Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Noosa Council meetings since 2014: papers, decisions and recordings, and from April 2023 the video cued to each item.

Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 9 March 2021 Transcript

Tuesday 09 March 2021 · 2 hours 53 minutes of recording · 2,612 lines · 15 voices, 4 named

This is a machine transcript of council's recording, produced by automatic speech recognition and not checked line by line against the video. Councillor and place names are corrected where a human has approved the correction; everything else is what the model heard. Quote the recording, not this page — every timestamp below opens council's own video at that second. Recording © Noosa Shire Council; the transcript is ours, made from it so the meeting can be searched and read.

Speakers: the machine separated 15 voices and names 4 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good morning and welcome to the March 2021 Planning and Environment Committee meeting. As is normal, I'll do the traditional acknowledgement. And since it was International Women's Day, I thought I'd spend a bit of time just explaining about some of the Indigenous women leaders that inspired me over my time in this place. And the first has to go to an Indigenous leader who's passed, and that's Aunty Olga from the Bachelet clan. So Aunty Olga came on to an Indigenous cultural heritage group I set up in the 90s, and she'd always tell fantastic stories. She was a true leader. When I went to her funeral, I saw people from my educational Queensland days, I saw

00:01:00 people from my local government days, and I certainly saw people from my natural resource days. Because she reached out and was a bridge between her community, her family started from Gauri, but she was a great advocate for everything to do with Munumboola, which is the Lower Mary place with many bens. And she was the inspiration to a current senior elder of the Bachelet, which is Aunty Olga. And Aunty Olga's name is Nanay Bird, and Nanay learned much of her traditional knowledge through Olga and is now a current senior elder of the Bachelet. So there's our north. Aunty Olga told me the story that her grandfather was the last fully initiated Bachelet man, and that over about a year or 18 months, they went through different borings, and the last one is the Potclay National Park, and her grandfather was the last person initiated there. So then we moved back here. And you can't go past Gubbi Gubbi Elder and Eve Faisal.

00:02:00 So Eve would like me to say Gubbi Gubbi. I met Eve giving a talk about European heritage out of Kenilworth, and I showed a picture of two old Aboriginal people sitting in the gunya beside the Mary River. And Eve said, that's my grandparents. And so Eve was a very strong leader for many years around this park, and did a lot to further the understanding and cause of the Kabi Kabi and the Kabi Kabi people. And her family line is represented in Native Title applicants by Elayna Gulak. She's also been very involved in this community for many years. Elayna, I first met in the 90s when Native Title came in, and she was there advocating for her family and interests way back then. And the last one for leaders emerging, I think it's great to acknowledge the traineeships that Noosa Landcare is running. And we've currently got Ruby Irons out there. And Ruby is from the same family as Brian Warner, many of you know, whose family heralds

00:03:00 from around Lake Katharabah. So with that, I'd like to acknowledge, as a current custodian of these parks, the fantastic efforts of the women leaders of our indigenous people. Okay. So attendance and apologies. We have all in attendance. And we have councillors Wilkie and Karen. And Councillor Lorentson as observers. Do we have someone who'd wish to move the confirmation of the minutes? Councillor Stewart and Councillor Wegener. We don't need any discussion, I presume. All in favour? Pass unanimously. We don't have any presentations or deputations. So we move on to item one, which is material change of use for applications for short-term accommodation at 1-20 Managai Street, Noosaville. Thank you.

00:04:00 Councillor Wegener: With the report, I'm just going to start on a philosophic level, it doesn't really discuss the change of a community, and you brought this up before, the change from a community that is just residential to a community that has the beginning of short-term stays in there. And the overall cumulative effect of that. Not on the amenity, but actually on the culture, the people that come to Noosa and stay here and create the Noosa, evolving Noosa. And for example, Brian and I both came here, we both lived on Hill Street. Should the report reflect the concern of a lot of us that the type of people that are coming here aren't coming to here to put down roots, have kids, have families and so forth, but instead... Instead are coming at short-term rentals and not really contributing to the long-term

00:05:00 fabric of our community. Speaker 8: I can probably answer that on behalf of staff. Tom, the report deals with an assessment against the planning scheme. And so what it does is looks at what's the planning scheme, which is what the policy the council has set, and determines whether or not it has met that policy. If you don't like the policy, that's what we've got to change in terms of the planning scheme. But that's where council would need to consider, what are the implications for having some areas or not areas, or whether the zoning's the right way to do it. But ultimately, the planning report assesses the application against the planning scheme, which is council's adopted position. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Thanks. And the second, or another set of issues I have is that we are imposing a set of conditions here, and the code of conduct, the way that they're going to act as a part of the planning is a short-term stay, but we, as we'll find out later today, that the mechanisms of enforcement, the actual enforcement, the police and the council staff that are going to be working

00:06:00 towards enforcement, they're not even, they don't really exist yet, don't they? We're going to, like it says, there's going to be funding coming up for enforcement officers, for our carrying through of the planning scheme. Speaker 7: Well, in terms of resourcing, we do have an existing compliance officer that will address concerns about non-compliance with development approvals. So we have a resource at the moment. Obviously with the proposed implementation of a local law and a registration process or the like, and ongoing requirements to comply with the local law, there'll be further resources that will be required. And obviously you've alluded to further discussions to occur around that resourcing in the future. But we certainly do have a compliance officer at the moment. That is capable of responding to the complaints that we might have about approvals that have

00:07:00 currently been issued, not just for short-term accommodation, but for a whole range of matters which have arisen from non-compliance with development approvals that might have been issued. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. And then, so another thing that's not quite ready yet is the bike room. And so that, I'm sure that you're confident that they are going to take care of that. The room that was for bicycles and was turned into accommodation or an extra room, don't you think that that should be done first before that we give them approval for a short-term stay? Speaker 10: Yeah. So the conditions of the approval do require that that be converted back prior to it commencing its use. So that is required to actually be converted prior to them actually starting to rent it out. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So that's the job of the compliance officer to make sure that that happens? Speaker 10: Yeah. So once the approval's been issued, they have to comply with all of their conditions before

00:08:00 they can commence the use. So we do have a recommendation in here that our compliance officer do a final check on the development and just check that they've actually converted that back. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Speaker 10: Media woman. What? Yes. Media woman. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Thank you. So we have a consideration of there being a childcare center next door. And the rules state plainly that you're not supposed to have a short-term stay within 100 meters. Can you give us a little bit more discussion or how you came upon this decision, why you think that that rule isn't necessarily important in this case? Speaker 10: Yeah. So I did consult with strategic planning about that provision, and their advice was that that provision was put in place for the child care center. And that provision was for larger-scale short-term accommodations, so sort of motel, hotel-type development where there's a lot more people staying there, there's a lot more people driving

00:09:00 around that local area that aren't really aware of what's in the area. So if you've got a child care and there's maybe children, they're not aware that those children might be nearby. Whereas this is just a single dwelling where there's maximum abate people staying there. So that provision was more for large-scale, where you've got your flow-on traffic effects of additional car parking that could potentially be taking up on street car parking around schools or child care. So again, it's more for that large-scale-type development. Councillor Wegener: And then on page 21, we'll talk about the objections. And what weight are given to the fact that five-year-olds... Residents around there, directly surrounding the building, have objected to this becoming a short-term stay? Speaker 10: So it's not so much, I guess, the number of objections. It's the planning issues that are raised in the objections. So predominantly, they were in relation to car parking and amenity issues, which has

00:10:00 obviously been addressed both through the report and then in the response to the matters that have been raised. Councillor Wegener: Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Speaker 10: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Councillor Wegener: Oh, thank you. I'll just go for it. The comment concerning the loss of amenity, it says, accordingly, it is proposed to include conditions which address amenity, including the number of guests, hours, use of outdoor area, and complaints management. So that's how Council is... That's the quote that's addressing how Council is concerned...is addressing the loss of amenity. Mayor Stewart: Yes, correct. Councillor Wegener: Around there. Okay. And that is reflected in the Code of Conduct and so forth. Yes. Do you...and then I...on this map, it has...it doesn't have other Airbnbs in the area. It seems to just be showing the other major accommodations. Are there other Airbnbs surrounding it?

00:11:00 Speaker 10: Yes. So if you go to page 16, that does show everything that we've got on Council record. Speaker 8: So the blue circles as well, Tom, not just the ones in red. Councillor Wegener: Oh, the blue circles. Okay. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So when we see one slash two, that means one of a duplex. And when we see nine of 41, that's nine out of 41 units. Yes. Okay. Can I just kick you back on that? Yep. Because I suppose that's, for me, the interesting difference between this application and the ones we've had over the last two months is that when you look at Roberts Street, there was a mix of tourist accommodation, short stay, and residential quite clearly coming back from the river. When you look at Hill Street, there was sort of an undefined line, whereas historically, as this map shows out, the visitor accommodation in this locality has always been just focusing off Weber Road.

00:12:00 So what this clearly shows is my understanding of Nannygai Street is that it's always been a suburban street with very little short stay, or now called short stay. There may have been holiday houses in the traditional form. We wouldn't have known about those, but they're obviously not currently active. And so this is where we get to the interpretation of further establishes this street as a residential street rather than one that's suitable for a mix of tourism. So your response to that concept that, actually, this hasn't traditionally been an area where it is, and is that something that you're looking at? Speaker 7: Well, obviously, it is a consistent use within the zone. So the scheme certainly supports it in that regard. And in terms of our assessment, we do need to consider that predominant residential component within the neighbourhood, which certainly exists in this location. I think in support of the location is also, it is in close proximity to Gympie Terrace.

00:13:00 There are a number of residential areas within the neighbourhood. There are a number of short-term accommodations further, a distance further away from Gympie Terrace than this. So it's not certainly on the periphery. It's not pushing the boundary out further. And I think, in some regard, looking at the colour photo here, I can see that there's, I believe this is a... Councillor Lorentson: Aged care. Speaker 7: Aged care facility within close proximity to the site as well. So that, I would say, would, in some regard, have limited the opportunity for there to have been short-term accommodations in this area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I suppose it boils down to the conversations we're having about whether the current scheme adequately differentiates, and what we might need is a more micro scale approach to identifying where we think it is consistent, where we don't think it is. But what you're saying is, your assessment is that there isn't sufficient within the scheme in terms of where it can carry this short stay versus where it doesn't, that

00:14:00 would warrant an alternative approach to this development. That's correct. Sorry, Tom? Councillor Wegener: No, exactly. So, as you said, you know, it's in close proximity to Gympie Terrace. And then when it, you said in the comments, the subject site being ideally located with the proximity centres, services, and the river. And it says here that you're 150, or 850 metres from, basically, the river or the key tourist zone. So you would see, the key tourist zone would be Gympie Terrace and the river. Speaker 7: In proximity to this location, that's correct. Councillor Wegener: That's right. And it says 850 metres by the crow flies. Because I went down there and I drove it, and when you Google Maps it, if you were going to walk that.

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 It's 1.4 kilometres when you, if you're standing, if you're, want to walk to Gympie Terrace for dinner, it's a 1.4 kilometre walk. Speaker 7: Well, again, I don't think we've got any specific requirement in terms of distance location from an area such as that. We consider 850 metres as crow flies, 1.4 metres as you walk, to still be within a reasonable distance. And again, reflected by some of the short term accommodation offerings within that location. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, go ahead. You said you drove your car for 1.4 kilometres instead of walking it? Councillor Wegener: Well, no, I didn't drive my car. When you go on, when you go on Google Maps, I parked right in front of U Boat Hire, which is the closest point to it on the river, and the Google Maps say it's 1.4 kilometres to get to 20 Nannygai Street. Nannygai. And so that, that seems to be a real key issue where it's come up throughout the report

00:16:00 that it's ideally situated within a proximity. Does, well, could that set a precedent so the next person say, you know, well, my property is within 1.4 kilometres of Hastings Street, Peregian Beach, you know, centre, I mean, it's a pretty big distance for it to be called ideally located. Speaker 7: No. Councillor Wegener: We're so smart with the distance. Speaker 7: In terms of creating a precedent, well, every application is obviously based on its merits at that time. We'd certainly be guided by other decisions, let's say, that we've made in terms of what we consider to be reasonable. Councillor Wegener: Okay, that's all from me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I had a question. Just looking at the people who made submissions, I know that Adyona, the childcare centre, made a submission. What was their concerns? Do you recall that specifically?

00:17:00 Speaker 10: Yeah, so their concerns were predominantly around child safety, which is obviously not something that we look at through the planning scheme assessment. So it was about having a turnover of people in the property, potential for bad language and inappropriate conversations, and potential for overlooking into the backyard of Adyona. Mayor Stewart: Okay, good. Yeah, sorry, sorry, Brian. So they directly back on? Yes. Speaker 10: So they're directly back on? Mayor Stewart: Yes. Speaker 10: So they're the northern star here? Yeah. So it's their play area backs onto the outdoor? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, my kids went to Adyona, so I know it well. They've got a very high fence though, don't they? Yeah. Yeah, like you could not see over. Speaker 10: Yeah, and there's also a condition in the recommendation to put some screening on the upper level windows that face into the backyard, which I believe might already be there, but Deputy Mayor Stockwell: they're saying it was Monday to Friday.

00:18:00 Yes. But it would operate during school holiday periods? Speaker 10: I'm not sure. They haven't provided that information. I don't think they do. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Oh. Oh, they do. Speaker 7: A lot of childcare services still do continue to operate through the school holiday. Mayor Stewart: No, I think they do, Brian, too. Of course they're correct on that. Councillor Wegener: So are you asking, does the child care show, it says it's only open on weekdays and closed on holidays and weekends, but are you questioning that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I was questioning, it says weekends and public holidays, the question is whether it would be open during school holidays, which most childcare services do give us a good work. Which most childcare services do give us a good work, but it just, there is that potential conflict, but it's. You know, the balance that you say is what, to what extent is it a conflict if it's. Just on page 16, just to point out, because I can, it wasn't a very big shift and we didn't

00:19:00 need two anchor motels. One further to the east. Mayor Stewart: It's obviously an error. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's your land, your holiday apartment. Yes. Just so they don't feel miffed out that they didn't get free advertising. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Well, one just semantic thing, when you say that the town plan supports, is it, is there another word? Because it, support seems to like give support, like I support my favorite team, I don't support the other favorite team as much. Is it, you could say, allows either the. Speaker 7: The language in the planning scheme is that it's a consistent use or it's an inconsistent use. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Let's stick to those words. Is that a support? Because it, it, is that okay? Is, does anybody else have a, have a, when, when it says support, it, it seems to actively support this instead of, and, and actually putting a, a, a desire to have it go forward

00:20:00 where just the black and white language means that it's, it's allowed. Speaker 9: Sorry. Councillor Wegener: That's just, it's a, it's a semantic thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In my, in my history, I would, as a planner, I would have said lend support to. So it is a common. Councillor Wegener: It's a common term. Okay. So I'm new to this. So that's. Mayor Stewart: This might be a question for you, Greg. If we, this is obviously medium density, so it is zoned. It's in support of this. If we rejected this, what are the implications potentially for council? Speaker 8: Well, the applicant has a right to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court if they wish to. They're not obliged to. If they have a refusal and they wish to proceed with that, then that is, go through the Planning and Environment Court process. Obviously, if the council is making a decision which is inconsistent with its planning scheme, the risk of losing that case is much higher. Mayor Stewart: So there would be a considerable risk to us as a council because this is deemed consistent

00:21:00 with our planning scheme if we were to go against this. Speaker 8: Yeah. Look, if, if we are going against our planning scheme and making a policy decision on a, on an application basis as opposed to dealing with the planning scheme per se. Yeah. There's a higher risk that we would lose our Planning and Environment Court. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. On that, the only criteria which is of any significance is in relation to proximity and just that's in the right-hand column. Yes. And what you're saying, it doesn't meet the right-hand column, which is acceptable outcomes. Yes. It does meet the performance criteria on the left-hand column. So that wouldn't be an argument that's likely to, well, it would be debated, but it'd be one that wouldn't be incredibly strong. Do you understand? Great. Councillor Lorentson, you had a question? Councillor Lorentson: I do. On page 21, there's a reference to the potential of this medium density zone in allowing up

00:22:00 to 80 or 90 more applications for short-term accommodation. My question is, is that accurate? Speaker 7: If that's the number of houses that are within that zone, then they would all be considered to be consistent uses, but we do have the provision in the scheme which addresses the need for the predominant character to be residential, permanent residential. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: My next question is that what we're all saying here today is that the new NUSA plan does make short-term accommodation consistent, not support. I don't like the word support either, Tom. So it makes it consistent in medium density. Under the superseded act, residents can make applications for compensation. Yes. Can it be argued that someone who lives in a medium density area, which the new NUSA

00:23:00 plan has now made into a hotel zone, can someone argue that they have experienced adverse planning scheme consequences because of the new change and seek compensation, Brett? No. No. No. No. Just to clarify, the planning scheme has- Speaker 8: Planning scheme compensation provisions in the planning scheme which deal with injurious affection relate to a loss of entitlement or loss of rights for individual property by a change in the planning scheme. So it's about that person's right to that parcel of land. So that applies only to the former scheme. So if a former scheme changes ... Sorry, if there's a change between the former scheme and the current scheme in terms of affecting someone's use rights of their particular parcel, And as you're aware, they've got a use it or lose it type approach where they have to make an application within 12 months if that's refused and they need to prove that they've lost an entitlement. And it relates to that parcel of land, not to the character of a neighbourhood or whatever it might be.

00:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: But can it be argued that the old Noosa plan allowed short-term accommodation in all zones? A new Noosa plan has pushed short-term accommodation into medium-density zones. So it's exacerbated... Speaker 8: It could be argued that it wouldn't give right to a compensation claim by someone else in that zone. Councillor Lorentson: My other question is, under a material change of use, we have an opportunity with short-term accommodation to impose conditions. Can we look at imposing conditions such as residence, because we're recognising and having a discussion, it is a commercial use. Can we ask that the windows are double-glazed and there's no amplified music? Can we push the conditions a little bit further? Speaker 7: So for windows to be double-glazed and for... Councillor Lorentson: Double-glazed and no amplified music.

00:25:00 Speaker 7: Well, conditions need to be reasonable and relevant. Yep. So that would be the question that we'd have to ask, whether it was reasonable for people not to be able to play any amplified music at all. I think what the outcome would come to is it's reasonable that we limit... the occupation of the outside areas and put conditions around amenity and behaviour. I think that's reasonable. In terms of double-glazed, I think it would have to be a fairly significant reason to do something like that, particularly when you've got a building that's already been constructed, so to require someone to retrofit. So I don't... Councillor Lorentson: And loss of amenity is not a good reason to... Speaker 7: Well, I think that the suite of conditions is suitable. It's suitable to deal with the loss of amenity that could arise. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we have had a fair bit of discussion. Are we happy to keep this application at this committee, or do people want to go for round three in terms of the general committee?

00:26:00 Councillor Wegener: I would love it to go to the general committee so we could just have a final... So that kind of alleviates the necessary going to the ordinary meeting. Exactly. Because we want to discuss it one more time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So do you want to move the matter to be referred to the significance of the issue to the general committee? Councillor Wegener: I would like to move it because of the significance of the issue to the general committee. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to second that. All in favour? Unanimous. So we then move on to the next item. And that is... Thank you. Minor change with government approval for entertainment, dining business, type 1 food and beverages and retail business, type 2 shop and salon, 6 Thomas Street, Noosaville. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question for you, sir.

00:27:00 I think all councillors may have received some information pertaining to this. And I guess the request was, and I'm just looking at page 34 of the agenda. The applicants asked for... For the operating hours to be originally 6.30, 6 a.m. to 10, seven days a week. And then I believe that may have changed to 6.30. This dwelling or this business is right across the road from Thomas Corner, Amo Gelato. They're open from 6 a.m. every morning. I used to live above Amo Gelato, so I know it really well. And I was... Never affected by the early morning. In fact, it was great when you had a newborn baby. You could get up at 6 a.m. coffee. Speaker 10: Trust me. It saved my life. Mayor Stewart: 6 a.m. is late. Yeah, correct. I've been up half the night by then.

00:28:00 But so I guess my question is, this is right across the road. They're requesting because they want to open up for that early morning trade. And it is very busy. If you ask any coffee shop in that area, their busiest time is very early. They're requesting that the time be in line for, well, it says 6 here, but as I said, that's been pushed back to 6.30. Why did we change it or why was, why is it 7, 7 a.m.? Speaker 10: So if you have a look at page 35, there's a zoning map included. So essentially the planning scheme requires 7 a.m. start times for anything that's adjoining a residential zone. So in this case, that lot adjoins the high-density residential zone to the east. So because it backs onto that residential zoned property, the planning scheme does actually limit the hours of operation from the 7 a.m. start. But I was looking above, directly above the unit that has a 6 a.m. start, which is residential. But that was within the tourist accommodation zone. So Thomas Corner, so on the western side of Thomas Street, is all tourist accommodation zoning.

00:29:00 So it's all the same zoning. Speaker 8: That's the orange colour on the map. Yeah. Whereas this adjoins the red. And then the red, the dark red is the residential. That's what this probably backs onto that. Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And am I reading the plans right? This little coffee nook is at that back corner, it doesn't face Thomas Street. Correct, yes. But that's a big difference for me, is it? Speaker 10: Yeah, so it is actually at the rear of the building, so it's closest to that residential. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, the question that came to my mind is, we had a similar situation down in the Acres development in the last term, where we had a coffee shop bucking the residential area, and I seem to recall staff actually recommending some hours of operation, but some road councillor gave them a bit more. What was the eventual outcome of that one? Speaker 10: Yeah, so the staff recommended 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Yeah. Seven days a week, and the actual final outcome was 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday to Thursday,

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 and then 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Friday and Saturday, so it was still a 7 a.m. start. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I wasn't that generous to you. No. No, but still that 7 a.m. Do we know if, I should have asked this question, you've been heads up, but we don't know if that's had any continuing issues with noise from the neighbours' backyard? Speaker 10: I haven't had it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This one, we did get a complaint regarding noise? Speaker 10: We have had complaints, yes. Speaker 7: There was some time ago, I believe, some complaints in that other one. Oh, Acres? Yeah, Acres, but maybe 18 months, two years ago. I'm not aware of anything since that time. In memory, we put the water tanks down in the side building, actually. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That was a suggestion by the developers, put the water tank, narrowed the water tank stand, fine, back up. No noise. Speaker 10: What were the complaints that you received regarding this site? Just the tenant that had started to operate was operating from 5.30 a.m., and so it was

00:31:00 just a complaint about they weren't complying with their conditions and that they were operating from 5.30. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, just on this map, this is Riverside Beauty here. Yes. This is, and this is the area here. Sorry, is the coffee shop at the back? Speaker 10: It's actually, if you have a look on page 36, it's actually right at the very rear. Yeah, right. And I believe that the coffee is actually served through the window, so I believe people actually stand in the laneway to get the coffee, rather than being inside the building. Mayor Stewart: Are cars able to access that laneway? Speaker 10: Yeah. So that's actually got an easement over it for access, so the car parking's at the rear of the property. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a page in Tom Street. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but in that case, I think the resonant expectation is that we should . Councillor Wegener: There's also, it appears to be a florist in there. Yeah.

00:32:00 Probably wouldn't be the same sort of complaint for the florist, or? Speaker 10: I believe it's the florist that's actually also serving coffee, is my understanding. So it's a bit of a spin-off business. Councillor Wegener: Well, I'm glad that the mural is going to stay, even though it doesn't fit the exact description of what it's supposed to be like with, you know, muted colors and so forth. It's a pretty sweet mural. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I have a question on reasonable relevance. I really like the mural. Except we're not going to talk about it today. I don't know why. Can we condition that? Can we condition that the little French panties get turned into Verona Kiji eyes? No. No. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question in regards to the mural? What's the process? You mentioned that the mural, although not considered to have subtle changes in colors, was eventually considered acceptable.

00:33:00 Did that go out to a community, or did it go out to the community as a whole? Speaker 10: We provided an image of a mural. We did it very, very different to what was actually painted. So that's why we put that condition on it, because this is quite sort of geometric, very bright, very out of character. We didn't actually see this final mural before it was painted. So it wasn't until after it was up there that we actually did see it, which is why we're trying to condition that any future changes we get to see before any changes are made. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So have you had any complaints about the mural? Correct. Speaker 11: Thank you. Just a question regarding that. The public art policy, I understand, is a little way off. Is that something that you would, when it's completed, refer to with regards to murals in locations throughout the Shire? Because I have seen a lot of, or spoken to people wanting to put murals up on private

00:34:00 business murals. I think that's a good question. How do you speak to each other with regards to those documents, like the design principles and planning and the public art document? Speaker 7: Well, it would be a policy of council. It should be, and it was to be, you wanted it to be considered as part of a planning assessment. It really should be incorporated into a scheme, part of a policy. Speaker 11: And is it? Speaker 7: It hasn't been developed yet. Speaker 11: Oh, yeah. So how it can... Speaker 8: That's something the council can look at. Yeah. Speaker 11: And when do you anticipate... Is this a question to you? When do we anticipate... Speaker 8: I'd have to talk to the director of community services to find out. So check that out. Get back to you. Speaker 11: Yeah. If you can report back to them. Speaker 8: And the other thing with public art policy is, traditionally, public art policy deals with what are called public land. Land under the control of council. The planning scheme deals with land, private land, not council land. So the question is whether we get alignment between what we're trying to do in our public art space, in public land, with what's happening on private land.

00:35:00 So it's just having that alignment. Speaker 11: So the narrative between those two, speaking to each other, the public and the private, does that then come back through to the placemaking? Speaker 8: Yeah. Placemaking looks at a particular place, but in a policy sense, council's looking at having a public art policy, which deals with public art in all locations. I'm getting a little bit off topic here. I'm sorry. But the... I'll give you a little bit of room. But the... If we're looking at what we've imposed in terms of planning conditions, we probably want to be consistent with whatever that comes up with. Yeah. Speaker 7: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think it is a real interesting... Because in our public art, our position has been that we don't need your attention to large facades. We want to try and hide them beyond vegetation facing forward. But what this shows, and I believe what maybe the point changes also, is that people are looking at trying to make bland laneways, which are in the private space, but then they may have some public exposure, to use that to do your street art.

00:36:00 And I suppose that's something we can have an opinion, because it won't meet the mood of subtle tones that our planning system requires. So it may be something we can look at. Or we'll just deal with it on a case-by-case basis. But certainly, those private laneways are something we're creative for people around the world that look at. Speaker 8: Noosa Junction is probably the best example of that now, Shire. Speaker 9: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to just move to general, if that's all right. I'm really struggling with the... I understand the difference of zoning. But if I lived in a tourist zone, there were three other people who were living in permanent accommodation. There were four units, and everyone either owned or rented long-term. I was able to live there for three years. I'm struggling with the fact that they're allowed to have a shop underneath them from 6 AM, which was directly, literally directly below. And these guys, who are literally across the road, they've been constrained to seven. That, to me, is... It seems unfair, especially considering...

00:37:00 I mean, I understand that 6 AM might be too early. But even 6 AM, that half an hour, that could really impact upon their business. Even that half an hour could make a big difference. You can sell a lot of copies in a half hour. And you times that by five, six days a week, that could actually, for a small business, mean a lot. So I'd like this moved to general. Thank you. What further consideration? Yes, please. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I make one more comment before we close? I think we should encourage... It's such a nice... They've really done such a nice job with renovating the entire property. And that the woodwork on the top, being light, vertical slats, really looks nice. And then the concept of having the second story stepped back so it's not right in your face as you walk up and down the street. So it seems to be, I think, a really nice piece of Noosa architecture that's moving forward. And I hope that we continue to follow that lead in continually upgrading our local architecture.

00:38:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a request for a bit more information? Could you possibly reach out to the applicant or the consultant? If it is a joint business between the florist and the coffee shop, is there the capacity for a joint business between the florist and the coffee shop? So all in favour, unanimous. Now we move to the material of trans-use development for a tourist park at 154 Holtbroke, Cooroy. Speaker 8: Page 43 on the agenda. Do we have questions? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I do. I was really wondering how it went from a nursery to an RV stop in 2014.

00:39:00 Speaker 11: Good question. Mayor Stewart: I was shocked, yeah. Speaker 7: There was an approval that was issued from council, so we received an application at that time which was assessed and a recommendation came to council for the RV park for 20 sites. And it was supported at that time. Wow. Some debate if I recall correctly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we had a female councillor who was very keen on opening up RV stops in rural areas. She might be a local member now. So it was actually a quite, I think it was a scheme amendment that's followed that did provide for rural areas to have limited RV stops. This one went a little bit further. So it was a sort of policy direction. Speaker 7: I think certainly trying to encourage tourists to come to the hinterland areas to come to Cooroy as there was no capacity for them to do that at that time.

00:40:00 Speaker 11: Right. Can I just make a comment there? Just with regards to the comment you made, I don't know if it's out of order, but to make the reference to the gender of the councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do apologise. I shouldn't have said Sandy. Thank you. I do apologise. Mayor Stewart: It's International Women's Day. Yes. No, it's not fighting demotions. No, it's not fighting demotions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's gender. That's true. I should have just said Sandy. Yes. Thank you. I was just trying to add the suspense. I do apologise. So this application basically is to basically consolidate what's going on. What had previously been operating in the application .

00:41:00 The new part of the application was about getting approval for the storage space which has been created. Speaker 7: Well, if I may, the application actually did not include the storage. So it wasn't applied for. Okay. It was shown on the plans. So the series of events was an application was made. There was actually no plan submitted with the application. Okay. So from an information request, obviously needed some information and then that plan was put forward and it showed a storage area. It moved to notification. So it hasn't been publicly notified that that separate land use was intended to operate from the site being identified as a warehouse use and being impact accessible in its own right. And there's also implications for that land use in terms of the SEQ regional plan and the amount of area that can be occupied by such a use before it would actually need referral

00:42:00 to the state. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The warehouse definition is because it's under the storage of goods, vehicles, et cetera. Speaker 7: That is correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's no other potential way to describe it other than as you have it in civil reuse. Is that? Speaker 7: That's correct. I'm looking at the scheme and the definitions. That's where it fell to. And hence, we consider an ancillary use to be suitable, but the scale of three to be suitable again in that regard. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the, I've got you to have a look, that we did have a large facility for storage of goods in the rural zone. But you argue that that's different because it was within the urban footprint and that

00:43:00 would be the same trigger . Speaker 7: Well, I think there's two issues there. It is not in the regional landscape and rural production area. So it takes out the state referral. But also that RB compound, when you look at the scale of the development there, the number of dwellings that are provided, it's considered that that is ancillary to that use. Whilst it's bigger than this one, I acknowledge. But you've got to look at things in terms of the degree and scale on site. And again, with over, I think, 200 houses, what it might be there, that would certainly be considered to be ancillary. And acknowledging that the form of that development doesn't provide for an allowance for people to store RVs on their properties as well, I think. Small lots. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's interesting, because it's obviously going to be a growing issue if current trends continue. That people in their retirement downsize and buy an RV or a big trailer.

00:44:00 And if we're looking at the definition as a warehouse, we're going to ... And so what is the trigger in terms of area under the regional plan for that? Speaker 7: That would be a large size for an extension, probably about 2,000 square metres or 1,500 square metres. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And because it wasn't advertised, we're actually being generous in terms of calling it ancillary. And if they wish to pursue it, in terms of a larger facility, it would be a separate application that would likely, if it was 015, would have to be returned to the state. Speaker 7: That's correct. It was put to the applicant to re-advertise the note of the application, to facilitate Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The locality, it's a fairly different locality in terms of much of the rural area because of proximity of the highway and et cetera, et cetera.

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 That's correct. So the amenity impacts are likely to be low, but the statutory requirements haven't been met for anything more than an ancillary use. That's correct. Councillor Wegener: It's an unusual property in that it's surrounded by a mining lease. Is there, could they purchase, if they purchase that land or is that land purchasable to extend their use and to make the RV park bigger? Speaker 7: Just on the first point, Tom, the lease has not been renewed. So I'm not sure whether the resource still exists there, but it's certainly, there is no current lease to undertake that activity. And in terms of acquiring further land to accommodate the use, I mean, anyone, I suppose. Has that opportunity available to them to acquire adjoining land and deal with any of the site-specific constraints or zoning constraints that may apply if it was on a, you know, if it was different zoning or whatnot or different overlays that may apply.

00:46:00 But certainly it's something that, you know, anyone could pursue. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I think I'm on the sandy bandwagon here because I just think this place is fantastic. And I think that it's a, you know, I hope that the Coroy Chamber of Commerce, you know, will run, you know, can, can. Take the lesson from here or not, the, the amenity that this place creates that, that, that this RV park is phenomenal, by the way, it is so, it's the most best maintained RV park I could imagine. And so I think they've done just such a fantastic job. You know, if, if, if I had lots and lots of power, I would say, can you, can, can I make a motion and push for 25 or 30, you know, RV spots on there? Because 20 is, is, is very lightly utilizing the area. But I, but I won't obviously, but that, or could I actually, would it be possible as a councillor to say, look, they, they, they, they could put a lot more RVs on there on this property. And it's so lightly populated right now with 20.

00:47:00 Speaker 7: They've only applied for 20. Yeah. We can only deal with their application. Councillor Wegener: So there's nothing I could do, but other than, other than suggest, you know, that in the future, because this really seems to be working well and, and talking to John, the owner, and even people in town, they say, geez, you know, a lot of business rolls through from there because they, they're there, they're very, very close. What, what is the word in the, in the very close vicinity of Coroy as that they, you know, just very close by. So that's where they get their groceries and so forth. Speaker 7: I certainly agree. And hence why we're seeking support, the application. And you may note that the previous approval was a temporary approval. Yeah. And a big reason for that was because of the mining lease next door. This recommendation no longer has a temporary requirement. It would be an ongoing approval. Great. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sometimes small but beautiful. Councillor Wegener: Not in our case. We're, we're, we're big is beautiful.

00:48:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any further comments? Did someone want to move to the recommendation? Councillor Stewart, I'll go second. Any further discussion? No. All those in favour? That was carried unanimously. So we move on to a, um, Item 4, and it's 20 Environment Court Appeals, number D199 of 2020, in enforcement, in enforcement, no, just, to the property owner of 347 Eastern Branch Road, Kin Kin. Do we have any questions? No? I'm just going to make a suggestion that we make a minor change to the word. And wording of the recommendation. That is, um, to read that the Council notes that the report for the Managed Development Commission to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting date 9th March 2021, is to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting date 9th March 2021, is to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting date 9th March 2021, and seek to resolve Planning and Environment Court Appeal D1999 of 2020

00:49:00 with the owner and not where, if the, if agreement can be reached on, on Satisfactory 7 erosion controls for the earthquake situation. I just think we don't agree to it until, I think, not where, I think, I think that's the right one. Speaker 8: That's fine. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm happy to move that, if there's no further questions. I'll second. No discussion? All those in favour? So we move on to the Noosa Trail Master Plan. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thanks very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 10: I've emailed them. Speaker 8: So this plan has been requested to go to General Committee? Yep. Okay. Yeah, thank you. I'm just waiting on Peter to see if there's any questions.

00:50:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Speaker 8: I'm just waiting for the staff. I think I want to jump ahead and do the next item. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, we can move on to the next item. Oh, maybe we shouldn't. It would take quite a long discussion, I think. Speaker 8: Peter's not here. No, no. Yeah. Is it? It's up to you, Chair. Do you want to wait for Peter? He's just coming up the stairs, or do you want to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can... Is there likely to be any questions for Peter, or are we happy for it to go straight to General with our questions? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I can ask questions in general. That's fine. Yeah. Speaker 8: Any further information required before Monday? No, I'm getting my... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Director, the staff didn't seek any further advice from Council before General Committee, did they? Speaker 6: Oh, the news of the drought? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. No. Okay, so if someone would move the recommendation.

00:51:00 Council Wegener, seconded by Councillor Finzel, that the matter be taken to the General Committee as a result of its significance. All in favour? Okay, so we move on to the potential amendments in the new plan relating to housing choice and affordability. Speaker 8: Right. Speaker 7: I'll listen to that one. Speaker 11: No, I'm just emailing her as well. You're going too fast. You're moving too fast. Mayor Stewart: You've got a lot to get through. Speaker 11: You could do anything. Speaker 6: We can go look at laws if you... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, yes. We will do that. So this is item 7. It's proposed by the law on short-stay living with high reversion following public consultation. And I need to declare a conflict of interest. I take one. Oh, thank you. Okay, so Councillor, let me be aware, because I wasn't involved in the informal discussions about this particular item, that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter, as I am the owner of Lot 45, Leicester Lake Resort, at 3 Hilton Terrace 1.

00:52:00 I'm also the body of corporate care. The draft local law for short-stay living identifies the resort as one of proposed exempt sites, as identified in attachment 7 on the committee agenda. The draft local law, therefore, has a different impact on me for the majority of short-stay accommodation owners. Some would say beneficially, others the reverse. I have a prescribed conflict of interest. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting while the matter is considered and voted on. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 8: So, Councillors, whenever a chair agrees a conflict, it's the remaining three members who decide who's going to chair the meeting in the absence of the chairperson. So amongst yourselves, would anyone like to volunteer and the others can then nominate them? Mayor Stewart: Karen, would you like to do it? Sure. Speaker 8: So I just need a mover. I'll move that. Move second. Councillor Finzel will be appointed as the acting chair for the dealing with this matter. And I know that Councillor Wegman has seconded that. All those in favour?

00:53:00 Again, carried unanimously. So you do know the chair? Speaker 11: Now I'm the chair, right? Speaker 8: Perhaps I'll miss one just to see whether there's any questions for Anita or any further information. This is another one that has been requested to be referred to general, given the significance of it. It's probably one of the most significant ones of this random meeting. Speaker 11: So do we have any questions? Councillor Wegman? Councillor Wegener: Look, I've got a lot of questions on this and I've got a Facebook group that has emailed me questions as well. I hope that this is, I'm going to run through these questions and so forth and my concerns better today than in the, okay. Okay. When I read this, I get a turn inside because I don't think that on the big level it actually works. And the big question is, who is the site manager? Is it the person who owns the property? Is it the person who has the number there and gets called?

00:54:00 Or is it council, the site manager? And I don't see it a clear. Who is the site manager? And that leads to, of course, well, actually, let's answer that question first. Speaker 2: So a requirement of the local law application process and a condition of approval is that a contact person be nominated by the applicant to be the manager of the property. Councillor Wegener: So they're the actual. Speaker 2: So that person may be the owner or it might be a letting agency, a management, property management group. Therefore, it may be an individual, but it's a requirement in the application process that they nominate who that is, and it will be a condition of approval that they are the people that nominated contact person manages the property and deals with complaints. Councillor Wegener: So if there's a problem on the property, who gets fined? Is it the STA short state people or is it the owner of the property or is it this person on the phone?

00:55:00 We'll call him. We'll call them the person on the other end of the phone. Speaker 2: It's the approval holder. So whoever's made the application, be it the landowner or a person authorized by the landowner as the applicant, they're responsible. They hold the approval to operate short stay letting or home host accommodation at that property. So they're the ones that get fined. They're the ones. Yes, it can only be the approval holder. That's the way the local law operates. Councillor Wegener: The approval holder. So what I'm finding is that the phone number there, that may go to a person that has several different properties going on at the time, so that person is liable for potentially, if one of these places goes off, has a party in six of these places and fines will be designated, that one person will be liable for those fines.

00:56:00 Speaker 2: No. So they're responsible to, they're the contact person. They would be notified by the complainant who has an issue with what's going on at the property and that contact person would then deal with the complaint. And in the event that there is more than one property having a complaint at the same time, they would have to manage that. But I would say in most instances where a contact person has multiple properties, they're a letting agent or a property management agency. And they would have to manage that. And they would identify the relevant, responsible people who are on call, if you like, for that period of time. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Then from there, it goes into the enforcement and the, okay, go ahead. Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. So there's two stages of dealing with complaints. One is that the contact person responds to the complaint and deals with the complaint and it's finalized.

00:57:00 The remedy to the issue and the property is now compliant with guest behavior and the code of conduct and the like. It only gets elevated to council where there is ongoing issues with the property or there are matters where the property is not complying with the conditions of approval, including the code of conduct for guest behavior. So council, the intent of the local law is that in the first instance, the contact person deals with the complaints. And remedies of the issue. So it doesn't elevate to council with every complaint. Councillor Wegener: So this person has to have a complaint register. So if it doesn't get, doesn't go to escalate, escalate to council, then this person is supposed to have a complaint register. Speaker 2: So the contact person in dealing with a complaint must register the complaint and identify the

00:58:00 time, the date and how it was resolved. And keep that register. So in the event that a particular property has multiple issues and a complainant elevates it to council, we would request viewing of that register as well as doing an investigation to determine whether they were, there was an infringement against the local law, including the guest code of conduct. Councillor Wegener: See this, this register. To me, that's not the job. To keep a register of complaints. It, it, you're, you're, it's, it's the Fox ruling the hen house in this situation because we go back to that register and the register will say no problem, you know, very quickly, you know, all done. Everybody's happy, done and dusted. And then the residents are saying, well, no, that didn't happen at all. So that register has no value.

00:59:00 Really. Speaker 2: I guess it's a condition of approval that they keep that register. And the condition of approval obviously would mean that the register is, um, correct and up to date. If in the event there was a complaint from a third, like another complainant, we don't believe they dealt with it property properly. We look at the register. There is an investigation process that we have to go through to determine that it is false. Um, or there is a further issue to be dealt with. Um, and that that's determined by council's authorizing local law, uh, with all approvals through the local law processes. So, um, uh, you mentioned finding, um, it's say with a parking situation where we know and can see that a car is in the wrong spot, it's outside the, um, the rules of, uh, our car parking regulation. We could issue an instant fine in the instance of short stay letting for short term letting and infringements about guest behavior and when it happened and whether the register

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 was done, whether the contact person acted appropriately, there will be a level of investigation that has to happen. Councillor Wegener: See that, that's our problem and the community will not stand for that. So I'm going to be very uppity. It's um, uh, the community will want an enforcement measure immediately. And so let, let's go to page, um, uh, one, one, one, page 114. Speaker 8: Can I just jump in, Tom, um, I guess if this is going to general committee on Monday, if you want to debate some issues, that's probably the time to debate today's about gathering more information. Councillor Wegener: Okay. I want to ask you if this is possible. Yeah. Okay. They'll keep me in line. Um, I, I wouldn't it be better if on page, um, one 14 between step one and step two, they say when the person doesn't respond within 30 minutes, that's a parking ticket, that's

01:01:00 a fine. But the problem is you're going and asking this person behind the phone number, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the complainant and the complainant calls them and nothing happens in 30, 30 minutes. And that's where the ax falls. The problem is, is who is the property manager? Is it the council or is it the person behind the phone number? And I would say really the call should go to council, council picks up, council calls the person behind the phone number and starts, starts ticking and 30 minutes if it's not done. Okay. The finest finds on the spot. And that is the only way to do this, because in reality, council is property, the site managers, they are they are responsible for maintaining the amenity and enforcing the rules, the regulations, it's not the person behind the phone number, because that is the fox, right ruling the hen house. And so my question is, is it possible that we can change this before it goes to community

01:02:00 consultation, and say, there's a fine between each of those arrows on page 114, a fine is, is it is imposed? Speaker 2: Well, I'd have to investigate that further. In the first instance, it would require a huge resource impost on council to have someone on call 24 hours. And, but so they're going to interrupt there. Is it more of a Councillor Wegener: cost input? Well, first of all, that that that doesn't matter. Because as it says here in the report, the count, the costs will be offset by STS registration. Speaker 8: The second point is just to interrupt that level of council intervention or council monitoring you're talking about is incrementally above what's been proposed. So that would be another resource

01:03:00 interposition. Councillor Wegener: Okay, I think that reduce going out there, having an officer go out there, days after the event, and make a report and so forth and have to talk to various people there to figure out what happened, you know, take down notes, go copies of photos, copies of videos. I think that it would be much cheaper for council to have that person get the call, make the fine that night, go to bed done. It's it's a 30 minute act versus going out there and meeting with these people and making a report. I think that it would be much cheaper for council to have that person get the call, make the fine that night, go to bed Speaker 11: Okay, so that's a statement. Do you want to ask a question? Yeah, so that Speaker 8: the day is what other information will you need before Monday? What other issues here? Councillor Wegener: Can I can I make a motion that, that that this is looked at because it's only getting half this world that only this this report is only half done. Because if there's not realistic enforcement measures,

01:04:00 Speaker 8: sorry, sorry, I don't think you can say that the report's half done. You might disagree with the policy. Okay, just a subtle difference. So for Monday, one of the things you'll be debating is whether or not the enforcement provisions are to your way that you'd like to see them, and you want them changed. If that's the case, I suspect that would be a fairly major rewrite of our draft scheme, and we'd probably defer it for a month, if that's what the council ultimately chooses on Monday or Thursday next week, to then go out and rewrite all those provisions. It's not something that will be a minor change that you can do. on the spot on Monday or next Thursday. There will be a fundamental difference in terms of our approach to the draft local law. And if we wanted to do that change before we turn it up to public consultation, it would probably require a fair bit more work to bring it around for a future round of meeting.

01:05:00 Okay, well, if that's what, if that's what all the councillors opt to decide they want to do. Councillor Wegener: Okay, question for myself. How would I affect, I would, will I argue that point and then say, we Speaker 8: Yeah, if the majority view amongst the councillors will be that we want to take a different approach to enforcement than what's in the draft local law, then the staff would need to go away and look at the implications of what that would be, and come back to a future, a future round of meeting with an alternative. Okay, Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, Tom, just to add to Tom's issue. Can we, can I request that we get some information to the increase in tourism and economic levy that this, that short term accommodation is going to provide in, in that pool. So going back to resourcing, you're talking registration as a source of resourcing enforcement. I think there's an opportunity for us to do that.

01:06:00 And I'm talking substantial increase to the tourism and economic levy that we use that as an opportunity to resource enforcement, to let our local laws officers go to the site. In places like Mornington Peninsula, the local laws officers actually, when there is a complaint at 10, 11 or midnight, the local laws officers have got the ability to go on site. Not to stop the noise, not to be involved in any neighbourhood dispute, simply to record the data that it is actually happening. So I raised this at one of the meetings. So I'd like to ask the question, how many short term accommodation properties are there? What's the increase in numbers? What does that mean in terms of tourism and economic levy? And is this an opportunity for us to be resourcing extra staff?

01:07:00 In enforcement? Speaker 8: I can probably answer the third part. So we can get the information about what number of properties we have and who's paying the levy and whatever. Don't forget that the current levy policy accounts for is the money they've collected for under the economic and tourism levy is allocated to either tourism Noosa or to economic development initiatives and nothing else. That's what the policy as it stands at the moment. Councillor Lorentson: So the tourism economic levy, we're under agreement with tourism Noosa. So that's a set fee. Correct. And so any excess of my understanding will go to economic development. Economic development initiatives at the moment. That's the way the policy sits at the moment. Okay. So we would need to rewrite that criteria is what you're saying or? Speaker 8: To be able to use those sort of funds for something else that's not related to economic and tourism activities. Councillor Lorentson: But it is? Speaker 8: Not the way the current policy stands. Okay.

01:08:00 Yep. Speaker 11: Thank you, that went well. Speaker 2: Can I just talk to the Mornington Peninsula? So they employ a security company who actually is outsourced from council who actually patrol and deal with complaints and that's separately, that's funded through the registration process and they've been able to, and then they've reduced their number of compliance officers dealing with it. So it's a small in-house team now and then security is what they use during peak times to monitor and check and record what's going on out there. Councillor Lorentson: So, Adita, can I ask the question for the general meeting next Monday? Can we get some more information on how the Mornington Peninsula is enforcing compliance and is there an opportunity or should we be considering outsourcing this job? A, and B, whether we should be considering looking at security guards or a security firm to take the burden away from our local laws officers?

01:09:00 Speaker 11: Yep. Thank you. And just to further add to that, can we have a few other examples apart from the Mornington Peninsula? Like one or two other examples of how other councils are managing this? Speaker 2: Yep. So it varies because obviously state to state they have different legislation of how they can and can't operate and we're governed by Queensland. Queensland, we're the only ones looking at it right now. And, yep, Mornington Peninsula. Their local law operates differently to ours and then there's some in Western Australia as well. But, again, it's not really comparing apples with apples because we are limited by what we can and can't do under a local law framework. But I can certainly provide that information and I think I may have done that in a previous background report.

01:10:00 But I'll look at it again. Thank you. Speaker 8: And my recollection, Busselton. Yeah. Busselton in Western Australia has done something to it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. And it's a four-week public ratification period as proposed. But you've been working closely with key stakeholders in the industry. Is that correct? Speaker 2: With a targeted small group. So being the Shorts Day Association, Noosa Shorts Day Association, and property managers and onsite managers. So it's targeted to that group. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And has this been done? Is this, this is the sort of findings or the consensus of the group? Speaker 2: No. We consulted them in moving towards a final draft version and resolved quite a few matters that they had raised either through the original public notification process or through a series of further consultations in moving towards this draft.

01:11:00 So their issues are obviously targeted, their own stakeholder issues, and they've been taken on board. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Just to get on the page, I was just looking at the subordinate local number one 2021 administration amendment on page 102. There are a number of activities that do not require approval under the authorising local law. And there's obviously some exemptions. Obviously, Hastings Street, that's the thing. There's a number of other properties listed in B. Could you tell me how, what are some of the other properties listed in B? Those properties came to be determined as exemptions. Speaker 2: Yes. So Noosa Plan 2020 identifies key tourist precincts, where the intention is that it's for visitors only. So no permanent residents would reside there. And it includes a number of properties that have approvals for visitor only.

01:12:00 And also the Hastings Street precinct, which is a mixed use tourist environment, where the intention is that there are visitors only. It's not a permanent residential precinct. So they're listed in Noosa Plan 2020. And so it takes its lead from there. Mayor Stewart: So when it says Serenity Close, is that what hasn't been developed yet? Hasn't been developed yet. Okay. That's the site that's still waiting. That's right. So the other from that- So Noosa Springs would be the same, wouldn't it? That's correct. There's a potential site that could be developed in a hotel in Noosa Springs. That's correct. That's the potential site. That's listed here too. Yep. Yep. Speaker 8: And I've probably seen different views in the community about whether the start should be exempt or not. Yeah. That would be a good thing to get feedback on. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to just like to go back to the report on page 83. It says some of the, on the bottom, and it's issues identified for the operation of stroke

01:13:00 term accommodation. So when this went out to the community, the top three are lack of local management, lack of complaint resolution and process, lack of regulation and enforcement. So in the background, in the report, those are the things we need to address. We're addressing them by basically having this code of conduct of so forth, but subcontracting that out the compliance with this to the person behind the phone saying that they're going to fix that. I don't, I see council, I don't see them as, as being, as being the site managers. The focus has come to us as the site managers. We really are. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's goes that the responsibility of enforcing these regulations falls to us around the table here. It's our job to enforce these, the, this code of conduct and by, by subcontracting it out

01:14:00 to the person behind the phone who has, who's keeping complaint registers for 30 S you know, short term properties out there that is again, the Fox running their hen house and it says here. Even on the top of page 84 in an attempt to address these issues, the issues being lack of local management, lack of enforcement council has resolved to take two, two pronged approach by one zoning where I'm regulating where short-term accommodation isn't, isn't, isn't appropriate, which we're doing second, regulating the ongoing operation of short-term accommodation to manage the impacts on residential amenity of permanent residents. And so I'm reading that like that is council's job. And so I want to, I'm encouraging a rethink of the direction this is going. The direction this is going is the voluntary code of conduct and assuming that the property

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 managers out there will deal with effectively with these problems. I'm clearly of the belief that they're not going to do anything about it. And nothing will change unless enforcement is clearly within, um, the code of conduct. It has to be, again, again, my, that, my, my question is, do you agree with that? Speaker 8: Tom, I don't know if it's enough to answer whether I agree with one of yours, but, um, just to clarify one thing you said in, when you're talking there that the code of conduct is voluntary. It's not. Um, what's under this is that code of conduct is enforceable. What your point of view is, whether or not it is the council that should be the initial contact and enforce or whether it should be going through the, the managing agent or the person within 20 minutes. That's the fundamental difference. And, and the way the local law is set up at the moment is to have the, the manager who's

01:16:00 within 20 minutes to take that lead and you've got an alternative view, which will contest on Monday, I guess. Mayor Stewart: Just a question on, on that, on page 89, um, it just says it is estimated at least 4,880 properties operating short stay letting. When we get that information from those other councils, Monnington, can, is there an opportunity to get a similar sign? I mean, that's, that's a lot, you know, like, because taking on that many for a council may be very burdensome compared to a council taking on a couple of hundred. Um, so can we get that data that is actually comparative to that because, uh, that's, that's a lot of properties. Yeah. Speaker 11: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 8: Maybe through the chair, just any other questions or other information that's required for Monday? Speaker 11: Any other questions? Thank you. Good. Any more time? Speaker 8: No, thank you. Otherwise, the motion's up there to refer them out to the general committee.

01:17:00 Speaker 11: Who would like to move the motion? Oh, Tom. Speaker 8: Oh, Tom. That's second. Speaker 11: Seconded by the Mayor. So that's... Speaker 8: All those in favour? All those in favour? Speaker 2: Uh, that's considered closed. Uh, thank you for your time. Good council. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Thank you. All right, you may go now. Councillor Wegener: Oh, Brian, you've missed out on so much. You have to watch the video. Mayor Stewart: What was the question? Speaker 8: Okay. Okay. Back to Robiyn's. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, we're now going back to deal with Item 6, which is a potential amendment to Noosa Plan relating to housing choice and affordability. So, do we have any questions also?

01:18:00 Yes, we have questions. We're on page 17. It's one that will go to the General Committee because it's significant. But if we have any questions or further matters we'd like considered, now would be the time to discuss those. Speaker 8: Just a reminder, Councillor, this is a follow-up from the Mayoral Minute from after December as well. So it's an innovation to some of the opportunities available. Rowena's done a good report on this. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for your hard work on this, Rowena. Rowena, we received, or myself and Anthony, and I think, Row, you might have been and received that email this morning about potentially another site to look at. Speaker 9: Were you on that email? I have received it. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Is that a discussion that we can have? Could that potentially form part of Mondays? Or is that a discussion that is separate to this? Are we constricted, I guess my question is, to what we have here or are there other opportunities if they become available?

01:19:00 Speaker 9: There's opportunity down the track to discuss different sites. These are ones that we've had some time to look at. There's others, including the one you're speaking on, that we have looked at and dismissed for different reasons. Okay. So the ones that I've brought forward are ones that I saw potentially. There are possibly others that need a bit of further work and there's, you know, really, you'll need a council workshop to go through different scenarios and different blocks and, you know, there may be others as well. But it's probably a process where you need to have a council workshop and actually look at the different constraints and opportunities of every property and what it could yield in terms of realistically what it could yield. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So on that, it's probably good for councils to have an understanding

01:20:00 of the steps in the process to a scheme amendment. Is it your intention that this report and recommendation is a sort of the kick-off point or is it your intention to go away and write the scheme amendments based on this report? Speaker 9: No, it's our intention that this be a kick-off point. This gives you a general flavour, if you like, of where we could go with scheme amendments. But I would certainly urge a sort of a workshopping process with councillors to look at each site and each scenario in detail and then draft amendments that then obviously we'd put to the community and to key to the relevant landowners. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it doesn't exclude other sites being considered? Speaker 9: No, it doesn't exclude other sites being considered. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, that's not a good thing. Thank you. I've got all my fun there. In terms of the process for those lots that are already zoned, community facilities, the position of putting a note saying...

01:21:00 Speaker 9: An annotation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, an annotation saying social housing, that doesn't lock council into any form of social housing there. It just says it gives the ability to approve that by a code assessment. Speaker 9: The annotation has to reflect a land use, so social housing wouldn't be a land use, it would be an administration. Yes. It would be an administrative definition that is tied to different land uses, such as dwelling house or multiple dwelling or rooming, accommodation or something else. Yes. So the annotation would have to reflect... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All those uses. Speaker 9: ...the land use. And then within the table of assessment, you'd probably then detail specifics of those criteria, whether it's social housing, small dwellings, whatever. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's where we'd get into the community facilities zone code. Yes.

01:22:00 Speaker 11: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for your hard work. There's a lot of work in here. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I have another question. It's around the state interest in social housing, and it goes towards my ongoing concern about what was taken out of the draft plan. So the guiding principle of the state planning policy is that we should clearly focus on delivering outcomes, and that the plan should develop outcomes integrated with balance in economic, environmental, and social needs of current and future generations. And we're expected to integrate. So we're supposed to reinforce our... The state planning policy is supposed to reinforce our role, local government's role in planning schemes, as the integrated comprehensive statement of land use policy and development.

01:23:00 So we're supposed to reinforce our role as the integrated comprehensive statement of land use policy. And it says we should enable positive response to change challenges and base our planning scheme on contemporary information challenges, community needs, and aspirations. It then goes in social housing and said that all the following state interest policies must be appropriately integrated in the planning and development income where relevant. And one of those outcomes was considering incentives to promote affordable and social housing outcomes. Particularly in the areas in close proximity to services and amenities. So in the draft scheme, before it went to state government, we had specific incentives for affordable and social housing outcomes. And the minister refused those. Now, should we try that again? I.e. mandate as putting in the planning scheme a requirement for areas where we've had significant

01:24:00 upzoning to high density residential, should be one in 10 blocks from memory, should be for social housing, community housing, that might have been talked about. Or now that he's made that decision, or the previous minister made that, are we opening ourselves up to compensation? Speaker 9: I couldn't answer the question about compensation. I know that we have looked at revisiting the wording of those relevant performance outcomes and acceptable outcomes and considered solutions that may still achieve what we set out to achieve without offending the minister's conditions and such. Speaker 8: I can probably add to that. I had a conversation with the deputy DG at the time the draft planning scheme was up for approval by the minister. And they advised that they were going to take those provisions out of our draft scheme in

01:25:00 relation to social housing at two sites, which was at the one site at Noosa Junction and one site at the Shire Business Centre. There were some vigorous conversations held at the time. But essentially, the state said that they don't want to have this approach taken by individual councils. They would rather deal with it on a statewide issue, because there would be inconsistency in terms of that approach. I can't see the state changing its mind on that. It would be eventually a political process, whether through LGOQ or something like that, to be able to get them to change their policy on that. That would be my take on it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's interesting, because a member of the community has provided me with some documents released by the state government. And it's a briefing to the minister. And it gives some of the arguments. And it says, the new discipline includes new social housing provisions including performance

01:26:00 outcomes that applies to three sites in high-density residential zones and high-density residential precincts. The provisions include performance outcome requiring one in 210 dwellings to be provided for social housing at no cost to a social housing provider. It goes on to list who owns the sites. There are a range of policy issues associated with this provision, which include requamp provides social housing at no cost to council. This is an unfair, inequitable approach to living social housing with a broader community issue. The council has not valued what the financial benefit is as a result of the uplift in the zone. Therefore, it is not clear on how the ratio was determined. There is no certainty for developer as to design standards or house types would be required. And therefore, no way to understand the full costs associated with living social housing. And no apparent relief from infrastructure charges or any financial incentives. Therefore, all costs with building social housing is borne by the developer. Now, there is a range of sweeping assumptions coming from a developer's perspective that, in my take, have no basis within the state planning policy.

01:27:00 They're considering issues which are outside the scope. So, I'm suggesting that the minister's decision is this. It did say that they would get legal advice. That perhaps one approach is actually challenging the veracity of the advice provided to the minister to make a poor decision. Because this is an approach that's been used for decades in other states. And I believe there are examples in Queensland. And it was the reason we did significantly provide enhanced options. And all those issues about who pays is something further down the track. It's not for a planning scheme. So, I was incredibly disappointed when I read this, to see the advice that was provided to respond to a planning scheme. The fact that it's not for a planning scheme. But the fact that the initiative was purely focused from the landowner's perspective and not from what is now one of the most significant crises we've felt in this Shire for what affordable housing. We would have had hectare after hectares that could have been developed and are one in

01:28:00 ten for those people. And it's not just people who are homeless. It's the people who have got jobs here and have to move to Nambour. And commute to Nambour. The people who are single women over 50 who are one of the client groups we find are particularly vulnerable in this area. And we've got a range of really critical needs that the planning that we tried to put in back in the last term of council was thwarted and it's very disappointing. But I do think maybe we should continue that conversation later. Mayor Stewart: Just on the staff recommendation, you said that a workshop is what we need, absolutely. So the recommendation of repair amendments, is that something that would be done after the workshop? Speaker 9: It's kind of hand in hand. So we would come to a workshop process with loosely what we think would be a way forward.

01:29:00 And with the nominated sites, with the nominated scheme provisions or everything sort of there. And we would workshop with you each one of those. And then some may get ruled out, some additional ones may get added. But basically it's sort of, it's setting a commitment to move forward on this issue and do something. It doesn't tie you to any particular wording within the report or the detail of the report. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. On that basis I'm happy to move it if it's a step forward and obviously all councillors will be engaged in a workshop. That's good. Councillor Lorentson: So. Can I just add something? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we will second it, we can still go back. I'll second it. Go to the general committee, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to add to what Brian said in regards to revisiting the previous amendments to the NUSA plan. I think rather than arguing the correctness of the legal argument that precipitated that decision, I would be arguing the impact of COVID.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 I think rather than arguing the correctness of the legal argument that precipitated that decision, I would be arguing the impact of COVID. We have statistics in the NUSA Shire that domestic violence, for instance, has increased 40% since COVID. We have statistics that show I think it's 63% of women over the age of 55, as you mentioned, are experiencing homelessness. So I think being, and there's a national declaration that we are in crisis. So the circumstance of the water and brick studies, that actually is not relevant. So I would be pushing, as we've gone, to revisit that amendment. Speaker 9: Yeah. So as you can see, I sort of suggested that a review and update of, you know, the situation as it was when the bricks and mortar report was done is critical because there are, things

01:31:00 have moved so quickly. And so, you know, there's a lot of work to be done. There's a lot of work to be done distinctly in those areas. But we need to do, put together a refreshed report and as quickly as possible, I guess. And then, and then in terms of using that as a basis to then form our proposed amendments. Mayor Stewart: And you have all the stats too. We need a little bit more of the stats. Speaker 8: Councillor, you know, one of the things, one of the difficulties we've had is that the Minister wants to take a statewide approach rather than an image council. Again, we talked a bit further on Monday, but this is one of the matters where I reckon we could take it through LGAQ to say, well, if there's a housing crisis, it's not just in Noosa, there's others as well. Let's take it up on a statewide basis to look at what the opportunities are to put this sort of stuff into a planning scheme that the local community's got the appetite for. Yeah. Speaker 9: Brett, on that, both LGAQ and the SQ Council of Mayors are working in this space at the

01:32:00 moment and preparing material, so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To quote GDG, bang, bang, out of the ashes of the sphere, breathe the roses of success. It's a classic. I think it's probably worthwhile. What we're dealing with here is a response to the social housing, community housing enforcement. I think there's a lot of concern about the affordable housing needs of the Shire in a planning sense. The last time when the Mayor of Midder came, there was a lot of commentary in the community that was misunderstanding and I suppose rather than a question, I'll say, the Councillor isn't proposing to commit rate payer funds to become a social housing provider. What these amendments do is allow both Council and state government land to be opened up for the potential provision of community housing options. It's not about creating public housing suburbs, it's about integrating community housing amongst the existing matrix that exists.

01:33:00 It's about us facilitating the provision of a really high need asset to this community by taking advantage of assets that are underutilised at the moment, be it land, because land is the critical requirement that is missing in the further provision of new community housing. It is about addressing needs without exposing rate payers to the costs which should be and appropriately are borne by state and federal governments. Obviously, if we did go to the LGAQ, one would be also arguing that investment in this area by those two levels of government should be significantly enhanced to address the emerging crisis. So, after that, I know we've already moved it. All in favour?

01:34:00 Speaker 8: Next one's the draft climate change response page, page 127. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've got a bevy of relevant staff here. So, climate change response plans. Can you just give a brief overview of how this fits, sits above, below the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan that's currently at, or was at, for community consultation up to, yes, whatever you're saying. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. Sure. So, the climate change response plan is an important next step for Council in responding to climate change risks and for helping reduce emissions in partnership with the community. It has a fairly broad scope in that it deals with a range of issues and climate risks.

01:35:00 So, more than just the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, which is about beach erosion and inundation of our riverside and lowland. It looks at bushfire, landslide, climate, temperature, rainfall, a range of, a range of risks that need to be dealt with into the future. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, it deals both with adaptation and mitigation options? Speaker 3: That's right, yep. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Council, it has been asked, has this been been asked? Yes, it has, yep. So, is there any other information? That's some pretty heavy issues on the table. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: It is appropriate to go into that. What I've been, a part of this that I've been thinking a lot about is trees and rainfall and the correspondence between that. And does this, are we going to be looking at that as well as, you know, for our local water supply and just maintaining, you know, as many trees as we can because finding a correlation between the amount of trees going all the way out to Kingaroy.

01:36:00 In our catchment, to me, it seems like that that's a real problem, even though it's outside of our boundaries. Is that something that the response plan will be looking towards? Speaker 3: Yeah, there is a focus on ecosystem resilience and continuing to prove our understanding of how climate change will impact upon our ecosystems, including our groundwater-dependent ecosystems. So, we have some monitoring work that has commenced for the groundwater and, you know, for our water supply. We're looking at how we can improve our ecosystems, such as wetlands, particularly in relation to sea level rise and how that will impact ecosystems over time, but also how best we can prioritise some of our restoration and revegetation efforts so that we can be building the resilience in the landscape.

01:37:00 Where best could we be planting trees so that we can give our vegetation a fighting chance, given the risks ahead. Councillor Wegener: And one thing that, you know, we're talking about so many different agencies. So many different plans, so many different activities that are interrelated. I remember going back to that, well, the institute in that that was that Kim Rowland has been talking about and having a group of overarching that that is coordinating and is actually making sure that there's not duplication or gaps in our response plan because there's just so many pieces of the puzzle isn't there. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. And climate change is just another lens to be looking at a range of issues that are current. And and may increase into the future, being able to have a community reference form as part of the implementation of this plan will enable us to bring together a range of people in the community to discuss some of these difficult issues.

01:38:00 We certainly don't profess to have all the answers here within council, and it does have to be a partnership approach and and in some cases a regional approach with other local governments, other levels of government as well. Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 3: Yep. So we've got a lot of work to be done in this space. So as you said, this is a next step for council. We've been very much focused on our own internal business and reducing our emissions over the last few years, improving our energy efficiency and doing some work out in the community, which has been important, but expanding that scope further, particularly in the area of advocacy and and regional partnerships. Councillor Wegener: It seems, Noosa, we pride ourselves on being leaders in this space. And that's part of our identity is showing leadership, even on a national and international level as being ahead of the curve and successful in these things. Do you feel as though with that, is that a direction for you when you're thinking about what we're doing here and, you know, realizing that we're on the world stage as we move forward?

01:39:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think Noosa is in a fairly unique position to be able to have a bit of voice, a big voice in the advocacy of some of these things. That we should be lead by example, even in the small things that we do within the community. And we hope that that has come through in the drafting of the plan, that that leadership approach. Councillor Wegener: I know I was just listening to Philip Adams and one of his speakers last night, actually one of the greatest ones that I've heard. And he says, you know, well, you know, one of our problems going into climate change is the quality. You know, basically, it's going to be a very if the numbers aren't going up, we'll say it's not looking good where it appears as though we're leading in Noosa with the focusing on the quality corridors and so forth. And so that just that's something we can all hold in our hearts. And I suspect that we'll add to the Noosa brand and actually has an economic spinoff definitely down the track.

01:40:00 But it's something that we're addressing here in the plan. Speaker 3: Exactly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I suppose it's a good time. The plan, is it just about the environmental impacts and opportunities that flow out of changing climate? Or is the plan also looking at the significant threats to human health and social wellbeing, as well as the economic costs, but also the opportunities that innovation may do to actually drive a new form of economy in Noosa? Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, definitely. Certainly within the plan. We actually see that there are significant opportunities, particularly in the clean tech or green economy going forward. We know that about $30 million goes actually out of the Shire to pay for our electricity that is generated out of the Shire. This is just an example. But if we were able to actually generate electricity through rooftop solar right throughout the Shire, through virtual power plants, et cetera, all of those new innovations that would come in, that $30 million could actually stay in the Shire.

01:41:00 That would actually be an economic benefit. And plus there are all the new economic development opportunities from the clean tech that's on an astronomical sort of incline increasing. So yes, it tries to address all of those things. So we see it as very much not just an environmental issue. It's looking at the social aspect, particularly just in the last discussion we talked about, you know, vulnerable housing. People are starting to really feel that the energy poverty, because as the temperatures are increasing, they're going to be wanting to use their air conditioning more, which is going to increase the costs. It's going to increase the emissions. So it's all very much interrelated that it is an environmental, economic and social aspect that we're trying to address throughout this whole plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Lauren, do you have a question? Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Just to continue that conversation about the socioeconomic impact of flooding and

01:42:00 inundation and climate change. Will you be putting emphasis on the economic impact it's going to have on our tourism industry? And will that help build a case? When we're looking at mitigating climate change, will it build a case for Council to consider mitigation in the form of building seawalls on our coastal beaches, given that that's an area that's identified as an area of concern for the environment? Speaker 3: Yeah, it's probably more something for the CHAP itself, the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. There is an action within this response plan that is looking to prepare a socioeconomic assessment of inundation risk, particularly in the areas around Noosaville and Noosa Heads, which is very much about building that economic case for mitigation options that, until we

01:43:00 have a change in the climate, it's going to be very, very, very important. So if we can get a true understanding of the likely damage costs that might be incurred as a result of increasing inundation over time, then it's difficult for us to map out a process. So it's important for us to have that evidence base there, and then we can seek funding for the implementation of any actions we come up with through that process. But you mentioned about the open coast beaches as well. Councillor Lorentson: Open coast beaches. Yes. Given that they've been identified as high risk, not Noosaville or Noosa Sound. Speaker 3: Yeah. For the open coast beaches, there are responses within the CHAP itself relating to that, and various options. But that's a different topic to what we're talking about today. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I have a question. Thank you for the quick motion.

01:44:00 Seeing that interest rates are so low right now, and seeing that there's a significant risk of climate change, seeing that climate change is an emergency going forward, would you be saying, looking at borrowing money to set in infrastructure and to support businesses going forward, or our response to climate change? For example, like increasing our net of solar or other ways of generating electricity. Speaker 3: Yeah. I can't comment on that. Speaker 8: Yeah. I'll agree with that. I guess what this plan does is to identify what's going on. And then we'll look at some actions we might take in the future, how we finance those. We'll have a look at each case when we get to that point. Okay. Councillor Wegener: That's probably the short answer. The next comment or question is our innovation industry. I mean, we actually, with the Digital Hub, have shown what sort of payoff you get from an investment into the digital industry.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 I think that our greatest asset is actually our experience in creating the paradise known as Noosa, all the different elements that we've come down the track to do. And also going forward, I think that Noosa, by responding to climate change, aggressively ahead of the curve, will lead to our greatest asset, which is our brains trust, our intelligence here. And I think the idea that the talented people that have come to Noosa have so much to offer, and this can unlock that value that they have and share it with the community. Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree. There's a lot of opportunities there. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any recommendations for other general committee? Councillor Wegener would like to move that? Councillor Wegener: I sure would. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favor?

01:46:00 Very good. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we move on now to item 9. Which is page 132. Speaker 8: And that's planning applications decided by delegated authority. It's a report for information and Patrick's on his way up so he can deal with it anyway. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any questions, answers, any conflicts? No. I'm having to move it. Moved and seconded. I'll second it. Any discussions? All in favour? Okay. That one's carried unanimously. So update on Noosa Plan 2020 implementation and ministers' conditions. Do we have questions? Speaker 8: Do I have them on? Is there anything keeping you awake at night with implementation of the scheme?

01:47:00 What's that? What's the lessons we've learned? Mayor Stewart: It's a very long question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a question I often ask. And don't say Councillor Brian Stockwell. Speaker 8: In terms of this planning scheme, so we adopted it in July last year, what's been the lesson learned or what's been the thing that's been the most interesting implementation of it? Speaker 3: I think the housing affordability issue would have to be the one that's the most vexing at the moment. Councillor Wegener: Probably what was that? The housing affordability issue. Housing affordability. Housing affordability. Speaker 8: I guess that's become accentuated since the blockings campaign. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there is one item in there, Councillor, that's been pointed out. There was a topographical error. Yeah. On page 140. The remaining, it talks about ministerial and municipal statements in natural hazard risk and resilience in erosion prone areas and the remaining campaigner states that the

01:48:00 24th of December 2021, which is 2020. Yeah. Do you want to... I think that's your... Rebecca, do you want to give us an outline of our compliance or otherwise with that and what the state views on that? Speaker 3: Yep. So part of the state signing off on the planning scheme, what came with that was a set of ministers' conditions, which is subject to this report. The coastal erosion or coastal hazards conditions called for council to meet some editorial requirements. There were some fix ups that were required, but also in the remaining components that we were also to meet to complete the coastal hazards adaptation plan and to identify any necessary amendments to the NUSA plan. So we've been able to complete the drafting of the coastal hazard adaptation plan and it's out for consultation at the moment and it's still to be finalised. For the identification of any necessary amendments, council has submitted an application to the

01:49:00 NUSA to complete our request to prepare amendments for coastal hazards. So in that regard, we've met that component of the condition in that we have identified a process going forward. We are still to draft and present to council an actual set of amendments. So that's the part of this condition that's still to be completed is to bring forward those amendments to council. Mayor Stewart: Why have we written asking for amendments when we haven't actually had the feedback back yet? I mean, that's a good question. Speaker 3: Because of this condition that the state wanted this council to identify the process going forward, that we were prepared to amend the scheme to meet their state requirements for managing coastal hazard risks. And so we've set that process in motion where what we haven't done and we won't do until

01:50:00 the coastal hazards adaptation plan is complete. Is to formally draft a set of amendments because we need to go through that process of completing the coastal hazards adaptation plan first. Of course, there's been some early discussions with the state about what those amendments could look like, because we have a set of very detailed guidelines that council must meet in order to be able to prepare that amendment. Again, we still need to go through that process of finalising the CHAP before we can move on and progress any further forward with developing up a set of amendments. Mayor Stewart: So if we've gone to community consultation and we've been completely open and transparent and we're listening to the community and the community comes back and says, absolutely no way, which is what I'm getting day in, day out. What happens with those amendments? We just go, we're done? Speaker 3: Council will still need to prepare a set of amendments, no matter what feedback we receive

01:51:00 from the community. And at this stage, we've done that. We've received many, many submissions on the CHAP, 130-ish, 120. And they're very mixed and we're still to review those. We only just finished consultation on Monday, so we need to spend significant time going through each of those and considering those, bringing those forward to council for discussion. That's an important part of this process, but the other part of the process is meeting the state requirements of the CHAP. Speaker 9: So the state has said the scheme, as it stands, is not sufficient, that we must make amendments. The actual detail of those amendments is still subject to refinement and consultation. And that'll be made at the council meeting? Mayor Stewart: So irrespective of what the community says, the state has said, we have to make amendments.

01:52:00 Speaker 3: That's right. Yep. And that's what these ministerial conditions are saying. And what parameters of that go around those amendments? You need to fully integrate the state planning policy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So what does it say? It talks about, what's the expectations of the local government planning scheme? It talks about 2100? Speaker 3: Yeah, you need to consider the sea level rise risks for coastal erosion along open beaches. That you need to set out parameters that are relevant to the state planning policy. Mayor Stewart: Is that right? Speaker 3: That's for council to discuss with the state dependent upon the local conditions and circumstances

01:53:00 of each local government area. Mayor Stewart: But they're not going to implement, like, it's the we could, right? So, yeah, we could or we may not. We could or we may not. We don't have to. We have to do certain things. But what we actually do is then determined by us as a council. Is that correct? Yep. Based on the local circumstances. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just to clarify, in terms of the current settings, the state has got a 2100 line, which is mapped. And is it, is the modelling more detailed? Mayor Stewart: Excuse me, I was going to point a board out. But we're discussing the CHAP. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The CHAP's not on the agenda today. No, no. I'm talking about the planning scheme and then the state planning policy. Mayor Stewart: Well, that's, that's the 2100 instead of the CHAP. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. Mayor Stewart: And that's, and that's. It is in the CHAP, but it's also. And the chair is out of the room for that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but no. I'm not talking about the CHAP. I'm talking about the state planning policy requirements for the planning scheme. And so what I'm trying to get is the existing situation. And I'll leave it. But it is a quite different thing. It's, it's about people, public, the, the current requirements of the, any application

01:54:00 will be both by the current planning scheme and the state planning policy. The state planning policy has a mapped line. And that's, I suppose, the, the, in terms of what the state position is, that's where they're at. And what, what happens if we move it further west or further east of that, I suppose, is both the CHAP deals with it, but the planning scheme is what determines the application of planning regulation in that area. Okay. Thank you for pulling me up, if I was going too far. Sure. Sure. Thank you. You talk about some proposed amendments, which are minor. One that, obviously, has been leading to a lot of debate over recent months is about the level of guidance in the current draft, the current planning scheme in relation to

01:55:00 criteria for when a short-stay accommodation is consistent with a medium-density residential zone. Is that a body of work that could be, is that a body of work that could be, is that a body of work that could be incorporated into those amendments, or is that something that might require more action there? Well, that's what I'm going to do. Speaker 9: My, my preference is, sorry, I don't know exactly. Is this item eight? That. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I'm looking at page 2042. It doesn't have any rhymes. You said, well, cover a wide variety of issues. Following the list provides a table of aspects. It's section nine. Okay. Speaker 9: I would like, you know, my preference is if we can look at a short-stay accommodation in conjunction with looking at housing choice, because they are so aligned. So I'm, I'm not necessarily seeing the value in, in escalating consideration of one as

01:56:00 a separate item without having it in the context of, of looking at the whole. Councillor Wegener: One more question, kind of off, off topic, well, going to nine, monitoring the industrial land and industry precincts. How is, is that going? Could we meet at, you know, how is that going? Speaker 5: Yeah, we've, we're currently doing an audit now of every single industrial zone site in Noosa. So. So I'm hoping to have that completed another week or so, and then we'll, that, that will give us our baseline to actually see what's happening and in what, what uses and those types of things. And then we'll go back since the scheme got endorsed, look at any applications that have come in since the scheme and what the nature of those applications are. Councillor Wegener: Because it says there's five material changes in industrial uses in Noosaville estate.

01:57:00 Is that, do you know what those are? What? You're. Speaker 9: Sorry, I'm not learning. Speaker 11: Sorry. Speaker 9: No, I don't know. Councillor Wegener: That's okay. Is there, Brian once, Brian once said that there's going to be more industrial land coming off of Jarrah Street becoming available. Is that right? Or is that? Speaker 9: There's industrial land zoned off Jarrah Street to the north of Kalpiners Lane. Councillor Wegener: Is that coming online or is that, it's always been there? Speaker 9: That's probably a question for Brett. It's been zoned for that purpose for a long time. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So, so it's not, not new land coming on. It's not new land. I heard that. It's not new land. That's council owned land. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. There's a couple of blocks before the creek that I think are potential to open up now. But the larger areas across the creek requiring a bridge that backs on to rural residential. And that's the reason why it's a, it's not necessarily a, let's push the button now option. Okay. Because it's got some constraints.

01:58:00 Okay. Councillor Wegener: As you know, as I've been interested in the enterprise zone and then the, the use of the industrial area to, you know, to sell your product and so forth. Yeah. In, in that to do, expanding going that way to being able to, to sell your product that you make in your industrial zone and, and having an area for people to come in and test it. And I just might add that the 2020 distillery has done that enormously well. If you haven't been out there to Cooroy where you actually can, they actually do that. They have a fantastic little system where you get to, you know, try the, the, the product that they make in their artisanal little factory and it's probably the only place, you know, in, in, in that area, there's only one place that the factory that's open right now, and that's the 2020 distillery, you know, and, and it seems a part of that is the fact that it's bringing people in because they're able to show their, show their products within their little building. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. And I guess that's what we were trying to do in the Renews the Plan 2020 was to actually

01:59:00 start looking at specific areas where these new enterprise models would be, would be good or already happening and building upon that organic growth in those areas. So being mindful that we do need to look at our whole industrial stock and keep future industrial needs land available as well. So it's a bit of a balancing act in terms of our current supply and longer term supply of industrial land. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Are you following the success of the Taylor Court industrial land? Yeah. Speaker 5: We, we, we track it. We, you know, we look at the applications that come in and, you know, we've got a student at the moment going out around all the sites doing the audit for us. So yeah, once that information's all in, then we'll be able to look at it and have a bit more in depth analysis around the types of industries, whether there's clustering opportunities, how can we build upon that and how successful the provisions have been and do we need to actually tweak them in certain areas to actually, you know, if it's not

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 working, what are the barriers to that and why? So that's really the outcome we want to get out of the audit. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Considering the nature of the business in Taylor Court, you might want to specify a time period for that inspection. Yeah. Yeah. It's only at 5.30 in the afternoon. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson? On page 141, this is in relation to the Ministerial Conditioner to review short-term accommodation. I presented a petition to Council just recently where residents at Sunshine Beach have requested that we look at reviewing the, or submitting a report to review and monitor short-term accommodation in the Shire, whether it's working or not. So I presented a petition to Council to move that two-year period forward to 12 months. The report's indicating that that's not possible, that we, that the recommendation is we wait

02:01:00 and see, wait and sit for the two years, that that's going to be a better timeframe to best determine or inform the planning scheme amendments. Is that the case, Rowena? It is. And I'm... Speaker 8: Can you come up to the title stage? Thank you. Speaker 2: We had a meeting with state government officers just to run through our proposed approach to dealing with that ministerial condition and talked about the timeframe. And because the last 12 months has been probably a little bit unique and offbeat in terms of the normal pattern of development and growth and housing and everything, they agreed that two years was actually a short timeframe in itself to actually get the right data and see a trend or sea change over that period, and that anything shorter wouldn't give us

02:02:00 the information and to make sound recommendations for any changes to the planning scheme. In fact, they actually said, yeah, we may even conclude that we don't have enough information after that two-year period to make a recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: So the concern that the residents raised with me is that two years, possibly a lot of damage is going to be done, which won't be retractable. Was that argued when you spoke to the minister? Speaker 2: Damage in terms of amenity or... Councillor Lorentson: In terms of potential future damage? Speaker 2: I guess the other factor with the 12 month period is that we allow superseded planning schemes to come in. So again, we're still dealing with applications under the old planning scheme. So it's not a true, effective, misplanned 2020 being in place. So did we argue that? No, there wasn't an argument that we put forward. We just outlined our approach in terms of monitoring and how we'd go about that.

02:03:00 One of which is the stock, the growth or the decline in stock, because we've got to deal with both factors of short term accommodation as well as housing stock and affordability. So in that, we will also look at the broader social and economic issues as well in terms of impacts, in terms of amenity or community or those factors as well. Councillor Lorentson: So part of that conversation, would you also consider looking at limited stock or zoning that we have in the scope of hotels? We mentioned before Serenity Close and Noosa Springs has been identified as potential sites for hotels. Part of that conversation is there's an increase in Airbnb's because we've got actually limited stock in the higher end.

02:04:00 The higher end. So should we be looking at opening some more land or rezoning possible land to provide more hotels? Speaker 2: Yes, so one of our, we will look at the levels and types of tourist accommodation that we do have on offer and look at scope for growth in terms of our current planning scheme zones and what that will deliver. And it would be very preliminary to say either way whether, you know, who would be recommending to identify additional sites at this point. But I guess it's a possibility that we may look at, there may be a high demand for us to look at other sites. Speaker 9: We did do that with the scheme. So there was the extra site near Noosa Springs, the property adjoining Noosa Springs where we did effectively up zone that for the purpose of a hotel.

02:05:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And there was another one of the undeveloped major sites as well. Yeah, Serenity Close. Councillor Lorentson: Serenity Close. Serenity Close. They're the two that I know of. Yeah. But it clearly is a need for us to re-look at other sites. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's part of the monitoring. We will look at the bigger picture about tourist accommodation and as well as short term accommodation and how that fits into the bigger picture. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I was going to ask a similar question in terms of industrial review. Is part of that review about looking at the long term needs and whether there are suitable sites? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And is there any mechanism that's probably not under the current planning act to put a hold on a rural land that might be adjacent or close to industrial land that you don't

02:06:00 want to open up because it would be premature but you do want to retain for future industrial land? Yeah. Speaker 5: There is a deferred urban development zone you can use for those purposes. So yeah, I guess the outcome is once we do the audit and we've got a previous report that felt the long term demand is reviewing that and doing that work again based on what we have. Because I think we're pretty much out of land in Noosaville now. We've exhausted all our greenfield sites there. So really any true industrial type development and we really wanted to wait and look at what we can do and how that interrelates with the local economic plan development as well and what sectors and industries they want to promote because there needs to be a bit of a link between, you know, land use planning and those sectors to see what those demands are as well. So that's another piece of work beyond the audit definitely that we'll need to look at. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And can I, I'll be cheeky and say, can we have a think about the need for warehousing

02:07:00 RVs in our review and whether there are sites that may be suitable for that? Speaker 5: We're having RV caravans. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we've identified in through development controls that storage of caravans and recreational vehicles because it's under definition a warehouse, but a particular type of warehouse that requires a lot of land that you probably wouldn't want choking up all your valuable industrial land. So that might be something we can consider as part of the current review. Speaker 9: I think it's already allowed for in the scheme. Yeah. Yeah. But not on a mass scale necessarily. There is work being done, again, at the SEQ Council of Mayors and LGAQ level and Sunshine Coast Council is looking at industrial land that they're doing a sort of a forward review as part of their scheme preparation so it'd be interesting to, to link in with what they're doing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because they've got a big site in Yantina haven't they? Speaker 9: Yeah. They have Yantina, like obviously the Cooran area, Yantina areas, which aren't far from

02:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So how we differentiate our offering to attract the sort of businesses and industries we want. Speaker 5: Yes. Definitely. Yeah. Yeah. And that, that even extends to the innovations on the Shire Business Centre as well. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All good? Mm-hmm. Okay. So I've, I've, has this one been requested to go forward? No? So does someone want to move the note? Speaker 8: Can I move that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Oh, with, yeah, I'll move it because it's got that clarification there. Remaining, and the clarification is noting that the first paragraph of item 3.2 of the report contained an error and should read, the remaining component states that by 24th December 2020, Council is to complete the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan and identify any necessary amendments to the NURSE Plan 2020 to fully integrate the state planning policy state interest for natural hazards, risk and resilience for erosion prone areas.

02:09:00 I'll move that. Go to the Secretary. Go to the Councillor Wigley. Any further discussion? All in favour? We go ahead. Thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did you reply? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: President Anthony. Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this is item 11, Peregian Digital House. Page 245. Our new report to December 31, 2020, Wednesday. So, councillors. Beautiful, good news story. Do we have any questions or would you like, Chris, give us your top three, top five highlights

02:10:00 of what's in the report, the last six months you were reporting on, what was really good and what would we change if we could? Speaker 1: I think we all know what we would change and it would be the same for every person sitting at this table. But let's not mention it. The highlight, I think, is that the hub is really fulfilling on the vision that was set out, which is it is having the desired effect on helping to catalyze and build a technology and digital industry, and that's manifesting in job creation and opportunities for people. And I think that's definitely the most satisfying thing. Because, you know, it's a bit of an indirect way to get to job creation, and it's a bit

02:11:00 of a punt that it's going to do that, but it is doing that. And, you know, I've just quoted a number in the report of hub-related companies, other companies that are based at the hub or have graduated from the hub or being assisted directly with the hub, but I can tell you there's a lot more job growth in the broader digital industry that is not accounted for in those numbers. So, you know, why are we doing a digital hub? We're doing it to diversify our local economy. It was part of the multi-year economic development, local economic plan strategy. And I think the digital and tech industry is representing a larger and larger share of employment in the Shire, which is what we want, because it means that we have a lot more resilient local economy. So, that's definitely the highlight. I think it's fair to say that, to some extent, we've been, well, when I say we, I think

02:12:00 the tech and digital industry in Noosa has been somewhat of a beneficiary of the secondary impacts of COVID, in that there has been a rapid acceleration of remote work, a rapid acceleration of de-centralization. And what was once a kind of fringe activity, which would be, we live in Noosa and we work for X company, is now a pretty mainstream accepted mode of operation. So, I think that's been a positive and presents quite an interesting opportunity going forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, have we got any outreach programs that are specifically trying to identify what is the new talent that may have moved in? Or is it just happenstance at the moment? Is there something we should or could be doing to say, hey, you've escaped Victoria, we've brought with you this bag of skills, knowledge, and networks.

02:13:00 Is it something that we can have a two-way arrangement with that has benefit to you and to our community? Speaker 1: I think we, prior to 2020, we had quite a big plan to run a kind of talent attraction campaign. And in some ways, that's been, the need for it has been somewhat nullified, because there's just been a natural talent migration. But at this point, we probably have to raise the constraints, the challenges, which are that probably our major constraint to growing this industry is probably, like other industries, is availability of accommodation and places and tools. So, I think that's been a big challenge. There's certainly a desire for people that cannot be mobile and bring high value jobs with them. But I think the major constraint now is accommodation, availability, and school places.

02:14:00 But certainly, there's an opportunity to double down on the idea of living in a high lifestyle location, but then also being able to do high value, self-actualizing work, which is where we find ourselves right now. Can I add to that? Speaker 6: Go ahead. Go ahead. It is a bit accidental still, and organic, rather than proactive. Are you there? Have you arrived? What talents can you bring? So, I guess that there's so much demand at the moment, we haven't searched any further. But every day, not even every week now, it's probably every day, there will be someone new in our networks, Chris's, or mine, or Karen's, or anyone really, through yourself. So, I suppose for me now, it's about looking three to five years. When that dries up, slows down, how do we actually still benefit? What do we need to ready ourselves for when the excitement of the inward investment and

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 talent slows? Where should we be? Where do we need to be? Where's FireTech at? Where's the Hub expansion at? And where is our strategy at? So, I think it's looking three to five, because we don't have to worry about it. We work for attraction right now. We're management. Where do we put them? Houses, schools, et cetera. But yeah, it's still accidental and organic. But we've got to look three to five, so we're ready for that next phase. Mayor Stewart: I think what you're doing at the Hub is fantastic. And Chris, you've got so much, and this is driven by you. So, thank you. No, really, it's wonderful. And any time a minister comes to town, it's an opportunity to showcase. So, thank you for that. I've just got a question on page 146 about financial performance. On 2020-21, year-to-date actuals, 110,000 deficit. Is that correct, Anthony?

02:16:00 Compared to the original budget, which was 180. So, am I correct in assuming we've clawed back $70,000? I think so. Speaker 6: So, I guess the comparison there, the four-year budget versus the half-year? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. No, year-to-date actuals. Speaker 6: So, the year-to-date is... What's the third column, year-to-date? Mayor Stewart: The year-to-date. So, we... Speaker 6: We're at 16,000 ahead of our... Mayor Stewart: 16,000 ahead. Okay. ...forecasted deficit. Okay. So, is there a plan? And I think, you know, on mission, you know, being... This is not about the money. As you said, this is about some of the other drivers. Is there a plan to turn this into a financially viable model at some point? Speaker 6: I guess for me... And Chris will talk about the public service element. The intention... So, I guess, critically, look between the controllables and then what we've said are, I guess, the individuals. You know, the direct costs, you know, the non-controllables. If you just look at the controllables, so that's where we're saying the operating surplus

02:17:00 or deficit, after we take our revenue, our direct revenues, and then take off your direct costs, so if you exclude depreciation and internal charges, what you're looking at is currently we have a deficit of, I think that says 56, if my eyes don't deceive me. Fifty-five. Fifty-five. I need those, Brian. And yes, there's certainly with the growth that we have and value that we're creating, there's opportunity for attracting more investment and sponsorship. But I can't sit here and say that this is going to be a profitable, big positive number in that surplus. What we need to move towards is the measurements, I think. What is the measurements? We've claimed 40 jobs in the last six months. Yeah. If you were to take a social impact measure. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 6: Obviously, I think we... Mayor Stewart: Which perhaps maybe this report should, because this is just looking, as I said, there's so many other drivers.

02:18:00 Absolutely. I'm sure that this is probably, actually, if you turn this around, if you looked at the benefits, it would outweigh the costs in many, in every day of work. Speaker 1: Absolutely. I think you're right. I think the approach of how do we get something that financially sustains itself, but throws off a massive public service benefit is the North Star for us. I don't think it's ever going to be something that's a profitable, commercial, real estate-y type thing, because we're already at capacity and those are the numbers that you get from just having the warm bodies in the building. So the additional revenue opportunities are relatively limited. A lot of what we do is not revenue generating at all. If you look at the three pillars of the digital hub are provide an entrepreneurial environment, which yes, is warm bodies paying rent or paying memberships, where the revenue mostly comes from. The second is industry development, and the third is talent pipeline. And really, the second two things, building the broader industry and building a talent

02:19:00 pipeline into the future, are very much socially driven objectives, rather than, you know, something which has a commercial intent. And I think if you took a purely commercial lens, you wouldn't do either of those two things, which means you wouldn't be doing a public service. You'd just be running a commercial real estate facility. Mayor Stewart: But I do think that there's a value to what you're saying. And I think that's actually something that can be potentially captured, because it is. I mean, it's invaluable in many respects, but what you're actually providing can potentially maybe be captured in some areas. Speaker 8: If you look at the most, that one you talked about, it's really about the revenue from what we call the building. You know, what's the activity happening in there. If you look at what's happening outside, it's where the real value comes. So on page 149, there's a table there of all the sub-sectors. Yeah, correct. That's where most of the big value is coming out of this, as opposed to the bums on the

02:20:00 seats, so to speak, in terms of who are paying the rent. Yeah, exactly. That's what we're going to measure is how do we show the benefit of that. Speaker 1: Perhaps just to put that into numbers for you, Brett, it's that activity that is resulting in things like person X ending up on the board of person Y's company, person Z investing in person D's company. And when you see things like a $5 million worth of venture capital raised, that has largely been assisted through the industry development work that's going on there. And that $5 million worth of venture capital investment turns into jobs created and people getting paid six-figure salaries. Speaker 6: And I think that's a challenge, Chris, is that, Tom had a question, but the KPI update on page 154 and then 155, that's the holistic value of the hub, so if you take the financial cost of $55,000 or $56,000 at the moment, you're going to see that it's going to be $55,000. You're then getting all these KPIs, which is the business growth, three new companies,

02:21:00 40 new jobs, and then that $5 million investment plus biotech of $2.5 million. That's kind of that social, the KPI table there is the impact. We haven't turned it into a measure that you can, with a bit of investment and time, you can go, well, there's the social impact measure, and Brian, you probably know better than me, but there is a standard that we could go and invest in, which will show you that the value of that is X million. And we can get there. Speaker 1: Tom, do you want to? Yeah, yeah. Councillor Wegener: Oh, concerning the funding, have you started the alumni association? Maybe it's a little bit early to do it, but I know a lot of institutions are funded, helpfully funded by their alumni. Not that we're trying to push you out or anything, but. Mayor Stewart: American Invasion. Speaker 1: I think it's an interesting idea, and perhaps down the line, when we're a bit more mature,

02:22:00 we can make that argument. I think in the meantime, though, the alumni are providing other really beneficial connections. For example, one of the alumni that have graduated and are now in multiple facilities in Noosaville are providing something like $5 or $6 million. $5 or $6 million in internships and placements for students, as well as generating multiple jobs. So there are some other alumni connection benefits other than pure cash, but perhaps at some stage, somebody will, what's it called, a bequeathment? Harvard or MIT have a lot of them. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, it would be nice. It would be nice to get to them. The next question is, do you have any plans to expand the alumni association? Yeah, I mean, I mean, what I think would be really interesting is, I mean, when we're talking about homegrown talent, like we were talking about bringing talent in, when kids become a great programmer, is it genetic?

02:23:00 Or is it something that can be developed? Because I see you, you're developing your talent, but there's probably not a lot of digital hubs around the country that are in the process of developing this talent. Can you measure in any way the quality of development that comes up through these kids? You know, you could argue, is it DNA or is it nurtured that brings up the talent? Speaker 1: Good question, Tom. I think it's definitely a combination of those things. These days, I think we all know that there was a time not that long ago where there was a knowledge barrier or an information barrier. And the reason that you couldn't become X or Y was that there was an information barrier. Unless you went to this particular university or did this particular course, you would never get access to the information or the knowledge in that particular domain.

02:24:00 Well, of course, that's fallen away. Information and knowledge are now available through myriad tutorials, articles, micro-credential courses, etc. The thing that's really lacking in most instances is the desire to want to do those. There's no shortage of the information or the courses or whatever. And that, I think, is probably a combination of things. It's a supportive environment with parents and a family who encourage that sort of inquisitive, curious, self-development, self-learning type personality, I guess. And then the other is just opportunity, you know, opportunities to foster that and meet others who also are interested in that kind of thing and be inspired to progress on that. So it's quite a complex set of things that come together. But I think talent's just one of them. The knowledge barrier has fallen. It's no longer an excuse for not being able to pursue a particular path. Now it's really about the desire or the inspiration to want to go and do that.

02:25:00 And that often comes from being exposed to things, meeting others that are doing it, being inspired by mentors or whatever. So it's a witch's cauldron of factors. Councillor Wegener: What I did my Ph.D. on is my finding was that the thing that really limits people mostly is their belief that they can do it in the first place. And I see that, you know, with what you're doing, these kids actually develop that belief that they can do it. The other two elements of a successful entrepreneurial business are level playing field or low barrier of entry, which is you have that, and the culture of being a part of this. So it seems to me, you know, you really are a test case in how well you can manage to change people's and raise the level of entrepreneurship of these kids and, you know, giving them the opportunity and the belief that they can do whatever they want to do.

02:26:00 Speaker 1: Thanks, Tom. And I think we're very grateful for having a supportive council who provided us the space to do that. I think the council could easily have taken a view that this is a purely commercial endeavor. And we're there to raise as much revenue as we can. We're not interested in anything else. The fact that there is a view of social capital and the social return on investment is, I think, what allows us to do this. I'd add by saying this is a unique time. You know, this is an absolutely unbelievable time for a place like Noosa or for that matter, any regional place, because never before has it really been possible for somebody living in Noosa to work for a Fortune 500 company. You know, that was just the only way that would happen. And as if a Fortune 500 company came to Noosa and set up some sort of a satellite operation or Australian office or something like that, we live in this amazing time where somebody in regional Queensland could be working for any of the great companies in the world or interesting companies in the world.

02:27:00 And in that sense, the thing that enables them to do that are a set of relevant skills. If you've got relevant skills now, you are employable by companies. All over the world, because you can be employed remotely over the internet. So from that perspective, I really can't stress enough that I think we should all be thinking about that and doubling down on on that particular opportunity, because there is almost nothing to lose. If you double down on developing those skills amongst young people, they are employable not only in their own town, but they can live in their own town and be employed by people that could be on the other side of the world. There's just nothing to lose from that strategy. I think of really doubling down on on relevant sort of tech skills, creative digital skills that are now marketable to six and a half billion people around the world. Speaker 8: Can I make a question Claire asked before? I think I've been thinking about it a bit more.

02:28:00 Maybe the net cost to council at Rockner and this is around $50,000, $60,000, but that's what we'll probably end up with this year. Can we try to compare this to any other economic development programs where we spend that much on it? That's probably the better way of looking at it. So if we spend $50,000 on X, what's the return on that? And this is probably, I'm trying to think of the other things we'd be doing like education or whatever it might be, this has probably got the biggest bang for the buck of any other program. Mayor Stewart: Chris, you gave an example of someone who's employing three people, he's got some graduates, he's got some interns. What are their incomes worth? So that's, you know, like, you know, when you think about where employment, he's employing how many people, so that's actually, you know, that's, that's sort of a drive, that's something that can be, you know, I guess, calculated for that, but that's just one person and that's happening everywhere, you know, so it would be very high value. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, I think getting to a KPI or a measure, and I remember Kim Rawlings put this forward a little while back, we haven't managed to find a way of doing this yet, but I think she called it a social return on investment, was it?

02:29:00 Yeah, there's a standard measure. I don't think it's easy to measure, but there is a measure, which I think we need to, we need to try to get to because I think it allows for a better assessment of. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Like, I was very similar to mine, I think, we don't treat it as a financial transaction, we treat it as an economic development transaction, and how to invest the community's money wisely in economic development, and for me, it boils down to, we may not have the scope to have very rigorous and detailed analysis of social impact, but we certainly probably could get a group of people around the table to say, for every dollar invested in A, are we likely to get a better return in terms of economic development and capacity within our community to produce or increase gross domestic, regional product, versus B, and I think, you know, like, so places like an investment of one dollar in a tourism marketing campaign versus one dollar in a digital, what are, you know, and one might have more risks and more, other might have more likelihood of success, but this one, the risk may be outweighed by the fact that you might have a ten to one return on your investment, and I think that's where we can get to.

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 Speaker 6: I think it's critical, the timing, while it's difficult to do, we have an economic strategy review happening now, and over the next three to four months, obviously, we've got budgets and levies to think about, and the distribution of those, so being able to put an impact measure into that conversation and thinking is critical, so I think we're going to have to think about that.

02:31:00 There's some pretty significant expected returns, so it is a conversation and a piece that we need to get to as far as the strategy and the budgets and the levy. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a question. I bought all of this and I have from Day Dot. It is a public service, but I'm sitting here and I've been to the digital hub and I know what you guys do. You're the place of big ideas. You're the place where digital industry come to you to help build their businesses. So I'm perplexed and probably a little bit confused why you guys can't use those big ideas to help build some type of business case for the digital hub, rather than just writing off, you know, this is a public service.

02:32:00 It's not revenue intended. I'm saying, is there opportunity? You've got, can you be a knowledge platform? Can you put a directory together and make money? I don't know. I'm sort of just thinking outside the square a little bit. Is there an opportunity for the digital hub actually to derive some income rather than just writing it off? You've got this talent pool, all this knowledge information. Is there, can you be a platform to call all these cadetships to seek employment? Is it a directory for all these brilliant minds that are now massing at the Frigidal hub? I don't know. I just think if anyone can find a solution, an economic solution, it's you, Chris. That's what you guys do well for everyone else. So maybe do it for the digital hub.

02:33:00 I don't know. I don't know whether that's been explored or not. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's a good challenge. I think some context is we're two and a half years into the project from the starting start. Empty building, never done anything like this before. On a building revenue basis, if you think about where the revenues come from, they come from a finite piece of real estate, really, which can accommodate so many people. It's currently at absolute maximum capacity, and that's the revenue that it throws off. The additional opportunities, I think, come with probably brand. I think as you build a brand, the brand accumulates value. And if that brand becomes desirable and other, ultimately, companies want to be involved with it,

02:34:00 they might be more inclined to want to do something that involves them parting money with it. Because at the end of the day, that is the potential upside revenue stream is from effectively sponsorships. In terms of the additional revenue we can drive out of the facility, there's almost none. It's at capacity, it runs six functions a month. That's as much revenue as you're going to get out of that building. But as you build programs and brands, there is potential. I think there's a very fine line, though, between are you doing something that has a purely commercial motive or are you doing something that's not? I think that's something that can potentially be seriously diluted by introducing some sort of commercial element to it. And finding the balance between those things is a challenge. But what I would say is we are entrepreneurial.

02:35:00 The fact that we've raised another $2.5 million worth of grant funding this year is indicative of the fact that we're always looking for ways to grow. But what I would say is any extra money that we make from that, I think, should be reinvested in programs and in capacity building. Rather than saying, here's an extra $10,000 net that we put towards some other thing. I just think we should be growing our impact rather than trying to grow an extra $10,000 here or $20,000 there in the budget, when we could be just growing our impact and growing the economic and social benefits that we throw off from the project. Speaker 6: Can I answer that as well? I think for me, really, it comes back to how we've presented our measurements of are we delivering on our jobs. And I think that it does come back to that holistic KPI and putting a value on that. Because I think for $50,000 or $100,000, whatever the subsidy is, really, because it's that gap, I think what we're saying is that the value we've created is actually...

02:36:00 I don't disagree. No, I don't know. But I think that our job, I think our business model that we've got to deliver on is not the ins and outs of the hub, is what I'd judge. So I think I'm just saying that actually, yeah, I hope that we are actually... Our business model is to create impact, economic impact, social impact. And the KPIs we signed up to two and a half years ago that we didn't know much about because it was a startup in a local government regulated environment, we're all those. So we've filled all those in now. And I think that actually our job as business people... As startup people, is actually to create maximum investment, 5 million, but attract money into the region, 2.5 million into it. Create jobs, 40 jobs, create a brand. When I go down to the Sunny Coast Council, somebody said to me, will you stop doing that hub stuff?

02:37:00 You're taking everything away from us. And so I guess that I think it's just the presentation of it. How we put it all in a package and go for 50 to 100,000, whatever the numbers, the gap is on each year, we're actually delivering a couple of million dollars worth of impact or $10 million worth of impact over 10 years. We haven't presented that. That has to be our next step, I think, is because otherwise when we sit around the table and go strategy and levy, and actually we think there's better value over here, we need to have this tied up. But that I think is our, rather than maybe that digital hub profitability as a business, ours is Mr. Dowd, Mr. Bowden, are you actually delivering maximum impact, because that's your job. I think that's... Councillor Lorentson: And to the ratepayers. To the ratepayers, absolutely, maximum. Who's not sitting here listening to this conversation, just reading the report. I think that's really great information. Speaker 6: KPIs. Return on ratepayers investment is the KPI table, which you could put a social impact figure on it. We haven't done that yet.

02:38:00 Yeah, exactly. An indicator. Speaker 8: I'm sorry. That question you asked was a cracker, because that really goes to the heart of what we've set up. We had that same debate. And this is probably the biggest pump this council's taken on an initiative in the last seven years, because it's never been done before. Is it going to work? We didn't know. And then in my mind, I always think, okay, at the back of my mind, what if this went wrong? Well, we still have a building there, and if we needed to, we could fill it with doctors and dentists and accountants or whatever, if we can get a return on the building, if things didn't work out. But it's worked out. And then the question is, okay, what's the investment? What's the return on that $50,000 to $80,000 a year or whatever it might be? Is that a good economic investment? And of course, how do we try and reduce that as much as we can? So it's always that balance. Councillor Lorentson: And it's adding to, just may I add, it's also adding to the Noosa brand. Absolutely. We are getting known as the region to attracting these important people, both in the digital

02:39:00 and scientific sector. So, yeah, credit to you guys. Absolutely. Credit to Chris. Yeah. Speaker 1: Well, as I say, it's a really good question. It's really good to get clarification. It's really important that we do that measurement, because otherwise it could lead you down a totally different set of decisions that you take. So unless we can measure that, then we really need to figure out how to do that. Speaker 11: Yeah, it's very important. Chris, well done on attracting the extra funding. I've just got a question. Is there someone specific that looks for and attracts that funding? Or how many hours a week is spent on that? Like, what's your process around attracting that? Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say that a couple of these things, a couple of these grant programs ended up being triggered by pretty major events, either the bushfire recovery or COVID more

02:40:00 recently. So I think it's fair to say that a couple of these things, a couple of these grant programs ended up being triggered by pretty major events, either the bushfire recovery or COVID more recently. So I think we've been alive to that. But we've also built a really good network of people whose eyes and ears are always to the ground for relevant funding opportunities. We're always looking. I've got a couple of people in our network who are involved in grant-related consultancy businesses, et cetera. So we're constantly keeping our eye out. And then we've also now got good contacts at places like Trade and Investment Queensland, Advanced Queensland, the state government, and so on. So these opportunities tend to filter down to us, the ones that are worthwhile looking at. And then it's really just a case of the hard work of coming up with something that meets

02:41:00 the criteria and writing a 50-page document to make the case. So we're relatively opportunistic, but I think we know where to look in terms of potential funding pools. And the next one we're sort of keeping a close eye on is sort of educational skills development stuff, where we're hoping there'll be a lot more focus on that at the end of the year. And then we're also looking at the federal and state level. And there'll be some grant opportunities to expand our programs there. Speaker 11: So in terms of percentage of hours spent actively looking at all these opportunities for investment, as a loose number, how much percent of time would you think that takes? Is it like half the? No. Speaker 1: One percent. You know, I'm subscribed to a bunch of grant fees.

02:42:00 They come in a summary in my email once every three, four weeks. A quick scan through those, which are all keyword-based. Not a huge amount of time. And then I would say it's 1% or 2% time spent on that. But I think there's a bigger amount of time, of course, spent on administrating the grant, making sure that the reporting's done, making sure that we've accounted for it correctly at the financial level. We write project codes and so on. And there's a lot more work in that. Speaker 11: Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 6: I was smiling because most of these are done at night, to be really honest. Yeah. I mean, you end up, I guess, the fire tech one, $2.5 billion, or $2 million is the initial one, or the latest one. It's done between Chris and myself. We did have a consultant to help us with that big one. We did it before. The business case. Yeah, the business case side of things. But literally, most of the stuff is, we got a deadline and it's just all hands on deck.

02:43:00 But the actual time spent looking for these grants is minimal. It's just that we kind of have the networks. We know where they are. We have a grant guru. We have Carolyn and Vicky that know where all the opportunities are as well. So, yeah, I would say very little time is actually spent on actually going to search for these. Administering and delivering is where, obviously, the time it does take. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'm happy to move the motion. Councillor Wegener: I've got one quick question, or one comment. I think that we could solve all these problems by leveraging against the brain power that's there. And what is the cause of the brain power? Coffee. We can create the Digital Hub brand of coffee and charge $20 a cup, just so that you can... Speaker 5: Deadly espresso monster. Speaker 8: We do have... Speaker 6: That's our social enterprise partner.

02:44:00 That's Deadly Espresso. Speaker 8: Espresso. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We've got a move by Councillor Stewart. Anyone want to second it? Councillor Finzel. Do you like to talk to the motion? Mayor Stewart: No, no, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd just like to sum up and say it was really interesting. When we were looking at starting this, we looked at the Ipswich model and they called their place Firehouse 101. Firestation 101. Firestation 101. And actually what we've become is the real firestation in terms of fire tech. Mayor Stewart: Thank you guys. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks. All in favour? That brings us to the last item, which is the Funding Environment and Sustainability Funding Update. And so we've got the Acting Director here. Do we have any questions? I've only got one. Speaker 6: You really have to get me out because I just actually closed that file.

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:45:00 Mayor Stewart: I thought you were on your way out. I thought it had been a long way. It's been a long warning. It has. Let's do it. It's just one. Yes. I'm wondering where the state permits on page 163 for the Bring Back the Fish project. Speaker 6: Yes, my understanding is that we still haven't got the state permits. But Craig can give an update for Monday. No, just Saturday. Just Saturday. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Because that was due in December. Speaker 6: They have been delayed. But I can get Craig to give an update. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think it would be remiss of me not to let you the opportunity to demonstrate as an Economic Development Manager and Acting Director to demonstrate how much you've learned in the acting role. So I thought it might be good for you to explain in your biosecurity report that talks about cat's claw. Now, it talks about it in Tim Beale or any point in it. Is that something that residents should be worried about, is they should be looking at the creeks or up on the hills where this particular pest is?

02:46:00 Speaker 6: Like any good director, I would delegate and find an expert and Brian, would you like to explain and share your knowledge in that area? Mayor Stewart: It's a weed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's obviously what we'd be looking there is along the creeks and it's a vine that grows up in the trees, most noticeably because it climbs, it hangs onto the tree by a claw mechanism that looks like a clapped claw and easiest to identify during flowering, which is a bright yellow clover. But it also does, if it gets allowed to be controlled, it will take over all the vegetation and kill the pests. So yes, it is one for Cooroy Mountain and Tim Beale residents to look out for as well as our officers and it's something that works along the creeks quite frequently. Thank you Brian. Good answer Mr Director, I think you got it right. Speaker 11: Can I just add something to that when we get the report from Craig with the state permits.

02:47:00 Yes. Just with a bit of feedback on the effectiveness of that sprinkler system for the vine box, because we're still getting emails about that, so it doesn't have to be in depth. Speaker 6: Yes, another update. I know that Craig sent one probably about five days ago was his latest update. Speaker 11: Yes. Sorry. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll see you here. Speaker 11: Someone can give us an update on where you went. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a serious question now. Yes. There's a lot of good work identified here. Is there anything as councillors that we should be aware of? The things that you think from a whole department's perspective that is causing stress, anxiety, things that we probably should have on our radar to address, whether it be in a budgetary sense or in a climate sort of sense. Speaker 6: Look, thank you Brian. I think that we've talked about obviously the mental health of all workers at the moment, but particularly in council, and there's some what we refer to as hotspot areas.

02:48:00 So I think the development assessment team have a heavy workload at the moment. So there will be various, I guess, part of the budget process that will reflect that around resources, et cetera. So I think resources around these areas that are experiencing really high demand, and Chris has already shared the amount of resources that we need to be able to do that. The amount of inward investment, and I think we're facing that around affordable discussions around accessible and affordable housing, and I think just mental health of staff. So the challenges we have are particularly the DA area around resources, volume and complexity of applications. You've seen a lot of them today, and there'll be more. So I think those are the areas of challenge. You can see that we've just talked about the BATS and Craig's area.

02:49:00 There's a lot going on on rivers, and obviously the BATS and other things. Across all the areas of our directorate, there is a lot of, I guess, pressures. We've got short stay as being a big conversation point, the ministerial conditions, the CHAP. So if anything, I would say the teams are under a lot of pressure. There's big issues across the community. So as councillors, I think we appreciate the support that we can talk through these big issues, and that there's a recognition of the challenges that the officers that deal with these around the pressures and actually the fact that it's really, really busy at the moment across the whole directorate. And with Kim's absence, it's probably just filters down to be more and more pressure. So I think there's a recognition of the challenges that the officers that deal with these around this area. So that's probably the challenge that we have around managing priorities and volumes.

02:50:00 Mayor Stewart: The river group, how is that going? I saw Expressions of Interest opened on the 18th of February. It says completing to Ocean Interest. Speaker 8: I can answer that. It closed on Friday last week. So I've got a meeting on Friday with the MSQP to have a look at the submissions. And then we bring that back to council from there. Mayor Stewart: So who determines the make-up of that group? Speaker 8: Well, remember, council decision is that it's myself and MSQ, and then we've got to report back to this council. Mayor Stewart: Okay. With the people who are... Correct. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So do we want to move the recommendation in response to the Environment Standards Department update, second quarter 2021? Move, Councillor Finzel, while seconded. No further discussion. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I asked... We're all pretty exhausted, but I asked earlier, I emailed and asked if you would put up the website.

02:51:00 Yes. And do you have that? Do you have it right there? Okay. No, I don't have it yet. This is the WildNet website that's being paid for, promoted, and made by... Do you guys read that? It's on the bottom of page 160. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll use WildNet. Councillor Wegener: So what's your question, Tom? Oh, well, I asked Anthony if he could put it up on the screen so we could actually have a look at WildNet, what we're actually paying for, because it's a website that shows all of the different VCAs and land for wildlife activities going on. So because we're paying for it, I thought it'd be very interesting to have a quick look at, but we're all pretty tired and... Well, I'll get stopped just to send a rambling. Speaker 8: Yeah. That's fine. You guys. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So WildNet also has where you go to find all the different spawners or sightings that

02:52:00 you can go to check in an area as well. Councillor Wegener: I mean, yeah, that's fun. I loved it. But it's not fun now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So no further discussion. We shall end what I think is a record long money environment committee. I don't think we've ever gone past 12 before. It went very quickly.

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

What was said

Latest