Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Good morning everybody, welcome to the General Committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or the Gubbi Gubbi people, and offer our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. We have everyone in attendance, we have no apologies. We have no presentations and no deputations. And the first item referred from the Planning and Environment Committee is Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 2097 of 2020, which is an application for a minor change to development approval for 140 multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multifunction room and gym at 75 Resort Drive, Noosa Heads. This is a development application by Alton and I'd like to address the meeting and make
00:01:00 a statement for the benefit of those who may be listening at home. Miss Lee McCready, who is associated with this development application, has alleged in the media and in an email to the CEO and councillors that I have had a significant and long association with her and her husband, and therefore should have declared a conflict of interest and left the room for this matter. I'd also like to point out that this matter pertaining to Alton and this particular application has come before the de-amalgamated Noosa Council on five occasions. I disagree with the claims and would like to clarify the significance of the alleged association. Like many, I know of the McCready's but do not socialise with them. We do not meet for coffee. I have never been to their home. They have never been to my home. We do not collect each other's children up for sport. They did not feature in any of my election material and were not part of my election campaign in any way. Through my work as a journalist, teacher
00:02:00 and counsellor and volunteer involvement in this relatively small community over the past 25 years, I know of and have met many people, including the McCready's, but respectfully, that does not mean we have a personal relationship or long-standing association. The only passing formal association was 10 years ago when Ms McCready was also a member of the Peregian Beach Beach Community House Committee. Ms McCready was there for about 12 to 18 months. During the five years or so I served on that volunteer committee. If memory serves me correctly, Ms McCready left that committee at the end of 2010 or the start of 2011. As a result, I became a member of the Peregian Beach Beach Community House Committee. Since that time, I did not see or hear from the McCready's until recently when they emerged as advocates for a larger surf club to be built on the dunes at Peregian Beach Beach Village and during the 2020 election campaign when Ms McCready featured prominently in the media in relation to her links to a
00:03:00 team of candidates. In recent years, I have also attended meetings where the McCready's were also present. In summary, I know of the McCready's, but do not socialise with them. We do not meet for coffee. I've never been to their home. They've never been to mine. We do not collect each other's children after sport. Do not feature in any of my election material. Were not part of my election campaign in any way. While I aim to be friendly and courteous to all, as I am, no reasonable person could think I have a significant, let alone a longstanding association with these development applicants. I'm happy to take questions from any councillors. Councillor Lorentson: We're not allowed to ask questions. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I'm just asking one question and maybe this is directed more to Brett. Can you clarify close and personal and hostile and conflicted relationships? Is that, when you talk about the nature to discipline, is that the nature to discipline?
00:04:00 When you describe the nature of a relationship, does it always have to be amicable or is a poor relationship as, is a poor relationship significant when we're discussing issues of conflict of interest? Speaker 7: Yeah, it's not necessarily the nature of that relationship, it's the closeness of the relationship. Okay. How close it is as opposed to whether it's good or bad. Okay. You know, the frequency I would say might be on a board together. If you fight on that board all the time, that doesn't mean you're friendly on that board, but the fact that you are on that board all the time and working together might be more relevant. Okay. So whether you're friendly on the board or not friendly on the board, the fact that you're on a board together at the moment might be a relevant issue, for example. Yep. So it's the closeness of the relationship that's the most critical. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I just wanted to sort of thank Frank for providing an explanation today, because I think the issue that I had, as you know, we all got an email sent to us. There were two articles
00:05:00 in the papers alleging some type of relationship between yourself and the applicant. I think the question that sort of I kept asking myself was, now that I understand your relationship, whether or not you can act impartially and whether you can bring an open mind to the discussion, and I think that's the significant question for me today, and I think you can. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Amanda. I'd like to say that I believe I can. As I said, the ultimate matter has come before the de-amalgamated Noosa Council five times, and each time I've had no issues with it. I've voted according to the staff recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Thank you. There's been no declaration of perceived conflict of interest or any conflict of interest. I don't believe the matter's up for debate. You've made a statement. Yeah, thank you. I believe that's all that's required. Yeah, it's just a... Thank you for clarifying your position. I don't think any further discussion is required.
00:06:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. We have other declarations to be made. I'm happy to move on. Councillor Finzel: 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, Eltham Constructions. Lee McCready was involved with my 2020 election campaign. Thank you, and I'll leave the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Spencer. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. 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 Eltham Constructions. I will leave the meeting room for the debate and discussion in this matter. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And to continue. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell.
00:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter, as defined under the Act. As on the 24th of February of this year, I sought a review by the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future News team, of which Lee McCready was public identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant, Eltham Constructions. Since the last time this matter was raised, I've sought again advice from the integrity commissioner, who hasn't got enough resources to provide that advice to councillors. I've sought advice from the Local Government Association Reform Unit. Sorry, the Local Government Department Reform Unit and the Local Government Association. I have got a perceived conflict of interest because I've declared it once before, but they do say it's appropriate for me to outline the reasons why I think I should remain in this room to debate the matter. And I will do in detail because I think there is a significant principle involved. The need to declare arises out of the Belcarra legislation, of which the four key principles of that Local Government Reform was integrity, transparency, diversity
00:08:00 and consistency. The advice I sought was similar to getting legal advice. The Local Government Association's ICO is not a statutory body. It has no force of law. It simply sought to provide transparency through the local government election process that was being conducted for the first time under the Belcarra II Reform Act. The fact that I published the advice of a retired judge to ensure transparency during the election process, I believe, was required as a sitting councillor if I was aware that the principles of Belcarra were not being followed. I therefore also looked at the Crime and Corruption Commission's advice on their website, where they say that those charged with responsibility, elected mayors and councillors, must have
00:09:00 complied with relevant laws adhered to the key principles of good government. Ensuring accuracy, honesty in an election is important to good government. They also talk about transparency, integrity and accountability. They bring in one further principle, and that's equity. And in my view, should I be asked to leave this chamber and not participate in debate, would be inequitable because I was simply undertaking a role that we take every month in this chamber. That's making comment about the compliance, or otherwise, with legislation. It is a common thing for an elected representative to have that put upon them, and it is not uncommon for them to subsequently have to make a decision, for example, on a planning matter. In the basis of the view that the ICO has no legal status, I believe that it is in my ability, and I'm confident, that I can deal with the matter in peace.
00:10:00 I think that it is in my ability, and I think that it is in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any councillors have any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener: Really, basically, this goes to the issue during the campaign where the MacReady's, whether or not they were developers, whether Lee was a developer or not, that's what this issue was about. And Brian sent letters to this government body stating that it appears though ... Wasn't it? Not a government body. No, it was an ... Independent body. Independent body. Yeah. Funded by the Liberal Government Association of Queensland. Yeah. And so that's what this issue is about, right? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In regard to ... Yes. And it was involving claims relating to this MacReady, but it was an issue regarding the team itself and their public interest.
00:11:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Given that we have a development application before us that involves the applicant of Elton Constructions, which Lee MacReady is associated with, I believe it's totally appropriate to raise that issue at that time. Personally, I don't think that has an impact here because this was associated with a technical point. And again, it's clarified here that that person is involved. In fact, the developer, because that application is before us here. Councillor Wilkie: Do you care to move a motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the motion that the interest is a perceived conflict of interest, and that Councillor Stockwell may stay in the room to participate in the meeting and debate and vote on the matter. I'll second the motion. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. I've gone back to front. I've actually outlined one of the reasons why. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
00:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I've gone back to front. I've spoken to the motion before actually moving the motion. But I'm happy that I've spoken on the matter. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. All right. So, Tom, would you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I just did. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell was doing his job, which he is in the end vindicated for, but that's not even important. Your job is to see potential injustices and wrongs and follow through. And that is your job. And it's wrong for it to be punished for doing that to a particular person that's saying, well, you did your job, but now you have a conflict of interest. It's almost a trap. It can be seen as a political trap in a way. It could be used against a councillor's self. But yeah, I think that's the whole set with the motion.
00:13:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, did you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: No. I go back to the reasonable man test all the time. And my question is, would Councillor Stockwell act impartially and bring an open mind to the discussion and make decisions in the public interest? And on this matter, absolutely. I think so. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Wilkie. Councillor Stockwell did not vote. That's carried. Against? No. That's carried. All right. We have a motion. Speaker 7: Okay. Now we get to talk about the issue. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: What am I here to debate? Councillor Wilkie: Which is the report on page three of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. We have a recommendation there that the council agree to defend the appeal.
00:14:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded, Councillor Lorentson. Seconded. Seconded. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: Only that when this matter came before us we saw it was appropriate. And to be consistent with all dining facilities, that outdoor dining should be mitigated, noise issues be mitigated after 10pm. And I think we've been consistent in the way we've approached this. So I'm happy to see the appeal defended. Councillor Wilkie: Other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak. Councillor Lorentson. I support the recommendation. We appeal and progress to mediation. I'm hopeful that a negotiated position that avoids unnecessary legal costs can be reached, which allows the restaurateur to flourish whilst protecting residents' rights to quiet enjoyment and amenity. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Morrison. Do you wish to close, Jo? We've got the motion, those in favour? Motion unanimous. Do we have the other councillors back in the room, please?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Okay, welcome back, councillors. Thank you. We've now moved on to item 2, which is a request for extension of the currency period for a development permit for material change of use of premises for offices, restaurant and shop at 6 Heron Street, Bridgeton. This is from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda, page 34. Councillor Jurisevic: It was item 3, wasn't it? Councillor Wilkie: I think this was referred to due to the significance of the matter. Any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions. I was involved in the Trial Manager. Since last Tuesday, we've had a verdict out of the Planning and Environment report relating to the site.
00:16:00 I was going to ask the same question. Updates, surprises of the outcomes of that? Speaker 7: Can you just maybe outline the basis of what that appeal was about in the Court of Justice? Speaker 1: Yeah. So last week, we received notice from the Court that we were successful in an appeal over this site. So that was in relation to an application to redevelop the site for two storeys and rooftop terrace dining, which Council refused. And the Court found that the proposed works were not consistent with the planning scheme and were not consistent, importantly, with the built form of Peregian Beach, and thus why they agreed and maintained Council's position to not support the development. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the similarities are otherwise between the pre-existing approval that we're dealing with here and that?
00:17:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. There are some similarities. The one that the Court refused, the primary differences would be that it was a slightly bigger plot ratio, so slightly more GFA, than the current application before Council. And the design wasn't as articulated as this one. This one has – it is a better design than the one that the Court refused in Appellant Council's decision, this one. Mm-hmm. Councillor Lorentson: What's the applicant's reason for seeking an extension to the currency period, and why has the approval not been acted to date, Kerry? Speaker 10: There's no specific reason per se other than the fact that they haven't acted upon the approval. So if they don't seek this extension, that approval will lapse and will have no currency. So it enables them, if it were to be approved, to develop the site in accordance with approval sometime in the future.
00:18:00 Speaker 1: So I'm not aware of why the applicant hasn't acted on this approval. It's been current for nearly eight years. That's my next question, thank you. And so they haven't acted on it in that time. Often people will wish to maintain an approval over the land because it influences the value of the site. They're not aware of their plans. Councillor Lorentson: Section 87 of the Planning Act provides a broader discretion for the Court to decide an extension. But the fact that the applicant has had his DA held up in court for the last two years, would that be a consideration? Speaker 7: That might be a consideration for the Court, but not necessarily for the Council. Okay. There's a subtle difference there. The thing you're talking about is what the Court may consider as relevant. Councillor Lorentson: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just for, I suppose, more people who haven't read the report who might be listening, what are the key differences between what's approved and what would be expected under the current planning scheme?
00:19:00 Speaker 10: The current approval has a plot ratio of 1.67. The current planning scheme has increased the plot ratio from the superseded planning scheme from 0.8 to 1.4. So it exceeds the plot ratio still of the increased allowance. And it does not provide for a setback to the Village Green. To the upper level, a two-metre setback is required. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if a new development in that proposal came in that gave that two-metre setback that was similar in style and intent, that would be more likely to reach the 1.4? Speaker 10: The difference from the 1.67 to the 1.4, I think, is approximately 72 square metres. So I would suggest it would be more than the two metres that would be required. Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so that would include articulation and things like that? Speaker 10: That would have resulted in some increased articulation, yes. Speaker 1: The scheme also seeks a varied roof floor, which this doesn't have, only flat roof.
00:20:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So in comparison to the existing approval, which allows for a gross floor area of 454 square metres, which is more than twice the maximum permitted under the superseded planning scheme, what would be the maximum gross floor area under the current planning scheme that may be approved? Speaker 1: 1.4. Councillor Jurisevic: No, that's a plot ratio. Oh, sorry. The total square metres. Speaker 1: I'm talking about gross floor area. Speaker 10: 1.4 times 271, I think, is approximately 359. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Just an approximation. So it's about 100 square metres less. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 10: 300. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, what was it? Speaker 10: 371. I think it's 271 square metre site area, and then there's a 1.4 allowance. So 135 plus 271. 371. 379.
00:21:00 379. 379. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 10: I didn't look at all. I didn't look at all. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. That was it. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Council, we have a motion for us. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. The last question. The last question for those that are watching, the point, the issue that happens if we do not extend the currency period at this point in time is that a new application would have to be presented under the current planning scheme. Speaker 1: Yeah. Which is appropriate. A new application would have to be lodged under our current planning scheme. It would be a code-accessible application. Obviously, shops and restaurants are supported in the village, but we would be looking for a built form that's consistent with our new scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: And being code-accessible, that would be a lesser level of assessment than under the superseded planning scheme? Speaker 1: Yeah. So a code-assessment is a bound assessment, so only assessed against certain codes, not required to be publicly notified. And there's an inference that where it complies with the code, it would be approved by the
00:22:00 council. Councillor Wilkie: So it wouldn't have to come before the council for an application? It would be an easier application. Speaker 1: It is a simple application. Mayor Stewart: It's not something that we would imagine in regard to any new application. Speaker 1: Yes, definitely. So that's one of the issues with this approval, in that it wouldn't comply with the building code requirements and disability discrimination requirements. And yeah, that's right. That's something that we would have to consider. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Durrisedy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the questions have identified all the reasons why we should support staff recommendation. An allowance of eight years to develop this site is adequate. We can't start a new planning scheme by immediately undermining its provisions by allowing out of date proposals to continue. It's always been my view that unless a development approval, that has run out, it's going to
00:23:00 run out of time. It's still consistent with the planning scheme. Of course, the time that you don't continue to extend it out, because over the years, community values, views and design parameters change, and you always want the best possible outcome for a site. I think there is a much better outcome that we paint the skyline more in terms of the village green by getting that two metre setback and by adding to a roof design that is more varied than what is proposed here. I think overall, not allowing this to continue will be in the benefit of the community. Councillor Wilkie: The Councillor is supposed to speak to the motion. I will. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Kerry, for that information. The Planning and Environment Court, Judge Keppard, told the court the building would not fit with the beachside character of the area. She said it would not create a light breezy and informal atmosphere.
00:24:00 I notice what we're talking about here is slightly different, but that's only slight. The proposed development, she said, is not consistent or compatible with the bulk and scale of buildings on adjoining and nearby land. I dare say that if it's only slightly changed, again, that would make sense and align with what the judge has said. For me specifically, the statement on page 43 by Council's architectural expert stated, it is noted that the existing approval makes no allowance for equitable access to level 1 and the roof terrace, i.e. no elevator for the disabled. The building would be unlikely to pass the requirements of the Building Code of Australia nor satisfy the Disability Discrimination Act, and its reason would consider that a lift or chairlift associated with the stair would need to be contemplated. This is concerning and needs significant consideration. I think similarly, if we look at the reasons put forward by staff regarding arguments for refusal of the extension of currency period, they are strong. The development would exceed the allowable plot ratio of the superseded and current scheme, and the building bulk is not consistent with the surrounding developments, as highlighted by Judge Kefford in her remarks.
00:25:00 For these reasons, as well as the incredibly significant concerns around equitable access, I agree with the staff recommendation. I do note that the site is currently somewhat of an eyesore, and I would encourage the applicants to resubmit an application that is code assessable, and in doing so, work with Council staff to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves, but also for the community. The site is a key site, and whatever is developed should be something which should be somewhat remarkable and of community benefit. And I love the idea of a roof terrace, it just needs to be reworked to ensure that it complies with the necessary legislative and council requirements. Well said. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: The proposed development should be assessed as a new development application under either the Noosa Plan or the superseded Planning Scheme. My reasons are, one, that the Planning Scheme is not supportive of the proposed development, and that's supported by the decision that's just been handed down last week in the appeal. Number two, and importantly, there's been public opposition to the proposed development.
00:26:00 And number three, the proposed development gives rise to unacceptable impacts. I therefore support that. Council's recommendation to refuse to extend the currency period. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. If the councillors wish to speak to the motion, I'll speak to it. It's salient points to me are the fact that this particular application was approved under the Sunshine Coast Council back in 2012. It is over scale to what is allowable under the superseded Noosa Planning Scheme or the current Noosa Planning Scheme. And this decision here today, if the applicant is still willing, enables us to do so. I also support the adoption of a code assessable application, which is less onerous than a material change of use in an accessible application that will result in something that's more of a size and scale that fits with the Peregian Village that we've all grown to love, our Peregian. Your Peregian, I should say.
00:27:00 Do you wish to close, councillor Stockwell? No. Put the motion as a paper. That's unanimous. Thank you, Patrick. We come up to item 3 now, which is a minor change to a development approval, the multiple dwelling, 20 units and 8 shops and 2 restaurants at 49 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads, and that was referred to the significance of the issue. It's on page 74 of the Environment and Planning Committee of General. I believe, Councillor Wegener, you have a motion you would like to... Councillor Lorentson: I would like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 175D of the Local Government Act, as during the 2020 election campaign, I left election material at this restaurant. I would further like to declare some other things. I do not have a personal relationship with the applicant. I do not know her personally.
00:28:00 I simply know Opper. I've met her a few times over the last 20 years prior to being elected. Since being elected, I have approached the applicant as I have other key business owners in town for their viewpoints on matters such as the reopening of Lyons Park in the Noosa Tri. I also would like to declare that my husband, who is an employee, he's the commercial manager at Page Furnishes in Pomona, has over the years done some work for the applicant. Again, I state my husband's an employee and not an owner nor a director of Page Furnishes. I'd also like to declare that my brother used to supply drinks and coffee to Bistro C. My brother sold his business three years ago and has no involvement in the company. During my election campaign, I approached many businesses and asked if I could leave some election material on their counter.
00:29:00 Many business owners did not know me personally but knew of me and said yes. There were no IOUs attached to that support. It was simply a matter of locals supporting locals. I've been a resident in Noosa for now nearly 20 years and I've been actively involved in sport and community. I know many people in this town, but that does not deem my relationship to them as close and personal. I strongly believe that I should not be precluded from council meetings and decision making simply because I left some election material in their businesses. I believe that I'm able to make decisions in the public interest and act impartially in this matter before us. I also believe that I have a responsibility to participate in council meetings and decision making. I also believe that I have a responsibility to participate in the whole process and I elude the benefit of the Noosa community. Councillor Wilkie: You got all that, Kylie?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Thank you Councillor Lorentson. I assume that she's requesting to stay. You stay. Councillor Lorentson: And I'm requesting to stay in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. OK. All right councillors. They're on the wall initially. Yeah. Thank you for declaring all that. I'm hanging up. Councillor Lorentson: Any questions? No. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just add? So before making the decision on whether to keep me in the room or not, I also want to add one more important reason to keep me included in this discussion and decision. And I ask you to please bear with me and allow me to finish so you can actually understand that reason. And please note that this is my opinion and not one of Council's. So please bear with me. Bistro C is an institution. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor. We've got a motion about the perceived conflict of interest. It sounds like you're talking about the business itself.
00:31:00 Can we deal with your perceived conflict of interest? Okay. That sounds like a better reason to talk about that. Yes, you can make during the debate. Okay. Because it's likely, well, I suspect, yeah. Look, I'm happy to move that, happy to move the motion that this represents perceived conflict of interest and that Councillor Lorentson may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. I second that. I second that, Councillor Stewart. I'm satisfied with the reasons I've heard. Leaving election material out of business where you do not have a personal relationship with the business owner, I don't believe. I don't believe that constitutes a conflict of interest. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Plus, Amelia lives right there, which spends more time than probably the rest of us wandering up and down Main Beach and we're very familiar with Bistro C. Yes. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Can the other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Yeah, I think. Brian.
00:32:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The key point is that the community is aware of the level of the perception of conflict. Yeah. And there's always going to be the area where how much involvement in a campaign is enough to trigger a real conflict. I don't, I believe it is only a perceived conflict in the information before us. And I think then it's up to the councillor that, you know, it is a matter for us to say, well, if a councillor truly believes they can deal with an impartial matter, who are we to disagree? That's the position I'm taking on these things. So, to me, if it's perceived and there's no real reason why it would lead to impartiality, I think it's better to have people in the room and the community can quite clearly see whether to make their own judgements about whatever that has, if that has any effect on the way. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stryker. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, just, it does just go to show how challenging it can be from an election campaign perspective as to how you hold your position.
00:33:00 And where you frequent your election material. But in this case, the councillor has declared that she has no personal relationship with the owner of this. And had election material at a number of local businesses just for the fact that they were aware of her presence, but not a personal relationship. And I think that's sufficient for me to acknowledge that it's a perceived conflict of interest at best. And I'm happy for Councillor Orris to stay in the room. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I too am satisfied with your argument today. And I think that you are capable of making an impartial decision. And we value your input in the debate. So, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you all for the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay. We, Councillor Wegener, you have a motion you'd like to move? Councillor Wegener: Yes, I'd like to move an alternative motion to refuse the application for this.
00:34:00 And the motion is moved. Is it up there? Should I read this all? Yep. Yep. Yes, please. Okay. From the top of that council note, the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 8th of September, 2020, regarding the application of number 51988.2849.03 to make a minor change to an existing approval for multiple dwellings of 20 units, 18 shops and two restaurants, situated at Noosa on the Beach, 49 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. And, A, refuse the application for the following reasons. One, the proposal is not consistent with the overall and specific outcomes of Noosa Heads' locality code under the Noosa Plan 2006 as, A, the proposed works will adversely impact on Main Beach being a key recreational local point for residents and visitors. B, an inadequate building setting will not be available for residents and visitors.
00:35:00 And, a proposal set back to the beach it proposed and the proposer reduces soft landscaping on the site. The proposed works do not represent the high level and design and landscape quality that is sought for the area. D, the proposed works contribute additional site coverage exceeding the maximum site coverage sought for the area and present excessive bulk to Main Beach. Two, the proposal is contrary to the driveway and car parking code as efficient car parking has been provided for the area. The proposal is not considered in minor change to development approval, as the proposed changes will dramatically change the approved built form in terms of scale, fault, and appearance.
00:36:00 B, note that Council relies on the following reasons for varying from the staff recommendation. One, the built form is not a minor change to the overall scale and bulk of the existing development. Two, that the application seeks to sanction unapproved creep of commercial uses and structures into a location where there is a long-standing planning intent to maintain private open space. Three, Council differs from staff opinion in relation to specific outcome eight, and is of the view that the proposed detrimental, potentially impacts on the visual and acoustic amenity, and of beach users and adjoining and nearby premises. And four, Council is not prepared to accept a contribution in lieu of the shortfall of car parks spaces on the site. Councillor Wilkie: For the purposes of the debate, I'll move that. Councillor Wegener: I'll second it.
00:37:00 Can't move it. I'd like to speak to the motion, and if I may stand, because I might get a little bit animated. I'll give a camera reach. We're going to the beach today, and so we're down on the beach, just about in front of the surf club, walking on the path towards Bistro Sea. And on the right, we have the beautiful ocean, and on the path here, beautiful people are passing us. And as we walk up to Bistro Sea, the first thing you notice is the rock wall is moved out onto the public area. The path goes out and around the rock wall, and front and center on that rock wall is the menu, the sign, the big sign, Bistro Sea, cemented onto the rock wall, which is in public airspace. And then you look past that, and you see AstroTurf, and you see the AstroTurf, and it doesn't look, to me it looks out of place, and on the sign, even more out of place, is the sign that says, stay off the grass.
00:38:00 So, I know that because at times when the surf is big and the sand is gone, the path is there, then there's a metal fence, and then rocks, so it's very, it's a small area to actually walk along the boardwalk there. And so I take my surfboard and my belly boards and bag, and I put them on the grass there, and I start walking over to Nasha's to get some chips and a drink, and somebody would run out and say, hey, take this, take this off, you know, you can't put your stuff there. So back, we're at the beach, we're looking at the AstroTurf, we're looking at the sign. Right at the very boundary of the property, you'll see dining tables, and even actually coming out onto the footpath, there is, right to the border of the footpath, there are dining tables and an ugly little, well, a little fence, portable fence saying, don't, you know, don't enter here, this is, this is Distro C dining area. And you look at that, you look at the people dining there under umbrellas, and that has never been approved. So that, that is unapproved dining on Hastings, in Hastings Street, right on the beach.
00:39:00 Then you look past that, and you see that enormous structure. And if you turn to page 90, and you see the actual, you see the diagonal line going across it, that is a big area. It is not a small structure. It is a big, very permanent looking structure, which is also had, was not, was never approved by Council. And so, looking at, looking at this unapproved stuff, looking at AstroTurf, looking at the, the, this, the signs, I turn around, and you look at it, the natural, you look at the, the headland, and you think of all the years that people put in wars fighting to maintain that integrity and the beauty of that headland. And then you look at that path going around the National Park, and it is a masterpiece. It is an example of our values here, manned in biosphere, making a beautiful structure, fitting in with nature, that is the Noosa way.
00:40:00 And then you look at Bistro C, AstroTurf, signs, non-compliance. Then you look the other way, and you look, and you see the frying pad and the river mouth, and you think of all the volunteers out there pulling out asparagus grass, working hard to maintain the integrity of our environment here. And then you look past that, you know the volunteers are probably out there today, pulling out lintana, cat's claws, so forth, out of the trees. And you, you see, you see the beauty of Noosa looking this way, and then you turn around, and this is not the amenity that, that Noosa stands for, as we turn around. And then I look at the signs, and I think of all the people, businesses that have been asked to take down their signs in the last year with the campaign. And these signs are still here, and these ones mean a lot to me because I've been forced off the grass by those signs. I think of all the businesses that strain to comply with the Noosa plan. They're out there, they put in for approval for, for what they do. This doesn't, you're looking at two massive, very, very lucrative, unapproved areas and structures.
00:41:00 Now staff recommends that we retrospectively approve these transgressions. What sort of precedence does this set for all the businesses out there? What are we telling businesses? Bistro C is not a sympathetic customer. It's not a special case. If any property should be able to apply with our own new sign, with our new regulations, it is Bistro C. And so, getting frustrated with this, I asked the staff, what is the role of the councillor? What's our key role here? And they say it is to uphold the town plan, the number one thing that we're supposed to do. But I do not see letting, approving retrospectively wrongs as being consistent with promoting the town plan.
00:42:00 Those are two opposite concepts. Approving past wrongs, transgressions that go against the plan, that were illegal in the plan, and then saying, oh, but on the other hand, let's approve those. That's not the town plan that's wrong in light of the town plan. The current town plan. Next, I believe that, I believe that the councillor's job is to level the playing field amongst businesses. And I think by, and I believe these rules, the rules of the town plan are a reflection of the will of the people through public consultation and elected representatives. Retrospectively approving the built structure means dragging that lumpy playing field of the past into this council right here. Councillor Wilkie: Excuse me, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Tom's gone past five. Are you happy, five minutes?
00:43:00 Are you happy for him to continue? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: He's on a roll. That lumpy playing field from the distant past, which is clearly lumpy by saying, well, we're just going to turn a blind eye to this. That is a lumpy playing field. By retrospectively approving that lumpy playing field is pulling that playing field right here and placing it on this desk in front of us. And I think that there are people out there, many people that will wonder about this. So what does refusal mean? It just means that the application will have, the opponent will have to seek approval just like every other builder in Noosa. We don't, we're going to call them to the standard. The car park quickly. We'd have to take money in lieu of not having, of a car park that this, and we're going to be arguing in a few moments about opening up the Lions Park to put another public space to put car parking because there's not enough car parking and down there around Hastings Street already. So this would ask us to, to approve yet another car park of space.
00:44:00 And lastly, most importantly, we're there. We have. We have seen waves crash over this very spot. So we're back on the beach here and I'm looking out and in the past with a living memory, waves have come up over the berm, over Hastings Street, over and into, into the actual street itself. Bill Wallace told me one time how he chased his son's bed and toys down Hastings Street as they washed down. Hey, Bill also tells me that there is the Christmas where he was on the upstairs and the bottom level also washed through as a wave went through. Now we are at this time in this council, we're looking at the coastal hazard adaptation plan and we are seeing, we are anticipating where waves are going to come up and having grave, grave impacts upon landowners in the future. But here we are being asked to approve some incredibly dangerous situation.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 We know waves have already come through here. It goes completely against our coastal hazards adaptation plan to approve this when we already know that waves will go through there. And lastly, please turn to page 90. And this is most important because this is a real danger. Look at the way the rock wall is situated. The rock wall serves as a funnel going straight into distro C. And I will tell you as a wave comes through, if it's two feet long across, as it comes along and it hits this, it will be funneled into a four to five foot highway by the time it makes it to the property boundary. That is the nature of that rock wall. It will take that and push that water. And if there's one thing I know about from 45 years of surfing and getting beat up and surfing dangerous places and rocks and things, that that is an absolute danger. It's a situation.
00:46:00 It's a danger that is not, it's eminent. It's not if it will happen. It's when it will happen. The water is going to come right through there and wash right through it. Whose liability is that? When we approve this, whose liability is it? When that wave, when that two foot wave turns into a five foot wave and goes straight through distro C, straight through the glass. I tell you, if you're standing there in between in the entrance, though, there, you will not stop until you hit the cash register. And I guarantee that because of the nature of the way it will funnel through there. So I think it's time to say enough is enough. I think we must stick to our principles and stick to our plan. Are we going to reward those who build first and ask for forgiveness later? Or are we going to actually be confident in our own legislation and hold back? I recommend refusal for this motion. Refusal for the application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, sir.
00:47:00 Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A couple of questions. So, Councillor Wegener quite rightly pointed out that the retaining wall is just out in the public space. Do we know whether that was the approved landscaping from the development? Speaker 1: Yes, it is. So, that retaining wall out into public space was approved as part of the landscaping plan for the site, and it was approved for the purpose of stopping overtopping of the council revetment wall and waves going through the building. At the time, it was required to have a gate, a floodgate as such, which would need to be put back in place in a major event. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wegener also indicated that, from his experience, the operator of the business is claiming some private property rights. Was any private use rights given to the landscaped area outside in that development approval? Speaker 1: No, none. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, for the CEO, the application we're working with today deals with the development on-site.
00:48:00 The fact that we have unapproved artificial grass, that would be something under a local law that could be acted on tomorrow. Is that right? Speaker 7: It could be acted on, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See, I think it's really clear, because there has been some... Public concern, and it's true that if an operator is trying to take it, to infer they have rights over the use of public land, that that, in fact, cannot occur, or should not occur, and that, in my understanding, council has never approved artificial turf in any public space because there is actually an insurance risk, not to mention the fact that foie gras inside doesn't match faux grass outside. Sorry, I have to leave. Oh, that was good. So, the other aspect, I think, that needs to be clarified, the specific outcomes are clearly not met, as outlined in the report, as Councillor Wegener has put in his motion.
00:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: Brian, are you speaking to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm asking a question here. Staff are of the view that it does meet the overall outcome in their report. How do we justify that in terms of... The significant overrun, particularly in terms of site cover? Speaker 1: In terms of site cover? So, the existing development, as indicated in the report, has approximately 63% site cover. Councillor Jurisevic: 64.5. Speaker 1: 64.5, thank you. And this adds some additional site cover to the development. So, if you look at the outcome of the scheme for site cover, it's about whether this development looks out of place in terms of other developments along... Hastings Street. And many developments along Hastings Street were built under old planning schemes, and so we'd also not comply with the site cover requirement today.
00:50:00 So, this development is in keeping with a lot of development that's exist and built some time ago with a much higher site cover. And this contributes minimal additional site cover to that area. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. Was it submitted and assessed under the Super Seating Scheme? Or under the new scheme? Speaker 1: The application was lodged under the new plan 2006 scheme, but it can be assessed against both schemes in place at times. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's more of looking at the consistency of the argument with the last development in Precinct, where we say we would be starting a precedent under the existing scheme. You don't believe a precedent would be set that would make us accept 65% or whatever percent site cover elsewhere on Hastings Street? Speaker 1: No, I don't think so. I think what's relevant, which we have to consider, is the existing development along Hastings Street, with many of those developments already exceeding the site cover. So, it comes back to a performance-based assessment as to whether this addition looks out of place in the area.
00:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think my final question, I'll let others. Councillor Wegener quite rightly puts out that it doesn't meet the car parking requirements. We do have a policy that allows car parking contributions. Are we having that policy? Is there any imperative that Council must accept a car parking contribution, or is it quite feasible, so we don't want to? Speaker 1: So, the parking policy sits outside the planning scheme, so there's no imperative for us to accept the contribution at Council's discretion, but this proposal is consistent with the criteria in that Council policy as to when Council would accept a car parking contribution. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just clarify a question that Brian asked? With regard to your response to the question that Brian asked, at the time that this was constructed, what was the allowable site cover for the site? Speaker 1: I would have to take that on notice, Joe, and go back and check the scheme.
00:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that's the question that has... Speaker 1: It was approved sometime in the 80s, I understand, so I'd have to go back and check that. Councillor Jurisevic: We're talking here in the report with regard to site cover as it currently stands, not at the time of approval. So I need to know the answer to that question, to know whether this is or is not an approved structure at the time of being constructed. What I'm seeing in the plan is no internal wall, and this to be outdoor dining, as is being stated in the report. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Yes, so this area has never been approved to be enclosed. It was only approved as outdoor dining. But to go to your question, I think I understand. Past planning schemes... Past planning schemes set a particular site cover for sites, but the scheme also had a clause in there allowing the site cover to be varied where it met particular criteria. So I'm assuming it was approved under those schemes, but I've had to check.
00:53:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Well, if we get a clarification of when this was constructed and what the site cover restrictions at that point of time were, that would be appreciated, thank you. Can I answer that, because that's in the report? Speaker 7: It is. Is it? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Under the word site cover on page 84, it says at the time TTC 202... Oh, it does say 45. The town plan permitted site cover of 37.5%. Where does it say that? Councillor Jurisevic: What? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry, there. Sorry, yeah, it does say. Whilst the development of the plan schemes specifically for the period of time had no specific limit for site cover. There is no comment in the planning officer report on that site cover. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, can I ask a question? Just in relation to these proposed changes, you've said that there's no change to the existing approved gross floor area. So we're not actually making this any bigger, are we, in any way, shape or form? Speaker 1: Oh, well, there is additional gross floor area occurring. I'm sorry, which statement is this? Mayor Stewart: Page 77 says in relation to these proposed changes, it is noted that no change to the existing approved gross floor area is proposed.
00:54:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 1: Tara's online. Are you able to comment at all, Tara? That's all right. Speaker 14: Yeah, I can answer these. The area that's currently... Speaker 7: Sorry, Tara, just hang on a second. I'll turn you off a bit. Just wait a minute. I'm going to turn you off. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: She said the wrong thing. Speaker 14: Is that better? Yeah, it's better. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 14: So the area that's been enclosed that didn't have that approval to be enclosed was already approved under the previous approval, under the original approval for gross floor area. The definition, I believe, under the previous scheme was slightly different. So although it was outdoor dining, it was already approved. We're approving additional use area, which is a slightly different definition, which is a small 14 square metre area that's on the boundary. So the existing enclosed area was already approved for use.
00:55:00 It just wasn't approved as being enclosed. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it was included. So just to clarify that, it was approved as outdoor dining and enclosed. Doesn't mean it wasn't... Speaker 14: Unenclosed. Unenclosed. Councillor Jurisevic: That includes not roofed. Speaker 14: I would have to check whether it had a warning on it, but I don't believe it did. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, so that's the other clarification that I would request. Whether the awning was part of an approval process to be unenclosed and being roofed, because there are other dining areas on Hastings Street that have a similar type of roof structure of a sail type material that are not enclosed. So if we'll get clarification on that, that would be beneficial. The other thing to confirm there for me then, in what exists is some sort of soft cover material for that awning. What's proposed is a much more... More hard style structure, more roofing type material in trim deck or core field trim deck type material.
00:56:00 That's right. Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a few questions, Kerry. I think there's a little bit of confusion about public and private land, so I'm just going to just throw a few questions at you. Thank you, that would be good. Is the Bistro C application on public land and is there any dining proposed on public land? Under this application? Speaker 1: So the application is only proposed over private land. It's not made over public land. Councillor Lorentson: So there's some dining on public land in the section between the two garden beds. Has the applicant applied and received a footpath trading permit? And is this part of the application? Speaker 1: So they have an existing footpath trading permit for that dining on public land between the two gardens. That's an annual permit given by the local law, and no, it doesn't form part of this application.
00:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Because it's under local laws. Councillor Lorentson: Because it's under local laws, yeah. I've got some more questions in relation to COVID. What's the requirement for spacing between tables and patron capacity under the new COVID protocols? Speaker 1: Oh no, you're testing me. I believe the requirement is one space for four square meters for every table. Every person. So they're limited in terms of number of people, depending on the size of the dining area. Councillor Lorentson: So in reference to the 14.1 square meter outdoor space, how many people can be seated with these COVID restrictions? Can you give me an idea? Are we talking an extra six people? Councillor Jurisevic: I've asked the Chair, is that relevant to planning? Councillor Lorentson: Three. That'll be four. Three. Thank you. My other question is, is it more desirable to be dining outdoors than dining in a more ventilated indoor space?
00:58:00 Again, understanding that this is going to be the new normal in restaurants. Speaker 7: That's a matter for the Councillor to work out and the owner of the planning consideration. The only other quick comment I'd make in relation to the COVID issue is that with the planning approval, they have the right to use up to a certain amount. COVID might restrict that, but when the COVID issue is finished, hopefully the Senate will run them over and then they go back to their fully top limits. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: In relation to boundary setbacks, are there any other properties with commercial uses fronting Noosamang Beach that have structures that are also not within the minimum boundary setback? Speaker 1: So there are three other property, or there's three properties in total along Hastings Street where there's a commercial use, a restaurant, facing the beach. So first is 71 Hastings Street, which is a sales restaurant. And that building actually intrudes onto public land.
00:59:00 So it has a zero setback to the property boundary. The second, as we know, is 49 Hastings Street, which we're looking at, Bistro C site. But there's an approved restaurant just on that site next door that goes to the property boundary. 25 Hastings Street, which is the seasoned restaurant. It's built to within 0.8, 80 centimeters from the beach boundary. So all the commercial properties, all the properties along Hastings Street that have a commercial use facing the beach, all intrude into the 10 meter setback quite significantly. The other properties along there, they're mostly residential facing the beach. And there's structures such as pergolas, shade structures, all within the 10 meter. For a lot of those properties as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Were they approved at the time of the applications? Speaker 1: Some of them were, Jo. And some of them have come back and sought approvals after the development was built.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll rephrase the question. Are all of those structures currently approved? Speaker 1: I'd have to do an audit. Councillor Jurisevic: Apart from sales, which you're saying is in? Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd have to do an audit to know. Mayor Stewart: It's fair to say that Vista RC is not an exception. It's clearly the norm when it comes to- Yeah, I would agree. Speaker 1: And what's currently there. It's certainly not the exception and it is consistent with other commercial properties. With many other development within that 10 meters, it is why offices have recommended approval because it does not look out of place, the beach. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Oh, I've got one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you kick it. You go on. So when we do identify non-compliance like this, what is the options to us to ensure development is consistent with its approval? One is to ask for an application like received here. What are the other options in terms of Council's potential way to handle non-compliance with the planning scheme?
01:01:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. So the Planning Act provides some means to take enforcement and offices have a practice of first issuing a letter to the landowner bringing the non-compliance work to the planning court to the attention of the landowner and asking them to address it and giving them a number of options. If through that process and discussion that doesn't eventuate, we then are able to issue more formal notices, show cause and enforcement notice under the Planning Act to bring about compliance or ultimately take the matter to the Planning Environment Court and ask for an order from the court. Councillor Jurisevic: Check that. No, no, no. You've got a list. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Kerry, are there any other commercial businesses in the Noosa Shire that Council have given approvals retrospectively? Speaker 1: Unfortunately, there are a lot. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So once again, the norm. So I'm making reference to the coffee shops along the Noosa River that were selling coffee
01:02:00 on public land for three years and Council, and I applaud Council, they've done a great job of retrospectively gave approval for these coffee shops to stay on the land. So back to my question. I don't think that's quite correct. Councillor Wilkie: I don't believe there are any retrospective approvals given to coffee shops operating on public land. They're inside their lease. Inside their lease. Oh, they're inside their lease. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So back to the question. It wasn't approved. It was an interpretation of what our... We gave an interpretation of what we considered ancillary use. Ancillary use. That's right. It was on the lease areas. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So back to the question. Are there any other commercial businesses in the Noosa Shire that Council has given approvals retrospectively? Speaker 1: Yeah. There would be quite a few in my time that I recall. I can't think of a particular property, but this is not in isolation.
01:03:00 There's many others that we've given approval for. Councillor Lorentson: Can you give us some details of approved landscaping work? Can you give details to... That's a condition of the approval. Can you just give us some details of the landscaping work that's been agreed to be undertaken in front of the distro scene? Speaker 1: So there's some detailed landscaping plans that are lodged as part of this application. Councillor Jurisevic: Can you bring those up on the board, please, there, Claire? Councillor Lorentson: What page? Councillor Jurisevic: I don't know. It's a bit bigger there, but it's just bigger there. Speaker 14: Page 96. Page 96. Councillor Wilkie: There we go. Good. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: It does appear that the existing rock walls, or at least the structure comparable to the existing rock walls remains. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Yes. That's right. So the rock walls aren't being removed.
01:04:00 What's being removed is the fake... The fake... The fake turf and planting reinstated in those garden beds. Councillor Jurisevic: And some enhanced block retaining walls at the rear. Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there any way to delineate the private and public land? Because I think that would... Yeah. Because there is an ongoing issue. I think there might be a need to include in those landscaping plans a delineation between what is public land that people can sit on and have their study boards on. Speaker 1: Physically onsite. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It's going to be... Depending on what the load plantings are, I think it's important that we do. Councillor Jurisevic: By my reading of that, it's that dotted, that dashed line going through the blue area. Speaker 1: Is that correct? That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I would think, for example, it would be desirable to have some form of lawn or whatever around the edge so people could sit on the rock walls. Councillor Wegener: Are you saying that I can go down with my beach chair and sit right there on the public
01:05:00 property this afternoon? Absolutely. Speaker 1: It's public property. Councillor Wegener: Absolutely. You beauty. Councillor Jurisevic: I can see a protest coming up. Councillor Lorentson: The applicant, Kerry, has agreed to enter into an infrastructure agreement which provides that she pay contributions in lieu of the onsite car parking site. Is this, in your opinion, the preferred option rather than actually having a car parking site? Would you prefer... And schedule two indicates the amount that's being paid is $24,363. Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I don't think it's a good plan to provide more parking in Hastings Street or have development provide more parking in Hastings Street. I think that we are better off looking at public transport and footpaths in that area to assist.
01:06:00 Otherwise, at some point, our road system will fail and we'll not be able to accommodate the traffic. So, continuing to provide more parking in the area, I don't think is the answer. Councillor Lorentson: Is the application consistent with the planning scheme? Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: And can you explain for the benefit of the viewers? For the viewers at home, very simply, what the applicant is actually seeking approval for? Because I think, again, it's just the issue's been confused. Speaker 1: Yeah. So, there's two areas of dining that the applicant is seeking approval for. One is the area that's outside at the moment, and there's a couple of chairs and some umbrellas. So, they're seeking approval for that dining area there. Retrospective approval. Retrospectively. Exactly. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that the existing terrace or is that the area, the dining area that's under cover? Speaker 1: That's adjacent, the glass doors, the existing building. That's right adjacent. On this plan, it's the existing terrace.
01:07:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was clarifying. It's the existing terrace on the plan that we see before us. Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 1: The second area that they're seeking approval for is the back half of Bistro C, which is approximately three metres wide, that hasn't had approval to be enclosed by council before. So, that's the area there. There's two areas they're seeking approval for. The area at the rear, they're seeking to change the structure and enclose it, improve the look of the structure. It's approximately three metres wide. And then the second area is that dining area outside. Councillor Lorentson: My last question, again, an issue that was raised by Tom in regards to safety. Is there any signage? Is any signage allowed to be located within the landscaped areas as part of this approval? Speaker 1: So this application only deals with private land, so not public land. If council wish to approve a signage that's on public land, it could do so under a separate
01:08:00 application. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll follow on from that question. Is there any signage on private land that is being approved under this application? Speaker 1: No. Councillor Jurisevic: So the existing, the point that Councillor Wegener made is there's a cemented menu sign that's currently located in and around that Alfresco dining area there. Is there a proposal within this application for any signage of a menu nature to be included? Speaker 1: No. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Councillor Finzel: In your... Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. Councillor Finzel: You go, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You just said it's consistent with the payment scheme. No. The existing approval, not what's existingly there as outdoor dining, would that be more consistent with the specific outcomes of the planning scheme? Speaker 1: The outcomes of the planning scheme... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be more consistent with the specific outcomes.
01:09:00 Speaker 1: If council thought it was important to maintain the existing site cover, then that's what you would do. If you're happy with the proposed minor increase in site cover, that it was consistent with surrounding buildings, then you would support the application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I understand that wasn't the question I asked. I know you're trying to ask me a question, but... I give the politician... My other question is, and it is... I think it goes to the heart of Councillor Wegener's motion. Have we had our independent design person look at the proposal? Because obviously what's there is... Yes. It's not good in terms of what you'd expect for the finish in Hastings Street. It's been, how do we temporarily get an enclosed dining area that's plastic and glass and aluminium. They've tried to introduce some of the sort of design elements in there, but it is a conversion. The application is about converting an outdoor dining area, which is at the heart of the Hastings
01:10:00 Street experience, to one that's covered, because that gives... You can use those areas much more frequently, so it's much more business. It's clear on that. But have we looked at the design in terms of, is that the best we can expect if we're going to allow the site cover to improve? Speaker 1: Well, offices have not had the plans reviewed by an architect, so it hasn't been reviewed by an architect. Only planning offices have reviewed it. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. I've got a question, I've got more of a comment after that. Mayor Stewart: In your opinion, as a town planner, is what's being proposed here aesthetically more pleasing than what is currently there? Speaker 1: Certainly, I think the existing structure has been poorly done and is looking very tired. This will be an improvement to what exists today. Thank you.
01:11:00 Councillor Wegener: I've got a question. You've got a question. Should we be considering the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan when approving that? Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah, that was good. Councillor Wegener: Just application. Speaker 1: Great. Well, so the Coastal Adaptation Plan hasn't been completed yet. What we can consider, though, is the scheme requirements, which is in the officer report. Just looking for it. On page 84, so top of page 84, F, says protect public safety and property within erosion-prone areas by ensuring such areas are maintained largely free of development. So council is able to consider that. And since the Planning Committee, we've been aware that the rock wall and the worst gates constructed
01:12:00 on this property. So that very purpose, to protect it from waves overtopping the council retaining wall. But an extensive review of council files finds that it's not currently a condition of a planning approval. It's shown on approved landscape plans, but not part of the actual use approval. So officers have put forward an additional condition and have modifying their recommendation to address that. Councillor Jurisevic: So let's go towards what you mentioned before. You mentioned the word floodgate before. And I'm not sure where the floodgate fits into the current application or previous applications. I'm unaware of any floodgate. Does this incorporate a floodgate requirement? Speaker 1: So if we just go back to page, the landscape plan, which was on, what page was that Tara? Speaker 7: 96. Councillor Jurisevic: So with all the detail there, I didn't get down to the nature of it all.
01:13:00 Speaker 1: No, there's no gate showing on the plan. So the original approval showed a gate in that opening. See how the rock walls come in. Councillor Jurisevic: Which original approval? Speaker 1: The landscape plans for the development. Showing which approved this rock retaining wall. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Okay. So that we're dating back to. Speaker 1: And it was required to have a gate there. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Speaker 1: To stop waters coming in that overtopped the council arretment wall. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that, does that ever existed? Yeah. Speaker 1: I understand it did. I've never seen it myself, but I understand it did. So it's shown on the landscape plans. What, because it's not clearly spelt out in the original planning approval, offices have actually come up with an additional condition that we're recommending to council. So that's what that F is. And no, I'll just ask Kylie to put it up on the screen for you to see. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, in addition to what's already on the, okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. So council, if they would, if you're to approve this, you impose this additional condition
01:14:00 to ensure that retaining wall is appropriately constructed and the gate is maintained to openings. Councillor Jurisevic: There's some sort of other mechanical structure that will arise and fit within the retaining wall structure or some sort of automated system that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, is this part of council Wegener's motion? No. Councillor Jurisevic: No. No. This is. Speaker 7: This is. This is not an additional. Council wishes to approve it. Okay. For staff. And that would be a condition that staff would recommend in addition to those already in the report. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I make a change to that and say what really. I think you're better off not in. No, no, no. We've got a motion to refuse, which is quite difficult. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: So I, yeah. Councillor Wegener: What if we approve this, will the liability of Noosa Council change in regards to the structure? Speaker 1: Yeah. So as we have had some advice around liability and we're still getting further advice on
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 liability around it. But the, the understanding is, is that where council acts with and takes all potential precautions. Yeah. And puts in appropriate strategies. Addresses the issue. In some way, our liability is minimized. So we don't have the final legal advice around that. But where we. Where we act in terms of implementing the scheme in a way. We give consideration to this. You know, potential future events. Then that minimizes our potential liability. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. I don't see. I don't see. I don't see it. I mean that, that is such a. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One last question, and it came in in the Hastings Street DCP, was the line of sight from the beach. Is that still in the 2006 scheme, and if so, does this structure break that new line back?
01:16:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, so that line of sight, that angle you're talking about, was about stepping back of the buildings. And I'll have to go back and check for you, Brian, this time I know the answer to that one. Speaker 14: Not off the top of my head, sorry. Speaker 1: Yeah, so I'll just go back and check that one for you. Councillor Wilkie: Councilors, for the sake of moving things on, I'm going to speak to the motion. It's been a very good discussion that's come from the questions, and it's been a good education as to the historical nature of approvals in this unique precinct, which is Hastings Street. I won't be supporting the motion before us, even though I seconded it, because I believe a lot of the statements in it are subjective, such as the works will impact adversely on Main Beach, and also does not represent the highest level of design expected of the area, and have detrimental impacts.
01:17:00 I believe the intention of this approval is to actually, we'll get a result which is, it's a pragmatic result, but it will result in an improvement. I believe the intention of this approval is to actually, we'll get a result which is, it's a pragmatic result, but it will result in an improvement on what is actually existing there currently. It will involve the refurbishment of an existing enclosed area, so there will be an upgrade, an improvement in that regard, and the fake artificial grass, which is so often referred to in the gardens out the front, that will be removed and replaced with low plantings, as my understanding, natural, real shrubs. The enclosed dining area and also the outdoor dining area, it's all on public land.
01:18:00 The landscape, there will be an improvement in landscaping and in built form. I think the intention is to deliver something which is an actual improvement on what is there already and also from a pragmatic sense, a motion to refuse and ask for an application to be put in. My understanding is an application has been lodged. This is the correct process that's available to the applicant who's seeking to get approval for upgrade works. It is a pragmatic decision, but I have to applaud Councillor Wegener' heart and feeling and emotion. He's always got a deep and abiding passion and love for... for Noosa, and I have to... I just want to acknowledge that.
01:19:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I've got one further question. One further question. Page 84 states under site cover, under the Noosa plan, Noosa Heads Locality Code, specific outcome O10 states the site cover for the visitor at mixed use zone doesn't exceed 45%. A minor change proposed will result in an increase of the current site cover from 64.5% to 67%. Okay. With the formalisation of the enclosed dining area by approximately 2.5%. Why would staff see it appropriate to increase by a further 2.5%? I just want to clarify, where the 2.5% sits, is that of the total site cover or of just this element of the development site cover, i.e. the restaurant? Speaker 1: It's the total development, so all other shops, units on the site. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's a... So that includes the old burritos on the beach and... Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And the swimming pool area, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If...
01:20:00 Well, that's a significant cover for the whole site, not just for this site. Why would staff approve an increase in the site cover when it's already oversized? Why wouldn't we restrict that site cover to no more than 64.5% that it currently is? Speaker 1: Yeah. Because many developments along Hastings Street were built years and years ago under a different planning scheme, which allowed... Yeah. ...variations to site cover. It wasn't a fixed... So many of the developments... Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. But we're talking about this current planning scheme and... Yeah. Speaker 1: So many of the developments along there are around a similar site cover to this... Okay. ...is what's proposed. So it's about determining whether this is going to look out of place, considering the other developments surrounding it. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. So you've considered that the additional 2.5%... My understanding then is you've considered the additional 2.5% would still be in keeping with all the other developments along Hastings Street... ...and not be out of character... Yeah. ...even though it is an increase from what currently exists. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Finzel: So a question. The site cover that you've considered, is that within the new town plan or you're only
01:21:00 considering it in terms of it's in keeping with the rest of the business? Speaker 1: So there's several criteria for site cover in the scheme. Some of that is the percentage that's stipulated, but there's also requirements that's just set out on page 84, which talk about results in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development. Does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties or other areas in vicinity of the site. Okay. Allows for adequate area at ground level for outdoor recreation, entertainment, facilitates onsite stormwater management. Yeah. So there's a range of requirements which officers say they meet those. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. I've got one other question. With regard to the material being used for the roof structure of this, when we're going from a soft cover to a more permanent hardcover, I seem to recall an application a while back from one of the other cafes along Hastings Street that had a soft cover.
01:22:00 Have any of these other outdoor dining areas got, that do encroach, a more permanent hardcover like this? Or are they all of a softer type, a more sail-like material? I'm thinking of Seasons. I'm thinking of the ones that you mentioned that were out there. Speaker 1: Certainly the one that's on the sails. Councillor Jurisevic: Sails? Speaker 1: Yeah. Sails. I'm not quite sure. I'd have to check. Charity knows? Speaker 14: I'm not 100%, but I do believe the Seasons one that was approved last year removed, like a sail-type structure and had a permanent hard structure put up. But I'm not 100% on the details. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we clarify that, please? Yeah. Before Thursday's meeting as well? Sure. Councillor Finzel: And I have just a question relating to mitigation, reputation and risk. You've put forward the idea of reinstating this gate.
01:23:00 Can someone please explain to us how that's going to benefit the site due to coastal hazards? Yeah. How does it work? Speaker 1: What's... I might ask Grant to step forward and help me answer the question. Yeah. Thank you. Because he did help me put together the condition this morning. But essentially, when we have a major event, we have some warning that an event is coming. So we would need properties along Hastings Street to enact their... Yeah. Their plan for these events. They're all going to have to come up with a plan for the future. So with a gate, it doesn't need to be there permanently in place at all times. It could be put in place when we have warning of an event occurring. Where the conditions apply. So the idea is that gate would assist in stopping water coming through. Yep. Speaker 12: So the issue that Councillor Wegener talked about before. So water overtopping the council controlled buried seawall, which sits beneath the boardwalk
01:24:00 and the beach. As that water comes up, as Councillor Wegener mentioned before, it could be funneled and concentrated through that walkway between the two sections of the retaining wall. So a gate would work to mitigate that effect and reflect some of that overtopped water back seaward. Okay. So the existing retaining wall would have that effect anyway, but because of that gap, some of it will come through, be concentrated and potentially cause greater damage. Councillor Jurisevic: That then leads me to ask a question about the... Okay. I'm going to diverge slightly. Does the remainder of the complex have a similar flood gate requirement, i.e. the walkway between Bistro C and the Alborados on the beach? Is that consistent across the entire complex? Speaker 1: That's what the proposed condition would require. Councillor Jurisevic: So for the entire complex, not just for Bistro C. Yeah. Not just for Bistro C's entrance. That's right.
01:25:00 Okay. That's what I want to clarify. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Finzel: And is the gate a non-permanent structure? How does that... What's the functionality? How does that work? Speaker 12: Yep. So you would, when there was an imminent threat of overtopping of the wall because of increased water levels and wave height from a storm, you would expect the operators of the facility to enact their emergency response plan and put that gate in place during the event and then remove it post-event. So it wouldn't prohibit access under normal circumstances. Mm-hmm. Speaker 6: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Yeah, I will. Councillor Stewart? Oh, yeah. You may be allowed to go. I want to finish it back. Mayor Stewart: I too applaud Councillor Wegener's submissions. I think they're very heartfelt and he makes a lot of very good points. I won't, however, be supporting it. I will be supporting the original staff recommendation.
01:26:00 This application seeks a minor change, and that's the word that has been put up, and that's one we can't forget, minor. To development approval, yet it also seeks retrospective approval in regards to enclosure of the dining area, which was originally approved as an open terrace dining area with no subsequent approval being issued to enclose the area. Similarly, the applicant is seeking retrospective approval for an area which is already being used for outdoor dining to be formalised as use area for outdoor dining. I note that the building changes are minor in terms of overall look and feel and bulk of the existing development. Changes are not prohibited development. It improves the amenity of the uses of the dining area with that detrimentally impacting on the visual and acoustic amenity of adjoining and nearby premises. Although the site cover exceeds required amount under the Noosa Town Plan, the new Noosa Plan, it does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site. And as we've already heard, there'll be improved landscaping and improved aesthetics.
01:27:00 Therefore, I will be supporting the original, might be supporting Councillor Wigners. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to speak to the motion. Bistro C is an institution. It's one of Noosa's longest running restaurants under the same ownership. This is a business that's not only survived, but thrived for the last 20 years. This is a business that treats people with respect. Their diners, their suppliers, their staff and this community. This is a business where the owner, Laurie Banks, has shown up almost every day for the last 20 years. This is a business that until this week has had an untarnished reputation. Generations of families have come to dine and celebrate at Bistro C. Generations of families have worked at Bistro C. Small businesses have survived because of Bistro C. And charities have benefited from their contributions.
01:28:00 Bistro C has become part of everyday life for this community. We should be applauding this business and supporting it in any way we can. What has just transpired on community Facebook pages over the last few days because of comments made by one of our councillors has angered me. In my opinion, one of Noosa's most respected and hardworking businesswoman has overnight had her intentions questioned and criticised simply because she is requesting a retrospective approval for a 14.1 square metre area that has been used for the last 20 years as an outdoor dining area on private land, not private, not public land, and that is consistent with other existing developments along Hastings Street. Maybe, just maybe, the councillors and mayors over the last 20 years understood what it
01:29:00 actually means to help and support small businesses. That is compromise, discussion and flexibility. So let's applaud this council for helping small businesses, especially during these challenging COVID times. Let's applaud council for understanding that its duties go beyond the boundaries of small business compliance. Let's applaud council for applying flexibility and let's applaud and thank an institution like Bistro C and Laurie Banks for employing our locals, for keeping small businesses alive and for helping those less fortunate. And mostly for showing us that 20 years of hard work, great food and great service pays off. And finally, I applaud council for understanding that the hospitality industry needs to be restored. The restaurant dining experience that we know is gone. Precautions such as capacity limits, table spacing and social distancing means there
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 are fewer people eating indoors and outdoors. COVID has done enough damage to this industry. It's time we step up and support it, especially those businesses that have supported our economy and our community. I therefore do not support council Wegener's recommendation for refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So we're dealing with a development control matter. So we can't bring into it anything to do with economic development, whether we support a business operator or not. We can only deal with the matter of assessment under a statutory process of development control. In that regard, we need to assess this site, not against what's there, but against what's approved. Now, there's been argument that it's better than what's there. That doesn't matter. It shouldn't come into our consideration, because that just breeds the continuing problem
01:31:00 of creep that Councillor Wegener's motion alludes to. It's a continuing problem. I'm very conflicted on this site, because I have never thought that this development didn't represent excessive fault. I thought the council that approved it got it wrong. I thought it didn't take adequate consideration of the design principles that were set out for Hastings Street. I concur with staff that the significance of the change is minor, and that immediately opposite is a commercial space built to the boundary, which is probably the key issue that would come up if this matter went to court. I do think it's important that we assess the application on its merits. And for me, some of the key principles like that site line are what I would make a decision
01:32:00 on. I haven't got that in front of me. I do understand the business environment that leads to the desire to enclose outdoor dining areas. That is not a planning matter. The planning matter is, is this consistent with the character and design principles for Hastings Street and the beach? And to me, it's very marginal. I think it is excessive bulk. But is the extent of increasing that to an extra two and a half percent, which takes it to about 180 percent of what was suggested at the time of the decision, is the extent of the planning scheme in the mid-90s, is something that we should prove. I'm going to wait until Thursday to get the additional information.
01:33:00 But at this stage, I'm going to vote call, Councillor Wegener-Motius. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd just like to clarify a couple of things that Councillor Lorentson stated in her spiel there. And I'm reading it from page 77. Kerry, if you'd just clarify that the minor change application is seeking a retrospective approval of the enclosure of the area and that the expansion is 14.1 square metres of additional use area to be used as outdoor dining. That's how it reads? That's right. That's not quite what my interpretation of what Councillor Lorentson said was. She was relating to the retrospective, the retrospective that should be 14.1 square metres. The enclosed gross floor area totals what? That's not clear. That was previously outdoor dining that is now enclosed.
01:34:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't see that figure. I don't see that figure in the room. Speaker 14: It's approximately 50 square metres. Councillor Jurisevic: 50 square metres. Okay. Speaker 14: Approximately. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. All right. I'll speak to it. I'm going to agree with the statement of Councillor Stockwell made. I've asked for some more information. And until I get that more information, I'm not prepared to accept or deny this one at this point in time. So at the moment, I'm not quite 100% where I sit on this application. So I'll wait till Thursday night to make my final judgment. But I think I'll just need a little bit more information on the approvals of the past to know exactly where this sits. Councillor Wilkie: Just looking ahead, general question. What's the implication of a refusal? What are we left with on the site if this is refused? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, if it's refused, the applicant has the option to appeal Councillor's decision to the Planning and Environment Court.
01:35:00 But if Councillor refuses it, I don't know. I don't know. I think we need to consider whether we wish to take compliance action against the existing structure that's not local. Councillor Wilkie: What would that require? What would you be requiring? An application to be lodged, similar to the one that's being lodged here? Speaker 1: Yes, we would give them the option to lodge an application or to remove it, essentially. And I think that's what council would be saying. We'd be asking them to remove it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener, are you supposed to close? Yes. Councillor Wegener: Seeing that the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan really hasn't been a part of the discussion of this application, considering that the liability of moving this forward has not really been a part of this discussion,
01:36:00 it doesn't seem to be set a standard for council decisions that I feel we need to... I feel as though if this would be hard to sell to the community, I think the community will be looking at this level playing till they've been trying to smooth out the rules. We want the rules to apply to everybody evenly across the board. And in the past, of course, they haven't been the perfect example of rules not being applied to one person, but being applied to other people. And I think that we're pulling that lumpy playing field here. And I think that, well, the overall issue is transparency. Like, are we dealing with this lumpy playing field? Are we going to sell this to the people, to the community, by retrospectively approving this site with all these things unconsidered? So before you approve something, as we know, as we well know, once you approve something, you can't take it back.
01:37:00 We cannot. So we need to consider this much, much further. I'm okay with going to the bill if they don't have to talk to me about it because there are big issues that are still on the table to approve this is, yeah, we'd be giving away. We don't know what we're giving away. We don't know the liability. We don't know what this fence is going to look like that's going to stop the waves. And I can't tell you one thing about roadways because we're talking about people all of a sudden putting up a barrier. The ocean doesn't work like that. Big waves kind of come out of a storm will generate and one out of every 10,000 waves generally is a big wave. And I can tell the story that during Hurricane Oma, we were sitting there waiting for the, you know, we saw a big wave come through and we sat there for an hour and a half waiting for it. Never came. Came back in. And all of a sudden, there it was. Fortunately, it was low tide off the boiling pot.
01:38:00 There was the jet skis just flying over the top of it as it took out. And that's the way waves work. There are road waves. So there's the thought of, oh, when the conditions are looking like it's going to get washed away, we're going to quickly run out there and save the day. That doesn't work like that. That's wrong. Okay. Thank you very much for considering this. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Put the motion. Those in favour of Councillor Wegener's motion, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stockwell. Those against. Councillor Stewart, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move on to the procedural motion. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'd like to defer the consideration of the matter to the services. It's Thursday's ordinary meeting to allow the additional information to be brought forward. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Can we have the debate on Thursday night, even if we remove another motion today, and the information be provided during that?
01:39:00 You can. Yeah. Or you can have a deferral motion. Okay. You can do it either way. All right. Someone second Councillor Stockwell's deferral motion, please. I'll second it. Councillor Jurisevic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As stated, I am very 50-50 on this development. I understand Councillor Jurisevic's also after more information, and I think Councillor Wegener also brought up the issue of whether we do need to consider in more detail the coastal hazard issues there. So I think rather than prosecuting the approval and then redoing it on Thursday, it's better to waive that information and again, consider it then. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: All right. That's Councillor Stockwell's view on it. I'll put an alternate view, and that is that if we do move the staff recommendation as
01:40:00 a motion, we can air the views articulated by the staff as an equal and opposite counterbalance to Councillor Wegener's motion in this forum, which at least sends a message to the Council in the community who are interested about this and seeking information, good information about this application, and in fact, whose livelihoods depend upon it. It would not in any way impede that information coming to the meeting on the Thursday night. And us, as every Council knows, we can re-prosecute every issue on Thursday night. That's the alternative view to the motion to defer to Thursday night. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilers wish to speak to the motion. So the motion is that we defer to Thursday night. Those in favour? Councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Jurisevic.
01:41:00 Those against? Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Jurisevic. Those against? Can you start again because there's been some confusion. So the motion is that we defer the motion to defer consideration of this application to Thursday night. So those in favour of that are Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Jurisevic. Any other councillors in favour of that? Those against? Councillors Stewart, Finzel, Lorentson and Wilkie. And I'd like to move the staff recommendation. I'm seconded by Councillor Stewart. Speaker 7: Does that recommendation include that additional condition? Councillor Wilkie: Including the additional condition. Speaker 7: I think you should. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, so it's the recommendation as written including an additional item point 12 which is that a retaining wall must be maintained for the full length of the property to main beach with removable floodgates installed or available for installation prior to any significant coastal storm event to each entry point.
01:42:00 These structures must be designed to mitigate the impact of wave overtopping of the council. This will control beach seawall during a significant event. Certification must be submitted to council for an RPEQ which certifies that these structures meet the requirements of this condition. Okay. Councilors, we've heard from the staff about the reasons why they're recommending approval for this. What is being proposed is, has nothing to do with new work on public land. There is an enclosed outdoor dining area already existing on Bistro C.
01:43:00 What this seeks to do is refurbish and upgrade that already enclosed outdoor dining area and also get approval for the existing area. And also get approval for the existing area. And also get approval for the existing true outdoor dining area there. There is on-street, there is a permit for on-street footpath dining which is a local law matter. That is the only point where this business has any outdoor dining on public land. But that is suitably managed under an outdoor dining permit. What's proposed is also an upgrade to the landscape area. Which currently has artificial turf in it. And it's been raised in this forum about feelings about the artificial turf. That will be removed and those garden beds will be upgraded with natural plants.
01:44:00 Which will also represent an improvement to the existing facade. I do take on board comments made about its exposure. I do take on board comments made about its exposure. To the swell that comes into there. That affects the Noosa Main Beach. As we've discussed in our talks on coastal hazards adaptation plans and how that's mitigated. Sea walls feature very prominently in that discussion. We do have an existing, quite significant sea wall along Noosa Main Beach. Which will serve as significant protection for this particular business and all businesses along Hastings Street. Which will serve as significant protection for this particular business and all businesses along Hastings Street. I do respect the business from that, for the waves being funnelled into the business up to the cash register, as Councillor Wegener pointed out.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 I do respect that other councillors will, there will be more information coming to this forum on Thursday night, and I'll be very interested to hear about that as well. But I'm indicating my support for the staff recommendation in this motion, going into Thursday night's meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Nice question, if I may. There's no reference here as to whether the glazed area is sliding or bi-fold. I mean, is the intent to fully open up the glazed area and actually create an outdoor dining experience, but only close those doors in the event of weather conditions? Speaker 1: We've still got Tyra there. It's bi-fold, isn't it? Councillor Jurisevic: It is bi-fold. I thought I read it somewhere, but I can't see anything in the plans that actually state what type of structure that is.
01:46:00 So that is the intent, to open up as completely as possible and have the outdoor dining experience. Thank you. I'll speak to the motion. Look, I support the staff recommendation as well. The additional clause is the one that I was seeking. Once I'd heard about the floodgate, and I think that's, considering we're talking about capital hazard adaptations and all the rest of it, I think that's a pertinent point to make. Bistro Sleep has existed in this guise for some time. This formalises it. But again, what's intended here is to create the outdoor dining experience, but with the protection when weather is required. I'm not sure about the hard roof structure as opposed to the surface. I'm not sure about the tile-type roof structure, because I think that's been something that's been in keeping with that. But with the facade changes in the restaurant and a lower roof line, I think the impact will be far less than the current design. So I agree with the staff. I think the amenity here is a great improvement.
01:47:00 It's an iconic restaurant that has existed for a large amount of time with that beautiful outdoor dining experience. And I think this is an enhancement that will improve that for years to come. Councillor Lorentson: I support Council's recommendation for approval subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. The proposed development seeks a minor change to an existing approval. The proposed alterations are to an existing restaurant, Bistro C, which is a consistent use within the visitor mixed-use zone. The proposal complies with the local locality code as the development provides for additional use area for an entertainment and dining business, in an appropriate location. The development is consistent with the bulk and scale of buildings within the locality, maintaining the visual continuity and pattern of buildings along the parade. The proposal will replace an existing unapproved structure with an attractive and contemporary design.
01:48:00 And the applicant will enter into an infrastructure agreement with Council to make a payment in lieu of one on-site car parking site. Again, I applaud Noosa Council for understanding that its duties go beyond compliance, I applaud Noosa Council for applying flexibility, and I applaud and thank Bistro C and Lorry Banks for employing our locals, for keeping small businesses alive, and for showing us that hard work pays off. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Whitman. For Thursday night, could we get a legal opinion on the increase of liability on the new structure? On the viability of the structure? We will be more liable for this new structure, because we are approving it today, for the Thursday. Speaker 7: Is your query in relation to coastal damage from tides and storms and so on?
01:49:00 Councillor Wegener: Yes. I'd like a legal opinion on that. Mayor Stewart: Do you want me to speak to the motion? Yes. Councillor Stewart. I agree with the staff recommendations for all the reasons. I mean, let us not forget the word minor. Building changes are minor in terms of the overall look and feel and bulk of the existing development. It complies with specific outcome 808, as it improves the amenity of users of the dining area without detrimentally impacting the visual and acoustic amenity, as we've said. And the proposal preserves the existing pandanus while providing additional and improved landscaping, both within the subject site and on council reserve. For all the reasons mentioned, I accept and commend the staff on their recommendation in this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. As I said, I see the arguments on both sides of the story here.
01:50:00 For me, there'll probably be additional information in the future. I don't think that additional information is required for me before I support it. I do like to point out at this stage that acceptance of a car parking contribution for use for active transport and public transport purposes is acknowledging that we don't think additional car parking will solve the problem with Hastings Street. If you think additional car parking for Hastings Street is required, then you shouldn't support this motion. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stroud. Yes. I'll put the motion. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Stewart, Jurisevic, Finzel, Lorentson and Wilkie. Those against? That's Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell. The motion's carried. Thank you. We'll call a five-minute peace.
01:51:00 That'll be appreciated. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we'll know that you're trying to get the prize. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, we all want the prize.
02:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, we're all back. Councillors, is it clear the meeting open again? We're now up to item four, which is an item direct to the General Committee, which is the proposed lease of the Cooroy Dardish Centre at 11A Maple Street, Cooroy. Welcome, Dennis. Councillors, questions for Dennis? Councillor Lorentson: I've got a few, Dennis. What's the cost of the building? I understand this is a bespoke building. Can you give us an idea what it costs to build? Speaker 6: Off the top of my head, in 2008 dollars, it was around $800,000. Councillor Lorentson: $800,000. Speaker 6: That's excluding land. Councillor Lorentson: Wow. Councillor Jurisevic: But that's with all the... That's fitted out. That's fitted out with all the technical stuff inside. The technical stuff inside was... Not the building would have been the greater cost one. Well, the services are part of the building now. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So, $34,000 represents roughly about 4% return.
02:02:00 Is that considered good for a commercial tenant? Speaker 7: Considering we didn't pay for the building, yes. That is. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Speaker 7: That is. That is. A lot of it was grant funded. Okay. I was actually involved in that back in 2008, but my memory is a little hazy about how much the grant was at that stage. So, it wasn't all counted for funding. Speaker 6: That's fantastic. And a lot of Council's contribution was project management and delivering that. Councillor Lorentson: So, a good money spinner then for Council. Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 6: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: And why has it taken that two years to find a tenant? Speaker 6: We had Mac leave in 2018, and one of the other project partners who were involved in the wireless and fibre component of the project actually became the tenant in a rolling sense for a number of months there, and I was negotiating with them. And then their business sort of model changed and they withdrew. They probably had me in negotiations for the best part of the year, and they were paying
02:03:00 rent, but ultimately they decided to leave us. After a year as well. And then I was negotiating with another party for probably around four months, and they withdrew. So, it's just been that lengthy negotiation process. Councillor Wegener: And what about the pole or the receiver that's going to go on top of the butter factory? Yes. Is that very heavy? Because the butter factory is a pretty old building. Speaker 6: Yeah. Actually, there was a mast on the butter factory for the previous wireless. There's a mast partner in the project. So, essentially, what we're looking to do is to replace that mast that's there. And if you go on Google Street View at the moment, you'll see that mast in the location that we're talking about. So, we're really just seeking consent to probably replace that mast with a new proponent. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that incorporated within the lease value of this building, or is that a separate lease arrangement with the butter factory? Speaker 6: It won't be a lease. It'll probably be a license for an area on an adjacent building.
02:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: But, I mean, like mobile towers and that, they usually pay people for the provision. Is there a fee to host that mast? Speaker 6: Yeah. I think, realistically, it wouldn't be in the realm of a mobile phone tower. We're talking a transmission antenna. But there may be a modest license fee involved. So, improved Wi-Fi in town? Potentially. Potentially, it will provide wireless internet connection for customers in Cooroy. And they'll be looking for other sites around Noosa to deliver the same. So, would that be line of sight? I don't believe it's necessary for line of sight. Like, it's, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might have a conflict of interest then, because I'm still on ADSL, too. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie: Move to Council of Jurisdicts, seconded by Councillor Lauritsen. Joe?
02:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: No, just a good outcome for the building. It's been there for a long time, and to get some upgraded internet facilities, and Wi-Fi transmission in the Coroye area will be a great boon for the local businesses in the area. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I think it's a positive moving forward after having worked in Cooroy for many years, the internet and broadband access. Any improvement will be gratefully received, so I think it's positive. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Joe, you wish to close? No. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Next item is the North Shore Beach Campground Proposed Interim Management Agreement. Welcome, Clint. Hello, Frank. Hello, Mike. Hi. Hi. Questions for Clint? Sorry, I'm just reading the additional paragraph that's been proposed.
02:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, there's no questions. I'll move that with the additional paragraph. I'll second it, Councillor Stewart. Yes. Further that staff can take a detailed induction. The new manager to identify the key environmental attributes and sensitive sites and to outline visitor management expectations to ensure the park and adjoining junior system is managed in line with environmental best practices. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, I get what's – I now understand. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You wish to speak to that, Councillor Stewart? Only that I suppose when we're going to a company, I think it's really important that the onsite staff are really aware that we want this to be a premier ecotourist experience. And that we've – we and Landcare, with a lot of their effort and voluntary effort with their trainees, have done a lot to try and improve environmental management around the place. So I think it's fitting that we make sure that we make our expectations clear and to provide them with the information they need so they can manage visitors when they come.
02:07:00 Sorry, I do have a question for Clint. Yes, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: The current managers, how long have they been onsite? Speaker 13: Three, Mr Chair. They've been there since. That's in the report. 2012. Yeah. And they've had – Councillor Jurisevic: 1st of August 2012. They had no one – no desire to – No. Continue? No. Speaker 7: Eventually you find a lot of these police elements that – that burn out at the end of the time. Seven days a week. Yeah. Times of the year where you're keen to do it and eventually it loses its allure. Councillor Finzel: And I just do have a question for Clint. Yes, Karen. Can you clarify how long this permit will be for? Speaker 13: It'll be for six months. And that takes us up to the end of March. Councillor Finzel: And what will be the process following on from the end of March? Speaker 13: Well, we'll go through a – we'll do a full tender after that. We will go out publicly and appoint a new operator. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that still subject to COVID restrictions? I mean, if COVID restrictions are still in place, would we go out full tender then or
02:08:00 would we potentially – We – No. Speaker 13: No. We'd go out fully. Okay. All right. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Just close, Brian. Put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Clint. Next, item six, the street sweeping services. Speaker 1: Okay. I've tried to get . Speaker 7: I'm just trying to track the start down to this one. Councillor Jurisevic: Because I do have some questions on this one. Councillor Wilkie: Just talk amongst yourselves. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: . . . . . . . Speaker 4: .
02:09:00 . . . . . Councillor Jurisevic: How does an operator that's been operating our service for the last four years score 70 for capability and 65 for experience in a tender process? Are we dissatisfied with the way they've been delivering the service? Speaker 15: Not necessarily. We can only judge it on their submission, and their submission was okay. But SPS have a wealth of experience as well, obviously. They're doing the Sunshine Coast, a number of the local authorities. Councillor Jurisevic: So the next question, where are they doing? So they're the current operator in the Sunshine Coast community? And Brisbane. Do they have small style trucks that the current Street Sweeper service has that runs around as efficiently and as quickly as the current service does? Okay. Councillor Finzel: Is their business like operate around eco-friendly cleaning services?
02:10:00 And current best practice in terms of moving towards zero emissions? Speaker 15: Well, it wasn't really part of the tender assessment, but... Councillor Finzel: Oh, it's not part of the tender assessment? Speaker 4: There is an environmental aspect to the tender. It's one of the criteria and that contractor has put in... That's right, and but they also that they operate modern fleet as well, which are all up to the latest environmental standards. Councillor Jurisevic: We haven't got anyone proposing electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles for the future? No. Can we put that in the tender next time? Speaker 4: Well... Councillor Jurisevic: As a possible environmental tick? If the technology is there, I guess we can. Electric garbage trucks, so hydrogen garbage trucks.
02:11:00 Councillor Finzel: Question then, so can you tell me in what ways they are complying to our environmental standards? Our environmental management plan? What would be your top three? Speaker 4: Our environmental management plan. Well, you've just said the company complies with our... Councillor Finzel: They have their own environmental management plan. Oh, they do? Yes. So how does that comply with council's requirements around that? Speaker 4: Well, it's written around the Australian standard. So we haven't, on this particular tender evaluation, done a minute check on all of the aspects relating to environmental management. So essentially, you know, the contract is about mechanically sweeping our streets. So... Councillor Wilkie: Perhaps if I could just pull out... You've got one of the criteria is environment and sustainability. Yes. So can you talk in terms of the criteria, what you were looking for?
02:12:00 Speaker 15: So they have a dedicated environmental management plan. SPS and EnviroSwift both have that documentation. The third contractor didn't. We basically, we just ticked the box. Yes, you have a plan and you enact it. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: That pertains to how they dispose of the waste? How they run their vehicles? Speaker 15: We, in the report, have outlined how we dispose of the waste. Yes. Which we process it into topsoil at Ringtail Creek. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: SPS and EnviroSwift. If you like, I'll provide some background, which I think might be information. You're going to beat me. The act of street sweeping is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce nutrients getting into our waterways. Absolutely. So I remember in the old Ritchie Shires Water Quality Improvement Plan, it was cheaper to get more nutrients per dollar invested by street sweeping than actually going to expect
02:13:00 the stormwater retention system. So the environmental impact is a positive one because you're actually removing, it's mostly leaf litter and organics that would otherwise be flushed into the system out in the rivers and have in addition nutrients go. So the fact that we're collecting it, putting it into the dump, composting it, and removing it and reusing it on landscape is actually putting that carbon and nutrients back into the soil. On top of that, litter and sediment. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Management. So that comes with that sweeping process. You're stopping, one of the things with the river plan and one of the things with the oyster that has become known is the sediment that blows off. So preventing that sediment from flowing into the stormwater system and out to the river is a huge thing. Councillor Wilkie: Is that along the lines of what you were hoping for? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, that's good feedback, but I'm more looking at what benchmarks you look at when moving forward to minimising our impacts as a council on the environment. Like, for example, does this company use non-toxic cleaning agents when dealing with their machinery
02:14:00 and things like that? What's your criteria? Speaker 15: No, we don't go into that. I mean, one of the ways we support this is- This is a good point. Exactly. As Brian said, is recognising that the service they provide is actually good for the environment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I should, Councillor Jurisevic, want to just pull you up. It's not waste. It's resource that we haven't reused yet. Councillor Jurisevic: Right. Well, that's one of the things. That's one of the things I love about this service. One of the reasons I support it and I've always maintained that. Councillor Lorentson: On page 10, you mentioned that the invitation of public tenders attracted three conforming. Respondents, how many un-conforming tenders did you receive? Speaker 15: We received three. That was it. Councillor Lorentson: But they're all conforming, yes. Fantastic. Councillor Jurisevic: One point that was brought up after the last tender, and are the vehicles required to be Lisa Council signed?
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, they're not. No, they're not. Could they do that with the LED lights on the table? Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: No, they're not. The point raised by one of the failing tenders last time, that's why I raised the question. Councillor Wilkie: Well, we have a motion for us, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move. I'll move the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Moved, Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded, Councillor Stewart. Go. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't speak highly enough of how important this service is to our council and our environment. So I strongly support this service continuing. And clearly, we've got a contract that's going to deliver as good as, if not a better service for a better price. So I support the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. How many times, how often can residents expect to see the street sweeper? Speaker 15: In residential streets, six times per year. Six times a year? Six times per year.
02:16:00 Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 15: Once every eight weeks. Oh, there it is. There are different frequencies for different precincts, I guess. So it runs from daily to weekly, fortnightly, monthly. And then we've got the residential, which is six times per year. Councillor Wilkie: Well, where does it come from, daily? Hastings Street? Speaker 15: I can't remember. Speaker 4: Do we call it that? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 15: Noosaville Junction. Kibi Terrace. Yeah. Hastings Street doesn't get swept. Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: It doesn't? No. Speaker 4: Not by a street sweeper. It's swept by the cleaning contractors. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Thank you. Places, like I was, Sunshine and Bryan Street the other day, the whole stormwater put leaves. So do we sort of adjust service to where we know there's problem areas? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 15: And one of the reasons we went for SPS is they keep records of what they've swept, when they pick up, and optimise when they revisit those sites.
02:17:00 But yeah, you would experience that after the rain we had recently. Yeah. Within a budget, we also have ad hoc services. So we can direct them to the hotspots as we need. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Put the motion, those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Excellent. Excellent. Next item seven is the Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project Annual Report Number One, and Outcomes of the Independent Review of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Welcome, gentlemen. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Oh, thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: The two preys. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a . He's trying to . I have a seed conflict of interest in that I have had a professional relationship with Everhard Consulting, specifically in 2016.
02:18:00 Oh, there we are. I'm looking at one of the . Where I had a consulting project with the Queensland Government, reviewing and developing the monitoring and evaluation of the Reef Plan Vestment. I have a subcontractor of Everhard Consulting in that project. I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room and participate in the debate that goes on this matter. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Questions for Councillor Stockwell? I've got a question. Did you have anything to do with this consultant group being part or making a comment in regard to this project? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I didn't have anything to do with it. No. First I knew she got the job when I read the report. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So you put forward no recommendation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was asked for several people, and I did, but he better off ask him. So Craig did ask me for recommendations. I gave it to about three people because it's an area that I've been involved in.
02:19:00 Councillor Finzel: Was this one of the recommendations you gave? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This one. Mayor Stewart: Were the other two recommendations that you put forward? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. That's great. I'll go back and look at what the email said. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Speaker 9: I wasn't clear if you wanted a response from me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. If you could just ... Mayor Stewart: I've asked Brian, but he's just checking. Speaker 9: I actually can't recall Brian's offer to me. I engaged Rachel Everhard Consulting because I'd spoken to her about 12 months earlier when I was looking for a consultant to do the external review of the multi-year environment collaborative grants. I didn't end up using her at that time. She was recommended to me then by a former colleague. I used a different consultant, but I remember my discussions with her at the time that she had a very strong interest in monitoring and evaluation.
02:20:00 So when this came up, I consulted her. I did have an informal discussion with Councillor Stockwell because I know he knows this area very well, to see if he had any suggestions. But my memory is, is by the time he provided suggestions, I'd already engaged Rachel Everhard. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Could you elaborate on your relationship with Rachel? Is it what you would consider close and personal? Are you friends? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. 20 years ago, we worked in the same department, and we did our masters together, which we might have had two subjects together. But it's always just been professional. It was as a result of her work with the Reef Plan. She was doing her PhD on evaluation of the Reef Plan. And so I got the consultancy. So that was the only time we worked collaboratively together. And that was probably a four-month process.
02:21:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll have you move it. I'll move that the council has made a perceived conflict of interest to Councillor Stockwell. I resolve that this represents a perceived conflict. And that he may remain in the meeting to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. I'll say second to Councillor Stewart. And again, Brian being one of our, with his environmental background, would come across a number of consultants in this area and again be associated with them in some way, shape or form over time. But I don't believe that the relationship that he has mentioned in any way, shape or form constitutes anything more than a perceived conflict of interest in this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillors wish to speak? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I'm satisfied. I'm satisfied from what Craig said that he didn't rely upon that information from Councillor Stockwell and similarly also Councillor Stockwell's relationship he had only realised, as did we all, when he obtained this information. So I'm satisfied that he can be impartial in regards to this report.
02:22:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jay, would you like to close? Councillor Jurisevic: I don't think that Councillor Stockwell did mention Everhart as one of three potential consultants in this matter. That it would have just been a reference for Craig to acknowledge that this is one of three suitable consultants that could have been utilised in this case. Councillor Wilkie: The motion goes in favour. It's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell will go in favour. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just had the other two votes. The people I knew in the U of T. Speaker 3: Chris Gillies from the Nature Conservancy is also online. Councillor Wilkie: Alright, Councillor. We have Chris Gillies from the Nature Conservancy online. And this is... We want to talk to Chris. We've got this camera here. Hello, Chris. Morning, folks. Hi, Chris. Thank you. How about? Alright. I've got a few questions. Councillor Stewart, questions. Surprise. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: I'll start with this one.
02:23:00 The Noosa River Stakeholder Group on page 15. Who is in that group? Councillor Jurisevic: I believe I've mentioned them. Speaker 9: There was not currently a Noosa River Stakeholder Group. It hasn't been established. I'm currently working on a terms of reference for that group. Mayor Stewart: So currently we haven't established who's in that. We have not. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Only the generalities of the nature of the people to be in that group, not the specifics. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. The annual report that we've received, thank you very much for that, notes that the state permits to be achieved by the 31st of December, as per page 11 here, I've highlighted it, but in Schedule 1 of the Funding and Alliance Agreement, states under 13A, the permits will be granted within 12 months from the 1st of July 2019, which would mean that the permits should have been granted by July, state permits, by July 2020. There's been a discrepancy. There's been a discrepancy, obviously, between this has now changed to the 31st.
02:24:00 Who approved the change and why has that been blown out six months? Speaker 9: Yeah, because of delays in the start of the project, Craig, as the project officer, didn't come on board until the start of February in 2020. So several of the timelines from the original project agreement have been extended to meet that. Mayor Stewart: And are we on track? I note that I'm under the understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong in this, that as of July 2020, there'd been no formal documentation between the Nature Conservancy and the state regarding approvals, and the timeframe has been extended for another six months in this regard. Is that correct, that there's been no formal documentation between the Nature Conservancy and the state regarding these approvals? I understand that there's been discussions, and I also understand you've met on 11 separate occasions, according to this information.
02:25:00 With the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Environment and Science. So I'm just wondering, on 11 separate occasions, and as I said, that was information that I obtained in July. We're now in September, so it may have changed. Why hasn't there been any correspondence in writing between yourselves and the state regarding the permits? Speaker 8: Yeah, we have extensive consultation with the states on this matter, because it's an area that they're not used to working in either. They don't have a policy environment, so we have to do a lot of discussion. That's why we meet with them frequently, and that's why they're central to our TAG group as well. We haven't entered in any formal documentation, because the first step in the process is to meet with SARA, the Coordinating Agency for Permitting. And we know from experience from the... from the previous project that if we meet with SARA now, thus embarking on a formal process, that basically gives us a whole bunch of recommendations of work we need to do to prepare the permits.
02:26:00 But what we have already, thankfully, on our books is what we need to do to prepare for the permits, and that is quite an extensive amount of fieldwork and engineering research to prepare the permit applications. And once we've finished all that work, then we will formally stick with SARA, not before. And in discussing that with the TAG members from the departments, they think that's a good strategy as well, because they know that the government agencies will just send us back to collect all that data anyway. So we're collecting it at the moment, we have contractors collecting that data, and when it's ready, we will then sit down formally with the agencies and say, is this to a standard acceptable? And we think that's a pretty...we think that will be a more efficient strategy. Mayor Stewart: So 31st of December, we're at nearly, say, September, October, we're at about three and a bit months, and you're on track to get those state permits according to this annual report by that time, 31st of December? Speaker 8: Well, we're working towards...I think there's probably a good chance of it.
02:27:00 The heavy lifting is really in the background information we need to collect to present to the government. And the actual drafting of the permits, which we can do relatively quickly, because we know mostly what they look like, the applications, shouldn't take very long at all. It's more the actual collation and collection of the background data to feed into those permits. And we know the process, we've got the permits from the last project, which we can use on, confident we can still meet that deadline. Mayor Stewart: So if you don't meet the deadline, who changed it from July to December? Was that by an agreement between Council and yourselves? Who changed that timeline? And if that has to push out again, who authorises that? Speaker 3: So I can comment on that, Councillor Stewart. The timeline set in place when we first entered into the agreement were all best endeavours. And knowing that we had to get a new project manager on, there were some delays in getting a new project manager in place, because it was a very comprehensive search for the project manager.
02:28:00 So Craig mentioned some early delays. What we did do to put some assurances around that is we linked our milestone payments to the achievements of these, knowing that it wasn't met on the 31st or the 5th of January or a month later, that our biggest insurance and governance around that was to link the milestone payments. So the next payment is linked to the achievement of the permits. So, you know, all best endeavours to meet that. Under the partnership agreement, there is governance arrangement where myself and Chris Gillies, as the project directors, through regular correspondence, can make some agreements so that we can take into account the processes with state government and a range of things, which is what we do. We talk often. The four of us talk often and Chris and I communicate regularly. Just to reinforce what Craig said, like any permitting process, like we do with our own permitting process, we work, we encourage applicants to work up front to front and load the investigation,
02:29:00 like a pre-lodgement process. So that when you do lodge, it's a more streamlined process. That's exactly what's going on now. So all the investment and the conversations and the technical assessment and the to and froing is happening through the TAG and the government agencies. So that when we do get to lodge, we've crossed, you know, all the T's and dotted all the I's and the process is quite streamlined before it becomes formal. Mayor Stewart: Also, one of the other, thank you, Kim, thank you. One of the other criteria for that next scheduled payment of $200,000 is obviously consultation and engagement with the Kabi Kabi people. Where are we with that? Speaker 8: Well, Abinili Marriott is slow, but we are talking to them. I've been talking to them. I'm trying in the next couple of weeks to actually directly meet with them. Even that has been very difficult to achieve. But there is goodwill and I've had some good correspondence with Kabi Kabi representatives who are aware of the project, have indicated their support for the project, but have
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 expressed quite strongly that they are rather overwhelmed with their obligations and that while they're supportive, they've had to prioritise other kinds of projects ahead of ours. But I was contacted a few days ago so they would like to meet me and I intend to do that at their earliest convenience. Mayor Stewart: And I've got one more question in regard to, again, 31st of December 2020, the annual report says on track. Community industry stakeholder consultation. It says the project has met with more than 67 key stakeholders to date. Have you met with commercial fishermen in regard of one of those stakeholders? Speaker 8: I have indeed, yes, but I haven't met with all of them. And I know there's actually still another list of people I want to keep meeting because as I meet stakeholders, they introduce me to others as well. So it's an ongoing process in my books. I have met with some commercial fishermen. And, you know, it's been very encouraging actually.
02:31:00 It's been very, very encouraging actually. And I think there are others I do need to meet with directly to talk them through and to get their views. And I intend to do that at the same time as juggling the other things like getting on with getting the permits written. So, yeah, it's a rolling piece. But I'm really confident that I've at least touched on all the sort of sectors and many of the very key people. But there's always more I can meet with. And I do tend to keep rolling out those meetings and meeting with them as they're available and as I can also make the time. Mayor Stewart: Great. Sorry, one last question. The community engagement volunteering in media, total expenditure to date is $177,722. A lot of this says volunteer briefings, volunteer recruitment. Can you give me a quick summary just about where that, that's a significant amount of money. It's gone. Speaker 8: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Page 26, if that helps. Yeah. Speaker 8: It takes a, the community side of things, it takes a lot of time.
02:32:00 So my hours, I often clock up a lot of my hours against that, particularly what I discovered when I came into this job was that the need to have really sort of deep understanding and engagement with the people was central. And I'm not sure that was originally forecast to be the case. And so I've invested a lot of my personal time, which I think reflects some of that expenditure, into these bilateral or sort of one-on-one meetings with stakeholders. Not just the meetings, but the follow-up, the provision of information, the follow-up calls and so forth. Mayor Stewart: Craig, can I ask, can I, so are you on, are you on a per hour basis? Is that how you're being paid, Craig? Or are you on a, on a fixed rate? Is your contract? Speaker 8: I'm on a salary, but we still track our time we spent on the different parts of the project for tracking purposes. Mayor Stewart: But irrespective of how much time you spend, you're on a fixed salary. Speaker 8: Yes, I am. Mayor Stewart: So whether or not you spend. Speaker 7: Yeah, but I think what he's saying is that we're in a different proportion of your time. Speaker 8: My personal time. Speaker 3: Chris might want to comment on that.
02:33:00 Speaker 11: Yeah, that's, that's right. So Craig's on a salary, we're on salaries, but we allocate a portion of that salary in amongst those line items so that we can track how much time that we spend on particular line items. So upfront this year, Craig will spend a significant portion of his time, plus our media staff and our communications staff, on that particular activity around communications and engagement. And obviously in years sort of two and three, that's going to be a significant portion of our time. Mayor Stewart: So I'm just a bit confused, sorry, I'm not, I'm missing something. If you're on a fixed wage, then timing, whether or not you spend 10 hours or 20 hours or 100 hours a week, it's the same salary. So the, so where is that? Sorry, where, where are the? Speaker 11: So, so the salary is proportionate to the amount of time that we spend on that. So an individual's salary is proportionate across those five different budget line items
02:34:00 of rebuilding and community engagement, et cetera. And so it's just how we allocate that each, each year, it'll be a different ratio across those five different activities. And likewise for support staff, they will allocate certain proportion of their salary time. So for instance, our media staff or our communications director will allocate a small proportion of his time under this particular activity. So for example, if you're in a community and media department to manage and to also undertake things like media statements, et cetera, as well. Speaker 7: We do the same with council, you know, for our project managers, for example. So a project manager gets paid a certain amount of money. They might spend 10% of their time this week on project A. They might spend 30% of their time on project B. They allocate that to the different projects. That keeps track of where, you know, how each of the projects is going and what costs are being spent where. So a similar methodology we use for our own projects. Councillor Lorentson: Chris and Craig, would you be able to provide us a little bit more details?
02:35:00 I sort of, I think again, just as part of the community engagement process, to be open and transparent and tell the story. That would probably be beneficial. For me, reading page 26. I saw there was a little bit lost with the numbers and I thought the report was a little bit basic. I'd like a little bit more detail. Just again, more understanding for myself and for the community where that money is actually expended. Yeah, that would be helpful. Kylie, can we throw back to Chris? Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm just going to bring up that page 26 for you. Councillor Wilkie: Page 26 is the attachment to page 18. Can you open that? Yeah. Speaker 4: Page 26. Councillor Jurisevic: I know the page you're referring to. Speaker 11: That was a request for more detail on how the community engagement line item is, what's included in that.
02:36:00 For all of them. Councillor Lorentson: Probably each of those line items. For all of them, please. I just think the totals. To the line items. So the totals seem excessive. Just someone opening this report, reading that $177,000 spent on community engagement, with lots of reference to volunteer work. I understand that it's proportionate. But I think for the general community, again, we're telling the story. I think more detail is probably appropriate. Speaker 7: Would you like to see on that? So for example, that $177,000 might be made up of, and I'll pick some numbers out of the air. $110,000 in terms of salaries or staff time and $30,000 in terms of a website or $20,000 in terms of publication of advertising or whatever it might be. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Mayor Stewart: That would be fantastic. And for all of them, I think, too. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Project management. Just to break up an explanation of where the money is. It's considerable amounts. Speaker 11: Yeah.
02:37:00 We can allocate in terms of what is out the door for a contract on grant, and then the rest of it at this stage would be salaries, given that we don't have many materials that we've purchased. In years two and three, when we're procuring rocks and potentially oysters as a contractor's exception, then we'll be able to break that down. At this stage, I would say that it's really going to be lumped back up into this line item and that this is mostly salaries, apart from what Craig has put in above this budget that details some of the outstanding contracts we currently have in place. Councillor Lorentson: So provided that information is not confidential, can we actually have your salaries? Is that information accessible? No. It's a percentage. Oh, no. But we can get a percentage of- Speaker 7: A cost of what we've spent on individual items? Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So 10% of salaries. Speaker 11: No. And we have agreed that this is a deliverables-based budget based on milestones, and so we can certainly provide some more detail what's included in that.
02:38:00 Yeah. As much as you can. It's pretty clear that we're paid on milestones, and we worked that up, excuse me, early on, and so long as we need those milestones and the budget is sort of re-budgeted according to those milestones and those activities. So we're happy to certainly provide what goes out the door to contractors and what this is. But yeah, certainly wouldn't be providing anything like salary information in the public realm. Mayor Stewart: Now, the expenditure to date, Chris, I understand your deliverables and milestones and outcomes, but the expenditure to date, obviously, you've obviously incurred those costs, or you've achieved those, but the 434, and I understand the confidentiality, but it would be great to get a bit more of a breakdown in regard to just those crude numbers that are listed. That'd be great. Thank you. Speaker 11: I just have- Yeah. Well, I mean, certainly we can, but from our point of view, that breakdown is provided in those project costs apart, in terms of what we spent the 434 on. And as I said, most of those are salaries. Most of that is salaries. Speaker 11: And, you know, apart from the couple of contracts that we've delivered.
02:39:00 So, yeah, I'm not quite sure exactly what sort of further detail you'd like. It's, you know, certainly a fair bit of detail in the table and in the income and tax. Chris? Speaker 3: The other aspect, do you mind if I just comment on it? The other aspect that we looked at in terms of, you know, we, as officers, we believe this has met the requirements of reporting, and that's why we're putting it to you, is meeting the partnership agreement requirements. The other component, and forgive me if I give this, or correct me, not forgive me, the percentage of overall spend in year one is 18% of the budget, total budget. So, you know, in terms of the three-year program, so far, 18% of the project is being spent. You know, we think that's absolutely reasonable, given the preparatory work. The labour costs, and it's, I mean, we see Craig mainly, but there are, you know, half a dozen other people involved, technical experts from TNC who've been involved, and we've definitely
02:40:00 had lots of sessions with them that have provided us with that. So, I think it's important to also acknowledge that, you know, of a three-year program, we would, you know, you could expect maybe a lot more to be spent at this point, but we're at 18% of the total budget. Mayor Stewart: And is that, what's 18, sorry, Kim, is 18% amount to total expenditure of 430? 2.4. Yeah. Of the total project. Yeah. Expenditure to date is 434,000. Yeah. Which is 18%. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And just to clarify, we haven't, the Council hasn't parted with money until milestones have been met. That's correct. So, we've parted with money, and then this is how that money was spent, once it was out of... Speaker 3: That's right. So far, the Council, again, correct me, Craig, have paid $176,000. $197,000. $197,000 in the first payment. The second milestone payment hasn't been paid yet, because there are still some milestones
02:41:00 to be met. Councillor Wilkie: So, the Council's only parted with $197,000. Yep. So, a lot of this... $179,000. $197,000. $197,000. $197,000. $197,000. This is $179,000. The total of this expenditure we're looking at here is also from the TNC. Oh, absolutely. It's just TNC money as well. Speaker 3: That's right. That's right. Then a 2.4, instant half and half. It's partnership, that's right. Speaker 9: So, if I can just make a correction, the Mayor's corrected his $179,000. $179,000. Yes. Oh, and Kim's correct. That was the milestone to be paid upon signing of the agreement, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'm the reverse of that sort of line of questioning is, we just approved the peer review and monitoring evaluation. What we as councillors should be looking at is the outcomes and the progress we've brought to both the outputs and the outcomes. That's correct. For me the question is, are you happy that we're on track to achieve both the technical
02:42:00 aspects of the project, but also from what you said, are you happy that the consultation to date is building understanding and therefore likely leading to long-term support? Speaker 8: Is that a question to me, Councillor? Yeah. I think we're pretty much on track. I think we are delayed. And in my discussions with the community, I think we should not underestimate our need, particularly in the Noosa community, to be well understood. And also given the mixed history of the past project, I think there is no better investment than me meeting with anybody that has a question. Because I really think that every meeting I've had has turned out positive at the end so far. And I've had people who I thought would be adversarial have offered me resources. So I think we need to continue doing that work, that sort of deep embedding of the project into the community. I hope it doesn't cause delays, but I would like to flag with councils, I might request
02:43:00 that it does cause delays if that ends up with a better result and better engagement of the community. Because I think it won't survive, this project won't survive without support. We will have people damaging these reefs, they will have people doing things to them that we don't want, if we don't have a high level of awareness and support. We do need to invest in that and I'm investing as much as I possibly can spare, but it costs me in other areas of work. But we will possibly look to deepen some of our networks even further to make sure that this is really owned locally, because I am concerned that without really high awareness and ownership, we may end up with problems down the road and it'll be a waste of money. So we really have to invest and that's where I want to spend my time. So I'm confident, but I do see that level of that side of the project needs much more focus and that's why we're really happy to also add more layers to the social measuring side of the project as well, in terms of the monitoring and evaluation as well, as recommended by the consultant.
02:44:00 But I think it can only benefit us all. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to delays, I mean, how much of an impact is COVID having on your ability to meet with groups and the like? I think we've discussed in the past that there have been challenges in forming community type, large scale community type engagement, which I'm assuming would be impactful. Speaker 8: Well, Councillor, totally. Certainly for a fairly long time, we didn't really have any of these mechanisms of doing group Zoom calls. Most people may have used those tools or didn't have those tools. And now we can see people using more regularly, more comfortably, and we are now forecasting some more group meetings using those platforms as well. Councillor Jurisevic: And you're now more able to facilitate that sort of... Speaker 8: The reality is those one-on-one meetings are much more impacting and much more important in my view, but they were not forecast as a mode of operation. A few key consultation meetings, as has worked in other jurisdictions to get these projects moving, has been enough, but here we know it's not enough and we've learnt that by experience.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: But you still managed to meet the 67 key stakeholders? I certainly did. So it hasn't been impacting significantly, like too much, has it? Councillor Finzel: It's the method really. It's the method. On page 17 of the Urba Hard Consulting report, they're saying that there needs to be further assessment methods for the socio-economic indicators could be further developed, and we're talking about this now. The report says there's no clear benchmarks. How are you planning to address that with regards to the socio-economic indicators so we can measure things like community engagement, volunteering, and all these things are linked back to outcomes and outputs, which you well know are linked to the money being allocated to the project and our approval. Can you please answer that question? Speaker 8: If I may, Chris, I'll commence, then Chris can come in at more of a national level. The social monitoring aspect of the project has been calibrated.
02:46:00 It's been calibrated against having one project manager on the ground to collect and manage that data on site, and what we know in Noosa that it's better to have more intense and more diverse engagement, which we're doing and planning to do going forward, and so developing a more comprehensive monitoring system for that is worth it, and we certainly have welcomed that recommendation from the independent consultant, and a monitoring evaluation manager is actually talking to the project manager. We've got a number of other professionals in this field to help us develop those baselines and develop those indicators, and I expect we may end up outsourcing some of that work just because of internal capacity, but yeah, we have certainly welcomed the strength of that area. It would be a great area to report them. We do have a series of baseline indicators that we collect anyway, but we're going to make that more comprehensive in this case. Councillor Finzel: And will that be linked back to some of the outputs with terms to the allocation of funding?
02:47:00 Because unfortunately, the report hasn't linked any financials to these benchmarks, as on page 16 under finance of the agenda items today, unfortunately, this report hasn't linked anything back to the financials. Speaker 7: Do you want to answer that, or do you want the councillor to answer that? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. I think Craig's got it right there. The partnership agreement has been struck. We've signed it. We're working through it. It had both legal firms from TNC and council review it in terms of its level of satisfaction and kind of guarantees around it. It's got a governance structure around it, and there's regular reports to council for you to be able to ask these questions and seek the information. What I would like to say is that there's a lot of work to be done. And what I have found with TNC is they're very open to collaborate and very open to improvements
02:48:00 and to respond to the needs that council are looking for and the questions. They're as committed as we are to the success of this project and you want seeing their approach into the Noosa community, that's absolutely fundamental. So we are continuing to work through this as a partnership and a collaboration, not as a contract management. Tick, you haven't met that. You haven't done that. You failed. That's absolutely not the spirit in which Chris and I work and Craig and Craig work. Councillor Wilkie: They're not employees. Speaker 3: They're not employees. It's a partnership arrangement. And that's the way we're working through it. Clearly, we're all looking for good outcomes. And achievement of the monitoring and evaluation plan is absolutely top of mind for us to make sure those outcomes are achieved. You're correct. It doesn't link to our financial payments. But I can tell you that we will be doing everything we can collectively to make sure
02:49:00 those outcomes are achieved and monitoring those with rigour and commitment. Councillor Lorentson: In regards to the independent peer review, Craig, what comments and recommendations were made? And I note on page 16, I think, that there was a comment on the independent peer review that there was just some minor recommendations. Can you run through that? Speaker 9: I can answer that. Yeah. There were five key recommendations that were outlined in the executive summary with regards to, which are all supportive and TNC have agreed to implement, so there's been no issues at all. One was around terminology, around the use of goals and objectives, and that related to the fact that there were two different planning frameworks. And Craig's making some minor additions to the original plan to correct confusion over that issue.
02:50:00 The second one was around recommendations for longer term monitoring for the project. And the report suggested the final report should very clearly stipulate the long term monitoring requirements for the project, which TNC had adopted. The third one was for the socio-economic monitoring, which Councillor Finzel just related to. The fourth one was for collect and maintain provenance records, which is something that is typically done. And the fifth one was to evaluate the partnership and share the learnings. The consultant felt there would be value in actual, not just looking at the project itself, but the way the actual partnership worked. Because I think there'll be some very interesting learnings from all parties that the way the partnership arrangement has worked. I think one of the key comments to come out of the report was basically that overall the review concludes that the plan's robust and comprehensive. The proposed indicators and monitoring methods are likely to be effective. We're really, really pleased, not only with TNC's support and involvement and their willingness
02:51:00 to have an independent peer review that they had no control over whatsoever, but also in their willingness to take on more, in the end, pretty minor recommendations out of that. I've certainly not been engaged in any project in my time here at Noosa Council that has anywhere near the robustness of the plan that this one does. Councillor Lorentson: How often will the independent sign up? How often will the independent sign up? How often will the scientific reviewer be reviewing these reports? Is it every report that's been given? No. Speaker 9: They won't be. The intent of the independent reviewer is out of the resolution from the last Council meeting to address the project. It was a one off for the project plan to identify whether it was an appropriate monitoring and evaluation. We already have a really strong network through the technical advisory group, through Council's own environment officers, and through the expertise at TNC to go through and review all the outcomes and results that are coming out of the project. If Council seeks independent external review at other stages, that's certainly an option that Council can pursue in the future.
02:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I've got two, if I may. Providence records for introduced species. I thought the spat was of a level and a consistency within the river that we weren't looking at introducing. Does that also apply to any shell or anything like that? That is introduced into the system? Speaker 8: No. The shell that we would be using would be dried and meeting a biosecurity protocol would Councillor Jurisevic: be sterile product basically. So there wouldn't be any need for any Providence records. Is there any likelihood that we'd be introducing spat or? Speaker 8: We've been discussing it. We can't. There are quarantine facilities that produce spat which they settle onto dried quarantine certified shell that can be used in projects like this and as a standard are used to sort of augment the natural recruitment onto the substrates and we're still investigating that. Our inclination is not to introduce anything foreign to this river. We are very, very, very conscious about that. Councillor Jurisevic: So I was really surprised to see that the Providence records were being required because I wasn't of the understanding that we ought to be introducing.
02:53:00 Speaker 8: Permit requirements require us to keep those records anyway but we're happy to state it explicitly in the MER plan which they haven't been explicitly stated. Councillor Jurisevic: That's it. I think you answered it. I noticed Boral was one of the contacts that you'd had. I'm assuming that's for rock and. That's correct. And those sort of products that might be used in the actual structure. Councillor Wegener: That's correct. That's it. Okay. I love the vision of this. This is where Noos is going. This is why Noos is the way it is today and it keeps going but I was, at first I was like, oh, what a waste of time to do the monitoring report but I love that what's come out of it that and I think most importantly I'd like to actually indulge myself, read a paragraph here. Number five which is the recommendations, evaluate the partnership and share learnings and the paragraph says, the partnership agreement aspires to demonstrate a, quote, leading example, unquote, of collaborative alliance that.
02:54:00 Quote, achieves superior outcomes, end quote. As well as learning about oyster restoration, the project should also evaluate and reflect on the learnings about the partnership itself. The partners should contract a third party to facilitate a partnership evaluation near the end of the current project. Finding should inform future partnering arrangements between Noosa Council and TNC and may also be helpful to other organizations considering similar arrangements. Now, the. The oyster project in the river here is pretty novel. It's not, there's not a lot of oyster restoration projects in rivers. It's a novel thing. The, the, what's been happening so far is worth noting. It is a part of the learning process. Mayor Stewart: Question. Question. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Of course it is. Of course it is. Now it is. So, this is, this is an, an additional, you know, recommendation towards the end there and I'm hoping it's obviously a few years away, but to consider this, you know, as, as, as a part of the project,
02:55:00 saying, yes, we want to actually maintain our records, maintain the stories of what's happened here so that we can, as Noosa is, lead the world in the partnership, partnership projects with TNC and others. Speaker 8: I think it was a very good recommendation and we certainly welcome it. And Craig and I had a good chat, chat about it and said, well, this might be the most fascinating part of the MER Plan, might end up being this particular aspect. So we certainly welcome it as well. Speaker 3: Can I just add to that, and I'll always want to remind Council that this partnership's not just about the oyster ecosystem restoration, but it's a strategic partnership that allows and enables Council through a collaborative arrangement to access the Nature Conservancy expertise globally. And we have done that today. It also allows to look at a range of other initiatives around our river environment and
02:56:00 the seagrass projects already emerged. So there's a, there's a whole lot of sort of value add from this partnership beyond the oyster project, which, you know, absolutely, I think, you know, at the end of three years or as we're leading into the end of the three year, we should be making sure we capture and document, you know, the outcomes of the partnership itself. Councillor Wegener: It's something new. It's novel. It's exciting. And that's what Noosa does. We lead the world that I want us to maintain. We don't, we want to maintain. Okay. Second proper question, which is also very exciting. Oh, that was a question. The next question is, can you tell us about the oyster gardening community projects? Thank you. Speaker 8: Oyster gardening, we've identified as particularly, potentially a really good way of allowing the project to be accessible to a wide range of community members and not just a group of
02:57:00 select people with assigned interests or something. TNC has recently launched Muscle Gardening, a kind of a similar vein in Western Australia. And with, you know, resounding local support and engagement to engage people. And we're looking at a model, perhaps somewhat similar for, you know, local gardeners. There is a form of oyster gardening where I know it occurs in Pumastone Passage. And we can sort of make it what we need it to be. We can have people actually measuring things. We can have people just growing things for the sake of it, people just looking at things that grow on oyster shills. There's a range of ways we can apply it to meet, help it from a research point of view, to answer some questions, but also just to get people's minds back into the river and thinking about how we engage with the river and care for the river. So it's as much about providing a tangible access point as it is towards contributing to our project per se. I'm actually very excited about it. I think it's going to be wide interest in it. And people I've just chatted to about it, there's, yes, a lot of people want to hang
02:58:00 oyster baskets off their jetties, for example. And so we have to look in, yeah, designing up a proposal of how to do that and designing a guide to do that, because we don't actually have a guide to do that from this year. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. That's under the category of citizen science. Councillor Jurisevic: Pretty much so, yes. I used to go to the gym for my muscle gardening, but not anymore. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was always pretty greedy. I would like to move to the Red Star recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, move. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second. I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do think we've had a valuable, broad-ranging discussion. And to me, while the topic of monitoring and evaluation quite often seems to be dry, what has come out of it is an acknowledgement that while this is a project about physically establishing an ecological restoration project, it's equally important to understand that it is also building capacity in the community. And that underpinning it with good social engagement is probably essential to the long-term
02:59:00 outcomes. That's always been the case in my experience, that the more you put in at the beginning to build the partnership, both with your delivery partners, but also with the people impacted or involved in the actual project, does come out at the end in terms of achieving the impact on the environment that you were looking for. Okay. I think it's good that we have now got some agreement around some more social indicators as the partnership dynamic active network analysis. What are the relationships before the project? Which ones reacted the quickest? Which changed? How did the network grow? Is it at the local level, district, regional, national, international? These are all ways to look at this project from a broader perspective that will give learnings to other people. And I think, as Councillor Wegener said, that is an important thing.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 I think it's great that Craig is reporting back that meaningful, discursive, one-on-one conversation is building rapport. And I hope that goes forward. I also think, I understand that a lot of the questions earlier were about efficiency. Are we getting value for the dollar from what we see in the columns? And that is an important consideration as you go through a project. To me, at this stage, we're also looking at effectiveness. Is the way we're doing the project going to lead to the impact that we wish to have? And the impact is something that we can only measure down the track. So to me, I think it is, it sounds like the project is progressing well. With any large project, you do have to be flexible with the timelines for milestones, as Craig said. You want to get to a certain point in time, you want to get to a certain point in time, you want to get to the milestone having achieved it, and the quality of that milestone,
03:01:00 rather than achieve it on time and the quality not being there. So I do think that we need to trust our directors and our managers to work with TNC in a partnership approach and make sure that we're getting both quality in an effective and an efficient manner. And I'm happy to have received this report and go with the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: And the council's respect the motion. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: I support what Councillor Stockwell said. I said it's good to read the number of engagements that you've had and the diversity of engagements you've had already, Craig. I think it shows that across section of the community, from commercial fishermen to environmental groups and even into suppliers that will be providing that equipment have already been engaged in the process of how this goes forward, ensuring that the right type of materials are available to succeed in this project going forward. Great to see some citizen science and oyster gardening being proposed in there as well,
03:02:00 the sort of things are going. Having another entity have a look at the management plan going forward and suggest some minor tweaks in that and being favourable in looking at how that can improve your own process, I think is good too. And never subject yourself to that. It's something that anyone should fear to turn around and have your own peers review your work. And again, I think there are only minor tweaks here and there. So it does show the robustness, but even the most robust report can have elements of improvement there. So all well and good. I was looking forward to the day when we could start to hear about oysters going into the river and the gardening being undertaken. So well done. Councillor Finzel: Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. I'll take the opportunity to thank you, President Craig, for TNC's professional and open approach to this partnership.
03:03:00 It is a highly valued partnership. As Kim mentioned, it's a value added partnership. There's other works that we've graciously undertaken in terms of doing us a better understanding about seagrass beds in the Noosa River system and how they can be restored. I note the legwork that you've done, one on one, to meet with 67 stakeholders, including recreational and commercial fishers and interested people probably who aren't even mentioned here. We often have those one on one conversations in the street, which is just as important. Look, thank you for the work you're doing and it is a highly valued partnership. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? I'll take the motion. All those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Wilkie. Those against? All those against? All those against? Councillor Stewart, Finzel and Lorentson? The motion's carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
03:04:00 Thank you, Craig. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Craig. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is... Councillor Wilkie: Find a mate. Noosa the Lions Park. Noosa Heads for car parking. Joachim Clintz and Karl and Jo. Yes. Mayor Stewart: The whole team's here. I'd like to move a motion in this regard. Would you like me to read out the whole motion? Or just the amendment? Just the addition to the term. The Council note the report by the Project Manager of Transport Innovation to the General Committee meeting dated 14th of September 2020 and C, approve the one-off use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park Reserve for paid parking over the 2020 September holiday period from the 19th of September
03:05:00 2020 to the 5th of October 2020 with delegation to the CEO to reduce the days subject to weather and advice from the Council COVID Safe Team. And following on D, consult with the community on the use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park Reserve for paid parking on long weekends and all school holidays only during the period of the COVID pandemic. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We have a seconder for the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Seconder from Council Jurisdiction. Everybody's in there. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Okay. I agree with the staff recommendation how I would in light of my motion take their recommendation one step further and put to Council that we approve the one-off use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park Reserve for paid parking over the 2020 September school holiday period. The recommendation is that we should undertake community consultation if we wish to use the park for additional periods including long weekends and all school holidays. I don't disagree with this, but September school holidays is in five days. We cannot and do not have the time for community
03:06:00 consultation for the upcoming holidays which are upon us. We faced exactly the same predicament without inability for community consultation with monies received from state and feds for grants obtained. Governments needed our answer and they needed it quickly. There was no time for community feedback for consultation. Similarly, we were not able to engage the community in regards to our budget, but we will and we are sticking to that promise. The point is these are unprecedented times. We are on the fly. We are not business as usual. We're not let's wait and see how it goes. We must act now and we must act with kindness, compassion and understanding. We must be flexible and we must be supportive. Never before has our businesses and our community needed it more. These are unprecedented times and we are all navigating uncharted waters. We know we are going to be absolutely inundated with visitors over our September school holidays and we know that the only way they can get to us is via car and we need increased parks. Not just for them, but for our residents too. Take it from someone who is having a staycation in her own hometown. I bet I'm not
03:07:00 the only one doing that. Our residents need the parks as well. Similarly, with COVID at the forefront of our minds, a lot of people aren't keen on public transport, choosing to use their own vehicles instead. Again, further reasons why we will need to have increased cars in our area, car parks in our area over the holidays. Also, it should be noted that Lyons Park was not used as a car park over the Easter period as it normally is allowed. COVID put paid to that. The use of the parking park for parking in the September holidays is putting no additional pressure on the park. It is merely using the opportunity that was forgone at Easter. Measures are in place that if it is raining, if it's wet weather, it is at the CEO's discretion to decide whether or not to open the car park. The same rules and regulations apply to September school holidays as they would for Christmas and Easter periods. I haven't addressed the financial benefits to both Council and the Lyons Club, but they are worth noting. The revenue received, especially for a not-for-profit in our community, is significant and can't be overlooked. Much good
03:08:00 could be done from the additional funds the Lyons Club would receive should we open the park over September school holidays to parking. I've sat at the business round table and I've heard the concerns and stresses which are being felt right across the board. Statistics are grim. Resort operators collectively are saying they are down 45-50% year-on-year for the months July, August and now September, with Hastings Street reporting they have experienced a 75% downturn. If we are going to talk the talk and support our own, then we must walk the walk. The period I am asking for is two weeks. It is not for months on end, but those two weeks will do much to assist our community, our businesses and beyond that. Our decision here today sends a clear message that says, we are with you. We have your back. We can't look at this decision in light of what we usually would. We must look at it in light of what we are currently facing. Yes, there are reasons why we should focus on alternate means of transport, but we're not there yet. And certainly we're not there
03:09:00 in five days. The cars are coming and they will arrive in days. We need a solution and we need it quickly. It's temporary. As I said, only two weeks. But I bet if we asked our businesses what that means to them, if it would make a difference, it may just keep them afloat and it may just see Councillor Jurisevic: them through. Thank you. Question for staff. Has anybody approached the Lions Club to see if they've got the capacity to be available for September school holiday? Yes, I have. And the answer is? Speaker 2: So they need as much warning as possible, but I've briefed them that it could be a possibility. So they've got that on the back burner. They said they will act. And they would be able to? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, they will be able to move in with England. Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, that's good. In regards to Council's share of revenue from the car parking, my understanding it's split with the Lions Park. What do we actually use that revenue for?
03:10:00 Speaker 2: So 50 per cent. So it goes straight back into park refurbishment, purchase of the tickets, the barricades around the playground and the traffic control, because we actually use those traffic control to also assist getting the pedestrians from Lions Park to the park, you know, the impact of the vehicles. So it all goes back into the Go Use Their Initiatives. Fantastic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just stop a question? What is the purpose of consultation? I note that DNRME has said, as the proposed use of the car park is inconsistent with the current purpose of the reserves, it considers public consultation to be undertaken by Council to determine the land is no longer required for its dedicated purpose. Is that the intent of our consultation? And you're saying it was no longer required for a recreation reserve? Speaker 13: Well, through you, Mr Chair, I think it's a two-phase here. You're talking about the longer
03:11:00 term use, the consultation, but it's also, as Councillor Stewart's pointed out, a very short-term issue that we have to deal with as well. So you know, I think longer term is actually a role for it, depending on how long this short-term arrangement goes for. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, because implicitly, if this motion implicitly says we want to change the nature of the reserves, then I won't support it. And I don't see what consultation will achieve in terms of having emergent provisions during COVID. So that's one there. Mayor Stewart: It's my understanding, though, that there aren't the only addition to this, to the staff recommendation, is the addition of two weeks parking over September. That is the only addition. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Correct. I'm happy with that. I understand. Yeah. With that, if we don't know what we're consulting on, then it's silly to have a recommendation.
03:12:00 I read the report. I read what the DNRME said, and I can't align the two, unless there's an implicit association that we think it's now the time to change the nature of the reserves, which I won't support. Speaker 13: Could I possibly add something further there? Sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair. Be glad. Yeah. Look, I think, well, I've got an alternate position on that, if you like, because I do tend to agree with Councillor Stockwell's observations there. I think we can, you know, we can, you know, we can, you know, the issue of parking overall under the Land Act is deemed an inconsistent use, OK, because it's commercial use happening on community purpose land. What we can do, though, is we can make application to the State, and I've been talking to them this morning, around an inconsistent, a ministerial approval for an inconsistent use action. That can be defined
03:13:00 for a period of time. So, Uh. Oh, Okay. There is an argument for getting that approval for a period and then going to my point before about the longer term consultation and working through with the community about what the park should or could be into the future. So for me it's about from a property perspective about getting an approval quickly for a use which is inconsistent but it can that can be facilitated because the trustee makes the trustee then council makes the argument for that and then the consultation for me going to your point Councillor Stockwell it's more about the longer term. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there'd be no legislative requirement to consult on an inconsistent use application? Speaker 13: I think if it's through you Mr Chair I think if it's if it's defined for a period like if we're talking about through the COVID pandemic or if we're talking about until we further action on the transport policy my understanding with the state is it that's okay.
03:14:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Well my question around that then is what are the triggers for the period of the COVID pandemic is it you know when the borders reopened is it when interstate air travel comes back? Is it when international air travel comes back? What I'm assuming that's what you're asking that the element of the community consultation may be is that correct? Speaker 13: Well through you Mr Chair look the COVID the pandemic time frame is open and I would suggest that we would revisit that once the pandemic is deemed not to be a pandemic anymore and there's relaxations happening and we're on the road out of this. Then I would suggest that we would revisit but in terms of gaining an inconsistent use approval now we would define that around the period of the COVID-19 pandemic to provide the owner of the land state with some certainty as to the time frame because that provides them you know some guidelines.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Councillor Jurisevic: But again that certainty would work around which parameter are you going to make that certainty you know. To create that certainty which parameter is the one that you're going to say is the trigger to cease could I mean the pandemic may never go away. Speaker 13: Could I answer that? I'm trying to get the element of precision of what is the end of the pandemic as we see it for the car park. I have he's I have got one I produced earlier that's right I reckon I actually just typed it up the back there just before but I just thought that maybe uh if it's appropriate Brett to do that. I've got something there we could add in terms of which might go to your question council address it around time periods um and providing some certainty. Councillor Jurisevic: Well I would think we'd have to go right to it I don't think we go to a time that's what I'm suggesting I don't think we go to a time period I think we need to go to a time to a trigger that that that elements is that how would you how would you come up with the time period if you haven't got a trigger for that time period.
03:16:00 Well three three Mr Chell. Councillor Finzel: Could there be can we scroll back to the recommendations where they're at the top so that although we're looking for that date could the trigger be when the short-term permit finishes that we begin can we add those words in begin the community consultation. Councillor Jurisevic: I think well we've got a motion we're asking questions I'm asking questions Karen you can you're wanting to move in a minute. Councillor Finzel: Is that what you're what you're asking can we include that yeah I'll ask that next then okay so Councillor Wilkie: are you would you like to move an amendment with those words in yes I would please so do you want to Councillor Jurisevic: ask your question I've said I've asked my question I haven't had I haven't I haven't had a specific Councillor Finzel: sorry he's waiting for the answer I'm waiting for this again so my question Mr Chair
03:17:00 Councillor Wilkie: okay we'll go to your question which is uh is it is a Councillor Jurisevic: time period relevant which would mean every time that time period finishes if the pandemic isn't over we'd have to go back and ask again or is it more would it be more pertinent to put a parameter around what that would trigger that time period or the ceasing of that need can I have a supplementary Deputy Mayor Stockwell: with no no let's just go you know it is it is the answer to his question is there a concern about when there's social distinct distancing requirements for the COVID pandemic that is making people less likely to use public transport because that could be the trigger when the social distancing requirements Councillor Jurisevic: are removed the pandemic again we may that may go on for years well there's no vaccine we may Councillor Wilkie: this way we may be talking years here we've got a discussion going on here councillors let's keep the Speaker 13: questions please um to go back to councillor Jurassic's question my view would be lock it in for a period
03:18:00 to go back to councillor Jurassic's question my view would be lock it in for a period which can be revisited or you so that's a time frame or you talk around and I was a condition well I would say as well in there just to cover all bases during the the COVID-19 pandemic period or and or a date but it I don't think it really matters either way because you can go back to the state and ask for a further extension if required if you're looking for a time frame or a date Speaker 7: that's the most logical one would be the public health declaration whether she's gone on the term so while that's in force you would say that's the period that you apply that for public health declaration again that could be that could be yeah Deputy Mayor Stockwell: can I move an amendment then Councillor Wilkie: well you said Karen Councillor Jurisevic: Karen wants to speak Councillor Finzel: well in terms of trying to frame something around the you know where one the short term ends and the community consultation
03:19:00 one the short term ends and the community consultation starts could it be the public health declaration and then as soon as that's declared we begin the community consultation for the consistent use of parking in that space if people want to lose their recreation or make that parking Speaker 13: uh three Mr Chair I would suggest you you don't go to that point because that's about changing that's setting you on the path to change Councillor Finzel: yeah but I think this has gone on for 20 years so I think why this is as good a time as any to put it back to the community and let's just see what they have to say uh well the recommendation and the report basically from off the top of my head from state was like can we sort it out one way or the other like that was their recommendation
03:20:00 Speaker 13: yeah in the report it's talking about phasing out the vehicles use of the of the of the reserve so that's why I was kind of suggesting around suggesting that period and then in terms of the transport strategies and policies where we're going with that you know the end of this COVID-19 pandemic we're revisiting that and if we're going down that path again which is around you know pulling back on the vehicles and so on then we're going to have to do that again and then we're going to have to do that again and then we're going to have to do that again and then we're going to have to finalize it again and the benefit along side Well, I mean, that's I'm I'm making that suggestion that could be setting us off on a path that we may not need to go down given that The report's signed that Right it's it should be a phase to be phasing out. Oh has proposed to be phasing out Now, I do go to you point though it has been a long term Um proposition the parking there And use but also I would also make the point that the report fairly explicit about around and where we're going
03:21:00 We're going with a transport strategy around alternative modes of transport, which we would have been in had we not have had the COVID and the reduction of buses and so on. Councillor Finzel: But as per the discussion today, we don't know how long that time frame is. Speaker 7: Well, at the moment, the Chief Golf Officer's declaration goes to 31 December 2020. Obviously, between now and the 2nd of November to extend it, that's a defined date that you can look at. I guess my question comes back to Karen's looking at an amendment, whether or not what you're trying to achieve with that amendment is to change, I assume, Paragraph B, which is talking about what we don't consult the committee on and what period. So maybe just explain what you're trying to achieve with that amendment. Are you talking long term? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I guess I was just trying to marry the two together. Because of the longevity of this 20 year, come back to the table, make a vote, go back. And then trying to just bring that to a closure, moving forward to eliminate all these meetings and discussions and people constantly, you know, advocating for parking and all the conversation around that or no parking.
03:22:00 Can we in one lump put it all together and move forward? So we just go short term COVID, we approve it. And when that timeline finishes, we move straight into the consultation. So we don't have to come back to the table. Basically, it's just in place, we move forward. Councillor Jurisevic: I think that's, I think that's in contrast to what Dee currently says, is it not? Is it a complete? Speaker 7: Yeah. So what Dee currently says is consult about the, I'll call it the additional view, call it a better frame, call it the car parking, sorry, call it the COVID pandemic there. I think what Councillor Finzel is saying is the short term COVID parking, probably wrong new language there, but, you know, using the theory of parking while COVID's on is not what we consult with the community about, but consult on the longer term.
03:23:00 Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And maybe the achievement, I think, Karen, is not to say yes or no, because there's so many variables. Maybe the outcome is to get to some criteria. Or an assessment benchmark. What factors will trigger the need to reopen or reconsider reopening Lyons Park for car parking purposes? I think to have just sort of black and white. Oh, okay. Do you agree with that, Clint? Speaker 7: That is not the way to be answered. No, no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Mr Chair, with the failure of a member to come forward, I'll move him in alternative order. And that is to items A, B, and C, as in the original motion, deleting item D, adding the words suggested by Clint, which appeared below.
03:24:00 If you can bring those up, it's going to take a while. Yeah, right to the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Sick Ministry approval for an inconsistent secondary use of Noosa Heads Lion Park at that property description for paid car parking for the period of the public health declaration for the COVID-19 pandemic. And delete the rest. And then adding a further E. And that's the one down the bottom. Yeah, that D there.
03:25:00 That an amount equivalent to 50% of council share of the profit from car parking in the Noosa Heads Lion Park. Reserved be held in reserve and allocated to recreational improvements in Lions Park for residents and visitors alike, noting that the term property first to cancel share of the revenue, less costs associated with rectifying any damage impact from parking on the reserve, the horror of temporary fencing to protect children at the playground and barbecue area, parking signage at Lions Park, the use of traffic control to assist in the movement of pedestrians from Lions Park. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor, may I suggest an addition to D to add? Only for long weekends and school holidays during that period, not otherwise. That would suggest ongoing use endlessly during the pandemic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy with that addition of Noosa Heads Lions Park for paid car parking during school holidays and long weekends for the period of public health declaration.
03:26:00 Is that what you intended? Councillor Jurisevic: That's what that was. My intent was to still take them back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second that. Speaker 7: Can I ask a question? Sorry. Councillor Juris, you can't second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, I can't. Sorry, I said it earlier. I did too. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My apologies. You want to second it? I'll second it. Okay. So, just talking to that, the D, I think, is the right way to go. It does provide legitimacy to what we are proposing. I do think there is an argument that we do need to look at the situation as it confronts us, and it's clear that while a lot of people are jumping on a bike, that people do not like public transport, so it's likely that during our peak times that the bus services are not likely to provide the relief that we have previously enjoyed, so hence I think that's appropriate if staff are advising that we apply for that inconsistency. I'm happy to support it on temporary grounds. The second part is that we, for a long time, have taken money and reinvested in transport options, where, in fact, if you look at any other recreation reserve where there are clubs, where the profit goes to from that, in a club situation, is to the actual reserve, and I think it's really important that both visitors and residents get the benefit of the commercial use of recreation reserves by enhancing the recreational facilities, the standard, whether it's supply equipment, whether it's better landscaping, I just believe that that's the right way to go.
03:27:00 The third part is that there is an inherent ethical position that we don't siphon money out of a recreation reserve straight into solving more problems for the transport strategy. I think it's important that we do say this is going to benefit the community because we're going to upgrade the park as well. To me, that's a quid pro quo arrangement that, as I said, there's nothing in legislation, but to me it's an ethical position that says to the community, yeah, we are going to likely make a bit of money out of this. And, you know, if we keep on, if this happens for a year and a half, there may be a reasonable bucket of money there that can be put towards upgrading of that park for recreational purposes.
03:28:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question of Joe, just at the risk of contradicting Brian, but did you say that the monies collected went to uses similar to this already? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So, rectifying damage in the reserve, fencing, ticketing, traffic management, well, so there's no harm in ticketing that. Speaker 7: So, if I can probably explain, I'll use the nominal numbers if I can understand how this would work. These are arguments to say that 50% of our council's share of the revenue is $50,000 for that period. What we do if this resolution is successful is we take up all the costs for, you know, rectifying the turf, looking at the fencing, all that sort of stuff. Imagine that was $30,000 or $40,000 or whatever it might be. Then the difference between what we have spent in that area and what we've received in the revenue would be the profit, and we allocate 50% of that towards the doing up of the park.
03:29:00 Park enhancements. Enhancements in that one part. Councillor Wilkie: So, does this represent a reduction in what you would normally spend doing this sort of work? No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It means, if I can tell you, that the intent is that the addition after all those things are done doesn't go back into transport levy. It goes back into the recreation. Only half. Only half. Councillor Wilkie: One and a half percent of council's share of profit go into all those things. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, all those things come out to be for profit. Yeah. Speaker 7: Then you're operating costs. Just as less there is cost. Our share of the profit. So, imagine you've got $50,000. Yep. The first thing that comes out of that revenue are these costs. It's the cost of rectifying it, the cost of ... This is 50% ... Yeah. Council already gets 50% ... Councillor Jurisevic: No, we don't. We get 60-40, isn't it? Councillor Wilkie: No, it's 50-50. So, we only get 50% from clients. Yeah.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 So, then we're saying we're only going to spend 50% of that. So, 25% ... Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm ... No. Yeah. That's how I'm reading it. Thank you, Frank. That's how I read it, too. No. No. I read it that way. It's a class question. I read it the same way Frank reads it. Mayor Stewart: It's a wording question. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. It's 50% of council's share. 50% isn't council's ... It's already council's share. It's 50% of the 50%. Speaker 7: So, the amount in the first line talks about equivalent to 50% of council's share of the profit. That's not revenue. That's profit. So, in other words, the amount that we've received, and I'll use that example again, we've received 50,000 in revenue, not profit, revenue, in terms of that activity, you then take off the costs. So, the cost would be ... Let's say $10,000. Councillor Jurisevic: Let's say it's $10,000. Yeah. Speaker 7: Make it $30,000. So, the $20,000 ... So, 50% of that $20,000 crop, that's $10,000, would go into the improvements in Ryan's fund, and the other $10,000 ... That's right. Get it into the ...
03:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So, yes, you're right, Frank, but it's ... Yeah, it's a split of what's left. Yeah. Speaker 7: It's a split of what's left. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for not taking all those costs. Yeah. I'll only apply half of that. Okay. Thank you for that. Councillor Jurisevic: But our share of the revenue, 50% is ours, 50% lies, 50% goes to lies before any of the costs come out, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Can I have the council speaker speak for questions? Mayor Stewart: Can I ... Can I just ... Kylie, could you just pull it down so we can see the whole of the ... Very confusing. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: This is what you're asking for, right? Yeah. Speaker 7: Can I ask ... So, just to clarify, so the amendment deletes paragraph D in your original motion, but C stays? Yeah. And then add ... But where are we ... A new D and then a new E. Councillor Finzel: Is there no reference anywhere now with regards to community consultation? Councillor Wilkie: No. Can I ... Councillor Finzel: Which you've been doing, yeah. Well, why was that in the report? Councillor Lorentson: Your question, Amanda. Oh, sorry. Claire, this is your question for you.
03:32:00 I'm a little bit confused about amendment D. My understanding is that council, as trustee, has the right to determine the use of the reserve. The advice that was given in June 2020 actually stipulates that ... Yeah. ... and says that council should consider. And I've circled the rule that council should consider. There's no obligation for us to request public consultation. So, I'm actually not quite happy with D. Can you expand on that? Have I understood correctly that we actually, as trustees, have the right to determine the use of council land? Sorry. State land. Speaker 13: Through you, Mr. Chair. Councillor, we do to an extent. Now, the Land Act is pretty clear, and the ... I'm sorry. ... the policy is supporting policies around ... and it's up to the trustee to look at those policies and the guidance there to make decisions about use of land.
03:33:00 One of the things they talk about in those policies is inconsistent use, which is a commercial use that's relatively consistent in terms of its timing and making decisions around whether that's appropriate in the long term. So, inconsistent secondary use talks about commercial uses, because they're supposed to be community purpose reserves, you know, when you go and kick a footy or whatever. Now, all I'm saying there in terms of the process is that if we are considering this, then we should write to them formally and seek their approval, because they're not going
03:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: to accept anything like, well, the noosa food and wine, the car show, the runaway noosa marathon. Yes. Have we written to them? Speaker 13: We've only had to ... Well, they're covered under ... They're fine. They are recreational use. Yes, and they happen once a year. So when you start to get into inconsistent uses, Councillor, they're happening more often... Frequently. ... then it tips over. Sure. And again, the trustee then makes a judgment based on policies around, okay, this is not just once a year, it's not a community event, it's a commercial process, it's a commercial event, commercial activity, and because it's increasing, then it's best to seek that approval from the owner. Councillor Lorentson: So my question then is, is that a requirement?
03:35:00 Speaker 13: Yes, it is. Councillor Lorentson: It's an actual requirement. So if we're looking at doing this more than one-off, then we are required to make an application to DNRME for an inconsistent use. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, yes. Clint, would it be fair to say that DNRME's expectation of council's use of that land for car parking, is Christmas and Easter, at this period of time? Anything beyond that would be beyond the current expectation. And even then, they have already expressed some concerns of the use of that land for Easter and Christmas anyway. Three, Mr Chair. Speaker 13: On an ongoing basis. That's correct, Councillor. And that's why this is tipping over into, we talked before about the more accepted uses of the land over a long period of time, which have only been, when I say have only been, but are accepted or seem to have some acceptance at this point by the community, being Christmas and Easter. We are now suggesting, you know, more frequent use for that purpose, so it's right that we seek approval to do that.
03:36:00 Now, there are other ways of doing that, going to Councillor Finzel's point before about, you know, land management planning and consultation and so on. But I don't think we're there yet because we have covered off on that based on for the period. That's why I think it was important. Indeed, to talk about the period, because that's the first step before you go on to other processes. So seeking approval for an escalating use that's becoming more frequent is totally appropriate from the owner because it is a use that it wasn't set aside for originally, the land. Set aside for community purposes. Councillor Lorentson: So for that reason, should we then include, consult with community on the use of this? The two go hand in hand. Yeah, that's what I think. One should be there without the other. Councillor Jurisevic: We're getting the land approval, but we don't know whether the community is accepting.
03:37:00 Councillor Finzel: Because based on page 21, this has happened before, and what you've put in your own report back is that DNRME's preliminary view is should council as trustee determine the community's use of the reserve for recreation purposes is no longer required. And the land is required for parking purposes. The department is happy to work with the council. To obtain suitable outcome. And they recommend that that is through community consultation. Speaker 13: Yeah, look, I think through you, Mr. Chair, Councillor, I think what we're talking to here is I still take the view of this and certainly talking to the officers who wrote this advice this morning is that the inconsistent use is the way to go seeking approval. But if we were to keep that going. Yes, we should do community consultation.
03:38:00 The timing is against us now for consultation. Yeah, well, I can say with that paragraph in your report, Clint, is that that's the question. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, the questions coming out of this is that that I don't think this was your intent. And the question is, is this your intent of that paragraph is that car parking and community consultation on car parking in Lyons Park should be an ongoing consideration beyond the pandemic. And that's the way the paragraph reads. And I think that's what the council is alluding to. I'm trying to support your recommendation. Was that your intent in that paragraph? Speaker 13: Well, through you, Mr. Chair, it's not my report for a start. Well, they put the recommendation first. It's Adam's, actually. Sorry. Yeah, look, what I'm trying to do here is around and these requests for advice happen in points at time as well. Now, given the time frames that we've got, you know, use of the reserve for car parking could well be contentious, going to your point, Councillor, about what the community may think of that.
03:39:00 Going to some other views around town at the moment, it may well be that the use is acceptable in the short term. Yeah. Yeah. But we don't resolve from the fact that if this is going to be an ongoing situation, we should. We should undertake, we should get into it and undertake the consultation. What I'm saying is, though, that I think there will be some mitigating factors around this in terms of the pandemic ending, a transport policy kicking on once we've got some momentum back that way. It may well, it may well fall away because we're not, we don't really have the time to do it now for September. Yeah. And the December and Easter uses are reasonably well accepted. At the moment. So that buys us some time to enshrine it for a period. The state will, will, will likely be okay with that as the owner.
03:40:00 And then we think about the mechanisms then for consultation because it's not just a, it's not just a simple kind of, you know, letterbox drop. It's actually, we've got to work out through a proper process then around, okay, what are the options then for that if we were to change the use and turn it into something else? It's quite a long process under the Land Act. It's not something that happens quickly. And it needs some thinking about who are we consulting with as a full, as a proper process under the Act to do that. So it's not something to be taken lightly. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I understand that. So with reference to adding it in there today for that timeframe from the differentiation from the short term request for the parking now, can we add the wording with, at the end of the short term, when the public health declaration comes, we commence heading towards the community consultation? Councillor Wilkie: So that's, that's perhaps something for another amendment. Councillor Finzel: Oh, that's for another day? Well.
03:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: No, no, no. We can only deal with one at a time. Oh, okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just, just to clarify, the report was written by Adam Brinton. He felt that in the report we talked about consultation just on the COVID period, but an inconsistent use application doesn't require consultation. He made it, the requirement is if we want to change the purpose of the reserve. Speaker 13: Is that right? Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair. Look, that's, that's my reading of it because like I said, it's a two-speed, two-stage process. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We've got a motion, an amendment for us. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the amendment. I've been lobbying for council to open Lyons Park for long weekends and school holidays since May this year. I've debated this issue for some time and know that all the councillors are aware of my position on this matter. We need to open Lyons Park for paid car parking to alleviate the stress of traffic and congestion
03:42:00 into Haston Street temporarily until COVID tapers and alternate transport solutions are found. Holiday periods place enormous pressure on our infrastructure and in particular parking. This will be compounded, these September school holidays, by the drive market and COVID travel restrictions. I support that we need to balance the needs of the broader Noosa community to access public parkland against the request for paid parking to be allowed on this reserve to support the business community in the Haston Street precinct. I accept that Lyons Park is not the ideal long-term park. It's not a long-term solution, but it is a solution for now. September school holidays are five days away and we have a solution and we've got a choice. Allowing the area to be used for car parking recognises the special circumstances that we're in due to COVID. This decision that we make today impacts businesses and it also impacts residents.
03:43:00 It's good for business to have the extra car park, but it's also great for locals wanting to drive to Noosa for a run. A walk. A surf. A day on the beach. A meal. Or a drink. It's about the visitor experience. It's about the local experience. And it's about business. So, I'm happy to support this recommendation. Councillor Wegener: Tom. Just one question to the CEO. A huge issue here is how wet the grass is. How wet the... And so, I'm sure that the... That you will be... You will have recommendations on when it can be done, when we can use the parking lot and when we can't. Because I know that there's... They can be torn up real bad real quickly when it's mud. Speaker 7: Yeah. I'm just being very clear. I always take a very precautionary approach to this. We've had issues before where the park's been ripped up.
03:44:00 And it looks like it's raining. We'll just... We have a report coming next round of council meeting about how we deal with the Christmas and Easter period through the full transport strategy. This report is really a bit ahead of the time because of the imperative for council to make determination about whether or not mine park is going to be open in September. Councillor Wilkie: And what other measures will you have in place in terms of going through September? Speaker 2: So traffic control and probably the drop and go zones, so just on the outskirts so people can park at Hastings Street and then, or get dropped off at Hastings Street and then park elsewhere. And so one at Widder Circle, one at Hastings Street and one near the reef. So the drop and go zones and then the traffic control to just assist with that traffic and
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 pedestrian movements. Councillor Jurisevic: For the reasons that Councillor Lorentson outlined and Councillor Stockwell, I'll support the motion. I think whilst we have capacity for a downturn in public transport usage, the likelihood that we might be having the council loop bus available in the short term until next month's report. I think this is a pertinent use of the park in the short term to facilitate the ongoing increased drive market. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: In closing, I'd like to say I do support the recommendation to use the parking in the short term. I think at this time with COVID-19, we have to be seen as responding in a timely
03:46:00 manner to the impacts greater than what we've experienced before we are in a pandemic. Thank you. So I think to ensure our reputation is excellence and responding to those needs, we should move forward. COVID-19 has affected the cash flows of many businesses, both public, private and of course our community organisations. Financial uncertainty, disrupted working arrangements and health concerns are creating stress within workforces and impacting the future of organisations and businesses both globally and locally. I think now is the time as a council to reconsider controls of governance in support of changing patterns and managing impacts of COVID-19 while finding new ways of responding to the economic, social and environmental need to ensure equity across services and our community. So I support this recommendation today. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have any information that suggests that given that we don't normally have access to
03:47:00 free buses during the September school holidays or long weekends anyway, do we have any information that suggests that passenger numbers are likely to be down on public transport? Have you got any hard data on that or are we just guessing that people will be less likely to go by public transport, coasting street like they always have been able to every 15 minutes? Speaker 2: I think that's just predicting on what COVID has done to public transport in other states. I think that's just predicting on what COVID has done to public transport in other states. I would advise from TransLink that that's what they're anticipating. Councillor Wilkie: That's what they're anticipating? Yeah. Okay. Councillors, I'm really, really having a difficult time with this. I really appreciate the rationale behind it in that we're expecting less, fewer people to be taking public transport down to coasting street due to concerns about social distancing.
03:48:00 Although we've got no hard data on that, I think that's just predicting on what COVID has done to public transport. I also appreciate the urge to appear to be doing everything we can to support businesses down in coasting street. But what we are, what I'm conscious of what we're doing here today is stepping across a line of one of the key things that make Noosa a place of difference. And that is, and it's articulated in the Noosa design principles. One of the things that makes Noosa different to all other places is the priority we place on public transport. The value we place on open space and open space for recreational purposes. The value we place on green space over the car. Our reluctance to give up green space for car parking. It's articulated in the Noosa design principle, which is a beautiful document.
03:49:00 And I know that it means more to us than just the words in the paper. It's printed on. Other councils have perched, are seeking to make similar design principles. Also, I think it's important for us to understand that it's not just about the fact that all good building designers and architects have a copy. And in the Noosa design principles, principle nine under sensitive growth and development states, open space will remain a priority, even though the demand for car parking seems limitless. And we can find no end of reasons for giving over green space to car parking. That demand will always be there. And it's very hard to resist those arguments because it appears you're being obstructionist. But no, I think there's a... It's a good argument. It's not that. It's the value we place on green space over and above using that for the car. Who can place a price on green space for the enjoyment that people and the children derive from it? Just being able to run through the park, kick a football at the height of the school
03:50:00 holidays. And the other principle in the walking, riding and driving is avoid sacrificing public open space for car parking. I respect all the views around this table. But I'm having a really difficult time in moving this way. So I just, I can't put my hand up for this. I'm sorry. Councillor Stockwell used to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I completely support your position in the long term. I think what this amendment does is clearly define that, okay, during the current public health declaration, we understand that Noosa's tourist economy is based on the drive market. While all our long term planning is about not the drive market necessarily, but about getting people here of high value to spend money. So businesses in Hastings Street don't make money from more cars, they make money from
03:51:00 people going into their premises and spending it. In the long term, we are looking at trying to reduce the number of people who are reliant on the car to get to Hastings Street and the main beach. I do think it's really important to understand that all around the world, there has been a significant decline in public transport usage during COVID. And it's just about that concept that it's a confined space and if you're there for any length of time, there's a heightened concern about that. Thank you. I do think it's important that we do try and formalise the inconsistent use. There is no doubt in my mind that it is, according to the Act and the secondary use of state land, inconsistent to continue to use a recreation reserve for car parking.
03:52:00 It is not something I would support in the long term at all. And I also sort of think it's important that we, by the initial motion that seemed to have support of making that decision for September school holidays, that we don't go out, as staff suggested, and consult with the community after really the policy decision has been made. Because consultation then becomes insultation. It's saying, oh, what do you think, but we've already made the decision. So that's why I took that out. I also think it's really important to understand. That additional car parking is more likely to lead to more congestion, not less congestion. I think the fallacy that if you make more car parks, you're all of a sudden going to take cars off the road. No, you just get more cars coming in to take up the car parks. So you might lose some of the circulation for the first period as that car park fills up. But after that, if you have more people expecting to be able to drive the car and get a car
03:53:00 park, you get likely to get more congestion. So that is one of the reasons that in the long term, you just don't want to keep on adding car parks. So that's the heart of this amendment. And I look forward to your support. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Stewart, Jurisevic, Finzel, Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 1: Good. Councillor Wilkie: The amendment becomes the motion and so far, only Councillor Stewart has spoken to the original motion. Yeah, would any other councillors like to speak to the motion which now incorporates the amendment? This is it in its entirety now? Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay.
03:54:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. For me, COVID is the key thing here. I would never agree to this under a non-COVID situation. But people are right and there's a perception that lots of, that there are people that will want to drive here that may have otherwise taken the bus under COVID consideration. So that's why I'm supporting this. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Yes. You wish to close, Councillor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Look, I mean, COVID has changed things. We're on a different playing field than we ever thought before. I do acknowledge too, Mr Chair, the value of green space. But I think we also in this instance have to think about community. We have to think about workers. We have to think about jobs and we have to think about businesses. We have to be able to pivot and we have to be able to pivot quickly. As I said, we're looking down the barrel in five days. And the cars will be arriving. And as we've talked about, COVID will certainly has changed the landscape with how people
03:55:00 feel comfortable about getting to and from places. It's not business as usual. And I think the decision here today shows a clear message to the business community and to our community in general that we stand with you and we understand your pain. And this is something small that we can do. A decision that we can make here at this table, which may just see some businesses survive and some people keep their jobs. And I think that's incredibly important. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll put the motion to those in favour. Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Stewart, Jurisevic, Finzel and Lorentson. And against? Councillor Wilkie. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Clint. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
03:56:00 Councillor Lorentson: I do, and mine's always the same question. On page 36, I always go back to legal expenses and consultancy services. Current budget for legal expenses, $1.105 million. Current budget for consultancy services, $928,000. Can I ask, is that an increase from last financial year, Trent? Speaker 5: I'd have to take that on notice, Councillor. I do not believe offhand that we have increased overall our consultancy and legal. If anything, as a result of some of the measures we introduced to our client spending as part of the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of the consultancy was deferred or reduced. And in terms of legal fees, I'd have to take that on notice and come back.
03:57:00 Councillor Lorentson: And just again, back to legal and consultancies. Yes. Are those budgeted amounts, what's the word, are those budgeted amounts in keeping with what other councils of similar size are doing, or is it excessive? I'm just trying to get in my head. It seems like a lot of money that we're spending. And again, broken record, I keep raising the opportunity to introduce in-house legal services, and I hope that's the future. But that's separate. Are we spending too much, is my question. Speaker 7: I guess the legal expenses are essentially following through on council's decision. So the council makes a decision to review the planning application that's in appeal, and we've been modifying that, and we've had that process there as we work through the case management workbook, which is designed to try and see what we can settle if there's not a planning issue,
03:58:00 or what needs to be formed in the court. So we're not actually expending legally. The majority of legal expenses, well, sorry, the majority of legal expenses do come out of that planning area. We do have other planning, sorry, legal expenses. Can I ask a question? Contracts and things like that, and there might be some other disputes, contract disputes and things like that. And that's pretty normal in the organisations outside having that type of thing. Whether it's higher or lower than other councils, I suspect that councils for our size, when I look at, if you have a look at categories, you have councils of different categories across Queensland. You've got, you know, Brisbane City Council at one end, and Barracuda at the other, which might, might be. Councils outside of about 10 of us would be similar, you know, Week Sunday, Casserico, Somerset, lots of other places like that. I think we'd be a bit higher because the level of development here would be higher with Sunday, and I think that would be one of the issues to have a look at. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, so probably not fair to make the comparison, yeah, okay.
03:59:00 Speaker 7: Because we're a, you know, high value, high development pressure area. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say we've also got more limited land available, so the pressures would be different compared to some of those other councils? Speaker 7: I've certainly said before that one of the challenges for Noosa is all about flat, unencumbered, undeveloped, easy land and big development. That's right. And what's left is the difficult land, it's sloped, vegetated, it's, you know, mud-prone areas and whatever the life like. We've always got to do that, particularly in terms of having to have arguments about whether it's appropriate for development, so. Councillor Jurisevic: And redevelopment. Speaker 7: Yeah, redevelopment. So it is, it is inevitable that we will have higher planning environment for COPS and other councils. Yes. That's inevitable. In terms of consultancy services, I imagine, and this is off the top of my head without going through it further, that we would be lower than most comparable councils. Part of the reason is that we have quite a number of our staff here who have worked as consultants.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 So rather than going out and getting consultancy, we tend to do it ourselves. So it's probably going to be a bit lower overall than we would. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, thank you, that answers my question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, thank you. I think I answered my own question, but contributions, donations, sponsorships and prizes. That's over $3 million. I presume that's developer contributions we're spending, is it? What's the contribution side of it? Because I know we don't give many sponsorships and prizes. Speaker 5: So this is our operating expenditure, so it's not about the money we get. So most of that would be our annual contribution to Tourism Noosa in terms of operating contribution. Wow. And the other elements of that, in terms of sponsorship and prizes, would come through with some of the work that is undertaken through community services, particularly so the libraries and galleries, some of their competitions and gallery works, which is only a very small proportion of that. And in amongst that is the community grants program as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought you got grants paid for your work.
04:01:00 Speaker 5: Oh, sorry, I do, correct, there's a separate line down there for that. Got me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good pick up. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll have you move. Speaker 7: Sorry, just before we, one of the comment councillors, I thought someone might ask a question. On the bottom of page 31, one of the ones we should, I guess, as a council, be looking at very closely every month is the rate and arrears. Just to see what's happening to me. And I ring Kelly from our Revenue Services section to check in with her on the rate and arrears. We're not seeing arrears, what we thought we might see. It's interesting that we thought there might be some pain or that people might have people in pain, and there are some like that. Don't get me wrong, there are some people who've had requests for extended time or to make arrangements to pay, but it is not out of the ordinary in terms of where we are in the normal cycle, which is quite interesting. Speaker 5: So we will see the end. We'll have the closed position on that as we get to the end of the 60 days later this month,
04:02:00 which will be interesting. Councillor Wilkie: I did have a question on that graph. So that bulge in February, is that when the rates go up? Is that what you're expecting? This is looking ahead. Speaker 5: This is a historical 12 month cycle. Councillor Wilkie: So what you're saying is looking back to last week. Speaker 5: Correct. That's right. So we try and keep a bit of a running 12 month trend. So you can see what it did with the last rates from around six months ago, as well as the last one 12 months ago. And you'll always see that spike the month after the rates are due, because obviously if they haven't paid previously and they're unable to pay again, it adds to the balance. We then go through a payment plan with them and it comes back down as we get to the next rate run. And then it comes back up again in that. And that's what we'll face with October, as Brett was saying, where if there's been any level of indicative increase in inability to pay, we'll see that come through in next month's figures. Speaker 7: Sorry, John.
04:03:00 Councillor Jurisevic: No, no, it's fine. It's a good pick up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to comment on what you want to say, but you've just been done. I do think it'll be said when non-resident rate payers feel the effect they'll lower returns over a number of months. Probably the next within the cycle of it. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisevic's moved the motion. We have a seconder, please. Councillor Finzel. Joe, you should speak. Councillor Jurisevic: I believe that it's good to see that with the return of services, that the return of revenue is there. Obviously, it's good to see that. Grants and all the rest of it are in line with budget. Nothing is blowing out in the budget post-COVID. In fact, the results at the moment are on track or better than on track with most of the facilitation there. So I'm very pleased to see that we're in a sound financial position according to our COVID budget going forward at this point in time. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic.
04:04:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to say thank you, Trent, and to all the people that have been involved in all of this. I think you've engendered confidence in me and I'm sure the rest of the team with the great job that you guys have done in giving us recommendations and bringing us to this point in the COVID budget. So thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wegener: Pass that on to my team. Yeah, please do. And I do want to compliment you as well on the clarity and the simple reading and the understandability of what you write to a non-technology person like myself. The graphs are brilliant. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Like Trent Grant. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: See what you did there? Are you looking at the feedback that's coming in via your side? Speaker 5: Not yet. We'll wait for all the feedback. We'll obviously wait for the consultation period to close and then we'll compile all that feedback into a single process. So otherwise, if we jump in early and we start having a bit of a preemptive look, you can obviously get a bit excited by some of the earlier feedback
04:05:00 and it may well be that once we get a complete set, it could move in a totally different direction. So we'll obviously know over the next month or two how that's looking and we'll workshop through that. Councillor Jurisevic: We'll have to change your name from Trent to Trend. Trend Grant. Oh, that's pretty important, I hope. Speaker 7: Councillor, just one other thing. Late last week, the Minister for Local Government announced that they're looking at offering refinancing options to councils across Queensland. To enable us to look at whether or not we restructure any of our debt, which is at a high interest rate down to low interest rate debt. So Trent and I, and I'll sort of pay credit to Michael, who's actually a holidayist, but he's done some good work through the life of government finance professionals to lobby to look at doing that. So we'll have a look at what that might mean and whether there's anything that we can help refinance and some of our existing debt. Councillor Jurisevic: Might pay out all that 6% debt, that'll be fine. Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly what we're looking at.
04:06:00 We'll come back to it, we'll have to look at that, but potentially it's a really good thing. Oh, great. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Driscoll, would you like to... No. OK. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought my dad joke was bad enough. Councillor Wilkie: Show us all that. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thanks, Trent. Thanks, Trent. That's the last time, and if they haven't made any comments, thank you, Mr CEO. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.