents that, it's almost like council doesn't get involved in that unless it's of a certain magnitude. Yeah. Or if the association has a problem with it. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I disagree, Tom. I think that council needs to take a role in aesthetics and control because the nature of Noosa Waters and the homes have changed dramatically. There's Hampton style, there's contemporary style homes, there's Queenslanders. I lived in Noosa Waters for 10 years. So, the character, by and large, is a little bit different. So, I think there's a little bit of danger of allowing too much control in aesthetics in a small group like the Noosa Waters Association. I think that council has a responsibility to just work alongside these associations to
00:22:00 make sure that our look and feel of Noosa is compatible with what they consider appropriate for the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm-hmm. So, as that's the... I'm going to refer you to the non-committee member. I'm going to refer you to the head of committee because these issues obviously need further ventilation. So, I have a seconder. Mayor Stewart: I second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's in Councillor Stewart. All those in favour? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I get it. I get it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll talk about this. Yeah. Sorry. All those... Sorry. Can we just maintain that the conversations in the committee is to the chair, and if you're outside the committee, you should ask and speak in terms of just losing a little bit too much in terms of meeting structure. So, all those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Okay. We move on to item five. And item five is... Catch-25.
00:23:00 Catch-25. Catch-25. Catch-25. Catch-25. Planning Environment Court Appeal Number 67 of 2020 in regard to refusal of an application for a bar at 5 Taylor's Court, Cooroy. Do we have any questions or queries in regard to this schematic analysis? Councillor Wegener: Yes, one of the, well there's two of the rationales that for, I think I have to learn the language better, but for disapproving the application. And one of them is that, well, it will interfere with the other uses of the industrial estate, and then the parking issue. And when, in my mind, it kind of doesn't pass, those two arguments don't pass the five-year-old test, because if my five-year-old son said, Dad, I want to play hide and seek, you know, in your shed, I would say, no, no, no, you can't do it there, because I'm working there. He says, what if I did it late, you know, in the afternoon, on the weekends, and Friday afternoons? And I would say, no, you don't have to do that.
00:24:00 I would interfere with my work, but he would say, well, Dad, you're not there. And so I'll lose that argument. And then if the parking thing is the same, it's like, well, there's not going to be parking spaces for these people. Well, no, they're actually talking about hours that are totally outside of the rest of the industrial. So that doesn't pass that test. So do you have comments on that? Because it doesn't seem to interfere with the use of the industrial area. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, I partly agree and partly disagree. So I do think the parking issue is not a major issue in this refusal. It is one through hours that potentially it could have been conditioned. And the original report to council stated that, because the hours they're proposing to use the bar are typically or are mostly outside the typical hours of industrial. You know, most of them operate Monday to Friday. Sometimes people operate on a Saturday. So it is proposing to operate Saturday. But nevertheless, mostly outside of the industrial area. So, yes, the original report to council indicated that.
00:25:00 In terms of the other issue, no, I probably don't agree. What we do experience is in the industrial area when we have businesses set up that are not industrial uses, they actually start complaining about the genuine industrial uses. And so that is the issue. You know, it inhibits those guys in terms of operating and genuine industrial use, which we're trying to do. So that's quite a common thread where we see a mix of uses, non-industrial and industrial together. They tend not to be compatible because the industrial uses create noise that then in turn impacts on the other uses. Councillor Wegener: But I mean, wouldn't the complaint just fall on deaf ears? Because if it's an industrial park and they have a few guests there. And it's really, really noisy outside. They're in an industrial park. They're not in Hastings Street. You know, they can't. Wouldn't the bylaws or whatever, wouldn't there be some authority or some precedent saying, well, you guys can't complain about this.
00:26:00 You're here. That's why you're here. It's because it's noisy. Speaker 5: Yeah. But if we approve this use, then they have a lawful right to be there. So there is an expectation that they can operate on the site. So where this bar is proposed, it's proposed right at the front of the site where all the other industrial uses, the 39 tenancies, have to go by and pass by. So it's not isolated on its own site. It is part of a larger site that will have a number of other industrial tenancies. So I think if it's on its own site, it affords a little bit more separation than some, but not when it's operating on its own site. We have a number of other industrial tenancies. Councillor Wegener: Now, I was up there this morning and I was asking how many how many of these units it's actually a beautiful place. It's a huge industrial estate there. I asked how many people are moving into these estates.
00:27:00 And so far, it appeared as though nobody was moving in to their estate as much as this person. They said about half of them have been sold. But this is. This is the one only one that's actually somebody's moving into. It actually is right in front of the estate. As you said, it's a beautiful building. It's it seems to me that they're producing an artisanal product. And you say that is something that that Noosa should, you know, is applauding. I think we should be patting on the back for what for taking the punch, being the first people to build out in this empty estate. Right in the front. I think they'll be pulling people in. So on that side, I think they're terrific. But of course, now, should they have been have this bar open at this these times? I think I don't see a reason why they shouldn't. And I think it's the nature the nature of businesses now in artisanal small businesses is you're seeing these enterprise zones.
00:28:00 You're seeing where people want to live, you know, have a have a shop, a living quarters upstairs to be a part of it. I would suspect that this would open up a precedent, say, yes, these other businesses would will be able to expand what they can do in this industrial zone. But I would I would bet that the owner of the industrial zone and even the rest of the tenants for the most part would say, great. You know, we love having the fact that there's a bar here. They're pulling people into our industrial zone. They're pulling people into this potential more or less enterprise zone out there because they're going to be competing to get people to go there. Would you rather be there or would you rather be across from Bunnings down there in that that industrial zone? I think these people, these people are really going to be competing to fill those buildings up. And it just seems to me that having a great tenant and even a bar in the front there would help.
00:29:00 The economy would help Croy. It would help this particular industrial estate. Speaker 5: Yeah, I think there's a few things that on this one that we need to think about and why offices recommended refusal originally is, you know, offices have been supporting the other distilleries and bars that have happened in the Noosaville area for the very reason to allow those sorts of businesses somewhere to operate. And so it was the most appropriate. But through the planning scheme process and drafting a new scheme. Council had a look at, you know, different enterprises, a mix of businesses that we were seeing in the Shire because they were popping up in the Noosaville industrial area, certainly. And Council, in looking at it, resolved to identify the Venture Drive Enterprise Precinct for those mix of uses. So it specifically said this is where we want to see those sorts of uses occurring in the Shire and in the industrial area.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 The rest of the industrial area. Land, which is quite limited. We're going to say, no, it needs to be kept for industrial purposes only because there's limited opportunities now and into the future to locate those genuine industrial uses. So there was a conscious decision in the draft scheme to say, yes, this is where we're going to have our mix of uses. But in these other industrial areas, we're going to retain them for those important industrial uses that generate employment for people. But this site also is quite a distance from Cooroy. So difficult to access the site for patrons going to the site. Some way out of town as well. There's no public transport or the like through there. So that was also of concern for our officers in choosing the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Obviously, there's a few different views around here. So I'll go in general as well. I think it would be important for all the new councillors to read the officer's report
00:31:00 because it is obviously a number of definitions on this particular site. So I think it is appropriate. I also think what we need to keep in mind is the reason you keep in some areas of industrial for industrial is if you want to start up a new tyre business or a new muffler shop and you're competing with someone who can put a retail bar in their shed, then you're unlikely to be able to afford it. So I think it's appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. If you allow everywhere in the industrial estate to have a range of different uses, then the price to buy those blocks of land is based on the highest economic value, not on the . So you're actually, you know, while we do want to see these urban enterprises in the appropriate location, we don't want to see traditional manufacturing, traditional industrial uses, the tradies shed, not being able to, you know, one of its expensive, but having
00:32:00 no evidence. I think we do need to have a broader discussion on this if there is different views. But yeah, if we can have, I don't think it needs to be in the motions again, have all the new councillors get a copy of the full report. It's actually attached in the report. Speaker 2: There's a link to the report. Mayor Stewart: I agree with Councillor Wegener. I think in this day and age, with the circumstances we're facing, that we should be doing everything we can to empower businesses to get up and running. I mean, one of the reasons, refuse the application for the following reasons on the 19th of March was we'll potentially undermine the intended use of the land in Taylor Court for industrial uses to the exclusion of inconsistent uses. Or we've just heard how there's been certain areas in Noosaville and Venture Drive that have, you know, are those industrial areas with the mixed uses and the bars. I see no reason why we can't follow that precedent to Coroy. I mean, and this is already an approved distillery. So we're not actually taking away from other industrial businesses
00:33:00 here, we're just adding on the ability for them to have a bar. And I think sometimes we have to, yeah, there's no, there may not be public transport there, but that is, we're not running this business, that we're not determining our profit and loss. If these guys think they can make a go of it, with all of those, you know, with not having public transport, or then I think we have to sometimes put that in the hands of the people running the business. And if they think they can make a go of it, irrespective of whether or not there's transport coming past, I think we leave that to them. I mean, I think we need to look at really supporting our local businesses in this day and age. And I think, you know, what Councillor Wegener said, we need to, and especially out in Coroy, and you said you've been out there, you said it's a beautiful building. I think there's, I think we should be promoting that kind of thing. Yeah, I agree. Councillor Wegener: A few further questions, future questions. So could you get some statistics on how many actual purely industrial sheds there are working? You know, as we say, you go to the industrial area, that there are industrial sheds.
00:34:00 And how many of the businesses in those industrial areas have complementary businesses, have shop fronts, have barbers, have different, you know, different aspects to them. Like we say in the new use of plant, 10% of the area can be used for complementary uses that are not directly involved in the manufacturing of the industrial state. Because I would suspect, I'd love to know how many, how many actual, when we think of, when showing our age, when we think of an industrial area, we just think of, you know, muffler, painter, you know, car painter, these really hard industries, which are important. They need their place for sure. But what percentage actually are, I guess, with a softer sort of industrial, where they actually have a shop front, and they're shop for, it's not purely industrial, but they have a shop front selling complementary wares. Speaker 5: So there was a survey done of the Noosaville industrial area, I think around 2014.
00:35:00 So it's got some data around then, but it's a little bit old, obviously, 2014. But I can look at providing some information from that survey. But I don't, we don't have any more up-to-date information that we could provide councillors around that. So the survey, certainly in 2014, showed a lot of non-industrial uses going into the industrial area, which was of concern, because a lot of them are going in there simply for cheaper rent. And when we saw the gym moving from Noosa Civic to the Noosaville area, because it was a cheaper rent, that's essentially why a lot of those businesses are going in there. So that, I'm sure that would have increased since 2014, in terms of the number of non-industrial uses going in there, but I can provide that detail. I mean, the other thing we need to be careful of is approving non-industrial uses in the industrial area can then start to impact on our business centres, because we've got these defined business centres
00:36:00 where we want to see our retail commercial uses going. And then allowing them in the industrial area then in turn starts to impact on the business centre. So we've got to think about it both ways if we can. Councillor Wegener: Maybe even in that particular industrial site. Can I just, I think you were trying to debate stuff. Yeah, right, okay, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we do need to bring it to general. Am I right, have we had our briefing on the industrial aspects of the new plan? Because having an understanding of the whole balance of zones would be really important to make an informed decision, rather than looking at how we approach industry from a individual person's perspective and business versus the impact on the economy of Noosa, which I think is a broader issue at play when we start to ad hoc say that we want extensivisors everywhere. I think if we don't, there may be some need to actually have a work or something prior to this decision to make sure that everyone's coming from an understanding of the issues around land use budgeting,
00:37:00 around the separation that we have proposed going forward in terms of the state and the potential education of that implication because I wonder what Councillor Wegener said is what we've done in centre zones to try and get people to live up there, do their brewing and have their retail shopper and really ideally in all of the rural towns, you'd be seeing that there rather than in industrial state where there's no complementarity with surrounding businesses. But for me, if we can get a little bit more of an understanding before it subsides to that, whether it's Monday or Thursday, I don't know, it depends, but does anyone want to say anything else or do we just refer to the general for further discussion? Councillor Wegener: Last point, could you, how many other businesses are going into the estate out there in Cooroy, the Taylor estate? Just, not for now, but just if you could have a, if there's a note someplace, how many other businesses, because this guy's the first. Speaker 5: Yeah, I can have a look at how many other approvals has been issued for the industrial estate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. And last clarification.
00:38:00 This is for the bar that, in terms of the 10% use or whatever, the approval does allow them to have their product pasted to their retail sales and allows them to shop as part of that retail component. It just doesn't allow a fully-fledged bar. Mayor Stewart: It doesn't allow them to sit down and have a, if they buy some, they can't sit down and have a beer, right? They can taste it, yeah. They can taste it, but they can't sit down and buy anything and drink it there. They can't say, I like that beer, I'm gonna have that. Speaker 5: That's right. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so would someone like to make their motion? Move to approve the general. Move to Council Wigner, seconded. Council Stewart, all in favour? And that was unanimous. Now for something completely different. Item seven is the Biosecurity Surveillance Programme, 2016-2024. Thanks, Kerry. Speaker 2: Council, you might not have met Ken yet. You know Craig, obviously, but Ken's out on the front line keeping all of our, only rural areas safe.
00:39:00 Speaker 3: Biting the weeds and... Feral animal front. Yeah, so basically this is our surveillance programme under the Biosecurity Act. There's a provision there to have an approved programme that will allow us to access properties for inspections, to determine the presence or absence of listed prohibited and restricted invasive species under the Act. So every Council term, basically, we put up a new programme to get, hopefully, a resolution to give us the approval under the Act to allow us those powers of entry to do our work. And that's what we've done. And the importance of that, I guess, is three main reasons.
00:40:00 One is for early detection of invasive species that are new to the region, that are coming in from elsewhere. Another reason is it allows us to access properties to investigate complaints. We commonly have issues where we've got a neighbour diligently managing an invasive plant on their property, but their neighbour over the fence is, I don't know, not so diligently managing their weed and they're unhappy about it. So we have to go and check out the situation and see whether they've got a valid argument and how best to manage it. And I guess the other main reason is we really, from an environmentally point of view, we have a lot of reserves that are not being used. We have a lot of reserves adjacent to private land
00:41:00 where we're managing for conservation and need to be actually looking at both sides of the fence, whether we've got things we need to be managing on our reserves as well as the properties impacting on our reserves by not managing their plants and animals there. So, yeah, that's the crux of it, the process normally works. Well, we go out and survey areas. We have to make a reasonable attempt to contact the landowner. Ideally, we want the landowner present while we're surveying the property. For obvious reasons, we all want to be aware of potential hazards like aggressive dogs and whatnot in areas of the property that we don't need to, we shouldn't go to for various reasons. So, yeah, that's the crux of it. And, yeah, also, it provides an opportunity
00:42:00 to directly educate the landowner as to what they have on their properties and how best to manage it and provide them with information there and then on site. So, yeah, we consider it to be a fairly reasonable approach. I don't think we're sort of heavy-handed in the way that we manage it. We manage the legislation and we try and do our best to establish a working relationship with property owners through the whole process because a lot of these invasive plants in particular can't be eradicated. So, we're really looking to get a long-term management plan in place. Yeah, for, yeah, I guess getting a good outcome, yeah, overall. It's not just a one-off.
00:43:00 We would often have to revisit these properties once every year or even every three months, depending on what we're trying to manage. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the way I read the recommendation, it's basically just a schedule for a different part of the Tire East Quarter. No rhyme or reason that, you know, one test isn't more important in September in Tinvilla than Tarabar in June. Speaker 3: That's right. It's a way of breaking up. Yeah. It's a way of making sure that the, I guess, the really large area that we've got and the small staff numbers that we've got to cover it into, I guess, a manageable portion that we can sort of focus on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we focus our efforts on the public lands, not on the national parks? Or do we work in within, like, there's, I think, a pig trapper near Kinnabar I walked past on the weekend. Is that one of ours or is that one of theirs? Speaker 3: That'd be one of theirs. Yeah, we do do our best to work in with what's happening on the national park estates.
00:44:00 We're of our own interest as well as the wider community interest. So, we don't go out and inspect their land, though. That's, I guess, that's their responsibility. And we do have a provision under the Tire East Quarter. And we do have a provision under the Tire East Quarter. And we do have a provision under the legislation to request them to manage invasive species. But that's something that hasn't really been tested yet and not something we've really considered at this stage. It's mostly focusing on private land. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Now, in your report, you haven't mentioned any of the aquatic weed species. Do we keep an eye out for these? Definitely, yeah. Speaker 3: We've got a whole suite of pretty bad aquatic weed species. We've got a lot of organic plants that we're managing and lots that we're looking out for.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And we've had a few new ones sort of turn up over the last, yeah, two or three years. Fortunately, we've been able to get on top of. Yeah, we're only, yeah, on one or two properties. So, we manage to eradicate them. So, that's it. Ultimately, one of the main objectives of this is to pull these things up before they become widespread and cost a hell of a lot and take a lot of time to then manage. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, is it still the case that while a person's property might end on the top of the creek bank, that they've got noxious weed and pest management responsibilities into the centre line of the waterway? Speaker 3: Yeah. I attempted to clear that one up under the Biosecurity Act with the legislation change, but it's still being debated. It's, yeah, it's still being debated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's always just mildly controversial. Speaker 3: It is, yeah. And obviously, you've got changing boundaries there too with migration of those stream banks
00:46:00 and whatnot, so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. The clearing up on Nusgroi Road at Simbewe there, along the main road, is that about trying to get more visibility for deer that have been jumping in causing accidents? Or is that unrelated to your knowledge? Speaker 3: Oh, that was, yeah, it may have been contributed by, yeah, we did put a campaign case to them quite a while back about, yeah, moving some of that vegetation back to increase the visibility, particularly in a few spots, and I sent some maps through so that they could sort of narrow that down a bit. But I think, yeah, they're doing the clearing down on the Sunshine Motorway, and it may have sort of, yeah, been part of that, or they had a bit of extra money, or who knows. Hopefully we contributed. But, yeah, it'll certainly matter. It'll certainly make it a little bit easier to see any deer that might be sort of coming across in front of you if you move it along there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the last one.
00:47:00 This is just about the survey. There's a whole lot of other things that happen all year round in various parts of the Shire. I noticed a couple of weeks ago that quite a novelty, they signed for a dog control program right on the corner of Bates Road. Speaker 3: That's right. Yeah, quite good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyway, sorry. Any questions? Speaker 4: Yeah, I just have a question. How do you actually measure the outcomes of your work responsibilities? Speaker 3: Yes, we, I guess, it's a work in progress. One of the main ways that we try and monitor, yeah, potential gains or losses is through our mapping system. We've got a lot of work to do. And when we're out there surveying properties, we're recording the areas affected by individual invasive species. And over time, we're aiming for a reduction in those.
00:48:00 But we've only had that mapping system up and running for, let's see, three or so years effectively now. So, it takes time to sort of build the data to give us a decent picture to look at. So, it's a lot of work to actually say whether we are or aren't having an impact there. And there's a lot of variability between different species that we're trying to manage. Some of them are very, very difficult to try and pull back. Whereas others, we can have some pretty good gains much more easily. So, that's one of the ways. And I guess, we look at the number of people contacting council to see if there's any support, various weeds and whatnot to us or pest animals on their properties or that they've seen driving through an area or whatnot. And also, the number of their orders we issue, I guess, through the surveillance program
00:49:00 for control of invasive plants, et cetera, on private property. So, there's a few different ways. But it is... Fairly difficult to try and manage, to try and accurately, I guess, measure some of those outcomes. And from an impact point of view, trying to, I guess, look at dollar values and things like that, it can be pretty hard in terms of impact on productivity. This wild dog is an example where you can maybe put dollar figures on fairly easily on livestock losses and whatnot. But weeds is a bit trickier. Yeah, I guess, it can come down to the cost to control in terms of herbicides and things like that. But it's often not that straightforward.
00:50:00 Mayor Stewart: What are the costs, Ken, associated with this program? I just couldn't find any costings. Speaker 4: Can you pull them out of your head? Speaker 1: The costs, I'm wrong, Ken, are the sole employee costs. So, there's no specific cost. Okay. That's right, yeah. There's minor administration costs around setting up beds and things like that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. You do give them a foot pipe, don't you? Speaker 1: Yeah. But it's essentially one officer one day a week throughout the year, which is part of our existing pest management. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Ken, just a question. You mentioned before about some weeds or some pests emerge and others die down. What are the emerging risks out there at the moment where either new things or something's got a bit out of control? And conversely, what are we going to be able to get on top of? What are the types of pests that are going down in number? Speaker 3: Yeah. All right. Yeah. In the last couple of years, yeah, we've had some pretty good gains. Fireweed is one that we've been managing for quite a long while.
00:51:00 And yeah, we've managed to pull back those original infested areas fairly significantly. But we've managed to pull back some of them. We've always got a risk of new stuff coming in. It was brought into the area with turf mostly coming from down south. So we've still got an issue with supplies down there. Yeah. Some of the other ones, yeah, salvinia is a big one that we've been dealing with for a lot of years too. Just in the last couple of years, we've had some pretty good gains in some areas. We're actually eradicating it from some water course areas. But we've really ramped up the approach with working with landholders there and provide a lot of assistance, which I guess we weren't doing, yeah, in the past in a lot of cases. It is, whilst it's their responsibility under the legislation, we need to recognise that some of these weeds are very difficult to manage unless there's some sort of assistance.
00:52:00 Yeah. Often landholders will give up on the battle and whatnot. But, yeah, we've come across a few aquatics. Water mimosa is one that was new to the region that turned up about two years ago at a property out at Katharabah. That one has been on the move in some other council areas. It's used as a plant in Asian cooking and some medicinal properties. And whatnot. So we've managed to eradicate that one as far as we know. We haven't detected any other infestations, but it's just the one incursion. We've got big ongoing battles with some of the invasive grasses, giant rat-style grass and Parramatta grass. That has a big impact on pasture production. That's one where we're really, really struggling with.
00:53:00 It's still expanding its range, unfortunately, even due to our best attempts to try and contain it. It's one that's spread by slashing and moving soil around through earth moving and whatnot. So we've got big issues with it on our roadside areas with our machinery and whatever moving through it. So grounds of woosh is another one. We've done a lot. We've had some pretty good gains with it, but we're still getting bits and pieces popping up. There's been quite a few biocontrols that have been very effective on it, which has helped us out a lot. But Cat's Claw Creeper is another big one. That's more of an environmental weed than anything. We're really, really hopeful that a biocontrol is going to be the answer for that one.
00:54:00 It's just so difficult to effectively treat and its rate of spread is huge. And we've got some areas that are really difficult to access and a range of other issues. It's a real challenge. So whilst we're having some wins, there's some we're losing ground on, unfortunately. But yeah, we've got to do the best with what we've got to in terms of resources. So we've got to prioritise. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you just put the scope there because you went through the production weed by GRP, biome of the weed, like Cat's Claw that can ruin the whole riparian bench and ruin aquatic habitat. You also mentioned bioweave counts as maybe the human impacts of that particular weed, because obviously there's a range of reasons for that. Speaker 3: That's right.
00:55:00 Yeah. It's sort of, I guess, working across the triple bottom line. If you want to consider it that way in terms of environmental and ag and social impacts. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Fire weed is one that has, for people with sensitive allergies, et cetera, it's going to set you off. Speaker 3: It can do. Yeah. And it's toxic to livestock and whatnot too. And also, yeah, it's very invasive. In pasture, it'll out-compete a lot of your palatable grass species, so bad news for your graziers. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thanks. Would someone like to move the staff recommendation just for something different? I don't know if you'd prefer this on the table. No. Councillor Wegener. Oh, I'm checking it. Speaker 1: Councillor Stockwell, all in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So moved. And that unanimously wins two. Thank you.
00:56:00 There is a last item, which is environment protection. Do we have any clear questions about this here? Councillor Wegener: The volunteers, I'm so impressed with the amount of volunteers that are out there, like for example through NICA, and the work that they're doing. Obviously these grants are focused on a lot of these volunteer organisations. They give them support to facilitate them to come back and work for the community. Speaker 1: They are. This particular round of grants on the environmental project grants is very much focused around specific projects. Obviously NICA are represented twice here because they're a very active community group. Some of our community groups also receive environmental alliance grants, which also provides that support. At an organisational point of view, for example, we support NICA also in an alliance sense by the organisation to run, but this is for specific projects as well.
00:57:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the new kid on the block, Hinterland Bushlensing, and you've got in the description in partnership with Landcare. Can you give us a little bit of an outline of what that partnership proposal is? Speaker 1: Yeah, so Bushlensing have been operating for quite some time in the Blackall Ranges, and mostly they're modus operandi. So to speak is to bring together medium to large groups of 20 to 30, perhaps slightly more groups of volunteers to work on specific environmental restoration projects on mostly private land, but can be on public land as well. So rather than having, say in the Bushcare program, all the volunteers have a site fidelity and they go back to one spot. This is more just a bunch of people that love to get out and plant trees and remove weeds every couple of months. And that's what they go and do. So they're interested in getting involved in the Noosa area, and they've had discussions with Noosa District Landcare Group about partnering with them and using the existing Landcare Network to work on primarily private land, but potentially also some council blocks as well,
00:58:00 doing those one-off big pushes, planting days, weed eradication days. So it's a different approach to the other extension work and community environmental support we provide. But it's a really interesting one, I think, which is why we recommended it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a little bit like there was a Victorian Landcare Group that used to do speed planting. So you'd plant a tree with a boy or a girl, but then you'd move to another tree with a boy or a girl. Speaker 1: I've heard of that occurring in Queensland as well. We didn't, I haven't run it myself, but I've seen it run in, so I think, I've heard it in Gold Coast, I think they may have done it, or somewhere down there did that sort of scenario as well. Mayor Stewart: I've got three questions, and I think this may have to be referred to general, depending on the answers. Kim, the first one I think you might be able to help me with. The line here is it is anticipated that 75,000 will be available for environmental grants projects for the financial year, and I note that sort of 35,000 is recommended now and then another 39,000 in August. The other 300,000 in grants, where is that?
00:59:00 Speaker 2: Kim, do you want to come forward again? Yeah. So people can hear. Speaker 4: So the grants program is funded by the environment levy. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 4: And there's an allocation of $375,000 for environmental grants. The grants program is then guided by an environmental grants policy. Yeah. And in the environment grants policy, it outlines three forms, three types of grants. So there are multi-year environment grants that are run once every three years, and they provide a commitment plan. So there are multi-year or multi-year large sort of larger scale project grants that run over two or three years. Mayor Stewart: So that's where the 300,000 is. That's correct. Speaker 4: What is the second category? That there are alliance grants, Craig just alluded to them, which are grants to support environmental organisations, to provide them a bit of operational support. And then there's a third category of project grants,
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 and those project grants are the ones you're considering now. So the alliance grants and the multi-year collaborative grants make up that of the 300,000. And then there's the remaining 75,000, which is these grants. They run twice a year. Mayor Stewart: So the breakdown of the 300,000. Yes. Where could we get that? Speaker 4: So you have that now in your budget papers. I provided that to Michael on Friday. Okay. And you were sent that either yesterday or the day before. Okay. And that will break down. Mayor Stewart: So that's the environmental grants. That's correct. Speaker 4: That's the Natural Conservancy Partnership Agreement funding. Mayor Stewart: So on this, we're looking at the 75,000 allocation. Speaker 4: That's right. Mayor Stewart: Can we look at the 300,000 allocation, or when you're saying that's over two or three years? Speaker 4: So the other 300,000 has been already committed. So the multi-year environment grants program was run last year.
01:01:00 And Craig, I think we, Council, awarded maybe five partnerships? Speaker 1: Yes, five partnerships at the February Council meeting. And the Alliance grants were last June. This time last year, the Alliance grants were when they were reported to Council and adopted as well. So that's the $50,000 a year for the Alliance for three years, which was decided last June. And for the multi-year grants, that was completed in February. So the only grants we'll be bringing back to Council, barring a change in circumstance, over the next 18 months or so, will be the project grants, which are run twice a year concurrently with the Regional Arts Development Fund and the Community Grants Program. Mayor Stewart: Okay. That's my first question. The second question is, I've noticed there's a paragraph here that says, and considering there is so much already allocated in these funds that we are not able to sort of, I guess, look at in this budget and based on the COVID-like budget and the need to sharpen the pencil, it says here, and this is if COVID impacted,
01:02:00 it said two of the projects recommended for funding would need to work with Council with regard to possible extension for their projects. Neither are time sensitive or seasonal, so could still be delivered with some delay. So on that basis, if we were because so much has already been committed and we are really trying to look at cost saving, these projects could wait potentially, couldn't they? With the wording, neither are time sensitive or seasonal, so it could still be delivered with some delay. Speaker 1: It's too past that question. Yes, you're correct. These are project grant applications that have come to us. The intent is for them to be one-off discrete projects. So Council has rolled them as well. So we don't want to prioritise these grants right now. And obviously these are advertised concurrently with the Regional Arts Development Fund grants and also the community grants in February. And of course, during that month, they were open and things changed and the community grants decided not to proceed with awarding their grants. That was on the basis, the fact that a lot of community grants were simply at the point where they almost couldn't function.
01:03:00 So they wanted to reallocate that grant funding to group support. We didn't find that case with environment groups, so we proceeded and got this far. So yes, they could be delayed or we could wait until the next round of grants. The referent of not being time sensitive was more from the point of view that they didn't have to be run say this July or this August. So they could wait for the COVID situation. I hope they become a lot clearer because clearly two of them rely on face-to-face contact, which is a lot more challenging in the current situation even though it's becoming easier. So by saying they weren't time sensitive means they didn't have to be delivered by November, for example. So we would have that flexibility. Mayor Stewart: Third and final is, it says under the 19 September 2019, all initiatives funded by the Environment Grants Program will have tangible and measurable outcomes. How do we measure the outcomes and ensure that we're getting our bang for our buck in regard to these?
01:04:00 Speaker 1: Well, with each of the grant applications, we ask them to identify what the outcomes are. They're not included in the Council report, but the full applications outlined for, for example, the Land for Wildlife Garden Program, how many gardens they'll be visiting throughout the year, how many plants they'll be giving out, and the Hinterlands Bushlet Program also identified how many properties they'll be visiting, the number of trees they'll be planting, which is what their intent for the year program. The third one we recommended for funding was around the website redevelopment. So that's a little bit trickier because the main rationale behind supporting the website development was because that particular website provides a base resource for so much on-ground conservation action in Noosa. So it probably doesn't have the discrete tangible outcomes that are as measurable as some of the other projects, but we felt as a panel when we were assessing it that it met that because so many other groups that are doing on-ground work
01:05:00 use it as a very important resource and have done for some years. Mayor Stewart: So I imagine that when they put those measurable outcomes down in their application that then there's checks and balances from your point of view. Speaker 1: There is. So all grants require, because they're only one-year grants, they don't require annual reporting. They just have end of project reporting. But all our grants, we have one particular staff member who works with us. We move it around. So if we have three successful grants, a staff member will be allocated to each one of those grants to keep in contact with the organisation and see how it goes. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Craig. Speaker 5: Craig, do we have another question? Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, Craig? What's Council's operational approach to managing the risk of fraud and corruption in the area of grant funding? Do we have, for example, a code of conduct for our grant recipients that supports an ethical culture where the staff are encouraged to identify and manage potential fraud risk and conflict of interest?
01:06:00 Speaker 1: Obviously, all the grants have a grant agreement and a contract. I probably couldn't answer on the spot. I'll have to take that one under advisement on exactly what's in that grant agreement relating to your question. Councillor Lorentson: And sort of a little bit of an overlap of what's already been discussed. How do we, not KPIs, but do we actually assess whether a lot of the money that's been allocated is spent for the purposes it was intended? You mentioned that we have one-year grants that we've done annually. The multi-year grants, how often are they done? How often do we review and monitor the grant spending? Speaker 1: So for the annual grants an audited statement needs to be provided to close off all annual reports. For the multi-year grants,
01:07:00 an annual report with an audited statement needs to be provided before they get the second year's funding. I should note that this is our first run of multi-year grants. When they're awarded in February, it's the first time they've been awarded. It was initiated this financial year. So we haven't got to the first annual reporting. But in their contract, in their deed of agreement, they have to provide annual reports with an audited statement before they get their second year's payment that's signed off. Speaker 2: So just to clarify, that's audited financial statements that normally auditors would go through and ensure that they'd sign off the statements if they were true and correct. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And is that report available on public record? Speaker 1: With regards to the three-year grants, we haven't gotten to a first year. But that report, Councillor Lorentson: is that available for the community to read? Speaker 2: That's up to each of the individual organisations as to what they've published. So for example, I'll pick one out. Who's first up? NICA or Landcare or whatever it is. They would publish their annual report to their members, financial report. I'm not too sure whether they put it on their website. They may do. But that's up to them to determine.
01:08:00 It's their annual report. So what happens Councillor Lorentson: with groups that have got close memberships? Is that information available to people outside their membership or not? Speaker 2: That's up to that organisation about what they publish. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. And can Council make it a requirement or term of a grant agreement that that information's available for public record given its public funds? Speaker 2: If the Council wanted to do that as part of its conditions, it could do. But as Craig just explained, we've already set up those three-year agreements and we just can't recall off the top of our heads what's in that individual contract that we set up for each of those groups. Councillor Lorentson: So moving forward, is that something that we can table for further discussion? Speaker 1: Sure, yeah. Yes, yeah. I think we could probably implement it. Just in our quest Councillor Lorentson: and commitment to transparency and better governance. Yep. I think it's something that is worthy of further discussion anyway. Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I think we need
01:09:00 to move to general. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you can move it if you like. I can move it. Speaker 5: Would you like it moved? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Stewart, were you further? Yes. Further consideration? Is there any information or? I think further consideration to the general. Further consideration, so I think it was good. Councillor Stewart and Councillor Vinson wanted to get the name on. Councillor Lorentson: Better get one on. All in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that was carried unanimously and the meeting is closed. Thank you.