Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Noosa Council meetings since 2014: papers, decisions and recordings, and from April 2023 the video cued to each item.

General Committee Meeting - 15 June 2020 Transcript

Monday 15 June 2020 · 3 hours 55 minutes of recording · 2,974 lines · 14 voices, 7 named

This is a machine transcript of council's recording, produced by automatic speech recognition and not checked line by line against the video. Councillor and place names are corrected where a human has approved the correction; everything else is what the model heard. Quote the recording, not this page — every timestamp below opens council's own video at that second. Recording © Noosa Shire Council; the transcript is ours, made from it so the meeting can be searched and read.

Speakers: the machine separated 14 voices and names 7 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Well welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting of Monday June 15. I declare the meeting open and begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people, pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. For those listening at home, the motions passed today will have the status of a recommendation that goes to Thursday's ordinary meeting where there and there alone are they passed as decisions of the local government. We have no apologies, no presentations, no deputations. The first item up is a material change of use for service utility type 1 depot and operational works. Removal of vegetation and riparian buffer located at 2 and 4 Russell Street, Noosaville.

00:01:00 And then the third here from the Cunningham Environment Committee agenda for further consideration. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Bruce Wiggins. Mr Chair, I'd like to move the staff recommendation with one additional clause. And it's all renumbered accordingly. And that is to add 16... B under landscaping works. To add the clause, the removal of the existing Cocos palm and the planting of a Bangalow palm. For equivalent, either 200 litre or X ground and guide states officially in accordance with horticultural standards. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that? Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jo. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, reading through the report, I understand there has been a great deal of angst in the community with regard to the way in which this shed was redesigned and rebuilt over a period of time.

00:02:00 I think the outcomes the staff have worked on here with the department to overcome the height issues and the clearing issues certainly addresses a number of issues. I think the challenges that this new boat shed had provided for the community and for the planning scheme. I note there were no issues removing native trees to facilitate the shed. But invasive weed species, one invasive weed species remains, which I think is the reason for the additional clause. The Cocos palm is in fact an invasive plant under the Queensland Biosecurity Act and is listed on the Queensland Government Business website. The Cocos palm is in fact an invasive plant under the Queensland Biosecurity Act and is listed on the Queensland Government Business website. Whilst it's not a prohibitive or restrictive invasive plant under the Biosecurity Act, it is, however, by law, everybody has a general biosecurity obligation to take reasonable and practical steps to minimise the risks associated with invasive plants and animals under their control.

00:03:00 And given that this is a Queensland State website, it also lists the impacts as environmental, invades riparian areas and dry eucalypt forests, and the seed is spread by bats. So given that it's in the riparian zone and the actual listing of this item refers to removal of vegetation in the riparian zone, I think it's only pertinent that we ask the State to remove something that is listed as an invasive weed species in the Biosecurity Act on their site in place with a more appropriate planting wall. Thank you John. Any other councillors wish to speak for the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to question first. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Speaker 4: Councillors for clarification, carry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The conditions under Building Appearance 5 2 8 , I just want to be reassured that none

00:04:00 of the wonderful black and burgundy or whatever colours meet the criteria that we set out. If we look at the elevations in the report, it's dark, really brown doors and black walls etc. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to ask a question. In regards to the community consultation, I note that in April and August 2019, the applicant conducted some targeted community consultation which

00:05:00 resulted in design changes in building height and landscaping. I also note that the applicant went further and sent letters to residents when the development application was lodged and the community was allowed another opportunity to comment on the development. I'd like to know, Kerry, can you tell me the results of that consultation and whether the feedback resulted in further changes? Speaker 2: Yeah. So through the initial consultation that was unsaved by the state prior to the lodging of the application, with the intent being that the state and council had received a lot of objections from local residents about the boat shed and its poor design and the impact on the state, particularly around height and walking views of the river, but also that it was a shed, a fairly ordinary design, prominently located on the river. So they went through

00:06:00 a consultation phase. They engaged Noel Robertson, who's an architect that we use in peer reviews for development applications. I went through a process with residents to look at how they could improve the design of that shed and address residents' concerns. I understand that that consultation period, that consultation undertaken by the state did address a number of residents' concerns, but I only spoke with one resident last week who still remains concerned and would like to not see any shed there, feel that that should be public space and not used by the state at all. So there's still some concern in the community out there about the proposal. Councillor Lorentson: To further address community concerns, the ones that haven't been addressed in the design, what conditions and protections are in place to further ensure that this development doesn't

00:07:00 further extend in appropriate development? What can be done to ensure that this development continues? What sort of protections or assurances can we give the community that this is it? Speaker 2: So when it was first built, council officers raised with the state that it required a planning approval and they had failed to obtain the appropriate approval through site. So that was made abundantly clear with the state. Letters, correspondence, reports to council at the time. The state then looked at going through a designation process, which they were able to do, which essentially designates a site for a particular use and means that that use would be allowed to occur and not be required to the planning scheme. There was strong objection to that from the residents as well as council and officers. So the state withdrew that process. So there is no designation, so any further changes will always be subject to the planning scheme. So I think there's been a fairly strong message to the state around how, you know, how much

00:08:00 the residents feel and the importance of that site and that it can't just be extended without coming back to council before it's been approved. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So another question on that line. It appears to me that this indicates, one, that at least a group of officers were unaware of how to interpret the act at the time and proceeded without the appropriate basis of law to construct the shed. But, two, it seems to me that the state appears to suggest an ignorance of the Noosa design principles and how offensive what they did was to this community. Have we ever taken up at a political level a direct request to the relevant minister or ministers that we expect all public buildings to meet the Noosa design principles, and particularly those with high public visibility close to the key tourism economic assets, including the river?

00:09:00 Speaker 2: The answer is no. We've only raised this issue with the state, although we now have a, let's say, contact with a state officer quite regularly on any matters that involve state building and works, where they seek our input into their proposal and any changes that may be to state science. But there's been nothing formal as a general principle to go back to the state about Noosa design principles. Speaker 5: I understand that the local state never said anything about that. I don't know whether that conversation went further in relation to building any state building for any state infrastructure in the Shire. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly we've got some state departments have done a great job, if you look at the Parks and Wildlife building and the end of Merindale Street is what you'd hope for out Speaker 4: of public design. I just realised I seconded the motion so I can't amend it like I was

00:10:00 going to do to Anna. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: An extra bit that the minister would be saying is that the public design is still so informed. But anyway. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. This site has much history. In the late 60s it was run by the Queensland government as a marine biology research facility with the fisheries patrol operation established in the 70s comprising an office and a boat shed. A number of extensions and modifications were made over the years and in 2017 the old boat shed was demolished, six trees removed and a new larger building constructed in its place. Many would say a monstrosity. In 2017 there was significant resistance from Council about the shed and from many of our community members. It is the building which we are determining today. The Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol building is, and let's be frank, currently an eyesore on the fringes of our magnificent river. Aesthetically it is incredibly displeasing and needs attention. You would have to argue about the suitability of the shed situated at such a magnificent location along our river. However, according to the reports provided to Council, the location provides officers

00:11:00 and emergency services with immediate access to the Noosa River to maintain public safety. Clearly this has to be given much weight. Its location is also compliant with the Coastal Environment State Planning Policy. The application before us today is subject to a number of conditions, many of which involve improvement of the look and feel of the building. Specifically, the proposed modified boat shed will still be visible from the nearby residential development. However, it will be less dominating within the local area due to the proposed reduction in height, change in roofline, use of natural colours and finishes, including timber, and landscaping to screen and soften the built form. The design is considered appropriate as in keeping with the Noosaville Riverside urban character. It should be noted that all changes, all upgrades, refurbishments are at no cost to the residents and ratepayers of Noosa Shire. All costs will be borne by the State Government, and so they should. The applicant has also been working with a local architect to improve the design of the

00:12:00 constructed boat shed, which is submitted in this application. It is also noted that the new design will reduce the height of the building by 1.233 metres, which is considerable. The proposal includes changes which, as I have mentioned, will improve the aesthetics of the building while ensuring that location and access to the river remains paramount. In the unprecedented times we are now facing, an upgrade and improvement to the current building at no cost to our ratepayer must be acknowledged. We need to ensure at all times that officers have access to the river in case of an emergency, and we need to marry this willingness by the State Government to greatly improve the aesthetics of this building and ensuring it is more in line with the look and feel of Noosa. However, with all of this in my mind, I believe that there is an opportunity down the track when the financial burden of COVID is behind us, when our community is back on its feet, and when more pressing and urgent considerations have been addressed, that Council revisit the site in conjunction with discussions with State and question the necessity for this actual parcel of land to house the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol. It is an ideal piece of community land which

00:13:00 could, in my own opinion, be of enormous benefit to the community through the creation of green space and parkland. I do, however, acknowledge the constraints we are currently under, and I appreciate the operational works will improve our current situation at no cost, so I would accept that the application be approved in line with the conditions imposed by Council. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Do the other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. I think that this one is, we're dealing with two aspects. One is the material change of use in terms of enhancing the capacity to provide a public marine industry on the site. And noting what the Mayor has just advocated for, I think there can be no doubt that this is an appropriate site to base MSQ and marine resources on.

00:14:00 It was a little bit like an Oklahoma hay shed being brought to a Noosaville boat shed. To say we're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear would probably be an insult to a sow's ear. It was done with completely no regard to or understanding of the Noosa design principles or what the planning scheme seeks to achieve in terms of public-facing buildings, whether it be private or government. And if you're a government officer sitting in an office in Bundaberg trying to organise a boat shed, there's probably no reason you need to know about the Noosa design principles if it's not part of your operating procedures, and hence why my question before. I do think it's just as important to educate all those within state government as to how they should start the design process in the Shire

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 as it is with private developers. So in my mind, it's certainly no silk purse even as it is. They have, in their credit, gone to a very well-respected architect to redesign to make the best of what is available to achieve the purpose of a significantly larger craft that couldn't fit into the old shed. It is a salutary lesson. For us all, I was one who got their initial complaints before the building was actually up, inquired and was told by the state government officer in charge that he had all the necessary approvals. I should have queried that further, and for that I regret my lack of endeavour. But at this stage, I believe the outcome as recommended by staff is the best outcome we could hope for. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell.

00:16:00 Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Chair, would you wish to close us? Just to say I concur with the comments from my fellow councillors. I think the shed, as constructed, shows that the state has a tendency to build stock standard, whatever they like, wherever they like, on their own land, without some consideration to the communities in which these developments occur. And I think there's a large scope for reviewing that. I also think that they need to go back and have a look at it. They need to look at their own biodiversity requirements when they're developing on their own land, particularly in riparian areas, and have a good look at what other agencies within the state put their own parameters on, let alone what local councils require, as Councillor Stockwell alluded to. And I think the outcome here, whilst it is required, because it shows there'll be a presence, or an increased presence, hopefully, of monitoring and management of this land.

00:17:00 Some years to come that we've been requiring, there is scope to, as the Mayor alluded to, to see whether this is the best location for such a shed in the future. But the outcome that staff have negotiated here, and the design principles that have been adhered to through the use of a renowned local architect, commendable from the first abomination, I'd have to call it, that was built. It was put on this site. Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We now move on to item two, which is the Planning and Environment Court appeal number 219 of 220, refusal of an application for two detached houses and 12 multiple housing units, and reconfiguring a lot, one into four lots, plus easement by 27 Atunga Heights

00:18:00 user heads. This has been referred from the Planning and Environment Court. This has been referred from the Planning and Environment Committee due to the significance of the matter. It's on page 36 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Council's here. Questions or staff? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move to your recommendation then. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I've got questions. No questions. Sorry. Yes, I've got quite a few questions. Yes. In, I think we all need to understand with this site, that in 2006, there was a site zone for open space, and in 2006, a development approval was granted for 42 units and a lodge. The current proposal is actually only 12 units and two houses. There's been a massive reduction of 28. Councillor Jurisevic: There's a question here, or are we talking to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, there is. Okay. So, Kerry, no worries. Kerry, is the whole site zoned for open space, or is it partly zoned attached housing and

00:19:00 detached housing? Speaker 2: Yes. That's correct. The site has a mixed zoning. So, it is predominantly zoned open space conservation. But parts of the site certainly are zoned and attached and detached housing. Councillor Lorentson: I know that 50% of the site is, will be dedicated to Council if this application goes ahead. What will the applicant do if Council decides not to have the land as a reserve? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The motion in front of us is whether to defend an appeal. The questions go to the heart of what the development is. That matter has already been determined as to this. Development has been subject to a report. It's subject to a democratic decision of the Noosa Shire Council, which was to refuse the development. Any querying in terms of that is too late. The only matter we should be entertaining now is whether we wish to defend the appeal.

00:20:00 Or not. And if we don't defend the appeal, it means that a democratically made decision of Noosa Council will not be, have representation to represent either the interests of this Council or the interests of the community. And believing that we can re-prosecute previous approvals, I think, is a dangerous procedure. Councillor Lorentson: Can I stay? Councillor Wilkie: No. Councillor May, hold. So, you're quite correct. The decision before us is whether we defend the appeal or not. But we do have new councillors who would like to satisfy themselves as to whether or not we defend the appeal or not. I believe the question that Councillor Amelia may be asking will be pertinent to whether she decides to vote to defend the appeal or not. So, I will allow the questioner that you are quite free. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would then request that both the questioner and the comments be very careful in terms of the position of council.

00:21:00 In terms of any comments, commentary, as we've already heard, that may be prejudicial to the case of Noosa Council. Councillor Wilkie: No, you're correct. Councillor Nooroo. Continue with your questions. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I can? I've always just worked on the premise that I need as much information and, in fact, all information before I make an informed decision. And that's where my questions were going, Brian. So, I just wanted to... If the matter's going to... I'd like to... That's all right. I'd just like to put that on record. So, my question is, has council been advised by its legal team of prospects of success and costs? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that a matter that should be dealt... The question? Is that a matter that should be dealt with by the council? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'd suggest if you want to talk about... No worries. ... prospects of success in the legal field. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Has the... Has the developer undertaken a targeted community consultation, inviting objectors and residents

00:22:00 to meet with its project team, Kerry? And what was the response or feedback? Speaker 2: I'm only aware that the applicant has gone through a public notification period that's required by the planning legislation, to which we received a lot of objections to. And a lot of those objectors have now elected to join the appeal and become co-respondents. So, I don't know whether that's... Councillor Lorentson: So again, correct me if this question isn't, this isn't the right forum for this question, but has the applicant provided geotechnical engineering reports to Council? And if so, where can I find it? Speaker 2: Yes, there was a geotechnical report as well as a number of other reports lodged with the original application and they are online on the Council's website and I can also provide that directly to Council.

00:23:00 Councillor Lorentson: And my last question is, does the drafting scheme zoning take into consideration the technical reporting and all these assessments and ecology reports that are online and provided by the applicant? Speaker 2: Certainly, development and assessment were involved in the draft scheme in terms of the change to the zoning pattern on the site and that was based on knowledge they gained through the original development application as well as the, gained through the original development application, not this application, it was too early. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll take the question. Councillor Wilkie: I've got a few questions too. Okay, Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Kerrie, just, I'd just like a bit of an explanation of some 30, page 37, the comment, the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the proposed development footprint is commensurate

00:24:00 with the site's constraints and values. Can you just explain that to me in a little more detail? Speaker 2: Yes, so the application on the proposed footprint does not match the draft scheme footprint in terms of the water. It does not match the current zones for development in the future on the site. So it extends out further along the pathway into areas that are, areas that are not as weed infested as well as steeper land and into areas that contain the wildlife corridor that runs through the site. Mayor Stewart: And is it correct that the applicant has suggested he'll put up a 60 metre wildlife corridor? 66. 66 metre wildlife corridor? Speaker 2: Well, the applicant's plans show what's proposed, and certainly that was detailed in the original application. We're saying it doesn't need a 50 metre corridor. And that it intrudes, the proposed development intrudes in part into that corridor.

00:25:00 Mayor Stewart: And in 2006, it was, the minister stated that a 10 metres wider, he stated a 50 metre corridor is required. Is that right? So that's actually 10 metres now wider than the original plan. 10 metres now wider than what the minister stated in 2006. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes, that's right. The applicant, the original application was called in by the minister after council approved it. And they were required to amend their plan by removing some of the units in order to achieve a 50 metre corridor through the site. But I don't agree that the applicant's proposing a 60 metre corridor because development intrudes even into 50 metre widths. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So when they said a dedicated 60 metre wildlife corridor, that's up for debate? Speaker 2: Yes. Development intrudes into that 60 metre, so it's not maintained. Mayor Stewart: Just another question. The proposal will adversely impact on the visual amenity of nearby properties.

00:26:00 This development is at the end of the street, and it's sloped downwards. So how will that adversely impact other houses in the street if it's at the very end and it's sloping downwards? Yeah. Speaker 2: So the proposed development in part is three storeys, and that is adjacent to existing housing in the Tunga Heights at the end. It's also adjacent to, three metres is also adjacent to the pathway that runs along side to side, and viewable from property that back onto that pathway. Okay. Speaker 5: Think about it. Think about it, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Kerry. Okay. Councillor Stockwell, you move the motion. And seconded, Councillor Jurisevic. Okay. Do you have the floor, Councillor Stockwell? Oh, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I suppose my point of order goes to the heart of the matter. This and a number of other items today is a simple decision. It's a decision whether to defend a lawfully made development decision, which has been arrived at by a majority of Noosa Shire councillors after advice from the professional staff in regard to its compliance.

00:27:00 Okay. The only decision to be made is whether to defend it or not. Choosing not to defend it meant that the interests of this council and of the community would not be present at a court hearing or at mediation. It's a fairly simple principle. You just do it. The concept that because there's a new council that we can start playing around with old decisions, it's a fairly simple principle, you just do it. And doing it because you may have voted a different way previously is something that I have considerable difficulty with if I've debated a notion of council. The matter at hand is a simple one.

00:28:00 And I urge all councillors to support it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? I do. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I acknowledge that the information put forward by the applicant that we received yesterday, and their ability to speak to the motion, I do. I also acknowledge that it is an honourable opportunity to work with council in regard to a number of matters. However, this also must be addressed in light of the policies and schemes and the Noosa plan which we must abide by. Similarly, community sentiment must be listened to. It is clear that there is overwhelming community feedback which is against this application, so much so that some community members have joined the appeal as co-respondents. I would thus have to agree that the appeal must be defended. However, I would urge staff to try and mediate an outcome that is workable for all parties involved and would ultimately save the rate payer further costs associated with taking the matter to trial. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? No. Councillor Jarrett. I acknowledge the concerns raised there by the Mayor, but as we have, the Newcastle

00:29:00 was alerted. Part of the process of defending the appeal is, this is where the point of mediation begins and this is the opportunity to go through that process. So as a result of that, I'm quite happy to defend the appeal and allow the process to be used. Just to finish, it's clear that by the decision raised by the council previously, this doesn't meet the current planning scheme and that it is clear that this is not the case. But it had a number of issues that still need to be addressed and that's the process going forward. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'd just like... Councillor Lorentson. Thanks, Frank. I'd like just to add that I agree with Brian that, to me, that when I look at these applications, it is straightforward and the questions I ask are, does the development application meet the outcomes of the Noosa plan? Question two, does the development application meet with community expectations?

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 And the third question I ask is, is a negotiated outcome a better result for council and the community? Especially if there is a high chance of losing if the case goes to court. So I think the answer to the first two questions is no and the answer to the third question is yes. So I do support council's recommendation to appeal... to refuse the application. And I'd also like to add that I'm actually quite proud to live in a town where the community and council are prepared to fight against developers who try to decide how our neighbourhoods will look like. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your comments today with regards to this matter. I do agree that the matter before us today is to deal with the development of the Noosa

00:31:00 plan to whether or not we defend the appeal. And I'm satisfied with the council's staff's recommendation with that. I would like to add that during my time in council, I've received a lot of notification from community. Members of the public during the notification period made a significant number of objections to this development. And as such, I agree with staff to defend the appeal. The development is contrary to the Noosa plan. It's contrary to the Noosa plan's strategic framework and the desired environmental outcomes. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. As the councils know, Noosa Council accrues 98% on average of all development applications. This is one of the 2% of developments that conflict with the planning scheme. In this case, because the development was over the high limits, overly dense, sought to

00:32:00 create a new development plan. The plan was to designate a subdivision in an open space conservation area, clear excessive vegetation and destabilise an area known to be landslip prone. The council was technically already in appeal with its applicant. Ratifying this motion to now formally defend the appeal allows professional town planning and legal staff to engage in the mediation process to get the best results for the rate payers and the whole Noosa community. Defending the appeal is the most appropriate course of action at this point, given the meetings and communications staff have with the applicant, outlining the difficulties with this application prior to the lodgement and the applicant's decision to push ahead against campaigning advice. Councillor Stockwell, would you please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will, yes. I acknowledge councillors who are coming on and trying to find all the information out and I think that is a very useful process and I know, and my previous comments aren't meant to suggest anything. I don't want to mislead. The CEO will let you know that I and he have had a long standing difference of opinion

00:33:00 about any comment in a public meeting on a matter subject to appeal. I don't believe that it's appropriate for it to be held in open session. I believe the only potential outcome is for council's chances to be worse off when councils are making comment on an appeal that is already underway. We do have a case management working group. Where the issues in regard to a potential process can go ahead, we delegate that role in this council to the Mayor and Councillor Wegener to represent councillors' interests. And Councillor Lorentson as well. There, in my opinion, is where we make the tactical decisions in regard to the approach to mediation and the approach to any subsequent court hearing. It's not in an open meeting of council. Hence why I believe in all these matters that are before us today, like this one, we should deal just whether we think it is our decision to defend the appeal or not.

00:34:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. We now move on to item three, which is another planning and environment court appeal. Refusal of a might of change to a development approval for a JETEA-60, the prevention of JETEA-60, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee, page 42, for further consideration. Councillor, do you have any questions of staff on this one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My question is different to the last one. This was a decision made out of under delegated authority. Correct. However, there is still no ability for councillors to re-prosecute the actual application. Is that right at this stage? Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. What's before council is the question of the appeal of the original application. Councillor Wilkie: So, councillors will be arguing whether we defend the appeal or not? Yes.

00:35:00 Ultimately. Yes. Councillors, any questions of Kerry? Mr Widman. Councillor Widman. Councillor Wegener: Well, just since we had our planning meeting, information has come, or you shared that the association, that the Homeowners Association there, was against this. This JETEA, with the way it's been built. So that's new information to Amelia and I that just came this morning, I believe. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for sharing. Do you have a question? No. No, that's it. No? Okay. Look, I'm happy to move. Move, Councillor Jurisevic. I'll second it. Seconded, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you wish to speak to the motion? I need to state that I think the conditions were clear and open. I think the staff gave the applicant the necessary information and I'm happy to, and it's clear that this is consistent across the boards in Noosa Waters, so I'm happy to support the

00:36:00 staff in defending the appeal. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to speak. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: The item before us pertains to, let's be frank, a crisscross design of not more than a couple of metres under the handrail of a JETEA. The design, for anyone who has seen it, fits perfectly in with the design of the newly constructed house. The house, and more specifically the JETEA, feature in the area of Noosa Waters. The JETEA sits at one of the widest areas of the river and sits directly across from a bridge and water passage. Living in the area, I've had the ability to find out what some neighbours think, and I've had the opportunity to assess the JETEA myself. We have also, as a council, as Councillor Wegener said, received feedback from the Noosa Waters Residents Association in regard to the JETEA. The letter from the Residents Association quite clearly states that of 900 voting members of the Noosa Waters Association, the overwhelming number support no variations to the town plan in regard to the Noosa Waters Canal and adjacent areas.

00:37:00 Specifically in line three, the letter notes, there are special provisions in the town plan for Noosa Waters Canal estate. These provisions are in line three. The provisions were inserted after extensive consultation with the Noosa Waters community. The provisions in the town plan strike a sensible balance between a property owner's right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, general community amenity and essential practical performance. This is completely understandable, but let's look at this sentence more closely in light of the issue that is before us today. Criss-crossing under a handrail on a newly erected JETEA, let's balance a property owner's right to peaceful enjoyment. The JETEA in question is the best of all JETEAs which I saw yesterday. I contacted someone who lives in the same street as the house and JETEA in question to ask what neighbours thought. Let me quote one particular neighbour. The JETEA certainly does not impact me. They have only improved the streetscape enormously. I would do anything to support them. Furthermore, this morning, I received further correspondence from a neighbour in the street

00:38:00 via text message. The text message reads, if there's the ability to make a submission in support, I would say something along the lines of, as near neighbours three doors down of 60 the peninsula, we wish to state that we have no objection to any aspect of the home and associated structures that have been built on that site. In fact, we are delighted that the owners have gone to the effort and cost of producing such a wonderful built form that greatly enhances the value of our street. Point of order. Point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We appear to be debating the merits of the decision of whether to defend the appeal. The matters are going to, the Mayor's comments tend to be going to be something you'd tend to get from a witness for the developer rather than a witness for the Council. Therefore, it may be prejudicial to the Council's case, even though it may not represent the majority. And if we're going to proceed down the road of debating the merits of the decision, we

00:39:00 should be doing that in close succession. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy not to continue with that. I'm happy to quote information that is pertaining to here from Council staff and continue along along my line and express my own views based on what I've seen. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, Council Stewart, you'll be prosecuting an argument not to defend the appeal? Yes. In that case, I'm on our way. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: So I won't elaborate any further. I think it's pretty self explanatory what the neighbours think. In regard to the assessment, so some of the jetties which I viewed personally yesterday were old and decrepit. Some were some others, some holding up canoes, but none were aesthetically pleasing as the one we are debating today. And that is the heart of the matter. In regard to the assessment undertaken by Council officers concerning the jetty in question, I would note the words of one officer, Council officer, who stated, any infill on the hand rails is inconsistent with the Watercourse Works Code. Any works in the Noosa Waters should reflect the character and setting of the works, immediate

00:40:00 surrounds or locality. Furthermore, they went to add, a site inspection revealed that all the hand rails in the vicinity of the site and generally in Noosa Waters consist of vertical posts and a horizontal rail with no decorative infills. This simplistic design ensures that the jetties remain as operational low key structures and do not become a feature in the Noosa Waters canal system. Or an extension of a dwelling's recreational space. There is a risk that embellishing hand rails in Noosa Waters may lead to visual cluttering on the watercourse. Let's look at visual cluttering. As I said, it is clear that this jetty is one of, if not the best, aesthetically pleasing jetties in Noosas. When looking at the pictures of the differing jetties, it is clear that all are different. All have different uses. Many look crowded, in disrepair, tired, old and some ugly. It is almost impossible to discern that each jetty on inspection reflect the character

00:41:00 of the locality, because all are so vastly different. Similarly, if we talk of clutter, the jetties which lead to actual visual cluttering are the ones which have piled high kayaks, canoes, jet skis, tinnies, chairs, tables and so on. A bit of decorative infill is not enough. The decorative screening has little impact in this regard. For all of these reasons, I don't support the recommendation of Council staff. And I would further add that matters such as these be dealt with perhaps, and I understand what we're looking at here, but I think that at an operational level, and I think in this instance, that we should have a little bit of latitude. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors, speaking of motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just a question of clarification. We are dealing with an application that was considered after a deliberate breach of a planning

00:42:00 approval was identified. Is that right? Speaker 2: That is right. It's actually the second application that was made for the jetty where officers conditioned the type of Panrail that was required. The first time it was refused, a further application was launched with the same Panrail, and it was refused again, and it's now appealed. So, it's the same application. Also, we're also dealing on the same site with another application for works in the four and a half metre setback to the revetment wall, which was done without an approval. So, we have that current application there. And recent inspection shows there's been a boat shed built in the four and a half metre setback to the revetment wall, which is not shown on any application. So, this landowner seems to have a history of building things and asking for permission later. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question, Kerry. In regard to the four and a half metre setback and the revetment walls, are you aware of any other premises in Noosa Waters that have built within that four and a half metres or on their revetment wall?

00:43:00 Speaker 2: Nothing's been built on the revetment wall, but there are certainly works within the four and a half metre setback. Mayor Stewart: I'm talking about in general for other houses, other properties. Are you aware of any others? Yes. Speaker 2: There are others, which we have approved. Mayor Stewart: So, what about on the revetment wall? Speaker 2: Nothing on the revetment wall, because we're making sure there's no threat to the revetment wall. Mayor Stewart: Well, I'd suggest that there are a number of properties that have fences on a revetment wall. Speaker 2: Yeah. There may be certainly works that are unapproved, but not approved by council. So, there's quite a history of Noosa Waters Residents Association advising us when people do carry out works without an approval. So, I can't say for sure there's nothing there, but nothing that we have approved. So, the assessment is centred around visual amenity, as well as that four and a half metre setback is a requirement for flood storage. Mayor Stewart: So, if there's a number of other houses that may have structures that aren't necessarily

00:44:00 approved or that you're not aware of, how did this particular house come to your attention? Speaker 2: So, they made an application originally for the jetty for the handrail. Yeah. We didn't approve the handrail. They then made a second application to change the condition to seek approval for the handrail, which we refused. We do do compliance on all our development approvals. So, when we went out to the site, we found that they had constructed the handrail contrary to the condition. And contrary to their approval. Mayor Stewart: And when you go out to the site, do your officers go by boat, or do they go by car? And then, do they come in through the lock and weir? Speaker 2: Mostly, officers will ask the landowner for access to the property. In some instances, we may gain access through another person's property, if you give us permission. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And the council's supposed to speak to the motion. Have I spoken yet? You haven't.

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 Councillor Wegener: We shouldn't be answering questions, should we? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, that was a supplementary on my own question, wasn't it? Yes, yes. Hence, I ruined my own rule. The issue at hand is whether, once again, just to defend a decision, whether this council wishes to start some sort of consultation process with the Noosa Waters Residence Association, whether this council wishes to start some sort of consultation process with the Noosa Waters Residence Association to determine whether the current provisions relating to design and construction of jetties in the Noosa Waters Canal is a completely separate matter, whether individual councillors have a view in terms of the degree of discretion that staff should exercise in determining particular applications is, once again, a decision for another matter, for another day. In terms of the significance of the problem at hand, it's perhaps not what has been built,

00:46:00 but the fact that it was a deliberate contravention of a very specific condition on a previous development approval that all should be willing to put their hand up and support defending council's decision. Councillor Wilkie: Do you think the council's still on board? Councillor Lorentson: So, I don't disagree with anything that's been discussed on the table. I think my concerns are that the applicant's original approval for the jetty included a very specific condition, and that condition was no Hampton-style rail. I think I get a little bit annoyed when applicants ignore conditions. I think it's a very inappropriate assessment of the conditions of development applications, and then seek that the change application be approved. From where I sit, this is a flagrant disregard of the approval conditions given by council,

00:47:00 and really should not go unnoticed. Kerry mentioned also that just recently, council offices inspected a property, and a boat shed was constructed within a four and a half metre setback. Again, without approval. Now I don't disagree that provisions of designs should be a separate matter, I don't disagree that we need to have some more consultation with the Noosa Waters community about what they can and can't legislate, but the case before us does conflict with the outcomes of the Watercourse Works Code, it does conflict with the Noosa Waters Association's expectations, and again, there's been a lot of flagrant disregard and disrespect of Council's position and the Noosa Plan. So in this instance, I do want on record also that I don't think it's Council staff, it's not within their scope to ascertain what is and what isn't in keeping with an area's makeup. I actually lived in Noosa Waters for over 10 years, and the places

00:48:00 is eclectic, there is no, there is, it's not traditional, it's not contemporary, it's this beautiful mix of eclectic homes, and I think that tasteful design should be encouraged. But in the case before us, I actually do support Council's refusal to defend the appeal, and yeah, that's it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Miller. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I would like to say today that I do agree to defend the appeal, as it's come to my attention it was a deliberate breach. But what I would like to add to the conversation today is that people who put in the applications and follow them, and make the correct process, is acknowledged.

00:49:00 However, we do need to put something in place where we go to the association at Noosa Waters, and that there is some type of process to explore properties that may have just put up structures or violated the amenity or the regulations. That will need to be addressed at another time, so I'd like it noted that this is to be addressed. I don't know the process of how that happens, but I think moving forward this does need to happen. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councilor Talbott. Councillor Wegener: Just, in the letter from James Taylor, the president of Noosa Waters Residents Association, he states that, quote, we believe that when there is an application for a variation to the town plan, the relevant community should be invited by Council to give feedback, and that seems to say that, yeah, they would like to be able to give feedback on this, and perhaps things could have gone a different way.

00:50:00 Yes. The association self-regulation would be good, but as Amelia, we talked last time, that self-regulation isn't the way to go when you're in conflict with the town plan and that this, we actually completely support the application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. I support the decision to defend the appeal. For me, it's all about correct, issues like this are about correct process. As stated in the letter from the Noosa Waters Association, these provisions were inserted in the Noosa plan after extensive consultation with the Noosa Waters community, so they contain their aspirations about the look and feel of their community, and I do respect that. And to quote from their email, any deviation from the town plan creates the risk of setting a precedent, which over time results in loss of amenity to the area.

00:51:00 We need to look no further than other waterways where there are fuel plants. We have to provide proper control to see how the Noosa Waters community has benefited from having these provisions in the town plan. For these reasons, the Noosa Waters Residence Association support the Council staff's recommendation to defend the action. And I guess, without provisions, it does come down to the subjective choice of what we individually think is attractive or not. If there were no provisions, perhaps the designs we see there would be even more attractive. I do acknowledge the Mayor's comments that there's already quite an interesting mix of designs there and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You're starting my line. But we need something a bit more reliable such as something in black and white that everyone can agree and adhere to.

00:52:00 Two, other councils around this table have suggested that if there is issues with the standards required through the provisions, that further consultation be undertaken with Manusa Waters Residence Association first and make the changes through amendments to the planning scheme. But to allow these changes through by not defending appeal, I just don't think that's the right process. And a wise person to me this morning said that it's... It's very important that councillors defend their planning and Manusa Council continues to defend its planning scheme because a lot of councillors have very strong planning schemes. The big difference is a councillor's willingness to always defend its planning schemes, which is the determinant factor often in court when a Planning and Environment Court judge comes to making a decision whether to uphold the planning scheme or not, I'm in favour of the recommendation.

00:53:00 Councillor Ducey, do you wish to comment? Councillor Jurisevic: I do. As you alert to, tasteful is in the eye of the beholder. The principal point here is one that was raised by the councillors and that is conditions of approval were on the plans and the developer has clearly breached those conditions by putting in what was clearly conditioned against by staff in the... in support of the elements of the Noosa plan. Now, it may seem petty that a little bit of crisscrossing isn't allowed, but there's a reason why the residents clearly had that in the Noosa plan and agreed to the lack of these sort of Hampstead styles proliferation across the canal estate. It may be something to see just one there, but if you saw a proliferation of them, it may change your view as to how you see railings across the canal estate.

00:54:00 I don't know. It's not mine to do. As other councillors have alluded to here, I'm happy to review the plan with residents going forward. And that's the process that we should do if we think that we need to change the rules regarding railings. But as they stand, that's the regulation. That's the planning scheme. And staff have alluded to and clearly articulated with the applicant here that those type of railings weren't suitable. They weren't standard across the canal estate. And that was the way the planning scheme had been set up. So, hence, once they've been put in after being conditioned against, there's a need to turn around and bring the applicant to bear. The state of existing jetties was something raised by the Mayor. But that's not a matter for Council here. That's a matter for residents and their maintenance regime with regard to how they maintain their properties. Not even something that's included in the planning scheme. And I doubt the Council will even get involved in that unless they can be proven to be unsafe.

00:55:00 Thank you. As I said, I think the comments by the councillors are supportive of defending the appeal. And I too will support defending the appeal in this case, even though it may seem like a minor issue that needs to be resolved. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisdict. All those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener. Wegener. Jurisdict. Lawrence. Stockwell. Finzel. Wilkie. Cozzie Gates. Councillor Stewart. Next one. Councillor Jurisevic: Join the club. Mayor Stewart: I joined that a while ago. It is strange. It is strange. I turned to them. I turned to them. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Right. The councillors will now move on to item four. It's another Planning and Environment Court appeal. Refusal of an application for a bar of five Taylor Court, Cooroy, from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda, page 45. And that agenda has been referred due to the significance of the matter.

00:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a procedural motion. Speaker 5: Procedural. Before we get to the council. Yes. Just for information. The mayor had asked me to prepare some alternative wording. I normally would send that around. But the email system crashed about 10 to 10 this morning. So I turned that around. I've got it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's why I'm making a procedural motion. Speaker 5: The issue there. It's on the board. Okay. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my procedural motion is that this matter be held over to the last item of agenda, so that the issue can be addressed in a closed session due to the indication from at least one councillor that they intend to prosecute an alternate recommendation, which in debating that would be impossible to do without going to the merits of the individual case. And therefore, it should be held in closed session. Councillor Wilkie: So you're moving that, Councillor Stockwell? Yes. And we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener: I second. Councillor Wilkie: A seconder for Councillor Wegener? Speak to the motion. Speaker 5: The motion is to hold the matter to the last item of agenda.

00:57:00 Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. Speaker 5: For a closed session. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you need a separate motion for the closed session? No. No. Speaker 5: Not this. Just all you need at the moment is that you want to procedural matter is to hold that item over to the last item. The last item. You know that it's the last item on the agenda. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: And then decide there whether to go to the closed session or not. Decide that at the closed session or not. Yes. Speaker 5: The closed session or not. Councillor Wilkie: All right. We have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener? Yes. Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've explained my thinking on why. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion which is that this item be held over to the last item on the agenda? Okay. I put the motion all in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. So we now move on to item five which is the Environment Project Grants, which is a planning and Environment Committee address.

00:58:00 I'm sorry, I missed this meeting. It was interesting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question of staff. In the list of approved projects, there is an application by Hintland Bush Links Incorporated and in the description it talks about in partnership with Landcare with the National Land and Forest Care Program. Is Landcare, the Noosa District Landcare, a group? And can you explain to me, for the purpose of me understanding, whether I have a conflict of interest, what the nature of that partnership is? Speaker 7: The intent of the applicant is to subcontract Noosa District Landcare to deliver the program locally. So they're a board group. They have a lot of contacts, but their intent is to subcontract and provide funding through that to Noosa District Landcare to deliver the program. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay.

00:59:00 So I will therefore declare a ... Now, I forget what I generally do with Landcare. I think I say it's perceived. That's the same one. Due to the fact ... Yeah. So I am a member of the longstanding association with Noosa Landcare, but as a sole trader in my business, Watershed Trayor. I am a member of Noosa District Landcare. I have both contracted by and have subcontracted Doxa and Noosa District Landcare prior to becoming a councillor. I believe I can consider this item impartially and in the public interest, and request that I remain in the meeting room to participate and debate and vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So councillor, we have a resolution before ... A motion before us about whether or not the nature of Councillor Stockwell's conflict of interest. Whether it's perceived or not. Perceived or real. And whether or not he will remain in the room or not.

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 Does anyone wish to move a motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I quite request that Councillor Stockwell to clarify. So what is your current status of association with Noosa District Landcare? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just as a member. So I haven't involved them in my business dealings since it would have either been 2013 or around that, or earlier. I would have thought. Councillor Jurisevic: And do you have any links to Hinkley and Bush links incorporated? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Okay. It might have been later. It might have been 2014. Councillor Wilkie: Question for the CEO under the Local Government Act. The councillor is a general member of an organisation. There is no requirement to declare a conflict of interest. Speaker 5: That's correct. Under the Act, the ... or could be an ordinary member of any community organisation doesn't in itself give rise to a conflict of interest. If you are a member of the executive, like the president or secretary or whatever it might be, that does trigger a requirement to declare. The only other thing is that, you know, it doesn't give you a free pass if you're an

01:01:00 ordinary member as well. If you're an ordinary member who helped prepare a grant application or whatever it might be, it goes above and beyond. But if you're just an ordinary member, that in itself doesn't trigger a requirement for a conflict of interest. Councillor Wilkie: Question for Councillor Stockwell. Do you have any involvement in the preparation of this grant application? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. No. No. No knowledge of it whatsoever. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. I ... well, it's not ... I actually do ... I mean, the fact that Councillor Stockwell was a founding member and has been ... had close ties to this organisation in the past, I would question whether or not he can be completely impartial in regard to this matter. Okay. So, um ... I mean, you're a founding member. Founding member ... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To be ... to be ... I didn't use those words this time, but to be clear, uh, Nursery District Landcare was actually a construction of the 1988 to 1991 council, where we played the role in facilitating it. Um, I was the council representative on that as a ... as a founding member.

01:02:00 It was not a corporate association at that time, under the current legislative requirements as a council representative. I was a representative on a body. Um, you don't have a conflict of interest. Councillor Wilkie: Has ... So, that's your involvement as a founding member? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. So, it's actually ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... There was a problem with Grounsell Weed, which led to a meeting in Pomona at the time where Landcare was just beginning and we thought this would be a good opportunity to bring the community together around an issue. So it was actually the first meetings were facilitated in this office with the state government about how to start a Landcare Group and it was in that capacity as a councillor that I think the motion that went through would have been to, for me as the council's representative on what was then a subcommittee of the Gympie Landcare Group, Councillor Wilkie: so you're talking about an involvement of JSPAC, how many years? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 1989. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CEO, a question for the CEO. The wording as a founding member therefore in Councillor Stockwell's explanation of his association, could that be better worded as a council representative in the foundation of the association?

01:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It probably is and I hadn't sort of given that deep go. Councillor Jurisevic: And is that able to be changed in life of his declaration? Speaker 5: Sure. What declaration? I'll just pick up all the information that comes out during the question so to speak. So if, from what Councillor Stockwell says, his long-standing association was as a council representative to the Sydney Foundation back in, what was it? 99? Yeah, that probably should be included in that statement. Councillor Jurisevic: I think that's a more accurate understanding therefore as opposed to a founding member which then the Mayor alluded to or saw as a, Well it was stated on the board. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I didn't say it but I had to. Councillor Lorentson: I didn't allude to it, it was stated. I'd just like to add that in ascertaining whether there is a perceived or real conflict of interest in this matter, I look at the impacts of the decision.

01:04:00 Will Councillor Stockwell's decision impact negatively, sorry, will anyone from Landcare derive a benefit or a loss as a result of Councillor Stockwell's decision? I say yes and for that reason and the fact that he's being... Councillor Wilkie: We actually don't have a motion before or something. Councillor Lorentson: Oh okay, sorry, sorry. Frank, I just think that there's a perceived conflict of interest. So do I. Okay, sorry, yes. Speaker 5: No, we didn't vote on that. Councillor Lorentson: It's just more questions. Speaker 5: It doesn't matter what decision the council has, it doesn't matter what decision it's about, any issue. It could be just noting a report for example. Any decision whether it's going to have a benefit, no benefit or just noting the report is a decision of the council and that's what the declaration must be.

01:05:00 Whether it has a big impact, a small impact, no impact is irrelevant. It's whether or not the council can make a decision, that's the issue. Councillor Lorentson: I just question, I think we've been an association since 1989, it's going to be difficult. You're prosecuting them. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We need a motion. So I'll move a motion, moved by Councillor Wilkie, that the council has noted a perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Stockwell. And resolved that this represents a perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Stockwell. There is an interest in the matter. And Councillor Stockwell, my motion will be that it may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener: A seconder. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, seconder. Now, we debate this. If you disagree, we put this to a vote. If I'm outvoted, someone else puts up an alternative motion.

01:06:00 But Councillor Stockwell, obviously I'm not a senator. But Councillor Stockwell is. So, I'll begin. I'll move the motion. So, this is a very long bow that's been drawn here. Councillor Stockwell's declared a link to a partner in one of his grants. He's an ordinary member of the group. That is not necessary to declare a conflict of interest under the Local Government Act. When he was involved with the formation of the Local Government Act, he was a member of Landcare back in 1989. He was, as a council representative, on a working group of some sort. And, as councillors know, if councils are appointed to a board, such as the Tourism Noosa, the council is not required to declare a conflict of interest because it's a council appointment. It does not constitute a conflict of interest under the Local Government Act.

01:07:00 It's important that these... The most important thing is that it's not a conflict of interest under the Local Government Act. That is the most important thing in terms of transparency and openness. That they're on the record. That everyone knows what the perceived link is. So, Councillor Stockwell has made that declaration. And then, whether or not he stays in the room. I'm convinced that Councillor Stockwell can make an impartial decision on this matter. And that's why I've moved that he remain in the room to participate in the debate as one of seven councillors. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell, thank you for being up front in this regard. It's greatly appreciated. I don't think you can be impartial. There are prior relationships. There's prior works. There's prior knowledge. Perhaps you may not have been a founding member, but you were there at the foundation of the

01:08:00 organisation. I think it's very hard for you to be impartial in this regard. I think, based on the history and also the deep connections, I don't think that a vote in this matter can be seen as being impartial on your part. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask a question? Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Fintel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, for declaring that. Just one question from me is, at any time in this long association, have you ever been involved in assisting in any way whatsoever with the writing of grants? Or recommendations towards grants? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. The Nurses District Landcare? No. So I'll explain the length of it. So very early in the piece, as I said, it was established by council.

01:09:00 So that would have been for two years. Two years as a councillor. I then did have no great connection until about 1998, when I assumed the role of a State Government role as a coordinator for Mayor of a Cashment Coordinating Committee, which once again brought me into association as a public adviser to the Cashment Group, which involved links to the Landcare Group. That wasn't a decision-making role. I'm trying to think. There might be three steps away during that period when we started the Mary River Rhyperian Grants process. And with our full recollection, some of that would have been to a landholder, which would have got Landcare in Noosa to do the job. But that was basically a State Government advisory, professional advisory position.

01:10:00 So there's no conflict in terms of who's going to do the work and who's not going to do that. And then, yes, so just more generally, as a member more recently, and also in my role, which was declared there, my role that they contracted me to do at a very good rate, I gave them mates' rates, I suppose you would say, was to assist in the workshop on their strategic direction, which may have led to... Well, I know it led to the election. It led to the appointment of a business manager for the group around that time. And the time that I contracted them, they assisted to develop a land capability assessment framework in regard to assessing land for its suitability for environmental offsets, which I paid them a rate as a subcontractor. I think that's all the information I can give you.

01:11:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Mayor Stewart: So your involvement was so deep... Can I ask a question? You may ask. Oh, sorry, this is a question, sorry. Councillor Stockwell, so your involvement with the community, with this organisation went so deep that you were able to employ someone or suggest employment of someone for the organisation. Is that what you just said? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I said I, as a consultant, facilitated a process which helped them chart their strategic direction. So I was both facilitating... I wrote up a report from the facilitation meeting. I believe that may have led to the appointment of the business... And I'm trying to link two grants to a... You said that indirectly, to the business manager role, which then goes out and gets grants for them. But that's... I'm trying to be as open as I can. That was as a consultant, and it was facilitating a strategic process. Councillor Wilkie: Is that back in 1991? No, I think it was... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that one was the one just... I can't recall exactly. It was probably around the 2014 mark. Okay.

01:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions of Councillor Stockwell? Any other comments on the motion? Councillor Jerusalem. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask one other question. And it's not a revert. Apart from being a member, have you held any other executive position or a committee position on the... No. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Thomas. Councillor Wegener: Well, a comment is that we, as councillors, really depend on people who know most about what they're talking about, and we have Brian Stockwell, who has a long history with this, but the law basically says he complied with it, now he said this, he puts it on the table. I find that by losing his guidance in this debate, will really leave us wanting for good informed direction when talking about the grants. He is the expert at the table here in this field, and by law, he's complied with the

01:13:00 law at this point. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Go ahead. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Amelia. Okay. I just want to ask a couple of questions, Councillor Stockwell. What is your personal relationship with Noosa and District Lane? In particular, those running the organisation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, all collegiate relationships are all based through land care, other than the said business development manager. In fact, I've known for a bit longer in that she took my role as a planner in Coolidge, Iowa, and I resigned from there. But it is only basically as a result of my longstanding relationships with everyone in every community, environment, natural resource management group in Noosa and many further fields. Mayor Stewart: So, there are personal relationships. Is that what... No, it's a collegiate relationship.

01:14:00 Collegiate. Collegiate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, no... Mayor Stewart: Friendly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. Wait a minute. So, has that... Councillor Lorentson: So, my question... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The question is... Yeah. Speaker 4: That's the question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I suppose it's... Have you? They're longstanding, so they do go into... Councillor Lorentson: Friendship. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: ...occasional social gatherings. But it's not a... Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Miller, any more questions? I think Brian's answered my question. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Well, any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? If there's no other councillors wish to speak to the motion, I'll close. Councillors, good questions. I think it's very important that we... I want to have a councillor. I want to be working with councillors who are involved in the community. In fact, a lot of us are here because of our involvement with community groups.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 We know a lot of people because we've been around a long time and we've been assisting groups and individuals for a long time. I would... It would be very... An unusual step to take to start... I don't know. Not criminalising, but punishing people or excluding them from the decision-making process merely because they are involved in the Noosa community. In my book, that is a good thing. That is why we're here, because we understand our community. We've got an understanding of how groups work, what their aims and objectives are, and their history. Councillor Stockwell has mentioned he's got professional and collegiate relationships with people in this group. He's also... He's also mentioned connections with... There are 300 community organisations in the Shire. We each have knowledge of and collegiate professional relationships with members of

01:16:00 many of these community groups in the Shire. For us to start excluding councillors basically on the basis of knowing people over a long period of time is... I think it's a very slippery slope. Under the Local Government Act, it's very clear if you're an executive member of a committee group, you need to declare a conflict of interest and exclude yourself. Being a member of is not a sufficient reason. I don't believe he's even a member of this. He is. He is. You're just a common member. So, no need to... He doesn't... No need to even declare a conflict of interest for that reason alone. But he has. He has. I think he's gone beyond... Above and beyond what he really needs to do by legislation. It's in the interest of transparency that he's made this declaration, I believe, to actually

01:17:00 say that he can't be impartial in making a decision. It's come to us... It's basically a recommendation that's come to us. It's been filtered through professional staff who have made the recommendation, where we endorse their recommendation. And I believe that Councillor Stockwell can be impartial and remain in the room. That's a good decision. So, I'll put the vote. Speaker 5: Those in favour... Just beware, Councillor Stockwell can't vote on this matter. Only the other councillors can vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Those in favour? It's Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Stewart, Finzel and Lorentson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I don't want to put you in the position, so I'll leave the meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Moira. Consensus is served. Thanks, Moira. Thanks, Moira. Yeah. Okay. So, we've got the Environment Project grants before us.

01:18:00 Page 51. Councillors, questions of staff. We've got Craig here. Welcome, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: Craig, the Urban Wildlife Gardens project isn't a new project, so I was asking if the project could be put into practice. It was first adopted the year before. Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. The Urban Wildlife Garden Project was funded at this time 12 months ago, under a 12-month grant. Councillor Jurisevic: And this project before us is to proceed for another 12 months or beyond that? Speaker 7: It is. It's essentially the same project. It was provided last year as a pilot study to see how well it worked. They've had a really good response, certainly up until COVID, not things about them and about February. So, it's worked really well. So, they're seeking another 12 months. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the reason for this being for us is because the pilot study was successful and they want to... We believe the value and the merit of the project is worth sponsoring for another 12 months. Speaker 7: That's great. One of the conditions of the grant last year was to have staff sitting on the steering

01:19:00 committee to keep an eye on how well the project progressed, and they're very happy with how it's going. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 7: And last year, I think they asked for around about $8,000. I have to double check. They're getting their business model working together really well. It's only five this year. I think there's a good chance by the time they get to a third year, they may be able to completely self-fund the project. Because what we've been looking to see, and it's what we've asked of them all along, is to come up with some sort of plan by which they can eventually have the program self-sufficiently. Mayor Stewart: Craig, I just want to confirm that there's a line here that says, in regards to the projects, neither are time sensitive or seasonal, so could still be delivered with some delay. Is that correct for the grants? Speaker 7: That's correct. Yep. Thank you. The Inland Bushlands is a completely new grant. Yep. So obviously, they've come into this with no preconception that they will get funding. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Speaker 7: So that can certainly be delayed.

01:20:00 With regards to the wildlife garden, they are currently, they've sought an extension for around about three months on their previous year's grant because of COVID. Mayor Stewart: So it would actually help them if we extended the timeframe out? Speaker 7: Well, it does mean they still have funding to continue for about another three months based on last year. Yep. And they're only just now, over the last week, starting to get back out there after a long break. So. Thank you. In the first period of time, that will. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Craig. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Will there be another grant round this year? One of the grants? Speaker 7: I can't say. Just come closer. I saw Kerry doing it. Councillor Wilkie: Two rounds a year. Speaker 7: Yeah. Typically, the next round will be advertised in August and September. So we've worked with the community grants team to advertise our grants at the same time for these project grants. So this is the result of the February-March advertising period and we expect there to be another one coming up soon. Speaker 1: Thanks, Craig. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 7: Yeah. Have these grants been delayed already because of COVID?

01:21:00 No, they haven't. This round here? Yeah. Yeah. No, these grants were advertised in mid-February along with the community project grants and the regional art and development fund grants. So COVID really started impacting them while they were actually being advertised. So this is quite normal for them to come before the Council at this stage. Yeah. This is exactly the month they were going to come before the Council. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. And tell us about the public advertising that was involved in the calling for the grants. Yeah. And as that stands, you've mentioned here you've got two paid advertisements from Noosa News, here you've got a lot of not-for-profit groups, email tools, not-for-profit community groups in the database, and details published by Mr. Council. Speaker 7: Is that quite a normal advertising process for these grants? It is. One of the benefits of having all three students approach events at the one time is they will coordinate all their promotions. So all those grants are advertised concurrently with the community project grants and the

01:22:00 Councillor Wilkie: arts grants as well. Speaker 7: So all that advertising wasn't just for environment, but it's included as one of the three streams in all that advertising. So that standard is written in the environment grants policy, that advertising must be broad and open so that everybody has an opportunity to find out about the grants programs. Councillor Wilkie: And you mentioned there were four applicants, is that less than usual? Speaker 7: It is less than usual. How many did you normally get? For us, probably about six or seven, but I know that the applicants for the arts and the community grants programs were also rolled out. I think one of the reasons is COVID, certainly, because these were advertised up until late March. So that was certainly what people otherwise optimized. From an environment point of view, I think another factor was the fact we went through a very large, multi-year grant process last year. So there were several of the normal key organisations had just received a large amount of funding for significant projects, so we're less inclined to be perhaps looking for smaller projects at this stage where they're better placed now. Councillor Wilkie: And you're saying the project applicants there, they wouldn't be averse to the deferment

01:23:00 of, they're happy to defer, receive the money for this work? Speaker 7: No, we haven't made any contact at all with the project participants, asking them whether or not they'd like to see the grant deferred. We've been following our normal process at this point. We've had three successful grants, two of them are new projects, so we're deferring it just simply. It means a deferral. The NICA website, obviously all that means is the website work doesn't happen for a period of time. The Hingham Lane Bushlands just means the program doesn't start. The only one that could potentially impact is the length of Gardens for Wildlife program, who are looking at a continuation. But as I explained previously, they've already got a three-month extension on their last grant, on the basis of the fact that they had to shut down for the next three months or so, so while they haven't re-agent specifically over the prospect, the impact will not be as large as what it would have been in a normal circumstance.

01:24:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: Just clarify one thing. The funding for environmental grants comes from? Councillor Wilkie: Environment Leading. Thank you. Any other further questions? Councillor Stewart, you have a motion. Would you like to move? Yes. Mayor Stewart: That Council note the report by the Environment Services Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting, dated 9th of June 2020, and defer the consideration of the Environmental Projects Grant until Budget Review 2. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Watson. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Thank you. There has been much debate around our 2021 budget, indeed as it is referred to, the COVID budget. Staff have told us they have never seen anything like it. For the old Councillors, they would no doubt agree with this. For the four new Councillors who sit around this table, we unfortunately know no different. It has been sharpen your pencils, cut the costs, and spend where only necessary.

01:25:00 As we have come to realise over the past few weeks, we must save where we can to spend where we must. The budget we have been presented with has come not without its challenges, indeed many of the projects which have been identified as ongoing and a continuation of costs were allocated long before this Council took a seat at this table. When looking at monies allocated to the 2021 budget, of the $375,000 in environmental grants allocated, $300,000 has already been accounted for from prior and ongoing projects. What this Council has a say on is $75,000 worth of those grants. The additional funds allocated towards environmental partnerships, on top of these monies, have again formed part of our budget, but not our debate. When looking at the environmental grant options put forward, all have merit, however none are time sensitive. We have just heard from Craig Doolan in regard to that and specifically one where they have

01:26:00 in fact asked for an extension on their previous grant. The implementation of the environmental grants put forward and which are up for discussion are not urgent. Indeed the report states. If COVID-related restrictions were to extend to the end of 2020 or be tightened, then 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. Currently we have 4,500 people in Noosav Shire on JobSeeker, proportionally one of the largest percentages wide in Queensland, if not the largest. And I would dare to add across Australia. We have lost over 1,200 jobs on Hastings Street alone and all of us have felt either directly or indirectly the slowdown of our economy, the closure of small businesses and the crippling of our tourism sector. We will not know the full impact of the repercussions of COVID on our community until JobKeeper

01:27:00 finishes in September 2020. When the safety net, the security blanket dries up, things will be even tougher. Our community will be hurting more than enough. We must, in my opinion, not allocate funds which we have control over to further environmental programs which are not urgent until we are fully aware of the repercussions economically for our community. I do acknowledge again that all these projects have gone through the correct process and have merit. At Budget Review 2, which will be late October or early November 2020, more will be known about the true state of our economy and we can plan for such. As such, I would urge you to defer 4,500. Further allocation of funds to environmental grants until Budget Review 2. Furthermore, it will give the community time to provide feedback on the budget and it will also, as a new Council, perhaps be an opportunity for us to review all policies going forward. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Ms Chair. Ms Chair, I'd just like to ask a question to confirm.

01:28:00 Which budget is this allocation coming out of, the current year's budget or the next No, next year's budget. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Because I think it's here in June before us, that's all. Look, I'll speak against the Mayor's deferral. Community groups and organisations have been in lockdown a champion bit to get back out there and running as soon as opportunities arise. And these opportunities have gone through irrelevant rigour and the like. There's also opportunities here for if funding is going to be subcontracted down to Landcare for property works and works programs that Landcare run for opportunities to develop skills for those that have been unemployed over time. And I see no reason to defer these requests for all these grant applications and these grant funds.

01:29:00 They're fairly insignificant. I mean, in the overall scheme of Council's overall budget, and I see the value in allocating these funds to the community groups so that they get on with the work that they do and do so well for our environment and our community. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Craig, the Hinterland Bush links program, does that involve any employment opportunities or skills, does it involve the employment of people? It does. Speaker 7: It's likely. It's likely to involve about one day a week employment for a coordinator to bring together all the volunteer groups to undertake the work on the ground. Councillor Wilkie: And the volunteers on the ground, are they involved in an upskilling process? Not typically. Most of them are general community volunteers. Speaker 7: So what we might find is a community vision and care program, but they have less site fidelity, so they go around to different sites to do work. So they're not generally involved in a skills program or process, although there could be examples where that would be the case.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, so the NICA grant relief website, putting those publications on the website, those funds intend to go to someone with those skills, a person with those skills to do that work? Speaker 7: Those are specifically to go towards web design professionals to be able to undertake the work, which is beyond the skills of the volunteers at NICA. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, and the funds for the urban wildlife garden, are there any, is there any employment coming from that, or is that? Speaker 7: A very small amount, there's a couple of thousand dollars of that, I think about two and a half to three, goes towards someone who undertakes some of the site visits, so not a lot, but it is a small component of anything. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question to clarify the comment that I made and sort of allude to the questions you were raising there. The programs that Landcare run, are they typically facilitating job skills programs, how do you call them? Speaker 7: Oh absolutely, broadly what Landcare operates is very much based on skills, they have a lot of skill and clean-clean programs based there.

01:31:00 It's just not clear that those people are necessarily involved with this grant application, but I think around bushlands is the case. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Woodman. Councillor Wegener: Well, times are urgent, that's true, as the Mayor says, but I think it's time to do as much as we can to support retraining, job creation, and supporting volunteers. As we talked with three elderly ladies from the bush care groups, that generally for one unit you put in, you get three to three and a half times back again. So it's time to invest in Noosa. In general, when times are good, like last year, it's time to invest in NUSA. Last year, you pay down debt. When times are hard, that's when you actually spend for the future. So my philosophy is pretty much exactly opposite, and coming from my business perspective, it's when times are hard, which we are coming into hard times.

01:32:00 We have nearly one-fifth of our employees on the JobKeeper, as you said, 4,500 people on the JobKeeper. And we are heading towards an economic cliff. I think any attempt we have to retrain and create jobs and supporting volunteers that can move this economy ever so slightly from a tourist economy, from the retail shops, the accommodation, that to a farming bush care area. Any slight movement is absolutely worth it. And we'll pay dividends into the future. So I find that going forward is actually tightening the budget is not the be all and end all. Actually spending and continuing what we have been doing with bush care, upskilling people, going forward is the better way than cutting back and stopping and pulling back.

01:33:00 Because it's not growing. We still can grow. And I'm so worried about the future for Noosa employment. And any token gestures. I mean, I'm surprised that there are so few volunteers in these programs. I would actually go the other way and say we need to support bush care even further for reskilling as a job. And of course, we have all of our shovel-ready projects that we've supported as well. But I do not support the motion. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Sorry, Craig. Can you tell me how many jobs will be upskilled in regard to these projects? How many jobs are we looking at upskilling? Speaker 7: Well, I'm not clear from any of these projects that there are unemployed people participating in them that will be upskilled. That may occur, but it's not been done in a formal sense. Mayor Stewart: And you don't have any evidence to demonstrate that before you? Speaker 7: There's certainly some employment created as part of these projects, but none of them have as a key tenant to their program that they are going to be taking unemployed people and reskilling them.

01:34:00 Mayor Stewart: So in their applications, these programs never actually said that wasn't part of their criteria. They said we'll be employing or we'll be engaging with this many new employees or upskilling. Did that form part of their application process? Speaker 7: We don't know how many employees there will be. With the bushland interlinks, we're expecting basically a one-person day a week. One person a week. One person a day for a week to coordinate and run the program. With regards to the Noosa Integrated Catchment Program, the Gardens for Wildlife, it's around about $4,000 a year. So whatever that equates to at an hourly rate. And for the website, the total cost is for a professional to redevelop. But there's no element in there where most of the different community volunteers have already possessed skills or interests. Mayor Stewart: And just to confirm, the deferment of three months, in your opinion, managing would have no impact upon that? Speaker 7: It'll have no impact.

01:35:00 It'll have no impact on two of the grants. I wouldn't say it would have no impact on the Gardens for Wildlife. It may do. But it wouldn't have as much as what it would have given the fact they're over the previous. Mayor Stewart: And are the Gardens for Wildlife the ones that have already asked for a three-month extension? Speaker 7: That's right, yeah. Mayor Stewart: So we've got no impact on two and then an organisation that has already asked for a three-month extension. And so potentially, they might even be ready for another three months. Speaker 7: Is that correct? It would be pretty far. Certainly. Correct. Thank you. It wouldn't be as big an impact as what it would have been if they had . Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 7: Councillor Miles. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Environmental grants are the subject of public mistrust and misunderstanding. It's critical that the community is satisfied that grant money is spent for the purposes that it was intended. We need to look as a council at triggers that give council the powers to call for an independent inquiry and include these triggers in the grant arrangement. So for this reason, I'd like that the motion in front of us be amended to include that the

01:36:00 terms, conditions, including KPIs for grant funding projects be reviewed. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: We can't amend this motion because you've said it. That's right. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. Well, I'll make my statement that I would like the grant arrangement to include that the terms, conditions, including KPIs for grant funding projects be reviewed to better identify and manage the risk and the acts of fraud and corruption. And I think this will have good community benefits. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Are you alleging that there have been acts of fraud and corruption made through the environmental grants process? Councillor Lorentson: No, I'm not. I'm just saying that they're the subject of public misunderstanding and mistrust. So I think it is. Councillor Wilkie: Could you rephrase your comments about the administration of the environmental grants program in relation to your reference to fraud and corruption?

01:37:00 What are you saying? Because it sounded like you were alleging something very serious there, Councillor. Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Well, let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that. Please. I think that we're in a position as a council and we've made a statement as a council that we want better governance and better transparency. I think we have an opportunity in front of us to do that. And I'd like to revisit the terms and conditions of funding, of our funding or grant arrangements, and revisit benchmarks and make sure that the community is satisfied that the grant monies are spent for the purposes that they've been intended. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I ask you to withdraw your references to fraud and corruption, please. You withdraw those comments. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I will withdraw those comments because they- Thank you. I was serious.

01:38:00 Oh, okay. I withdraw those, sorry. Thank you very much. Okay. So, okay. So, again, I just would like to just say there's an opportunity for us to better manage the possibility of risk of fraud and corruption. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Who else wants to speak on this motion? Councillor, I was prepared to support this motion, but after what I've just heard, I'm concerned. I'm concerned that it comes from, it's motivated by, it comes from the wrong motivations. I'm also wanting to support, I think there's a lot to be said about honouring processes already in place and entered into in good faith by community organisations. This council has an environmental grants policy and a grants program. It's publicly called, advertised for applicants in the Moosa News, through the e-newsletter.

01:39:00 Emails were sent to 300 communities across the country. So, we've got a lot of community groups calling in good faith for applications. Community groups went to the trouble of making an application. Volunteer community groups went to the trouble of making an application to this. These, their applications have been assessed by a professional panel of staff, and the recommendations are now before us. I acknowledge the Mayor's points about being precautionary steps in this, in time of COVID, when we're all exercising under the atmosphere of fiscal responsibility. But the thing about these environmental grants is they're funded by an environmental levy which means that the monies allocated to these grants can't be used for any other purposes except those as designated under the environmental grants policy. So it's not as if we can say we either fund these grants or some other schemes that improve job opportunities in other areas or that affect the 4,500 people on JobKeeper.

01:40:00 I think there's an opportunity to certainly revisit an environmental grants policy down the track and as a new council that's entirely appropriate. But to impugn improper motives in the administration of this grants program I think is well in line. Thank you for those comments. It's very hurtful to a lot of us who have been involved. Staff who administer the program and the process. There are perceptions and there's reality and I think we all need to think very carefully before we bring allegations into this chamber. I won't be supporting the deferment because I want to honour the commitment and the understanding that these environmental groups entered into the process.

01:41:00 They entered into and that they received their maids in a timely way. If they decide that they're happy, if they decide and request deferment of payment then I'll agree to a deferment of the payment. But up until the point that they do I see no reason for us to impose that on them on reason one. These community groups have entered into the process in good faith. Councillor Finzel, do you want to speak? Speaker 2: Sure, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Councillor Walton. I support all the processes that we're taking in the correct process to bring these grants to the table and be approved. I also acknowledge what the Mayor has brought to the table today. I believe the motion we are discussing, the matter at hand is the deferment post the impacts of JobKeeper and JobSeeker and other associated economic impacts as we come to budget. It's been a high pressure time for councillors coming on board.

01:42:00 The amount of work that staff has undertaken during this time including putting together two budgets in a short timeframe and being asked repeatedly to go back and sharpen their pencils. The matter at hand is only a deferment and the vote today is do we want to defer that. The staff member has communicated to us in his opinion that he feels that it wouldn't greatly impact these projects. And that the participants would be happy to wait. If I misinterpreted that, my apologies. But I believe that's what is at hand. There is no point that I believe there's been anything out of order and I wish to state that. The matter is can we hold this off for three months. We're making decisions that are difficult in unprecedented times. And I support the motion to defer. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Schell, would you like to close? Mayor Stewart: I'll close. I'd just like to reiterate what Councillor Finzel said.

01:43:00 These are tough times. We are all under immense pressure. None more so than the staff and I congratulate them on the efforts they've brought to the table. I was speaking to a staff member on Friday and she said normally we start budget process in November. We started in May. And we have had to think about 55,000 people in all of our decisions. We have all come with different ideas and different thought processes to the table. And so I think we have done a remarkable job to get us where we are today with the help of the staff. However, we must save where we can to spend where we must. Those words are paramount. Craig has said it will make no dip well. And again, correct me if I'm wrong Craig, in two instances it won't make a difference. We are not talking about cutting these environmental projects. We are talking about delaying, deferring. Three months until budget review two where we have a better understanding of our community and where we're at post JobKeeper ending on the 27th of September.

01:44:00 Two instances it doesn't make a difference in regard to deferment as Craig has alluded. And in fact in the third instance and on the third grant it has the actual community group has asked for an extension for three months. And so perhaps an extension for a further three months may actually be more suitable to them. Again, we haven't asked them and Craig confirmed. However, based on the information I would suggest that three months is not a huge concern. Councillor Stockwell said recently that the environment is our honeypot. That it must be protected at all costs. And he's not here so I can't directly say to him I don't disagree with him that the environment is important and must be protected. But it is my belief that the real honeypot of Noosa is its people, its residents, our community. It is those we must look to, think of and consider when we allocate ratepayer funds to non-urgent projects. As I said, we must save where we can to spend where we must.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 And I would urge you all in this instance to save where we can. At least until we are aware of the full implications of COVID on our community. Our honeypot. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you councillors. I have a motion. Votes in favour? Councillor Stewart, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wilkie. I'll cast in vote. I'll vote in favour. Sorry, I'll vote against. The motion is lost. Consistent with your... The motion is lost. I'd like to move the staff recommendation of the council local report. I'll second that. Services Manager of the Funding and Environment Committee meeting dated June 2020. Improvement of the Environment Project Grants Funding Recommendations for this round is outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic.

01:46:00 Councillors, I'm not going to re-prosecute what we've just gone through, so I'll waive my right to open comments. Minimum to that, I should say. The other councillors wish to speak for the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, Rob, I'm on. Look, I appreciate where the news is coming from as regards to the savings and the like, but as Councillor Wilkie alluded to, this comes down to a pocket of money devoted to environmental purposes. The environmental grants come out funded by the environmental levies. These are environmental projects that have met the criteria going forward. I'm astounded at some of the comments that have been produced. They've been posted around this table with regard to the process in this regard. Those comments were withdrawn. Councillor Finzel: Point of order. Point of order. Councillor Jurisevic: Those comments were withdrawn.

01:47:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: But I see value in each of these projects. And there will be an element of delivery to... to job creation, job retention, and the potential for other elements in it, whilst it only may be minor, it's also only a very small amount of money being allocated at this point in time. But I see it will make a huge difference to the budget going forward and, again, comes out of an allocated pool for environmental purposes. Councillor Wilkie: That's it. Any more councillors? Can I talk for a moment? You can. Councillor Wegener: You go ahead, you go first, I'll finish up. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: With the NICA website, I know, to a lot of people, it's very insignificant. To a lot of people, it is very significant. The river is not very healthy as far as the fish populations go, as far as the prawn populations go.

01:48:00 There's a lot of people who are really looking to further to bring back the fish project. From what I understand, the NICA is right there, front and center, really wants to continue on with their project, and getting the new website up is a part of the steps that they're taking. So I think it's a very... I'm really happy that we're supporting that little thing that's going to really benefit and stoke out, stoke out, really make a lot of people very happy in our community, that that's going to continue. Speaker 5: I'm really confident that the first time stoke out is really going to be a big deal. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to just make one comment that I've not made any allegations of fraud and corruption. I need to address this Frank. I have a responsibility to the community that put me here. One of their main concerns and as I've got the writing in front of me, I'm not saying environmental grants are

01:49:00 fraud and corrupt. I'm saying they're subject, subjects of concerns to the community. I have a responsibility and a duty to the community to ask the questions and not just ask the questions. I want to make changes. I want the community to trust Council, to trust our processes and one of the ways we can do that is by looking at future grant funding projects and reviewing our KPIs and terms and conditions and that is the message that I wanted to portray and I really need to clarify that. That we need to tell the story and I need to report back to the people who put me here. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson.

01:50:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. One closing comment I would like to make with regards to comments and funds related to the levies. That that money stays in the environmental and is used for those grants. I acknowledge that and we all understand that. During COVID recovery, which is part of this whole process, there will be financial impacts that are unknown to us at this stage. The recommendation to park and defer until that first review was based on the fact that there are unknowns due to the implement, due to the COVID impacts regarding our health and our economy. I just want to make that clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The point of order is that we understand that the levies are used for that purpose. It was just a put and hold to reassess the budget moving forward based on cash flow, for example,

01:51:00 based on perhaps people and community… Point of order, Mr Chair, I believe the Councillor has… Sixteen per cent are employed Councillor Jurisevic: We'll hear the point of order first please. Believe it. The Councillor is pre-fossecuting the original point and I think we have moved on from that. Councillor Finzel: So the rationale with the request for the motion to defer was based on the unknowns at a time of unprecedented impacts due to COVID, both socially, economically and financially, which sits clearly under the Local Government Act. And we understand that the levies for the environment can only be used for that purpose. Today, the matter at hand under the motion was to refer for three months based on the unknown of those difficult, complex decisions that we've had to make in a very short time frame. Under juris, including the staff that has repeatedly had to go back, is the reason the motion was put to the table.

01:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: You're welcome. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. The rest of you speak to the motion. Mayor Stewart: Look, I've just, I think I've said it all before. As Councillor Finzel said, the opportunity to defer is based on the unknowns. I won't rehash what I've already said, but these are unprecedented times. We've been faced with an unprecedented budget and we've been faced with four new councillors sitting around a seven councillor seat. So we are in uncertain times and uncertain waters. And the three months would give us... Well, would have given us the opportunity to look at this again with fresh eyes and with a greater understanding of where our community is coming from. I also think it is opportune in three months that we look at the revisit as a new council and for the benefit of the four new councillors, we revisit all the grants policies and consider them again.

01:53:00 But based on the information that Craig gave us, that it would not in any way impact it adversely, the environmental groups and on the basis that we would have a better understanding of our community and where our community is at in three months. That was my reason for deferring the environmental grants approval. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillors in person, I'd just like to say that there are six equally valid points around this table and all your points are well made. It is our job to ask questions and ensure proper processes and well-run programs. That's all our job, to ensure that. I appreciate the work that the new councillors have to do to get up to speed with processes that are already in play, like the environmental grants policy and program.

01:54:00 It's entirely appropriate, for me, it's important that we do this throughout the process. So, for me, honouring the grants process and in this normal timeframe is important for me in following through to those environment groups that have made those applications in good faith within the timeframe which I expect it to be delivered. It's entirely appropriate that a new council can revisit the environmental grants policy and program down the track, which by DR2, that's the wish of the council, given by you. So it's entirely appropriate... But, as far as this decision goes, I support staff recommendation that these groups are becoming recipients of the grant funding and that that be delivered. We can, as Councillor Seggioro will know, we can re-prosecute this again on Thursday night if you wish. The motion today is only a recommendation to go through to Thursday night.

01:55:00 So I'll put the motion. Those in favor? All those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Stewart, Finzel and Lorentson. Again, I just want to make a casting vote in favour. Thank you. The next item up, I'll call Councillor Stockwell back into the room. Please. Would you mind filling the bathroom? Not at all. We adjourn for five minutes.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:06:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you Kabi? Councillor Wilkie: Okay, declare the meeting open again. We're back up to item six to the budget to... Public Consultation Trial, Services and Organisation Committee Agenda is referred from there, page 16, for further consideration. Councillor Stockwell has got a motion to defer a decision to Thursday night because I think quite a few of us have ideas about what sort of consultation we could implement in the meantime. But Kim's here to answer any questions.

02:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like an increase in the Planning and Environment Sustainability Patent? Councillor Wilkie: So any questions of Michael while we have him here, Councillor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I do. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Michael, are you there? Hello. Speaker 1: He is there. He's not muted. Speaker 2: He's there. Speaker 1: No, that's me doing that. I don't think he's there. I think maybe he's like, I don't know. Councillor Jurisevic: He may be online but he's not at his desk because of the break.

02:08:00 Speaker 5: I'll message him. There he is. Hello. He's here. Can you hear us? Can you hear us? He's about to go out there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See, we must be obeying. Speaker 1: Maybe we haven't got it on the right speakers. Let's try turning this up. Can you hear me now at all? Speaker 4: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks, Michael. Thanks, Michael. We haven't disagreed with anything you've said, Michael. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart's got a question for you, Michael. Mayor Stewart: Hi, Michael. Michael, I just wanted... Good morning. From the email which you sent to all councillors on Saturday, I'd just like to draw your attention to point number four, and I'd just like some explanation around that. The sentence reads, every 30 days of not issuing our rates results in approximately $35,000 of lost interest revenue, which will impact on the draft budget position. The current target dates for rates issues is the 13th of July, which will impact on the draft budget position.

02:09:00 If we were to adopt our budget on say, the 31st of July, rates would be issued in early to mid August 2020, costing us almost $35,000 in lost revenue. Could you elaborate a little bit further on that? Speaker 4: Yes, I sure can, Mayor. So, obviously, as everyone can appreciate, the sooner we rate, the sooner we get to that. We have a number of different ways that we can get those rates into our boxes and into email boxes. And those rates then become payable and then ratepayers then make payments on their rate notices. And obviously once that money comes into our bank account, we have the ability to, obviously through our investment management policy, to invest those funds.

02:10:00 And based on the current interest rates, we can get on our rates. So when we're talking potentially in the next rate run, you're potentially looking at around $35 million worth of rates that will be going out. So even interest on that type of cash for a period of 30 days, you're looking at around that $35,000. So the longer we defer the rates issued. Speaker 4: And effectively, potentially by a month, you're looking at that sort of lost earning capacity on the cash that will be coming in from ratepayers making payments. Mayor Stewart: And that's at $35,000 at the end of the day. That $35,000 of costings is really ratepayer money, isn't it? Speaker 4: Correct. So that obviously we budget for interest revenue and that helps offset a lot of the operational costs of Council. And yes. So that would be obviously a loss.

02:11:00 Speaker 4: And we would obviously have to review that interest revenue budget because there's a bit of science that goes behind putting that, excuse me, putting that budget together. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Michael. Councillor Lorentson: So Michael, what is the interest rate? Speaker 4: We're just over... 1% interest. Yeah. So look, we're budgeting just over 1%. Interest rate for next financial year, given that, you know, we've seen a trend and I think Councillors have seen a trend. And most people in interest rates decreasing last year, they decreased by nearly 1%. So the earning capacity has been diminished significantly, you know, when you compare it to two or three years ago, which is great for people with borrowings. Because your loan interest drops. But when you have surplus cash, you know, retirees in particular, they feel the pain when interest rates reduce.

02:12:00 So that's what we're budgeting. Just a bit over 1%, which when you're looking at $35 million, that's around that $35,000. Councillor Wilkie: Any further questions of Michael, Councillors who wish to leave the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy that there's no further questions. Yes. Just a procedural motion that this matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting of Council on Thursday, the 18th of June. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to second that. I'm happy to second that. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just so it gives us time to be able to look at the various options that have been put forward and to come up with a framework that might be more easily debated on Thursday night than nutted out here. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell.

02:13:00 Thank you, Michael. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Councillor Wilkie: Bye. Bye. The next item is a report direct to the General Committee. It's a development application for a minor change to a material change of use in 140 multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multi-function room and gym at 75 Resort Drive, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales, New South Wales. And we have some, we have some declarations. Councillor Finzel. Yes. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Can I stand up? Speaker 6: No. You don't need to stand up. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Yeah, I declare a real conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009, due to the relationship with Lee McCready, who is associated with applicant Altum Constructions.

02:14:00 Mayor Stewart: I have a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009 due to my friendship with the applicants Rob and Lee McCready of Altham Constructions. I am happy to leave the meeting room for the debate and decision on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Any other declarations? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That would be me. So I wish to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter under the Act.

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 And it's a bit of a story, but on the 24th of February this year, I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the next year's future team of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is an associate with the applicant, Altham Construction, however, I believe I can deal with this matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Do councillors have questions of councillor Stockwell? I'm going to move a motion. Is there a motion? And councillors are free to ask questions during the motion. I'm going to move that councillors note the perceived conflict of interest declaration of Councillor Stockwell, resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter and councillor Stockwell must leave the room for debate and vote on this matter.

02:16:00 I'll second that. I second it, Councillor Jurisevic. I second it, Councillor Stoneman. I think extreme caution is required here in terms of public perception in dealing with this matter. Councillor Stockwell, I know that you believe you can make the decision in good faith and impartially. But it's the public perception about your involvement in this decision which is at issue. It's not what we think. It's what the public perceive may be the case. And I think in terms of the reputation of the council on this particular decision, I think it's a safer move if you are not present for the debate.

02:17:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I concur with that. I think for the sake of reputation of the council, Councillor Stockwell, I'd recommend that you... You're leaving the room on this one. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors to speak to the motion? I'll put those in favour. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Wegener. That's decided in the affirmative. Councillor Stockwell is leading the way. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All right, councillors, we have a 30-page report before us. Tara Norlie, it's amazing to still be able to stand and talk after putting all that together. Councillors, do you have any questions for Tara?

02:18:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I only relate to the car park in Tara. In the report... The changes in car parking haven't been... Correct me if I'm wrong, they haven't been supported. They are to retain the differentiation of car parking staff and... Speaker 1: So it would partially support their request. We have recalculated the amount that are required for the facility building. So we've brought the number down from 41 to 30. They were requesting 28, I believe. So pretty close to what they requested. Okay. But in regards to... They didn't want us to sort of stipulate that there had to be a proximity. We haven't supported that request. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Tara, could you clarify what Condition 2 involves? Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: And your recommendation and your reasons for that.

02:19:00 Speaker 1: Yes. So Condition 2 is just the list of approved plans. Yeah. Which there's, I believe, 170-odd approved plans. So at the moment there are two plans that are being changed in this change application. So we're removing an annotation on the plan that stipulated the outdoor dining areas, which we have set an 8pm and a 10pm outdoor dining finish time on one of the plans. And the other one is that we've changed one of the plans for Block 14 where they've built an extra wall in one of the blocks. So we've just changed the plan for that one. Councillor Wilkie: And general comments, just comments on the car park in general. You're saying the car parks that are being provided are more than are required under the current and draft planning scheme? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So given that... We've just had a report before us around...

02:20:00 We've just had a report before us around... Defending an appeal to... Where conditions weren't met with regard to as-constructed drawings and a condition on the media room was that remain unenclosed. The media room as it stands currently has a wall construction as well. Correct. Yes. Why did we not request that the wall be removed to reflect the as-approved plans? Speaker 1: So the issue with the wall is that it could potentially be used as a bedroom. Councillor Jurisevic: I understand that. But the wall is still in use. The wall has been constructed when the plans did no wall. Speaker 1: Yes. So we've conditioned that the rooms to remain unenclosed rather than make them out of that wall so that it can't be used as a bedroom. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I've got no objection. I've got no objection. That's it, all. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: So originally that it was meant to be a short stay place, accommodation.

02:21:00 Yes. And now it's moving more towards a long-term accommodation. And the parking, there's less parks now than there was before. Because with a long-term, generally you've got two cars per person, where short-term you have one car per person. Do you feel as though that we're going to run into a situation, a bad situation, or not enough car parks if it continues down the long-term? Speaker 1: So the calculations of the car parks are for permanent use? Yes. So what would be calculated that they require, they are for the permanent use that our provider will, and what would be the requirement of the team? Councillor Wegener: And then second question, when it comes to going into long-term people staying there, that seems inconsistent with keeping the restaurant and the outdoor open until midnight, because it just seems to me that that's a way that's going to turn into a wedding place for weddings.

02:22:00 And that's the kind of thing that's going to happen. That's very, very noisy. Sorry, Tom. Councillor Wilkie: Are you asking a question or are you making comments? Councillor Wegener: No, I'm asking a question. So do you, is that correct, that this venue will be more likely in the future to be used as a wedding venue, considering that the doors can be open and can be until midnight? Speaker 1: Oh, I'm not sure what the intended use function was. It was obviously originally a resort facility, which allowed that midnight dining. We're bringing the outdoor dining down to 10 because of the permanent use of the site predominantly. As to what their intention is, the restaurant owner to open it for functions, I'm not sure. Councillor Wegener: Now, when I say weddings, I just think that in general, big functions like that, late night things, loud. Councillor Jurisevic: It wouldn't be uncommon for a restaurant. But we do have a differentiation between the purposes of restaurants and function facility

02:23:00 in the outdoor dining. But it wouldn't be uncommon for a restaurant to host a reception of some sort, I think. That's fine. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'm still happy we're going to totally eliminating it to 10. Thank you. Council, anyone care to move? I'm happy to move. We have Councillor Jurisevic. We have a seconder, please. Second is Councillor Lorentson. Do I have a motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Only to commend the staff on the work that they do in ensuring that such a large development of this nature continues to comply with the planning scheme and manage the car parking aspects as the development has changed over time. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillor speak to the motion? It's a closure. Oh, Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: I concur with the staff recommendations. I'm happy to move. I'm not satisfied that the necessary and appropriate noise control measures have been incorporated into the noise management strategies.

02:24:00 Given the residential nature of this development, noise impacts are likely to occur after 10pm. So it's essential that appropriate noise levels are maintained in order to reduce adverse impacts from noise on residents' amenity. The noise report at the moment just doesn't seem to mitigate sufficiently enough to guarantee that there's going to be no negative impact. So again, at this stage, I agree and commend the staff for addressing residential levels and the importance. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Just on that, what measures are proposed, if you can articulate, what measures are proposed to manage the noise? I don't know. Speaker 1: We've mainly focused on the noise from patrons, which has been the issue from our perspective. There's not much at all mentioned in the report on how they would be actually doing that. One thing that they've done is they've limited their patron numbers to 90, which then makes

02:25:00 the noise levels comply. Other than that, there's not a lot of detail about managing patron noise in itself. Councillor Wilkie: All right. So is that clear? Is it still compliant with any provisions that require resident amenity to be respected? Speaker 2: Sorry, I'm not sure. Yes. So they've included a number of measures to address amenity for residents. The roof over is insulated, so it helps deflect the noise. Oh, this is the solid. Yeah. The design of the units themselves also operate in some measures. The wind walls and the solid balustrade help actually mitigate some noise. And then there's a number of measures that we've included. So there's a number of measures there, but that's given you a little bit. And the time limits. And the time limits of things. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just close? Only that the residents that move into this complex are well aware that there's a resort

02:26:00 being associated with it. And I'm sure that the noise complaints will be directed to the management accordingly and will be dealt with. So if there are any challenges there, I'll be able to be handled in-house with the close ratio between the two entities. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll put the motion as a favor. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Russo. It's unanimous. Of those that remain. Yeah. Councils can come back. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Don't look around for the others. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Welcome back, Councillors. We're up to item eight, which is the proposed 2021 schedule of fees and charges.

02:27:00 And we have Michael Shay or just Trent. Trent's here. Hello. Michael is online. Michael is online. Speaker 5: Trent's here. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor's not here. We went through this track change document last week, question of the trend, if councils today wish to change any of the fees and charges, will this have implications for the bottom line in terms of rate rises and how other leaders would play with in terms of levies and so on and so forth? Speaker 6: Correct, councillor. So our fees and charges make up about $13.7 million currently in our revenue. So while putting the fees and charges up now, it gives us an ability to fix that in so that we can then firm up any changes or rate setting for the budget adoption in early July. So yes, any changes at this point in time will obviously impact our bottom line position for next year, but that doesn't mean that councillors during the course of the year...

02:28:00 Councillor Wilkie: And the charges, fees and charges are set up to recover the cost of denying the service or less, be it a level that covers the cost of service or less, is that correct? Speaker 6: Correct, councillor, that's correct. So we apply our principle of full cost recovery, which is about the true cost of undertaking those services, and it's not always the case, or in some cases it's a regulatory aspect to those fees and charges. So in those instances we are... So, where there is a shortfall, the shortfall is funded through the general rates. Councillor Wilkie: Questions for Trent and Michael, councillors? Speaker 6: And just one last point, councillor. I know there is a lot of Bs on there, all of 63 pages of it. There is one B where I must admit I made a slip-up. We have increased the minimum fee for a standard vehicle

02:29:00 costing the more short fare from $7 to $8 next year. It should have also, similarly, included a similar increase to the minimum tour bus fee for the same price so that it is equitable across all vehicles. Councillor Wilkie: Cars and buses, same price? Speaker 6: For the minimum capacity of 11 passenger buses. A larger vehicle is obviously a larger fee, but the minimum fee... for a standard vehicle, or a caravan, or a tour bus, or a small tour bus, is now $8. Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. I'll ask one question. When was the last time the ferry fees were put up? Speaker 6: I do believe it has been at least six years, councillor. Speaker 5: Councillor Michael, can you add to that? Can you recall when the ferry fees were last put up? Speaker 4: I think we're at minimum three years ago. I think three to four years. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Well, councillor, we have a recommendation before us. Anyone care to move to that?

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 Yeah, I'll move. Councillor Jurisevic, seconded. Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the report and the need for these changes are speaking . Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, councillors wish to speak, fees and charges? Okay. I put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Trent. So, the financial performance report on page 9, sorry, item 9 on page 38 of the general committee agenda. Questions for Trent, councillors? Councillor Lorentson: Just Trent, in regards to employee costs, I'd just note that there's 2.3 million for permanent staff salaries and wages

02:31:00 and a million on casual and external labour hire. Is that fine? The casual component. Speaker 6: The casual component? Yeah. In terms of, obviously in instances where, as you can see, when you have permanent vacancies, often, depending on the nature of the position, it can be somewhat difficult or time-consuming to find a replacement. So, it's often more expedient for us to engage land client in those instances in the middle of the term. Whilst we'd like to think that we can go back out to market in advertised, it's been a lot when we get someone. In a lot of instances, we've been going out to the market two or three times in order to secure an appropriate candidate. Now, in terms of service level for your organisation, if you leave that position vacant, you're on. The workload becomes onerous and we don't meet the service level. So, we do, in those instances, engage a labour hire. Councillor Lorentson: We've mentioned before in discussions that other councillors, poaching staff, is one of the main drivers for driving up wages.

02:32:00 Have councillors, has Noosa Council ever gone into talks with neighbouring councils and just discussed compensation guidelines and regulations to stop this from happening? I'll answer that one. Sorry, I'm just thinking, how do we stop other councillors from poaching our good staff and driving up wages? That's where I'm going with this. Speaker 5: Yeah, to give you one, and patent bargaining is a thing that the Industrial Commission looks poorly on. We do that as employers. Okay. But certainly, you need to do the same. They go and, you know, cherry pick the highest and best conditions in different organisations and try and bring it up through enterprise bargaining and certified agreements. So, in terms of poaching, it's not as big an issue as the bow wave we have over the ageing workforce

02:33:00 where we have people looking to retire. That is where we're getting most of our turnover at the moment. That's people getting towards retirement age and starting to think of other things we're doing into part-time and sort of transition to retirement. We've also had some issues with, if I use that term, poaching, or having to deal with the value of staff. In some of the project manager areas, where Main Roads in particular has been doing a lot of big projects, that's the State Government as well, where they've been looking to offer some pretty serious money for project managers. They've got so many major road projects going on, and they've created a competitive market. And likely more coming. Yeah, and likely more coming with some of the big infrastructure projects coming through, you know, expenditure spending for the State Government. Thank you. So that's been a major area that's had issues. But we just can't go out and do patent bargaining with other employers to try and suppress wages. That's just an idea. That wouldn't be my intention either.

02:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: And my only other question is, what services are we sharing with neighbouring councils? Do we have joint procurements? Again, just as a cost saving measure. Speaker 5: Michael, can I get you to jump in and answer that? Maybe just outline what we've done with Gympie in terms of some of the joint projects with them? Speaker 4: Yeah, look, we're currently in negotiations with Gympie. We've done quite a bit with them over the last 12 months, in terms of particularly resource sharing. So sharing each other on interview panels for staff. So which is a bit of a dichotomy sort of based on the last discussion. But no, we've provided support with Gympie and vice versa with things like providing our experts on each other's interview panels. We're currently exploring in our civil area the opportunities around shared grading resources,

02:35:00 because graders are very expensive pieces of kit. And we've got an opportunity at the moment Speaker 4: to potentially save upwards of $30,000 to $40,000 just by potentially hiring one of Gympie's graders on an as-needs basis, rather than permanently hiring a grader, which we're currently doing. So that's actually not far off, sort of actually getting a deal over the line there. So that'll be a good win for the organisation. And it'll also assist Gympie with getting better utilisation out of their grading fleet, because utilisation is the key for any efficiency sort of drive when you've got those heavy pieces of equipment, because they're so expensive. The other things we are looking at at the moment with Gympie is particularly procurement with strategic procurement opportunities. So we're exploring through Scott Eisen, our procurement manager, and through him liaising with Gympie,

02:36:00 looking at shared contract and shared panel arrangements, because obviously if you double the spend, you get potentially sharper prices. So that's currently in train, which we're looking at some exciting sort of initiatives over the next 12 months as well there. The other thing we're looking at, and again it's with Gympie, is looking at utilising their store. Given their size, Gympie has quite a significant store, so it's our civil operations area utilising those stores for things like culberts and heavy pieces of inventory, where currently there's long lead times for us to procure those type of things, and potentially it's inefficient having those things sitting on the ground at the depot when we could be sourcing them from Gympie and with relatively short lead times. So that's actually not far away from being finalised as well.

02:37:00 In terms of looking south, obviously I'm not aware of any significant sort of measures with Sunny Coast in terms of shared sharing resources or opportunities. The only one we're looking at the moment is we're working closely with them around lifeguard services, because it's effectively a regional service with SLSQ providing that contract to us, to all of us, SLS, Gympie and Sunshine Coast, so we do work with them closely in terms of the regular meetings, we have joint meetings, looking at their performance and discussing the future, resourcing and levels of service and so on. So there's a bit happening there. But obviously there's always opportunities for improvement and that's dependent on the ability of each council and their appetite at any given time, which is sometimes a bit challenging. given what they have on their plate.

02:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Michael. Speaker 5: I've got a question. We've probably done more with Gympie in the past because they're a similar size council to us and we tend to have more in common in terms of the level to be able to work with people. And also the need of resources. That's right. Mayor Clare. Mayor Stewart: Michael, just a quick question. With the reopening of our facilities like the NAC and the J and the Leisure Centre sort of stage reopenings, how are we looking at, because obviously we have to have employees working there and staff, what are we looking like from a, like is this, at what point are we going to lose some money or actually make these profitable? You know, are we currently still losing money with opening with minimal staff and sort of I guess constricted hours or have they started to turn a profit or when will they start to turn a profit? At what capacity do these facilities need to be? At, regarding people wise before we start to see them generate some profit? Speaker 4: Yeah, look, great question. Thank you. I think the challenge we had originally was there was a couple of stages of reopening

02:39:00 under the state government health measures. The council didn't open our facilities I think with a 10 person limit but now obviously they've brought forward that second, the second stage which, Speaker 4: Kerry and her team and particularly the community facilities have done a lot of work and number crunching to look at, okay, is it, will it actually cost money to open or will it, will actually we cover our costs as a minimum? And I know that I think today we've reopened our aquatic centre but I think we're quite comfortable that at the moment based on the current numbers and forgive me in terms of what those minimum numbers are for our facilities but we are, we will not lose money which is, which is good. Our holiday parks similarly, we've reopened the holiday parks Speaker 4: or they're opening I think on the 15th which is.

02:40:00 Today. It might even be. Mayor Stewart: Today, Michael. Speaker 4: Actually today, sorry, yes. And again, holiday parks, we're comfortable that we'll cover all of our fixed costs and our variable costs for every patron that comes through. Speaker 4: So, yeah, so all things going well. Those facilities, it won't effectively put a drag on our bottom line having them open from today. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Michael. Speaker 5: I'll just clarify that Michael would have implied this, that that's compared to our adopted budget. Some of those facilities like the aquatic centre and leisure centre, they do cost rate pose money to operate every year. Thank you. Thank you, CEO. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, what's going on? Speaker 5: I was getting . Facilities compared to the which do make an outright profit. But those other ones, yeah, across the council, but compared to the budget what Michael's getting at is that we're back on budget. That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Michael, sorry. Go on, Mary. Councillor Lorentson: I just have one question. Under capital revenue page 43,

02:41:00 it says year to date capital revenue of $8.6 million received comprises cash contributions from developers of $2 million and assets contributed from developers of $0.9 million. Can you explain that? Speaker 6: I can answer that, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, thanks, Trent. Speaker 6: Yes. So obviously, an application that comes through the door. At the end of the assessment process, depending on the nature and scale of the subdivision that's going ahead, there may be roads, stormwater, in-kind contribution parkland that is transferred to council at the end of the development. So those contributed assets, those assets will be new roads, more stormwater for Shire. And the cash contribution? Yeah, development applications. New applications. So that's substantial. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 6: So those funds are set aside and reserved.

02:42:00 We restrict those funds. And then each year we assess whether there's any infrastructure work that falls under Chonk infrastructure plan and we use those funds to pay for that. Speaker 5: And that can be a bit lumpy in terms of time. Sometimes, you know, there might not be much, or despite the type of application, if someone's looking to sign off or get a plan of subdivision through for a major development, they'll have to pay their infrastructure charges. So you might get a lot coming in. There might be a while before nothing else. You know, so it is a bit variable. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Michael. I'm Paul for Trent. General question about cash at hand, page 50. I just wanted to make it, even though there's lost revenues, as you're saying, in the report due to closure of key community facilities, as well as provision to business and community groups, financial support measures and reductions in waste management, management collection charges and disposal fees,

02:43:00 the cash at hand at the end of May is $62.5 million. Compared to that, we're one month away from the end of the financial year. Compared to the end of the last financial year, which was $55 million, almost $56 million. How are we tracking compared to the end of the 2019 financial year, in terms of cash at hand, given all those extra challenges that this budget's faced? Speaker 6: There's a couple of factors in there, councillor. One is that we still have another month to go. So on average, we do spend, I would say, over $8 million in expenditure. So we will see that, obviously, the balance will drop by 8 mil if we don't have significant revenues coming in over the next month, which is what's planned to happen. We've also allowed, we also need to consider that the capital works program, if it doesn't spend what we had planned in terms of the entire $31 million, then our cash balance will be higher at the end of the year. But then that will just carry over into the next year

02:44:00 as we've got to carry over into this ending year. So between what we'll end up with, could be in the vicinity of $3 million to $4 million in carry over for capital works. And also, I'm sorry, from a number of grants that we've received this year, one was obviously the fire recovery grant, and the other infrastructure grants, the work for Queensland, and the other infrastructure that came through with the financial assistance grant, there's a good $5 million of grant that we will commit to spend over the next 12 months. So it could well be that our cash could be above the $43 million that these look like by the end of the financial year, but it's already committed. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, above 43. Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, so looking at 62, 62 and a half million now, at the end of May, there's going to be another eight that come off that this time. Correct. Speaker 6: But then there's five. Eight in operating, plus there could be anywhere up to another $5 million

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:45:00 in capital spend as well. So it could be up to $15 million off that. Yeah. Speaker 4: Sorry, just on that, I'd like to think that, you know, talking to our guys, there's a lot of work happening at the moment, and I think councillors would be aware of it. But there's some, there'll be some quite substantial contract payments happening over the next 30 days, which will, or three or four weeks, particularly around your Hilton Terrace, your Hastings Street, along the river. Yeah, sorry, yeah, along the river as well. So there's, and the bridge. So there is some fairly chunky payments that'll come out of our bank account Speaker 4: over the next three or four weeks as well, which will chew into the cash balance. Councillor Jurisevic: And that would, that would be impacted as some of those, because of COVID, some of those projects are actually ahead of schedule, so the payments are ahead of schedule? Speaker 4: Yeah, that's correct. But as Trent mentioned, we still, you know, looking at that $40 odd million balance,

02:46:00 $44 million was, you know, what we were envisaging. And that was, you know, we had, in terms of our liquidity and our cash cover, that's, you know, keeps us in good position, doesn't put us at risk at all. And allowing for all of those capital payments, that's still, still where we're targeting as a minimum. So I think we're, Speaker 4: we're looking pretty comfortable, which is great. Councillor Wilkie: Just another question on borrowings on the same page. Current budget, under borrowings, $2,414,000. That's, is that to be paid by the end of the financial year, Michael? I think, Speaker 6: I could probably cover that one, Frank. Actual year is at $300,000. Councillor Wilkie: Are you hanging onto it to gain interest, or what's the, Speaker 6: what do those figures mean? You'll find, there's two, there's actually two lines of borrowings. It's very good to be confusing, in our financial statements. So you'll see there's a, there's a current borrowings, and there's a non-current, about full, five lines below that, of $21 million. Speaker 4: Yep.

02:47:00 Speaker 6: So what we, what we do each year, we do a bit of a breakdown. We, we budget for what is current. That's, that's our goal, in terms of what we intend to, to pay off during the year. So this year, we have paid off, in terms of loan payments, over $2.4 million. And then you've got the non-current. So it's just a bit of timing there, as we come to the end of financial year. Once we've paid off $2.4 million in debt, we then reassess, the 3rd of June, and say, okay, well what's due for next year? So in total, you need to add those two lines together, to get the true picture. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So, under current liabilities, that's the amount, we intend to pay off this year? Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And under actual year to date, Speaker 6: it's got $300. And that's that timing, where we're coming in the 30th of June, so, my team are, Councillor Wilkie: So we pay $300. That's right. So around $300,000. So I guess there's benefits, in hanging on to the cash line. Correct. And that's what's going on there. Yep. Thank you. Speaker 2: Question? Come on. Councillor Finzel: To Trent or Michael. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the great work, that the staff have done,

02:48:00 to get this budget up to this point, so thank you. Can you just explain to me, if we hold off bringing down this budget, and delay putting out the rates notice, how will that affect the cash flow? Speaker 6: Cash flow? So, there's two impacts from the cash flow. One is, I know that Michael mentioned earlier, that obviously, when the money isn't in the bank, then we can't apply our investment strategy, and reinvest those, those monies. So there is, there is a lost, if you like, $35,000 of interest revenue, per month, for each month that we delay, issuing, and then, closing down our discount. The second impact is that, our cash, I suppose this month's a good example, where I said earlier, we spend about, we spend about $8 million a month, on operating expenditure. And capital, could be, depending on the size, and the scale of the works, could be up to $5 million. So,

02:49:00 if, if we don't have, per our normal cycle, like, like, bank accounts do, and the pays come in and out again, if we don't have that cash coming, as per normal, for the rates, then we could be anywhere from, $8 to $10 million, behind in cash, for each month, that we delay, the receipt of those rates. At some point, the longer we leave it, the longer we get to the risk, of reaching our low point, in our liquidity. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And have we calculated, I know it's an unknown, but, how long can we operate, depending on percentages, of say, I don't know, how, what's the buffer for Council, being able to, continue operating, with those cash flows, not coming in, or being, deferred to payment programs? Speaker 6: The first point to consider is, and it's actually, by the graph for you, on the page.

02:50:00 Speaker 4: One moment. I think, I think a quick answer, to that question, would be that, um, Councillor, we, we were very, uh, in terms of our financial recovery plan, which helped frame the, the rework of the budget, 2021 budget. We have factored in a, um, a significant increase in, in, rate, non-payment. And obviously, that's flowing through then, in terms of managing our minimum cash holdings, the three months, which is what we target, to make sure we can keep, um, delivering services. Yeah. We've made sure there, that, we've taken the appropriate steps, and, through, um, reducing, our capital program, by about, five or six million. And, um, obviously, looking at our operational budget. So, we've actually, um, we, we've taken that into account, in terms of, our sustainability.

02:51:00 And obviously, councillors have seen, through the budget process, that, you know, we've had to take measures there, um, to, Speaker 4: to manage that risk. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 6: Sorry, Trent. No, that's okay, Michael. Do you want to go on? Um, and just following on from, from Michael's comment, is that, the, the graph I was just alluding to, was on, page 46. We talked about our cash expense part, where we, our baseline, minimum cash balance, um, that we target, under sustainability indicators, is three months. So, we, we ensure that we have enough, at a bare minimum, Yep. to never run, to a point, where we have less than three months' worth of cash, in our back pocket, to operate it, with no rates of revenue coming in through the door. And the work that we've done, through the budget process, with looking at, rates of rears, delays in payment, and that capital works program, will keep us above that target, for the next 12 months. Okay, thank you. And long term. Councillor Finzel: So, to reiterate, would that mean that if,

02:52:00 um, we delay bringing down of the budget, it could impact that reserve? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Correct. Thank you. And, it'd be true to say that, we're not expecting, um, that cash expense cover graph, to look anything like, this year, next year. No. We're expecting it's probably, a jump down, so we'll be dipping, quite frequently, below that six months cover, um, towards the end of the rating period. Yes. Speaker 6: I'd, I'd like to hope not council, but I think in, in reality, given where we're headed, and I know that Brett talked before, about, um, the level of job keeper, um, job, sorry, job seeker, Yep. in the region, and risk of rates arrears, that, I dare say, that as we get to the back end, of the next rating period, and we end the discount period, whether that's September or October, Yeah. we will see, Speaker 5: we will see a decline in that. That, that's when we'll know for sure. We can speculate up until then, Yeah. but I think it's going to be higher than we, Mm. well, higher than what we've seen in the past, Mm. but even up until now, it's only just a little bit above,

02:53:00 Yeah. you know, where it was this time last year, so, but that's to be expected, because we issued the rates in, Yeah. in January, and then were paid by February before this came along, so, we'll, we'll know within, I reckon, 30 days, 60 days, after we issue the rates next time. Speaker 2: Mm. Speaker 5: And as soon as we know, we'll let you know if it's, if it's a major issue. Speaker 2: Sure. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 5: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Moved. Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, just, the, the operation of the organisation, as revealed in these monthly reports, continues to be found. We're very fortunate in Noosa to have, some of the most experience in local government in this field, and the results are evident for all of us to see. Mayor Stewart: Mm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm-hmm. Mayor Stewart: Councillor? Yeah, I'd just like to reiterate what Councillor Stockwell said, and Michael, congratulations to you and Trent and the team. As I've said earlier, and I'll continue to say it, these are unprecedented times,

02:54:00 and it's been a very, very difficult task, uh, for everyone, and the budget has fallen firmly on the shoulders of the economic development team, and the corporate, um, finance services team. So, um, I just wanted to thank you, um, for all your hard work, and, uh, because, as I said, we are in uncharted waters, and I think we're navigating well, and I feel that, as Councillor Stockwell said, the Council continues to be in very good hands financially. So, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jones? I'll reiterate those comments. I mean, there's been many comments since de-emalgamation, and at the times of de-emalgamation, this Council would not be financially sustainable. Fruit's in the pudding. We're at, uh, as well, if not better than most. So, it's a credit to, uh, the financial management staff, and, uh, and Council staff in general for, uh, the efforts they've put in, and, uh, hopefully, before too long, we'll see,

02:55:00 uh, see things return to some semblance of normal, and, uh, we can only hope. Councillor Wilkie: And, um, yeah, at this point, I think it's also appropriate to, um, compliment the, the new Councillors about how they've, um, come to grips with the budget process, and also their commitment to fiscal restraint, which, um, we're all committed to, and we've seen that in evidence today, in other matters. Uh, it's a commitment of, uh, congratulations. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there anyone – I've got a question that I'm sure many of you might have. uh,

02:56:00 that'll just be for moral reasons, If you are if you put in anything, I mean, such engagement with, thank you. In this discussion about the appeal number D67 of 2020 regarding the refusal of application for a bar at Porto Court, Cooroy. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, we have a seconder to that please. Yeah, I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Finzel: Can you be kind of clear? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Speaker, motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know, just that it's my understanding that some councils wish to pursue concepts that are contrary to the staff recommendation,

02:57:00 which looking at those proposals would require perhaps debate on the merits or discussion on the merits of the planning assessment. Which would be prejudicial to council's case, should it be held, it might be prejudicial to council's case, should it be held in open court. The Act provides for us to go into closed sessions for these discussions so that the interests of the ratepayers can be upheld. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions of staff or comments before we move this motion? Okay, I put the motion as in favour. Speaker 3: That's unanimous.

180 minutes in

03:00:00

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

195 minutes in

03:15:00

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

210 minutes in

03:30:00

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

225 minutes in

03:45:00

03:48:00 Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: I'll take it from the second councillor Jurisevic, wish to speak to it councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll also do so briefly. This is a matter of an appeal against an approval subject to conditions in regard to a beverage manufacturer which is a use within that zone who wish to also have a bar

03:49:00 which is a use that is inconsistent under the current and new planning scheme. As a result, it's appropriate that the council defends their decision not to approve that bar considering its inconsistency with both the existing and proposed Noosa plan. Councillor Wilkie: Okay councillor Stockwell, councillors wish to speak to this motion. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I note a quote referred to in the Noosa news by a council employee who said, council should stick with venture drive industrial estate as the only exception to allow the mix of hospitality and industrial uses. I don't agree with this. Council staff have suggested that the distillery is not well located being isolated from the township and urban areas of Cooroy with no footpath and public transport opportunities for patrons. This is a valid statement, one which needs to be considered for in my belief safety and well-being of patrons is paramount. It is also up to us as council however now more than ever before to empower to help not hinder businesses and to provide

03:50:00 a little latitude in a couple wanting to make a start of something. We should be empowering these small businesses to get up and running. In Noosaville there are three breweries that I know of with restaurants attached in industrial areas. Why shouldn't businesses in Cooroy be afforded that same opportunity? There is already an approved distillery on this site so we're not actually taking away from the other industrial businesses we're just adding on the ability for them to have a bar. Another reason put forward for refusal of the bar was that the addition of a bar would potentially undermine the intended use of the land in Taylor Court for instance. The distillery has already been approved in the industrial estate and a tasting bar has been signalled as being okay. The addition of a bar in my opinion is not a long bow from the tasting area. What cannot be argued and what is absolutely critical however is safety of patrons, specifically transport options for patrons to be able to access the bar and leave the bar safely.

03:51:00 There is no transport options in this regard and that is very important. The distillery has already been approved in Noosaville. It is also important to note that the industrial area we are talking about is an important part of our planning scheme and we should address the overall approach of this area in coming months. On this basis I would support the staff motion and propose that we defend the appeal but we work to our best of ability to enter into a suitable resolution for both parties. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: Last year Noosa Council took a small step in creating an enterprise precinct by allowing the mix of hospitality and industrial uses in the Noosaville industrial estate under the venture drive enterprise precinct. Council acknowledged the role of startups and micro manufacturers by cutting red tape and supporting enterprise precincts. It was a small but significant first

03:52:00 step. As a council we need to be embracing exciting opportunities that come to us. New enterprises such as distilleries and micro breweries are good ideas that need to be supported. We talk about the emerging economy and creating jobs of the future. We now need to establish precincts to capitalise on these good ideas the same way we did in Noosaville. However, we must do this without eroding process, especially when we are talking about the future of the industry. To determine the use of industrial land, we must go through the planning scheme and not through individual applications. For this reason, I do support Council's recommendation to defend the appeal and enter into a mediation with the applicant for a win-win outcome. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I hope the councillors will speak to the motion.

03:53:00 Councillor Stockwell, are you ready to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will close because while the councillors have indicated support to the motion, I think there's some sentiments expressed that are contrary to my view and values as a professional planner. Thirty years ago when I was learning this stuff, I learned about how the American planning system developed by the wealthy industrialists who realised that the economy was underpinned by the need to separate different land uses or incompatible land uses. This is really an important principle of planning. This site is identified as a medium-impact industry, one of the only medium-impact industry sites in this Shire that has greenfield development potential. If we consistently try and treat all industrial land as enterprise precincts, we are committing the narrowing of our economy, not the diversifying of our economy. And therefore, I encourage councillors to think hard and deep about their support for one-off sites going towards inconsistency.

03:54:00 I don't want to be a burden on your business and uses because while it may be a benefit to the business, it won't be necessarily a benefit to the nursery economy. I urge your support. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for the motion. All those in favour? That's unanimous. And that's it for the meeting. I prepare the meeting closed. Thank you.

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

What was said

Latest