Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good morning and welcome to the September Planning and Environment Committee meeting. We pay our respects to the traditional owners of the place where we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people and their elders past, present and emerging. And the first item on the agenda today. We have Councillor Finzel attending by teleconference today. On the screen. We have a full complement of councillors at the meeting. So the first item is Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 2097 of 2020, an application for a minor change to development approval for 140 multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shops, restaurants, multi-function rooms and gym at 75 Resort Drive Noosa Heads. And we have some declarations. Who would like to go first? Councillor Finzel. Speaker 8: Take your unmute.
00:01:00 Thank you everybody. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. I declare a real conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009 due to my relationship with Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, Altum Constructions. Lee McCready was involved with my 2020 election campaign. And I will be leaving the room. Speaker 5: So my advice is you go through each of these first. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. So Councillor Stewart, would you like to do yours? Mayor Stewart: I declare 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 Altum Constructions. So I will be leaving the room in this matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I would also wish to declare a motion to adjourn. Oh, the waiting room. Speaker 4: Well I just thought that we were in the waiting room and we're not supposed to do that.
00:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I just can't read when I'm talking. Oh sorry. I declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter of the Local Government Act and on the 24th of February 2020 this year I saw the review by the independent council of election observer as to the public claims of the future nurse team on which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant, ultimate instructions, and I would actually argue that I should stay in the room and be part of this item. However, as this now means that there is not a quorum. Speaker 5: So I'll just explain the process from here. With our standing committee, the quorum is two out of the four. Three of the councillors have declared a conflict of interest, therefore the committee is not able to be able to deal with this matter. What I plan to do as CEO is simply refer this matter to the general committee on Monday, and this committee therefore doesn't have the power to deal with this today, but you don't have a quorum to be able to deal with it.
00:03:00 So that's the correct process, and the general committee can deal with this on Monday. And for those councillors, you'll need to make those same declarations on Monday. So you move on to item number two. Item two. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can invite Councillor Finzel back here. So item two is a planning environment court appeal number D7-2020, refusal of an application to subdivide 120, 126 and 138 for the best name road of the Shire, Happy Jack Crook Road, Ridgewood. Do we have any questions or comments? Councillor Wegener: I'm with the effluent, so like before, lot two was thought to be below the floodplain, and so you wouldn't want to, you wouldn't build on it, we wouldn't approve the application, they've had since looked at the land and said, well, that's actually quite a bit higher, but it still looks like a pretty small lot, and when it comes to septic and so forth, well, obviously that water goes someplace, you know, it's a pretty small lot, but it still looks like a pretty small lot, and when it comes to septic and so
00:04:00 does it, probably goes into the Mary River, I would say out there, yes, yeah, it would go to the Mary, but so with the, with a house and sewage, they would probably have a septic tank, because they're not anywhere near being hooked up to, and so with a septic tank, what is it, what is the necessary height above a river, you know, or a catchment area in order to have a septic tank on a few feet, probably, considering at one point, we all thought it would be all underwater, what is the variation there? Speaker 10: Yeah, I can answer that in part, and I have to come back to you in terms of plumbing requirements, but the building envelope has an area of 5,000 square meters, so it's large enough to accommodate on-site effluent, you need generally around, well, some suggest down to 1,500, probably two and a half is probably more reasonable to fit a house, and so
00:05:00 building an effluent area, so it's certainly large enough to fit the on-site effluent area, and it is outside the flood, as you suggest. In terms of setbacks from the river, I'll check with our plumbing section to see if there's any actual setbacks, but you are looking at over potentially 100 meters away from the creek, so it's quite some distance from the creek, it's probably further located, maybe the same distance from the creek than the existing lot, so remembering that this is not creating any additional lots in the area, it's just a boundary realignment, so it's a three into three, so the existing lot that's there goes underwater, so it's certainly not suitable for on-site effluent, so I would suggest this is an improvement over the existing situation, but I will check for you if the plumbing requirements stipulate anything in terms of setbacks from the creek, so I'll have to come back to you on that.
00:06:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, it just seems that when you're digging, you know, you have your septic tank, which goes down a bit, and then you need some downward flow for it to go out, and then you've got a gravel drainage pit down there below, and you just want to make sure that that's all above flood level. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, it's a combination of factors. One is the percolation test, how quickly water goes through, so if it takes far too long or it goes through very quickly, then you have to look at design. The other one is, as you say, the separation distance to a waterway, normally 100 meters. There used to be a test called the Beavis Gardener test, and that was the result of if a virus went into the septic tank, would it make it in its lifetime down to the water, and generally it was far less than 100 meters in most soils for that so you can be pretty confident that there would be a site on the block that would be suitable.
00:07:00 Speaker 5: Okay, and a lot of the more modern treatment systems that are out there these days result from what's coming out the other end is a lot better than 20, 30 years ago, too. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So, any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: I've got a couple of questions. One of the concerns that were raised by council was that the additional lot to use the bridge crossing was unacceptable for structural loading reasons. What did the bridge investigation show? Speaker 10: Yeah, so there was a level three bridge inspection, which I understand that's the main road's terminology, so quite a detailed investigation. It's the highest level of investigation. So it shows the bridge, whilst unlikely to be constructed by council just because the material is used, is in reasonable condition, but it will require the girders and decking to be replaced in 10 years' time. Okay. And there should be some signage put up just to limit the amount of bounce on the bridge,
00:08:00 and that's about the signage would limit the size of vehicles going over there. So, still big enough to construct a house and so forth on site, but it wouldn't allow the largest concrete truck to go across the bridge. But still large enough for a large vehicle, still of a certain condition. So, the applicant has agreed to pay 50% of the cost to council. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: That's in the infrastructure agreement. Speaker 10: That's in the infrastructure agreement, and that's a monetary contribution, which will be put into account for 10 years' time, essentially, for council to go and do that works. But at the end of the day, the bridge is located in road reserve, notwithstanding that we didn't construct it, and so we would ultimately be responsible for its maintenance and upgrade. So I think this is a reasonable solution that they've come forward and agreed to contribute toward that cost. Mayor Stewart: Is it correct in saying that it's not insignificant even if the sum, that 50%, it's $33,000 thereabout that they have to pay? Speaker 10: It's 50% of the $33,000.
00:09:00 Mayor Stewart: Oh, okay, so that's a total of $16,000, so it's still not insignificant. Speaker 10: That's right, yeah, yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you have more questions? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, just one more question. The application's code accessible, and it's assessed against certain codes. On page 15, there's a reference made to the Noosa Plains Biodiversity Overload Code. Was that one of the codes that the application was assessed against? Yes, it was. Speaker 10: And that's all about making sure that building envelope and that on-site effluent is outside that riparian buffer, which it is able to do, to locate. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I remember it being quite... Councillor Wegener: It was right on the Yippie border there, which is surprising, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would someone like to move the staffer any day? Move Councillor Stewart. Second. Second, Councillor Wegener. Those in favour? Councillor Finkels?
00:10:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes, Councillor Finkels. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: unanimous. Okay, we move on to the next item, which is item three, which is a request for an extension of currency period for development permit for material change and usage premises for office, restaurant and shop at 630 Street, Corrigian Beach. Mayor Stewart: Mr Chair, based on the significance and, I guess, the high profile nature of this site and significance of what I asked, this will be moved through to January. Sure. Speaker 5: Any questions or more information that councillors would need for one day? Councillor Wegener: Well, I would, the plot ratio, could you run me through that? I'm sure that some of the viewers would also would love to learn about. How you find the plot ratio, because I was, I just. Sure. Speaker 7: So plot ratio is the relationship between the gross floor area of the site and the actual site area itself. Councillor Wegener: Okay, so there's the floor space. Yeah, so that's right.
00:11:00 Sorry for interrupting. So if it's a single level, they'd be one to one, but if you had two levels, then you'd have much more. Yeah, so the floor space would be a usable area. That's correct. Than there is at a single storey. Speaker 7: And there are some aspects of a development which are excluded from gross floor area. So the area that you have for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles is not included as gross floor area. The staircases are not included, except for on the ground floor. So, yeah, so generally, as you say, the ground floor is not included. The footprint of the whole ground level would almost equate to one to one in this circumstance, because you're certainly not going to have an area for parking or manoeuvring of vehicles. And so if you end up with 500 square metres of gross floor area, you just divide that by the site area of 271 in this instance, and you come out with the ratio.
00:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, if it was built to the boundary for two storeys, it'd be a ratio of one to two. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: So it seems to me the plot ratio has gone up because they want to use the top storey. Is that right? Well, that's increased. So is that the relative increase in the plot ratio, because they want to use the third storey, the roof? Speaker 7: No, it's in relation to how much, I suppose, area they're using on both levels. It's the footprint of the building relating to those areas that are gross floor area. So if it was limited to the ground floor, and the whole area was gross floor area, it would be one to one. By going upstairs, they're going over that one to one ratio. And in this instance, up to 1.67. Speaker 10: Yeah. So the roof doesn't contribute to gross floor area or plot ratio, because it doesn't... You know, the roof terrace? Yeah. Because it doesn't have a roof cover over it. It doesn't constitute a storey under the scheme. So it's only the first and second floor that constitute parental area.
00:13:00 Mayor Stewart: Kerry, can I ask why they're specifically seeking an extension? Is it to the currency period? Speaker 10: Yeah. So under the Planning Act, planning approvals have a limited life. They have a certain number of years to act on that approval. And it lapses at the end of that, unless council agrees to extend that period. Mayor Stewart: But have they given a reason why they want the extension? Speaker 10: Well, it's about to lapse. So I'm not sure they've specified a particular reason. Speaker 5: They don't normally specify why they haven't... What the question is, why they haven't done it so far. Because this was approved in 2012. Speaker 10: Some time ago. Speaker 5: About 20 years ago. Mayor Stewart: I'm just wondering, because of the extenuating circumstances, where we've been COVID and everyone is feeling quite into a pinch, if that has something to do with the reason for wanting to extend... Speaker 10: That's not the reason they've put forward. And the minister has extended all planning approvals in Queensland by six months. So this one actually won't lapse till the end of the year, given that it's six months extension,
00:14:00 which has been given across the board for all planning approvals because of COVID. Councillor Lorentson: Does the six month extension apply to buildings that are going to be demolished? I thought that they weren't part of that six month extension. Speaker 10: That's for building applications. Building approvals for demolishing. So that's a little bit different. So planning approvals, there's a six month extension on all of them. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To put it in context, when was the approval given, the initial approval? Speaker 7: It would have been June 2012. So eight years. Yeah. It's more. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we are under appeal for another development over the site. That's correct. So it's more likely, if I was to be bold to say, that they're trying to retain some development approval over the site in case they lose the core capital. Speaker 10: I think that would be the case because the land is worth more if there's a development approval over the site than having anything. Mayor Stewart: Is there an opportunity for them if the currency was extended for them to go back and revisit some of their plans and work more closely with council to ensure that they're aligned?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 10: They always have that option to come back and change it. We can't make that happen or force them to do that. That is a separate application. They did lodge some time back an application to change the approval on this, which included a lift to address potentially that building issue that we've raised, that it wouldn't comply with building code. But the changes at the time were found to be not minor. They didn't constitute a minor change under the Planning Act. And so they eventually withdrew that and re-lodged that application that's been subject to the appeal. So to answer your question, that is always an option for them. But it gets difficult to demonstrate a minor change when you're adding another lift shaft that will potentially go through the height requirements for the site. It's eight metres height requirements. Yeah. Speaker 5: But it also, if we extend, they'd have the right to develop in accordance with each plan. Speaker 10: Yeah, that's right.
00:16:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And there's a mention in there, I think one stage, a 16% increase. I think that might be in. Speaker 7: Well, to bring it back to the new scheme of 1.4, it would be a 16% reduction. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if you use the word significant, is that linked to the concept of a minor change or not? Or is that just saying it's significant? Speaker 10: No, there's no descriptive measures anymore in the Planning Act around what constitutes a minor change. Okay. Mayor Stewart: So if they start this development in the next six months, then they're approved? Speaker 10: No, they have to actually complete the development in a time frame. So it suggests they wouldn't be able to complete the development and commence the use within that time frame. Councillor Wegener: So with this, what they're asking for is an extension, basically. Does that mean that if we allow the extension that we actually absolutely approve the building as well? Or that they seem different things, but...
00:17:00 Speaker 10: That's right. If we approve the extension, that means we're supportive of the proposal and we're happy in terms of its compliance with the current planning scheme. Because what will happen if this development goes ahead and get built, it's of a higher plot ratio than the Noosa Plan 2020 allows, and it will set the scene for other redevelopments or Peregian who will want the same amount of floor space as its proposal. Mayor Stewart: But it was approved under the superseded plan. That's right, yeah. Councillor Wegener: But not this exact one, though, because there's two sets of plans here. One of them is with the superseded planning scheme. One of them is the later one. Yeah. That's right. Speaker 10: I'm not sure of your question. Sorry, Councillor Tom. Speaker 5: No, it's only one application, Tom. So the original application was approved in 2012. Yeah. And in 2016, they applied for an extension to that application after four years, which hadn't been on. That was given. Now they're seeking another one of those, and that's that application.
00:18:00 Separately, they applied for a different development, which is the one that's subject to appeal. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Because it's not the same. Yeah. The actual building that they've proposed is not the same as the 2012. The building has evolved. Speaker 5: That's what we're dealing with now, is the extension of that application. It's the same. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the same building. Two different applications over the same site. Yeah. This relates to the approval that dated in 2012. It has no link to the separate application that's currently before the court. So the design that this report's based on is the design which was submitted in 2012. Councillor Wegener: In 2012, they didn't have an elevator, and that the ledger... Yeah, but we're not considering that at the moment. That's not... So that's what I'm trying to get to. Speaker 10: Okay, so that's what it would be. So the current approval, approved building that we're looking at now, doesn't have a lift in the building. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So that's the weird thing.
00:19:00 I mean, you've got to... It's hard to get your head around the fact that we're approving a building without a lift. Does that make sense? I mean, does that... Speaker 10: Well, that's part of the issue that's raised, is that it's come to officers' attention that this is unlikely to meet the building code requirements, because it doesn't have a lift. So this development, as proposed or approved currently, couldn't proceed. They would be required to do some amendment to the plan. Mayor Stewart: They did put another application in for a lift. Speaker 10: Yep, they made an application for a minor change some time back, but that was found to not meet the task for minor change, because it resulted in a substantially different development and exceeded the height requirements. And they didn't proceed. And it didn't proceed. They withdrew that. And then they re-launched that new application that's been subject to the appeal. Mayor Stewart: If we granted the currency period the extension, which is theoretically granting the approval for this building, is there a requirement in the building code that they do have to put a lift in? Or that that would be an amendment that you accept?
00:20:00 Speaker 10: Yeah, that's our understanding. No, there'd have to be an assessment made, because it would potentially not comply with the height requirements for Peregian. So in Peregian, they're all fairly low-rise buildings, two storeys. There's no lift shaft sticking up above the roofline. Mayor Stewart: But surely, based on discrimination and disability laws and things like that, they would give that requirement, would supersede the height requirement? Speaker 10: There's still an assessment to be made as to whether we're happy with that building having a lift shaft and being over height. I mean, because the scheme sets a requirement for only two storeys in the area. So it never envisaged rooftop terraces where people might need a lift to access. Speaker 5: So they'd have to meet their requirements within the existing . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not saying we wouldn't support a lift shaft. We're saying that a lift shaft is likely to make it, not a minor change, and therefore they can't effect the approval they were given by the Sunshine Coast Council in 2012. Mayor Stewart: Unless the lift shaft went not to the roof deck and it was internal and stayed in the roof
00:21:00 deck unless you sit on that. Speaker 10: Yeah, I guess I'm just going on the plans that they previously lodged, which showed the lift shaft come up through the building. And most of the lifts, they're getting smaller these days, but most of the lifts have that lift overrun, which protrude above the roofline. Councillor Wegener: The green space pushing back onto that. So you're saying that it goes further back than the others? There are other shops next door to it that are into the green parkland. Like not out of the beach side, but behind it. Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah, it's currently proposed to be built to the boundary. And when they open their fins, they may protrude partially over that boundary. The new scheme provides for a two-metre setback to that upper level. Requires a two-metre setback. So the proposed, the approved plans would not meet the new scheme in that regard. So in terms of that, that's to the village green? That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the aim is that when you're in the village green, you're not looking at vertical walls,
00:22:00 you're looking at, yeah, that setback. That's right. Two meters. Two meters. And that's where there's the most significant difference between this development and what would look like in the new plan 2020. Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. So those setbacks on the second floor are about reducing the prominence of that upper level and not crowding in on the village park. Speaker 7: Yeah. I think it's, Brian, about 72 square meters difference between the 1.67 that's been approved and the 1.4 sought by the new scheme. So more than, I would say, the two-metre setback. It would be further articulation in the building. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyway. So is that enough questions before Monday? Yeah, thank you. Yep. Thanks. Thanks, Clare. Thanks, Clare. So, Councillor Stewart moved it. Does anyone second it? Not yet. I'll second it. All those in favour? That was unanimous. Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Thank you. So we're moving on to item four, which is a minor change to adult removal for a multiple
00:23:00 dwelling, 20 units, eight shops and two restaurants, 49 Hating Street, Noosa Head. Now, this might be a good example of what happens when you approve something contrary to a scheme provision and you're locked into it. What the report tells us is that although there's a provision for a 10-metre setback, it's been, lots of structure's been put in that 10-metre setback, so we can't really hold our head on it anymore. Is that what we, are the arguments in this report? Speaker 10: Well, we are saying that there's other developments along the beachfront there that have been built, structures built into the 10-metre setback. So there's been variation over time with setbacks to the beach, and if you don't maintain that consistency, then yeah, the 10 metres means less, because it's meaningful. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In fact, part of this whole group title scheme right next door is a block, one that goes right to the boundary. Is that wrong? Speaker 4: Within this building? Yes, I believe it does go to the boundary.
00:24:00 Councillor Wegener: So, I'm just going to say, I'm so confused on this one, like I'm baffled, so we might take a bit of time here. Does, walking down there, I have, I look over my, this is a long question, you look over and you see the beautiful headland, you know? And people put so much time and effort into maintaining that, to stop that road from, you know, Arthur Hill, going through our whole history that we talk about all the time. Then you've got the beautiful boardwalk in front of it, you've got the beautiful beach that we spend, you look at the North Shore. We are talking about the most valuable piece of real estate in the Southern Hemisphere, is Bistro City. And then you walk along there, we have the whole campaign, no sign campaign, and you walk along and there's just signs saying, no seating on the grass, stay off the grass, and there's a menu on the boardwalk with you. And you look at that sign and you say, this does not seem to fit into what the rules for
00:25:00 Noosa are. And then it's artificial turf on the front there, instead of natural, you know, grasses, natural, it's artificial turf. And then when you look at, even furthermore, you look back and you say, well, they put that structure on the front of the building moving into the most valuable space in the Southern Hemisphere. And they did this without approval. And now we're going to retroflectively say, we're going to give this approval and let them, you know, go for it and build further. And then to boot, retrospectively approving them to have more space, more eating area right there. And then having to give one more. More car space. So the whole building is 12 car spaces short. And now we're going to be one more car space short. And the whole thing just it doesn't it doesn't fit with me.
00:26:00 And I suspect it wouldn't fit with the voters as well. We have a belief that, you know, we in my campaign, what so many business owners said is they want a level playing field. And it appears to me this one says, well, no, build it. It's much better to build and ask for forgiveness than it is to have to plan this out. So so that's where I'm coming from. So I'm just going to just say that, you know, I have a hard time getting my hand around retrospectively approving such a thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And can I just ask ask the the retrospectivity, does it relate to the little bit right out in front or is it relate to the whole of the area in figure three, the area subject to replacement refurbishment of existing. Speaker 4: So figure three, that area was approved for use, but it was outdoor use so it was always approved for use area for dining.
00:27:00 It just wasn't improved to actually be enclosed. The little 14 square metre area had never had any approval. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And is there other incidences of this? I seem to recall similar findings. Over where Hasting Street meets Noosa Drive, did you have similarities to this and how was the area resolved in terms of people putting canopies over outdoor dining areas? Speaker 10: Are you referring to grilled? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it was grilled and then we found one down the road from it. Speaker 10: I'm not sure about down the road, but certainly with grilled, it was a similar situation where there was sort of shade structures put over an approved outdoor dining area. They've become sort of more permanent over time until grilled looked at going in there and they wanted to create a bit more of a permanent structure to improve the appearance of the building. So it is a similar explanation.
00:28:00 Councillor Wegener: Even further, so you say that it is similar to other places along the boardwalk there at Hasting Street. Well, it's not even close. This place is an utter anomaly that completely is different from any other place in the area. Every other spot along that area there. Again, we're talking about such an anomaly for Noosa there. When you say it's similar, no, you go either direction. There's beautiful little places to sit in, which seem to go into the private property, you know, into that 10 meter zone between the building and the boardwalk. And then and so that's really useful. And I know on busy days, there's people sitting and they're all all down the boardwalk. They're out there sitting against it, especially in the pandanus trees where there's shade. You know, there's always people sitting there. And then you come to Bistro C in the boardwalk cafe. And I don't see a nice little seat there, you know, for people to sit and enjoy the
00:29:00 boardwalk in the view. I see private dining in AstroTurf and in an entry into Bistro C, which has dining there as well. And you said even in here it says. That wasn't approved like that, that you put they approved the walkway, but they didn't approve dining there. And all of a sudden, the most valuable real estate real estate space for dining. It doesn't have approval and it's there. And it just. Do I need to go further with the question? No. Yeah. My question is, do I need to go further with this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It just I suppose the question I'm getting out of the comments is. Is there what are the reasons why you would recommend approval when these the level of non-compliance for our use that has been commenced already without approval?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 10: Do you want me to go? Well, I don't like retrospective work either. It's the wrong way to go about it. It's never a good start when somebody has gone and done the work without any of the development approval. It's not good practice. I don't condone it in any way. And it's not something we want to see, but it does occur. So this application, what we really got to decide is whether that structure being in the 10 meters looks out of place and so out of keeping with the area that it doesn't meet the outcomes of the scheme. So that's really the decision we've got to make here. It's not about the cost of the land and their windfall. It's about whether it looks out of place in that 10 meters and meets the outcomes of the scheme. The 10 meters is only a probable solution. It's actually the outcome that has to be met. And that's about amenity and how it fits in with the character of that area.
00:31:00 So that's that's the important point to note is that's what we've got to decide. Does it look out of place? Now, this structure or something similar has been there 20 years. We've had no complaints. So that would suggest to me that a lot of people think that it looks like a natural part of the building. It doesn't look out of place. When it originally got built sometime, I think in the 90s, no one raised any issue with council. It continued on for the next 20 years. Now, looking at it, the setbacks along to the beach vary for the development. Parts of the development come in to to that setback. Some parts, some don't. Some developments maintain a setback of 10 meters. But a lot of the development along there does intrude into the 10 meter setback. There's little gazebos and whatnot around pools. There's all sorts of structures in that 10 meter setback.
00:32:00 So I'm not comfortable with the fact they've got fake turf and they're looking to re-landscape that. And I think that will project quite nicely to the beach with the works. The works are proposing will look better than what the existing structure is, albeit it's not approved. But that's really the decision making is, does it look out of place? I'd suggest to you it doesn't. The car parking, yes, there is an increased car parking requirement. Council has a policy around car parking of accepting contributions in lieu of on-site car parking. And there's some criteria around that in that policy as to when we would or wouldn't accept it. And it's about whether, one, can they fit in additional space on the site? No, they can't. Would we actually prefer the parking on site? Or would we prefer that to go to public transport in the area? Now, I think the last thing we want to see in the Hastings Street is more cars brought
00:33:00 into Hastings Street. It is better to address that increased parking demand by contributions towards public infrastructure or pathways in the area and not actually provide that parking space. So I think that is actually a benefit to the area. And that's the preferred option over their car parking, providing that car parking on site. So I don't see the car parking issue as a big one. That's the preferred direction for Hastings Street. We don't want to provide more and more parking in that area. Councillor Wegener: Do you want to look at the photos? You guys, I took some photos. Oh, Karen's got a question as well. So there's a sign. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you imagine if you've got it on mute? You've got it on mute, Karen? Speaker 8: Can you hear me now?
00:34:00 Yeah. Terrific. I just have a question regarding the risks around, like, storm events or high tides or whatever. Speaker 4: At the moment, there's a lot of risk around, like, storm events or high tides or whatever. Speaker 8: It's an open structure. If we move to a permanent structure in that position, what risk does that leave council at if we approve the building of a permanent structure in that risk place against the coast? Where does that leave us? Speaker 10: Yeah. Well, the floor area of this dining area is the same floor area of the remainder of the development that's already approved. This site is actually a little bit unusual in that the wall to the front and the mounding out to the front of the beach was built at the time to stop that very event, to try and stop, you know, the risk of the sea, the ocean coming into the development.
00:35:00 So it doesn't – the gate's been removed. It's no longer there. But at the time, there was a requirement for a gate and for that wall to actually prevent the very thing that you're concerned about. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But I – So that's actually historic footage of the previous development with waves coming through the shops and my friend being the shop assistant taking the dresses out and feeding the wave. Speaker 10: Yeah. So I think that we're not talking about a lower floor area with this dining area. It's at the same floor area for the rest of the development. And the whole site is at risk, really. But this is one of the sites that has some protection measures in place. Councillor Wegener: Well, nominal protection method because you have an opening in the front there that the diners are not supposed to be there, don't have approval for that, and the wave will just go straight up through anyway. So I think Karen's point is exactly right. The wall is meaningless as far as stopping a storm surge from going through the building.
00:36:00 So the question is, what is our liability? Because all of a sudden, we've just upped our liability for the residents. By giving them that enclosed area, which is – and I bet the boardwalk on the other side there doesn't have approval for that enclosed area either. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question in terms of historic background. I recall this site being developed as part of the Sheraton development, which – isn't this the one that was just both sides of the street? Speaker 4: No, it was in a town further up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Further up? Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: So the concept of a probable solution and a specific outcome, probably a big question, but could you explain that? What does the plan mean by a probable solution to this 10-meter setback from the pathway?
00:37:00 Speaker 4: I'll give that a crack. So essentially, the way that the planning scheme is structured is that you've got a probable solution, which is almost like a tick and flick, so if you make that probable solution, you're good to go. In this case, it's the 10-meter setback. If you don't make that solution, then we look at the specific outcome, which is a sort of bigger picture type outcome. So if you don't make the 10-meter setback, then we'll look at the amenity, overshadowing privacy, noise, things like that. So the planning scheme's actually got tables. The right-hand column is your probable solutions. If you don't make that, then we look at your left-hand column, which gives you sort of a big picture. Speaker 10: But essentially, the planning scheme requires you to meet the outcome. It doesn't require you to meet the probable solution. The probable solution is one way of meeting the outcome. So the statement in the scheme and the codes asks you to meet the outcome of the code. So it's the way all planning schemes in Queensland are structured.
00:38:00 It's about performance-based planning. It's trying to recognize that there's one way of achieving the requirements of a planning scheme. So in our planning scheme, it's a little bit unique. We do have a lot of requirements as outcomes. So our gross floor area and site cover, building height and stories, is actually an outcome of the scheme, because that is what we want you to meet. There's no option but to meet that. That's a little bit unusual. Most schemes have that as a probable solution rather than an outcome. But it's actually the outcome of the scheme that's required to be met here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wegener is probably quite right, because it's very different to all the other sites. And that's because it is the undecided planning approval for commercial funding, isn't it? Speaker 10: Well, there's a few. There's sales at front. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yes. And they're right down there. And I'm thinking in that long stretch. Seasons and sales. Seasons and sales. Yeah. Seasons is well back.
00:39:00 There's rather seasons and sales. Well back. Yeah. So, but I suppose where I'm getting to. Now I've made two mistakes in a row. I'll try and get one to try. The approval that was given, and as I said, with the adjacent restaurant also going right to the boundary, that is the exception rather than the rule, isn't it? It is. And so what our decision now is, is there any significant difference in what is being proposed compared to what's already been approved? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Wait, did you say that again, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if you look at this site, if the next tenancy to the west is built to the boundary with a built structure. So our decision here is, in terms of amenity, in terms of the increase of the use or whatever, is there any significant difference between what's proposed here and what already exists? And that to me is where we're arguing that it might, while it might not meet a few of
00:40:00 the problem solutions, overall it's not changing the overall intent for this particular site. It is different to a lot of the other sites, except for seasons and sales, which I'm not going to get into. But yeah, it's about the level of change compared to the existing amenity aesthetic. And what you were previously saying, never had a complaint about it. I remember it being featured in a presentation on Hastings Street Design Principles and how this was one site that doesn't comply, but we've had to live with that and not comply. Yeah. Speaker 10: I have to say, you know, I agree with some aspects of Councillor Tom's, you know, I wouldn't like to see all of Hastings Street come as far forward as this development does. I think the green space along there is something that we should strive to keep, because that creates that nice amenity and feel along that boardwalk area.
00:41:00 But this development, you know, the restaurant, as Councillor O'Brien suggests, next door already comes well forward, and this one is a little bit outside the box compared to the other one along there. Councillor Wegener: I see the precedence being set by approving this as devastating to people, any other business that had been asked to take their signs down and have done things without approval and, you know, waiting to get approval afterwards. On so many levels, in this case, it's ridiculous, for example, you know, getting that entrance into the restaurant from the beginning. And then putting dining, you know, turning it into a dining area, making the most lucrative dining table on the planet, probably, and the most beautiful place at the expense of generations of people making use of this beautiful place, including that beautiful
00:42:00 boardwalk that is paid for by rate payers, and the beach and so forth. And then to give that to them, I mean, not that it's a part of the planning, but how much more valuable is that piece of property when they can sell it with basically tacit approval for the world's most expensive tables on the beach at Newsom, which were never approved in the first place. I mean, it's not a part of that, but the windfall is idiotic what this person will get by adding on, by approving that, millions of dollars are added from the rate payers to the owner of that restaurant, that premises. So I suppose the question is... Speaker 10: So remember that the outdoor dining area... There's always been an approved outdoor dining area. So that approved outdoor dining area would have had umbrellas and sails over it. Councillor Wegener: But it said here that the entrance in was never approved for outdoor dining. Mayor Stewart: In 2013, council issued an outdoor dining permit as a trading area.
00:43:00 Speaker 4: There is actually two areas of outdoor dining. So the 14 square meters that we're talking about is the little deck that people are sitting up on. The area that's... Yeah, outside. And then the area in between the, like in the actual entrance, in between the gardens, there's got... That's actually in reserve. So that's not on the property. Speaker 10: Show it on the plan. Speaker 4: Yeah. Have a look at figure 10 in the report. So in between... So you've got the little deck and then in between the two garden beds, there's actually outdoor dining, which is external to... Yeah. ...property for outdoor dining. Speaker 5: What page on the agenda is that? Speaker 4: Page 82. 82 tall. Yeah. So this area here is going to have to explain to Karen, can you see? Yeah.
00:44:00 So this area here is no approval, but this area here where they do have approval through property for actual outdoor dining. So that's the property boundary there. So they do have approval here, external to the site through the outdoor dining permit, and then this is the area that is currently not approved. Councillor Wegener: So the outdoor dining permit, what does that mean? Speaker 10: So that's... So throughout Noosa, on our footpaths, people can seek approval to use the footpath, the public space, and our property section manages those requests. And council often grants a permit for footpath dining, essentially. And that's an annual payment to council for that footpath training thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And it was something pioneering in the anti-dining. Speaker 10: Yeah, it was about encouraging. I think we were one of the first councils to have outdoor dining in Queensland, or from
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Australia. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think Melbourne might have been going in that direction just before. Yeah, okay. Speaker 10: Close to the first. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Definitely Queensland first, yeah. Speaker 10: And it was about trying to encourage, you know, the great outdoor use of our lovely climate, and here it is to you. So it sort of complemented that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask one question? Well, I appreciate where Councillor Wegener is coming from. Are we allowed to consider the financial implications of plant planning decisions, whether it's beneficial or non-beneficial? Speaker 10: Absolutely not. It's not relevant consideration for planning applications. So it's not relevant for the applicant to put forward their financial reasons for something, and it's not relevant for council to consider that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm getting the feeling that Councillor Wegener may not agree with the rec staff recommendation and such. We probably should refer it to the Monday general committee meeting. So happy to do that. Do we have a seconder? Seconder. Seconder, Councillor Stewart. All those in favour?
00:46:00 To refer it to Monday? Oh yeah. Okay, you're nervous. Our next item is item five, which is the Noosa Plan Administrative Amendment number one. Thanks, Gary. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I think so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you all by yourselves? I think so. Okay. Do we have questions? Speaker 6: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I have any hard ones, I go to these. Speaker 6: Okay.
00:47:00 Yeah, we've got AOs that aren't existing within other codes that are referenced and just little minor errors that as the plans are being used now, we're picking up more and more and when you use one code and you pick up something in another code that's not quite connecting or consistent, then yeah, they're things like that. I guess the other one is the fact in that building works table that the typo of the A has created a situation which was unintentional in terms of picking up things like decks and those types of minor building works requiring code assessment, which is not our intention at all. And also providing some consistency with the ministerial condition in regard to dwelling houses in all our residential zones. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we forget to change that? Speaker 6: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would like to move. Speaker 6: So yeah, so that really just picks up, you know, in the current scheme, if someone wants to build a detached dwelling within the medium density zone or the high density zone, they can do that as accepted development subject to requirements.
00:48:00 However, if they want to do some minor building work, we're actually making them go through a code assessment, which is not really consistent with where we're going with the other, with the Schedule 6 change. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to prove I've read it, page 122. You have a change which says all zones other than those in the residential zone category, then rural residential zone or rural zone, I'm pretty sure rural residential zone is within the residential zone category, have they changed that? Speaker 6: It's changed now, yeah, we did have it originally in the residential zone category and we got directed by the state to put it as a other zone category. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I thought they directed us to be residential in the first place. Speaker 6: No, no. So that, yes, that was our. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very good. All they have to do is take out two accommodation zones as a residential zone and they might actually convince me they understand what planning is about.
00:49:00 Any other questions? So, everyone happy just for this to go through? Yeah. All those in favour? You need to move it a second. Oh, we haven't got. I'll move it. Council Jordan. Yeah. Council Tom. All those in favour with reservations about tourism accommodation housing? Yes. Okay, we move on to item six. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Short and sweet. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Great. Now we can really start answering the hard questions. So, we're dealing with item six, which is the Innocent Environment Strategy Implementation Year One Annual Update. Do we have any questions or craze? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Could you explain to, to myself and our wonderful viewers out there, you know, the, the CBAs and the, the wildlife, the, yeah.
00:50:00 Voluntary conservation agreements and land for wildlife program? Those are, those are the two. Yes. Yes, yes, I get, I befuddled after that, for the last chapter. Yeah, because, because we, I went out with, with Dave, Dave Burrows, and really to get the magnitude of what's happening out there, people voluntarily working on their land, taking out Cat's Claw, taking out the Lantana, and improving the quality of, of, of their private land, and how that actually affects all of us as the residents, because it is so important for us to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to be able to, to build these issues that, that I think people don't really grasp the, the magnitude of what is happening out there, and, and the, the gumption of these people to do what they're doing.
00:51:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, I think one of the key themes, I think, in the Environment Strategy was around the fact that council only has control over certain numbers of, amount of their land. There's quite specific implementation actions around supporting private landholders and both in urban and rural settings to improve environment outcomes on their land. And one of the great things about living in Noosa is that so many of the landholders, that's exactly what they want to do. They just need some support in developing the skills and being able to know what to do. In the rural areas, the main areas we do that is through the Land for Wildlife and Voluntary Conservation Agreement programs. And we have more than 300 properties in the Land for Wildlife program across Noosa, all of which are larger properties. So it's a very significant area of land. And in each one of those properties, we've had officers go out, visit the property, walk through it, identify plants, identify weeds, offer support and technical advice on how landholders should manage those on their property, how they should deal with erosion, how they should deal with stock,
00:52:00 how they should deal with any number of issues and other pest management issues on their block. So that's a really, really important part of us managing the environment of Noosa as a whole. And it's an area that council can have influence, if not direct control over. Because obviously if we have a small reserve out at the back of Pomona, there are many more larger private properties in those areas that have just as many environmental values as the public land do. So through those programs, we're able to, I think, generally get really good outcomes on those blocks for a really economical investment. And it's also a great community outreach, not only do we get environmental outcomes, it's actually a really great council community partnership. I think it's one of the, it's a really nice example of somewhere where the council and community work in this complete positivity. There's rarely, if any, have any negatives associated around those programs. Councillor Wegener: I noticed the amount of volunteers here. What is it? I think it was 2,500 volunteer hours over the past year, which, you know, voluntarily addition to our environment, you know, council working with that many people over that many hours going forward, getting rid of, you know, replanting and so forth, that the net value of this is so huge, but it doesn't ever make it to a balance sheet, you know, and almost nobody even ever sees it, you know, because you, what you see is a balance sheet.
00:53:00 It's a beautiful tree, but what you don't see, which would have been, it didn't do anything, was it being pulled down by, you know, Capsclaw and Lantana everywhere. And so that's just so important, I read this, that I just am astounded how successful it is, but I think I know how successful it is only because I've been there, you know, largely, and yeah, yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think the hours you're referring to are just associated with the Land for Wildlife and BCA programs. They're dwarfed again by the role that our bush care volunteers do on our own land, providing support there. We have many more volunteer hours, again, that go into doing the similar sorts of works on council land and our bush care programs as well.
00:54:00 Mayor Stewart: I've got a few questions, just on the environment strategy actions, I don't know if you've got your page, yep, page 128. Yep. Just after After opening in November and December 2019, council received 10 applications, of which five were successful. These grants will provide $750,000 over the next three years, so is that $750,000 for five specific groups, is that right? Speaker 2: Yes, so there were five projects approved that were $750,000 over three years, yeah. Mayor Stewart: Can you tell me which, I know the Nature Conservancy obviously was one. Speaker 2: No, no, that wasn't part of the model, yeah. So there was Coastal Connect, which is a, Coastal Forging and Restoration program, which works with a bunch of bush care groups all along the coastal dunes. There was the Keep It in Kin Kin project, which went to Noosa and District Landcare Group, which involves activation of that program, doing landholder support and riparian restoration. There was rural support with the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, doing a similar project in the upper catchments of the Mary River.
00:55:00 There was the Plastic Free Noosa program, which went through Tourism Noosa, doing important work on reducing inputs, plastic inputs into the river. And the fifth project was quite small, it was a Biodiversity and Frog Monitoring Program through the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee again, basically a continuation of a long-term program they have on monitoring frogs. So they were the five projects. Speaker 8: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any more questions, or? Speaker 8: I have a question for Craig. Okay. Speaker 2: Yes, Karen. Can you hear me? I can, yes. Speaker 8: Hi. In the report, you say that there's a contribution to the continuation of waste to landfill audits. Can you let us know where you're at with the landfill audits and how that benefits the wider community and waste management strategies?
00:56:00 Speaker 2: I might need to take that on notice, Karen. Unfortunately, Ian Florence was unable to join me today to answer. It's a waste questions. So can I take that on notice and provide an answer to you that? Speaker 8: Certainly. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: There you go. And these are funded through the environmental levy? The environment levy? Speaker 2: Which component? Councillor Wegener: Well, which components are fired? Okay. Are under the environment levy and which ones are not under general? Speaker 2: Oh, throughout the whole environment strategy, or? Councillor Wegener: Oh, no, under the five that you just mentioned. Speaker 2: The grants. Sorry, they're all funded through the environment levy, so, the multi-year environment grants were funded through the environment levy specifically. So, it's basically $250,000 a year for three years, funded through the levy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, time for a hard question. Your report tells me nothing about whether the environment strategy is working. So, in the environment strategy, we set a whole lot of performance criteria. Yep. I don't know whether we're on track to meet our zero emissions target.
00:57:00 I don't know whether we're on track to meet our target of 50% of the Shire being in a protected area. So, we've got a great report about all what we have been doing, what we haven't been in, is it working in the first year. So, to me, that's something I'd like to hear, is I'd like to see the outcomes of the effort, not just the outputs of the process. And I think that's really important because, so, I've actually got a couple in the climate change area. You've identified one is around the waste gases as being orange and one that's going well. In the last year, has our emissions gone up? Or down? Speaker 2: We have data that's not finalised yet. But certainly, the reporting structure, the environment strategy was set up with that in mind. The fact that every 12 months, we're not going to be able to report on a lot of those targets. So, we set it up quite deliberately to be monitoring on outputs every year and monitoring on outcomes every second year. So, while I would appreciate the desire to have some of those outcomes now, you might need to wait a little bit longer, because some of that data takes a bit longer to pull together.
00:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just think, and it's a broader question which I brought up to the CEO, I just think if we've got targets we need, for those we can plot a path to the targeted achievement, whether it's 10 years' time, every time we get a report, we should be having a trend line like we do in our financial reports. We should say, yes, we're on track, we're above, we're below, and I just think, you can't do it for every outcome that we want, but there are key ones, and I think greenhouse gas emissions reduction is a key one, I think the percentage is a key one, that quite easily can be reported on a more regular basis, and I'd like to see that. Speaker 9: Just to reinforce what Craig said, it's very specific in the environment strategy that we report on those every two years. This is the first year of reporting on the environment strategy, and page 123 of the council report clearly says that, so what we're doing at the moment, in year one, is establishing the baselines, so that we are able to effectively report on the outcomes against the 12 targets by the second year.
00:59:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I accept that's a valid argument. Mayor Stewart: Right on your set page. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just want to keep on reinforcing it a little bit. Mayor Stewart: Craig, I've just got one other question. Yeah. Just on the nature, where are the state permits? Because I know we've got a green flag here, but where are they getting obtained, those state permits? Speaker 2: They're currently working on the finalisation of the sites and having discussions with all the state agencies. They can't apply for the permits until the sites have actually been determined, but TNC are in regular conversation with every permitting agency that's involved, and we don't anticipate there being any problems with the permits at this stage, once we've identified the sites. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? Oh, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: On page 128, Craig, there's a red flag, and it refers to the Environment and Sustainability
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Roundtable. What's happening with that? I see a lot of value in establishing that. It seems like it's being put on pause, and COVID sort of put a halt to that. Can you elaborate? Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly. It's been held in... There's been informal forums held regularly over quite a few years, and when we developed the environment strategy, we essentially took the approach that we want to formalise that form. And I think you and I have had discussions, not unlike what we're talking about with the River Stakeholder Group, but more broadly for environment. And our intent was to use the environment strategy as the impetus to basically move forward with that and formalise it. So, we've got a lot of different groups of people together. If that doesn't change, we're just going to have to find other solutions. It's not to say we haven't been engaging, it's not to say we haven't been involving, but the intent of that action was to develop a specific reference group, and we haven't done
01:01:00 it yet. So, that's why I put a red flag. Had we been able to communicate and work with the community like we normally would, I'm completely confident we would have had it in place. But if we're still here in six months, unable to meet round the room, we just need to find another way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There are things coming up where it might be useful to have an environment rain table input. Speaker 2: That's correct, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so, doing that in a virtual, or in a big room where there's social distancing might be an opportunity. Speaker 5: Can I ask a question? Yeah. Am I... No, no. If I go through the list of the greens, yellows and reds, Craig, in the yellows and reds, is there anything there that's keeping you awake at night in terms of whether we'll be able to deliver those in the future? The ones that are either a little bit behind or haven't started. Is there anything there that's going, we might not get there? Speaker 2: Not generally, no. I'm actually pretty comfortable with where we are for the first year, because obviously the environment strategy wasn't about a complete shift.
01:02:00 I'd like to think most of what we're doing was kind of heading in the right direction. This provided the framework and said, look, there's a few gaps that we need to move there. I think one of those oranges and one of those greens were associated with the Noosa River Plan, and the fact that obviously when we developed this last year, we would have liked to have had that in place and finalised. I think one of those actions in particular that's currently red may not end up being part of the final Noosa River Plan. I think that's around that on river presence potentially. So it may or may not. That's something for us to work through with the river stakeholder group. But I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of coming back to council in a year's time and say, we've revisited this action and we actually no longer think it's relevant. For reasons A, B and C, we actually don't think it is. We're going to change that, maybe put something else in instead. Speaker 5: For the other ones that are there, there's nothing there that's got you concerned that we might not get there? Speaker 2: With the implementation actions, I know I'm not reporting on the targets. There might be some of the targets that sit in the back of my mind around whether it's the zero emissions Noosa, whether it's the 50% protected area.
01:03:00 But in that sense, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of having a target as a direction, an aspiration, and move towards it. But no, nothing at this stage. Having gone through and reviewed this, because while I go through the environment strategy a lot, preparing this report was the first time I'd gone through every implementation action and looked at it. Overall, I was quite pleased with where we're tracking only 12 months in. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're actually doing a lot of work down the road. I should make up for my foreplay time. Councillor Wegener: The goal post seems to have changed, though, with the Skeletor report and the finding of the mud in the river and the effect of the silt coming down through the Kin Kin River. When we were at it at Landcare, we were asking about how far, how much success have we got out there by slowing the silt? And Kim said that we're about 4% of the way there. And so it looks like the goal post may be changing out there. Like, well, geez, this is a much more serious situation that we have, you know, that the
01:04:00 amount of effort needed to be focused out there is enormous. And so all of a sudden, you may have thought we were on target, but we're not on target there now, are we? Because it's all of a sudden a much bigger project than we probably thought a year ago. Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I agree. I think we always knew it was a big project and it's only one of several. But you're right, something like keeping in Kin Kin, for example, is such an important project to the ongoing health of the upper creeks and also the river system as a whole. I mean, obviously through the multi-year grants, they received about $230,000 over three years to really get the ball rolling, which up till then they'd really struggled with. So the beauty of that and also the work done in the Upper Mary catchment was the fact that all the structures were already in place. So that money goes straight into one ground. There's hardly any extras required around that. They'd already identified all the sites. They had the structures in place. They had the landholders ready to go.
01:05:00 They're out there doing it right now. But fixing up areas like that, it's not a two or three year fix, as you well know. It'll take investment over a very long period of time, not just from council, but also from other levels of government, from the private landholders themselves. I mean, one of the things about our private landholder engagement is that the landholders don't get off scot free. It's a genuine partnership. We expect inputs from them. And for example, with the new initiative through Land for Wildlife where we actually provide contractor support to some of the landholder properties. Now, that costs money. It's not really cheap. So we made the landholder apply the commitment back that they had to work with the landholders. It wasn't enough for us to send a contractor out while they were at work to remove the weeds. They actually had to spend the day working with the landholder to build their skills as part of developing their skills to manage their own land as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I suppose the other thing to note too is I don't think we can think that if we all of a sudden fix up all the sediment coming out of the Kin Kin, and the 4% probably relates
01:06:00 to the amount generated, not necessarily the amount that's getting into the waterway. There's probably decades for that sediment, especially the larger particles, to move through the system. We might be seeing stuff down here that came out in the 1972 flood sort of thing. You don't know how long it takes to move through the system. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. With the programs, we seem to be focusing on... Conserving wildlife, that's really great now, but could they move into those areas of Kin Kin where you can see the land falling into the creek and say, well, it's not preserving it, but actually regenerating it and giving the homeowner some sort of benefit like giving a rural residential part to their property to the overall, and then working on the rest of the property. Giving them some advantage just by zoning for them to... Yeah. ...come on board with repairing their property.
01:07:00 Speaker 2: I think we certainly could. I'm not a planner. You're probably getting a bit out of my expertise, but at the same time, I think we get to a point... At the moment, we've got a lot of private landholders ready to work with us and willing to work with us. You'd like to think that eventually you'll get to a point where all the private landholders in those high priority areas that wanted to work with us are already engaged. Yeah, then we look at different mechanisms. Okay, well, what are the next steps to be able to get into some of those either landholders that don't want to be involved with us or have different priorities, and that's when that might be some of the options we need to look at. For the moment, I think we've got a pretty good approach through land care and through our own BCA and then for wildlife programs in doing it. I think we could certainly provide more, but that's part of council's decision on annual
01:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the concept of development bonuses, quite hard under the current regulatory environment, so you mentioned rural residential, rural residential, the extent of that is controlled by the statutory regional plan, council can't just go and say okay if you do this we'll give you that, and it's also like planning, I developed a development bonus scheme, you probably haven't been able to do it since the Planning Environment Act became superseded, it's a concept that's sort of gone out of favour, because they say you have to consider each development application on its merits and not on things external to the development assessment process, am I right? Speaker 9: Yep, absolutely, the regional plan makes that more challenging, and I agree with what Craig said around there, I think there are a range of incentives that are working, a range of collaborative partnerships and goodwill and intent from a wide range of landowners who are currently engaging, and I think we've got a number of years to continue to work in that space.
01:09:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The whole concept I suppose in the rural, if you're into rural production, all the research shows that by looking after your creek banks, putting riparian zones in, putting alternative uses on your very steep slip-crone land, you're probably going to improve your productivity anyway, if you look at grazing, dairy, anything like that, you'll get an overall economic boost from doing best practice. Speaker 8: I just have a question, I'm not sure if this is where this would come up, but just with regards to environment strategy, does that include like noise pollution and disruption to amenity, through noise? Speaker 2: No, it doesn't, that's not included as part of the environment strategy. Speaker 8: Okay, thank you.
01:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there was one read there on the sustainability institute, I didn't even know we had it. We went through phase one, I thought we sort of ruled out, but we've only ruled out that model of an institute, is that right? Yeah. So we are looking at, is there a more community focused type model? Speaker 9: Yeah, that's right. And Craig and I did decide we changed that to yellow. Speaker 2: Yes, there were logistical problems, so it didn't get done, so I hadn't told you. Speaker 9: So that's somewhere between red and yellow. Yeah. Okay. So yes, the first phase of that was to look at a range of models, so we researched global and national and even some local models to come up with a model that might be appropriate for Noosa. You might recall that that report, we worked with CSIRO data 61, and that report came back to council probably 12 months ago, saying there are a number of organisations within our Shire already and within the region who are doing incredible work in terms of sustainability,
01:11:00 research, institute work, a range of initiatives, and we felt that the next step in this really should be, let's connect with those groups and understand what everyone's doing, catalogue all the research, and then be clear about what are the challenges that we need to look into, what are the research areas, our priority research areas for sort of the next five years, and build a bit more of a sort of coalition coordination around this idea of research and institute and collaboration. So yeah, that report with those recommendations are still sitting there. And probably need a bit of attention. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very good. Sylvia? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Just one last question, Craig. In reference to the presence, or we're still lacking a presence on the Noosa River, and I think lots of talk about the Kabi Gabi's having a presence on the Noosa River.
01:12:00 Is there an opportunity with the Noosa Integrated Catching Association to do that? We've got a ranger program to maybe approach them and see if there's an overlap, or whether they can help facilitate education-style programs on the river? Speaker 2: I think you're right. They do already to an extent. And I mean, it's not that there's not an education and compliance mechanism at all on the river, because you're right. Noosa Integrated Catching Association do a great job. Our volunteers out on the river do water quality testing, collecting rubbish. They speak to people on the river. They also report back to council, and they report back to Maritime Safety Queensland. And of course, since the environment strategy came in, Maritime Safety Queensland now have a permanent officer based on the Noosa River doing similar sort of work. So if I was talking about a presence on the river, I think we'd actually absolutely support NICA to do more. And we have this year. We've nearly doubled our funding to NICA this year for their work on the river. We're at a better place than we've been for many years, which is really, really great.
01:13:00 The action's red flag because we had a specific action out of the river plan, which is pretty much around council having its own on-river resource. So if I was talking about the action overall, it's probably more a yellow flag, but because the action actually said council had it, at the moment we do not. And that's something we'll review as part of the finalisation of the river plan, whether we really want to go down that path, or whether exactly like you suggest, we actually just work more effectively through MSQ and NICA and see that as the path forward. And I think when we come back here to the second year review, when we have the outcomes report as well as the outputs, there may be a couple of actions we ask council to reconsider to say two years down the track, we actually no longer think this action's relevant. There's better ways of doing it. And we'll have a look at that then. Speaker 8: I prompted to ask this question to do with also the development proposal today, Mr OC.
01:14:00 I noticed you wish to undertake a socio-economic impact assessment for flooding and inundation of foreshore areas, including impacts on private assets. It's not scheduled to occur in year one. When do you propose that is going to be implemented? Speaker 3: It's an implementation project that will follow the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. The completion of the Coastal Hazards Plan? Mm-hmm. That'll be the follow-on project from that, looking very closely at the assets in terms of the form and the material, the height of existing buildings in those flood areas. And looking for measures to improve their resilience. Speaker 8: Yeah. And do we have a current timeframe for completion of that Coastal Hazards Plan? Where are we up with that? Speaker 3: Towards the end of the year, we hope to have a draft available for the community to view.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 8: Draft. By the end of 2020. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cool. So one final question from me. So from a community perspective, back in 2016, there were a lot of people who were interested in the call to have a strategy so they knew how to get strategic grants, which I think can tick that box. From an organisational perspective, has the strategy helped us be more effective or more targeted in what we do as an organisation? Speaker 2: Look, I think it has, as far as it can in one year, I guess. I mentioned before that the environment strategies were never supposed to reinvent the way we managed our environment, because I'd like to think that over a long period of time, we're doing the right thing. We're doing roughly the right things. But it's provided a little bit of clarity, I guess, as much as anything, on what our key objectives really are. And that went through all that process of workshopping with councillors, working with the community. There's a lot of work done just trying to really narrow down on what those clear things
01:16:00 that we really wanted to achieve are. And 12 months in, having using the strategy a lot, I think it's holding up pretty well to that. I'm not seeing big gaps jumping in and saying, oh, we really want to do this, but we didn't have it in the strategy, or why is this in the strategy? It seems to be holding up pretty well. I think it's serving us really well from a grant point of view, both for people applying for council grants, but also to provide community groups something to hang their hat on, applying to external grants, and for council as well, that when we're applying for grants, people are able to see just how it fits into our strategic framework, I guess. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, do we have a mover of the staff recommendation? I'll move it. No. Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded. All in favour? Announce. Thank you. I believe that brings us to the end of our committee meeting. Oh, one more. One more. Oh, there's the economy as well. Oh, look at that.
01:17:00 Speaker 5: Anthony. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is a very good report. I can see a whole lot of outcomes in there. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. So, it's the report on Pridgen Digital Hub, full year report to 30th of June, 2020. So, do we have any questions? No. Mayor Stewart: I've got a few. Anthony, I was really heartened on page 141. It says that we've grown 62% year-on-year membership. That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 1: That's the pre-COVID co-work revenues. Yeah. Which hold us in good stead going forward. So, obviously, we're on track to have a really strong run rate. And I can report that as of July, we're back to pre-COVID levels already.
01:18:00 So, yeah. Some strong co-work revenues and membership. Mayor Stewart: The revenue that we're receiving on page 143, total revenue is $211,571. You've got that figure? What? 2019-20 year-to-date actuals? Speaker 7: Yep. Mayor Stewart: Can you just talk me through where that money is actually coming from? Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll just go down a bit further. I've got the breakdown of the revenues further down. So, I've got the breakdown of the revenues further down. So, that's the first page is that. Speaker 5: Page 1- We're on page 144, but to be the first to lay down there. So, we've got lease revenue. So, leasing. Yep. That makes sense. And then going through investment, venue hire, memberships, grants, and so on. And that gives you the totals on the right-hand side with that $211 down the bottom there. Mayor Stewart: So, that's where it includes some grants? Speaker 1: Yes. So the grants if you go to the next page actually it breaks it down and the actual descriptions are slightly different but the 211571 is in there for your actuals and at the top there you've got the 85 so yeah that's your that's our mainly our co-work revenues then the contributions and donations that's grants and sponsorships of 76 so we had you'll see in the report we had 50,000 from the T1 sponsorship
01:19:00 and the rest are recognition of some of the grants and they're they're recognized in different periods as as we receive them but in the report you see that we've now got 300,000 over the next two years on grants. Is that fire tech? So fire tech's 250. 250 is the fire tech in total but it'll it'll actually be recognized over a 24 month 36 month period so you only see a part of that Deputy Mayor Stockwell: recognized. Yeah okay. So I have a question are we blowing our trumpet to the right degree or are we not blowing it loud enough? So when I look at the description on page I had just a moment ago 148 which starts at the top talks about the fire tech program and talks about the program has built up a cohort of 14 cutting-edge technology companies along with a world-class mentoring panel network of
01:20:00 fire industry experts and corporate partners. It talks about the program identifying and connecting promising companies in fire technologies and that it where their products and services will be showcased to a network of emergency service agencies and other potential customers from around Australia, USA and Europe and down further it says that through this cancellation this has the opportunity to become the most bushfire resilient regional community in Australia. Are we blowing our trumpet Speaker 1: too loud? Not loud enough? They're substantial achievements for a very early British and digital hub that we've got a world-class program operating out of a small surfing village. I think the answer to that is we're being cautious around blowing that trumpet and building the value to then I guess I think as a council to be really proud of what we are doing. It's still early days that 14 is actually already probably doubled in the number of
01:21:00 and I would include global businesses so not sure the exact split but probably three or four out of about 25 companies now are local part of that program then you go national and then you've got two or three international mainly around our partnership with Cal Fire or California Fire which is in the news again at the moment unfortunately and so yeah I think that there's a lot of work to be done for us to communicate the success on fire tech it's growing we're going to the next level around another funding opportunity to really produce a living lab so that the strategy for fire tech is to is to deliver a program of growth for protect for high potential technology companies finding fires predicting fires as we go through that to establish yourself with a physical center is the ambition and then the ultimate is to be the living lab for fire technology around the globe.
01:22:00 So I think that that's a big ambition we're being cautious around shouting about how well we're tracking but yeah with it over the next few months is some big announcements that we should be looking at some of our partnerships that we're creating so building on what you see in that report so happy to look at a much more specific fire tech briefing I think counselors are coming in about three or four weeks time for your little visit but maybe follow up on that with a much more intensive fire tech session and bring Lee Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Lee Kelson and who's leading that program funded by the federal fund. But if you were sitting here as a counselor saying did we invest the great payers wisely in doing this even if you put aside all the wonderful work being done with the junior talent and all the wonderful work with the programs of the very industry groups if this one came off we would have invested wisely. Yeah I think that you know so there's one paragraph in the summary that I refer you know
01:23:00 Speaker 1: the council and community should be proud of its investment in my view I think we've got the core business model right as right as one could be in COVID times and and taking some punts that has enabled us to access those you know 100 200 300 thousand grants that led us to these other programs so yes I would be suggesting that we have got it as right as one can be and that we should continue to kind of build the message Speaker 5: in as we move forward on the impacts. I think regardless of fire tech the answer to that is yes. For me the digital hub often you can have a look at you know how many bums are on seats in the building so to speak and is that the greatest success. If you have a look on page 147 for me this is where the biggest success is in terms of building the ecosystem or that network
01:24:00 within the Shire and the role of the digital hub in that is actually the bigger economic catalyst than how many bums we have on seats sitting in the co-working space or upstairs or whatever it might be. So the reach here and getting well now it's a June 2020 1300 people engaged in this who are developing businesses many of these aren't connected to the hub directly but they're owning a business from VISA I mean building that network so this is where the biggest biggest bang for our investment is actually coming from not from the physical Councillor Lorentson: building and tenancies and racial and things like that. That's good but this is where the real sizzle is starting to happen. Can I add to that Brett? I will sing praises for the digital hub and I agree with you there's an unquantifiable amount that we need to attribute to the success of the digital hub. I visited Brevectus and they sing your praises and and the digital
01:25:00 hub and Chris Bowden and the guys there have contributed to their success and again that's not quantifiable and these guys are in the process I think of looking for another 15 staff members by the end of the year and it's something that I will be recommending for council to go and visit. They blew me away so I'm on the same page as you Brett. It's actually a catalyst. It has been a catalyst to replace to be that catalyst. Speaker 9: Can I contribute to that too? I think the other aspect of this that is really important and Brett you sort of alluded to it is the engagement with the youth and our students. You know every school in the region is engaged in the free chain digital hub whether it's through you know inventors programs, after school programs, STEM programs for girls, AI, a whole lot of stuff and young people are teaching young people
01:26:00 you know if we're talking about the heart of this investment that council made was about economic diversification and this catalytic investment into helping diversify the economy and create a pathway for young people to have alternative different employment options. It's starting here. This is exactly what this is doing and you know there are numbers of stories of young people engaged in this in the last three years who are now working in you know there's one young guy working at Helitech now. He's got a job there and he started it being mentored by Chris Bowden and he's got a job at one of our most incredible companies. So those real life scenarios of creating those youth pathways and achieving you know economic diversification it's happening because of youth engagement and the school engagement.
01:27:00 Mayor Stewart: The face shields were an example of that. A thousand face shields that we gave awards out to the kids. That was amazing. Yeah it's terrific. Councillor Wegener: I get, in the community it seems as though there's two views. One that Noosa has enormous opportunity for the youth and the other view is that there's no jobs here for the youth and the digital hub seems to have got it right and has seemed to have connected with something had the digital hub not been there. What you know what an empty space there would have been so the gumption and the foresight to create it. But the question is how can we build off of that because this is facilitating jobs and creating jobs and creating an atmosphere for these young people to find these really high-end jobs and in a community
01:28:00 where people think that there are no jobs for the youth. I mean this is just absolutely the exact opposite of that. I'm interested in how it can be even replicated the system could be replicated and you know brought out and it probably already is naturally because it I just hope to that that can can continue. Is there is there a way to continue this trend of the success of the digital hub? Is it connecting in with that with the youth that wants to learn but doesn't but you know is it a society where they feel as though there's no jobs here? That's a great question and I think Speaker 1: for me it's continuing to enable the hub's growth so whatever we can do as we move forward in these probably restrictive budgetary times. Planning and environment committee meeting. Speaker 9: It's your morning you should be here. I hit a button but I'm not sure which one. Speaker 1: Yeah I think I think the there's a couple of parts to the answer I think one is that we continually
01:29:00 look at how we we continue that pathway of growth so whether that's infrastructure whether that's you know resources the digital hub is in growth mode we have the Rufus Street plan and so unfortunately that's been delayed a bit but that's not holding us back we're doing other things to juggle around and to ensure that we can grow companies. The program of development for the kids is a great example so I'm pleased that last two weeks ago we supported Ali's teams of community development to have the Sunshine Coast Youth Services Network meet at the hub and Chris gave them an inspirational mentoring pathways speech and and and mechanisms for how to do exactly what you've said which is we could take so many I guess those with aspirations and talent and capacity the youth that have that aspiration we can help them mentoring and we've got programs but just anyone any any young person looking for any opportunity here's some pathways so Chris
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 inspired them I think around that so I think it's about connecting the general youth networks with the hub model and we started to do that so we're working closely with Kylie and Alison and the team on that so I think that's that's one supporting the growth through the infrastructure the Rufus Street expansion and we've got the review of the LEP so we've got a session in October and then we'll start to roll out more discussions but it's how do we take the existing model and expand it for for digital and tech but then to your to your point council I think is how do we take that model and transfer it to other things that we do whether that's the environment and the sustainability institute or whether that's the netta group which is future skills training so I think the model it's a difficult environment to have a model like we
01:31:00 have we're in local government trying to move quickly and agile and grow these great companies so I think it's how do we do that keep keep true to that and and transfer it to other sectors Speaker 9: just adding to that I think all of those things are important pieces of the puzzle I think the other piece is in the medium to long term about sustaining you know tech high value jobs here is looking at our innovation zones so our innovation zones around the Shire Business Centre and our innovation zone in our career and the important role of that those areas in creating the next stage for these companies to to grow into in our Shire I think that's going to be a really important part of sustaining this model and and the industry Deputy Mayor Stockwell: zones would be equally important to make sure that we do keep our supply such that when people want Speaker 9: to scale up into it into a manufacturing or absolutely yeah really important I was talking
01:32:00 to a company last week you know that's out of the hub and they're in the industrial estate and they need to they need to move they need to grow and they're you know they're pointing across the road going that you know 100 square meter little sheds you know they're popping up everywhere that's problematic for them they're like that you know we need the next level of growth for us so you know the importance of our of our industrial land you've heard me talk about it before but you know it's incredibly important when we think about these these companies and what they need to prevent us they're on a massive growth path um so you know we need to think about about the sort of full spectrum of what these companies are going to need if we want to try and get them because if we if we can keep them then we are genuinely creating opportunities for young people to to support them guide them mentor them you know build capacity and and know that they're
01:33:00 got you know incredibly high value jobs here yeah and I think Tom that comes back to your original Speaker 5: premise of your questions about you know jobs for young people if we look historically the tourism sector creative jobs they'll have high levels of casualization and they tend to be in retail and accommodation and food and beverage which is probably the three lowest paid rewards you can get in terms of employment and some people don't mind that casualization they don't often get the full-time job these types of jobs will be high value in full-time and that's the diversification of the economy we can't be dependent on that one industry yeah that's very much the best thing we can do is diversify the economy to give people more choice to stay so they leave town because they want to not because they have to that's right yeah that's the goal um since you when it comes to Councillor Wegener: blowing you know the trumpet which which trumpet to blow um it might be for the young kids again you know they're they're really I know well my daughter's a perfect example of just being
01:34:00 distraught by the fact that she's stuck here in new set with and people telling her that there's no opportunity here you know you're stuck here until you get away it's just like well no not like that at all like you know that the digital is a great example of leading that charge and saying well no you can aspire to be something great in here and these companies I mean these Speaker 9: jobs they're locally here but they're globally connected yeah all these companies so they've got national and global exposure that these companies are giving young people is phenomenal yeah there's Councillor Wegener: any way to push to blow the blow the trumpet in the high schools yeah I did a good group of them Mayor Stewart: and one of them was doing something with the Obama Foundation it was fantastic yeah it was amazing Deputy Mayor Stockwell: there's one one last and his name has come up a lot of times but in terms of blowing the trumpet the easiest job in this whole thing is us all we make the decisions based on advice to invest rate post money harder jobs in terms of managing directions to make sure I get the outcome but the exceptional job that's being done is done
01:35:00 by Chris Bowden where the the fact that we had a person like Chris in the community who basically said look I have to be a good role model to my children I need to get back to work I can probably enjoy my life here in Noosa and there's lots and lots of people like that in our show where they they've had a successful career and and uh their finances are making them independent of needing to look for jobs but the job he's done in terms of the diversity of what he would call the ecosystem is is exceptional and we should pay tribute from this council to both everyone involved but particularly to Chris for his efforts Speaker 1: yeah it's a superhuman effort and uh yeah it's a it's an exceptional um person that it takes so it's uh so I agree and so are you Ed? Speaker 4: no I was smart enough to get Chris Speaker 1: yeah so me it makes it easy so I'm taking on board obviously uh you know the acknowledgement
01:36:00 for Chris which I think um should be included every time because it just um should be said and needs to be said um the other one I think is um Chris myself are great believers in build value before you start shouting um you know and and which when you're in a government or you know usually you want to say well actually I'm going to go and tell everyone um I think we're at that point in a number of areas whether that's youth development um uh high growth potential companies international connections and then fire tech etc so there's a lot of stories and a lot of and I think now is the time because it's giving people hope and aspiration which comes back to the youth so I'll take that on board as probably the the areas of focus over the next few months Councillor Lorentson: how do we actually start telling the story a bit more I think we can also add we talk about innovation as being diversified knowledge industry as being part of diversifying our economy here in Noosa the hub actually also represents education so um it's an education hub um and I think there's opportunity there um
01:37:00 health and education as again other avenues to expand or diversify our economy yeah yeah great Deputy Mayor Stockwell: okay do we have someone who'd like to move the staff recommendation moved by Councillor Stewart seconded by Councillor Wegener all in favour