Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance except for Councillor Finzel who has tendered her apology. We will suspend standing orders to deal with the CEO's report direct to the ordinary meeting regarding Councillor Finzel's absence this evening. Please refer to page 19 of the agenda. I move that the operation of the standing orders or any relevant provision thereof be suspended to allow Council to change the order of proceedings to deal with item 9, ordinary meeting reports as the first item of business. I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Councillor Lorentson: Carried unanimously. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item 1 is Council and meeting attendance. Leave of absence for Councillor Finzel.
00:01:00 Speaker 4: I would just like to deal with the report from itself direct to the Council just to deal with the leave of absence from Councillor Finzel. I might just explain this one. There's an obscure provision of the Local Government Act that provides that if a Councillor misses two meetings in a row without leave of absence they can lose office. Councilor Finzel was an apology for the meeting in August due to a family bereavement and she also has sought leave for the evening's meeting for personal reasons as well. So it would be appropriate for the Council to pass a resolution providing her with an absence from today's meeting to ensure that there's no issue. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I move that that recommendation be adopted. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, may I ask why we're going out of order of the agenda? We haven't gone through the consideration of committee recommendations to precede item 1. Speaker 4: To answer that question, the previous resolution was to suspend standing orders to allow that item to be dealt with.
00:02:00 Sorry, I didn't hear that. That's why this matter can be dealt with at the beginning to explain why Council's meeting is not here. Mayor Stewart: Do I have a seconder for that? I'll second that. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? It's unanimous. Thank you. I move that standing orders be resumed. Councillor Wilkie: And I'll stand in order again. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you, unanimous. So back to the ordinary meeting agenda. The second item on the agenda is the confirmation of minutes. First up is the minutes from the special meeting held on the 16th of July 2020 to be received and confirmed. Do I have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Seconder, thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. The second is the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 20th of August 2020 to be received and confirmed. Do I have a mover? I move. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Second. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour?
00:03:00 Unanimous. The third is the minutes of the special meeting held on the 31st of August 2020 to be received and confirmed. Do I have a mover? I move. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconder, thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Item three, there are no mayoral minutes. Item four, petitions. I move that this petition signed by 17 people for the removal of a traffic island in Risely Court, Cooran be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Do I have a seconder? Second. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you, carried unanimously. Any other petitions? No. There are no notified motions, no presentations and no deputations. That brings us to item eight, which is the consideration of the committee recommendations, which is on page four of our agenda. The first item is the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations.
00:04:00 Item one, the Queensland Audit Office Briefing Paper. Item two. 2019-2020 Draft Financial Statements and End of Financial Year Update. Item three, Internal Audit. Item four, Risk Management and Public Interest Disclosure Update. Do I have a mover? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Seconder, thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. On page five, we have the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. Item one was referred to the General Committee. Item two, Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D7-2020, Refusal of Application to Subdivide 120, 126 and 138, Happy Jack Creek Road, Ridgewood. Item three was referred to the General Committee. Item four was referred to the General Committee. Item five, Noosa Plan 2020, Administrative Amendment Number One. Item six, Noosa Environment Strategy Implementation Year One Annual Update.
00:05:00 Item seven, Peregian Digital Hub, Four Year Report to 30 June 2020. Do I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of these recommendations? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Second. All in favour? Unanimous. Next are the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations. These begin on page nine of our agendas. Item one, 2020 Delegations of Authority Annual Review. Item two, Noosa Leisure Centre, Full Year Report to 30 June 2020. Item three, Noosa Aquatic Centre, Full Year Report to 30 June 2020. Item four, The J, Full Year Report to 30 June 2020. Item five, Bicentennial Community Centre. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, Councillor Stewart, I need to declare a conflict of interest in this matter under the Local Government Act due to my position as Secretary of the
00:06:00 Noosa Gymnastics Club and Mayor, one of the Principal Tenants at the Bicentennial Community Centre, leaving the room for this matter. Thank you, Councillor Peake. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that item by a B. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I get him to sign the note? Very good. Could have put his fingers in his ear. Councillor Wilkie: Do a handspring back there. There you go. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Item six, Noosa Community Support, Full Year Report to 30 June 2020. I'll move all those recommendations back to you. Thank you. Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you, Councillor. Next are the General Committee Recommendations. These are on page 11 of the agenda.
00:07:00 Item one, Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 2097 of 2020, application for a minor change to development approval for 140 multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multi-function room and gym at 75 Resort Drive, Noosa Heads. I declare a conflict of interest in this regard. 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 Lena Creedy of Alton Constructions. I'll leave the meeting for this debate and decision on this matter. Thank you. Speaker 4: Councillor, just before we get to that, under the Act, if it is the Mayor at a Council meeting who has a conflict of interest, then the Deputy Mayor automatically assumes the Chair of the meeting. So, Councillor Wilkie will assume the Chair of the meeting to continue this matter.
00:08:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Mr. McKeague. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Obviously, it is clear, a perceived conflict of interest in this matter, as defined under the Act, as a result of, on the 24th of February this year, he sought a review by, no he didn't, I did, a review by the Independent Council Election Observer and as to the public claims of the future Noosa team, of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the African Alton Constructions. However, as explained on Monday, I believe I can stay on the route, I can consider the matter impartially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor, we have a motion before us to determine whether we believe Councillor Stockwell has a perceived or real conflict of interest and whether he stays in the room or not. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that Councillor's made the perceived conflict of interest declaration for Councillor Stockwell and resolved that this represents a perceived conflict
00:09:00 of interest in the matter and that he may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on the matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Do we have a seconder for that motion, please? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Jurisevic, do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: The reasons have been outlined in a previous meeting. The association here is the councillor undertaking actions in his role as a councillor during that election process. And I'm happy that they produced no more than a perceived conflict of interest in this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion? You wish to close, Councillor Jurisevic? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener. Lawrenson, Wilkie and Jurisevic. Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the matter. Now we have the original motion before us about the report and the council's decision to agree or not to defend the appeal. Councillor Jurisevic: The staff recommendation is for the report.
00:10:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? OK, all those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Let the mayor know she can return. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item two. Request for extension to currency period for a development permit for material change of use of premises for office, restaurant and shop. At 6 Heron Street, Peregian Beach. Item three. Change to a development approval for a multiple dwelling of 20 units, eight shops and two restaurants, 49 Hastings Street, Moosa Heads. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to declare a perceived conflict of interest in this matter as defined
00:11:00 in Section 175D of the Local Government Act 2009, as during the 2020 election campaign. My election material was displayed at this property. I advise that I do not have a personal relationship with the applicant. However, my brother has had a private business relationship with the applicant that ended three years ago. I also advise that my husband has undertaken work at the business as an employee of Page Furnishes. I believe that I can consider this item impartially and in the public interest. And I request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move the motion, Councillor Stewart, that councillors note the perceived conflict of interest of Councillor Lorentson and resolve that this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter and Councillor Lorentson may remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate and vote on this matter.
00:12:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Speaker 5: No. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Yes, I wish to move a motion. I do apologise for councillors. It was circulated, but very soon before the meeting. Kylie, if you could bring that up. I seek guidance. It is a civil motion to that which was moved by Councillor Wegener on Monday's committee meeting with a few additional items. Would you like me to read out the entire motion or just the additional items? I think you should read the entire motion. Yes, please. Sit back and enjoy. The council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning Environment Committee meeting dated 8 September 2020 regarding application number 51988.2849.03 to make a minor change to existing approval for multiple dwellings of 20 units, eight shops and two restaurants situated at Noosa on the Beach, 49 Hasting Street, Noosa Heads and A, refuse the application for the following reasons.
00:13:00 The proposal is not consistent with the overall and specific outcomes of the Noosa Heads Locality Code under Noosa Plan 2006 as A, the proposed works will adversely impact on Main Beach, being a key recreational focus point for residents and visitors. B, an inadequate building setback to the beach is proposed and the proposal reduces the soft landscaping on the site. C, the proposed works do not represent the high level of design and landscape quality that is sought for the area. D, the reduced setback to the beach potentially increases the risk of damage to the property from future coastal processes. E, the proposed works contribute additional site coverage exceeding the maximum site cover sought for the area and present excessive bulk to Main Beach. Two, the proposal is contrary to the driveway and car parking code as the sufficient car parking has not been provided on site to accommodate the number of vehicles likely to be generated by the increase in improvements to the dining areas. Three, the proposal is contrary to the Noosa Plan 2020 provisions to setbacks,
00:14:00 site cover and car parking. Four, the proposal is not considered a minor change to the development approval as the proposed changes will dramatically change the built form, approved built form, in terms of scale, bulk and appearance. Five, the proposal does not comply with probable solution S51.2 in proposing to increase the use of area such that a single premises in excess of 300 metres squared. Six, proposes to place new structures in the area of high coastal risk and in an area identified as subject to flood inundation in the natural hazards overlay of the NIFS Plan 2020. 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 approval creep of commercial uses and structures into a location where there's long standing planning intent
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 to maintain private open space. Three, Council differs from staff opinion in relation to specific outcome eight and is of the view that proposal then tremendously impacts on the visual and acoustic amending 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 park spaces on the site. Mayor Stewart: Do I have a second in regard to that motion? Thank you, Councillor Webber. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, I don't want to re-prosecute the whole argument. Since Monday, I've done further research and staff have been very helpful in providing responses to a range of queries I've had. In addition to my overarching concern that this site is already in excess of the site cover provisions for any planning scheme since it was approved and that this application just seeks to further increase the amount of area that is covered by structures on what I think is
00:16:00 a very bulky building at the beginning is fundamentally something that I can't live with. What has been identified is that the existing non-approved structures that were approved as outdoor dining areas in converting them to fully roofed area with front walls will be something that is not going to be covered. It's always been a very high risk in terms of coastal hazard. Staff have advised that you can't get more high risk than it already is. But it is putting new structures into that high risk area. It's also the fact that when it was approved as an outdoor dining area, that there was no requirement to provide car parking for outdoor dining areas. So, in fact, the amount of car parks that we've been calculated by staff is just for
00:17:00 the new outdoor dining area is basically saying to convert the outdoor dining area that previously had no car parking provision to a roofed and enclosed structure gets the benefit of a policy that has been gone from this place for many years, the way I understand it. I also identified there one of the provisions I found, and I believe it's a probable use outcome, a probable solution in S 51.2. There's a general provision that to try and keep about my understanding is to try and keep the village scale of Hastings Street that use areas for any individual premises should not exceed 300 metres squared. Now, the use area is only being increased by 14 square metres in this case and was already over 300 square metres, but once again, we're just adding to existing non-compliance with a probable solution. Finally, there, as you mentioned, the new scheme does identify this area
00:18:00 in a flood inundation area, the way I read the maps, and for those reasons, I believe it is appropriate not to support the rationalisation of the enclosed space and continue with the existing approval for an outdoor dining area in this location. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any questions of staff? Questions in here? Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, are there any existing methods of protection already in place that mitigate overtopping of the seawall? Speaker 5: So there's a number of measures in place already, both in councils, public land. So there's a rock seawall that's constructed to prevent erosion of the beach. There is also the rock wall garden that's been built along the front of the property was a requirement at the time of the development to help
00:19:00 prevent overtopping of that council seawall and for waves to wash through development. So that rock wall is required to have a gate on it, which just needs to be reinstalled at the time we have notification that a cyclone is on its way and remain in place for that time. So as part of officers recommendation, we have recommended that you reinstate that as a conditional misapproval and reinforce that that wall is important, that it remain and also that it be reviewed by a RPEQ to ensure it's structurally sound still. Councillor Lorentson: I understand also that the draft Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan contains two proposed actions that relate to that specific location. Can you explain that to anyone that may be listening tonight? Speaker 5: I'd like to ask Grant Heiner to help me
00:20:00 answer that one, if that's OK, if you want to step up. Mayor Stewart: Come up, come up, Grant. Speaker 3: That's right, it does. So the two actions are to review the condition of the existing council controlled buried seawall, which is the seawall of the property. That wall was constructed in the 1960s. And so the action is to perform an assessment of its current condition. And assess whether it's fit for purpose going forward, given the hazard projections that have been developed through the CHAT project. The second action is to work with those beachfront property owners to review their erosion emergency event plans. If they have them, they don't have them, to work with them to develop those plans. So that, for example, would include if they have the ability to deploy a floodgate in the circumstance, what are the triggers for the deployment of that gate?
00:21:00 Is the gate suitable for the purpose that it is? Councillor Lorentson: Is it unreasonable, in your opinion, to refuse this development application on grounds of a perceived potential increase in the legal liability risks to council? Speaker 4: Just in relation to the staff, can I give an opinion on that legal element about that? What they can give is some facts about what the coastal hazard plan is. But it's unfair to our staff in terms of a legal opinion on that. Councillor Lorentson: Fair enough, yep. So, to rephrase that question, what is council's liability if council approves the development in the 10 metre setback? Speaker 4: Grant's not a lawyer, and it's difficult for him to give that. Obviously, we've had legal advice over time in terms of that. And I think if I can summarise, in a non-legal way, the issue here, as I understand it,
00:22:00 is if it's already high risk, it's still going to be high risk. It's not a lot of change in terms of what that profile would be. Mayor Stewart: OK, thank you. I've got a question here. This is a minor change to development approval. Can you explain why you deem this minor? Speaker 5: So the development assessment rules, which sit under the Planning Act, set criteria for what is considered a minor change at the moment. The most relevant criteria there that council needs to consider is, is this a dramatic change to the scale and built form? And the word dramatic is used. So I would suggest that the enclosure of that back area, which amounts to, I think it's 3 by nearly 15 square metres long, about 50 square metres, and some outdoor dining, is minor in the context of the overall site and the development that sits on there. Because we've got quite a substantially large development on this site.
00:23:00 So I consider it minor. Mayor Stewart: And in your expert opinion as a town planner, would you say that the improvements that have been applied for here will aesthetically be more pleasing to the site? Speaker 5: What's there now has been built without a planning approval to the rear of the site. So that rear 3 metres of Bistro C that's currently enclosed has never received a planning approval. That area, I understand, is leaking. And that's why they've made the request to council, as well as seeking to seek approval for works that are not lawful. So the works that are there now have been there over 20 years, is my estimation. I'm not sure how they came about in the first place, but nevertheless, they've been there for some time. Council's never received complaints about it. And that's probably the reason for no compliance action over the last 20 years.
00:24:00 Looking at the development, I think the new work that they proposed, I think that does fit within the existing building. Certainly improvement on that unlawful structure, but also it fits within that existing overall approval for development on that site. The proposal also includes plans to redo the landscaping to the front and the built development and the beach. So to remove that artificial turf and put some native planting back in. So I think that's an improvement to what we have there today. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question, Kerry. Just to clarify, this proposal before us seeks official approval to enclose an area which has been enclosed for 20 years already. Speaker 5: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: The second question is item B of this motion before it says there's an inadequate
00:25:00 building setback to the beach is proposed. How long has there been an inadequate building setback to the beach on this site? Speaker 5: Well, the answer is the same for both questions. Those works have been there 20 plus years. So that reduced setback has been there that long. So in that time, no one has indicated to Council that it looks out of place and shouldn't be in that setback area. Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, you read item B, it gives the impression that what's proposed is an inadequate building setback that may not have been there before, but you're saying it's been there for 20 years. Also, they're seeking to ensure that there's an adequate building setback. They're not seeking to enclose an outdoor dining area for the first time. They're seeking official approval for the enclosure of a dining area, which has been enclosed already for 20 years. Correct? Speaker 5: Yes, that is correct.
00:26:00 And if I may add, there's three properties along the Hastings Street to the beachfront, which include commercial development to the beach. Each of those three commercial properties all intrude into that 10 metre setback. Quite substantially. So they include 71 Hastings Street, the sales restaurant, actually goes onto public land there, so it nowhere needs a 10 metre setback. The restaurant that's on the same site as Bistro C has an approval for a roofed area for their restaurant to a zero metre setback. 25 Hastings Street, which includes Season, the structure there is set back 0.8 metres from that boundary. So all the commercial developments along the front to the beach all intrude into that setback. Councillor Wilkie: So final question, if I may. So the end game, if Council was to refuse this application before it has proposed in this motion here,
00:27:00 what's the end result for that property? We're talking about works entirely on their own private land. What action would Council then be required to take? Speaker 5: Well, I think if Council agree with Council Stockwell's motion, really suggesting that this is an appropriate development, what's there, and the next logical step would be to ask Bistro C to remove that existing structure that's not lawful, so to take compliance action against Bistro C. Councillor Wegener: Well, wouldn't it actually, wouldn't they make another application, which isn't that the next step, is to say, well, OK, pretend that that's invisible, the built structure that's there is invisible, start over again and do an application.
00:28:00 Speaker 5: Well, that's what this application is. They're seeking approval for it now. So if I was the applicant, I wouldn't know what to come back to Council with. I mean, they're making that application for that structure now. That is this application. So to ask for a further application, I think Council will have to give some guidance to the owners of Bistro C as to what Council may be willing to support if they're not willing to support this application. Councillor Lorentson: If we take this combative approach to enforcement, would we then have to go to the other businesses, commercial businesses, Long Hastings Street, and request the same? Speaker 5: I think that would be a fair and reasonable approach. I mean, through this process, we've become aware of the sales restaurant that intrudes into public land. I think we would need to have a consistent approach.
00:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Are there other commercial businesses in the Noosa Shire that Council has given approvals, in retrospectively? I asked this question at the general meeting. I'm asking again. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. So I've been with Noosa Council for 20 years. And during that time, I've seen a number of development applications lodged in a retrospective way, seeking retrospective approval from Council. And many of them have been approved by Council. In some, there has been negotiated changes to the design to improve it, whether it's shown to be non-compliance, but many were given approval by the Council. Speaker 4: I'll just probably add to that, it's not a pathway we'd encourage. Normally, we'd get people to make the application before they do their development. But unfortunately, we do see that case where people are seeking forgiveness rather than submission before they do their development. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that the landscaping that is in place has got Council approval.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Is that correct? The rock walls that sit outside the building? That's certainly your question. Speaker 5: Yes, certainly the rock walls were subject to an application for the landscape works. So those rock walls are partly on private land and partly extend into public land. And that was approved by Council at the time. The artificial turf was not approved by Council. Thank you. So any other questions? Councillor Wegener: Just this gate that we talk about. As you know, I'm very concerned about the water being pushed as a funnel into there. Do you have a photo of the gate? Has anybody seen the gate before that we're talking about that will stop this wall of water from going through the glass in the restaurant? Speaker 5: No, I haven't physically sighted the gate. And that's why I'm asking for some certification by a registered engineer to review the wall and the gating system to show it's a reasonable, robust system
00:31:00 that's in place for this development. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll have the first crack. I won't support the motion as it currently reads. I can see that the going through the elements of it under 1A, the proposed works adversely impact on Mage Beach being a key recreational focal point for residents and visitors. We have a structure here that has existed for 20 years and has been part of the key recreation focal point for residents and visitors for all that time. So I can't support that. Point A. Point B, the building setback, the beach proposal reduces the soft landscaping on site or the landscaping on site has prior approval. And I believe there are improvements in the landscaping proposal that are going forward, according to the staff from what will be presented again. The high level of design and landscape quality of the area. I believe the design and the low profile of the roof structure there does meet and the changes does meet a
00:32:00 level of design that is acceptable, as well as the landscaping there, because it's been approved, the reduced setback to the beach potentially increases the risk of damage to the property from future coastal processes. Well, in the information that we have from our staff member that is undertaking the CHAP, I understand the processes in place are as good as if not right up to the current standard of coastal hazard adaptation process that is there and the future opportunities are there to maintain Council's elements of that for the future. The proposed words contribute additional site cover exceeding the maximum site, sort of the area and present excessive bulk to main beach. I don't believe there's any additional bulk to main beach than what currently exists. As far as for car parking contributions go, we acknowledge and have acknowledged in a number of other cases that there is no more land available for car parking in Hastings Street.
00:33:00 We've accepted that. Car parking contributions have been an acceptable method in not only in Hastings Street, but in other localities. Four, the proposal is not considered a minor change to the development approval. According to staff, it is considered a minor change. So I can't agree with that. Proposed to place new structures in a high area of high risk, high coastal risk. We're actually replacing existing structures that are that are already there. The reasons given in B, the built form is not a minor change. I believe it is a minor change. And the Council is not prepared to accept a contribution in lieu of a shortfall of car park spaces. Well, clearly we are, according to the staff report. So I can't support the motion as it stands. Thank you, Council. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Wegener: Absolutely not. Of course, I support the motion. I think it sets approving this would set a terrible precedence
00:34:00 of build first, get approval later. It's way earlier this year, we were confronted with a situation on Mini Street where the same thing happened where they build first and ask for approval later. And this is the same situation. We'll get a similar outcome when it comes to Washington through the property. I feel that this gate doesn't exist yet. It's very difficult to actually approve something when we have we don't really know what's going to happen when those waves go through. I would love to see that rock wall extended all the way across just to absolutely guarantee the safety of the people in the restaurants. And so a lot of the reasoning is for the application is that there's already bulk already there, so it's OK to get this. This will have to be approved because that bulk's there and that bulk's there and that bulk's there. It seems to me we've just approved a new town plan and we want to
00:35:00 actually go backwards a bit, pulling back that bulk and setting a new precedent instead of saying, well, this has been OK and this has been OK. So now we have to OK this. We have a new town plan. And I think that it's time to actually curve that ramp into development. And besides, I do think this is a bulky. We'll actually increase the bulk there on from the boardwalk looking back. I do not believe this. This application is consistent with a new set of town plans, nor the Coast Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, which is currently being drafted. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to speak to the motion. Firstly, this is about small business, not about secondary or ancillary dwellings, as Councillor Wegener alluded to with Middy Street. I think the question here for Council is
00:36:00 whether we see our role as enforcing regulation or alternatively as one of seeking to support businesses whilst mitigating the risk posed to the community. I believe Council's duties go beyond compliance. I believe Council is correct in exercising discretion in their administration of their compliance obligations, especially in regards to small businesses. Our job should be to consider the overall costs and benefits to the community when and if altering our compliance standards and obligations. Our job is to build good relationships with small businesses and help them to grow. And to do that, we must be flexible in our enforcement and not combative. In this case, we have a structure that has been there for 20 years. There's been no public outcry or complaints in 20 years. Why? Because it poses no risk to the community and the overall benefit to the community is immense. Outdoor dining is part of our Noosa experience, it's also part of the tourism experience.
00:37:00 I will not support this motion. Thank you, Councillor Arston. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Look, I won't be supporting this motion either. The points in it would be valid if this was a greenfield site. But what we're talking about is a structure that's been there already for 20 years. An enclosed structure that's been there for 20 years. It's asking to get approval to enclose the structure, which is already enclosed. So it is retrospective approval, that is true. But it is exactly the sort of approval application that would come before us if enforcement action was being taken by the Council to get applicants to do things via the right processes. The alternative is for Council to order the demolition of a structure that's been operating for 20 years, that is the enclosed dining area. That's something I would not entertain.
00:38:00 Also, the application before us proposes an improvement to the landscaped area out the front. And also, as we've heard, it does have a quite a substantial rock wall in front of the business, in front of all those businesses, Noosa Main Beach, which is more than, which is quite a substantial rock wall, which is there to protect it against any coastal storm surges. And also for the reasons Council Jurisevic outlined in going through each point individually, I cannot support this particular resolution. Mayor Stewart: I, too, don't support this resolution. The building changes are minor in terms of overall look and feel and bulk of the existing development. As we've heard, the changes are not prohibited development. It improves the amenity of the users of the dining area without detrimentally impacting on the visual and acoustic amenity of adjoining and nearby premises. And it does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads and other areas.
00:39:00 As we've heard, there's improved landscaping and aesthetically, this is pleasing. And I think this is an opportunity, as Council Lorentzen said, that we should be helping, not hindering small business. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See, I was under the illusion we were debating a planning application. I was under the illusion that Councilors had to stick to the statutory process when they're considering a planning application and the issues here about whether we're willing to accept the level of noncompliance with code provisions to allow an unlawful use to be set in place. It has nothing to do with retrospectivity. It has nothing to do whether the new structure is better than the old structure. It is about whether this development complies with the codes at the time the application was made. And it doesn't. And we're going out of our way to approve a 67% site cover on Hastings Street,
00:40:00 which was initially approved at 64.5% when the baseline was 37.5%. And now we're sort of saying 45%. Whatever it is, we're increasing the level of bulk far beyond what the planning scheme intends for Hastings Street. There's no way around it. Just because it's been there for 20 years has no basis in law in your consideration, from my opinion. Similarly, there's no basis in law to look at a roadside trading permit up the road and say, well, that justifies this. No basis in law, ever. There's a complete separate process for considering Council approving outdoor dining on public spaces. Yes, there are other lots that have got setback provisions. Up the road, one sales about 11 metres. This one's already got provisions built to the boundary. What it hasn't got is approval for 15 more metres in one of the bulkiest buildings on Hastings Street to become enclosed.
00:41:00 Now, if you're happy to approve that, that's fine. Staff were happy to recommend it. I'm not. I believe it isn't a minor change. I believe the only reason it's been looked at that way is that it has been there for 20 years and people think that the alternative is too difficult. It's not too difficult for me. I want to set the precedent that we do what we're supposed to do and judge each development application on its merits according to the planning scheme. And for that reason, a number of those points are highly valid. I don't believe we should be accepting a shortfall of car parks. The staff report says it's one. But if we were to look and say, well, there was no car park contribution for that 50 square metres when it was outdoor dining, so we should add that on top. Another 50 square metres should be attracting a car parking contribution that's not currently in the staff recommendation if we were to look at it. So that was a fresh application. So this is a matter of principle for me. It's a matter of principle that this development doesn't apply, doesn't to me
00:42:00 achieve the overall outcome for the site that Noosa planning in the Hastings Street and the Noosa Heads Locality plan. And I'm afraid it's creep and I can't support it. Thank you, Mr Stockwell. Mayor Stewart: All in favour, we might vote. All in favour of the motion. Councillor Stockwell and Wegener against. Councillors Wilkie, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Stewart. Thank you. Motion lost. We will go back to the original motion, which is on page 13. There is a committee recommendation. I move that that motion be accepted. I'll second that. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to the motion? All in favour? Would you like to speak to the motion? No. Anyone? All in favour of the motion? That's councillors, Lawrence, Wilkie, Jurisevic, Stewart against.
00:43:00 Councillors Leigh, Stockwell. Thank you. Move to item four. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you. Page 16. Proposed lease of Cooroy Data Centre at 11 Bay Maple Street, Cooroy. Item five, Noosa North Shore Beach Campground. Proposed interim management agreement. Item six, tender street sweeping services. Item seven, Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project, annual report number one, and outcomes of independent review of monitoring and evaluation plan. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I wish to declare a perceived conflict in this matter in accordance with the Act. Due to the fact that as a sole trader in my business watershed Australia, I have subcontracted Everhard Consulting as part of the consulting project I did
00:44:00 for the Queensland Government in 2016, reviewing and developing the monitoring evaluation of the Reef Plan Best Manager Program. I believe I can consider this matter item in partially and in the public interest and request to remain in the meeting room to participate in the debate on this matter. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I move that councillors note a perceived conflict of interest. Declaration of Councillor Stockwell. Result, this represents a perceived conflict of interest in this matter. And Councillor Stockwell may remain in the meeting room to participate in this debate. I second it, Madam Chair. Thank you. All in favour. That's unanimous, Kylie. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson, do you have some questions? I do have some questions. Just on page, I just didn't ask this question at the general meeting. On page 25 of the Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project, there's a mention for a request for quotation for tendering.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And it's for a detailed inter-title and shallow subtitle that the metric assessment of proposed restoration sites. I've got my hands on the trial, USC trial, a paper that was published, a peer group paper that was published by Ben Gilbey and the guys from USC. Kim, my question, I just probably just want clarification. Did the USC trial model the best locations for future reefs? And did the USC trial provide a detailed bathymetric survey of the river? That's my first question. Speaker 2: Councillors, through the Mayor, we've got Chris Gillies on the line from Nature Conservancy. So, Chris, I'm not sure whether you heard that question. You might have to assist me in part, given your involvement in the history of the site.
00:46:00 In terms of the first question, first part of that question, the USC trial identified, I think it was about 14 potential sites where they trialled particular approaches to reefs in a very different way than what's been proposed under the Nature Conservancy partnership. So there were about 14 different sites. It's very likely that the sites that are being going to be looked at will vary to what the sites were used to test a range of things under the USC project. And the testing of those locations has helped determine and inform where the future reefs will go. As you know, some of those bags of oysters were damaged. They were in locations that were, some of them were in locations that were fairly popular.
00:47:00 And and busy locations. So we we understand that boats were anchoring on them and things like that. So those sorts of locational considerations have been fed into the potential locations of the next phase. Chris, are you able to answer the question about the bathymetry modelling? Speaker 1: Yes, that's right. So that my understanding is that they haven't done detailed bathymetry modelling in the areas that we're after in terms of doing the survey work. They've done a little bit of work at the depths of the oyster bags and they needed to do that as part of the permit conditions to ensure that those bags didn't move throughout the course of the experiment. The reason why we are seeking to do part of that is to understand obviously what the bottom topography looks like, where we may be able to put oysters on that, but also for some of the seagrass work that we're looking at doing and the depth profiles, so how deep the bottom is. And where we would put oysters and where you would put seagrass within that area is quite important.
00:48:00 Speaker 1: It forms part of our our site feasibility assessment, if you like. So we take that information along with other information like water quality, boating zones, access to access to points for barges and things like that. And it all goes into one large suitability model, which then, along with the community consultation, that determines the final site. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a copy of the paper that was published and it seems pretty detailed. So, again, I'm not a scientist, but there's a lot of information. Probably the question I want to ask is, are we essentially doing a similar style study again, measuring similar things that the USC trial did? Speaker 1: No, no, not at all. Science is often a reintegration or an iterative process, so we're building on some of that work.
00:49:00 USC did a fantastic job pulling together some data sets. We have further data sets that we're analysing to make sure that we are putting these reefs in exactly that perfect sweet spot, if you like, between where the oyster would like to live, where the community would like it to go, and where we believe that they will survive along with climate change as well. So we're really building on the work that USC has done. We're not at all replicating that work. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else have any questions? Would anyone like to move the motion? Councillor Wilkie: No, I'm happy to move the motion. Would anyone like to speak to the motion? No, again, I'd like to thank the Nature Conservancy and their team for this partnership and again state that this is a very valued partnership. We do appreciate you making yourself present to answer questions when required by the Council team and also in the work you're doing
00:50:00 and you have done in this meeting round with the independent peer review of the monitoring and evaluation report, which shows that it is a very robust process that you're undertaking and your willingness to take on board comments from Councillors and provide the information that's required to help us understand. But as Councillor Lorentson said, we're not scientists. So anything you can do to help us and the community understand the work you're doing is very much appreciated. It's a high value partnership. And thank you once again. Councillor Lorentson: Anyone else like to speak to the motion? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I'd like to reiterate what Councillor Wilkie said. I do appreciate that report. And Chris, thank you for being available and also to Craig when he's here. The thing that concerns me is the state permits. And as I said in the general, and I'll say it again, the annual report notes that the state permits are to be achieved by the 31st of December 2020 as per page 11.
00:51:00 But in Schedule 1, it's under the agreement, it states that under project deliverables, 13A notes that the permits are to be granted within 12 months from the 1st of July 2019, which would mean that those permits should have been obtained this year. I do understand that Craig came on board in February, but this has been an agreement that has been in place for about 15 months. Page 11 of the annual report, I note the words on track referring to the permits. There's been 11 separate meetings with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, according to the annual report, but there's been no formal correspondence in writing between the state and TNC in regard to obtaining state permits. And there is a discrepancy, obviously, in regard to those two documents. In regard to the project finances and total project expenditure, as per page 26 of the annual report, we've asked for a breakdown of the money spent, and I appreciate the information. Kim, thank you for giving us that. I understand TNC's concern when it comes to confidential matters in regards
00:52:00 to the money that they have put into this project. However, I think for this project to be a success, we must have complete transparency and openness when it comes to the funding that Noosa Council has given. Right down to the last cent. It's our duty and our obligation to the rate payer to assure accountability of where their monies are being spent, as it is required for every project that we engage with. I think that if we can have a breakdown, further breakdown of where those monies, if at all it's achievable or available, I think that can only enhance this project going forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. Kim, we received, prior to this meeting, a breakdown of project costs. Does that provide further detail than what was provided in the report? Speaker 2: Yes, through the Chair. Councillors, you received an update just before the meeting. Apologies, it was late. What that does is provide a breakdown following questions on Monday of the
00:53:00 personnel that are involved in each aspect of the project and the difference between the figures you were provided on Monday in the report and now show the difference between the labour costs and material costs. As we talked about on Monday, majority of the costs associated with the project to date have been associated with people, experts. And you can see with the information you provided, there's 10 or 12 key people with a range of expertise from TNC who've been involved in this project over the last 15 months. So there are costs associated with those experts involved. So that's the information you've been provided. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Research. Look, I understand there's concerns here, but again, my understanding is that the milestones are the point of time at which funding is provided. The milestones today have been achieved. The next milestone funds won't be released until those milestones are achieved.
00:54:00 So I believe that the funding agreement is in keeping with the original funding agreement and the overall assessment of the project as it goes forward. These are challenging times. We've obviously been disrupted by COVID, whether we like it or not, in elements of this, plus a delay in getting the correct person in control of the project. But as Craig has been in place, the project has progressed with an increasing amount of understanding of the need for community consultation through the process, taking all the elements on board, including commercial fishermen, and I believe all the concerns of the community will be addressed over time. These are the challenging elements of this project is getting all of those approvals and getting all of those stakeholders on board and working with Council and TNC through this process. TNC does have the necessary expertise.
00:55:00 Their report and their peer review has been met. It's been at the best standard and even with minor recommendations to to even enhance that, they've embraced those and will embrace those enhancements for the report going forward. So I'm only too happy to endorse the recommendation before us and look forward to the progress of this project as it as it draws to a conclusion in the next couple of years. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. I think it's important on some issues Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that we here lead. I think it's important to understand that globally declines in oyster reefs have resulted in reduced habitats in our rivers and our coastal hotspots and have significantly changed the ability to catch a fish. It's happened here. It's happened elsewhere. When we're evaluating this project, us as leaders of the community should be
00:56:00 saying, do we wish to improve the chance that our children and our grandchildren can throw a line out into this river and catch a legal sized fish? And then we should stop and ask, do we have enough knowledge to analyse the financial detail of a partnership agreement between one of the world leading conservation organisations and our professional staff? To me, I want to see the outcome achieved. What we found is the monitoring evaluation proposed in this partnership has been assessed by a peer reviewer and said, yeah, it's great. A couple of little tweaks. So we should have the confidence that we've set in train a process that over the years will lead to the outcome that we've invested in. That is the key consideration here. Will we get the outcome for this community that we want out of restoring habitat heterogeneity in our river system using oyster reefs?
00:57:00 We know that we couldn't have got a better partner in the world to do it. We know that we've had plenty of science that says there's a high chance that it will be successful in increasing the abundance of fish around these installations. We know that the statutory process is complex and that when you're dealing with engineered structures below the water, that there isn't a lot of precedent. It's not like designing a road. It's not grab that book off the shelf. It's about working in partnership with those that have to make decisions so that as the regulators come along with us, they're more confident that their approval won't create risk for them in the pursuance of their duty and achieving the objects of their acts. So what I've heard from this report is it's going swimmingly. And that we should really be here saying, keep up the good work.
00:58:00 Do as much as you can to achieve the outcomes that this community wants for the river. And that's a healthy river system that's got lots of different types of fish and that we restore some of those habitats of oyster reefs that used to be the cause for thousands of people to walk from Mirraburra and Caboolture here to have a festival when the traditional owners were here. We'd like to see it to get back to that someday in the future. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else? Councillor, that was wrong. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I would like to thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Not unless any other councillors. I will after other councillors have spoken. Councillor Wegener: I guess John, reading the report that we had done or had commissioned. Who's the author of that one again? Is it? Anyways. No. It's independent. Independent, independent report. The Eberhard report, the most exciting thing about that.
00:59:00 After saying what a robust and fantastic project this is, she goes down to point number five, which is we should document what's happening now because one, it's novel and two, the rest of the world wants to follow what we're doing right now. We are world leaders, as Brian said, and we have to just step up and appreciate that. So the motion, everything's going forward. And it's just exciting that even the outside reviewer recognize what we're doing and had to put in as a point, say what you're doing is novel. It's great. The rest of the world wants to do what you're doing. Keep it up. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor Stewart. I'd like to begin by complimenting you, Mayor Stewart, because it was your motion that got support from all the councillors to have the work peer reviewed, which gives us all great
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 assurance that the organization we're dealing with and the way they're approaching the work is very robust and sound, and that gives us all assurance. And that's right that we do that in terms of that sort of oversight. It's important. I'd just like to say I'm constantly reminding myself that out of respect for the TNC, what we're dealing with here is not an employee contractual relationship with an employee. We're talking about a fully blown partnership with one of the world's leading. Well, the world's leading conservation organization who put 1.2 million of their own money into this. So the dollars we're seeing expended in these reports includes their own funds. And that's got to be respected and noted as well. Also, it is when we look at the milestones that have to be achieved before funds are released, including the state permits. It quite right. Mayor Stewart quite rightly said that it's blown out to, I think, 31st of December 2021.
01:01:00 It was earlier. That's because we are in new territory and it will only be once those milestones are reached that funds will be released. So that's another assurance. And the other point that was made was there is nothing in writing as no formal agreements with all the multiple state departments that the consultant is working with, as we heard on Monday. He's doing a lot of groundwork to get all that in place because it is new territory for a lot of these departments. I believe this will be one of the first reef systems in an estuary anywhere in the world. And if all that groundwork has to be done before anything is put into writing in a formal agreement, but it will happen. And the other thing is, I'm sure other councillors feel the same that in a partnership, we don't sit back and just chop people off at the knees when they haven't reached their milestone.
01:02:00 We do what we can to help them achieve what are very difficult and groundbreaking targets. And so it will take time. There may be a shifting of the goalposts, but the assurance and the oversight is that monies won't be handed out. Over until those milestones are reached and to go to the point that councillor Stockwell made that it is an honour to be a Noosa councillor. And as such, we do have obligations as custodians to leave our marine terrestrial environments in a better place, a better state than we found it. Certainly the Noosa River is included in that. And this is one of those excellent science backed projects that will help us achieve that goal and leave Noosa in a better place for our children and future generations. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, councillor Wilkie. There's a recommendation on page 17. All in favour? That's councillors Stockwell, Wegener, Wilkie and Jurisevic.
01:03:00 Against? Councillors Lorentson and Stewart. Item nine, item eight, with your pardon, is use of lines. Oh, thank you, thank you, Kim. Thank you, Chris. Thanks, Chris. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd just like to move this. Slightly amended version of that motion, please. And it's just as was adopted with the removal of the words one off in C. It's been pointed out that that's maybe interpretatively slightly at odds with what became the next item in item D. And yeah, I'd just like to move in that regard. Speaker 5: I'll second that motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't need to speak to that. Speaker 5: All in favour? Do they all wish to speak to that? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I thank councillor Stockwell for pointing that out. It could be interpreted as being slightly misleading if we say we're approving a one off use in the September school holidays.
01:04:00 And then we're at the same time seeking to write to the state for permission for an inconsistent use to use it for all school holidays and long weekends going forward until the end of the pandemic, which is an indefinite period of time. So thank you, councillor Stockwell. I also, given that this is the decision making forum after the round of meetings, I also need to put myself on the record that although I appreciate the need of councillors to support businesses in these difficult times, I need to point out that we are questioning a threshold of sorts here in terms of some of the key principles and practices that have set Noosa apart as a key destination. And that is the value we place on green space in our Noosa design principles. It actually makes a point of saying that we need to avoid sacrificing public open space for car parking and that open space will remain a priority, even though the demand for car parking seems limitless.
01:05:00 What we're doing here, we are approving it for use in the school holidays and also the Easter holidays, which has been a practice for 20 years. But we're going beyond that now and approving it. Thank you. For school holidays, the upcoming September school holidays and every long weekend until the COVID pandemic is over. I'm really glad that the councillors have sought to put a limit on that because it may be very difficult to wean a community off the use of that beautiful green space as a car park. If the practice continued for a long period of time, I also just like to make the point that in the short term. I understand there's a genuine desire to help and support and be seen to be supporting businesses in the short term. But long term, if there is a constant practice of converting the green space to a car park, it's an entry statement to that premier precinct that over time, over time, it could reduce.
01:06:00 There's a risk that it could reduce the visitor experience, the quality of the visitor experience. The quality of how residents see their communities when they see a lovely green space as turned into a car park. And that key point of difference, which is the value we place on green space, set to one side for pragmatic reasons. So I need to register my opposition to this practice going forward, although I do respect the majority opinion in this regard. Councillor Jurisevic: I appreciate Councillor Wilkie's concern, but I dare say the weaning will occur when the return of public transport, full use of public transport and our opportunity to be able to reintroduce the circulating bus that we have during those Christmas and Easter times. And the potential for more reviews of public transport in the future and our walking and cycling strategy come to the fore in the future.
01:07:00 That there'll be no issue with weaning people off the use of this car park. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor George. Councillor Williams, you have something to speak? Councillor Stewart? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do appreciate Councillor Wilkie's concerns. It's really important that this motion does not supersede or override the transport strategy that says we want to get people into Hastings Street, not cars. It is, it's not a statutory planning decision, so I'm happy to support it globally. I think it's a very important decision, and I think it's a very important decision for businesses to achieve what they need to achieve during a pandemic. We are, in a number of ways, other than statutory planning decisions, required to take that into consideration. And this one, we've got a very unique circumstance where public transport is significantly affected by the fears of people as a result of the pandemic.
01:08:00 It also is significantly changed in that, very few people are catching a plane to get to Noosa. So it means we do have a significant increase in drive tourism. And that is the reason why, for a short and time-bound period, I'm willing to accept enhanced provision for car-based tourism in that precinct. Long term, we want people there, spending their money, not parking their cars. Mayor Stewart: All in favour of the motion? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stewart. Against? Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Item 9 is the financial report, August 2020. Would anyone like to move the recommendation, the general committee recommendation? I will, Mayor Stewart. Thank you. I second. All in favour? Thank you.
01:09:00 The report direct to the ordinary meeting was dealt with as the first item of business earlier this evening. There are no confidential items. There are no questions submitted for public question time. The next meeting will be held on Thursday the 15th of October 2020. There are no more items on the agenda. I declare the meeting closed at 6.14.