Ordinary Meeting - 15 October 2020 Transcript

Start of recording ¶

00:00:00

00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting in the 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 and there are no apologies. The second item on the agenda is a confirmation of units. I move it. Thank you. Councillor Walken? No, thank you. Second, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. Item three, there are no mayoral minutes. Item four, petitions. Do we have any petitions? Councillor Wilkie: I have a petition, Madam Mayor. I'd like to present this petition from some residents of Noosa Waters and their objective is to amend the current Noosa plan, the Noosa Waters estate waterways, to allow the storage of registered watercraft on or off pontoons and other devices adjacent to or perpendicular to the revetment wall.

00:01:00 Without directly being attached to a jetty. And I move that this be accepted by the CEO for appropriate. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that if the word Noosa actually appears spelled correctly on the top line. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Warwick? Councillor Jurisevic: In the petitions. Current Noosa plans, not Noosa plans. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Jurisevic, second. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: On the first line. On the first line. Petition request to amend the current Noosa plan. Councillor Lorentson: Do we have any? Councillor Lorentson? I have a petition that I'm presenting on behalf of 13 residents that live in Mainsail Square, Noosa Heads. The action that's petitioned for, the residents request that the Noosa Shire Council work collaboratively with the Mainsail Square residents by reconsidering their actions to date and removing the yellow lines freeing three car parking spaces and replacing the yellow lines with no parking spaces. No standing. 6am to 11am Thursdays to facilitate easy access by the garbage removal contractor

00:02:00 which was the catalyst for Council installing the yellow line. Thank you. I'll second that motion. All in favour? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I have a petition signed by 11 people requesting that Council urgently repair a drain under Eany Creek Road Noosa Heads. I move that this be received and referred to the Chief Executive of Oxford to determine appropriate action. Do I have a seconder? I second that. Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? I'm unanimous. Thank you. Any other petitions? There are no notified motions, no presentations and no deputations. That brings us to item 8 which is the consideration of the committee reports with the committee recommendations. Item 1 are planning and environment committee recommendations. Item 1 update to infrastructure charges resolution. Item 2 is referred to the general committee.

00:03:00 Item 3 planning and environment court appeal number D63 of 2020. Refusal of a minor change to a development approval for a jetty at 60 to Peninsula Noosaville. Do I have a mover and a seconder for this? I'll move. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'll second that. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? I'm unanimous. Thank you Cathy. Next are the services and organisation committee recommendations. These begin on page 6 of the agenda. Item 1, 2020-21 community grant funding program funding. Item 2, 2020-21 community grant program funding community project grant events. Item 3, 2020-21 community grant program funding community project grant infrastructure. Item 4, 2020-21 community grant program funding community project grant programs. Item

00:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: 5 was referred to the general committee. Item 6 was referred to the general committee. Item Mayor Stewart: 6 was referred to the general committee. Item 7 was referred to the general committee. Item Councillor Lorentson: 8, Noosa Council sole and specialised supplier list. I declare a real conflict of interest in this matter as defined in section 1. Item 5d of the Local Government Act due to the proposed inclusion of Page Furnishers Pty Ltd. on the specialised supplier list as my husband is an employee of Page Furnishers. I will leave the meeting before the debate. Just to clarify to the Council, Speaker 2: my advice is it's a declarable conflict of interest because you're not the employee, it's your husband who is the employee.

00:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: I know in other parts of the report they referred to a real conflict of interest of the seat. That would be prescribed or declared. Speaker 2: That's right. So I think I explained to the General Committee on Monday that we're in a new world and legislation changed on the 12th of October. And ironically we were probably the first council in Queensland to have to deal with it. So we're still finding a way through the new terminology and so on. But as we've mentioned, the way in which this works is that if a councillor themselves might be an employee, so for example if I was a councillor and I was an employee of Fred Bloggs Pty Ltd and Fred Bloggs was contracting, I'd have a prescribed conflict of interest. But if my partner was an employee or son or daughter or whatever it might be, then it's a prescribed conflict of interest. But I think it's still the wise thing. Thank you.

00:06:00 Mayor Stewart: We have a further report for this item at page 14 of the Ordinary Meeting Agenda. And staff have provided an updated recommendation. Do I have a mover and a seconder? Move back to this report at page 14. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. What is the change from... Speaker 2: Okay, so if you have a look, the change is essentially the list of sole suppliers is the same. If you have a look then in Recommendation B, there are two changes. The first is that the one firm has been removed for the reasons set out in the report, which was that name is just not applicable anymore. And the second is we have updated the list of newspapers for publishing public notices and so on. So we've gone back and had a look through our communications team to update that list. So we've got a list of names, that was the question that was asked at the Services and Organisation Committee.

00:07:00 So that's the two changes as per the Agenda, but the two changes outlined in the Specialist Supplier List have been updated. Councillor Jurisevic: So moved. I'll second. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Woodby. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: I wouldn't speak to it. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to speak to it? Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: No. Thank you. I think the changes as explained by the CEO and self-explanatory and the updates are appreciated because we did raise those questions in the previous meetings and it's good to see that they've been rectified. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else like to speak to the motion? All in favour? Carried unanimously. Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Thank you.

00:08:00 Mayor Stewart: That brings us to Item 9 on page 8. Council Meeting Schedule 2021, Item 10, July 2020 Rate Levy Overview, Item 11, Go Nurses Schools Program Update 2020. So moved. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. I'll second that. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Next are the General Committee Recommendations. These are on page 9 of the Agenda. Item 1, MCU20-0027 and RAL20-0004, Material Change of Use, Commercial Business Type 2, Medical Involving Building Work Assessments. This is an amendment associated with relocation of a building in a heritage character area and reconfiguring a lot, four lots into two, at 45 and 47A Mabel Street and 9 Myall Street,

00:09:00 Cooroy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move. I'd like to move the original staff recommendation as contained in the Planning Environment Committee. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so, Councillors. On Monday there was an extended debate on the original staff recommendation. And I went away thinking there's probably three different elements of this debate that led to the outcome on Monday, which I think needs to be re-evaluated. I think the three different elements are, one, ensure that councils have a level of appreciation of the nature of the protections within a character precinct within a planning scheme. Number two. I think there was a debate about an understanding between the various opinions on the heritage value or character values and the interpretation of those in the planning scheme between the staff's opinion and the applicant's decision.

00:10:00 And the third one is, I don't think there's a great appreciation of the level of community sentiment regarding character housing and how important people think that upholding the Noosa Plan in this regard is. I don't think there's a great appreciation of the level of community sentiment regarding the heritage value and the interpretation of those in the planning scheme. So to take them one by one. The first one. At Monday's meeting there was a lot of reference to the buildings that people thought didn't have a lot of character appeal that weren't adding to the screen scope. And I thought, how do we get to understand what this means? And I thought, well, probably the easiest way is to use an analogy. And the analogy I'm going to use is a National Park. When I go to the National Park, it's not infrequent that I see beautiful 100-year-old forests, and quite nearby I see weeds. Now when I see the weeds, I don't say we have to knock down the 100-year-old forest.

00:11:00 I say we need to preserve and protect the values of the 100-year-old forest, and every chance we get we need to manage and improve the weeds to make sure that they're more consistent with the values we want to protect. So councillors, when we have a character precinct in a planning scheme, that is a national park for our heritage. That is about protecting the values and gradually improving them over time. So the second element of the debate was around the to and fro between what the developers' consultants said and what our staff said. And I think it's been really important that since then, we've heard from numerous members of our heritage subcommittee, we've heard from heritage architects, we've heard from people with 30 years and two decades of professionalism in the heritage arena, and we've heard consistently from the likes of the Noosi Museum and from people and in all respects our heritage subcommittee has said there is clear grounds

00:12:00 why this application should be refused, not only to uphold the planning scheme, but to ensure we get the best heritage outcome. Councillors, there's pages and pages of really important information that's come through your emails, and I don't need to repeat them. I think it's important to say that all the people, like I argued on Monday, suggested that there is opportunity to both reuse and adaptively reuse the existing building as part of a broader medical establishment, and have those parts of a medical establishment that may not be suitable to a heritage building located elsewhere. We even had a heritage architect who did a few footprints, a couple of footprints, which showed how it might fit on the site. I think it's really important to understand the depth of feeling. There's some, I think maybe the one I'll go for is from Dr. Judith Powell, when she said,

00:13:00 the first reason is that if the proposal approved, it goes against the provisions of the existing new supplant. The decision makes a mockery of the plan itself, talking about the decision not to refuse. My second reason concerns the reputation of the Noosa Shire more broadly. Noosa Shire is widely regarded as both smart and savvy. The decision, in my view, and that she was referring to, not to allow the relocation, in my view, as a heritage professional, is lazy and dumb. So it is a really important issue. I heard on Monday that it's important we get the feedback from our community. And we've had a heritage subcommittee which constitutes a range of expertise and local knowledge in our community. And they're all saying the right thing to do is to follow the staff recommendation. And if the developer or the applicant is interested to come back with a design with another application that meets the requirements of the scheme.

00:14:00 So then I go to the third one. And I did mention that back in 1988, I used the slogan when I ran for the division around Cooroy of keeping the country in Cooroy. And I did mention it was a result of a survey I did that showed that this was a really common feeling that people wanted back in 1988. And how I repeated that survey 30 years later and found that again. But I felt that people probably didn't think that that was really a true thing. So as you all know, I put the same video on social media as I gave you at the committee. And I asked people in the public to comment and to contact you. So councillors. That video, that post is the most popular post in the last six years from organic growth. It was shared 28 times. Reached 3,800 people of which 2,500 looked at the video. And I don't know all the people who shared it. I didn't look at all the comments. But all the comments I could see, well over 90% were in support of retaining the character.

15 minutes in ¶

00:15:00

00:15:00 I had Adrian Warner. Now the Warners are a very old family around Cooroy. And he said, G'day Brian. The house opposite Maple Street was built by a great uncle of mine in the early 1900s. He also built a general store beside the house. HM Wright. The store burned down and the site later became a tennis court. The house has had some extensions over the years. And in my lifetime, it was a home to Mr. Grant, Mr. Sess Christensen. So part of character and part of heritage is understanding the story behind it. Okay. We have pages and pages of here of one and two line comments. All are saying very similar things. Say, Dr. John. I won't use all their names. I support the retention of the Cooroy character house and object to the removal of the house in question. These treasures simply must be protected. Lynn. We need to keep the things that give our Shire its special characteristics. Councillors should respect our town planning capital letters.

30 minutes in ¶

00:30:00

00:30:00 To do this, we must have an open mind, and that requires that we have the courage to change our course, and that we have the courage to make decisions in the best interests of the community. and admit when we are mistaken. Over the last few days, I've spoken to heritage architects, heritage experts, and council staff, to get a better balanced understanding of the development application before us. I've learnt that when looking at old houses, character needs to be broadly assessed. It's not about pristine and intact buildings. It's about streetscape, the regularity of setbacks from the street, fence design, landscaping, form, and design. I've learnt that the heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character. The fact that it's not listed on the heritage register does not mean it is not of heritage significance. I've learnt that a character precinct is not the northern end of a street, but the whole of streets.

00:31:00 An area that collectively makes an important contribution to the character of the area and the local heritage values. I've learnt that heritage values are not just about the area itself, but the whole of it. I've learnt that character houses cannot be preserved through relocation. Because relocation fails to acknowledge that the house is part of the land, and that the house contributes to the aesthetics of a heritage character area. I've better understood the intent of the Noosa Plan, and what it seeks to protect, and what the community values. That is, the Noosa Plan explicitly seeks to protect the streetscape character within heritage character areas. By retaining buildings that contribute positively to that character. The heritage overlay supports community uses such as medical facilities to occur within these character buildings, through adaptive re-use.

00:32:00 So the question today is not about medical facilities. This is an approved use that the plan encourages and supports. The question today is about relocation of the house and the preservation and protection of Cooroy's heritage and character. The question today is about relocation of the house and the preservation and protection of Cooroy's heritage and character. The issue is whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that adaptive reuse of the building is not practicable. And upon further investigation, I am of the opinion that the applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The applicant's made many statements and they are arguably correct. He has thoroughly investigated reasons as to why the existing building cannot be retained. And I accept the arguments. However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate alternate solutions for adaptive reuse of the house. The applicant has failed to demonstrate why other aspects of the clinic could not be easily accommodated within the constraints of the old house.

00:33:00 He has not demonstrated why a purpose-built ancillary building cannot accommodate the specialised equipment. And perhaps the applicant, like some of us here, did not properly understand the significance of heritage and character precincts, the issues with relocation, and the precedence this decision will set for future developments. In a paper titled Adaptive Reuse, Preserving Our Past, Building Our Future, it states, quote, The built environment provides a footnote to our histories, helping to identify our places as Australian, rather than generically modern or contemporary. Historic buildings give us a glimpse of our past and then character to our communities, as well as serving practical purposes now. Councillors, let our built environment provide a footnote that reads, Noosa Council 2020-2024, protecting the Noosa Plan by pursuing sustainable development from adaptively reusing historic and character buildings.

00:34:00 I therefore refuse the application. Sorry, I therefore approve the application to, sorry, refuse the application to relocate the existing building for the following reasons. The proposed development is not consistent with the desired environmental outcomes of the Noosa Plan, as it does not protect the heritage character building and provide for adaptive reuse of the existing building. The proposed development is contrary to Noosa Plan. Provisions which civilly seek to protect the heritage qualities of the site and streetscape character. To accept this development will set a precedent for future development within the zone and see further erosion and degradation of this heritage and character precinct. I value and I respect the Noosa Plan and the wishes of the Cooroy and Noosa community.

00:35:00 I value and respect the heritage and character of Cooroy. I value and respect the expert advice of heritage experts. I value and appreciate the efforts of studio,backs and our highly qualified staff. I also believe a better solution can be found by the applicant, and I welcome him to breathe new life in this a hundred year old grand old lady and resubmit his application for adaptive reuse of the existing building. Councillor Finzel: Thank you everyone for what you brought to the table this certainly able to bring an experience about each and every one of us. What I'm excited about is that we are Noosa, different by nature and I'm sure you agree we're all here to evolve, innovate, adapt and negotiate and all things that are important to us. There has been many lots of feedback from the community and as I said on a reference heritage group they have had a lot to say and I have learnt a lot.

00:36:00 What I would like to say that this creates a wonderful opportunity for us to go back and look at amendments on this precinct character overlay which has showered up in this moment over these last couple of days to look at all this information that we could in fact preserve more of the character precinct in the area of which we're speaking if we extend that overlay to the community. I would also like to include the Queenslanders down Miles Street and Brett can you tell us a little bit about how we can go about that? That's a question, can I ask a question now? Speaker 2: My advice would be to just finish speaking with your argument and perhaps ask a question at the end otherwise you'll lose that capacity to keep talking. Councillor Finzel: Alright well, I don't want to do that. Speaker 2: I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. Councillor Finzel: Okay, so I agree with the recommendation from the heritage.

00:37:00 Group who are willing to be consulted on all things heritage. Unfortunately due to COVID we did not have enough time to meet and have the opportunity to further understand it for the impacts. I do respect the Noosa plan, I voted for the Noosa plan because I thought that we don't want to go back to square one that we could make amendments along the way. I would like to say that the residence of 45 Maple Street, Cooroy is in a character precinct designated area according to the Noosa plan. It is a character building that strongly reflects the character elements of the character precinct. The removal of the residence at 45 Maple Street, Cooroy would significantly erode the character precinct. The members of the Noosa heritage reference group are opposed to the removal of the residence from its president.

00:38:00 And to approve the removal of the residence at 45 Maple Street would set a precedent that may lead to further erosion of Cooroy's character heritage. Based on these feedback from the community, I have to support the staff's recommendation. Speaker 2: Do you want me to answer? I'll take your question. It's really about what's the process for dealing with a change of where the character area might be. The short answer to that is Council has obviously recently adopted our planning scheme and that planning scheme is in place. And generally the life of a planning scheme would be around that 10 to 15 years. That doesn't mean that you can't amend a planning scheme. In fact, we often do do amendments every year or two in terms of bringing things up. So the process would be that as we look at our first round of amendments, we've already done some administrative amendments, but if we look at our first round of amendments, that's a matter that the councillors can bring forward to say, look, we want to have a look at that area in more detail if we want to.

00:39:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Madam Chair. I love your photos. It's a shame that you took them one direction in the street. Had you turned your camera the other way, you would have seen what the element of character is about Maple Street and that particular area of Cooroy. The houses are a joy to drive down. In fact, it's one of the highlights of driving through Cooroy for me with what you're seeing in that area. The example you picked of the neighbouring house next door is not something that should be defrayed upon, but seen as an opportunity to be enhanced in the future, to add further character and actually look at the opportunities that that house presents. In its degraded state, that somebody takes that as an opportunity to say, gee, this is a place where this house could actually be renovated and improved and enhanced, and it would fit in with the rest of the houses in the street. I agree with one of the comments that Councillor Wegener made with regard to the adjoining walk on the other street, that that house doesn't fit in.

00:40:00 And it's a shame that that isn't the house that's being removed, because for me, that's the eyesore in the street, and that could be removed. But, you know, heritage and character are things that the Noosa Plan embraces, and I think that we should embrace and should always embrace. And the opportunity to see any element of it lost is one that we should defend and defend vigorously, as we have around the table. I'd like to congratulate the new councils in particular on seeing the change that's come through and the opportunity they've taken to go and further experience that. I think there's heritage, learn more about heritage and heritage and character, and actually look at the houses that are there and see the opportunities that exist. I think there are many, many opportunities, and if we continue to embrace heritage, I think we have the opportunity there to, again, further enhance the opportunities.

00:41:00 And I think people will see those opportunities. It's a shame this developer didn't see that opportunity. Now, one of the other things the Mayor went on to talk about was facilities within a reasonable distance. Well, this is a radiology facility. And I got an email today, and I know at least one councillor has been to visit this facility, and it's X-ray and imaging. It's recently been informed that there's speculation of us closing a practice in Maple Street, Cooroy, and could influence this application. But they wish to stress beyond any doubt that X-ray and imaging is 100% committed to Cooroy and the region. Not only that, they opened in Cooroy approximately 10 years ago after Southern X-ray closed, the only practice in Cooroy. So the facilities for X-ray and radiology exist in Cooroy. This new facility isn't filling a niche. In fact, this entity, which exists across the road in the hospital, in the existing hospital, employed all the local staff during the COVID. So they ensured that the service wasn't lost to the community. What started as just an X-ray and ultrasound service has now expanded to include OPG, bone, mineral density, CT scan, endocardiology.

00:42:00 And we bring a radiologist on site three days a week. They've recently renewed their lease with Eden Hospital. And this year alone have invested in state-of-the-art low-dose CT and ultrasound machines. Over $500,000 worth of investment in radiology services for the region. I would question the need. I would question that there is, you know. Facilities do not exist within the Cooroy region. They're actually there. And have been growing to meet the demand. Council Oreston rightly pointed out that the element of the existing house that the developer can't see use of is that radiology equipment won't go in it. Because it won't stand up to the weight in that. But there's a large vacant space there. There's no reason to decide that. That can house all the radiology equipment.

00:43:00 There's no reason why. Like many other medical facilities around the country. A number that I've seen in Brisbane alone. That utilise this as a service port. To house administrative staff. I mean, stuff that doesn't need the weight component. Or the capacity to handle or hold heavy radiology equipment. So, I don't see that the developer has the capacity. Or has done his due diligence. And looked at ways and means of retaining this property. He hasn't looked at, you know. He's only looked at putting radiology equipment into it. He hasn't looked at putting radiology equipment elsewhere. Okay, yeah. Won't handle radiology equipment. That doesn't mean it can't be used for medical purposes. I know many GPs or other medical facilities that operate out of very, very similar properties. Again, the beauty in Cooroy and the heritage values in Cooroy must be retained. And I don't see. I've seen nothing in this development application that convinces me that removal of this house is in the interests of the Cooroy community.

00:44:00 Or in the interests of the heritage values that we associate with that precinct. And I'm only too proud to support the staff recommendation. And all the comments of the councillors around the table in support of heritage and character areas of Cooroy. Have made in this debate. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you councillor Rich. Is that it? Oh, councillor Stockwell. Do you want to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So I really appreciate the time that councillors have taken. I really appreciate the community for expressing their values and their views in such a meaningful. And as councillor Wilkie mentioned, the submissions were one voice. And, you know, very supportive. I think it's important to understand the difference between the suitability of the use and the design of the development to achieve that use. There is no doubt that it is a suitable use of the site. It's so suitable is the fact that in 1992 the development control plan created a medical precinct there as a mechanism to add value to the character housing.

45 minutes in ¶

00:45:00

00:45:00 It was the medical precinct which predated. Which predated. Which was a result to try and preserve the housing, not the other way around. But while appreciating those that changed their views, I think it's important to be factual. And some of the comments were clearly not factual. There were some photos shown of Miles Street which is outside the character precinct. There were statements about the people who objected to the coffee shops. Coffee shops are as of right use in the commercial area. There was no objection. I never heard one community member at any stage ever object to the opening of a coffee shop. To bring some ideological thing, it's those objectors that spoil the economy, is absolute rubbish. It is the retention of character that has driven the economy of Cooroy.

00:46:00 No doubt about it. The reason the coffee shop's there is the town has got character. As I said, back in 1998, I advocated that we don't make Cooroy Noosa's narration. How many of you drive into Darang to get a coffee? It's ugly. It's a suburb. It's lost its character. That's what we want to try and avoid. And we've talked about the need for more services and Councillor Jurisevic's gone there. The information that's come to us over the last few days is that Cooroy is very well supplied with medical premises and can cope with the projected increase in demand. So Councillors, it is about standing up for the Noosa plan. It is about retaining those values that our community wants to see retained in our country towns. But finally, I agree. I believe it is a good time to look at when we should be looking at a review of character precincts. In fact, I advocated we should have done it during the last review of the scheme and I

00:47:00 was told, let's make that the first one. We haven't got enough time. We haven't got enough time to do everything else we're doing and do a review of character precincts. Because there are lots of areas around the Shire that have character housing that are under threat. Whether it's Crystal Street in Cooroy, Church Street in Pomona, Old Tewantin, these are all areas which would do well to have a look at from a character provision. So let's actually turn what could have been a loss into a gain and make that commitment to ourselves that we will review character precincts in the scheme and we will put it out to the community for comment to see, in fact, if we can adjust the boundaries to get greater protection throughout the whole Shire. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Stockwell's motion. That is Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Stockwell, Finzel, Wilkie, sorry, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wegener and Councillor Lorentson. All against? Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: That's carried.

00:48:00 That's carried. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item two. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Jane. Item two. Community grant program funding, community project grant equipment. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a prescribed competence interest in this matter. I am a member of the executive of Noosaville Theatre, the president of the organisation. They are a grant applicant and I will choose to leave the room, or I must leave the room. I was known to this class as well. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators, as one of the club members, David Cookman, donated $500 in the scheme. Mr Cookman is not the applicant for the grant, nor is the grant being issued to him.

00:49:00 As such, there does not appear to be any personal benefit accruing to Mr Cookman as a result of the grant to the community organisation. He is simply a member of a community organisation that is receiving a grant from Council. Mr Cookman is not a current committee member, although he has been a committee member in the past. I understand that he is a life member of the community group. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe Mr Cookman does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this application. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 2: Councillor, just before there's any more declarations, I might just explain the process from here because the Mayor is the chair of the meeting as well. And for those who are watching tonight, this meeting that weren't watching on Monday, I might just quickly outline a bit of the background. So as I mentioned before, we've got new legislation which commenced on the 12th of October, which happened to be Monday. This is the first week of councils across Queensland getting used to this process.

00:50:00 And I'll probably just reiterate what I've said previously is that conflicts of interest do arise. And they arise because councils live in the community. You know people, you're involved in community organisations and so on. So the trick with conflict of interest is how we deal with that process, making sure we declare them and going through a transparent process to work it through. With the Mayor now making that declaration, I'm aware there's a couple of other councillors that also need to make declarations. We need to have a chair of the meeting. And the only people that can chair or get involved in that process to determine the chair to deal with this matter are those councillors who aren't going to declare a conflict of interest. So I understand after Monday's general committee meeting, that would be Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wegener and Councillor Jurisevic will be the only three councillors who can get involved in this process. And just to clarify also, the legislation, and I'm doing this from memory, I think it's section 150 capital ET. It also provides that if there's a smaller number of councils than at normal quorum,

00:51:00 you still have the authority to deal with the conflicts of interest and determining who's chairing the meeting. So the appropriate thing at this point would be for those three councillors to perhaps nominate who you wish to chair the meeting to determine this grant matter. And then we deal with that and then the remaining declarations can be made. So I'd be looking for a nomination for someone to chair the council meeting to deal with this matter. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel. Speaker 2: That's nominated by Tom Wegener. Is there a seconder? I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. So I'll call the vote on that and... Sorry. Jurisevic. Sorry. I'll call the vote on that and only the three councillors, which is Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener can vote. They've all voted for that. So I think from Councillor Finzel, the thing would be to call whether there's any other conflict of interest declaration. Councillor Finzel: Certainly. Do we have any other conflicts of interest to be called at this meeting? Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators.

00:52:00 As one of the club members, Mr David Cookman, approached me after a meet for candidates night and asked for some election campaign posters to advertise on his properties. I did not know him or have any relationship with Mr Cookman prior to meeting him that night. Mr Cookman is not the applicant for the grant, nor is the grant being issued to him. As such, there does not appear to be any personal benefit accruing to Mr Cookman as a result of the grant to the community organisation. He's simply a member of a community organisation that's receiving a grant from council. Mr Cookman is not a current committee member, although he has been a committee member in the past. I understand that he's a like member of the community group. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not consider that I have a close personal relationship with Mr Cookman. And I believe Mr Cookman does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this application.

00:53:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Speaker 2: I think the appropriate thing would be to call for whether there's any other declaration. Councillor Finzel: Is there any other declarations to be made? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the media that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Carrera United Football Club, as I have donated a total of $600 between December 2016 and December 2019 to that club. This was for both a university and general. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because of the community nature of this donation. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision.

00:54:00 Speaker 2: Now, through the Chair, it would be appropriate to call each of these at one at a time, perhaps in the order that they were declared, perhaps for Councillor Stewart to deal with that conflict of interest. Councillor Jurisevic: I would like to make a statement before they're done, Member Chair, if I may. At the Service and Organisation Committee, I declared a perceived conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application. I believe somebody had worked on my campaign. I didn't have all the details at hand, and rather than try to bumble and stumble my way through trying to explain that to the CEO at the time, I took that perceived conflict of interest and took my leave from the meeting. But to clarify, since then I've had a discussion with the CEO, clarified the position, and as I understand, I have no declaration to make in relation to this matter. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So we'll go back to the Councillor Stewart, and we'll take a vote. Speaker 2: We need to get a motion which would be, if you're going to be consistent with the way we dealt with it, the General Committee. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll move the first one.

00:55:00 I'll note that the declarable conflict of interest was by Councillor Stewart. I can determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter, because Councillor believes that Mr Cookman will not receive the personal benefit or loss in relation to the application. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that this final decision is made in the public interest. Speaker 2: I'll second the motion. Second the motion. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 2: I'll check whether perhaps there are any more wishes to speak to that, if not, I'll take the vote. Councillor Finzel: Yep. Would anyone like to speak to that? If not, we'll go to the vote. All in agreeance? Speaker 2: Three. Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the second resolution. That Councillor made the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson, and determined that it's in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this matter, because Councillor believes this is not a close personal relationship, and that Mr Cookman will not receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Finzel: Is there anyone at the table that would like to speak to that now? I think we just need a second, don't we? Second. A second. Thank you. Anyone want to speak to that?

00:56:00 No. All good. No. Let's go. All in favour? Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Jernison. I'll vote a three. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And we've got a seconder. Councillor Wegener: A seconder. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Would anyone like to make a comment to that? If not, all in favour? Speaker 2: That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're on to the substantive matter, which is the matter of... Sorry. At this point, Councillor Stewart can resume the chair. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. It's time for the review. So going back, item two is community grant program funding, community project grant equipment. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move that the recommendation has... As per the report. Mayor Stewart: Second. Thank you, Councillor Fugazile, all in favour?

00:57:00 That's unanimous. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you. The council has... Thank you. Speaker 2: A set of Monday councillors, that was probably one of the more tricky ones we could get, and we got it in the first week, so it didn't really matter, but we managed it well. Mayor Stewart: So, referring back, Item 3, Go Noosa Peak Period Traffic Management Plan 2020-21. Item 4, Park Road Temporary Pathway Upgrade. Councillor Wegener: I have a declaration. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrew St. Baker, who owns property in the Park Road adjacent to where the pathway is located. Andrew St. Baker contacted me in May about the pathway question, which runs on the northern edge of his property.

00:58:00 I met to meet with him and looked at the path. And he told me of his history of dealings with Council. I contacted the project officer and passed on Mr. Baker's concerns. Later, I informally met the project officer on the boardwalk, and I believe he told me that it will eventually come before Council. I have a perceived association with Mr. Baker because I am the surfboard manufacturer and he is the owner of Thomas Surfboards and the Thomas Factory. I believe Mr. St. Baker has a fantastic influence on manufacturing in Noosa. In Council, I have often congratulated the Thomas Factory and have discussed the Emerging Enterprise Business Zones, which Mr. Baker supports. During the campaign, Mr. St. Baker allowed me to put an election core flute at the Thomas Factory. I occasionally meet Mr. Baker in the surf and have had two discussions of the Noosa Biosphere, the history of Noosa, and the Bring Back the Fish campaign at his house, which is, obviously, right above the surf break.

00:59:00 Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. St. Baker. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate. Thank you. Speaker 2: I think you've got another good declaration. Councillor Lorentson: Another declaration? I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my relationship with Andrew and Catherine St. Baker, who reside in Park Road, adjacent to where the pathway is located. My family have holidayed once with Andrew and Catherine St. Baker. My husband is close personal friends with Andrew St. Baker, and one of my election signs was located at Thomas Surfboards. And Andrew St. Baker is a joint owner of that business.

60 minutes in ¶

01:00:00

01:00:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wegener in terms that it is in the public interest that Councillor Wegener participates and votes on this matter. Because Council believes that Councillor Wegener does not have a close personal relationship with Mr. St. Baker, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Jurisevic: Seconded by Madam Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just to talk to the motion, I think there is obviously a link between surfers that many surfers share and manufacturers. That is not the close personal relationship that triggers a need to remain. If you move yourself as a prescribed conflict of interest, I think that Councillor Wegener has really explained much of what is in his explanation is actually just doing the job of a councillor.

01:01:00 And so I'm quite happy for him to remain in the room. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Do you want us to speak to that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not today. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a procedural motion. A motion of deferral of this matter to the... Defer the consideration of the matter until the November round of meetings to seek further information from the design team and the traffic safety. I'll second that, Madam Chair. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I do so on the grounds of having met Mr. St. Baker today and listened to his concerns in that regard and having taken some time to make an assessment and further conversations with Adam Britton, who has written this report in this regard. I think there are some other opportunities here. And I also think there are some concerns that Mr. St. Baker has raised with regard to sightlines and traffic and pedestrian safety that are well worth investigating further.

01:02:00 And I don't believe that those have been done sufficiently at this point in time. So that would give myself and other councillors an opportunity to seek that further information and clarify the situation as to whether, if the path remained, that it would. Thank you. And I also would not create any sort of a safety issue. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: In that sense, I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic, I'm happy that you brought this motion because this is a very complex issue. And this month we have had our full belly full of conflict... ...difficult situations and difficult ones. And I think that this is a very important complex issue that in light, and again next Thanks to all the other ones, kind of got washed out, so I'm glad that we're going to, you know, I support the motion to have a further look at this. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to the motion?

01:03:00 All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: It's actually gone. I'll close if I may. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Yeah, look, one of the other things with regard to the timing, with regard to this, I mean, there's a finance element, as Anne said, there's a lot of complications in this, and one of those is a finance element. Deferral of this, as I understand it, will not raise any challenges with regard to any issues associated around this, because this has still got to seek finance and finance approval. And given the state of capital works at this point in time, this would have to go before Budget 2 or 3, so it may be some time before finances could be allocated anyway. So I believe that that deferral would not impact in any other way on the decision on this. Yes, Madam. Mayor Stewart: I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? It's unanimous. Thanks, Cath. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Here's the point of order. You'll be introducing new material. Councillor Jurisevic: I realised I did it, but he added the complications.

01:04:00 But I went there. Speaker 2: It was in the resolution. Mayor Stewart: Item 5. Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, item 5. Item 5 is on page. It was still on page 23. It's mowing and weed control services. Tender acceptance. And item 6. MCU 13 slash 0081.01. Minor change to multiple development approvals for 47 multiple dwellings, entertainment and dining, type 1 food and beverage and retail business, type 1 local and type 2 shop and salon 71 Hastings Street Noosa Heads. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I'd like to move. A slightly different motion from the one that was in the report. And the changes relate to the roof terrace pergolas. The changes are highlighted in the area.

01:05:00 And I'll read them out for those that are listening online. So point 4 changes to read no structures are approved by this development approval within the parade on public land. Item 5 under roof terrace pergolas reads, pergolas on the roof terraces must be A, set back in line with the existing roof exhaust ducts for each unit's roof terraces, B, a maximum of 9 square metres in area and C, a maximum of 2.5 metres in height, but not exceeding the proposed roof exhaust duct structure height as shown on the approved plans, and the other change is to item H, which is to delete point H on the recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Item 6. I'll second that motion. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I said I'd make those minor changes on the grounds of discussions with the applicant and with planning staff. What we see on the roof with regard to a lack of amenity at the current time are exhaust cowlings and an exhaust duct that protrudes up to a height of somewhere near 2.6 or 2.7 metres.

01:06:00 My understanding is that in this development application, the applicant intends to rectify the ugliness of the cowling on top by encasing it, the encasement of and narrowing the ducting section that is there, because it's quite large on the ground, but it'll come back just to cover the width of the duct of the exhaust duct that comes out of each of those units with services, bathrooms and cooking facilities within the unit, and that's what we see on the roof terrace pergolas. If we set the pergola structures back further, these chimney-like stacks will be the most prominent and prevalent items that will be seen from the ground.

01:07:00 They are now, and they will continue to be so. But if the pergola structure is actually encompassed and begins at the point of those are, they will be encased and encompassed within the pergola structure, and it will actually diminish. In my view, the impact of those stacks that come out of each of those each of those unit rises. As a result of that, the other way of reducing bulk in this is to reduce the height. The original height was intended to be 2.7 metres. On discussion with the applicant, we believe that we can lower it down to 2.7 metres, which then again adds an element of if you had it further back, it would have less impact. By reducing the height, you also reduce the impact. And I believe the other thing that this also does is the exhaust stacks do not all line up in one line as the original development application had, which would create an element of bulk. They are actually staggered across at least two elements of the development or of the tenure.

01:08:00 What this would do is break up that line as well. And my understanding from speaking to the plan is that they see that. And my understanding from speaking to the plan is that they see that. As a as a positive in breaking up that one single line of Pergola structure across the road. As to Point H, I believe that the structure at Sales Restaurant has been there for a significant amount of time and the time to deal with that structure is not in this development proposal, but at a time when that shade structure comes up for renewal or rebuilding. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Sitch. Councillor Wilkie: Quick question, Madam Chair. On Figure 2, page 14 of the Federal Committee agenda, it's an aerial shot. It does show that the ducts are staggered. And if the front of the goal is lined up with the cowling, how far back from the edge of the top floor would that be?

01:09:00 It's a variation. There's a variation, obviously. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. There's definitely a variation. And where those ducts are located on the roof line, some are located, I think it's approximately about a one metre from the roof edge, somewhere around two and a half. That's approximate only, though, based on the aerials. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, no, they're up at the top. So, Councillor, and as a question I've got is, I'm not sure whether you can see the ducts in either of those phases. They're not 2.5 or 2.7 metres high at the moment. Is that an architectural treatment? With solutions like, is it possible to turn a duct around so it could be further back?

01:10:00 What other design, you know, I know your recommendation is to go back six metres, but is there, has the applicant put forward any reason why it has to go up that high in the redesign? Speaker 1: So, the existing ducts are about 2.5 at the moment. On the, looking from the beach on the left hand side, so this section of the building on the right hand side, they're a little bit lower and they face more towards the beach. No other proposal for reducing the height's been provided by the applicant. And I'm not sure why it's got to be that high. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I, if I may, to answer the question, my understanding from the applicant is that that is the building standard, that they have to be a set minimum height above the level to comply with building standards. And I believe it's actually higher than that, but they can get away with 2.5 metres. Thank you, Councillor. That's the lowest height that they can get away with. Councillor Wilkie: So, the question is, the reason why we can't see the ducts on here is because they haven't

01:11:00 been built yet. The structures around the ducts. Speaker 1: So, they're existing. Councillor Wilkie: This is like someone standing on the beach, isn't it? Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Could I, could I point out what you can see at the end? Which is the cowling at the top of the duct. And this is, this is, this is on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the top one is actually the western end. Councillor Jurisevic: This is the western, this is the western end. And what you can see is these exhaust cowlings. And it's not very clear, but that's, that's the top of the, of the duct. What they do on this side is they angle out. My understanding is that when they correct this, they will straighten them all up. What happens on the other side is they're set back further. It is difficult to see them, but there's, there's an example of one. Again, they're below this 2.7 metre screening. I think that's another example there that you can just see. Below that height. And these are on a straighter duct. And they sit actually 2.5 metres back from the, from the front edge of the balustrade.

01:12:00 What, what, what you won't see is the cowl. My understanding is you won't see the cowling. You'll actually see a, it'll be hooded around so that you don't see that ugly beige cowling in the, in the form that it is. So they'll, okay, so they'll be extended up higher? No, they'll be extended up to the same height as the, the ones on the, on the eastern side. Sorry? Councillor Wilkie: What? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, the eastern side. Councillor Wilkie: It is the eastern side. Yes. 2.5 metres. Yeah. They, they currently sit at about that height, 2.5 metres. And they, they sit in a very, between a metre back from the, the boundary of the top floor and 2.5 metres. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: My, my, my understanding also is that what you're seeing there in those screens, those glass screens that, privacy screens between each unit, they sit at approximately 2.7 metres. And they have to be removed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay.

01:13:00 Another question? Mayor Stewart: Thank you, sir. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So. Rooftop terraces. Rooftop terraces. Are they not envisaged? Are they discouraged in the, in the 2006 scheme? They were, so the, the scheme doesn't prohibit them, but they're discouraged. And I know you said it, but can you remind me, anywhere else on Hastings Street, what's the, the minimum setback from the front of the building that we, that a rooftop terrace has been permitted previously? Speaker 4: So, since the Noosa Plan 2006 commenced February 2006, Noosa Plan 2006 has been permitted and the plan has actually had a statement in there saying no rooftop terraces are to be put on the rooftop. The other rooftop terraces that exist along there, and pergolas, those pergolas are setback, I think, they're in the report, I think there was a, there was a couple of them that, and closest they were setback at 4.5 metres. So, they were shown on page.

01:14:00 37. 37 of the report. Okay. Okay. Speaker 4: So, you can see on page 37, the main ones that have 4.5 are 5 Hastings Street and number 23 Hastings Street. They have a setback of 4.5. The other two photos, 55 and 37 Hastings Street, are both setback 6 metres. And you can see that we've had to take a side photograph in order to see them and they're not highly prominent. So, 4.5 metres. Councillor Jurisevic: Just with regard to the height of those, do we have any idea of the height of any of those structures? Speaker 4: I'm not exactly sure on the height, but certainly under the scheme prior to the new supply in 2006, it had a requirement for pergolas to be setback 6 metres, no more than 9 square metres, and maximum height of 2.7 metres. So, I would assume they're probably around that height.

75 minutes in ¶

01:15:00

01:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff. 55 Hastings Street and 37 Hastings Street, the rooftop pergolas are setback 6 metres from the top floor boundary. 5 Hastings Street, 23 Hastings Street, they're setback 4.5 metres. Yes. Are all those the result of town planning approval? Or how do they arrive at those distances? How does this come to be? Do they just occur without approval? Or were they given approval? No. Speaker 4: I know that number 23 Hastings Street was certainly given approval. I'm not quite aware of the history of 5 Hastings Street. Councillor Wilkie: Can you remember why the relaxations were allowed in the case of 23 Hastings Street? Speaker 4: No. Councillor Wilkie: I'm not sure. So, all 5 Hastings Street? Speaker 4: No. I don't recall. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I have another question. Jo, if you can explain the meaning of Park 3. Park 4. What that actually means in effect.

01:16:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I think I'd have to, I think I'd have to refer to Kerry for this, because this was an addition made by the planning staff. Speaker 4: So, that condition was originally seeking to say that no structures were permitted on the parade. And that's what's been deleted, to say, to, I guess, be silent on that and to not refer to that structure in this approach. So it's just leaving it outside this approval process. No, that is the awning on Beech Parade in front of Sayles. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a compliment to the deletion of H is to clarify that as I understand. Is that correct? That's right. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So in your report, you stated a view that the design as proposed would give the appearance of an additional story.

01:17:00 This motion, while allowing some articulation between both sides, is it still your view that if this was approved, that it would have a similar impact in terms of the visual impact from the beach being that it created the perception of a full story? Speaker 4: I have advised Councillor Joe that staggering them would be desirable, more desirable than what's proposed, but it doesn't address the issue of stories. And Council's Noel Robinson, architect that was engaged with this peer review, have advised that those route goals would be very prominent, in addition to the skyline. And there's nothing on the beach side of Hastings Street that has such a prominent skyline presence. So officers' view is that it would look very much out of place,

01:18:00 and we should not be supporting it at such a reduced setback. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll follow up with a question with regard to if these structures weren't encompassing with the exhaust fans coming out, is it likely that the exhaust fans would be the most prominent? Speaker 4: I don't find the existing exhaust fans particularly prominent. You can see them from the beach, but they're not highly prominent. If they choose to extend them all to 2.7 and encase them, so they're all sort of a consistent enclosed approach, I don't think that will lead to the appearance or addition of the appearance of another story. So I wouldn't have any objection just to, you know, enclosing those, those ducts. Councillor Wilkie: Go ahead. Sorry, look, given that we're dealing with a motion here, I have an amendment to the motion, please,

01:19:00 which is an item H, which may or may not have implications for part four. And that is request the CEO undertake a review of the outdoor dining permit for Sales Restaurant to ensure the permit conditions and the outdoor dining use, area are consistent and the structure is temporary in nature prior to the renewal of the annual outdoor dining permit. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll stick with that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. This is another way of addressing the issue that we, it was one of the sticking points with this otherwise sort of fine application to improve dramatically the appearance of Britannia. And that was the inconsistency between the use area of the outdoor dining permit and the use area of the outdoor dining permit. And I think it's important to note that the reason why we're doing this is because we're doing it to make sure that the public land is not the only area of sales, which is a much loved restaurant. And the area that's actually appears to be in use and whether or not the structure, the sales structure is permanent or temporary.

01:20:00 Of course we want to avoid at all costs permanent hard structures on public land. We are dealing here with public land. I want to state this is a much loved institution sales, but I'm certain that it's a case of basic equity here that the applicant sort of the, the owner of the restaurant would want to be assured that he's paying for nothing more or less than what he's using there. And there was some discrepancies with the outdoor use area in terms of square square meterage, whether it's 28 or 40, that needs to be clarified. And whether or not the structure is temporary or permanent. And that can be clarified and sorted out once and for all by staff at operational level, hopefully, prior to the renewal of the annual permit, which is due for renewal in February. That's the intent of it. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for the staff.

01:21:00 I have an issue with the word temporary in the motion. Given that other outdoor facilities have permanent structure over outdoor, dining areas. I'll rephrase that. Do other outdoor dining areas have permanent structure that overhangs outdoor dining areas? Speaker 4: So Council's NUSA design principles is about umbrellas. So this certainly wouldn't be, you know, the existing structure is not an umbrella. It is an awning. What we have seen in Hastings Street are sort of umbrella like structures. NUSA design principles. Very temporary in nature. The structure that there certainly has the appearance of looking more permanent. But I understand it is able to be removed and can be retracted. So that could be considered temporary. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: A recent, I'll give an example of a recent application before us with a retractable awning

01:22:00 that I believe is a permanent structure, not a temporary structure. That would be grilled. Would that be considered temporary? Would that be considered a temporary structure if it's retractable as opposed to a permanent structure that is retractable? I'm just saying it's a wording temporary and where the wording sufficiently deals with the issue. Speaker 4: Yeah. So grilled is actually on private property. So not on public land. Okay. And they do have an awning. I guess I just need to clarify. You know, this awning has every appearance of a permanent structure. But the applicant certainly submitted to a permanent structure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I raised the issue on Monday. I think it is right to separate the outdoor dining permit issues from the planning issues on site. So I think this amendment does go there. I think

01:23:00 there is three issues. One is that when we did an audit of outdoor dining areas in 2016, it was recorded as only having 28 square metres and after a light-for-light replacement it is now 59 roughly. So 40 square metres plus a storage area on the footpath. So that is one area. It is a compliance with the permit. There is a second area which is that our outdoor dining is meant to comply with the Noosa design principles and I hope staff take that into account. The crux of the discussion about whether it is temporary or permanent goes back to, in my opinion, the Land Act. That is the key bit of information. Does this comply with the Land Act? If it doesn't, it is a significant process to try and get approval and it is

01:24:00 one that this Council will have to consider whether we want to go down that path. There is one very controversial example of this occurring in a park during the Sunshine Coast Council area which I don't want to repeat. But that is what needs to be considered. Is it permissible under the Land Act in the structural form it is? As long as this motion covers all those, I think that is the worst I will endeavour. Mayor Stewart: I don't support, I support Councillor Jurisevic's motion. I don't support this amendment. The reason is that I think it is unfairly targeting sales. I think it is unfairly targeting business. I think if we are going to go down this path, I think they should definitely be separated, the issues. But if we are going to go down this path, we need to have a blanket approach and we shouldn't just be targeting one business. We have information before us that in 2016 there was a like for like approval given by Noosa Council. This is a restaurant that has adhered to all compliance in that regard, spent $100,000 of their own money in 2006 which is considerable on having the design

01:25:00 by Stephen Kidd, a well-known designer and an engineer. Look at this. It is fully retractable. It can be taken away. So if we are going to go down this path of reviewing sales, then I think we need, as I said, to be completely fair, open and transparent to look at a separate approach. But I think for the purposes of this application and time is of the essence, this is a $10 million refurb. It will inject a huge amount of money into the economy. Two and a half to three million have been paid in compliance. Just to get this across, we will be paid in compliance. The tenure of work closely and collaboratively with Council and we are at the very end and I think we need to proceed with it. As I said, I think Councillor Jurisevic: the issue- Point of order, Madam Chair. I don't believe you're speaking to any member at this point in time. I believe you're speaking to the overall nature of the- Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Council of Jurisdicture. Point noted. Thank you. So I think we should remove sales as Council Jurisevic's amendment suggested and I think if we're going to look at it,

01:26:00 then we do it at another time and with the opportunity for the applicant or the owner of sales to provide us with the necessary documentation in regard to his submissions. Councillor Lorentson: Just in reference to Councillor Wilkie's amendment, I think we need to look at the details of that. I don't support it and I also don't agree with Mayor Stewart on your recommendation for a blanket approach. My concern, I think, is the flow-on effect of this recommendation, that it will have a flow-on effect with all businesses and I'm not prepared to support any amendment that, in my opinion, has the potential to drive a wedge between Council and small business. At this point in time, we should be doing everything we can to cut red tape for small business and support our local economy. I've got to remind everyone here at the table

01:27:00 that businesses are doing it really tough. The tourism industry and retail industry is hemorrhaging. Walk down Hastings Street, walk through Noosa Junction, go down Gidley Terrace, talk to the man on the street. Regulatory compliance is overwhelming and it's over-burdensome. Small businesses. There are bigger issues that they're dealing with at the moment, like paying the rent, paying their staff, their supplies, their home, mortgage and kids' school fees. My recommendation is let's request a report that seeks outcomes that enables small businesses, not regulates them. I will not support this amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Mr Seagate. Did Council, since the DMR motion, undertake a, a, a, a, a, a, an audit of outdoor dining facilitation? Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll get Kerry to answer that. She's involved. She knows more about it than I do. Speaker 4: Yeah. So in 2016, there wasn't a Shire-wide audit of all outdoor dining in the Shire.

01:28:00 And that was, that was carried out by an officer who was out on site, measuring all the outdoor dining areas, making sure that they matched up with their permits, different permits, discussions with the business owner where perhaps the permit needed to change or there were some tweaks on site that could be made that worked for the business owner that also meant compliance with those permits. The outdoor dining audit did audit this one in 2016. It showed that this sale was 28 square metres and there's plans which show the officers' measurements at the time they did that audit. It's 28 square metres. So when, when the applicant suggests they gained approval from Council, um, they sought approval to lodge a building application, owner's consent, and they said it was going to be like-to-like, so 28 square metres. But what got built is actually 40 square metres. So that's what the, that's really

01:29:00 where the audit comes in and shows what's played on. There's been changes since on this one. Councillor Wegener: Um, I support the motion in that our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our number one job or a very important job of the Council is to level the playing field. And when businesses are, are, are struggling or when things are well, good, doesn't really matter, but you, everybody wants to know that the rules apply to everybody equally. And I think that there might be some contention that they might be getting a break and not paying as much as, you know, the person over here. And that's always, uh, an issue. So we're all looking at the, at this big overall, um, development or, or application. You want to, you want to take care of sales as a part of this because it's on the same block. So, um, I support it because it appears to me as though you're going to look at, look at

90 minutes in ¶

01:30:00

01:30:00 this as a part of this application and say, let's level the playing field and make sure that everything's right. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else? Councillor Finzel: Um, look at this stage. I, I agree that we should separate sales out of this at the moment. Um, it's a sticky contentious issue on decision making today. Uh, but I cannot support, uh, the idea now that we're heading down a road to look at permits across the Shire. I think we should be supporting small business. We've got the, um, job keepers thing ending. Um, this has been a precedent that's been set. This has been operating, you tell me now, since 2016. I don't think we should be debating this issue right now over, uh, you know, looking at sales and interrogating their ability to operate, um, since they have been since 2016. Um, I think it should be separated, but I don't agree with, um, the CEO now undertaking,

01:31:00 um, the permits. And, uh, rigorously, um, looking at that. I think we should stick to what we're here for tonight, and that is to look at what's happening with Natanya. We need to proceed forward. It's a $10 million investment. There's time constraints. A lot of work has gone into this, and I don't think we should have the waters muddied tonight regarding conversation around sales. As they stand, they're an iconic restaurant, and I, I don't support it. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Question. Um, would a, a staff working cooperatively with the sales management about their outlaw dining permit in any way interfere with the, the upgrade of the tenure and approvals given tonight? Speaker 2: I, I, look, the, um, item H, um, is about the sales restaurant. The remainder of the tenure application, which has been dealt with here, stands alone. Um, so that can proceed regardless of whether this amendment is passed or reached.

01:32:00 If the item H is deleted, that, that can still occur. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify something that, uh, um, was raised there, Kerry. Um, so the audit was undertaken, but the, um, uh, replacement of the sale occurred after the audit? Speaker 4: Yes. That's, that's correct. So the audit was undertaken. The audit showed 28 square metres. The application was then made to Council for owner's consent to lodge a building application for a like-for-like replacement. What got built was 48 square metres. Councillor Finzel: Question. Why are we discussing that tonight when it happened? What needed to happen there? The like-for-like. When did it come to Council's attention? Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Councillor. You're, you're required to stand at the, uh, meeting to ask questions. Councillor Finzel: Um, I'll direct this to the CEO. Um, at what point did it come to Council's attention that the 28 square metre like-for-like exceeded that?

01:33:00 Speaker 2: Um. So what happened, obviously, there was an audit done in 2016. The request was for a, um, like-for-like to have an owner's consent for building approval. That was dealt with at an operational level. It didn't come to Council to get approval to sign a form for a building, building application. Um, and then obviously the building application was, uh, implemented, um, presumably through a private certifier. Um, and then the building was built. So that's the process that went forward. It didn't come to Council for a decision to change that, um, size of the building. The only decision that was made at, at an operational level was to sign a form to give owner's consent to allow that building application to recede. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for saying that. And can I ask then why that's coming under discussion tonight and has not been raised previous to this evening? Speaker 2: Yeah, the, it's coming under discussion tonight because we now have an application over this entire site, which covers the entire, um, site, which includes the, um, the building itself. And so staff have then gone to site and had a look at that and realised that there's an issue there. Councillor Wilkie: Is it true that the, the upgrade to the Netenya building also involves an upgrade to the site,

01:34:00 um, element of sales? Speaker 4: Yeah, so the, the application to upgrade Netenya includes improvements to sales, including to their frontage and, and toilets, which I think are designed really, really for them. Yeah. Um, also that the, the improvements include increased GFA and site cover. So it's about adding additional building bulk. So, um, that's why officers have raised this issue around building bulk because the sale adds to that. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, isn't it true that there'll be a lot of green space being given by sales and, um, along the park roads or along the eastern side? Speaker 4: Um, the, um, the improvements to park road, um, are, are significant and it does include

01:35:00 some green space, but typically a development in Hastings Street or park road would be required to be set back two metres to provide landscaping in front. So they're not providing any additional to what we would typically expect in development along Hastings Street. Speaker 1: And can I just add to that? So the park road is actually built to the boundary, so that, that would just be. A trellis essentially built on the boundary. So not necessarily additional to what's existing. Councillor Lorentson: Um, okay. Can I ask a question? So the design of the awning is 39 square metres and it exceeds the outdoor dining permit area, which is 28 square metres. Um, is that unusual? So what my question is, is an outdoor dining area, I would expect an awning to. Be bigger than the outdoor dining area if its purpose was to protect you from rain. It's like an umbrella. If I've got an umbrella over my head, it's, you know, it's going to

01:36:00 be a little bit big, so I, I, I'm actually protected. Um, so, so with other awnings, um, in restaurants around the Shire, is it unusual to see the awnings bigger than the outdoor dining, um, space? Speaker 4: Well, the original awning was 28 square metres. That's all it was. So there's been, there's been no approval to increase it, to make it larger. And the, the outdoor dining permit at the moment specifies approval for an outdoor dining area with tables and chairs and umbrellas. It doesn't reference allowance for an awning. Councillor Jurisevic: Question. With regard to the like-for-like, um, I know on, uh, uh, on, uh, many occasions we've seen, uh, pro, uh, pictures that we, uh, images that we have, uh, from aerial shots before and after over, over a period of time. Do we have images of the awning before and after 2016 that, that,

01:37:00 that, that demonstrate that it is actually larger than, uh, what was there before 2016? Speaker 4: Yeah. So the, our council's mapping system has a series of aerials, um, taken over, over time, which comes, those areas come from, uh, the state. Um, and you can see if you compare the areas between 2015 and 17, um, the new awning that's gone up and you can see a difference in size when you look at them. Councillor Jurisevic: Ah, all right. Well, given the information that we've received this evening and, um, the fact that the word temporary is in the amendment and the definition of what temporary may, uh, may constitute in the way of removable, um, I'm prepared to support the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, um, we're talking about, um, public land here and, um, public

01:38:00 land is sacred. It's the public, it's communities. I'm sure that, uh, a lot of us feel that, uh, applicants have the right to do what they like on their own, virtually do what they like on their own, uh, tenure. But we're talking about public land here and commercial use of public land is regulated. It has to be regulated. And there is a outdoor dining permit which gives this particular business right to 28 square metres. Um, we've heard different measurements about the actual use area here, between 40 square metres, 58 square metres if you include, uh, a storage space on public land. Now, rather than leave these, now that these has come to our attention as part of this process involving

01:39:00 the upgrade of the Natonga building, which includes sales, we can't separate sales. To not support this amendment is to effectively turn a blind eye to addressing these, having staff go and address these issues at an operational level once and for all in a cooperative manner to the satisfaction of both the staff and the applicant so that the outdoor dining permit reflects the actual use and that the fees are commensurate with the actual use. It's not about stopping the use. It's not about whether this is an iconic business or not. I declare a conflict. I love going to sales. I had some of the best lunches there ever. But it's not about that. It's about clearing up this discrepancy once and for all. And the question is often asked, how does, how does this use, how does, how do we, how do we allow

01:40:00 that to happen? We've talked about oversights where there was no council involvement, where things were handled at an operational level and things happened by mistake, where in some cases there's now a hard structure on public land through iterative process of error, in my opinion. Here is a clear case where it's come before us to sort out once and for all in an equitable manner so that appropriate fees are paid to the satisfaction of the owner and the, and that's reflected in the outdoor dining permit. And just to state, staff handling this issue of the outdoor dining permit, if it's approved tonight, will in no way interfere with the upgrade of the Netanya. I've heard a lot of talk around this table about the urgency of this upgrade, not, time is of the essence. It won't interfere with that whatsoever.

01:41:00 And I thank you very much. Thank you for supporting the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move another amendment to the motion. And it relates to item condition seven. Cathy, I'm going to seek your forgiveness. And add to what you've just said. And add to what's there by a section of the other amendment I was going to move that now is redundant considering Council Wilkie's amendment. And that is to add to that sentence which you've got in red, the words, and further request that the barbecue. Just wait, just wait. That the barbecue.

01:42:00 Unapproved fencing and wire mesh exclusions. Be removed from public land as part of the works undertaken pursuant to this approval. Mayor Stewart: We have a seconder for that motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask a question for that second? That occurs as part of a mr. 我說 Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that part of the condition of what's in before us requires the removal of the barbecue and all the extraneous works around the barbecue. Is that correct? Speaker 4: No, Councillor. The motion that's been put forward with condition 4 was to delete the requirement for no public structures. So no, it doesn't deal with barbecue. Thank you. So this condition would. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to second that motion?

01:43:00 Councillor Wilkie: I don't understand. You've got me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ask a question, I'll explain it to you. Councillor Wilkie: What are the wire mesh exclusions? I'm sorry, I was there at the site, but I don't know what you mean by wire mesh exclusions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sure. It'll help if you can tell me. I'll have to explain. If you can bring up the photo, it's something I found today if you go down. So this black fence here is put there and from my rough calculations from Council's interactive mapping site, it's at least two metres beach side of the boundary of the property. If you look on the interactive mapping, you see the wavy hedging. Where there's gaps in there, you look from the beach and there's wire mesh there, which I presume is part of, once again, trying to exclude whether it's young children or animals or whatever, getting into public land.

01:44:00 So it's actually around the back near that barbecue, there's wire meshing at the back of the hedge that's being put there. And so that's what that refers to. Councillor Wilkie: Could you point on the screen, please? Sure. Or is the cross doing that? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. So I couldn't take a photo of it. When I walked over here, it appeared to be in this direction. Where there's gaps in the hedge, you look through on the other side of the hedge and where you can get to is wire mesh. Councillor Wilkie: And that's blocking off public land. Yeah. It's on public land. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's on public land, yeah. Mayor Stewart: Do we know a reason why it's there? The wire mesh? Speaker 4: I don't know why the applicant has directed the wire mesh, and I don't think it's appropriate to fence off public land. Mayor Stewart: I've never seen the wire meshing, and I'm down there most weekends, and my children do run behind that area.

105 minutes in ¶

01:45:00

01:45:00 So I'm hard-pressed to understand what Councillor Stockwell is referring to, because I haven't seen wire meshing in that area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to believe that out of the amendment, if it's causing grief, then it'll just be part of that landscaping plan anyway. Councillor Jurisevic: Would one consider it's part of unapproved fencing? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Maybe that what I saw was only a very small piece, and I couldn't quite see because I was looking through the hedge. Councillor Wegener: Good. Is this public land important at this time? Councillor Wilkie: You can ask a question. Councillor Wegener: Oh, can I ask a question? Yeah. You can ask a question before it's seconded. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Is this because I would like to look at the public land going all the way down the boardwalk there, and it seems that what they're doing on the public land doesn't really have much to do with the application of fixing up Netanya. Is that right? Or is this enmeshed in the, even though it's on public land, still a part of the application

01:46:00 for Netanya? Speaker 4: So the applicant hasn't proposed any works in relation to public land adjacent sales. This is an issue that offices have raised, because the application is over the whole site, and it's relevant to deal with sales and works that has occurred out the front of that property as part of this application, because there's increased gross floor and site cover. So we shouldn't be turning a blind eye to unapproved works while we're dealing with a development application. Councillor Wegener: Would it... Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Would it be the time to have our designers look at the front of that and say, well, what can we do to make this more amenable to the public enjoyment of that area? But they do, I would like to note that in front of Netanya is very, very well kept and is very amenable to the public. But is there more that we can do? But they have been great by watering the pandanus and all that.

01:47:00 Speaker 4: The area on public land adjacent sales has been created as quite a private space. It doesn't read as public any longer. There is vegetation in that area that's not native, that it could be improved. And that's what really this condition is looking for, is to look at some of that planting in there and replace it with some native planting. Councillor Wegener: So... Sorry. Just... Sorry. So this... This... This... This is... This is the time then for town planners to get in there, get on the public space and say, well, this is what we want. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. So with any development application, development applications always deal with the frontage of the site. So whether it's road reserve and curb and channel or upgrading a road or the road reserve and up in street trees, providing footpaths, all development application deals with those frontages. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, in regard to the grass at the front of sales, it's my understanding that the

01:48:00 owner of sales looks after that and looks after it very well and maintains it himself. It's also my understanding that they don't use it for any functions. They don't hold weddings there or any parties. They're very respectful of that grass. Is that correct? Speaker 4: They certainly do maintain it quite well. I have to agree with that, as do many people maintain their verge areas and frontages. But it's not true. They do actually use that area for functions. I've seen many photos of functions being held out in that grassed area and roped off to their private functions. Mayor Stewart: But no weddings? I've never seen a wedding being held out there like there are other weddings along Hastings Street. Speaker 4: From the photos, I don't recall whether they were weddings. There was balloons and streamers and the like. So it was some sort of party function. Whether it was a wedding, I'm not sure. Mayor Stewart: And also, in regard to the rock wall down the front of sales, I mean, that area is well used by the public. Indeed, I use it most weekends as do my children and run up and down on the grass and people

01:49:00 sit there and eat their croissant and have their coffee. So that is well used and open to the public. Speaker 4: It is. I'd agree. That area is well used by the public. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Who would be doing this landscaping? Is this a directive to staff to do the landscaping? On public land? Speaker 4: Well, condition seven is a condition of the development approval. So it would be a directive to the applicant to do that landscaping. So ultimately, the body corporate or sales, that's between the two of those. But it's no different to providing street trees in a road reserve. It's a typical part of development. Councillor Lorentson: I see no problem with that. I think it's an opportunity. Councillor Wilkie: Before we get to people talking about it. We'll move to the debate. I'll second it. I'll second it. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I'll talk to the member now. Sorry. I'll second it. Yeah, you can. After I've talked now.

01:50:00 No, no. As soon as he's seconded, you can. And if I just... Sorry. I wouldn't... I'll just say, if you go to the next one... No, previous to that one. So one of the ones I mentioned is there's this mother-in-law's tunnel. That's actually a listed environmental weed in our most premier spot. Behind that is a calipers, which was great in my grandmother's 1960 backyard, but not really Hastings Street. And if you go one more... And whether this is a temporary arrangement, that was there today in terms of pink bunting, selling people to keep off the grass. Maybe there has been some recent replacement or something. So what this says is, let's look at the normal process development, present a landscape plan, do some works in your frontage, and take away the things that stop people accessing public land. It's fairly straightforward.

01:51:00 It's not telling them what they have to do. It's just saying, comply with normal guidelines about landscaping your frontage. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Councillor Stockwell, seeing as he brought this amendment. Seeing as there's a glass panel wall along the back of the property, where exactly is this... Down there. That's the side fence, is it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you go back to that... I'll sit right on the left edge. You can see where the dining area is, where the barbecue area is. Mayor Stewart: There's no dining area there. The dining area's under there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The dining area's there on the right. Yeah. And so the area... Can I point? This is all encompassing the barbecue area. This whole area here is landscaped to create the perception that it's private space. Aha. Okay. So that whole... As I said, this, that's 40, that's about 19. This is about... Inside that hedge is about another 30 square metre, the width of the hedge. But they've fenced it off, and they've created things to make it look like the private boundary

01:52:00 of the property stops here. They have to landscape it. They have to landscape it in a way that, I think, pays more respect to what is public and what is private. Okay. Thanks. Kerry, can we... Can I get a little... Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Well, Hattie, can we go back to the original where Brian had the picture of the... I mean, that's the one. So that, to me, is showing someone making use of that area. No. That's the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the other end of the frontage that needs a better... I can see where all those... Councillor Jurisevic: Where all those... Yeah. Okay. Plants are up there. Okay. Yeah. I'll get you. I'll get you. Okay. I wasn't aware of that. There you go. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Again, I have no problem with this amendment. I think it's the responsibility of the developer. I think if he wants to work with the community and have the community endorse the refurbishment, I think this is a very good trade-off and also a requirement, a legal requirement.

01:53:00 Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Look, I'll vote in favour of this amendment. I wasn't aware that the barbecue was included, because when I read in the report, it is considered... The last sentence says, it is considered the proposed total furniture in the site as it is an appropriate time to require the removal of the barbecue and fencing from the land. I assume that somewhere within the report, it actually alluded to that. Given that it doesn't, and this does, I think it's appropriate that the public land is looked at, the intrusion is looked at, and if they want a barbecue and a barbecue facility for their guests, it should be within their property, and this is the time for them to look at a location within their property to provide that facilitation. Question. Councillor Wilkie: Does this amendment, or the one previously passed that was part of the motion, does that in any way affect part four, the references with approval given for works on the public land, on the . No. Speaker 4: It doesn't.

01:54:00 No. Councillor Wilkie: They don't contradict each other? Speaker 4: No. They work together. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I cannot believe that the barbecue's there, and I've been there all those years, wishing that there was a barbecue there, in the top of the land, because I'm torn on whether I want it to be taken away or left there. Mayor Stewart: It's not a public barbecue. It might be an opportunity for one, though. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Stockwell, would you like to close? All in favour of Councillor Stockwell's amendment? So moved. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic, Stockwell, Finzel, Wilkie, Lorentson, Wegener. All against? Second six one, now? Speaker 3: One a while. Mayor Stewart: Let's see if we can make a choice. Okay, so back to the original amendment, the original motion that put those two motions. Councillor Jurisevic is the only one who has spoken to the original motion.

01:55:00 Councillor Wilkie: The principal concern with goals or shade structures on the route is that it gives the impression of a four storey on the beach. That's why these other developments have been given approval for six storeys, oh sorry six metres back from the top floor, so that they don't give the impression from the beach of a four storey. And even 4.5 metres you can see that impact is less than if it would be what you imagine one metre or two metres would be. Sorry, I apologise I'm giving the impression, I'm making commentary there. Is that the intent of requiring the shade structures to be six metres back? Speaker 4: That's exactly right. At a one metre setback those goals will be highly prominent and give the appearance of

01:56:00 a storey. At 4.5 they certainly start to reduce, at six metres they will be barely noticeable. Councillor Wegener: Also it's nice to compliment to the two other councillors here that Joe has spent a lot of time making things as the building guy and to actually see that issue. It's good to see that the flutes sticking up. But would it be the case that from above looking down that it would look better with the roof over the flutes rather than being back and then from above you'd be just looking at those big, the chimneys? Speaker 4: Can you give me some photos? We're just going to put some photos up that I sent around earlier this week for councillors. I think it just sort of shows some of the setbacks. One metre, four and a half, six metres, just so you can understand where it would be

01:57:00 located on the roof, just to give you some idea. If we keep going down, Kabi, you can see the height of those sort of separation structures between each of those units, which is at 2.7 metres. You can see that red line there, 2.7 metres, that's essentially where the roof, the goals are proposed at. So it will be highly prominent. If you just keep going down, there's some other ones. That's one of the air ducts, another air duct, so it's not as high. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, if you could stop there, if you could scroll down. That air duct is the high one that's 2.5 metres. So with the current motion, there'd be a pillar there that went up to the full height and that... Councillor Jurisevic: That cowling would be enclosed, as I understand it. That's right. And the one that's on an angle would be vertical and at the same height. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But that would be another metre and a half closer to the...

01:58:00 The other ones are about another metre and a half closer to the... Speaker 4: Some are about a metre, some are about 2.5 metres back. Yeah. It varies a little bit. But just if we keep going down, there's some pictures of the roof terrace from further away. Yeah. And you really can't see these structures very well at all, the existing... We looked at some photos earlier that showed the ducts from the beach or the parade. They're not highly visible. They're not highly visible from up on Noosa Hill for residents at Park Road. This is taken from 81, I think, Hastings Street. You're really not going to see them. If they enclose those ducts in a box to make them a more sort of consistent form and to comply with standards about height... I really don't think that's going to impact on the appearance of the building from the street. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you have an image of what those roof structures would look like in the new format with the

01:59:00 screens removed? Because my understanding is those screens that are up to 2.7 metres are going to be removed. Speaker 1: So, if you just have a look at page 36 where it does show the proposed for goals, the one that's on the left is the roof structure. So, that white square too, that's basically the enclosed exhaust fan. So, if you removed those pergolas, that would be quite basically not noticeable. Councillor Finzel: Question? Can we go a bit further? Question? Yes. Sorry, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel. Being very patient there. Councillor Finzel: Oh, thank you very much. You know, we're getting really bogged down into the roofing aspects of this building.

120 minutes in ¶

02:00:00

02:00:00 You know, I got on board here thinking Noosa is different by nature. I think we should be innovative and we should be looking at alternatives. Is this a question? This is a question to the CEO with regards to the design elements and rooftops in the Shire. Can you make a comment, please, about where we're heading towards aligning ourselves with being different by nature and looking at green architecturally designed roof structures? I think we'll start with the roofing with water harvesting features and plants, which could fit in with this design to give us a green element with a leading innovative edge. Thank you. Speaker 2: I can't answer that question because I'm not a designer or architect. Certainly, the way that we deal with that is through the planning scheme. So, the Council sets the parameters it wants to achieve through our planning scheme and that's the time to do it. And then what we do is assess applications against that planning scheme. We did want to do some more stuff in our recent planning scheme in terms of smart building

02:01:00 design, but most of that was in relation to residential. And the State said, no, we've got to follow consistent codes across Queensland for that. I might see whether Kerry wants to add anything to it in terms of what our current treatments are in our planning scheme, but that's the way that you do it. You do it through the planning scheme. You set your policy parameters through there and then you assess the applications against that. Yeah. Speaker 4: So, certainly, just to reflect what Brett's saying, it was pretty disappointing with our new planning scheme. We wanted to introduce those sorts of measures into residential building design, but the State said, no, we couldn't include them in our planning scheme because they're one of them because of the building code of Australia and then sort of retain consistency across the State. So, it was a little bit disappointing. But certainly, the current planning scheme seeks to have varied roof forms, so that's a requirement for the current scheme around here.

02:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to have a follow-up question, just for the sake of thinking. Would it be considered a reasonable and relevant condition if we were to go with the current proposal, which does bring it forward into the sideline, to require it to actually be constructed as a green wall rather than a residential building? Speaker 4: Interesting question. I don't think it's a straightforward answer of yes, that it would be reasonable and relevant. That would be really a negotiated outcome with the applicant because it is not a requirement of the planning scheme. I would be hesitant to suggest to councils that some of these green walls would work very well on a rooftop. In my experience, the heat in that's just not suitable for those sorts of provisions.

02:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment, please, for item five. It's basically as per the staff recommendation that the goals of the roof terraces must be, a, set back a minimum of six metres from the northern roof terrace edge of Australia, b, a maximum of nine metres squared in area, and c, a maximum of 2.7 metres from the north Speaker 2: terrace edge of Australia. So, in effect, what you're doing is taking the original recommendation five and removing Councillor Wilkie: the changes there. Yes. Moving out as an amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to second the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillors, I wanted to test this because, yes, as Councillor Finzel says, Noosa is different by nature and we are innovative. And one of the biggest differences is that the size and scale of the roof terraces is the size of the built landscape, the built form. And that is that, especially in this place, the buildings do not dominate the landscape.

02:04:00 And very clearly, what they're trying to achieve here is that it doesn't give the impression of a four storey, like the Golders would, if they're only one metres back from the edge of the top floor boundary. I appreciate the work that's gone into designing the whole building. This is the, one of the few sticking points. They are free to have umbrellas up there. I've met with the applicant who's shown me the whole beautiful design intention, and they're trying to get a uniform look across the top of the building and also provide a great and useful area for the owners. But it does, I agree with the staff, it does create the impression of a four storey. Now, it's not only. If. If we did not stick to this recommendation, not only would it give that impression here,

02:05:00 but it's the flow on effects down the track. People always ask, how is this allowed to happen? And often it's been by default, where there's been no oversight and applicants have just gone ahead and done it. And in this case, the applicant, and I do have sympathy because it, the way things work out, those that seek to do the right things are often limited to the new supplanting scheme. But overall, buildings that conform to the Noosa planning scheme contribute to the overall prosperity of Noosa as a whole, because it's considered quality development and no one gets an advantage over another to any great excess. Everyone benefits. So this is just a small point. The, it's a $10 million upgrade. There will still be shade on this, on the roof. Provided by pergolas for the owners of the penthouses. They can also have umbrellas close to the front balustrading if they would like additional

02:06:00 shade. I think it's, I support the staff recommendation because overall, this is what we're trying to achieve. That is a built form that does not dominate. We've seen other examples where rooftop pergolas have been conditioned to six stories. We've got, it's still, it's still under construction. It looks great. It looks good from the beach. No one's suffering adversely for, because the pergola was set six metres back from the top floor of the penthouse. I think, I think this is a good amendment. I hope you'll support it. Because it will have long term implications for the look and feel of Noosa. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Anyone else that wants to speak to this motion? Councillor Wegener: Or amendment? Was it the goal of the applicant? They moved it. They're moving the roof forward to get rid of umbrellas and things like that, shade structures up there. And the wind howls, you know, through there and anything's going to get blown over.

02:07:00 And that was my understanding of that and it actually was a very functional thing instead of having, looking up and seeing the fourth floor with umbrellas and so forth, they're seeing this as a more permanent, safer structure. Speaker 4: Is that right? Certainly my understanding that the applicant's goal was to tidy up the roof terrace. So that could mean a lot of things, but there was some photos we had up before which actually show, they don't need, need to put the pergola, an umbrella up if they don't wish to. Set back at six metres, it's still quite, just go up a little bit further. There's still quite good views from the, no down the other way, sorry. Still quite good views at a six metre setback. You can still see the beach quite well. We'll just wait till these photographs come up so you can see them. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: So here. So this first one is at four and a half metres. That's a four. That's a six. Oh, that's a six, is it? Okay. So that's at six metres. So even at six metres, I don't think people necessarily feel they have to come any further

02:08:00 forward and have an umbrella. They've still got quite good views of, of the beach. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I appreciate where Councillor Wilkie's come from. And so it was my intent to, one of the reasons you don't see the cows at the moment is because they're hidden behind 2.7 metre privacy screens. Okay. They're, they're, they're not prominent. They're not out there on their own standing. They're, they're actually encased with, with, with, with screening that is actually higher than it and hides, hides, hides an element. My view, my personal view is when they're standing there on their own without some sort of structure around them, they'll be far more prominent and they'll be far more visible than they currently are now. There'll also need to be some sort of security screen added along the side to, that they'll adjoin to. They'll be, they'll be protruding and sticking out regardless of what you, what you think. So, so I'm not going to go and ditch over where, where the pergolas go.

02:09:00 I mean, I was trying to try to come up with a, a compromised solution that would encompass what would be an otherwise, I believe, an eyesore and an intrusion from the roof, and an extrusion from the roof if you like, that would stand prominently and stand alone if the pergolas aren't, aren't encapsulating it to, to, to something that became, that that gains prominence and you will see. This is an eye-catching element, and again, from mine, I was trying to come up with an element of compromise that would encompass hiding what will otherwise be, in my view, an eyesore from down below, something that protrudes out that no one will be able to understand. They are ugly as they stand now. As I said, if you stand down there and you look at umpteen dozen fan cowlings, I don't think it's aesthetically pleasing.

02:10:00 I don't care what anybody says. In my mind, they're as ugly as sin, and I've been dealing around fan cowlings for 35 years, so I've had my share of where they go, and more often than not, it's unfortunate the design of this building has placed them where it does, because more often than not, buildings place them where they can't be, can't be as readily seen, so they don't look like this. And again, this is a legacy of a building going back to the 1970s, 80s, 80s, so it's a design flaw. That we've, we've got from, from the time, time gone past. Could they amend the duct and do it around? Yeah, sure, and, and create more, more structure, more obstruction. But, uh, I thought, thought what they were trying to achieve here by minimising the duct to the minimum size would, uh, would enable at least that setback. And again, some, some element of setback. Um, will I support the amendment or not?

02:11:00 Look, I'm still thinking about it. Councillor Finzel: Thanks for the last one, I'll be right back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cathy, I might get you to bring up the last of the photos as well. We go right up to the top just to... So here's the key angles. When I was standing there this afternoon or this morning, I noticed that the separation of the balcony was really the sight line to the sky. So you can see on both, the picture at the bottom one, what do you see from that parade and you see the ends of the glass structures up top. So if you go to the next one, to me that's the critical part of it, is that one metre, one and a half metres, you will get an appearance of looking up to a roof, a four storey.

02:12:00 And that's why I think it should be moved back. Now, I can't sit in here and say how many metres back you will lose sight of it, but I think the staff recommendation at six is the safest. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Wilkie, would you like to close? Councillor Osborne? Councillor Lorentson: I might, sorry. I do want to speak to this amendment. I agree with you, Councillor Wilkie. I think the issue here today is about whether or not the goal is going to be prominent and have the appearance of another story. I actually liked Councillor Jurisevic's amendment. Which represented, I think, looking forward, just a negotiated approach to development and something that, as a council, I think we should be embracing. I think it's a little bit dangerous

02:13:00 when we start stepping into what I call design and aesthetics. You know, it is subjective. What I've been looking at on that screen doesn't appear to be a four storey building. It's a lightweight structure. It doesn't have bulk. It doesn't have mass. The amendment that was proposed by Councillor Jurisevic required that the pergolas be set back in line with the mechanical plant duck at a maximum height of two and a half metres. And what that does is it varies the setbacks and helps break the line of pergolas. And I think we need to really think about that. When there's a continuous line of pergolas across the entirety of the roof, I agree with you, Councillor Wilkie, then there is a perception looking up on the beach that potentially it looks like it may be a fourth storey. But when that is broken or because of the varying setbacks proposed by the amendment that Jo put forward,

02:14:00 I think the result of that is you actually reduce the visual dominance of the pergolas and therefore the appearance of the building actually being four storeys. And although it is viewable from the beach level and like Councillor Stockwell, I've spent quite some time on the beach and having a look at it, to me, it does not significantly... It's not that significantly different from the number of other developments along the northern side of Haston Street. Yes, the setbacks are different, but you've actually got to look up and really study it so I'm arguing that it's actually preferred to keep a key design element that contributes, in my opinion, more positively to the skyline and complements the character of the locality. And, you know, I go back to just a conversation I had with the applicant

135 minutes in ¶

02:15:00

02:15:00 where he explained the difficulty of actually getting a number of individual owners to come together and actually put forward this application. And I know it's, some may consider a weak argument, but I actually don't think it is. So, because I sit back and think, you know, today we've actually got two choices. If we say yes, the development gets underway. If we say no, we take a risk. And whether it's real or perceived, it's a risk that this collective agreement of all these individual owners that's taken considerable time to negotiate may not be at the table. These guys have won. They only need one or two to change their minds. And what happens then is that this development falls over and we've lost an opportunity to activate the Haston Street precinct and not only activate the precinct, provide opportunities for work, local work.

02:16:00 Um... Yeah, so, no, I'm not going to support your recommendation, Council Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else want to speak to this? Question. We're talking about one element of a very complicated application for ground level, level one, level two, level three, rooftop, the exterior of sales. And this amendment here is about the goals. Is this likely, if this amendment didn't, sorry, if the applicant didn't get what they wanted, was it likely to stop the whole application? Sorry, Speaker 2: Council Wilkie, I don't think it's a fair question for staff. That's OK. All right, I'll go with you. Councillor Wilkie: Unless anyone else wants to speak. She'll probably come back and you'll probably retire. Sorry, the view was broken. You all right? I'm happy to speak. Look, there's what I believe to be specious arguments,

02:17:00 which sound, arguments that sound convincing, but don't hold water, in my opinion. And that is, we've heard that if we don't approve this, if we don't approve this condition for there to be pergolas and set a precedent for the Noosa Shire, that we, this Council starts allowing rooftop terraces one metre back from the edge of the top floor to give the impression of four storeys, that somehow this whole application is going to fall in the heap and the future of Hastings Street is in jeopardy. I do not accept that. That's a specious argument. The majority of, not 100%, my understanding is not 100% of property owners have to approve this application. Only a majority So if one or two penthouse owners aren't, don't like this, the whole application is not going to fall in their heap.

02:18:00 Bear in mind, if we don't support this, we are going to be the first Council to actively give approval for rooftop terraces that close to the front boundary of a top floor and give the impression, signal to the market, yes, you can have, rooftop terraces are all okay and we throw away one of the intentions of the planning scheme and that is not to give the impression of four storeys. This is a three storey precinct. It's never just this application that we're considering. It's the flow on effects that are hard, that are easy, very easy to overlook. And as we saw from the photograph, the photograph taken six metres back from the front boundary, the owners will still have a wonderful view of the beach but who benefits? They benefit and the people on the beach will not be given the impression that there's a four storey building

02:19:00 overlooking the beach. There are other rooftop pergolas in Hastings Street set back six metres. Their viability has not been affected as a result. They are still aesthetically pleasing. They are still successful. Their owners were probably not up in arms. Anyway, I don't know whether or not they wanted them one metre back from the boundary or not but they're six metres back as I'm proposing to happen here. As I said, who suffers as a result of having us six metres back? The owners still have a wonderful view of the beach and the beach goers, the general public, visitors and residents alike will continue to enjoy the low rise look and feel the low key built form that characterises Noosa development that we've all committed to. That's enshrined in the playing scheme. We've all committed to upholding it. To do this,

02:20:00 a community's qualities and values aren't eroded all at once. We've heard it said, a death by a thousand cuts. It's step by step development application by development application. The qualities and values are eroded. Let's not be the council that does that. Council, it's very important to hold the line. You might think it's just a trivial point but this is a three story precinct. Let's hold the line. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. All in favour of Councillor Wilkie's amendment? Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wilkie. All against? Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stewart and Councillor Lorentson. Motion lost. Which takes us back to Jo's original amended motion. I'd like to ask Councillor Jurisevic: a question of the staff. The roof overhang the the the fronts this this level.

02:21:00 Can you tell me how, how wide that is? And the other element of it is which I, I see varying from other is that it angles up and actually hides the As I see it, it hides the front of what would otherwise be balustrading. Is that correct? Speaker 1: That is correct. It does angle up slightly. I'm not 100% sure, Cathy. Can you bring up the carries? Yes, and scroll up to the top. I don't know if it's got the measurements on it. Very top. That one there. Sorry, the drawing. I don't believe it's got the measurements on it, but that shows you those finned, that finned part across the top is the proposed Councillor Jurisevic: awnings. So does it vary in width from what currently exists? Is it wider? In what regard? Sorry, the each individual fin? No, no, no. So from the measurement that you're using,

02:22:00 the balustrading, for the six metre setback, from there forward, protruding over the level Speaker 1: below. I'm not sure I'd have to check that, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we just go back to a view of the roof again? From the front, sorry. From the beach Councillor Lorentson: side, looking up. Yeah, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I see what you're saying. You're saying that was straight up there to the... Mayor Stewart: Isn't the motion 2.5 metres to reduce that in height? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that's showing 2.7 metres. 2.7 metres is the existing height of the secure, of the screen, is that correct? Mayor Stewart: And the amended motion is lower than that by 20 centimetres. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's what the motion says. That is condition five. Councillor Wilkie: The question, would that require the applicant to remove all those screens? Speaker 1: There you go. The screens between the... Yeah, they were proposing to do that for the pergolas.

02:23:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So given... So if these pergolas were to be removed, would they be removed? If they were to be set back before six metres, yeah, what would replace the screens that currently are used? Speaker 1: We haven't been in discussions with the applicant about what their updated plans would look like in that regard. Mayor Stewart: I think, yeah, I think we're back to the original motion that Joe made. Joe, you're the only... We should have had two amendments. That's why I'm only asking questions. Joe, you're the only person who has... I'm only a person with a plan. Councillor Wilkie: It's about the pergolas. It reads as condition five, except we've set back...

02:24:00 No, sorry, forget that. I'll withdraw. Do you want that? No. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone like to speak to the original motion? Maybe we can get that back up to Joe. Speaker 2: So the original motion, just to remind everyone, the original motion was the one moved by Councillor Jurisevic. It's been amended twice. The first amendment was to include a new H, which dealt with having the CO undertake the review of the outdoor area. And it was also amended in relation to Councillor Stockwell's amendment relating to landscaping in the barbecue area. Okay. Thank you. And the third amendment, which related to the six-metre setback, was lost. So that's the only two amendments that have been successful. So really a point now to debate that. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak. Look, I want to support this motion. It represents a good mix of outcomes. The quality of the development is unquestionable. The Council's independent architect gave it... It was very praiseworthy of the work done.

02:25:00 It represents $10 million worth of work, of upgrades. $2 to $3 million of that is compliance with current legislation. It's going to be an enormous undertaking. Approval tonight will allow them to get underway as quickly as possible. It also... I commend it to Councillors because it also allows us to... Allows staff to address the inconsistencies with the use of public land surrounding the development. And also issues of the outdoor dining permit, which are unresolved, with sales and other problems. I appreciate what the Councillors are trying to do with Joe's amendment... Joe's motion regarding the rooftop terrace. If it can't be six metres back, as the staff recommended, I appreciate that this is perhaps nearly the next best thing. So I support the motion.

02:26:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Whitney. Anyone else have a speech for this motion? Councillor Rickard. Councillor Wegener: I'm just so happy that these people are revamping Netanya. The people are revamping it. And hopefully the dominoes will go all the way down Hastings Street. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. I'd like just to say that the way that we make decisions, I really respect it, that we're given opportunities to really debate the issues. We're provided with qualified recommendations by our staff. And, yeah, I see a bright future. And most importantly, I think we're going to be able to move forward. And most importantly, I'm glad that we get an opportunity to change our minds, because, as I said in the last motions, sometimes we do get it wrong. Speaker 1: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I think we've debated a lot of the small points, and we've had a number of comments. Overall, the design for the redevelopment, or the refresh of this site, is excellent.

02:27:00 The concepts, what we haven't looked at is the presentation to Hastings Street, which will be as soon as possible. It's a significant upgrade. So overall, design improvements, looking at Park Road, once again, they are a significant improvement to the public face of this building. I believe we can make improvements to the plan with some improved landscaping, as the amendment that now becomes part of the motion foreshadowed. The hard part is whether to support something that's not in the plan. It has got the potential to set a precedent that would see four storeys, or structures that give a perception of four storeys in Hastings Street. In balance, I think we've debated that in the amendment, and it was clear the majority of councillors didn't support that.

02:28:00 I don't think it's worth not voting for this, but I do think it is a very risky precedent. I would hope that the design, in terms of the calibre of it, does reduce the concerns in that respect. And I do think articulation of the distance back will help a little bit, but I do think it will eventually give the impression of a taller building than it needs to be, and it may be that we see others trying to emulate that. That is a risk. And it's something, I suppose, that the majority of councillors are willing to take, so I voted that on the amendment. I will support the motion. Speaker 1: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, everybody. Thank you for your feedback. And I appreciate everyone's respectful manners as we've come into this. I just want to go back to, we are different by nature, and I'm excited, moving forward,

02:29:00 that we could make these amendments to look at different conversations with different organisations around how rooftops may look as we head forward. So I'm excited about that. Yes, and hopefully that will allay some of your concerns, Councillor Stockwell, with regard to setting a precedent. Let's hope the precedent we can set moving forward is living, innovative and green architecture that supports the natural environment. So I'm keen to look forward to that future, and I'd like to thank everyone for their input this evening. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Look, I too support this recommendation, as has been alluded to and said, it's a $10 million development. As Councillor Wegener said, it will have a flow-on effect for Hastings Street, which is so important. It will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and be fantastic for our region. Also, there is a $75,000 parking contribution, which will be made by Natania. And I thank staff for working collaboratively with the management there at Natania. And I know this has been an ongoing project and will be one of, if not the most significant, in the region for a long time in that area.

150 minutes in ¶

02:30:00

02:30:00 I just want to come back, you know, I'm disappointed about the review on sales. Contrary, you know, let me just clarify, blanket approach. When I talk about a blanket approach, I mean that we need to treat all our businesses the same. And for me, that means less red tape, more support. I don't think we should be in any way, as Councillor Lorentson has said, putting more regulations and rules on our small businesses. We should be helping them, not hindering them, and we should be promoting them and supporting them to the best of our ability. And that includes all our outdoor tidying precincts. And I think, you know, we are built on an alfresco nature, and this is a big driving part of our economy. And I think we need to really support it and think long and hard about going forward in regard to that. Because I think these are the people, our tourism economy, our tourism and our hospitality sectors are the ones that need our support the most. And they will need for a long time to come. We know we've lost 1,200 jobs on Hastings Street. We know that's a concern.

02:31:00 We know JobKeeper's going to end up. These are the people we need to get behind. And increased regulations and increased red tape will not help them, and it certainly won't help us. I think at the end of the day, and I've received confirmation that the awning, further information that the awning frame is exactly the same as approved in 2006. That awning sits on the frame that was replaced with the same awning, but new in 2016. So effectively, the argument is that the 2006 frame and the 2016 frame are the same. It's just the awning that would be replaced. So you could potentially argue, and we'll need clarification on this, but it is in fact the same size awning, just a newer model. So I'm very happy to support this. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic, for leading the way on that amendment. I think it's a really good compromise between us, and it shows our flexibility and willingness to work with our businesses and our tourism operators. So yeah, I wholeheartedly support this application. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you.

02:32:00 And yeah, I'm sort of disappointed that we did get stuck on an element of the design limb. As Councillor has alluded to, this is probably one of the best upgrades to a building that I've seen in a very, very long time, and I've been on building sites for a very, very long time. Compliments to the design team and to Graeme and his team for getting all of these people on board to agree to one of the iconic design items. The iconic structures in Noosa being upgraded to the 21st century standards and 21st century appearance, and adhering to all the rest of it. I think this will be a standout redevelopment for years and years to come, and set the benchmark for all other redevelopments in the Hastings Street Precinct, let alone the rest of Noosa. With regards to the percolars, I see that a large part of it will disappear with the

02:33:00 new roof structure that's to be put out front. I think over half, if not two thirds of the bulk will be hidden regardless. And the fact that it's an open percolar and you can see through will minimise the element of a fourth storey, because you'll be seeing straight through. Also the colours that are being mooted here should help blend into the skyline below. So I'm relatively confident that having moved this back, and in line with what we've done, with the ducting, will encompass all the roof structure in one, and won't otherwise produce a blot and a challenge to the eye as we currently have. The elements with regard to barbecue and sales, they're things that have to be dealt with, because the whole development is being looked at under this, so I take those amendments that have been made in good faith. I think they are there. I concur with what the Mayor has said.

02:34:00 From what I've seen, the elements that are there remain from previous changes made, even though it seems to be somewhere along the line a measurement doesn't appear to add up. But I'm sure that the opportunity to rectify and clarify all of that will come out as a result of the amendments that have been made. But again, to Graeme and his team at Natanya, I look forward to seeing this redevelopment begin. And what Natanya becomes into the future. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, we'll put the motion to vote all in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you, Cathy. They're cheering. Okay, we're nearly done. Item seven, outcome of community budget consultation. Item eight, financial report September 2020. Item nine, update on Sunshine Coast Airport flight path issues. Item nine, update on Sunshine Coast Airport flight path issues. Would anyone like to move the recommendation to adopt the general committee recommendations

02:35:00 except those... I will, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. All in favour? Yeah. Thank you. Item nine is the ordinary meeting reports. We've already dealt with two reports directly to the ordinary meeting. There are no confidential items. We have two questions submitted by Mr Brian O'Connor for public question time. As council meetings are currently closed to the public due to COVID-19 restrictions, our CEO, Mr Brett de Chastel, will read out the questions on behalf of Mr O'Connor and our community services manager, Ms Kerry Contini, will provide the answers. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And as you're aware, due to social distancing, we can't have the public in the building tonight. So unfortunately, Mr O'Connor can't attend. I hope he's watching the live stream, and I'm sure he will be. So what we'll do, I'll ask a question on behalf of Mr O'Connor, and we will also send out a written response to him following this meeting as well for his questions. So his first question is, number one, can Noosa Council provide an update on new arrangements regarding the suite of library services it proposes to introduce, involving phasing

02:36:00 out of the mobile library service, specifically the use of book dispensing kiosks? Can the reply include information about the towns where kiosks will be located, where they will be placed in those towns, the number of books they will contain, how they will operate, the timing of their installation, signage, and where the thought has been given to placing two kiosks adjacent to each other in larger towns, i.e. one for adult books and one for children's books? Making available a picture of the model of dispensing kiosks Council wants to use would be helpful. So I'll ask our Director of Community Services, Kerry Contini, to provide the response. Speaker 3: And thank you, Mr O'Connor, for your question. Council officers continue to develop the options for a community outreach model of library services for those areas that don't have a branch library in close proximity. The draft model includes a light, rigid outreach vehicle operating on a weekly schedule, two library kiosks, bulk loans to partner organisations, and a schedule of learning programs.

02:37:00 Consultation with the community about the draft model will commence in December 2020 and will include information direct to mobile library users, a roadshow displaying the different elements of the draft model, posters on town and community notice boards, and meetings with key stakeholders. We thank you, Mr O'Connor, for your interest in the kiosks and will ensure that there is plenty of detail and images included when we do the community consultation. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thanks, Kerry. And the second question from Mr O'Connor is, has Noosa Council given any thought to approving the design of street library cabinets and making those designs available to the public, and also to men's sheds across the Shire so that individuals can build or order street libraries in smaller towns, in order to encourage literacy and reading, as well as socialising facilitated by such facilities? Speaker 3: The street or little library movement is growing around the world and is enthusiastically

02:38:00 supported by Council's library staff. These small community collections encourage people to read, share books, and connect with neighbours. There are lots of designs available online for people to make themselves, or they can be bought fully built. To support the start-up of the street library concept, Noosa Library Service established a number of little libraries several years ago. The little library houses were made by Noosa men's sheds, stocked with ex-library books, and then hosted by a range of community locations, such as the New South Wales Library Centre, Daycare Centre, etc. The Library Service isn't creating any more street libraries, as the concept has now taken off in Noosa, and there are now community street libraries around the Shire. They do not require Council approval if placed on private property. More information on street library designs can be found at www.streetlibrary.org.au.

02:39:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Fontini. That brings us to the end of the meeting. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, the 19th of November 2020. There are no more items on the agenda, but it is exactly six-month anniversary to the new Council. 15th of April, we were all inducted. It is now 15th of October. So, I don't know if it feels like six days or six years. Happy 15th of October.