Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 9: The details of the community feedback which are presented as part of this report I think show pretty clearly that some issues aren't that straightforward or shared by everyone, including topics such as carrying capacity of the river, jet ski, commercial and recreational fishing and living on boards all have strong and interesting arguments on both sides. The terms of reference also try to provide an open and clear process for people to join the group. We do have an option of directly appointing stakeholders to a group but that's not what we've followed. Jen and I are putting these terms of reference together. We think there's potentially many knowledgeable people in the community who are not currently self-identified key stakeholders but actually have a lot to contribute. And I think we see that a little bit when you go through in detail some of the feedback from the Noosa River plans from people that we haven't otherwise engaged with or know of. The intent of the committee is not to be rigid. It's designed to have the membership drive the agenda and I can appreciate that hasn't come through very clearly in the wording of the terms of reference but it's come through very clearly in my discussions with Maritime Safety Queensland.
00:01:00 There's a very strong commitment to allow the membership once it's resolved to drive the agenda, to drive the priorities and the intent is to work quickly. We want to in the first meeting of the advisory group basically to develop a clear framework for the first meeting. The first 12 months on what are the key actions and priorities that people want to see done and work very quickly towards achieving some of those. We're happy to be flexible. We're happy to be able to move around. We're happy as per the revised to allow the group to have input into the finalised terms of reference. We want to empower the group and not council or MSQ. That's the intent of the group even if that hasn't come across well enough in the terms of reference that we've provided. And the final part of the report, the board from the community jury refers to council's desire to take on the responsibility of anchoring mooring and living on board in the Noosa River which has been a council policy position for some years and in both versions of the Noosa River Plan.
00:02:00 This has been a key cause of concern by some groups in Noosa that are river users. And since Maritime Safety Queensland's arrival in Noosa about 12 months ago and their continued and strong on-water presence, it's hard to make a case for council to continue to seek control of those elements. This has been recognised informally. However, we felt there might be greater than clearly stating it here. The reason behind that is we think it's a sign of goodwill to the community to take it off the table now. We think it's a sign of goodwill for the community to bring forward all the previous River Plan consultation even though it hasn't been finalised. And we think it's a sign of goodwill that we're serious about their input through the stakeholder advisory group. So that's just a bit of background to provide some of our thinking and thoughts as we develop the terms of reference. Speaker 6: And Mr CEO, is there anything you'd like to add to that? Yeah, I'll just add to that. Craig's sort of introductory comments to set the scene up. One of the reasons I love Noosa is that everyone always agrees about the why or the arguments about the how.
00:03:00 You know, my model's better than your model. Everyone's got the same goal here in terms of managing the river as best we can. One of the things I guess that I've looked at in the community at the moment is that there are some pretty divergent stakeholders over the years with different strong views about how we should go forward. And at the moment, they're actually talking and working quite well together. So my take always is that while that's good, get them in the room and let them go. And the quicker we can probably do that, the better. But ultimately, I think the benefit of having, there is a benefit of having MSQ at the table as well. Because the government, state government in particular, is a secret agency and they are one of the agencies of the state, but not the only one. But having an in to the state through that process, through that joint process is probably going to be beneficial in the long term. But it will also mean that it will take longer if we want to do any changes to get back to MSQ to see if they agree and how we deal with that.
00:04:00 So there are some issues there about how we work through this today. But yeah, it's the sort of thing I think that we all know that we need to get the different stakeholders in the room and get them going. How do we do that? What parameters do we want to give? That's the question for today. Councillor Jurisevic: That seems fairly obvious. I don't know. It seems a fairly obvious thing to do. That whilst there are different areas of responsibility, ultimately all roads lead to the same path. And that is the water in the river and the health of the river both in and alongside the river. And different elements of governance have different responsibilities in that area. My question that that then alludes to is where my understanding is what we've got is two areas. Two different bodies wanting two different stakeholder groups. But somehow or other having a cross pollination between those two groups by each having a presence on the other, on the group.
00:05:00 Is that my, on those stakeholder groups, is that my, where we're at? Speaker 9: Essentially that's correct. I mean, Maritime Safety Queensland's remit on the Noosa River is quite different to Council's. They have a very strong focus on river safety and river uses. Whereas most of the areas Council can influence are more around land-based inputs and pollution inputs into the Noosa River. So the intent is that absolutely there will be crossover. There will be people that are very interested in the maritime safety side. We think there's still value in them having input into the environment side and vice versa. Part of it's part of an education process, I think, among different stakeholders and getting to know what the issues are. Councillor Jurisevic: My next question alludes to that that clearly then defines the two advisory committees by the terms of reference of those two groups and possibly by the title of those two groups so that they can be differentiated. Because Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee suggests an on-water presence as much as an off-water presence. Whereas our responsibility is more land-based and theirs is more water-based.
00:06:00 Would that be correct? Speaker 9: It is. But the current draft terms of reference has them together. It has the same stakeholders around the one table. Councillor Lorentson: So Craig, I've had a look at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority, how they address this. And they look at two bodies. So there's an authority board and then there's a local advisory group. Can I ask, in our conversations, that was a model that you looked at. Why did we go down this path where we're looking at merging the two rather than having two separate advisory groups or an authority group plus a local advisory group? Can I ask why this model was chosen? Speaker 9: My understanding of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority model is that the board sits at a higher level. It's not a separate group. The people around the table have a range of different interests from the ALMAC, the local marine advisory committees, have the environment and use covered.
00:07:00 But the fact that Gooroomba have 12 of those ALMACs dotted all the way up and down the coast is my understanding is the need for a board and another level. Because there are so many areas. Not that it's split by... Big river system. Not that it's split by users. Councillor Lorentson: Plus they've got more river systems. Speaker 9: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: They have a lot more river systems and a lot more separate issues as well. So it's done on locality almost and then they meet up with the board. Speaker 9: When we looked at the Gooroomba model as, I guess, something to look at, it's primarily on the fact that it's been running for 20 years and it's been quite successful. The Noosa River model will evolve. There's no way we're going to be able to put in day one something that's rigid and that's why I think the ability to move and change the terms of references is going to be really important. And I also think, ideally, if the board works well, we will solve some of the key issues relatively quickly if there's agreement around the board. And then the priorities of the board will shift.
00:08:00 It'll start to move towards those longer term strategic issues which are probably not for day one. And we might even see the membership of the board change over time. I think we need to be prepared to let it evolve and prepared to let it change. And ideally, that evolution and change is driven by the membership of the committee and not council or MSQ as far as possible. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Go on. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a point of clarification in the motion before us. Point A has changed to the draft consultation reports. Are these consultation reports at a draft point or are they final format consultation reports based on the input from consultation? Mayor Stewart: Excuse me, Cap. Just on that. What I'm holding here, which was circulated, is different to what's on there. This is what we gave you last week. So the draft... This is the one that... It is... It's note the draft terms under B. Yeah. Draft should be in B. Yeah. Draft should be in B. Councillor Jurisevic: That's why I was questioning where draft sat in that one.
00:09:00 It didn't look right to me. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Thank you. Thank you for... No, no. I was... I was trying to get that situation. It didn't look right. I thought there was something wrong with... Yeah. The draft is in B. Yeah. Okay. Draft should be in B. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any more questions? We have a seconder. Councillor Jurisevic: On that basis, I'm happy to second that. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Craig, for your hard work on this. And I think what you said is so true. This isn't a policy document. And this is something that certainly will be engaged with in the community. I think adding the word draft and that gives comfort to the community and to the stakeholders that obviously will be so instrumental in this going forward and all of those stakeholders and more potentially as mentioned on page 38 of our agenda. I think as we all do across the table, recognise that it's imperative that we have all organisations involved from the get-go.
00:10:00 And that any documents drafted, they have the chance to provide input before it's finalised and adapted. And as you very well said, Craig, it will be a moving document. But I think that the additions here in the motion give comfort to the stakeholders in that they will be consulted from the very beginning. Even though we all know that's the case. I think this just formalises it. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we need... Sorry, Mr CA. Do we need to formalise it before we go on? Excuse me, Joe. Keir Stewart has the... Sorry. My apologies. Mayor Stewart: I think that sums it up. I think, as I said, we're all absolutely on... As our CEO said, we're all on the same page. It's just how do we go about achieving it. And I think just having that timeframe in under D that see our report back to Council in March. And we have some timeframes in the committee. It occurs within one month of the finalisation of the membership. I think that gives some surety, gives some clarity, and it gives a plan and a timeline.
00:11:00 So that is why I put forward these amendments in this motion. Councillor Jurisevic: So, Joe, you have a question? My apologies. I thought you'd... Speaker 6: Two suggestions. One is... Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CA, do we need to... Speaker 6: Can I just finish it? Can I suggest that the Chair or the mover read out the changes, because people have been watching. Oh, pardon me. Sorry. Yes. Maybe in B, C, and D. Okay. So then... And then the second one is that whether you want to have the Council identify in paragraph E who you wish to appoint as your third member. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So the change in B is note the draft terms of reference as opposed to terms of reference. The joint Noosa Shire Council and Maritime Safety Queensland Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. And here's the addition. And further note the draft terms of reference will be reviewed by the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee at its first meeting. C, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make amendments. The word minor has been struck out.
00:12:00 To the terms of reference for the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee in consultation with Maritime Safety Queensland. And this is the Mayor's addition. Following any feedback from the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. In D, the first clause, authorise the Chief Executive Officer to appoint a Noosa Council Chair of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee has been struck out. And it now reads, request the CEO to report back to Council in March 2020 on the proposed membership of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee and further request Maritime Safety Queensland to work with Council to ensure that the first meeting of the committee occurs within one month of the finalisation of the committee membership. Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to. Speaker 6: You just want to clarify the. Councillor Wilkie: Who is the Council? So we do have the opportunity to approach the Council in March 2020.
00:13:00 I'd like to appoint a councillor as an observer and I'd like to suggest that that be Councillor Brian Stockwell. Speaker 6: You'd have to note that as an amendment when you read. Where? So whether, my suggestion from a process point of view is that I'll just flag that because it's not in there. So you can leave it blank for the moment. And then I think Councillor Lorentson had a call that she wanted to move an amendment first. I'll look at that one and then deal with that one a second. Sure. That would be my suggestion. Councillor Lorentson: Alright. I'd like to move an amendment that looks at including in B a request that Maritime Safety Queensland agree to amending the draft terms of reference to have the committee chaired by an independent chairperson and to further note that the draft terms of reference will be reviewed by the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee at its first meeting. Is two already in there? Two's already there. Speaker 6: It replaces B.
00:14:00 Councillor Lorentson: It replaces B. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just look at, can we see the two B's together so I can just see the changes? Councillor Finzel: So I'll speak to that. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. We need a seconder for that. I just want to read it so I can. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question probably for Craig. What's the proposed method? What's the proposed method of chairing? Speaker 9: At this stage the chair is proposed to be co-chaired by council and MSQ representatives. Councillor Wilkie: And that was agreed between the council's staff and MSQ?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 9: It was. Yeah. Speaker 3: Co-chaired. Yeah. Yeah. Co-chaired. Speaker 9: I should note that this is actually different to the Local Marine Advisory Committee model which does have a community chair that immediately Council Lawrence had referred to previously. We felt particularly early on that it would actually get more independence potentially from a council and MSQ chair than having a vote amongst the committee membership as a chair. Councillor Wilkie: So could deciding the nature of the chair be a question put to the stakeholder advisory group at their first meeting? Speaker 9: It could be, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 9: I've not had any specific discussion. I've spoken with Maritime Safety Queensland. They're really comfortable about having the terms of reference decided by the group at the first meeting. They're not going to be able to respond to the idea of the chair. One of the reservations we have of course is the fact that there's a lot of strong personalities and different opinions in. We didn't want to see the group start off on the wrong foot by having a vote where one side ended up in the chair and the other side didn't potentially. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we also add the word draft in there? Because draft has been added into B above.
00:16:00 Speaker 6: Yeah. The cap down, that would make sense. Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Note the draft terms of reference for the joint nursing council. Speaker 6: In the first part of B? Councillor Jurisevic: First part of B. Speaker 6: Note the draft. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: The draft should be in there. Councillor Wilkie: We'll pick up, sir. We need a seconder. Okay. We need a seconder for this one, please. Look, I'll second it for the sake of debate. Councillor Williamson. Councillor Lorentson: As it stands, the term of reference appoints two co-chairs and they've been nominated as being council and MSQ. I believe that in the interest of achieving an equitable forum and agreed solutions, I'm recommending that we request MSQ to agree to amending the draft terms of reference to have a committee chaired by an independent chairperson. To me, a chair can only be effective. If she or he retains the confidence and respect of its members.
00:17:00 And because the stakeholders have competing interest, we've got commercial versus environmental interest. The chair, therefore, in my opinion, should be free from potentially conflicting relationships and situations. And that's the reason I discussed with Craig over the weekend the idea of putting a community chairperson. And I agreed that it is. It is problematic. And I think this achieves the outcome that we've all, we all want here, which is some acknowledgement or respect of the contribution that the community stakeholders bring to this forum. Mayor Stewart: So Craig, any question for that? An independent chairperson. If they're not a part of either of the side, where will they potentially come from? Dr. Speaker 9: That would be my question as well.
00:18:00 I have no doubt there are many well-respected people in the community that could be approached. But I don't have a list off the top of my head. But there would have to be some consideration on how that person would be decided as well, obviously, if we had an independent. I think, in theory, I think it's actually a really excellent idea. But it's a matter of how it works in practice, I think, is problematic. Dr. Councillor Lorentson: Is there a ministerial forum that can appoint an independent chair? I mean, I know that the boards that we sit on, they're paid elected chairs. And is that an option, Craig? I don't know what, who the overarching authority is in the area of River. But to me, it just removes conflict. And if. There's a question now. Dr. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So is there an overarching ministerial forum or environmental group or River group that
00:19:00 can help us in choosing an independent chairperson? Speaker 9: Not that I'm aware of, because obviously there are different government departments with different ministers involved in the River. So to my mind, if you're going to have an independent chair, it would have to be a widely respected lay person within the community, I would have thought. Not a member of it. Fantastic. Dr. I think the fact that there are so many different groups in the River is a very indication of the fact that there's all, you can't pick one over the other. So it would have to be a respected lay person. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I did have a question, but I think Councilor Lawrence has cemented what independent means. It's someone not associated, totally outside of the stakeholders. Councillor Lorentson: Absolutely, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I just wanted to clarify where, what your definition of independent was there and how that was to be achieved. Councillor Wilkie: It was proposed that there'd be a joint chair between Noosa Council and MSQ.
00:20:00 Then, if there was an independent chair, where would Noosa and MSQ be in relation to that stakeholder reference group? Speaker 9: That would be there as observers. So there'd be relevant staff there as observers, but not acting as chair, would be my understanding. Not having thought this to a further extent, but that would be my understanding, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And is the role of the chair, whether it be a Noosa Councilor or an independent chair, or MSQ chair, joint chair, simply to facilitate the process, not influence the process? Speaker 9: Absolutely. The intent of having the chair is simply a facilitation process. We don't want a chair that actively influences or guides the committee in any direction. We want that committee to basically have the bulk of the input. The rationale behind having a council and chair was because, as we all know, that finding an independent chair or someone that both sides can be comfortable with. And I recognise there will be people that will be part of the stakeholder committee that
00:21:00 have conflicts with council, or may have conflicts with MSQ, and there may still be issues there. But that's hopefully in the case of just having a good chair who's very good at managing the committee. Councillor Wilkie: And a question for the CEO. What if we were to send out expressions of interest for this chair and appoint a chair, what would the likely cost be if they were to be paid? Speaker 6: I'm not giving that note whatsoever. I guess if you're looking for someone independent. Maybe I can give a guide that we have an audit committee process in council where we have external people come in and have a particular expertise, a professional expertise in accounting or whatever it might be. And they act, or chair the meetings and do a lot of research and provide advice on that. The chair of that gets $800 for that process for a meeting. There's a lot of preparation involved in that process. There's a lot of training work and follow-up work and so on. So it's not just $800 to turn up for a four-hour meeting. It's a lot of work that goes around that.
00:22:00 So that's the way that particular process works for an independent chair for our audit committee. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? I'd like more questions. How would a co-chair between two entities work rather than one person or one entity being responsible? Speaker 9: That's a really interesting question, Joe. It's going to be challenging. Well, in the discussions we had with MSQ, it was very much around having lines of responsibility along the river use and river health areas where council would share issues more broadly directed around river health, given the fact that's more within our remit, and MSQ would share more broadly around issues to do with river use. Speaker 6: Probably to answer that question, Joe, it also depends on what the role of the chair is. So for example, within council, we run every couple of years negotiations around enterprise bargaining with unions and so on. So we have a rotation chair in that basis. So management will chair one meeting, unions will chair the next, and so on, almost like a sharing arrangement to help that process go through.
00:23:00 So it can work. Yes. But that role of the chair is to really facilitate the meeting. It's a process-type approach, not influence policy or direct the conversation. It's just to enable. If it's designed more to be a facilitator or help to guide the policy, it's a different type of role. Councillor Wilkie: MSQ and Noosa Council seem as equal partners in this project. Speaker 9: Yes, we are. Councillor Wilkie: Would this amendment, as it reads, come across too strong as it's a direction to MSQ to agree, rather than discuss the idea? Speaker 6: No. The wording is very deliberate. It's a request from them. It's not going to happen. It's a request. Request. Request. To agree. Councillor Lorentson: To agree. And it's up to them whether they do or don't. Councillor Wilkie: So they can. Councillor Lorentson: If they agree. Councillor Wilkie: They're free to disagree. They can say no. And a discussion could ensue. Correct. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Craig, if we try and find someone independent who is passionate about the river, clearly,
00:24:00 and then has no vested interest in the river, either side, environmental or usage, and then get it within a certain, get that person's expression of interest within a certain timeframe, I mean, is that going to be a difficult thing to do? I mean, you would think that anyone applying has a vested interest in an interest anyway, and then they have a predisposition for being one side or the other. Speaker 9: It would be a challenge. And it's not just finding the right person. It's finding the person that all the members of the group have confidence in. I can find plenty of people I believe are intelligent, dispassionate, could do the job. Whether I convince the other 10 people around the table that that's the case is a slightly different matter. My understanding and my recollection is the local marine advisory committee on Kaboomba, which do have a community chair, have taken the approach where they appoint the people around the table and they vote for the chair. I think that's a potential model for this. I think it could work. We just didn't feel that as initially, where we think there's going to be quite a lot of conflict and a lot of difficult issues to be dealt with, we didn't think it was going to work in the short term, which is why we suggested an MSQ council chair.
00:25:00 Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. Given that the question I asked earlier was that there appears to be an intention of two separate advisory committees, one advising to council and one advising to MSQ. MSQ start having their own advisory group. That's not the case. That's not what's happening. That's the question I asked earlier and we said there was an intent. There seems to be a desire by MSQ to have their own. No. No. Mayor Stewart: No. Speaker 9: No. No. Mayor Stewart: No. No. No. No. Councillor Jurisevic: No. Councillor Wilkie: A question about how this amendment affects the timing, the timeframes that we've agreed to in the first part of the motion about meeting very quickly, agreeing to the, reviewing the terms of reference, getting back to council about the terms of reference.
00:26:00 Would appointing an independent chair delay that process by months? Or could we just get into it with the co-chair at the first meeting? Speaker 6: It would delay it if MSQ didn't agree. If they agreed, it came after Thursday night's meeting and Craig went in and said, look, what do you guys think about having an independent chair instead of us and MSQ? And they go, sounds good, let's go. Then it wouldn't delay it. If they go, no, we've got to take that up through the decision channels up to the minister's office or whatever it might be, or comes back and says, MSQ is not happy, we'll need to get council to re-examine this position. Councillor Wilkie: But if they did agree to it, would there still be a process that would have to be undertaken before the first meeting of the stakeholder group could take place, to get the chair in place before they could meet? Speaker 9: Potentially. It adds an extra layer. It would also depend on what we consider the role of the independent chair.
00:27:00 If the independent chair was not playing a role in the selection of the committee, then we could. We could have one or two processes concurrently, and you wouldn't necessarily end up with a really significant delay, so long as you're able to find an independent chair. It could even be a task of the committee at the first meeting to have a discussion about who an independent chair might be. But if you're relying on the chair to be part of the EOI process, then that would certainly delay it, because you'd have to find a chair before starting the EOI process. Councillor Wilkie: So is there a way, if we were to pass this amendment, a way to make it work so that the whole process is not delayed? We can try, but it just adds an extra layer of challenge. Does this add a level of complexity to the project? Speaker 9: There's nothing wrong with a level of complexity. It's most important that we get it right, but at the same time we absolutely recognise we don't want to be mucking around for a couple of months. So certainly all the feedback from MSQ is they're ready to go. The second we've got sign-off, we want to hit the ground running, we want to be meeting within weeks of the sign-off. Councillor Wilkie: I'm going to speak to the amendment.
00:28:00 Look, this is a lying call for me, but given that you still have MSQ and the council at the table in an observant capacity and there to give advice when needed, it is important to have an independent chair that can be respected by, have the confidence and respect of all members. But having said that, I do believe that we can have a chair appointed by the council and MSQ that maintains the confidence and respect of members, and that it may not delay the process to any great deal. I'm happy to support this amendment, and I take the staff at their advice that the process may not be delayed for too long in having this discussion with MSQ. It does result in a lot of change. I suspect that MSQ is an equal partner in this, and they're free to say no to this. But also it is a discussion that could also involve the stakeholder reference group into how they feel about it as well.
00:29:00 So I'm supporting the amendment. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I'll close. You wish to close, councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I'll close now. Yeah, I just had to have a moment's thought about it. Look, I appreciate where Councillor Lorentson was coming with this intent of an independent chairperson, but the prospect that it may delay the process at this stage is one I'm not prepared to support. I think given the roles of council and MSQ on this committee, the capacity is there with senior staff to chair the facilitation is adequate. If the committee, the stakeholder advisory committee at some stage seems to get stuck or that,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 one of their recommendations could be to have an independent chairperson, or even through their meeting process determine that an independent chairperson, or even select their own chairperson is a possibility coming forward. That I could see that could come out of this. So I'm not going to support this purely on the basis that it may further delay the process and not get things underway when Councillor Stewart's clearly tried to define a timeframe to get things underway. I think this has gone on long enough to be perfectly honest in that we should get the stakeholders at the table. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. I'd just like to make a comment. Thank you for your report. The 12 pages of the report was good reading and covered a lot of the history in a succinct
00:31:00 manner. So thank you for your work. And with regards to this, as we understand, this has gone back to around about 2004. I think the community is ready to get things done. So with regards to this amendment, I'm not going to support it today. I think we've got everybody at the table. We're ready to go. The feedback from Craig this morning, it seems like you're giving power back to the people, the membership to drive the agenda. I'm not confident that we should sit here today debating this to make that decision. I think we get the staff back to this group and let them manage that. This is what this is all about, bringing the people together. I'm satisfied with the, you know, putting forward the co-chair situation. There is enough process around meeting. There is enough risk mitigation around how that is going to be carried on as far as I'm concerned. And we've got senior staff that we have confidence in from council.
00:32:00 I don't want to delay the process. I think the community has had enough of the delays. It's a new year. We're fundamentally changed by COVID. We need to start projecting forward where we're going. Get some traction on these things, make a decision. So I'm not in support of that today with regards to possible delays. I think we need to move this on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Now, the councillors wish to speak to the motion of the amendment. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Look, I like the idea of an independent chair, I think, but I think it's a question and it's an answer that we put at the appropriate time to the group. I don't think we should be making that decision on behalf of the stakeholder. I think the more that we can empower that group to make those decisions, the better. I am happy at the moment at the status quo. However, that does not deter from the fact that if the feedback from the River Advisory Group was an independent chair and they could come to their own conclusion as to who that
00:33:00 was and they were satisfied with that person, then I'd be more than happy to support it at that time. I do think it's a question for them. And I also think, as we said, this has been a long process. Time is of the essence. I think the community want things, want action. And I think by having an independent chair, it would potentially delay the process, especially with MSQ and the unsurety in their respect. So I won't support this amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Councillor Stewart. May I have the councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Yes, please. Councillor Morrison, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: Yep, I'll close. I think we have to sit here. We talk about delay, and Craig's made it very clear that there's the potential of no delay. So I think that argument is a what if. What I'm concerned of is that I've seen these groups put together, whether it's the business
00:34:00 round table, et cetera. For these advisory groups to be successful, we need the community to be able to come together with the community to be on site. I think that the current terms of reference is potentially polarising. And that's the information that I've received over the last few days. I think it's more equitable for a chair to have arm's length association with any of the stakeholders. And I just think if we're serious about achieving what I refer to as collaborative leadership, or a genuine equitable forum to finding solutions for management and health of the river, then this is the preferred option. An independent person with no vested or conflicting or competing interests with any other stakeholders in the group. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I'll put the amendment those in favour.
00:35:00 Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie, those against. Councillor Stewart, Stockwell, Deroosa. Noosaville, Finzel and Wegener. The amendment is lost. We go back to the original motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair, I'd like to leave an amendment. Amendment. Councillor Bosny. I'd like to amend point E and actually nominate the councillor at this point in time to be Councillor Stockwell, to be the authorised councillor to be an observer at the meetings of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Speaker 6: Okay. You can't move an amendment if you've not seconded the original motion. Councillor Wilkie: So for the sake of debate, I'll move the amendment that Councillor Jurisevic just floated, that Councillor Stockwell be appointed as the observer. You can't move it either. Why not? Because you seconded it. No, I seconded the amendment. You seconded the amendment, not the original motion.
00:36:00 Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I was wrong. I was wrong. I'm sorry. The problem is when it goes off the screen, we forget who moved it. Speaker 6: The original motion was moved by Councillor Stewart and seconded by Councillor Jurisevic, so they can't move any amendments to that. Councillor Wilkie: All other councillors can move as many amendments as they like. May we have a seconder for this, please? Councillor Wegener. Councillors, the reason why I'm suggesting councillors stop this amendment is because they don't want to be the observer, which will be a test for Councillor Stockwell to be an observer. He said he does have knowledge and expertise in this field, especially about food processes. He has been following the evolution of the Noosa River Plan since its inception in the early 2000s. He's very knowledgeable in the ways of catchment management.
00:37:00 Thank you. And we know that when it comes to reporting back to the councillor group, if anything, he's guilty of over-reporting. So I have confidence that we'll get a full and comprehensive reporting back from Councillor Stockwell in terms of process and also in terms of discussions regarding environmental management and on-water regulation. He has experience in both fields of government. That's my opinion for debate. Councillor Finzel: When can I say I'll nominate another councillor? Councillor Wilkie: If we debate this one and it's lost, then you're free to nominate another councillor. So we're debating the amendment, which is that Councillor Stockwell will be appointed. If you disagree with that, you're voting against it. If the amendment's lost, then another councillor can be appointed.
00:38:00 Then you can recommend another councillor. Good point. Councillor Gerrard. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll support the comments of Councillor Wilkie there. I think from a level of experience and understanding of all things river and who has dealt with all agencies, environmental and river related, Councillor Stockwell is probably the most experienced councillor. I think the most appropriate councillor to be an observer of the meetings of the River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff. The council observer is not there to influence the process in any way whatsoever, is it? No. Speaker 9: No. They have no formal role in the meeting. They're not a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So is experience or expertise required for the position, Craig, in your opinion? Speaker 9: Our terms of reference states nothing about the experience or expertise required of the position. It's a matter for this table to decide who's the most appropriate to represent council
00:39:00 as an observer. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel: Well, having said that, I do acknowledge Councillor Stockwell's experience around the issues. However, from my perspective, I don't support this motion because I think that some fresh eyes have been given to the motion. I think that the councillors' expertise would perhaps be more beneficial as observers at the table around this subject. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I will speak to the amendment. I recognise and acknowledge Councillor Stockwell's expertise. I think over the last few days, he's demonstrated his passion and commitment to the community of all things river. However, I would like probably to defer the decision on this and make it a more equitable,
00:40:00 just a little bit more equitable. I would like an opportunity to self-nominate, for example. I think we should have a criteria and look at what other committees we sit on. And there are some that are sitting on a lot of committees and some that aren't sitting on other committees. And given that there's no criteria or level of expertise that are required to sit on this committee, I would like for everyone to have an opportunity to put their case forward if they do want to sit on this advisory group. This is a big advisory group. And sometimes someone neutral is probably... The better person than someone who is based in ideology or, and I rephrase that because
00:41:00 I don't think that's fair. I just think that someone neutral perhaps can be as a good a contributor or observer as someone with a lot of experience. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. And Councillor Whitlam. I have a question. So, as an observer. Yes. So, I think Stockwell, Councillor Stockwell will actually bring a lot to the discussions. Will being an observer prohibit him from being involved in the discussion and the evolution of the process? Speaker 6: I think Craig mentioned before that the observer is not a member of the committee. So, they're not... They're there to observe, not to participate or to bring forward and shape the discussion. They're there as an observer, no more. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. I would suspect that you, that Councillor Stockwell will be behind the scenes and because he
00:42:00 has so much knowledge, will be perhaps... Councillor Wilkie: Is this a question, Tom, or are you speaking to the amendment now? Councillor Wegener: I'm just wondering if he would be able to help behind the scenes as an observer. Is he limiting himself, his input into the process? Councillor Wilkie: Is that a question to Councillor Stockwell? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll answer it. To make it easy for everyone, it's my intention to vote against the amendment. And one of the reasons, and there's many, one of the reasons is that the terms of reference actually insufficiently enunciate council's interest and also insufficiently enunciates the role of councillors in terms of being an adequate advisory board for the purposes of council. So, I think that's a good question. Councillor Wilkie: Well, all right. I'm going to withdraw your... Well, having met Councillor, I wouldn't have bothered to nominate you. Jesus.
00:43:00 All right. Okay. Do we need to say any more on this? No. All right. Councillor Lorentson: Could have stopped us a while ago. Councillor Jurisevic: Brian? Does anyone wish to speak to... Well, actually, I guess there's a question that we didn't ask Councillor Stockwell, whether he wanted to. Yeah. He wanted the role to be the observer at the meeting. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: The last time I spoke with Councillor Stockwell, he said he was not against the idea. So, I'm out of date. The information is outdated. All right. Does any other councillors wish to speak to... Mayor Stewart: No. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? Unanimously against. That's the... Sorry. The worst amendment in history. What a flop that was. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, before there's another amendment, I'm going to talk to you about the motion. Oh, dear. And if we can bring up the original motion, please, Cathy.
00:44:00 And I'd just like to say that the concept of having a joint board with MSQ is an excellent arrangement. There is no doubt about it. There's no doubt that staff have done a great job of seeing an opportunity to work as a collaboration with state government on issues of joint interest between MSQ and council. And in that regard... Oh, are we moving again? Sorry. In that regard, I think what's been put forward to us is an innovative approach. I also think in terms of the final element of the original motion, I think it's a good example of council really saying, well, MSQ has come up to the plate and therefore the rate payers and council no longer seek takeover management of anchoring mooring and living on board in this river is a positive. It's a position I got to some time ago. But having said that, it's really important to understand that that is only one part of
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 council's interests. And at the moment, to my thinking, the terms of reference actually skew the whole framework of the advisory committee too greatly to that element of the interest. MSQ, as the only state government entity, as a co-chair, will send a signal to the other government departments that we really need to bring along. And it won't be a signal to say, oh, we should be involved too, if you say, oh, well, MSQ's got to cut it. So to me, what needs to change is the structure and governance of the advisory committee that says what we're doing with MSQ is a great arrangement, we can work on all those joint issues together, but we want the same arrangements with the other government departments on the
00:46:00 matters of their interest. Thank you. And to me, and as council is aware, I've circulated, that means a fundamental difference. Well, it's not necessarily a fundamental difference. It means about more clearly enunciating council's desire upfront. Now, I acknowledge in the motion moved by the mayor a desire to get input by the stakeholders. And I too think that's essential in the terms of reference. But by going out and calling for nominations. When you haven't even agreed on the purpose, the objectives, the selection process, nor the things like conflicts of interest, you're just saying, oh, we think this is roughly what we want. It is a derogation of our responsibility as councillors. We need to go out to the community saying, this is what we're looking for. We may. And it's desirable to say, well, we're willing to consider this.
00:47:00 We're willing to consider how this is structured and run with the committee having great input. But we need to really clearly say what we want from this advisory committee. And just having a draft that goes out to public without locking down means you're just saying the committee can actually... What if they decide, no, we don't want to work with council at all, we just want to work with MSQ? End of story. We've given them the ability. So I'm going to go through what I think are some of the key amendments. So Cathy, if you could bring up that document we discussed. As I said, I think it's really important what we've done with the MSQ is a great model for a template on how to work on the River Plan. We've had three decades of working as one whole group and having very little impact of that group. We've had NICA have a sector representation model that worked for about five years. And then when the state government withdrew resources has not and decided not to go that
00:48:00 one. So we've had just one big group model in Noosa for a few decades and it hasn't been totally satisfactory in the outcomes. There has been some gains and some... I don't want to diminish what's happened, but it's really important that perhaps just a model where all the stakeholders are in there trying to thrash it out together may need a little bit of amendment. So if you scroll down a little bit, as I've already mentioned, I think we do need to get some input on the draft terms of reference by key stakeholders before we adopt it. Now the concern about timeframes. Let me say that there was at least one council sitting in this chamber who was highly desired to have the Noosa River Plan adopted at this meeting last year. So we've already had a 12 month delay and so the question I put to you, is it better
00:49:00 to get it on time or is it better to get it right? And to me, whether it's a one month delay or a couple of weeks delay, it's more important for us as a group to have a really clear and agreed position on what we want to go out to the community with. So I reckon there's a step there before we set calls for expression of interest. We may want to decide how that's done, whether it's a quick phone around or whether it's a formal request of different groups. And I also think it's important that as soon as we do call those expressions of interest and we've got the terms of reference noted down, that we go out and seek similar arrangements with the other government departments as we've got with MSQ. And then finally, because we have got the runs on the board with MSQ and there is a lot of enthusiasm for all those things in the River Plan under sustainable use and enjoyment, that we actually use that as a working group. Now one of the things the terms of reference does, it talks about the ability to set up a committee.
00:50:00 What I've got and what I've got from the feedback in these key stakeholders, it is far better to actually put a bit of structure up front and say, well, this is going to be one working group and here might be another working group. There might be two, there might be three. But to me, I think it's important to say that this is what we're proposing with MSQ provides a good model. We're going to have a working group and they're going to concentrate on prioritising for that aspect of the River Plan. So if we keep on going down. One of the things, and I'm sorry, and I will go through some of the key things. When the motion to form this advisory group was really explicit in what it wanted. And it wanted people with demonstrated local knowledge and expertise to provide strategic input. Now those words aren't included in the existing terms of reference, and I think it's essential, but that's really clearly enunciated. I also think that what it hasn't done in terms of purpose is that this advice is not just to Council and MSQ. This advice needs to be informed decisions and priorities of both Noosa Council and the
00:51:00 Queensland Government. And we need to be really clear that we haven't lost sight of what the original Noosa River Plan was. A range of objectives there, and I think in terms of going down, the way they were previously worded, they were worded as outcome statements rather than objectives, but one of the key ones which I think we need to ask these people to do is we need to ask them to prioritise key issues in the Noosa River and catchment and recommend potential solutions to address them. I think we need to be really good and clear on that. The other ones are largely word changes, but we also want them to provide timely and considered advice on sustainable use, management and conservation of the Noosa River system. I've done a fair bit on what was just an explanation of Noosa's Council and Maritime Safety's mandate. I suggest if we keep on going down, that, oh, geographic extent, keep going like that.
00:52:00 This is where we're dealing with the catchment. So those first two sections were there. I suggested we needed a lot more in terms of identifying that it's Council's environment and sustainable living policy and the Noosa River Environment Strategy that set out the principles, goals and strategies, targets and outcomes sought to be achieved to enhance the health of the river. So that's what we want this group to be advising us on. We want to be advising us on those outcomes we and the community have already set, and it's not there at the moment in the terms of reference. Okay? And we've also got the Noosa River Plan as a draft, which proposes more detailed objects and actions. We want them to have a look at that and say, is this the priorities? So we need to be more clearly where our mandate is and what we expect. But there's also, if you go down, there's several other government departments that aren't recognised in the terms of reference. So if you could keep on scrolling, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, for example, is a key player in commercial and recreational fishing. We need to have them in. The Department of Environment and Science, a range of different legislations, Department
00:53:00 of Natural Resources. And I suppose right down the bottom, most importantly, is that we're dealing with the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi, and they need to be acknowledged as having a mandate as part of this terms of reference, that they have got certain rights and responsibilities under the Nature Title Act for the river, and we need to make that more explicit in my view. If we go down, the next part is where we're going to have the discussion. It's about the potential community structure. I agree that we can have this as a draft. I think everything above this we need to decide before it goes out for the selection process. We need to be really clear and have it decided. I actually think two working groups that are enunciated and look at what the participation should be in each of those and what the roles are. But I also think we do need that plenary, that where we bring all the groups together for the higher level strategic things. Maybe it's the higher level that starts the priorities, that looks at the river plan as
00:54:00 a whole. I don't disagree that there is a need for that forum. Councillor, it's about time. Councillor Wilkie: I'm up, Tom? Five minutes. Councillor, are you happy for Councillor Stockwell to continue? No issue at all? Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Continue. I'm just about to get to where I want. If you look at the next page, the draft river plan already identifies what the key issues are. I think the terms of reference could really link to that and say, well, here's the two different ones. One's all about river use. One's about river health. I don't argue with the fact that it's always beneficial to have a variety of interests looking at it from various perspectives, but I do believe that there is a lot of stuff that we need to look at in the river health that will have different players of interest who may wish to nominate and not be necessarily involved in anchoring more. But that's one thing we have to decide. In terms of chairing responsibilities, stakeholder representation, I believe there is a range
00:55:00 of things we have to think about and refine a little bit more. So for that reason, it's my intention, well, I will be. I'll move that we defer consideration of this matter to the ordinary meeting to allow staff and councillors meet with a view of refining the draft terms of reference. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Jurisevic: Could I ask a question of Councillor Stockwell before we go on from that presentation? Can you just go back to that presentation? Back up, back up, back up where we talked about the two there, Lee. River use and river health. Can you just go back to that presentation? Yeah. So anchoring and mooring, living on the river, have a, I believe, have an immediate impact or a direct impact on river health. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, and if you look at the diagram above, it's really clear that there's, you know, in working in catchments, everything's integrated. What I'm saying is that you're, once you've identified the key issues, having work groups
00:56:00 that look at bite-sized chunks, and then you set this up so that you're looking at, like, for example, for river health, it may be that their first focus may be on this investigation into the, what they have to do as a result of the skills report, what's the next? They may have totally different interests and focus their attention on totally different matters to that. And I'm not saying, and I think one person that, you know, I've been talking to key Stockwellers once said, obviously conservation should be in that, conservation groups should be in the river use group as well. What I'm saying is how we deal with this is a series of at least two working groups that have, hopefully, the same sort of bilateral commitment as we have with MSQ on their issues with the other departments. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that leads me to my second question. How closely aligned are all the policies of each of those various entrants?
00:57:00 And is that what we're suggesting the role of this group is, is to try to get all those state and council stakeholders more closely aligned with a clear common vision rather than differing directions in their policies? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think if you went to the highest policy level, they'd all be aligned. I think where the issue is, is getting agreement what the key issues and the actions required by both state and council are required. Ideally. And, sorry, if you go back to the diagram of, if you look at the top, and this is one of the things about whether or not I didn't support the issue on an independent chair, I think at the very top, it should be chaired by the mayor and maybe the CEO. Because I think when you have these working groups, in my experience, they want to be able to see that they're going to the highest level possible. And I also think we should invite the member Venusa there because they'll be recommending things that we'll be seeking political solutions to.
00:58:00 And we'll need the local member involved. And to me, that higher level committee should have that level rather than independent chair. The debate about independent chairs in the two working groups is something we can look at. As I said, we're not going to get today to a point where we all agree on how it works. I'll second it. And I think I've talked to it enough. Affirmation deferred. Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a special question to the CEO? We have a special session with Craig and his staff involved. If you wish to. Please. We want advice. And this is almost like Councillor Stockwell's presented something that's an alternative report to the 20-pager that we've already digested. And I don't see any serious questions about that cannot be addressed in this forum here. We want to get our heads around it and also come up with something that is the best that we can do in terms of the tax that fits the IT of what Councillor Stockwell's come out with
00:59:00 and blend with the enormous amount of work the staff have already done. That's why I'm supporting this motion to defer it. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can we add draft terms of reference? So to have that consideration in the draft terms of reference? And can we also add with the intent that it will be reviewed by the Noosa River Stakehold Advisory Committee at its first meeting? Speaker 6: The final decision on Thursday night might include something on those lines. Mayor Stewart: So the motion that I put up about the draft terms of reference and the third consideration... Speaker 6: That will be the starting point for discussion on Thursday night. Mayor Stewart: And may include some council stock analysis. Speaker 6: But the starting point on Thursday night's ordinary meeting will be the motion that's been deferred to Thursday. Tom? Councillor Wegener: Quick point. So this, for the NRSAC, under the purposes on page two of Brian's motion, I want to bring up, at some time, and I want to know the proper time to bring it up, is that this is not a decision-making body, and it's just merely making recommendations.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 And I would like to suggest that, in some way, that the recommendations that they make are, will be implemented, or if they're not implemented, a good reason for them not being implemented. Because it seems, for all the stakeholders and all these people to be working together, when they come to a decision, it shouldn't be a recommendation. It should be something much more solid. And I think that'll give a bit more oomph to the groups, knowing that they're actually putting in something that is going to have to be really, In order for Council to knock it back, you'll have to have a really good explanation why they're doing it. It's not just willy-nilly. Yes, no. Councillor Wilkie: Something we can talk about. We'll talk about that. That's the purpose of the deferral, so we can have those discussions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Your suggestion about the Council saying we're either going to accept it or give you reasons why not,
01:01:00 that was, I believe, built into the original noose and second working group model. Councillor Wilkie: We've got a deferral motion here, and that's what we're talking to at the moment. Any other Councillors wish to speak about deferring this issue or not? Councillor Finzel: Well, I'd just like to say I agree with deferring the issue. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: I just think it's changed the whole way we were headed today to a completely different thing. It would have to, like, have to meet some workshops and everything involved. The group was meant to be coming together that we were discussing today to finalise the terms of reference, giving them the discussion and the power to do so, because this has gone on for years. I think this is just, we've moved completely away to what we were looking at today, and I think deferring it to Thursday night will not provide sufficient time. We're going to unpack a whole lot of other stuff again. I think today the move by the staff to put this up was a good report. It went back to meetings prior to this where we just said let's bring in this terms of reference
01:02:00 with the view to bring together all the stakeholders' groups. And this has gone on for years, to give them a voice at the table. It is time for the people to collaborate and work together despite the different ideas and the diversity. However, if people can come together and work in unity towards the common goal of one river, I understand the complexities of that, but we need a united voice. Everyone needs to be respected at the table. And I just think to go back and rehash this proposal and disregard what the staff put to the table, which was under discussion for today, is just unacceptable. Councillor Wilkie: Noted. Just a clarification, but the CEO can confirm this, but there's no decisions to be made today. It's only recommendations for Thursday night. And Thursday night still remains the time when a final decision will be made by the local government
01:03:00 regarding the terms of reference for the river plan, so no delay in that regard. Now, Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'm happy enough to defer this to Thursday night. But this, what Councillor Stockwell has put forward seems to be some way, some distance from where staff got to with their recommendations before us today. So there's potentially quite a lot of discussion to be had in this realm. I'm not sure. I'm not quite sure why the points raised by Councillor Stockwell today wouldn't have been points that he raised earlier and haven't been considered by staff. I don't think there are questions I guess we can raise through a bit more further discussion on this matter. So I'm prepared to defer this for further discussion before Thursday night.
01:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to it? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stewart. I will. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. I want to thank Councillor Stockwell for all of his work on this. He's spent an inordinate amount of time and his own time on weekends looking at the terms of reference. I do concur though with Councillor Finzel in that this is taking our decision or our documents into a different direction to what staff put up. What I feel most strongly about is that the terms of reference are there. But that they have input and are able to be amended by the stakeholder reference group which I think everyone around this table recognises the value and the importance of that group. So for me the biggest consideration if we look at it from yes we need to get it right but this has been going on for a long time. Bringing this, deferring this to Thursday we will have what a one hour meeting with Craig to talk about this.
01:05:00 Will we be able to unpack these very significant issues in that time? The staff have worked on this for years. I think that we should continue on. I think there should be a draft terms of reference as I flagged. And I think that we should get the stakeholders input and feedback as soon as possible and that group ready to go as soon as possible. And then we have some tangible things that we can move forward with. Just because, you know, and something when they come back with their feedback from that terms of reference and what they think needs to be changed perhaps that is then an opportunity that we can look at what Councillor Stockwell has said. But I think for the purposes of this meeting and where we're going that we should continue on. We should support the amendments about it being a draft and we should get that stakeholder engagement ASAP. Councillor Wilkie: Anthony Dow you should have something to say. Speaker 1: Can I just respond to I guess around clarification. So yeah, thank you Councillor Stockwell on I guess the level of detail.
01:06:00 And I think purpose and scope and clarity is critical. It is so important. Or I guess I have to raise concerns around resources and the work done to date. So clarity around expectations for Thursday I think is important. What do you want to have a discussion and present it on Thursday or there's information between now and Thursday to help make that decision. Probably the scope I saw from where we are now. To what I saw from Councillor Stockwell brings you into a wider and different place around probably resource impacts that really need to be thought through. So I see up there as part of the motion that there is the opportunity for the CEO to amend the final and probably have some clarity around there. So I guess for me, for the team, what's the expectation between now and Thursday?
01:07:00 How can we bring that to a conclusion? Or give you the information to give you more comfort in making that decision? And maybe there is some clarity around the scope of the CEO's amendments and where we can actually clarify everything. Because obviously I've heard a lot around it's been a long time. Let's keep moving forward. So if we can have that clarity, that would be appreciated. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. Are we able to schedule one to two hours between now and Thursday with you and Craig and Jan? To unpack that? Speaker 9: Certainly we can. I think your time is generally more restricted than ours. We've got a pretty open week. Mayor Stewart: And then I guess my question from that is one to two hours, does that give us the answers that we want? And if we're changing the scope of the whole document, is that one to two hours enough? Speaker 9: I think there's – I'll try not to talk at a turn here.
01:08:00 I think the value in potentially doing it beforehand would not change. I think the value in it would not just be to bring in some of Councillor Stockwell's ideas but to actually bring in some of the feedback you've already received from some of the stakeholders that could also go into the terms of reference. Even if we still went down a path with fundamentally the same structure and the group itself could have a discussion later on as to when they split into two groups, there could potentially be an opportunity between now and Thursday to alleviate some of those concerns more earlier by bricking together some of that feedback we've already had into the version that goes through Thursday. Councillor Lorentson: I'm in agreeance with Brian that it's better to get it right than on time. And I think that we need to further discuss this. So I'm happy to support the deferment. I do, though, want to state that I think the original motion to draft the terms of reference
01:09:00 and then just bring it back to the stakeholder advisory reference group will achieve, I believe, the right outcome. So I'm open to listening and further elaborating on Councillor Stockwell's proposal, but I do have my questions around it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell is to close on the deferral motion. Yeah, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The suggestion that we're moving right away from what we're starting to propose to me is an inaccurate one. And I think what has proven to be successful in similar circumstances, where we've had a complex matter, where we've had a variety of different ideas and a variety of different amendments, if we do get together in between now and Thursday, is we can come up with, we'll have a fairly good idea of what the majority of people support.
01:10:00 And the suggestion that we're deferring to allow something completely different to what staff have recommended, to me, is inaccurate. And I think it's important to stress, I think the model that was put up with MSQ has great value. What I think, where my view is, is that the terms of reference, we need to have the purpose, the scope, the objectives set before we go. And for that, I think we can get to an agreed position before Thursday. And I also think that if we're seeking stakeholder input, my view is it's better to go before you call expression of interest. If the majority of people think it should be after, then I think we should at least have within what goes out to the public, maybe two options for how this stakeholder group could work. So I do think there's benefits. I think that's the idea of us getting around the table.
01:11:00 I do point out that when I moved the motion to form this reference group, I did have ideas in my head. And to my memory, we haven't workshopped it up till now. And it was just a report that landed the first week after our break. So there hasn't been an opportunity to workshop. So a little bit of a workshop to try and get as many people as possible on the same page, I think is of great value and will make Thursday go quicker, otherwise we might have another series of amendments. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion to defer. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wilkie. Against? Councillor Stewart, Councillor Finzel. The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're now to the Drive Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. Councillors, we're almost been going for two hours. Would anyone care for a short break? Yes please. Yes. Alright. We'll adjourn the meeting. 10 Minutes. We'll resume at 12 o'clock.
75 minutes in ¶
01:20:00 Okay, we're up to item three, which is the draft coastal hazards adaptation plan to go out for community consultation. Council, do we have any declarations? Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cherasani owns a property at Beaches Estate, Sunrise Beach, which is one of the properties identified as at risk under the CHAP.
01:21:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room with the matter while the matter is considered and voted on. I would also like to make a note that although I respect the advice given by the CEO to leave this room for this debate, I would like on record that I am disappointed with what, in my opinion, is an unintended and undesirable consequence of recent reforms to council a conflict of interest disclosure and obligations. This is a major policy for council and it is my opinion that in the best interest of local democratic representatives, I should be allowed to stay in this room, except for the part of the CHAP that deals with my brother's property at Sunrise Beach and Sunshine Precinct. I will be requesting that the CEO refer this matter or anomaly to the local government of Queensland for review.
01:22:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I, too, have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I am the owner of Lot 45 Noosa Lake Resort at 3 Hilton Terrace, Tewantin. The draft Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan identifies that riverine areas including Noosaville and Tewantin will be most affected by periodic storm tide, inundation and permanent sea level rise. On page 7 and further reported is further, the property is mapped in figure 5 which relates to potential inundation resulting from sea level rise. In particular, the plan suggests low-lying areas will be exposed to more frequent inundation under everyday conditions and also with storm tides. At best, this means that the access to property will be more frequently inundated and actions and investigations are envisaged to adapt to this increased risk from climate change.
01:23:00 As such, I stand to benefit more from the recommendations in the draft plan than the majority of residents in the Shire. 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, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wilkie: And welcome Grant Hinner, Rebecca Britton and Mr Anthony Dow. Councillors, questions for staff? Councillor Wegener: Just to get it off my chest, sorry. I'm frustrated that the two Councillors have left the room because I appreciate their knowledge and input into these things. I don't like to talk much. I like to listen. They are very good at talking and bringing up the issues. So, Mr CEO, if you could add that to the report. Speaker 6: Yeah, just maybe to explain Councillor Lorentson's comments, and I agree with her.
01:24:00 She and I are in furious agreement on this issue. That under the reforms that have been happening over the last couple of years, the government, rightly, has been tightening up conflict of interest provisions for Councillors due to some of the problems that have occurred at some of those councils that we're all familiar with and other parts of Queensland. And what they've done is swung the pendulum pretty strongly to tighten those up. And I think they've probably struck it just a little bit too far because you end up with a major policy issue like this where it would be beneficial to have all the Councillors in the room and then not deal with the issue that's got the conflict. You can deal with the general policy question, but because it's so enmeshed in the chat, it's very difficult to do. And once you've triggered that prescribed conflict of interest, you have no choice. You must leave the room. You don't have a choice whether other colleagues can say, oh, you can remain but not talk about that area you have a conflict in, but you can talk about the general policy issue. So I have indicated to Councillor Lorentson that I will be using this as an example with the State when I talk to them about the practical implementation of their reforms, that it's probably had some unintended consequences.
01:25:00 And they need to look at whether or not they've just swung that pendulum a little bit too far. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Grant or Rebecca, for the benefit of people listening, would you care to give an overview of what we're doing here today with the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan going out to the public? Speaker 2: The risks and the necessary responses to those risks across a range of assets in the Shire, both public and private. So a key part of the project is to develop our understanding of the coastal hazards around coastal erosion, inundation. And then, and also storm tide. So those three hazards, we have had had some information around the current day risks. What we needed was an improved understanding of how sea level rise increases those risks over time. The recommendations within the plan include a set of responses to around further investigating how those risks affect certain localities.
01:26:00 Necessary monitoring to continue to understand how the hazard changes over time. And then also things like changes to the planning scheme to improve the way we direct development for building requirements, development requirements. The necessary policy that informs developments in the high risk areas. So the actions within the plan are important to understand in terms of what the next steps are. There's preferred outcomes that are broad outcomes that set a direction into the future. And then there's smaller timeframe ones that we've considered what are the priorities for the next five years. And so those five year priorities will inform our budget requests, our ongoing programs.
01:27:00 And then there's the planning program of activities and investigations over those years. Councillor Wilkie: Could you explain how this version of the plan has changed since the first round of consultation? Speaker 2: So the very first round of consultation was highlighting the purpose of the plan. And also for council staff to get an understanding of what the values were in the community around particular areas of interest. Had a general understanding of where the hazard locations were. But wanted a stronger appreciation of what some of those values were that the community were interested in having protected and managed into the long term. So what we presented to the community at the time was some mapping. But not the detail that we now have within the actual CHAP document. Councillor Wilkie: And item C of the recommendation says note that the updates have been made to the coastal hazard mapping of erosion.
01:28:00 For beachfront areas between Peregian Beach Beach and Sunshine Beach. This updated mapping has been made available. How did the feedback, how did the first, did this flow from the first consultation process? This information that required the changing of the mapping or prompted the changing of the mapping? Speaker 2: There was a set of changes to the planning scheme that went out to the community for consultation about 18 months ago. And that prompted some comments back from the community around what the underlying mapping was that informed that amendment. And that was the coastal erosion mapping. And so those comments allowed us to ensure that we did some further investigation into the inputs into the model that informed that mapping. Detailed conversations with the state to then allow for a set of revisions to then happen. So it was more probably through the amendment process to the planning scheme that the changes were made.
01:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: And can you speak to what, can you generalise about the sort of changes to the mapping that's affecting Peregian Beach Beach and Sunshine Beach that have occurred? Speaker 2: Down in the southern part of Peregian Beach we included modelling inputs that were more conservative than what the revised mapping is. So when we did those revisions we were able to reduce the hazard extent. And the implications for properties down there is that for the 2070 and the 2100 hazard extents they are affecting less of the properties in that area. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. The recommendation is to approve the draft Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. So it's a still draft form. When do, what is left in the process to formalise this and put it into BAME? Speaker 2: The significant part of the process, which is security. We will be receiving comment from the community. So through the three weeks of consultation.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Minimum 28 days. Minimum 28 days of public consultation on this draft going out. Speaker 2: We'll receive comments from the community and make any necessary changes as part of that. We'll be bringing a revised chat back to the council for consideration. Speaker 5: I'll just add to that, it also goes to representatives from the LJQ and the Department of Environment and Science. At the same time it's out for public comment. And they provide comments back to council at the cessation of the public comment period. And we review the feedback both from the community and the state. At the same time. Councillor Jurisevic: But at all levels of preparation of this document. This has gone through a number of state interest checks and the like as well as . It will be one of the most significant documents. As far as impacting and guiding planning, the planning, spending, development applications. And an understanding of the risks going forward for this community.
01:31:00 It's a very significant document as a result of that. I'd like to commend the staff on the work that they've put in to date. And very particular who's spent all of his time getting this all processed. And helping councillors to understand the significance of the challenges before us. I welcome the opportunity for further community engagement and feedback on this document over the next over the 28 days that we place it out there. And of course input from the other state agencies. But not only are we challenged by this as a coastal community going forward with not only the coastal areas. But the areas that are potentially impacted by river inundation and flood inundation. Storm activity and the like going forward with the climate change as it is. But as staff have alluded, many, many communities across all the coastal regions of Australia have this challenge going forward.
01:32:00 So I commend the work of staff again. And I look forward to seeing what the future holds. And what the input and the feedback from the community are with the challenges this presents for the future. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisdict. Mayor Stewart: Can I just ask a few questions? This is more for people at home. How will feedback be available? How do we get this to the relevant interested bodies, stakeholders? Is it on Your Say or is that where we're promoting this? Speaker 2: Yes, Your Say Noosa will be the primary means. The documents are already available now that are in the agenda. We'll be advertising through all the normal social media sites, sending out media releases and contacting community groups directly as well. Councillor Wegener: In that way, this document is enormous to a relatively, well, a medium-sized chunk of the population. Do you think 28 days is enough?
01:33:00 And if we're not quite there, if we don't feel confident, can we prolong that for further communication? Or is that just set in stone? Speaker 2: Other than those minimum requirements, Council can extend the period of time. Speaker 6: I think if this was the first time we've been out, that would be a good argument. But this is not the first time we've been out to public consultation on the same topic. It's a continuation of it, so that's probably the difference. It's a second round. Yeah, it's a second round. Councillor Wilkie: Whenever a local government produces a document that outlines hazards, there's always a discussion about how that impacts on insurance premiums. There's a lot of mythology surrounding that. Would you care to speak to how documents like this affect premiums, if at all? Speaker 2: Grant's done a bit of research on this, and if he doesn't mind, I might request his help with this. Speaker 5: Yeah, so this question always comes up.
01:34:00 And we had a look at what research there was looking at any sort of effect on insurance premiums. And there's very little to none, no effect, that can be seen. When insurance premiums are affected is when there's an actual hazard event, and the insurance companies respond to that. Typically, the level of mapping that we're trying to do is more accurate and less conservative than what insurance companies will use. So the hazard extends are often less. So we're looking at the level of mapping put out by local governments, compared to the insurance providers, because they don't have the level of data to input into the models the same way we do. Speaker 2: And remembering too, the insurance agencies will be looking at current day risks, not future hazards. So this project is about future sea level rise to 2050, 2070, 2100. So they're not risks at a date that insurance companies are interested in.
01:35:00 Speaker 5: Yeah, sorry, the way it was explained to me was that they only look 10 years ahead. Speaker 6: Yes, and they're probably ahead of most other agencies in terms of assessing risk anyway. So they've got a commercial element to it, and we mean something to them in terms of money, so. Councillor Wilkie: So the mapping is as conservative compared to the work that insurance agencies will be referring to? Speaker 5: Not, sorry, not always. No. But, as a general rule, because local governments are using more accurate inputs, the hazard extends are often less than what insurance companies will calculate on their own. Councillor Wilkie: So the mapping itself doesn't necessarily send insurance premiums up, but the actual events do? Speaker 5: Correct, yeah. Insurance, insurance, come. The other question that often comes up is particularly relevant for this project, and it's, you know, I think it's important to note that, you know, there are a number of different types of insurance companies out there. One of the myths is that this sort of mapping will increase premiums, but one of the other myths is that people have coverage for what are called actions of the sea, and to date, very few, if any, insurance companies provide insurance coverage for these sorts of hazards.
01:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, you've pre-entered the question. I was going to raise in that regard. There are, you know, hazards exist. A lot of insurance companies do. A lot of insurance companies don't already, most insurance companies don't already provide coverage for those risks. Exactly. That are already there. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: As stated in the report, Noosa Shire already experiences coastal erosion as well as tidal inundation at the Noosa River foreshore and parts of Noosa Heads. Science-based predictions show we can expect the impacts of erosion and inundation risk to worsen over time. The purpose of this work is to responsibly identify, communicate and prepare for the current and future risks from coastal hazards.
01:37:00 This process is an opportunity for the community to understand the impacts of climate change and contribute to the decision-making about how we adapt. The plan aims to identify what actions are required to avoid, reduce or adapt to these risks to people, property, assets and the environment. The project will provide mapping and information to council departments to ensure the planning scheme, asset management, community awareness, disaster management, and the environment. Financial planning takes into account the risks posed by these significant, predicted changes over time. Ultimately, it is intended to ensure a responsible, well-informed, coordinated and proactive approach for council and the community to adapt to climate change and coastal hazards now and into the future. I look forward to seeing the feedback from the community and I too would like to commend the staff and the enormous amount of work that's taken place on this project over the last four years. Councillor Wegener: And just one note to that. This is very clearly written. I think it's a very nice document to put out to the public.
01:38:00 Councillor Wilkie: There were some questions about the detail shown in the mapping. Will the mapping be quite detailed in terms of the 2100 line, the 2070 line, the 2040 line? And also, is there details about the methodology? That's in a separate document? Yes. Speaker 2: All that information is on the project's website. There's a link there, including the links to the Intramats mapping, which allows you to zoom in at your relevant scale to be able to see the three map layers over the three different time horizons. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. And on behalf of residents of the North Shore, there's some questions about what are the proposed adaptation measures proposed for areas of the North Shore from tidal inundation? Speaker 2: So council staff have looked at a range of assets. We've looked at a range of assets. That's part of the study in combination with the engineering consultants that we commissioned to do the project.
01:39:00 Assets including the private properties and also infrastructure, roads, telecommunications, emergency buildings that are over there, fire brigade, and looked at the level of exposure to those hazards and made recommendations. Okay. So the recommendations that we've looked at are mostly related to the permanent inundation from sea level rise, that over time we will see increasing areas of properties inundated for longer periods and more frequently. So the recommendations are largely about making sure our asset management plans properly consider the hazards with any upgrades that occur to that infrastructure that they take account of storm tide and permanent inundation. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So roads built above the level of inundation, for example. Speaker 2: Yeah. For the standard of service that's relevant for an area of that nature.
01:40:00 Councillor Wilkie: And how would telecommunications be protected? Speaker 2: I think it's more for making the infrastructure providers aware of that risk. And no doubt they already are, but there's detailed information that we can provide for them to inform their future planning if they need to build resilience into the infrastructure. That would be for them to determine as the experts and the providers there. Councillor Jurisevic: Something along the lines of we may see more aerials rather than underground services in areas of inundation and things along those lines? Speaker 2: That could be an example whether that's relevant for North Shore. I'm not sure. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And so you would not only direct people to this document, but also supporting documents that talk about the methodology and the cost benefit analysis and how you arrived at the figures and also the... Yeah. Proposals. Speaker 2: Yeah. So the cost benefit analysis is relevant for the Noosaville area, which has significant
01:41:00 infrastructure and buildings, commercial precincts. And then also for the Eastern Beaches areas as well to help us understand what the various options were for those areas. And so they don't relate to the Noosa North Shore area. Detailed options assessments were done for Noosa North Shore and those ones that were relevant for that location were for North Shore. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I had a question raised. I can't remember whether it was in the feedback on the river plan or on the hazard adaptation plan. It was particularly relevant for North Shore with regard to safety systems and pump outs and how they may be impacted by that and whether a more permanent sewage system may be more appropriate. I'm guessing a document like this will be the guiding document for the future as to what the appropriate methodologies to... Yeah. To undertake for infrastructure for the future will be.
01:42:00 Speaker 2: Yeah. So relevant to sewage? Councillor Jurisevic: Relevant to sewage or any other potential impacts on those areas. So an understanding, a better understanding and a better modelling of what the potential areas being impacted are will guide the level of infrastructure or any changes that are required for infrastructure to prevent some sort of pollution of the river or any other impact for the future. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. For a lot of the assets that are affected by the different hazards, it will be a bit of a watching brief. But we know what we know so far and that those hazards will continue to change over time and affect different assets in different ways. So while we can monitor a lot of things, we don't have all the answers right now. For things like sewage infrastructure over on North Shore, for example, it will be a case of having to monitor the risk over time in those areas and to determine what the appropriate
01:43:00 response is. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, obviously, it won't only impact there. It will impact and guide council as to where public toilet facilities may be on a river, for example, where footpaths may be located, where benches and the like may be impacted. And rather than just replace light for light, to forward think as to, is this the most appropriate location for this piece of infrastructure? No. It's about knowing what we know and the life of that asset. Will that, you know, in the life of that asset, will that asset become inundated or potentially impacted? Should we move it back? Should we relocate it? Should we not replace it in the location that it is along that side? So those are the sort of guiding principles that we can, that this document will drive in council. Thoughts for the future. Speaker 2: That's right. And there are assets that are identified as being at immediate risk that are listed within the plan that we'll need to do investigations now for. So that when the next upgrade to that infrastructure is due, that we adequately, appropriately design
01:44:00 it for that hazard. Councillor Jurisevic: So this document will be a guiding document into the asset management plans that Brian has been undertaking. And as those assets become, reach the end of their life, that will be part of the guiding process. Speaker 2: That's right. And we're already engaging closely with the infrastructure guys through the planning, infrastructure planning process to make sure this information is embedded in their decisions. Excellent. Councillor Jurisevic: So we're getting ahead of the curve and trying to be forward thinking. Forward planning. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to say that thank you. This is a significant contribution to the documents available to council as a valuable resource to speak to all areas. Previously discussed. So I want to congratulate you and all the team for the work that's taken many years. The workshops have been really full of positive, you know, information moving forward and the
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 technical aspects that you've brought to us, including some of the things that like had to be projected forward to the future around, you know, coastal erosion and impacts has been commendable. So I just want to thank you for the work that you've done. We've all contributed and also for the contribution from the funding that we received from other levels of government to make this possible. So I'm happy to accept your recommendations today moving forward. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Maybe just one more comment. We have to get this thinking into our paradigm models in our head and when it comes to looking forward and future planning. And I just like, I'm looking at, you know, I'm looking at, you know, I'm looking at, I'm looking at the Nisa heads here and while this measures locality was prohibiting further intensification of urban development over the long term. I mean, that's such a heavy way to statement here, but it's simply put into this document
01:46:00 and it gives people the heads up, like, oh yeah, this is, this is where Council's mind is at. And yeah, so anyway, there's a lot of that all sorts of yellow down pieces in here with comments that I like because they simply state a very big point. And thank you. Chair. Chair, do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: Only to reiterate the points raised. I think Councillor Wilkie in particular raised some significant points with regard to the document and what this means for the future. This sort of forward thinking and future planning document is something I'd like to see more of. I mean, you know, the sort of ways and means forward we counsel to have a 20-year or 50-year vision and taking all of these sort of considerations into our mindset as to how we future plan and future think is an essential document.
01:47:00 Again, this will present some challenges for many, not only private landholders, but also ourselves and state agencies as public landholders and the infrastructure that sits within. But if we embed the concepts that have been presented here into our future planning, we can actually be ahead of the curve and act ahead of the curve to ensure that the impacts of climate change and storm inundation and the like are lessened once these impacts are felt in 2040, 2070, 2021. So again, I'd like to congratulate the staff on the excellent work they've done, the excellent presentation, the understanding that you've given this council over. Over many years, as well as both councils that we've had. And I said I welcome the feedback from the community with the challenges that this presents for. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion to those in favour.
01:48:00 That's unanimous. Thank you, Grant. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: That's a huge amount of work. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell can come back and do that. Pardon? Mayor Stewart: I didn't think I'd add anything to what Norman said. Speaker 2: That's amazing. Councillor Jurisevic: That's quite quick. I like that. That's right. What is it? What is it? I don't know. Councillor Wilkie: We cut now as we debate with that. We're just on. We're really on. Councillor Lorentson. Welcome. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry Fulton and Patrick Murphy. We're now up to item four, which is application of a development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation at unit 127 Hill Street, Sunshine Beach. The councillor's question is for staff. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, Kerry, I've got a few questions.
01:49:00 My first question is that the applicant may be up... If the applicant made the application under the superseded scheme for... Short-term accommodation, would it be likely that council would have approved the short-term accommodation use? Speaker 4: It would be unlikely that council or officers would have agreed to such a request on the superseded scheme. We have a new planning scheme in place and we're looking for development to comply with that. The superseded scheme requests are really around opportunities for compensation for owners where they're affected by changes made to planning schemes. And this site would be unlikely... It's not adversely affected necessarily by the change to the planning scheme because the new planning scheme supports short-term accommodation in this area. And further, a superseded scheme request does not provide for the opportunity to condition such a request with any requirements.
01:50:00 It's something that we would have to agree to the request. And there'd be no condition... Not an opportunity to place a condition. So, yeah, it'd be unlikely to have supported such a request. Councillor Lorentson: And so, this would be a preferred option. Speaker 4: This is a preferred option. We have our new planning scheme. It does support short-term accommodation in the area. Going through the application process requires them to publicly notify the application for comment from residents. So, council can take that into consideration. But council, importantly, can also place conditions on such an approval to influence and manage it better, ensure it operates in a way that it's safe to use. It addresses residents' concern and potential impacts from the use. Councillor Wegener: Brett, Brett, I asked him to work on three facts, four texts, one idea. Yeah. Speaker 6: So, Councillor Wegener, I might get Kerry to answer this one if I can translate, if I
01:51:00 can use that term. Thomas asked me about... During the break, the total break, about... Just to explain the difference between... Well, how the council went around... ...the new planning scheme to differentiate between the different types of zones and where short-term accommodation could be used in those zones. So, for example, the planning... Maybe I'll try and answer my own question. You correct me if I'm wrong. That the intent was that short-term accommodation would not be permitted in low-density residential, but would be permitted in medium-density residential, high-density residential, tourist accommodation zone, primarily, in the urban areas we're talking about. Okay. So, the policy intent was to have them in those medium and high-density and tourism zones, but not in the low-density residential. That's essentially what the planning scheme was aimed at. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. That's a good summary of it, really. What we were seeing in our detached housing areas, our residential low-density areas,
01:52:00 is a lot of short-term accommodation occurring. We were getting complaints from residents where it occurred, particularly when it had a high number of guests able to use the property at any one time. We were getting whole streets of detached housing areas turned into just short-term accommodation. So, that was starting to not just have some amenity impacts for people, but less impacting on the fabric of that community in a lot of ways. So, through the consultation process and scheme, it was identified that we still wanted to continue to allow some short-term accommodation in Noosa that supports our tourism industry, but we decided to limit it just to those areas which support unit-type development, so duplexes and multiple dwellings, which are the areas located around existing centres, so they're in proximity to those centres and other services, and typically closer to the beach as well.
01:53:00 Councillor Wegener: Why is this one before us, then, because I noticed that in the ones that don't become before Council that there was one short-term application that was rejected, one that was accepted. Why is this one before us? Is this because of... Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Speaker 4: So, the applications under the superseded scheme are currently decided by offices because of the short timeframe specified by the Planning Act, so if Council doesn't make a decision whether to agree or not to agree to those superseded scheme requests within the specified timeframe, which is 30 business days, then it's taken that Council has agreed to it. So, they are decided by Council offices for that reason, but the intent is if there's anything particularly controversial where compensation or there'd be significant impacts, we would report those to Council where we could when timeframes allowed, but they are decided by offices. The short-term accommodation is something delegated to offices.
01:54:00 This application could be decided by offices, but this is our first application for short-term accommodation that's being decided under the new planning scheme, and we did receive quite a number of submissions. So, it was put to Council for that reason, so Council can start to have a look at this, and we'd get some decisions from Council on the direction that we'd like to go, particularly around the conditions that offices are recommending. Councillor Wilkie: I noticed that... Sorry, John. Councillor Jurisevic: We've got to clarify that. So, based on the question that was asked earlier, under the superseded scheme, this would not have been approved? Speaker 4: No. It would have been refused. Councillor Jurisevic: So, it was only under... So, the applicant has made the application under the new scheme because they knew it wouldn't be approved under the new scheme. Speaker 4: It's more likely to be approved under the new scheme. Yeah. The application on the superseded scheme, that request is all about whether we will accept an application if it's required under the superseded scheme or not. Under the superseded scheme, it was an accepted development. As a right, it didn't require an approval. There's no approval process under the superseded scheme.
01:55:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So, from what I'm reading of the objections, sort of, if I may continue on, what I'm reading under the objections that have been stated, this seems to be a residential area, but it's clearly not a low-density residential area. Where does... Where is the line of delineation in this area with regard to low and medium density and why is a block... I know there are a number of unit-type complexes along Pacific Avenue and in that area. Where is the line of delineation in Sunshine Beach? Speaker 4: So, it's based on the zoning pattern for the area. And so, this site is zoned medium-density residential under the new scheme, which supports your duplexes. So, that's... So, that really, the scheme defines that area as to where short-term accommodation is permitted. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And Karen, please. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'm just wondering for the interest... Oh, I guess the people at home can't see. Can we just put the map up from page 60 to just have a look at the area so that we can
01:56:00 have a visual of the area? Because then you can see the... Yeah, 60, isn't it? There's several maps. Any one of the maps, just so Councillor Jurisevic can get a picture of the... Councillor Jurisevic: No, no, I've got the picture. I was asking the question on behalf of those, the objectors that have raised matters there. Why it was being approved in what is essentially a residential area. Medium density. Because it's medium density. Yeah. In that definition, as those... I was trying to clarify for the benefit of those, where the medium density and the low density... Is there any low density in that area still? Or is there all the fighters medium density these days? Speaker 7: I'd have to bring up the maps. Speaker 8: Yeah, sorry. Speaker 7: There is a... Councillor Wegener: I could answer that question. I was looking at the map last night. And Pacific Avenue, this is actually high density right here, and this is all medium
01:57:00 density from here to here. Councillor Jurisevic: As is my understanding, because of the unit complexes and everything. Speaker 4: We can send a zoning map to councillors, so they can have a look before the ordinary meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's the next map that... Yeah, that would be great. So, yeah, there's one there that shows that. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it was that one. Page 60. Speaker 7: Where the objectives were made for. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: The stars are the objectives, weren't they? That's right. Yeah. Speaker 7: Now I'm looking for the Airbnb guard. That one. Speaker 4: Yeah, that's on page 58. Speaker 6: Keep going, and down at the bottom of that page. That's the one that shows what other Airbnb is in that locality. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Kerry, would it be fair to say that one of the benefits of having applications for short-term accommodation made under the current Noosa planning scheme is that it allows staff to apply conditions that reflect some of those conditions that we're intending to introduce under the local law, which is still in the process of formulation in regards to cars being parked on site, not in the street.
01:58:00 Activity and also having the number of the property owner to be contacted within 20 minutes if there's a problem. Things like that. Speaker 4: Yeah, well you said it all. That's exactly what is enabled by an application under the planning scheme. It's to limit the scale to a suitable number because our learnings from past complaints around short-term accommodation is the complaints which are being made is when the number of guests on site start to exceed 10 and the like. This one is a very low number. They've proposed only four guests at any time. So certainly the conditions are reflective of some of the conditions that were in the requirements put into the draft local law, which is still to be finalised.
01:59:00 Councillor Wilkie: And the draft local law will apply to when it is introduced, existing and future short-term accommodation. Speaker 4: That's right. The draft local law will apply to this and other existing. The existing ones as well as future ones. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry Brian. I was happy to move it. Move Councillor Stockwell. Is there a seconder? Seconder Councillor Stewart and Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do so. If you could bring up page 57.2 please, Cathy, when you're ready. The new planning scheme quite clearly says that we envisage a mix of permanent and visitor accommodation in the medium density residential zone. So it is foreshadowed. It also then says that it's a consistent use for short-term rental, short-term accommodation, but it's impact-accessible. So the key issues that we have to consider are what's listed under PO6 there. It says visitor accommodation is limited to formats compatible with the character and use of the area so as not to cause unreasonable loss of residential amenity having regard to privacy, likely increase in noise, scale and compatibility with the character and uses with the property in the surrounding area, retention of the primary resident function of the area, residential function arrangement of common property, safety and efficiency of the local railroad network, impact of waste storage, location of waste storage and shared vehicle access, no impact.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Okay. So what staff's done is they've assessed against those criteria and said this complies. It's consistent use and it doesn't create impacts, unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties and the road network. And therefore it's a, for me, I acknowledge the concerns of the objectives, but to me it complies with the planning scheme and therefore warrants approval. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment to include just a couple of changes. To condition A6 that all outdoor areas, including balconies, decks, pool and the like, must not be used after 10pm each night.
02:01:00 I'd also like to include an advisory note. C, include the following advisory note on the decision notice. That it is. That it is. One, the responsibility of the owner and the identified contact person to operate the short-term accommodation in compliance with the development approval conditions at all times. Should the development approval conditions not be met, Council may issue an infringement and or take action under the Planning Act 2016 to enforce compliance. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question of staff. Hmm. Given that, when did the 9pm time come from?
02:02:00 Where did the decision to make, draw the line at 9pm come from? Speaker 7: It was reflective of the submission put forward by the applicant, which notes that there's to be quiet time after 9pm. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that, from what I was reading, that's my understanding, that the applicant actually put forward the 9pm times? Speaker 7: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just got a question then. On page 60 was the... Yeah. The question was, they stated that the pools from nearby resorts with management, they have to close at 8pm. Is that correct? Or then that creates a disparity between a resort... Who regulates when a resort has to shut their pool and outdoor areas? Speaker 4: That's a rule imposed by the resort managers themselves typically. Oh, the resort manager. Yeah. And it's not on... It does not live on the planning approvals for those developments. And that timeframe can vary from resort to resort. Resort. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, back to the quiet times.
02:03:00 That's Team B... I think it's Team B&B. That's one of their house royals, that there's no parties, no loud noise at any time, and quiet time is to start at 9pm. Can you define what quiet time means? Does that... So, we have two situations here. What I'm asking is, we're talking about use. We're talking about use of outdoor areas, which is sitting down and having a glass of wine or reading a book on your balcony. Quiet time does not prohibit sitting outside. It just means don't make a loud noise when you're sitting outside. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Look, quiet time is something that's put forward by that operator. I'm not sure what they intend by quiet time, but the way you've described it sounds reasonable. Yeah. I would suggest so. So, I guess we've gone a step further than what was proposed in actually stating that
02:04:00 is a requirement that it must cease outside, because it's our experience, is that the outdoor areas is what causes, can potentially cause the greatest impact for residents. So, it makes it more specific that you cannot use the outdoor area after that time, you have to move inside. Councillor Lorentson: Can we talk about the location of the outdoor areas? So, we've got a balcony, an outdoor deck, and a pool. Cool. Can you explain where they're located in reference to neighbouring properties? Speaker 7: Yes, it is in the attachments, the plans, and you'll see there's a proposed ground floor and a proposed first floor plan. There is an outdoor entertainment and pool area to the front of the site, which is sort of adjacent to the corner of the property. So, you've got Hill Street and Pacific Avenue, which abuts the outdoor entertainment and
02:05:00 pool area on the adjoining duplex, but acknowledge that it's situated a significant distance from the properties on the other side of Pacific Avenue and Hill Street. And then again, upstairs, the balcony is situated to the front of the property, again, adjacent to the balcony on the adjoining duplex. Councillor Lorentson: So, if you're sitting on the balcony, you're facing, I've been to the property site, so you're facing a pretty busy intersection, a busy road, is that correct? Speaker 7: You are facing out towards the corner. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, the most impacted property, and this is from me visiting the site, is the adjoining property. And have they raised an objection? Speaker 7: There's been no objection raised from the adjoining property. So, again, I think that your comment, if I may add, about it being a busy intersection,
02:06:00 we're talking about a time of day when I think it would be reasonable to expect there to be a less amount of traffic in that area, and certainly we'd expect that there's the opportunity for noise if it was allowed to carry into the broader area. Councillor Wilkie: For the sake of testing the amendment, I'm happy to have seconded it, and Councillor Lawrence is free to... Okay. Councillor Lorentson: No worries. Okay. Unit 127 Hill Street, Sunshine Beach, it's located in a medium density residential zone. We've already had this discussion here that the Noosa plan permits short term visitor accommodation in a medium density residential zone, so it's permitted or consistent use. We can't change this without changing the Noosa plan. The issue here is potential impact to the amenity of the surrounding properties. The staff recommendation has addressed these issues.
02:07:00 I believe that all conditions are reasonable and appropriate except one condition that prohibits the use of outdoor areas including balconies, decks and pools after 9pm. I'd like to see that moved to 10pm. Given the location of the site, which is the corner of Hill and Pacific Avenue, given that there's a restriction on the number of guests that are actually allowed in the unit, which is four, and given that it's approved use for short-term visitor accommodation, it is more reasonable and appropriate to allow use of outdoor areas until 10pm. In regards to the location, the outdoor areas including the pool face a busy roadside. And I accept Patrick Murphy that at 10pm at night it's not a busy intersection. The site is not located in a traditional residential neighbourhood. It's located in a medium density residential zone that's close to Sunshine Beach shops and close to a number of short-term accommodation providers.
02:08:00 The outdoor living space of the unit is approximately 50 to 70 metres from the closest properties. The most affected property is the adjoining property, who has not raised any objections. And having visited the site, it seems that the outdoor areas of neighbouring properties have the potential of impacting this unit more than the reverse. Also, the property is going to be managed by Team B&B, who manage a number of properties in the Noosa area. They've already confirmed that they're going to be abiding by the conditions of our code of conduct. Their own house rules include no parties, events, schoolies, no loud noise at any time and quiet hours from 9pm. Council were put in a condition 16A3 of the approval that makes aggressive behaviour, yelling, screaming, arguing, excessive loud cheering, clapping and singing prohibited.
02:09:00 So for guests to sit outside on their balconies or deck or pool until 10pm means that they must do so quietly or risk a fine from Council. Eviction from Team B&B and when our code of conduct is enforced, they risk a strike that could see their right to short-term let suspended. So it's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to extend the curfew time until 10pm. I just think that all we're doing is allowing them to sit on a balcony with a glass of wine or read a book quietly until 10pm and extending them the same courtesy that we would give to our neighbours. I've also added an advisory note on the decision notice that references penalty provisions for non-compliance. I just think it's important that this is highlighted.
02:10:00 Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: I think I see the point that Councillor Lorentson raises. Given condition 6, you wouldn't catch me actually wanting to stay here. If I could sit on the balcony quietly at midnight and view the stars or have a quiet midnight dip in the pool or walk around on the deck when I've got a bit of insomnia, I wouldn't want to stay in the locality anyway. But given that the applicant is the one that raised the 9pm time and could ask to change it to 10pm, I'm not prepared to support the event because it was the applicant that actually brought the 9pm time period to Council. It's their chosen time and not something imposed by Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. It's a question. Can you explain the reasoning of condition 6 seeking to achieve a noise outcome by restriction of use rather than stipulating the noise outcome we wish to achieve?
02:11:00 Good question. So historically up until 10pm you can allow a certain amount of noise and after 10pm you're allowed generally five decibels over a background. But what we've tried to do is achieve a noise outcome so we've conflated a quiet time to a use time. So the question is, is that desirable? Councillor Jurisevic: That's a very good question. That is a good question. You've got a head of it because I would go back to it. Speaker 4: I think it is important that both conditions apply. That they do work in conjunction with each other. That you have the requirements for no clapping and yelling but you have also the requirement limiting the use of the outdoor areas. So they're designed to work in conjunction. So yes, use of areas can control matters such as noise and amenity.
02:12:00 So it's important that both requirements apply on the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just picked up. So we do in that code of conduct, it gets down to .4. I missed it because it's on the other page. That's at the very top of 51. Thank you. Because I went looking for the noise. So it does say create a level of noise above the acceptable level described by Queensland Government legislation. So I missed that initially. So that is your noise control. And then the specification of time of use time is auxiliary to that. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask Kerry, the applicant made reference to quiet time, not use of outdoor areas. Is that correct? Speaker 7: I would have to just re-read it if that's okay. Councillor Lorentson: My understanding is that they were happy to set a quiet time from 9pm, which is very
02:13:00 different to the condition, which is use of outdoor areas. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. So I do agree with that. And the applicant who conceded does say it talks only about quiet time, quiet hours from 9pm. Yeah. And talks about limiting the number of people and cast allocated spaces. That's correct. Speaker 4: And as I've indicated, yeah, they did propose quiet time from 9pm. The condition goes a step further. It is. To what they've proposed. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So to clarify, that condition was actually one imposed by council and not by the applicant. That's right. Speaker 4: Yeah. So there's a quote on page 52 of the report, which is what they actually proposed. Councillor Lorentson: Quiet time. Quiet time. Yeah. Which is very different. Speaker 4: So they didn't propose ceasing use of that outdoor area at 9pm. They've just said their rules will be a quiet time, proposing a quiet time from 9pm. Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Which is very different. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a clarification from the applicant before first hour on what that means?
02:14:00 Speaker 6: Can I? Sorry. It means basically they're talking about having a quiet time, whatever quiet time means, which relates to noise as opposed to use of a part of an area. They're two different things. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I know. Are they happy to not be able to have their guests on the balcony after 9pm? Speaker 4: We can ask the question of them and see their response. Okay. But I would suggest to councillors that it is important to place hours on the outdoor area, whether it's 9pm or 10pm. That's for councillors to decide. Pretty standard. It's pretty standard for resorts to actually control the use of pools. And in my experience, it's usually around 7pm. So that's generally your outdoor area for a resort and it's about checking amenity of guests, other guests on the site. This is about protecting the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood because noise travels. It doesn't travel in a straight line. You won't have traffic, anything else really making noise in this area. Councillor Wilkie: Will this be consistent with the local, the hours we'll be introducing of the local
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 rule? Speaker 4: The hours will actually come out of the local rule because the advice we have is that it's a planning matter. Yeah. It can't be governed by the local rule. So it is important that we consider this with the planning approval. Councillor Wilkie: And will this be consistent, similar, or 9pm limit the sort of condition that you'll be applying for all subsequent applications for short-term accommodation? Speaker 4: Yeah. Obviously, we will look at each one on its own merits, depending where the outdoor areas are. But typically, yes, we would look at a consistent condition for all developments throughout the Shire. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to make an amendment to the motion that under 6, all outdoor areas, including balconies, decks, pools, can't have... Councillor Wilkie: We can't amend an amendment. Okay. So this amendment's either lost or... Oh, you can do it. Speaker 6: Make an argument. Mayor Stewart: Would staff support all outdoor areas including balconies, decks, pools and the like be used for quiet time between... must be used for quiet time between 9 and 10 each night?
02:16:00 Councillor Lorentson: But that's actually implied under condition 16 and under the team being the house rules. It's not necessary. We're talking use here. And what I'm saying is that the extension of one hour is that neighbouring properties have protection. Under conditions 16 and under the team being the house rules, they've already got protection. That extra... We're debating. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. But no, I don't think it's necessary. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Any other customers to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: But I'll ask a question. Given this is a duplex property and that next door is a permanent owner, the permanent owner can go and swim in his pool at any time of the day or night, sit on his balcony any time of the day or night, quite happily have a drink and all the rest of it. And nothing's preventing him from doing that, is there? Speaker 4: No. No. But typically when you are an owner of a premises, because most people work, you tend
02:17:00 not to swim in your pool at midnight on a Tuesday night. And you tend to have regular hours when you go to bed, ready for work the next day. On a Friday, Saturday night, you might be a little bit noisier if you have friends around. But the issue with the short term accommodation is people are on holidays. They like to... They're not so respectful necessarily of their neighbours at all times and maybe outdoor And that's why we impose those conditions upon them. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That clarifies it. Councillor Wilkie: And sorry, what is the limit of use of outdoor areas in resorts typically in terms of conditions imposed? Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. Well, in my experience, the ones I've seen, 7pm, but I'm hearing that others may vary a little bit from 8pm. Very considerable. Yeah. Nothing depends on the body corporate regulations. It is. Yeah. That will vary. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. But usually 10pm would be the maximum, I would say that I've seen anyway. So this is a benefit to the neighbour and the duplex.
02:18:00 They're valid guests as well. Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. So it's an empty one in that for all intents and purposes, if you're sitting quietly reading on your balcony at 9.55, no one's going to complain, so there'll never be a breach action on it. And so therefore, it makes not a lot of difference. From the other perspective, I suppose what we're doing now is giving staff guidance on what we think is acceptable going forward. There's a reason for that. There's going to be a number of different scenarios where 10pm in a larger development would not be acceptable. I moved the original motions, I can't move the amendment. I think 9pm is a generous time for pool usage because with pools, it tends to be even if
02:19:00 you're swimming quietly, that it's the closing of the electric, you know, the automatic closing of the bill gates that wakes people up. So I think bringing that forward a bit, but at the same time, there may be a finesse of the condition to say pools at 9pm and quiet use of balconies, decks and the like only between 9 and 10pm would maybe be a halfway house that would be something we can live with on this and future applications. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'm going to put a view out there. I'm going to support 10pm because people's ideas of what constitutes quiet time varies quite considerably depending on the size of the personality.
02:20:00 For instance, Councillor Stockwell could think he's having a quiet conversation four miles away and that would be quite disturbing. Councillor Jurisevic: You're using them or two. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. To the person in the adjoining duplex or the neighbour. Whereas if they're in, people are required to be indoors and not in the pool up to 9pm each night, you can be sure that the amenity of the neighbourhood is better preserved. I think Councillor Lorentson, I commend you for the quality of the arguments. You made a very, you may put some very good arguments forth there about the difference between quiet time and the use of the area and also the research you took in. You did with team B and B. I'm also guided by the fact that the applicants have nominated 9pm for quiet time. This is a way of ensuring that it will be quiet in the outdoor areas after 9pm. But also we'll hope the staff can contact the owner and see if the 9pm limit on use of
02:21:00 the outdoor areas is acceptable for them as well before Thursday night. But in the meantime, I'm sticking to the 9pm side. I can't support this amendment. But I do support, just like the claim, I do support item C. It's a two-part amendment. I see no harm whatsoever in including item C as part of the original motion that comes to it. Thank you. Any other speakers? Any other speakers to the amendment? It's a line call. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I accept the arguments that have been presented today at the table. I do think that we should also take in consideration location. And I think we haven't factored the specific subject site.
02:22:00 And I think conditions should be set based on the location, that not all locations are the same. This particular site. The outdoor area. The outdoor area is facing outwards onto a busy road and a reserve. We've limited guests to maximum four. And I think we entered dangerous grounds when we start regulating use after 9pm. I've been on short-term stays and Airbnbs and have had a look at what is accepted. Places like Peregian in low residential areas, Airbnb, 9pm. Even stricter. Places that are so close to shopping centres and close to other short-term accommodation providers, 10pm is actually reasonable.
02:23:00 Again, I, when you've got in place conditions that restrict the type of use, which is you can't be loud or clap or cheer, I think there's some protection. And I think the message it gives to people is that if you've got in place conditions We welcome you to sit on your balcony and as Joe said before, look at the stars, have a glass of wine without fear of retribution. I just think we may be taking the regulatory line maybe a little bit too far. 10pm is reasonable. And if it was in a different location, I would not be putting this argument forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the amendment to the vote. So those in favour, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel. Those against, Councillor Jurisevic, Stockwell and Wilkie. The amendment's carried.
02:24:00 And we go back to the original motion now which includes the amendment, the wording of the amendment. And Councillor Stockwell has been the only councillor to speak to the original motion so far. Councillor Wegener: Um, this, once you vote something and give it away, you can't take it back again. And we found that with the quarry in, you know, Kin Kin. And so I'm looking at PO 6 on page 57 and saying that the visitor accommodation will not cause unreasonable loss of residential amenities having regard to, and then going down to D, retention of the primary residential function of an area. And I, uh, my, my son was, was born there.
02:25:00 I lived on Haste, on Hillside. I lived on Haste Street. My neighbor also had two young kids and he's now a prominent solicitor in Noosa across the road. One of my buddies is still longterm friend had, had a child there in this particular house we're looking at right now. One of my buddies lived there. Long-term residence, there the fabric of that community was strong. And those people that I met there are still my good friends in Noosa. Um, once you give this to this to So it's a big deal. It's a real big deal by this decision we made today. I consider it colossal. And I don't want to go against the Noosa plan, but I find that giving this away takes more thought, and it gives this in our own plan.
02:26:00 It says medium density is predominantly for permanent residents. And this is, in my mind, it's not about the little details. It's about the really big picture of where we want to go with Noosa. And I believe we want residents to live here to become part of the fabric. And this is a medium density area predominantly for permanent residents. So I can't get past. PO 6D. So I want to know, am I going against the new town plan with this? Or am I saying, I just don't think this complies? And this is not a question. Do you guys want to put that out for debate?
02:27:00 Yeah, it's such an enormous decision. And we're giving up. Future people coming to Noosa and having families in Noosa. And I believe that's what the residents want. We're giving away an enormous amount, but what are we getting back? What is the community getting back with this decision today? I don't think the community is losing. It's the overall loser today, if we allow this a short-term stay. So I will be voting against it. Mayor Stewart: I support staff's recommendation. As Councillor Stockwell has said, it is in compliance with the planning scheme. It's heartening that Team B&B, who will manage the property, will enforce conditions in the code of conduct as proposed by Council.
02:28:00 Though it's not yet in place, they'll enforce measures set out in the agenda at page 52 in regard to house rules and procedures. And I believe that Council's decision is in compliance with rules. The actual areas are far away from other properties. The actual living space of the dwelling is 50 metres from the properties on the opposite side of Pacific Avenue and is at least 70 metres from the closest property on the opposite side of Hill Street. We've received no objection received from the owner of the adjoining unit. There are a suite of conditions imposed on the prospective tenants, including no parties, events, schoolies, loud music, quiet hours, limited number of guests and so forth. These conditions set down will address any amenity impacts. And I believe that Council will address the objections stated on page 60 and 61 very thoroughly and answer those objections. So I'm happy to support staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. Look, I'm challenged by the staff recommendation and the only point I'm challenged by is the one raised by Councillor Flores.
02:29:00 I think it's an unreasonable condition. I think it's an unreasonable condition. I think it's an unreasonable condition to state that all outdoor areas, including balconies, decks, pools and the like, must not be used after 9pm at night. Even Councillor Stockwell alluded to the fact that he thinks that the noisy area would likely be the pool and the decks and the like. And of course, there are noise restrictions on the property elsewhere. That one point challenges me more than any other. And I was of the misunderstanding that the applicant had actually suggested it. Now I realise it's a staff recommendation and not something stated by the applicant. The applicant actually mentioned quiet time. So given that there's been some discussion around the table about the use of the outdoor areas, and I'm just glad to see that there isn't a stairwell leading to a balcony to the front door, because that would mean they wouldn't have been able to access the front door if they came home after 9pm after going to dinner. But the condition 6 has some unreasonability, unreasonableness about it, and that I think it needs to be looked at.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 So I'm almost ready to move an amendment to delete condition 6. Mayor Stewart: Aren't we at 10pm? Councillor Jurisevic: Not 9pm, it's 10pm. Well, whatever. Whatever time. But as I said, if I was using... If I was staying at a property that had a nice deck and had a nice pool, I mean... And I see where we're trying to prevent the noise element of it, but... Councillor Stockwell alluded to, if you're quiet and you're out there, you're not going to raise an objection, nobody's going to complain. But I mean, given that there are objectors to an Airbnb in the area, there could be a vexatious complaint and somebody with a set of binoculars sitting there going, well, hang on, they're on the balcony after 10 o'clock, they shouldn't be there. And technically, they'd be right.
02:31:00 So I just... I'm challenged by that one clause that says, must not be used. I quite like the applicant's request for quiet time. And I won't support it while it's got clause 6 in there. So I just think it's an unreasonable... Reasonable restriction of use of the property. Mayor Stewart: Question. Councillor Jurisevic: And I think that there must be a better solution than just... Speaker 4: Well, can we amend that? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, we could. You can move an amendment... Why don't we move an amendment? So, yeah, on that basis, I'll play the devil's advocate and put that amendment forward. I'll move an amendment to delete condition 6. Given that there is other noise provisions elsewhere in the...
02:32:00 And just to test the waters. Councillor Lorentson: To delete it in its entirety. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I mean, somebody else could move an alternative motion... An alternative amendment to modify. I'm going to test the waters and see whether condition 6 can be deleted. Because that's the only point that I raised in the entire reading of it going, I'm going to move an amendment to delete condition 6. You wouldn't catch me saying that. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Any councillor other than Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Stewart can second that amendment. I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: As I said, I just... Given that... And I think Councillor Stockwell raised the point quite well as we were going through this night there. Given that there are conditions already in it to... Already in there to limit the amount of noise and... Noise restrictions in there. That I think preventing people from accessing an area of the property completely, tapely and
02:33:00 utterly, quietly, without creating a noise... An amenity issue for neighbours is an unreasonable condition. I think it could be better done. And I'm prepared to look at any other amendment to it. I do think it could be better done. I didn't think... I just think saying that you can't... The door gets bolted and you can't go out on the balcony after nine o'clock, 10 o'clock, whatever the time being, is an unreasonable thing. I could see an alternative as Councillor Stockwell suggested that the pool maybe at 8pm or 7pm or 9pm ceases to be used, but to suggest that you can't walk out on the balcony or a deck and it... And the like suggests, to me, almost suggests any other outdoor area where you could be heard by the neighbours. I just think that the condition of condition six is not well worded and could be better worded. And I'm suggesting a deletion might be the first consideration.
02:34:00 If that doesn't get up, then some other type of amendment to look at condition six, because I think it's almost fair. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: As much as... I actually... I agree with Joe, as much as I don't want this to go ahead, the same thing, there are other... You can make good people bad. Speaker 4: Sure. Councillor Wegener: By... I mean, a good person could go out there and be quiet on the deck and that should be okay. You don't want the binocular person, you know, putting them down. On the other hand, if they're being noisy at nine o'clock, well, then there's separate rules to take care of the noise requirements and this, it seems arbitrary, doesn't it, Joe? Anyway, that's my thought. Mayor Stewart: Also, I support Councillor Jurisevic's amendment on this. I think what you said, Joe, summed it up well. I do think that there needs to be something in place, you know, I think pools are a bit separate, but I think someone walking out quietly on their balcony and not being able
02:35:00 to at 10.05 is unreasonable, so I will support Councillor Jurisevic's amendment to this. Councillor Lorentson: I think this is a missed opportunity, guys. I live in the street with Airbnb and I'm... At my age, I go to bed early, except when I'm preparing for a general meeting. And that is... Councillor Finzel: Is that on the balcony? Councillor Lorentson: On the... On the balcony. Houses, noise travels and even two people sitting on your balcony chatting it travels and I so welcome people to Noosa and our visitors become our long-term residents and we need them and that's why the Noosa plan makes provision for short-term visitor accommodation it's an approved consistent use. I think we've got an opportunity to listen to those 12 objectives and to listen to what's actually happening in the community at the moment no one envisaged COVID that you couldn't get out of the country you couldn't get out of the state no one envisaged that Noosa has become Monte Carlo it's become Aspen it's become Europe no one envisaged that we were going to get so many party houses.
02:36:00 And complaints that didn't happen 12 months ago it's happening now so this is a missed opportunity and an opportunity that I want to jump on because four people quietly sitting on their balcony at one o'clock in the morning and one at midnight that noise travels and it travels to people like us who've got to wake up early and you know and shift workers and nurses and doctors and we've got to respect the fabric of. our Shire and and we should come first I'm going to say it as it is residents and our rights should supersede those of our visitors but we should be neighbourly and that's why I think the 10 p.m curfew respects is a good neighbourhood policy it respects what we would expect of our neighbours that at 10 o'clock have some consideration continue your party just move it indoors and respect that people actually
02:37:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: young or don't have an Airbnb there yeah so it's an interesting point the code of conduct are we far more effective at controlling behavior than a planning application and we're relying on this planning application fulfilling the role of also modifying the behavior of temporary residents within a development that won't have on-site management other than a phone call away I think what Councillor Jurisevic perhaps hasn't paid enough attention to is the need for consistency in our decision-making going
02:38:00 forward and guidance at the start so I referred earlier and I'm guessing we have referred to the Queensland government guidelines on noise and I may be out of date but traditionally 10 p.m. is the cutoff and it's five decibels around background noise even in a street like this after 10 p.m. your background noise is somewhere between 20 and 25 decibels I just looked it up a whisper is 30 decibels and a normal conversation is 60 decibels so yes you could probably meet the Queensland government guidelines sitting on the balcony and whispering to each other sweet nothings if you like but in all likelihood a person sitting on the balcony having a normal conversation won't have it in the back of their mind oh boy we're breaching the Queensland government noise guidelines so we're coming back to this practicality
02:39:00 of relying on the people being able to interpret the meaning of legislation versus a fairly blunt but potentially more effective instrument of controlling use and I'd be happy to take that into consideration. 10 p.m. for the decks anywhere else but the field but that's not the amendment before us so I can't support the amendment before us. Councillor Lorentson: make an amendment can we make an amendment? this one is one or a lot Speaker 6: so you only deal with one amendment at a time Councillor Lorentson: if that's successful we're heading to the wrong direction Councillor Finzel: so I won't support this amendment I think we need some boundary around it at a time so I can't support this one of the complete deletion of condition 6 I prefer to look at an amendment of condition 6
02:40:00 Councillor Wilkie: I actually think this amendment makes the 10 p.m. deadline for use of outdoor areas look really good it does I'm not going to support it because there is very very little chance that you'd have an ultra nosy neighbour with binoculars out honing in on anyone sitting and reading quietly on a balcony and then phoning council about that I don't think you're going to get complaints about quiet use of the outdoor areas it's not going to disturb anybody but if you remove the clause that stipulates a limit I don't think it's people talking loudly and not thinking that they're causing a disturbance that's not going to be captured by the code of conduct which talks about loud and aggressive behaviour yelling, screaming, arguing, excessive loud, clear those sort of excessive behaviours are not captured they're in the code of conduct but other sorts of disturbing behaviours that can take place on an outdoor balcony
02:41:00 inadvertently are not captured by the code of conduct and it's contestable whereas if you have a limit to the use of the outdoor areas at 10 p.m. it's clear cut rule that would prevent any disturbance of the neighbourhood after that time and it's not contestable so for those reasons I won't be supporting this amendment and I think that takes us back to Councillor Jurisevic to close thank you Councillor Jurisevic: and look I thank you for the opportunity to argue condition six in that respect but clearly there is around the table some desire to see some restriction on use of the areas I just thought out and out denying access to an area of a property on that basis was an unreasonable one and I thought it should be tested which is all I've done in making that motion
02:42:00 I didn't and again I saw some heard some debate around the table that thought that there should be some conditions some time condition perhaps associated with this so I look forward to the opportunity for a third attempt at an amendment to try and manage this in some way shape or form but I also heard that the applicant had put in this concept of quiet time and were prepared to I assume define and manage quiet time and also the fact that we have a raft of local laws coming in to better manage short term accommodation that may have made this condition unnecessary or a little over prescriptive and I was prepared to test that with the councillors before seeing what other alternatives there were considering we've gone to a 10pm timeframe maybe that's all we do need Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Could we put the amendment those in favour
02:43:00 Stinker It's lost You need to call against Against That's unanimously against It expunged me from the record books as having the worst amendment ever It was a good test Good argument Now we're back to the original motion and Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Jurisevic have spoken to it Councillor Finzel, myself and Councillor Lorentson are still able to speak to the motion but anyone can move an amendment Councillor Lorentson: Brian are you going to export Except for Councillor Stockwell Councillor Wilkie: I can't move Councillor Finzel: I'll make an amendment to the motion Councillor Lorentson: that factors in what Councillor Stockwell alluded to which is perhaps a restriction in pool use hours
02:44:00 Speaker 6: Can I just put the wording in Yep So we have it as all outdoor areas including balconies, decks and the like take out the word pool must not be used at 10pm each night and in relation to the pool it must not be used after 9pm each night Is that what you were asking Clarify that Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like a clarification on what Speaker 6: It's Amelia's amendment I just want to make sure that's what you were after So in other words it's 9pm for the pool and 10pm for everything else Councillor Lorentson: Yes I think that's reasonable Councillor Jurisevic: Can I get a clarification from staff on what and the like means because and the like suggests any outdoor area to me It is That the person could not sit anywhere outdoors Garden In the garden or anywhere Speaker 4: It's a big outdoor area
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 The start of the condition is all outdoor areas So it's any areas It is Councillor Lorentson: It's a big outdoor area Jo Councillor Jurisevic: Driving into the garage you can't park outside and walk into the property I'll take you to an extreme but that's how it reads Speaker 6: Just the word and Yep there Accept that Accept that Accept that And then leave it as is Could that Everything else covered except that in relation to the pool and not being used after 9pm Councillor Lorentson: And I just think that respects the recommendation of staff And makes any We'll get a seconder Oh excuse me Councillor Wilkie: We'll get a seconder So Councillor Lorentson can you prosecute the event Oh I can't
02:46:00 Councillor Wegener: Oh I'll I've already seconded it Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener Councillor Wegener Councillor Lorentson: I just think that the amendment to just move the use of the pool area to 9 o'clock not 10 o'clock Respects the recommendation that are made by staff and makes only a minor change to their recommendation And I think we need to give respect that they are the planning experts and probably being Exposed to more complaints and short term stay and probably in a position a good change To make a time recommendation Councillor Wilkie: Question of staff Is this a reasonable Speaker 4: Yeah I think that's a reasonable position for council to come to Yeah I think it addresses the complaints we've received because certainly that's the primary complaint is about the use of outdoor areas I think the condition is necessary because it's difficult to tell people to be quiet when they're on holiday
02:47:00 This is a far better condition for people to understand who it gets but also for compliance action to be taken it's much clearer Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment Councillor Lorentson do you wish to close Councillor Lorentson: No Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment to those in favour That's unanimous Thank you Thank you Do we have a motion with all these changes Any other councillors wish to test an amendment Or speak to the motion we've got Councillor Finzel, Councillor Lorentson do you wish to speak to the motion Councillor Lorentson: No Councillor Wilkie: Okay we'll go back to Councillor Stockwell who used to close I will Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't go back to the operating areas
02:48:00 Instead we'll go back to the operating areas I will go to the next level where Councillor Wegener went which was about the nature of the locality and the suitability of using that locality And while we don't share many things, like I'm a hopeless surfer, Councillor Wegener perhaps not, we both have lived in Hill Street So in the early 80s I actually lived in Hill Street in a share house with two midwives, a girlfriend and a continuous possession of no fixed abode hippies together for hundreds of years In a place we lovingly know as Hill Street Hobble And you had Hill Street Blue Back then there wasn't a single unit in Hill Street Well maybe one set of units, I just did a quick check on our interactive mapping and it looks like at least 13 sets of units in Hill Street which is why it's zoned medium density residential So while we may have experienced a locality in previous forms it's not necessarily appropriate
02:49:00 to use that as a business unit It's just a basis for our decision about the appropriateness of a use under a planning scheme that came into force less than a year ago So the planning scheme quite clearly says that it's envisaged visitor accommodation occurs in medium density zone In this particular site it's immediately opposite the high density residential zone It's only a 300 metre walk to the centre of Sunshine Beach and a little bit further to the beach itself So it is in a location where traditionally a lot of holiday houses and a lot of temporary accommodation occurred So it's not a decision that's saying we're changing the nature of the locality It's saying we are giving consent to a consistent development that has made sufficient in its design and operational requirements to meet those criteria in PO6 so not to impact on the amenity
02:50:00 And that's why I support it Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion to those in favour That's Councillor Stewart, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Finzel, Lorentson and Wilkie Those against? Councillor Wegener? The motion is carried Thank you Patrick Councillor Jurisevic: Are we going to ditch over the details? Councillor Wilkie: We're now up to item 5 and we're almost halfway through the meeting Which is great work! Let's develop an application for extension to food and drink outlet and shop at 2 Park and Court, Tewantin We have our assessment manager Kerry Coyle here to answer any questions So just clarifying Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Tenancy 8A is the Italian restaurant? Is that what we're looking at? Yes And if we've ever tipped and had a really good meal
02:51:00 That's no conflict of interest Speaker 4: That's where the new roof is going I think we've all been out to many restaurants Councillor Wilkie: Any issues for councillors? Any clarification on? Does someone care to move the motion? Mayor Stewart: I will Councillor Wilkie: Moved Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel Councillor Stewart, do you wish to speak to the motion? Mayor Stewart: No I thank you Kerry for your hard work on this I just note and support the staff recommendation The increase in gross floor area of 50 square metres as per page 72 of the agenda of the proposal will not result in an overall increase to the scale and intensity of the commercial operations given the area was previously approved for outdoor dining The proposed conversion of part of food and drink outlet tenancy for a shop raises no planning issue and is consistent with other uses in the marina And it's good to support businesses where we can It's heartening that throughout COVID new businesses have been created and people are having a go
02:52:00 And we should do as much as we can to support them And I thank staff for their hard work and obviously support of this business in that regard Thank you Councillor Stewart Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel Yes along those lines I'm happy to support this motion because I think we should be supporting new business that's prepared to take the risk and do a start up in this challenging time With regards to COVID increasing the roof gives them opportunity when we come to like some stages of shutdown hopefully they have done their maths and they can still you know keep the business open with regards to increased floor space with potential COVID restrictions So thank you for your time on that Thank you Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict I welcome the opportunity to see a refresh of a long established dining facility in a lovely locality marina on the east side of the marina The former outdoor dining area was a fairly enclosed outdoor dining area given that there was a sliding door leading
02:53:00 to it, a wall behind it and all the rest of it so I see no major objection to formalising it as a part of the indoor area particularly with the redesign of the floor area and I wish the new occupants of this restaurant all the best for the future because I think it's one of the best in the world Thank you Councillor Wilkie: The actual area is not like the الح Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's the key thing to identify here is we do have the provision of no intensification and upon along the river and in this case what I think Star argued correctly is there is no intensification because the use ostensibly in 8 is not changing it has been built in Mayor Dane It's not increasing the ability to use that space. The other is the sub-letting of the shop. it's basically just converting one form of business to another.
02:54:00 So we're not intensifying the use. I think it's really important to identify that that principle is still something we hold to. Mayor Paterson Thank you. Councillor Stockwell Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Kerry Actually, can I just clap up with you in regards to the redesign of the kitchen are. Is there an increase in the dining area or is it about the? Councillor Paterson Has the actual floor area of dining increased or decreased, or is it about the same with the kitchen being where you like to have it? Speaker 4: It's about the same. They're essentially enclosing the outdoor dining area. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? No. Put the motion to those in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you. We're now up to item 6, which is planning applications decided by delegated authority. Councillor, there are 45 applications that have been mostly approved. They're under delegated authority. Do you have any conflicts of interest in regards to any of these? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question in regards to heritage overlay in that area.
02:55:00 We've approved one along Lorindal Street. And I've had people contact me with regard to, you know, housings and heritage in that old Tewantin area. Can you just give us some good information about that? Speaker 4: Yeah. So currently the planning scheme does not apply a heritage overlay or character area to old Tewantin, notwithstanding there's some, you know, quite unique character homes in the area. So that's been raised for some time by Councillor Stockwell with concerns, because residents are concerned about that. So that's something our strategic planning team, so there's a bit of work behind developing a character overlay to identify exactly where it should apply and what the requirements should be. So that's something our scheme team are working on. So because there is no overlay, that means houses in the area are able to be relocated.
02:56:00 There's no provisions in the scheme that would prevent that or stop that or enable council to manage it or control it in any way, which is unfortunate because some are being removed and there are, some of those houses are over two existing lots created nearly 100 years ago and that means people are removing them and it gives them the opportunity to build two new houses without necessarily any character requirements applying to those new buildings. Councillor Finzel: Given there is no overlay in the place it's being moved on and this has just gone through with approval without coming to council, is there provision to bring it to council? Yes, there's provision to bring it to council. It's been approved by staff. Speaker 4: So which application are you looking at then? Councillor Finzel: It's the one in Marenda Street. Councillor Wegener: Is that the application number they count? It's on the top of 82. Speaker 3: Thank you.
02:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, 30. Is it 30? Yeah. Items 30, MCU 20 0071, Operational Works 20 01 30. Councillor Finzel: It's approved. So it's approved, but it didn't come before council, did it? Speaker 4: No, it didn't. No. Councillor Finzel: So given there's no heritage... Speaker 4: Yeah, I'd suggest... Sorry, you go. Councillor Finzel: No, that's fine. Speaker 4: I'd suggest... I do know that site. So it's just down the road from the service station. The house was used for a physio, I think, that one. Speaker 6: Is that the one on the corner? Speaker 4: Yeah, on the corner. Speaker 6: Oh, okay. Speaker 4: So I would suggest that house didn't... Whilst it may be in a future character, it didn't have particular character requirements that would apply. And we could bring matters to council if council wished around those, but it would be difficult to influence the outcome whether there's no requirements currently in the planning scheme.
02:58:00 We'd also be mindful, some of these applications decided by delegation, or a lot of them, are time limited by the Act. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: And if we go outside the timeframe, they can be deemed approved. So we need to be careful about that. Councillor Wilkie: So council Finzel has touched on a wider issue about whether or not old Tewantin needs a heritage over life. And what would be the process for getting that up? That would be an amendment to the planning scheme? Speaker 4: It is an amendment to the planning scheme. And it's a full-scale amendment to the planning scheme, which would require state interest check and public notification for input from the community. So it takes some time to put in place. Councillor Finzel: And where are we currently with that in council? Speaker 4: I'd have to ask the question of the planning scheme, strategic planning, but I'll come back to you. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Thank you. There was a post on social media with regard to a house on Marinkle Street that had been sold. I passed that information on to staff and staff have said that they will take that on board and look at the provisions, as Kerry has alluded to, with regard to a character
02:59:00 overlay for the... Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And Anthony Dow has a comment to make here. Speaker 1: Yeah. Just Rowena's working on it, so we can give you an update on... Oh, too late. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Send an email around. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions about the approvals, the decisions made under delegated authority? No, I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any wish to speak to the motion? No. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? No. All those in favour? That is unanimous. Speaker 6: Thanks, Kerry. Thank you, Kerry. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Kerry. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now we move on to the Pathways and Boardwalks Asset Management Plan. Councillor Finzel: Do you need another break? Yeah, I just need a toilet break. Councillor Slytherin. Councillor Wilkie: Can... Councillors, how are you going? How are you travelling? Do you need another break? Mayor Stewart: I'm okay. Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: All right. You can go up there and just duck out. I'll just duck out. Yeah, yeah. Welcome, Brian.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Thank you. Thank you. This is the Pathways and Boardwalks Asset Management Plan. Thank you for your patience. Questions for... Can we start with an overview from you, Brian, about the significance of this plan? Yeah, for sure. Why it's important. Speaker 10: It's definitely important for us in regards to us reporting the state of our assets and where we're at with what's on the activities around each of our asset classes. Identifying the levels of service that we're performing around those assets, what our financial statements are in regards to what's the value of this asset class in comparison to our other assets. And it is around the 6% of our total assets, so just looking at my figures here, $674 million worth of Pathways and Boardwalks assets that we have across the Shire. Yeah. So, yes, it's important. Importantly, it also tells us on the way forward what's ahead of us in regards to expense,
03:01:00 what renewals we have in place already, planned, and that's highlighting our condition information that we have. And in this instance, a lot of it is age-based conditions, so we've modelled that based on the age of the asset. We are now looking at our improvement plans. And for me, the most important... Part of it is... Part of an asset management plan is what we're going to do next. And it's those improvement plans that we've got. So it's reconciling our data with what we've got on our asset register, what's out in our field. It's about making sure we have good knowledge of the physical asset condition and not a modelled condition. And it's about improving our effectiveness to manage those assets effectively. Having good knowledge around our assets provides good decision making, and we can look at things going forward in regards to how we align our pathway and boardwalk assets with other renewals
03:02:00 of other different asset classes as well, and overlay those and possibly do corridor improvements rather than having multiple disruptions to a locality in regards to that work. So it just helps us with better planning, being more strategic. And already we've identified that there's a number of influences on this plan that we're putting forward in over the next six to 12 months with the walking and cycling strategy. Climate change will also impact parts of this asset class as well. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Yeah. I would suggest that this is the crucial document to have in place before that pathways and cycleways plan going forward. So we know what we've got and what's in place. So we know where the limitations currently are and what the... If we're going to expand on that network, we need to know and be clear on what exists currently, and that any expansion plans could also incorporate any renewal plans if there's connectivity.
03:03:00 Would that be... Speaker 10: Yeah, correct. And that's exactly what conversations we have had with the walking and cycling strategy staff members who are preparing that document in saying that will help them prioritise when we need to, and we'll be looking at assets that are... We won't be doing that. We won't be doing activities until those assets meet the end of their lives or close to the end of their lives before we intervene, or unless demand requires that we do need to do an upgrade even sooner than that. So it will help us with that alignment. Councillor Jurisevic: So further on to what you have produced here, were there any surprises, any unknowns that were discovered as a result of this, or any... I'm trying to work together a little bit. Any false understandings of what we had out there that we need to... Any misapprehensions of what we actually had in the way of asset class within the asset Speaker 10: Probably not, other than it helped us confirm our suspicions, and they weren't suspicions.
03:04:00 We knew we didn't have all our assets on our register. So we still have another 10% to 15% of assets that need to be written on in our asset class, that just get captured up. They're missing links. They're missing all that. Because originally when we wrote, we prepared our financial asset register, it was based from our mapping system. So we're revalidating all that at the moment, and capturing it and writing those assets on. And we've got a good process around the organisation for all our asset classes to do that. So it's just a matter of prioritisation and moving forward with that. Councillor Jurisevic: But so there were pathways and links that we didn't know that we've added into this Speaker 10: process? Well, we were actually maintaining them. We just didn't have them on our register. On the register. Yes, that's correct. Mayor Stewart: And Brian, just on the page, I'm looking at risk assessment, page 21, it says, just at the bottom here, it talks about risks and it says, to mitigate these risks and resulting
03:05:00 actions for this AMP, the council to make informed decisions, it is understood that focus must be placed on consistent, cyclical inspections across all pathways and board org assets, with condition data accurately recorded, blah, blah. Now, if I go here, I'm just looking at levels of service. Speaker 6: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Is this, are we doing enough? Are we throwing enough money here? Or do we need, as we're coming into budget review two, to look at some of these things? So for a slippery service on a level one, it's 48 hours. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Is there anything there that you would highlight, a red flag to us, saying, coming into budget review two, guys, I really would like some, you know, to look at this particular area? Speaker 10: That's a really good question. And it's probably another, it's probably something we need to assess over the next 12 months, because these have just been drafted. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 10: And we've reconfirmed and categorised those hierarchies and the levels of work. And so it's a bit of a watch, watch and see. We know that we're, we've raised some levels of service and we've reduced some levels of
03:06:00 service. And we're hoping that we've actually got the right budget to fit into that at this point in time. So won't go cap in hand yet, because we were actually, part of asset management planning is about recording our activities and coming back with good evidence around that too. So we would, that's our goal. Our end goal is to say, have we got it right, have we got it wrong? Is 48 hours appropriate or is it 72 hours or is it longer? Yeah. They're the things that we want to find out over, over time. Great. But thanks for the question. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Very kind. Page 23, the cumulative operating, operating maintenance and capital costs. Speaker 1: Can we pull that graph up? Councillor Wegener: I want you to walk me through it because it looks terrifying. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: One page. 23. 23. Yeah.
03:07:00 Speaker 10: So to explain that graph it's actually as the word says cumulative so it's just growing on growing and it's essentially the end game is here to say over the next 10 years we're pretty much going to be investing 33 plus million dollars into our asset class both capital and operational. Councillor Wilkie: Could you say that again please? Speaker 10: So it's showing our 10 year investment for both capital and operational. Councillor Jurisevic: That's based on our current asset knowledge not an expansion. Correct. Speaker 10: So the changes that could be proposed are potentially proposed for the walking and cycling etc.
03:08:00 They're not approved budgets, it's not a strategy that's adopted yet but we will bring that into that. As per our 10 year program and our current forecasting of operational expenses that we've modelled in reverse, we've looked at what we've done from day one 2014 to now and modelled forward as well. Councillor Wegener: Is this the Bucer National Park? Speaker 10: Yes, the boardwalk. That's when the boardwalk was written on. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, okay. Now I get it. Sorry. I get a little bit scared of it. Okay, thank you. It still is. Speaker 6: It's about half of what it really will be. That'll be a decision of the council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's correct. So I've got a series of questions and it's really reflecting the email to you early December. Sure. It doesn't, it talks about pathways, boardwalks and stairs.
03:09:00 So to be clear about the definition, it's about sealed pathways, not recreational trails. Correct. It's about pathways for people walking and riding. Pathways for that. Yeah. Yeah. Does it include walking, riding and using small electric modes of transport? Speaker 10: Those assets can be utilised for that. I would, whatever within the walls of the use. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So then that's sort of in the definition of section 2.3. And section 2.3 is a little bit different. So in section 2.9, we've developed a hierarchy and we actually haven't got any class other than the shared pathway, which means we haven't designed the hierarchy to include potential for separate bikeways or separate e-lanes for, or is that not something we should do?
03:10:00 Speaker 10: It's something we should forecast within an asset management plan, but definitely not. It's almost like an operating plan for a... For the use of those assets. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if the cyclone walking strategy said we should have one of these, then that would be a new service level category? Speaker 10: Well, this is based on what's on our financial register and because the asset management plan serves purpose of reporting outwards on what we're depreciating our assets and the activities we're doing around that asset class. And we do put in there in what we predict for future upgrades that there's potential change in technologies and the like, being obviously scooters and e-bikes and whatnot, but we haven't been specific. We've kept it high level. And then if they were to be implemented and use of those, then we would adjust and maybe have operational plans or even incorporate if they're restricted to particular precincts and that as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So then that's one thing on the horizon that we need to think about. Then the other aspect, if this was a road, we'd have the physical asset condition, which
03:11:00 is key to this, is obviously majority of our capital works renewals based on our asset management plan, based on physical conditions. Is that correct? Yep. Speaker 7: For renewals. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But when we look at roads, we also look at a traffic study which talks about whether the road has exceeded its carrying capacity. Where do we do that for pathways, is the question. Speaker 10: We haven't done that in regards to the way that that is accumulated. We've done an overall. Traffic study and it's highlighted different intersections, and I would think that when we find that there's that pinch point, I would have thought that the walking and cycling strategy was part of those missing links. And yet I guess we're workshopping that this week. So I would think that the main scope of that walking and cycling strategy was to identify where our trunk network is deficient and what we need to do to expand it to get it
03:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to that. And will that normally form part of an asset management plan or is that outside? Speaker 10: It's outside, but it feeds in. It complements. They should complement each other. They dovetail in at one point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My view is the shared pathway between Thomas Street and Weyba Road is well in excess of its safe carrying capacity at the moment. And then the next one is, if we look at pathways and where we'd like the design of our pathways and our bikeways in the future, it's not just about the pavement. It's about that it's highly desirable for the pavement to be shaded. So have we started looking at the data about how much of our cycle and pathway network is currently shaded? Speaker 10: No, we haven't. But I could probably tell you that it's our biggest defect as a result of our natural shade. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The tree roots are our biggest issue with our pathway network. And so choosing the right species to do it. Yeah. I just think that's another thing we think in the next iteration we're going to have to do is we should start when we do our asset, that we say, what are all the values of this particular
03:13:00 form of asset? And then for me, a pathway, a shaded pathway is a better asset than an unshaded pathway. So then we should be trying to cook that data. Councillor Lorentson: Page seven. Oh, sorry, Jake. No, you're all right. You're all right. Page seven. I'm just looking at the hierarchy, Brian. Sure. And my question is, the paths that link to major facilities like hospitals, schools, shopping centres, art galleries, parks, libraries, skate parks, surf clubs, and other facilities used by the community, which level do they fall under? Speaker 10: They predominantly would fit under level one because they're within like a shopping precinct. And we would regularly be inspecting those because of the hygiene. We normally have our issues around those areas, and when I say issues, they're trip hazards.
03:14:00 So they, as a result of the panel of the concrete lifts and from tree roots, et cetera. So we regularly inspect those. Councillor Lorentson: So some of these major facilities are not necessarily highly trafficked, don't have a lot of, you know, if I go to Kin Kin or Pomona, the school paths don't have the same volume of people using them as they do in Noosaville. So do they still fall under category or level one? Speaker 10: They will in concept, and it'll come down to condition base. So what we'll find from the data that we're collecting, it may mean that we will go all over. We don't inspect things that we know that are good unless there's something reactive. We'll program that out. So it will be an adjustment to those levels of service. So the question at the moment is, yes, it's level one, and we'll see whether we're over or under servicing that through time. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: To follow on from what Brian mentioned with regard to capacity of pathways.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Have we looked at pathways, and I'll give the example of the one near Ivory Palms we've already identified for an upgrade, where the pathways are particularly narrow and don't meet current standards and prioritise those as for expansion? Speaker 10: So the walk-in, again, the walk-in cycling strategy. If they're on a trunk network- Councillor Jurisevic: So that's not- Not in the asset management plan? Speaker 10: Not at this point in time, no, because we're waiting for that strategy to feed this in. Councillor Jurisevic: There are sections- No, that's where the two-wheel dovetailers- Speaker 10: They will. I'll probably just also add that we have done planning work previously for the LEGIP, the infrastructure plan. That was a good question. You're free to raise questions. So all those renewals and upgrades are all, have come out of the LEGIP program, and rather than us list all of those individual line items on the 10-year program, we've actually grouped them as trunk and non-trunk in the outer years, and as they come closer, we start to detail those.
03:16:00 But they've all been considered as part of the walk-in cycling strategy. They'll upgrade up- Sorry. Once we adopt that program, we'll update the LEGIP as well. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my question was, are we working backwards with the LEGIP now, because realistically, as we upgrade this, we need to reform the LEGIP and update the LEGIP. So that's the way we'll progress forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: In the recommendation, it says the document specifies the activities, resources, and asset classes to achieve Noosa Council's asset management objectives. In terms of resources, could you just spell out how this informs the resources that you'll be asking for in the lead-up to the 21-22 budget? Speaker 10: It'll be about the operating budget. So we've already forecast what we've got for operating, and we've aligned our activities that we've mapped. So we're doing pretty much business as usual at the moment, and that's based on modelling those levels of service, and we'll adjust them, as I mentioned to Councillor Stewart
03:17:00 before, and also for our capital works program in planning for those. Councillor Wilkie: So when you completed this body of work, Brian, did it change the list of line items that we'll see in the capital works? No. Speaker 10: They were already there. They were already there. They were already there. We brought them in. We bring in all the info. The asset management plan brings in everything from across the organisation into one document. Councillor Wilkie: This documents the systematic approach that we've already taken? Yep. Correct. Councillor Lorentson: So what happens in a situation like in Cooroibah, Lake Cooroibah Road pathway connection from McKinnon Drive to Lake Cooroibah, that connection has further deteriorated? So my question, and the question I think Frank was asking, is how often do we reprioritise or revisit the condition of these pathways and connections, and can a project be moved
03:18:00 forward? Speaker 10: Correct. Yes, it can. Importantly is that part of our improvement plan was that we were out there logging defects and we weren't capturing condition. So we've just commenced capturing condition as well. So we've trained our staff to go out, not only collect defects, but to condition assess segments of pathway, and that will help us build a more robust renewal program. And the beauty of our budget process is that we're only approving one year. So whilst we forecast our commitments and the like, we're only approving. So we can change this and priorities will change, there's no doubt. And just like our 10-year program, year one's there for delivery, year two, three, four, and five are for planning purposes and out are indicative. And that's no different here, we'll forecast. And then as priorities change, we'll bring them forward if need be in alignment to other projects. Councillor Jurisevic: That leads to my next question, is our level of depreciation of our current knowledge of
03:19:00 our asset base sufficient to manage the level of renewals that we need to work to that plan that you had there on that graph, as opposed to new works or new works that may come out of the planning for the pathways and cycleways strategy? Speaker 10: Well, the renewals is for renewals. So it's replacing what infrastructure we already have. We already know that our depreciation will go up because we've already got 10 to 15% of our network that still needs to be written onto our asset register. And in regards to upgrades, well, we'll be looking at external funding through the cycle grants and other works for Queensland type works to deal with the gap between renewal and upgrade where possible. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll go back to the first part of my question. Is there sufficient inland reprocessing? Thank you all for joining us today, we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda for this meeting, which is to discuss the new asset value that we have now to continue the renewal program that you've got in place.
03:20:00 Speaker 10: The renewal program, yes, I believe we're fine. It's about priority and just smoothing that out. Speaker 6: That's what I'd like to check, thank you. And the test for that, Joe, is whether the overall asset conditions are going ahead or not. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what we'll ultimately determine at that time. Councillor Wilkie: Can I move the motion? Yeah, I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, highlighting the achieving the next level of our asset management plans and getting pathways and boardwalks. There are a few classes that we still need to have to complete, but this is a major asset on Council's program that needed to be completed. This, of course, drives our full understanding, as we have alluded to, that there are assets that we didn't have written on that we can now write on, that we can now better understand. We need to understand the asset classes that exist, plan better strategies for the future management and service of the existing assets,
03:21:00 but also plan going forward for any expansion and addition to our pathways and boardwalks for the future. So I commend staff and yourself in particular, Brian, for all the work that you've put in on getting that next asset management plan that we've needed to please not only ourselves, but also the community. And I look forward to the next management plan, finally getting to the end of all our asset management plans, which are in the near future. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Wigan, have you had a question? Councillor Wegener: Just a quick question. Has the little app here on the phone where people can just take a photo of something and send it in to you and what do you call it? Snaps in the zone. Yeah, that's it. Mayor Stewart: Which is absolutely- Does that help? Councillor Wegener: It's more work to do. Speaker 10: To be perfectly honest, it has because it highlights where our priorities need to be if it's regularly being reported.
03:22:00 But we're hoping to overcome that too in regards to it. It's helped me identify where we can create efficiencies in the organisation, how we can get onto known causes quicker, and how we can send that information back to the community and saying we already know about that because we've got a guy who goes out regularly inspecting, and most of the issues that we have on our pathways we know about, unless it's a tree falling over it or something that's happened within a very short timeframe. But most of the others we know. So has it helped? Yes, it does help because it helps us highlight the fact that we need to act on some of those a lot quicker. But it also helps us know that how we prioritise those issues and create better efficiencies in the organisation. Councillor Lorentson: And Brian, is it an opportunity with customer complaints and the snap send and solve? Is it an opportunity for Council to use the numbers as a trigger? So on top of condition, deterioration, wear, tear, etc, that if we get 20 objectives or 20 complaints about a certain spot,
03:23:00 that automatically triggers an alert or an opportunity to inspect at least? Speaker 10: It's a really good question and that's exactly what we'd like to do going forward. And it'll adjust our levels of service. And it'll come in as a factor once we can do better collation of our data and go okay. And customer requests are important for us to say that's the satisfaction rating we're getting. So if we're not getting complaints about issues, then we know that we must be doing something pretty good out there. When we do, we know there's something we've got to lift our game about too. So yeah, I definitely think that's our next step. It's important that this is our first asset management plan. It is the baseline asset management plan. We'll do more advanced ones and we'll be able to provide data when we represent the pathways and boardwalks one, which I would say would be in the next three to five years. We'll have a cyclic approach on these.
03:24:00 They'll always need to be updated in one way or another. Councillor Jurisevic: I would also suggest that gives you an indication of the level of usage if you're getting a high number of complaints and that it does need to be prioritised because it's getting used to a lot. Speaker 10: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors would speak to the motion? I'd just like to point out that this is still part of the foundation work of a new council getting an asset management plan up and running. It's been many years in the making, so I commend your team for the work on this. It's a reassurance to ratepayers that the council's taking a systematic approach to the timely assessment and work and renewal of assets and that the ratepayers' money is being well spent in a timely and effective fashion. So thank you very much for your work. Like other documents on today's agenda, it's an enormous body of work. Many years in the making. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's no walk in the park to make sure a walk is a park. Stop it.
03:25:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Clean and clear there's a park. Just before he goes away. Oh, sorry. Joe, you wish to close? Yeah. Two questions. Sorry. I'll close with a question. Again, acknowledge the work and the efforts gone into this asset management plan. What's the next asset management plan that you're working on? Speaker 10: There's one last final one to do the whole suite of our major asset classes. And that's the next question is how do you... And it is parks and playgrounds. So... Councillor Jurisevic: Have we done amenities? Speaker 10: They were part of the buildings and facilities, but we will be developing a guiding principles around public amenities, similar to what we did initiated with gravel roads. We just probably got a little bit of a resourcing issue at the moment as I'm backfilling the director's role at the moment and my role is getting backfilled and the like. We'll get to those things. That went down the track. So yeah, we're just pushing that timeframe out, but the end game would be to have that asset management plan by the end of this financial year. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. Speaker 10: Thank you very much. We've got staff still working on the data, so hopefully I can pull that together.
03:26:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Again, once you've finished all that, hopefully we can get on with the job of actually then moving forward. That'd be nice. Well done to get where you have with regard to all of these asset management plans that have been a crucial element of council in such a short span of time with the limited resources you have. Yeah. I'd congratulate you and your team in getting us to this point. Councillor Wilkie: No worries. Thank you. Put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Kerry. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Regional Arts Development Fund Grant Recommendations 2021. Councillors, I wish to inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you. As one of the grant applicants, Tanya Nash, is a personal friend. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll now leave the meeting room. All the matter is considered and vote on.
03:27:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move Councillor Finzel act in the role of Chair. She's on this committee. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. I don't know what to say. Speaker 6: Have you heard the expression press cam? Yes. Does anyone... Just to explain the process for those who might be watching, once the chair of a committee leaves the room, it's up to the committee to determine who they want to chair for the consideration of this item. So, Councillor Finzel, congratulations on your nomination. Does anyone wish to speak to that? Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to declare a... What's the... A declarable conflict of interest? What's the other one called again? Prescribed. A prescribed conflict of interest. Prescribed conflict of interest, potentially, here. I'll just raise the matter with fellow councillors, see whether I can say it right. Having... Mayor Stewart: Have we voted on the chair? No. That's two. We haven't yet. Speaker 6: So, we're going to do this first. Oh, sorry. Mayor Stewart: I thought we voted on the chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We do the declaration before the chair.
03:28:00 Before the declaration of the chair. Speaker 6: Yes. Because he can't vote if he is. Correct. Yeah. So, Councillor Jurisevic, over to you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. So, having been involved in jelly productions, productions in the past, and I notice jelly productions are a recipient of a grant, a grant here. I mean, I've... No difference to performing in either the Noosa Arts Theatre or other production companies across the coast. Just to note that jelly productions is one company that I have. I'm not sure I've ever performed with in the past, and that's just to raise that knowledge and understanding with my fellow councillors that it could be perceived as a declarable conflict of interest. Speaker 6: It's up to you to determine whether or not you wish to make a declarable conflict of interest, and how you wish to deal with it. Councillor Jurisevic: I will make it a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. And I ask that... And that's an outline for Cathy, mate. ...that I remain in the remit, but... Okay. Speaker 6: You'll need to... Have you provided the form?
03:29:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I haven't. I only just realised as I'm reading this now that I've overlooked the fact that I should make it a declarable conflict of interest. Speaker 6: So, what you'll need to do is to outline to the meeting, so Cathy can take the minutes, about what the nature of your declarable interest is. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the fact that I have performed in productions that have been created by jelly productions in the region... That have been... Yep. Councillor Finzel: Jellies. Jellies. J-A-L-L-Y. Speaker 3: J-A-L-L-Y. Mayor Stewart: Yep. A-L-L-Y. Y-L-L-Y. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's the nature of the relationship in that regard. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In what year? I... Councillor Jurisevic: The last one would have been either One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest or The Full Monty, and it would have been... 2010 was... Okay, so... Two thousand...
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Nine to ten years ago, Brian, off the top of my head. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would make no difference then whether you were paid or not. Councillor Jurisevic: No, there's no payment. It's all as an outcome. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think... It's not, yeah. I don't think... Speaker 6: So, can I suggest then that what you'll make in the declaration is you'd call them any declarable conflict of interest in this matter if you had performed as an amateur? Mm-hmm. Councillor Lorentson: You want me to write that? Speaker 6: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Speaker 6: Is it a theatre production? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 6: With... In theatre production? Mm-hmm. Councillor Jurisevic: I've never done this with Noosa Arts either, but I figure with the leading clarification of these things, these sort of things should come to the board. Speaker 6: And what's Jellies Productions' role in that? They produced them, didn't they? Yeah. Created by?
03:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. The difference being they are... The difference being between them and something like Noosa Arts Theatre is they are a touring theatre company that puts on theatre. Speaker 6: To speak to that motion. So Councillor Jurisevic won't be able to take part in that vote, but everyone else will. So I'll put that motion that Councillor Finzel, and you can vote also. I can vote for myself. It doesn't matter if you don't.
03:32:00 So all councillors voted except for Councillor Jurisevic, who didn't vote on that matter. So Councillor Finzel now assumes the chair, and currently the best way to do it is to, whether anyone has any questions for Councillor Jurisevic about his request to stay in the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I need clarification on when those productions were, I can look it up. Speaker 6: Just a reminder to Councillor Jurisevic, the time to make these is once you've had a read of them. Councillor Finzel, you should be advising the CEO as soon as possible. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I acknowledge that. I hadn't thought about it as any different to Noosa Arts Theatre, but now I'm looking at it again, I understand that Charlie Productions is more of a professional theatre company than a not-for-profit local theatre company, and they actually seek grants for touring productions. Speaker 6: So Councillor Finzel, you can find out whether anyone wants to ask Councillor Jurisevic a question about his request to stay in the meeting. I'm just wondering if there's any conflict of interest or whether anyone's prepared to move a resolution that he could stay in the room or must leave the room or whatever it might be.
03:33:00 Councillor Finzel: Firstly, with regards to this resolution, does anyone have a question to Councillor Jurisevic prior to going to the vote of him staying in or not? Councillor Lorentson: Jo, I have. In your roles at JOLI Production, were you, did you have a main role, or just a character role? Councillor Jurisevic: In one production, I was one of the central characters, and in the other I was a lesser character, but still had a named part. How's that? Councillor Wegener: You're wonderful over those cookies, Aston. Were you? Oh my God. Councillor Lorentson: We're getting silly. Speaker 6: Okay, that's silly. Councillor, can I make a quick promotion? Yeah. A quick conversation, maybe a couple quick questions. Did you receive any remuneration in your roles?
03:34:00 No. No. And how long ago, roughly, was it one, two, five years ago? Councillor Jurisevic: Again, it's in the vicinity of 10 years ago. I would have to clarify the dates of both those. Councillor Finzel: So another piece would be since you've been in the capacity as a councillor, since you've been elected as a councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I do so, I think the CEO just outlined, even if he had received up to $500 or $2,000, and it was before 2016 under current legislation, it doesn't trigger anything. So it is a really, to me, it's akin to being a normal general member of an incorporated association. The only difference here is it's not an incorporated association, so I believe it's quite appropriate. That's all we appreciate. Councillor Jurisevic: All we appreciate is we lose our ass here during this interview. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Are we ready to take that to the vote then? All in favour of Councillor Jurisevic staying? All against?
03:35:00 You are welcome to stay, Councillor Jurisevic. Let's proceed forward with the business at hand. Welcome, Kerry. Speaker 3: Thank you. I'll just say, look, it's just me today. Alison is on leave, and Belinda, who would ordinarily be here, her son's having his wisdom teeth out, so she needs to be here. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. So does anyone have any questions to Kerry with regards to the Regional Arts Development Fund and the grant recommendations for the period 2020 to 21? Councillor Lorentson: I've just got one question. Kerry, how does the 17 applications made, how does that number compare to previous, Speaker 3: previous? We were pleased with that number, given the, I guess there's two things. There's obviously being in that industry significantly hit by COVID, and particularly in terms
03:36:00 of their ability to maintain their livings as artists. So there's that need to get some financial assistance to help keep things going. But we were really pleased with that number, given the, I guess there's two things there's where they just couldn't see a way that they could do it. So we weren't quite sure how that would translate into grant applications. The thinking was that many of them just didn't have the confidence to actually keep going in some spaces. So 17 was good. You see, we had just over $70,000 in requests. So that's a good number for the circumstances that we were in. Okay. So happy to be able to then have that number. The idea is to do, to have some kind of quick review of those, of those, and of those that weren't recommended. There was certainly worthy concepts there.
03:37:00 But that needed either some more work on the applications or they need to work with the staff in how they present that to make sure that they're full applications, which is obviously highly competitive. Councillor Lorentson: Is part of the criteria or the assessment process, Kerri, an interview process? Is there an element, is there an interview element where? Speaker 3: Not as part of the post-application process, however it's a requirement prior to them submitting their application that they speak to a council officer within the community development section about their proposal and that may be one conversation, it could be multiple conversations. So to support them to make sure that the concept is well understood, that this is the right program for them because sometimes people will apply to RADF because it's administered
03:38:00 by council so that seems easy when actually there might be others, for example an Arts Queensland fund which would be highly appropriate to them. So that initial period is where a lot of that consultation occurs. So when the application is submitted it's considered a complete application at that point. We don't conduct interviews with say one or two of them because you would, to be fair to everybody, you would need to go to everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, councillor Stokewell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's just a question and I know you wouldn't recommend it as an eligible but it might be worth just for the public consumption. Mm. It's not artwork, it's a book, and the grant is to...
03:39:00 Speaker 3: So that book has actually been in process for some time, it's been through, it's early drafts and this is for its editing component, so this is the stage just prior to publishing, yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And is it like in terms of eligibility for the book, it's about creating a product which has high artistic quality or is it a literary art part of the thing? Speaker 3: So I guess this RADF covers a range of things and particularly it's about supporting the cultural plan. So this particular application supports two parts of our cultural plan. Obviously literary work is a form of art, so we're supporting that, but also it's telling the story of Noosa, which is a really important part of the cultural plan. So it speaks to two elements of it. Thank you. Can I just add a comment to that? Councillor Finzel: That is subject to special conditions around the funding because he makes reference to the Indigenous communities
03:40:00 and they didn't provide the documentation to support that he had the support that would be required. So that is conditioned. Speaker 3: So you'll see that with some of the grant applications through RADF. And indeed our wider grants program, that if it's overall assessed to be a worthy application and competitively it's recommended for funding, there might be a minor element where we think we need some further information or documentation around this and there will be a condition on it. And absolutely, Karen, this is one of those. Speaker 6: Might be an opportune time to call for a mover to the recommendation. I'll move it. Councillor Finzel: And anyone that's seconded? I'll move it. Speaker 6: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for your hard work on this and Councillor Finzel I'd also like to acknowledge all your hard work. There are pages and pages upon pages of reading that you have to do so thank you for your contribution in this sphere as well and Kerry thank you.
03:41:00 Councillor Finzel: And can I make, I just want to make a little speech back as in my role of chair. So I'd just like to reiterate, thanks Kerry, I want you to say the unprecedented effects of the COVID pandemic without a doubt has created significant social and economic challenges with far reaching implications for those individuals and industries working in the arts. Arts and culture make considerable and necessary contributions to the wellbeing of people. Communities, arts and culture are powerful tools with which to engage communities in various levels of change. They are a means to public dialogue, contribute to the development of a community's creative learning, create healthy communities capable of action, provide a powerful tool for community mobilisation and activism and to help community capacity and build leadership.
03:42:00 In recognition of the national importance of the creative and cultural sector, the Australian government in response has announced in the 2021 budget update around $800 million of additional support to strengthen the cultural and creative sector. The Noosa Shire Council towards the end of 2020 received notification from Arts Queensland that approval was given for funding weiter work for artists. Since 2014, Noosa Council has participated in partnership with Arts Queensland as part of this partnership. We are able to offer grants to artists and arts organisations within the Noosa Shire. They are assessed by the RADF committee and approved by Council twice each year.
03:43:00 Grants Officer Kim Cummins said the 2020 RADF moderation meeting was both robust and productive. It took place at the Noosa Chambers on 17 December 2020 with committee members present including staff as well as Noosa Regional Gallery Director, Mr Michael Brennan. This followed on from the processing of online assessments throughout the November-December period, with the process being undertaken by the external professional arts industry representatives sitting on the RADF committee. With each one of us reading through each of the extraordinary volume of submissions given the impacts of COVID-19. 17 in total were submitted by local artists and performance to the Noosa Council with a combined total of $74,506.
03:44:00 In combination with the generic RADF assessment criteria, the applications were also assessed against the Noosa RADF committee's recommendations. The RADF committee's two priority areas for 2020-21, which were aptly titled Recovery and Resilience, and Younger and Older. The RADF committee, as you've read in your reports, has recommended seven applications for funding totaling $28,637. As chair for the RADF committee, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work undertaken by each RADF committee member. Who took the time to follow the strict guidelines for the assessment, thereby showing a genuine commitment to diligently undertake the rigours of the submission process. Well done to those artists who took the time to submit. All applicants will be notified of the outcome on the 22nd of January.
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 Mention should also be given at this time with sincere thanks to Noosa Council staff including the Arts and Culture Development Officer, the Community Development Officer and the Grants Officer who acted in a supportive role to all the applicants including face-to-face meetings. I would like to take this opportunity also to thank all of those who sat on the RATF committee. The members which bring with them a wealth of knowledge. And experience with the collective expertise for which we are most appreciative. Secondly, I would like to also note that the outstanding contribution of those members who sat on the RATF committee for the duration of their two-year term who now are moving on to other pursuits. These vacant positions will be advertised in due course.
03:46:00 The second round of RATF in 2020-21. Will be open on the 3rd of March and close on the 14th of April 2021. With $24,242 available. I'd like to thank everyone for their contribution and back to the staff. I mean this was very rigorous and they have done a wonderful job. And moving forward I'm confident that this RATF committee will provide good feedback to the Arts and Cultural Centre. And we can look forward to that addition. Being put out to our community. And enhance the wonderful opportunities that the culture and arts brings to our community. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like just to add a congratulations and commend all the applications. And in particular congratulate those seven applicants who were successful in receiving funding. And I'd also like to note that I'm really looking forward to the Tewantin Traders Association.
03:47:00 And note that they were successful in getting approval of their project. Which is for three street art murals. I know that they're as excited as I am. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've actually got a question on that one. Tewantin Traders Association Incorporated. Are we sure? Speaker 3: They would have had to provide documentation. Yes they would. So that gets assessed and checked. Speaker 6: Can we double check that? Speaker 3: I'm certainly happy to double check that. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is they were incorporated actually. Speaker 3: So I would need to also check to see whether they were auspiced by an incorporator. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because that's certainly... That's a major issue in terms of auspicing. The other issue that I've got here, and I like street art, is when we've had these conversations
03:48:00 before, there was discussion about council needing a habit of policy because our Noosa design principles actually can be offended by murals. In that they're drawing attention to infrastructure where normally we try and hide the iron vegetation. Yeah. So is this part... We haven't got to this point, and I suppose I don't know how many of the traders have been involved in the application, but it would normally be something that would come out of a placemaking strategy where we had broader community input and got to a design concept and yes, this is the way we want to go in Tewantin. But this seems to be... Yeah. How do we manage that balance between a desire to enliven the space and those other aspects? Speaker 3: That's a very valid point that you raise, and were part of the discussion that I had with the team around...
03:49:00 Because we've been talking about a public art policy, and obviously the placemaking principles, and Noosa design principles. So all of that feeds into it. At the end of the day, though, when we looked at it, we're supporting a group of traders who are taking on a lot of responsibility. They're taking some steps to bring, through art, life to the streets. It's somewhat different in that this is on private buildings, so it's not on public buildings. And we've had the discussion about ensuring that the artwork that goes up fits with the look, feel, and values of this community. Yeah. And when then it was talked to me about the process, for example, working with the school
03:50:00 on it, is actually a broader community development aspect and cultural development aspect to it as well, which sat very well with me. But they're absolutely good questions to raise. And so through this, Michael Brennan would be involved through it, and Belinda Simonson would be involved as well. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that these are down laneways. Absolutely. Yes. And the art can't be landscaped and the like that haven't got the opportunity and don't phase out into the public. Yes. So it's not street-oriented. Speaker 3: So once we, for me initially as well, was hang on. But as I walked through it, I felt more comfortable with it. Councillor Finzel: I did ask those questions in my role of chair, and that's why we've got the assurity from Michael Brennan to he will be oversighting that. And we also talked about the ongoing maintenance of the artwork, and I believe that all the
03:51:00 questions that were raised were adequately answered. Speaker 3: But I'll certainly take away that bit about the applicant. Normally, we're very thorough in checking that. And if it's not the organisation, they would be auspiced. They are incorporated. They are incorporated association. So obviously something has occurred that they're now incorporated association. Excellent. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Okay. So are we ready to? I'm happy to do that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So we'll move the motion. Councillor Finzel: Amelia moved the motion. Who's second? Oh, we've done that. Councillor Stewart moved it. Councillor Wegener said it. Thank you. I don't have anything to close. Oh, okay. Just put the vote when you're ready. So we'll put it to the vote. Four, accepting the recommendation. So for we've got Councillor Wegener, Lorentson, Finzel, Jurisevic, Stockwell, and Stewart. Speaker 6: Thank you. I'll get the chair back. Yep. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thanks, Kerry. Thank you. Thanks, Kerry. Councillor Jurisevic: There's no aim.
03:52:00 There's no publicity. Councillor Finzel: Oh, sorry. Jurisevic. Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I kept thinking Jurisevic. Councillor Finzel: I was thinking about Jurisevic. Carefully, Jurisevic. Where is the picture in my hand? Councillor Lorentson: You're not a dinosaur, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: With the beard, he's getting closer. I'm aging fast. Councillor Finzel: Welcome back. Councillor Wilkie: Welcome back. Welcome back. All right. Thank you. Good debate. Not that I was listening in on the live stream. So. Thank you. Final financial performance report, December 2020. Welcome, Michael. Councilors, any questions for Michael? Mayor Stewart: Is this information all available now on Open Council? Oh, will it be? Speaker 8: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Will it be? Awesome. Schoolies, page 98. The gift that keeps on giving.
03:53:00 Schoolies related costs. Yes. 71,000 under budget. Speaker 8: Yes, so look, obviously we have to respond to schoolies. That is purely the external cost. There's probably looking at another 50,000 of staff costs on top of that. Obviously staff costs are embedded in our budget. So we're finalising currently collating that information because we have an opportunity to announce and negotiate with the state for some reimbursement. So hopefully we can repeat some of that cost, which would be great. Councillor Jurisevic: So that would include staff costs one way or another? Potentially, yes. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Now, I'd like to make a note on schoolies. I know that they've got a lot of bad press and so forth. But on the other hand, you have a lot of young people coming to Noosa and I'll bet they're young and partying now. It's their greatest advertisement for these kids if they come here and see Noosa.
03:54:00 They won't forget it. And those are people that will probably come back if they have a good time. So I'm very actually supportive of schoolies in a Noosa way. If there's a Noosa way to get an edge on schoolies, I think it's worthwhile too because I think that's a great advertisement. They'll remember this place. It's great and they'll come back. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll have to dish out red frogs forever. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Michael, just looking at the discrepancies, 108, just sort of I guess the areas that were flagged that I saw as being quite a difference, commission paid, current budget versus actual, contract services is up a bit by a couple of hundred thousand and the legal expenses are up by a couple of hundred thousand. Speaker 8: Yes, sure. Commission paid directly relates to holiday parks. Yeah. Yeah. You'll see in the revenue comments, our sales revenue is significantly higher than budget,
03:55:00 which is a large component of that holiday park. So the commission is tied directly to the revenue. Obviously, we budget at a lower revenue amount, so we have that effectively. Revenue's up, but the commission's up because it links to the revenue. Contract services, that generally ties to the material and services comments. You'll see in there that there's some over, we're overexpended in, we're overspending in, a couple of areas. We're looking at things like environment, our environment area, and some of that there's actually a bit of issue with just some costing. So with our environment area, I've checked with Anthony and Craig on that, and there's some costs that should have gone to the levy, so the levy's underspent year to date. The other one there is waste, there's some overspent in waste, and that directly relates to the waste revenue in rates. So you'll see that the collection, commercial collection services are up, but because the revenue's up, the contractor cost is also up in terms of the additional services.
03:56:00 So that's a fair chunk of that contract services over expenditure. So it all marries up for me. And legal cost is our normal issue with our appeal cost being, and that's pretty much all of that cost being above budget year to date. Councillor Lorentson: So on page 98, Michael. You've got development legal appeals costs $69,000 above year to date, 56% or $620,000 of $1.1 million spent. So is that correct, or is it the $725,000? Speaker 8: So yeah, look, I looked at that comment, and Trent's on leave this week, and I didn't have a chance to clarify. But if you look at those two comments about development application costs and development legal appeals. Councillor Lorentson: They're different. Speaker 8: They're not quite correct. Actually, legal appeal costs are $200,000 over budget. But if you look at those two combined, you're looking at, yes, but obviously there's a little
03:57:00 bit of under expenditure in the development application area around their consultancies. So the consultants they buy in to help assess DA. So that's offsetting the legal appeal costs year to date. But obviously legal appeals is an ongoing challenge for us in terms of that cost that we have. So yeah, there are some variances there, but we're aware of them, and we're monitoring Mayor Stewart: and managing. Thanks, Michael. Councillor Wegener: Then there's the refinancing of the debt. Is that in here? Speaker 8: Not yet, no. That's still being, that process is currently in train with state and local governments. So we have to apply to the state for them to approve our application, and then that will be reflected hopefully in the next month or two in our balance sheet.
03:58:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions, councillors? Councillor Lorentson: Just one question for our viewers on page 102, Michael, our cash cover seems great, but to indicate that there may be unforeseen financial impacts ahead of us, can you explain? Speaker 8: Look, there's always unforeseen potential impacts. There's currently cyclones up north and things like that. So we always like to leave a little bit of buffer, which we have in our cash reserves for those types of events. And potentially some of that is recoverable through disaster funding, but we still need to be able to have some cash if we need to, to expand on particularly disaster events and the like, so that we do have capacity and we're not left caught short. So yeah, that's sort of the comments there on unforeseen financial impacts, that short-term
03:59:00 disaster type related events. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a tin buried in the grass here at the back there. Councillor Wilkie: So on that graph there, in the case the council has enough cash to continue operating for another 9.5 million dollars, that's a lot of cash. I think about 1.1 months. If it was not to receive any more rates, which are about to be levied next month, about half a year's worth of rates about to come in. Speaker 8: That's a pretty good position. It is. And I think if councils want to see really where we are under spin, if you go to our cash flow, you'll see we're about $8 million. We've got $8 million in the kitty, which we have to effectively spend over the next six months on, particularly on our capital program, which is obviously we're only a partway through delivering the program. So, yeah, look, that cover will potentially drop, but obviously we've, part of our prudent budgeting, we've given ourselves plenty of buffer to make sure that we manage our risks and we're in a good financial position.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 Speaker 6: Councillor, the other thing that sort of, I guess, adds to that is our cash flow rate arrears are pretty good. This is something we've really been monitoring. If you have a look at the graph on the bottom of page 103, I think it is. And, of course, we had the rates over 60 days instead of 30 days, so it would be hard to compare month to month. But we're probably better off than we have been in the past in previous years. Incredible. A level of delinquency, if you like, in terms of payment rate. Speaker 8: Looking pretty good. The only disclaimer there, I think, is over the next few months you might potentially see a bit of pressure on rate payers with, if some of that, those measures drop away, which we know the job takes. The paper is due to drop away in March, so we may see that flow through to the rate arrears if it creates any pressure for rate payers.
04:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The other significant thing might be the effect on self-funded retirees. While the stock market, if you happen to make the right choices over the last 12 months, you'd be good. But if you adopt a more cautious approach, you'd be on very low cash reserve rates. And so that's probably, you know, for a lot of our retirees who are self-funded, it'd make a significant amount of difference to their discreetly done. Speaker 8: But we are still working with rate payers. We have arrangements in place. We have plenty of flexibility to give them plans and abilities to manage paying off their rates. So I think that's working quite well for us at the moment. Councillor Finzel: And it looks like from your report, the rate arrears are in line. It's performed to the same period in the past. Speaker 8: Yes. And I think we, as we know, through our budgeting process, we thought there may have been a bit of pressure on our rate arrears. I think a lot of that stimulus funding that has flown through to residents and rate payers has helped them pay their rates, which is good.
04:02:00 Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: That's good. Councillor Wegener: Maybe we should have a minute of gloating. We know ourselves and how lucky we are. No. Speaker 2: Touch me up. I just want to . Speaker 6: You're trying to . It's been a long time to know that things can change very quickly. Absolutely, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a nice . There's a folk lane of kings at the moment. Yeah. Someone here moved the... Councillor Wilkie: Moved the... Yeah. Moved Councillor Finzel. Yeah. Seconded Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel, any comments? Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to say thank you to Michael and his team. It looks like with regards to the financial report, the measures of financial sustainability indicators show there are no current emerging risks and we've got great risk mitigation tools in place which are clearly monitored and find us in a really positive position. Council has low debt and strong cash holdings. Council has good investment returns which still stay strong. The radar is, as we've discussed, are in line with previous years with performance.
04:03:00 We've got the regular monitoring of the budget that remains ongoing with all areas of Council and they are consulted as part of this process. So I would like to thank you and your team for the diligence and the work that they do. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: No second. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? It's closed. Anything else? All good. All good. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Next is the appointment of external member to Council's Board and Risk Committee. This is a report from the CEO. Councillor Lorentson: The councillor. Speaker 6: We've just been renewing our order committee. Previous members changed and they've been done there five or six years so it's always good to get the fresh eyes in and we have advertised for the vacancy and I was pretty impressed. We've got 37 applications and I think I could have recommended at least 10 to 12 of those to council without any concerns.
04:04:00 Speaker 10: Wow, that's fantastic. Speaker 6: So really it was just a matter of trying to get the best of those and I did a lot of ringing around to other councils and recommending Kerry Phillips. Kerry chairs a couple of other audit committees around the state. Very impressive credentials and exemplary recommendations from other CEOs that I ran that she's doing work for. And the other one was to elevate Tim Cronin to the vacant chairperson position. We booked him on probably 12 or 18 months ago. As a member and he's very, very good as well and a bit of succession planning we've put in place and recommending he step up as a new chair.
04:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: Does Kerry travel to all these other locations Brett? Speaker 6: Yes she does. Councillor Wilkie: Does she like to participate? Speaker 6: Lives in Brisbane. Tim lives? Lives also in Brisbane. He's one of the audit partners, the KP down there. Councillor Wilkie: So an objective, certainly an objective. Speaker 6: It's actually good to have that. Someone from our side who just specialises in the stuff. The two councillors who are on our current committee, they know they ask very good questions and a very interesting way of looking at risk management and added a lot of value to us. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move it. Move for Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to say that Brett, I think he made a great decision to move Tim Cronin to the vacant chair. And just looking at Kerry Philp's resume blew me away, I think at a cost of $800 for a chair, $600, we're getting a lot of value for our money, without question, so great appointment and I'm excited to meet them, meet Kerry.
04:06:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to join the CEO in thanking Scott Williams for his outstanding contribution, six and a half years, I've had the pleasure of being on this committee with Scott as the chair for two years. And gained an immense amount of confidence, but also strength from Scott's chairmanship of that committee. I learned a lot about chairing a committee, but I also learned a lot about audit risk in being involved in there through his involvement. I have had the pleasure of meeting Tim briefly in time there because I had stepped down when Tim was just coming in. But I think Tim will be an excellent... Chairperson to take that committee forward and I look forward to meeting Kerry as the new member of the audit risk committee. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Karen. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to reiterate thanks to Scott Williams for his service and the major contribution, six and a half years.
04:07:00 And a huge amount of work that goes with reading and preparation. And congratulate Tim as the incoming chair, that's a great choice Brett. And also congratulate Kerry Phillips as an external member and I look forward to working with her. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a confidential session? If we could close the meeting and move into confidential session to discuss the final item on the agenda. I'll read it out for the benefit of the people listening. The motion is that the meeting be closed. The public shall move to sitting. Section 254J3G of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing a commercial matter involving the Council including negotiations regarding a contract proposed to be made by it in relation to Item 11, Environmental Levy Proposed Land Purchase.
04:08:00 We ask that we have a confidential session, please.