Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the conditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. Do I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 18th of March? Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Second, thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thanks, Carly. There are no mayoral minutes. Item four, does anyone have any additions? No. There are no notified motions, no presentations, no deputations. That brings us to item eight on page four, which is the consideration of the committee reports. Firstly, the planning and environment committee recommendations. Item one was referred to general committee. Item two, planning applications decided by delegated authority February 2021.
00:01:00 I note that myself and Councillor Lorentson have conflicts to declare, so on this item, I will hand the chair over to Councillor Wilkie to consider these declarations. Thank you. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application of CBD Settlers Code PTY LTD, which is item 24 in this report. Mr Shannon Gillard, who is related to the applicant CBD Settlers Code PTY LTD, and his wife, Kate, are friends of mine through our children. We socialise together occasionally. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person to have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr and Mrs Gillard, and Councillor's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it.
00:02:00 It is only for noting of a decision that has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Zanvon, does someone care to move a . . . Speaker 4: My suggestion would be deal with all the conflicts, have them declared first, and then deal with the resolutions one by one. It makes sense to have Councillor Lorentson declare hers first and then deal with the . . . Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Clare and Wade Jenner, which is item one in this report. I have a relationship with the applicants as we are associates through the Noosa Boardwriters Club. In addition, during the 2020 election campaign, one of my election signs was located outside their property in Pacific Avenue, Sunshine Beach. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr and Mrs Jenner and Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it.
00:03:00 It's only forenoting of a decision that's already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain or participate in the decision. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart, Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'm happy to move that Councillor notes a declarable conflict of interest of Councillor Stewart in terms that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates in votes on this matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Stewart does not have a close personal relationship with Mr Gillard and as a Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject, only to note a decision that has already been made by staff, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: We have a second for that, please. Councillor Wegener. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion?
00:04:00 All in favour? That's carried. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a question, Mr CEO. Now that Councillor Stewart is allowed to stay in the room, is she able to resume the chair? Speaker 1: She is. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I move that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson can participate in the decision. That Councillor Stewart participates in votes on this matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Lorentson does not have a close personal relationship with Mr and Mrs Jenner and as a Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it, only to note a decision that has already been made by staff, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. I'll second that. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I have a mover for the committee recommendation on page four? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: I just wanted to ask a few questions, Kerry, in relation to the STA applications 36, 37,
00:05:00 and 38 that were approved under delegated authority. I've been requested to ask some questions by residents that are impacted by this decision, Kerry. So I've been asked to ask a few questions by residents that are impacted by this decision, I've just got a string of questions that I've already spoken to you about. My first is, what is the criteria or what factors does Council consider in deciding whether or not to agree to a request for approval to accept the development application under the superseded planning scheme? Speaker 2: If I may, I'll just first explain to you what the criteria is. I'll explain what a superseded planning scheme application is. It is an application under our 2006 scheme. So when a new planning scheme commences, all property owners have the right to make an
00:06:00 application under the 2006 scheme for 12 months. Now, those superseded scheme applications are essentially the planning legislation's ability around compensation. So under the Local Government and Planning and Environment Act, 1990, there was an application in 1990, there was no ability to make a superseded planning scheme request. That was introduced in 1998 under IPAR. Prior to then, when planning schemes changed, people had the right to claim for compensation, but it was a different process you can apply on the superseded scheme. When IPAR commenced, there was the ability to lodge superseded scheme applications. And this really gave confidence to councils to change their planning schemes and not face huge compensation costs. So this council faced its last compensation claim, just as we were de-amalgamating. And it was for $38 million. A lot of money.
00:07:00 We were successful in winning all our compensation claims. And there was no money. There was no claim against us. But these ones are different. They are under the Planning Act. And we must consider whether there's a change to the capital value of the land that occurs, because of the new scheme. And the Act actually says, it's about the amount of compensation payable to the affected owner is the difference between the market value of the owner's interest in the premises immediately before and immediately after the adverse planning change. So when we were reviewing these requests for superseded planning schemes, we were primarily looking at whether there's a potential for compensation claim against council. But we were also having regard to, when you think of criteria for superseded planning schemes, we also regard to our current policy direction for short-term accommodation, the potential impact on people's amenity from short-term accommodation, including the number of bedrooms, where their outdoor areas are located, car parking and the like, and how
00:08:00 many other short-term accommodation stays are in the area. So the primary criteria we are looking at is whether there has been an adverse change because of those changes to the planning scheme, and whether that may result in compensation payable to council. So we've received, to date, a total of 37 applications under the superseded scheme for short-term accommodation. 11 of those are still being decided. We have 16 approved, and 5 have been refused, and 5 have been withdrawn. And they've been withdrawn because we advised those people that were unlikely to support them, and that way they gained a partial refund to their application fee. So there are a good portion that we are not supporting, but there are also ones that we are supporting. Councillor Lorentson: So in reference to compensation, have we engaged real estate or industry experts to
00:09:00 ascertain actual loss, and whether or not, in fact, there is a loss? I would argue that not having an STA in the current environment is not a good thing. It's not a detrimental loss that your property is possibly worth more without an STA approval. Speaker 2: So I'll just go back to the Act. It is about, at the time, immediately before and immediately after the planning scheme change. So that's last July the 30th, 2020. So it's not about now, it's market values back then when the change happened. So that's something to keep in mind. And back then we sought advice from our barrister. And that's what we've done. Christopher Hughes, who's a QC. And he gained advice from a valuer around this aspect, because we were seeking advice on how we should handle superseded scheme requests around that.
00:10:00 So yes, we did gain advice. It was general advice. It was not property-specific. But the advice at that time was there was definitely the potential for a change in capital value around short-term accommodation. Okay. So the compensation is not related to income that people might earn from short-term. It's the capital, the market value of the land. So the advice at that point in time was there definitely would be potential for a change in value. Councillor Lorentson: So are there any appeal rights for neighbours? Once the delegated authority is given and approval given by council, what avenues have impacted residents? Where can they comply? And can they revoke or change a decision made under delegated power? Speaker 2: So under the planning legislation, there are no appeal rights, either for the applicant when we say no or yes, or to residents who may be unhappy with our decision.
00:11:00 So there are no appeal rights available through that process under the planning act. Councillor Lorentson: So the only way to change a decision? A decision made under delegated authority, Kerry, is then to review the delegated powers itself, that council review or revoke the powers that we give to staff to make the approval. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yeah. That's correct. If council are not happy with the decisions that officers are making under the delegation that's put forward to you in these reports, the delegations can be changed. We would just need to consider that there is a timeframe. There must be a timeframe around these applications. They must be decided within 30 business days of being decided. Otherwise, they're taken to have been agreed to. So currently, we have one meeting a month. It would mean we'd have to have some more meetings in order to meet those timeframes.
00:12:00 But that's possible. Speaker 4: Can I just clarify? Oh, sorry. Just to make sure there's no confusion. Once the decision's been made, whether it's made by council or under the delegation, sorry, the council itself or by staff under delegation, it's taken to be the decision of the council. And that can't be revoked. What can be changed is what decisions are made under delegation or what comes to council in the future. So we can't retrospectively go back and change decisions once they've been made by either by delegation or by council. Councillor Lorentson: But future decisions. Speaker 4: Only the future about whether or not council wants to see all of these applications or whether you're happy to keep that going under delegation. That's the issue. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Just an option, Kerry. Is there an opportunity perhaps to change the criteria? So can we place more emphasis on impact to residential areas? And can we revisit, for instance, areas that are traditionally holiday-let? Can we reset the criteria?
00:13:00 Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, if council wished to change the delegations, council could make a decision on a different basis. Our recommendation would remain the same. But council would run them the risk of having to pay compensation claims or face compensation claims. So that's a risk in refusing these sorts of applications, is the applicant then has the ability to seek compensation from council. Now, there's a process to do that. They have to first receive a refusal to assume that they are eligible for compensation from They have to lodge an application under the new planning scheme and either receive a refusal or a condition of approval that they think affects the market value of their property. And then they need to approach council and write to council seeking compensation. If we reject it, then it would go to court. So it's quite a lengthy process to go through. But essentially, if council wished to change the criteria and not put so much weight on
00:14:00 that, we would face a potential compensation claim. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And just a final question. In reference to areas that have been identified as traditional holiday-let areas, so I'm making reference to Noosa Sound, Sunshine Beach, has consideration been given to the fact that in the past, and I've been travelling to Noosa for the last 40 years, living here for 20 years, and up holiday-let places 20-odd years ago. Noosa sounds like a traditional holiday-let area. My recollection over the last 40 years is that no precinct, no traditional holiday precincts have ever been available for holiday rent for 365 days. That traditional holiday precincts have only been traditional holiday precincts during the September holidays, Easter holidays, your standard school holidays. Is that factored into the criteria?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 2: It's certainly a change that's occurred. You know, our houses in our Shire are more and more used on a permanent basis for holiday accommodation. So that's certainly noticeable. It's not a criteria that we're using in terms of deciding a superseded scheme request. But it's certainly a consideration of ours in the policy framework that's in the 2020 scheme, and where we've gone with that, and now what we're proposing with the local law to try and address this issue, because it's becoming a bigger issue. People are more regularly using them for short-term accommodation. And there's, you know, several families staying in one house. But it's not a criteria for the superseded scheme request. Councillor Lorentson: And just a final question. So we talk about compensation for loss or detriment suffered as a result of an adverse change in scheme. Does the loss also apply to properties?
00:16:00 Is it devalued as a result of us approving an STA approval? Speaker 2: No. No. There's no compensation provisions around that in the planning legislation. Compensation provisions are around planning scheme changes that adversely affect somebody's property value, not the granting of an approval. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Can I have a move for the committee recommendation on page four of the agenda? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Can I move? Seconder? Seconder? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you, Kylie. That brings us to the services and organisation committee recommendations. These are on page five of the agenda. Item one is referred to the general... Speaker 2: Sorry, we missed one. It's only two. Yeah, there was... So we haven't done this. Mayor Stewart: Fuel and drama. Yeah, that's right.
00:17:00 Referred to general. Speaker 1: Which one are you talking about, Kylie? Speaker 2: So we have the two. The one was there but usually... Are you on the planning environment committee or the other one? Planning environment committee. Yep. This one's referred to general. Item one is referred to... It's only two I would say. Speaker 1: Normally you include that as given. Speaker 2: You usually include that in the capital, in the bulk adoption. Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what was done, wasn't it? Speaker 1: No, we just did this one here regarding super sick. The planning applications have been decided by delegation. Mayor Stewart: Even though there was only one other that had been referred. Speaker 4: All right. Yeah, we can do that one. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, everyone. So can I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of planning and environment committee recommendations except we're already dealt with? Thank you, Councillor Lyonston. Seconder. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you. Speaker 1: That brings us to the services and organisation committee recommendations. Mayor Stewart: These are on page five of the agenda. Thank you, Kerry. Item one was referred to the general committee.
00:18:00 Item two, tenderer, financial capacity assessment, policy and guideline. Item three, waste management. Six-monthly report, July to December 2020. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. So moved. Seconder. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you. Next are the general committee recommendations. Please refer to page seven of our agendas. Our Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wilkie, has another engagement this evening and has to leave early. He's requested that we deal with item two of the general committee recommendations first, which takes us to item two, Park Road temporary park upgrade and further information. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my relationship with Andrew and Catherine St Baker who reside in Park Road adjacent to where the pathway is located. My family have holidayed once with Andrew and Catherine St Baker and my husband is close personal friends with Andrew and one of my election signs was
00:19:00 located at Thomas Surfboards and Andrew St Baker is a joint owner of that business. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Speaker 2: The second conflict. That's me. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wegener, you'd like to declare your conflict of interest? Councillor Wegener: I'd like to declare my conflict of interest. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrew St Baker who owns the property in Park Road adjacent to where the pathway is located. Andrew St Baker contacted me in 2020 about the pathway in question which runs on the northern edge of his property. I went to meet with him and looked at
00:20:00 the path and he told me the history of the dealings with council. I contacted the project officer and passed on Mr St Baker's concerns. Later, I informally met with the project officer on the boardwalk and I believe he told me that it would eventually come before council. I have a perceived association with Mr St Baker as I am a surfboard manufacturer and he is the owner of the Thomas Surfboards and the Thomas Factory. I believe Mr St Baker has a fantastic influence on the manufacturing in Noosa. In council, I have often congratulated the Thomas Factory and have discussed the emerging enterprise business zones with Mr St Baker that Mr St Baker supports. During the election campaign, Mr St Baker allowed me to put an election choral flute at the Thomas Surfboard Factory. I occasionally meet with Mr Baker in the surf and have had two discussions on the Noosa biosphere, the history of Noosa and the Bring Back the Fish campaign at his house which is obviously right above the surf break. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe
00:21:00 a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Baker. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in and participate in Mayor Stewart: this decision. Thank you. I move that council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wegener and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Wegener participates and votes in this matter because council believes that Councillor Wegener does not have a close personal relationship with Mr St Baker and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decisions made in the public interest and for the purposes of consistency this is what we did on Monday. Thank you. I'll second that. I'll second. Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Councillor Wegener: I have a comment. Mayor Stewart: I agree.
00:22:00 Councillor Wegener: I would like to bring a motion that Council note the report by the special projects coordinator to the service and organization committee meeting dated April 6th providing further design information on the temporary path which was This was constructed as a part of the previous completed Park Road Boardwalk project and request staff to remove the temporary path as soon as possible with funding for the removal to be sourced from other project savings or at a future budget review. Mayor Stewart: Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener: Well, we are very familiar with the facts in this room around this case, around this issue. And the overarching reason for making this motion is the fact that Lucic Council has made a promise to a resident and now intends to break this promise.
00:23:00 Council promised that this path will be removed when it had fulfilled its purpose. The key resident agreed to the loss of amenity while the path was being used, considering the greater good of the community and trusted Council's promise to remove the path when its purpose had been finished. These facts are set in stone. We must dispose of the path. And I find that this is black and white. Very easy decision. You must honor your promises. However, this black and white. Argument does not pull the weight with some of the councillors and other issues have been addressed and hotly debated. I may add, I will quickly address two of these issues. It has been strongly argued that there is a safety factor involved that the temporary path makes walking to the Noosa National Park safer. This is true for residents of the four properties on the cul-de-sac at the beginning of the path.
00:24:00 And remember, there are only five properties directly affected by this path. And four of them live on the cul-de-sac. And Kylie, can we put that photo up? It is the third one. Oh, no. Is that the right one? The one on the right. And here we are. We're looking at the little cul-de-sac. And you can see the sign that says no through road access units only. It says it's a private road. And for the four properties that live up on that cul-de-sac, it is true that the pathway leading to National Park from there is safer. And I note a letter received. We live at 56 Park Road, which is there, and use this regularly during busy times. We find it safer than trying to cross Park Road to the bus.
00:25:00 And this is the boardwalk opposite, especially with young children. And so where I'm standing when I took this photo is at the path coming up from the big masterful boardwalk below. You can actually see the railing there on the ground. For these properties, the safety factor is absolutely true. It is safe for these residents to walk the path to Newson National Park, then to cross Park Road to the bus. And walk along the masterpiece of a highway, of a walkway. But for anyone else living in Little Cove, anybody else living in the Noosa Shire or tourist wanting to cross this path, they must, to access this path, they must cross this road at this very spot they were looking at. You have to cross the road. And Callie, can we go to the other photo? Speaker 1: This one? Councillor Wegener: That one, yeah. So that's looking. In the report, it says there's no access.
00:26:00 There's a limited line of sight. And so it's actually quite spooky crossing that road, especially when everybody, when it's busy and people are racing trying to find car parks. The safety factor only applies to the residents of the four properties. Everyone else wanting to use that path must make the unsafe crossing across Park Road to this path. This is not safe. Meaning that everybody else has to cross the road right here to get to the path. So only four properties in the entire Shire actually use that path safely. Everybody else has to cross Park Road to get to the path to use it. And the problem is, that's the problem. We're saying that this path is safer, but everybody else has to actually cross the unsafe road which has been mentioned and proven to be unsafe. And the killer is that this path will be in our walking and cycling strategy. It will be on the map and hence we will be advocating that all others must cross Park Road at that very spot to get to the path.
00:27:00 This makes no sense at all. The safety argument fails for all people who are not staying in one of the four properties. So if we vote to upgrade this path, tomorrow's headlines may say, quote, Noosa commits 100,000 plus to upgrade a path for four luxurious properties on the headland, unquote. And this will be a true statement. It will be 100% accurate. Because there are only four houses, four properties that directly benefit from this pathway for the safety reason. And when you see that headline, what is going to be the response from the hinterland? Pomona, Cooran, Kin Kin, Boering Point and others are screaming out for such attention. Which will benefit the entire community. I believe Council Finzel may speak on this later. Can we go to the next photo?
00:28:00 Yep, that one. Councilor Wilkie stated that it is safe to access the pathway along the landward side of Park Road. And you're looking at here. So this is if you want to access safely, if you want to access the path along Park Road and not go down to the walkway, you have to walk along this road. And you can see that there is no room. There is no room for pedestrians on this road at all. I know I've spent a lot of time and I've walked it. If you're going to go from Little Cove or any place else, you have to go down onto the pathway. Walk along the master, the master, the masterpiece walkway of wood at $7 million and then come back up and then cross Park Road. So it's the safety factor. Just it just falls flat. The second argument about keeping a backup path ready in case the $7 million masterpiece is damaged is almost as weak as the first. On a scale of 1 to 10, it is 1.
00:29:00 The masterpiece is mostly on concrete base, which is set on granite rock in the area where the temporary path is located. We do not need to maintain a second path as a backup as it makes almost no sense at all. As the $7 million path corresponding as a backup. On the other side of the road is not going to be damaged for almost the entirety of the length because it's on concrete and it's not. It's not going to burn down. It's not trees not going to hit it. It's not going to be damaged. So let's go back to Council's promise to a resident. And I have a story. In 1993, I was a young attorney going to trial with my elder with the elderly partner in the law firm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The point of order is trying off relevancy. Mayor Stewart: Council Wigner, is there a point to the story? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, absolutely. Councillor Wegener: I spent months preparing for this trial. And the day came when we were meeting. Sorry. The point of order, I'd like a ruling on it.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Council Wigner, if we can get to the point that if we can skip, if there is a legitimate association or point that is relevant to this matter, please get to it. Councillor Wegener: Well, the matter is, when you go to trial, Bud said to me, you want to be wearing the white hat. We were at that point, we were wearing the black hat. And we recognized it. And Bud turned to me and said, Tom, we're wearing the black hat. And so we went out. And we went out on the steps. We met the client and we settled the case. Because you do not want to be wearing the black hat. This motion is about integrity and keeping a promise. I'm wearing the white hat. I received an email from a resident which explains the reasoning behind the wearing of the black hat. During the email went, quote, during the debate, the last council meeting, there was so much comment about council integrity and the council's promise to the property owner to remove the temporary footpath.
00:31:00 It seems to me that council integrity issue is not valid. It's not about whether the council keeps its promise to one landholder. It's more about whether the council keeps their promise to serve the greater community, not individuals. Well, that is the black hat. This is, this, that quote does not reflect democracy. Democracy respects promises, respects individual rights. Ignoring individual rights in the interest of the greater good as decided by those in power is not us. This is the philosophy of other countries. China or Germany last century comes to mind. We must uphold our promises. We must maintain our integrity. The greater community is made up of individuals. A promise broken to one individual is a promise broken to all individuals in our Shire. Let's not wear the black hat.
00:32:00 I urge you to join me and wear the white hat. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Yasmin. I have a question. We've talked a lot about what it costs to keep it, what it costs to upgrade it, to pull it down. There's been a lot of talk about that. Can you tell me what the whole of life costs would be associated if we did keep this pathway and what that would cost us? Speaker 3: Sure. Normally, for a pathway with an extended life, we'd be looking at around 5% of the total costs. Of construction. So in this case, we're looking at a pathway that would have a 25 year life. That's what we've estimated to have with the works that we would do. And that would probably equate to around $10,000 in addition to this work over life. So that would be around an extra around $400 to $500 per annum on maintenance and depreciation costs that we would be putting back in towards.
00:33:00 Keeping that facility operational. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 3: I'll speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A lot of hands and no doubt will be made about this concept of a promise. Yet, Stark told us what actually occurred. They wrote a letter when we were intending to build the gravel path that this was being built at a temporary time. Now the decision in front of us is whether or not we're going to do it. Whether because we built a concrete path, whether it makes sense now to make a decision to build a permanent path. There's no promise broken. In my line of work, we call it adaptive management. You look at what's in front of you and you say, what's the wisest decision to make considering the factors that have got us to here? And it's true. In this chamber, in the committee, there is a dividing division of opinion. It's interesting. We've received a lot of emails recently and nearly every one of those who support its removal do so because they argue that it's ridiculous to incur cost to upgrade this.
00:34:00 It seems they don't understand that the cost to demolish is in excess of the cost to retain. And something at Monday's meeting rang a bell with me when one of the officers talked about, well, we're going to try and emulate the... the handrail system on the board work. And it said to me, oh, so within the option that was recommended, there is a cost for a reasonably sophisticated handrail system. So I've gone to start and they suggested actually if we didn't want an elaborate handrail system, a least cost option to upgrade, then it's significantly less. So Kylie, if you could show that PowerPoint slide that I gave you. So here is the decision in front of us. Forget about this nonsense. It's about a promise.
00:35:00 We said we're going to build a temporary pathway. We're now making a decision whether we're going to build a permanent pathway. Building a footpath in a nature strip beside a road is what local government has always done since the inception of local government. So the existing asset value is $98,200. How best to spend $131,000? So councillor Wegener's motion suggests we should spend $131,000 to completely remove the pathway and the handrail. And that would have a residual value of a community asset of $0. Councillor Finzel: Point of order. Yes, councillor. This is not like we're here doing a budget meeting. What qualifications does this councillor have to be quoting figures to us at this point? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's not a point of order. I won't wait for your thing. So the least cost option. The least cost option is that we can look at.
00:36:00 Mayor Stewart: I'm going to call point of order. Just to confirm, Michael, are these correct figures? Yeah, let's get Michael up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Excuse me. Speaker 1: Brian. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. I'll dissent from the chairman's ruling. A point of order cannot be called because we disagree with anything a person is saying. I'm asking for validation. No, no. You cannot interrupt me speaking. For a question. And I will move dissent in the chairman's motion to call the point of order. Mayor Stewart: Great. Let me stand with this. I just want clarification of one of these figures. Can I ask a question? These figures have been put up as debate. Speaker 4: Yeah. So normally a council's talking. If there's a point of order, it often goes to the heart of, you know, talking away from a subject matter or dealing with something different. It's not a point of order if someone doesn't agree with what a council's talking about. If someone has a question about what they're talking about, the time to ask that question is once that debate has, sorry, once that person's finished speaking. Okay. So that can be clarified once the council has finished speaking. Mayor Stewart: All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask that question. Thank you.
00:37:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'll go back. So as I've said and I've advised councillors beforehand, I have art staff and Brian has provided me with these figures. What is the least cost option to upgrade the path with a more modest handrail system? And to remove the existing wooden handrail and to replace it is in the order of $20,000. To upgrade and the most positive to upgrade is to protect the concrete footpath battery with a little bit of contingency of $65,000. So that leaves us $46,000 out of the $131,000 that Council Wegener's motion would have us spending on removing a pathway. And I'll give you an example how we might want to spend that. In recent days, people in Kin Kin have been bemoaning. They've been feeling the lack of love in our forward capital works. So we could spend that $46,000. And I'm happy to move the motion if this one doesn't proceed, that we spend $65,000, $85,000 to upgrade this and a further $46,000 for a capital works project in Kin Kin.
00:38:00 Because that is the tangible decision. If you can look at a person in Kin Kin said, I think it's more important to remove a footpath from Park Road than it is to spend $46,000 in the hinterland, then by all means, support Council Wegener. But if you say no, it makes economic sense to actually upgrade this footpath because we know at least some of the local residents and a number of other people find benefit in it, that we use a further $46,000 to do another capital works project. And compared to the option to remove, at the end, there's a residual value of a community asset of $229,200. And yes, there's some small whole of life costs involved. It could come off that to balance that equation a little bit. But as we've heard, they're very minor. So what are the benefits to removing? We've heard that there's some residents who don't want to live locally.
00:39:00 There's some who prefer to return it to a natural state. And we have been told that it wasn't in a natural state beforehand. It was a vast range of environmental weeds. That's a perfectly valid position to have. And I'm not going to argue against it. I'm arguing from how does this council prioritise its spending? And if you can look at people in Kin Kin and say, I think it's more important that you spend $131,000 removing a pathway rather than spending some money on upgrading it and some money in the hinterland, by all means. If you can think that it's worth, really the decision's a $229,200 decision. Is this concept that by writing to someone saying we're going to build a temporary footpath and then down the track saying, no, we're going to build a permanent footpath, is that potential loss or sense of some perception of reputational damage because you're making
00:40:00 adaptive decisions to make the best use of a resource? Is that really worth nearly a quarter of a million dollars to you? So councillors, don't support the motion. Support financial rationality. Mayor Stewart: Ryan, I have a couple of questions. Are those figures, are they being verified by your staff? Speaker 3: Yes, we, councillor, yeah, we've estimated that if we took out the aluminium element of the handrail, we would be able to provide one that fits in with the look and feel at around the $20,000 mark. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. And furtherly, is it in practice of this council to take from the handrail, the one project, and to just throw it at another area without proper community consultation, without going through an infrastructure design, asset management, the whole kit and caboodle, which we do for every project? Is that normal process to say, well, we're not spending here, so we're going to spend it there? Speaker 3: Councillor, we normally follow our budget review process. So there is that element of decision making done by staff and then recommended on to councillors
00:41:00 to make that decision. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Question. I thought that this upgrade of this pathway wasn't actually budgeted for at this time that it needs to be future budgeted for. The money's not there right now. Speaker 3: That is correct. We'd need to allocate some funding through a budget process to fund an upgrade or fund a removal of it. Mayor Stewart: So going back to councillor Stockwell's argument, if we needed to find the money to upgrade the pathway, we could just as easily look to use that same money to upgrade the pathway for elsewhere. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That is correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So Brian, if we're not going to put an aluminium handrail there, what type of handrail would we be putting there and use that type of handrail that you'd find typically on other pathways around the Shire? Speaker 3: Yes. We'd definitely follow our look and feel within the Noosa Heads precinct to use that hardwood post and rail look.
00:42:00 So yes. That's what we've based our prices on. Councillor Finzel: What was the cost to build the new boardwalk? Speaker 3: I think it totaled, I'd have to, $7 million is close enough to about $7 million. Mayor Stewart: And at any time when you built that $7 million boardwalk, did you see the necessity to build another pathway on the other side or was this always just meant to be temporary? Speaker 3: It was constructed as a temporary pathway for access while the construction was going on. Mayor Stewart: So in all that design process and a $7 million project, which I can imagine what went through this council to sort of go through and get that budget, at no point in time did you say we need another pathway over this side permanently? Speaker 3: No, we didn't. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Brian, the project had an eight month target and a condition from council it would be completed by 14th of December. How long did it take prior to start of construction to go through all the construction and the
00:43:00 concept designs and the process on a huge undertaking over $7 million for this council to prepare, plan and deliver this project? Speaker 3: I recollect it was almost a two year lead time in regards before we... At least two years. At least two years. And there was even, because there was a previous stage done from the car park up to first point done prior. And this was all... The concept had already began over seven or eight years ago for the next stages. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: So with regards to that, with the discussion coming before us, almost like a knee jerk reaction because of this situation put before us... Councillor Wilkie: Point of order, this is commentary, not a question. Councillor Finzel: Is there a... I have a question then. With regards to the cost tonight and using cost sufficiently, we've invested a two year
00:44:00 lead time... I mean to a $7 million project. The suggestion here tonight is that we can choose to put an aluminium rail across from this $7 million boardwalk. Do you think that we should go to community consultation to decide how we spend this money with return to the concept designs around Noosa Shire? Speaker 4: That's a bit difficult for staff to answer. You know, the matter's before council to make a decision. The question about whether the past... It's not about stay or go. It's one that we've been talking about as staff as well and there's arguments for and against it and that's obviously playing itself out between the councillors. There's different views. We've presented to the council to make a decision. Whatever the decision the council makes, the staff will implement. So the decision at the moment is do we want to keep a pathway there or do we want to remove it? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I expect this motion. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: I'm just considering it further.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. As to where we're at with regard to what councillor... Wegener has... ...has moved. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I will. Councillor Jurisevic: I will. I was going to hold back but I will. I wish I had a crystal ball. But I didn't. And at the time of sitting through the process in council, yes, we envisaged a temporary path on this side of the road to facilitate the construction on the other side of the road. What we didn't envisage at the time, when the temporary pathway was talked about, was a concrete path and concrete steps constructed to council standards to facilitate that movement. That came up as part of the process. I've been realising that from a safety aspect, I've been realising that from a safety aspect, and that we have to operate our plans. Now, it's a shame at the time we operated our plans, we didn't review what was being put in place and the potential for the future.
00:46:00 I've got hindsight. Something that we don't often get an opportunity to do. I've got hindsight today as a result of having sat through that whole process. Speaker 3: And here we are, knowing what we know now, that there is a construction there. Councillor Jurisevic: And it's of a more permanent nature than was ever intended. But it wasn't of the nature that it would be completely permanent, because we didn't do handrails to the standard that we would normally do them. We did temporary handrails. However, the concrete work that was there is as good and up to the standard, according to staff, according to the questions that I've raised with staff, of any pathway that we put in the Shire. It is true that it sits on sandbags, which isn't something that we would typically do, but on the advice of staff, that if we do some battering and we do some protective work to enclose all of that area, that it will be built to the same standard as any
00:47:00 other pathway within the Shire and will contain those sandbags satisfactorily for a 25 year lifespan, as we heard Brian allude to earlier, with minimal maintenance over the lifespan of this asset. Yeah, sure, we could tear this up. We could go back to our walkway and path and walking strategy, cycling and walking strategy, sorry, and we could go, you know what, we haven't even thought about the safety elements for residents in this area. They're usually walking on the road, or on road reserve, or on grass, to try and access the national park, or the boardwalk itself, in a lot of instances. And I've heard that people walking down this path and having to cross the path, cross off the boardwalk to get to this path, creates a safety element. That's a nonsense, I'm sorry. They won't be coming off the boardwalk to get to this path.
00:48:00 That's not the idea of it. The idea of it was, during construction, and it was suitably undertaken, that there was Councillor Wilkie: crossing and this pathway was into its own. Councillor Jurisevic: However, what this pathway does do for residents. For the four residents, four properties and 11 residences, this does offer an element of safety to get down to the national park without having to cross, as Councillor Wegener in his discussion on this very, very point, that they don't have to do. They don't have to cross park road. And so there's 11 residences that immediately benefit from this path being retained. What hasn't been considered in the future is whether there's any other connectivity. Could the residences of Allambi Terrace that are joining this have the pathway extended and give them, afford them the same element of safety? Have we looked at any of these possibilities? No, there's been no discussion about what this could link to or what this could cater for in the future. Sure, it's only a small number of residences that are potentially benefiting from this
00:49:00 in an area where pathways essentially don't exist in that element of little code. We're quite happy for residents to walk down Middy Street in amongst the traffic on the road, down a one-way street. Nobody's worried about the safety of those residents, but here we are crossing Middy Street, crossing down the bottom of Middy Street, certainly a human cry. I don't see that we're really addressing the issue here. I've got hindsight. We put down some more significant structural routes than we ever envisaged we would. And I wish at the time I'd gone, hey, this could become permanent. Sure, we could rip it up today and tomorrow we could, in a short period of time, go through the cycling and walking strategy and realise maybe these residents deserve a pathway as well. And then we'd be looking to potentially reinstate that sometime in the future.
00:50:00 It might be 20 years, it might be 50 years down the track when our budget allows it. But it could be that when we consider the safety of residents and their opportunities to not cross busy Park Road, that we might think safety is an element of consideration for residents in this area. The pathway itself sits in a road reserve. That's what Councillor Stockwell alluded to. That's what road reserves are for. And I've heard some people turning around in their emails saying, sure, I'll be returned to a natural vegetation life. I don't dispute that. I don't think that's a bad idea. But I don't think a pathway really upsets the elements of nature that we come to enjoy. I think it actually enhances the elements of nature that we come to enjoy. Can you imagine walking through a beautiful treeline pathway down to the National Park in safety from 11 residences for a start, let alone what else you could allude to? As I said, I don't think anybody's going to get off the boardwalk, as Councillor Wegener has suggested, to come and walk on this path.
00:51:00 But what we have heard through emails is that people do utilise this path for other means. Exercise for one. Running up and down stairs, which isn't facilitated in too many places. People do go to Hastings Street and go up the stairs up and down Hastings Street. People have started to utilise this. This path is an option. And I think we need to consider not the immediacy of this, but the long-term opportunities that this presents. I think there's far greater thought that needs to be put into the process than just either tear it up, and lose it, and lose it for good, and then make people have to cross Busy Park Road. Or at least retain it, and at least retain that element of safety. The cost factor. We've spoken. You know, $103,000, $130,000. Look, they're line ball decisions. And we've realised appreciation and maintenance on that. We've realised that. And that will be part and parcel of the work that goes on. And it won't blow the budget.
00:52:00 And it won't be, you know, in the vicinity of $200,000, as some people have alluded to. We've heard from residents via email and via social media over the last, you know, since this matter came up. And look. It's essentially been a line ball decision. But the majority that I've heard from, and that have contacted me, have suggested that keeping the path makes more sense than removing the path. I can see that the local, that the resident immediately adjacent to it would be, feel impacted by a pathway nearby. Because, yes, it does cross by his property. But the same could happen out the front of his property. There could be a pathway put in the front of his property. Because the reserve sits in the front of his property as well. So that could be a huge consideration. So I don't see that as an argument against it. Reputationally, I agree with Councillor Stockwell's point. Look. We, you know, again, with hindsight, I can see that we made a commitment to remove a
00:53:00 path as a temporary path and temporary access down, down alongside that road reserve. But what happened through the course of the process was a more permanent structure was put in that was ever, ever envisaged. We now have the opportunity to make that structure permanent. And that's what we're doing. And I think that's a wise decision. I think the benefits of this pathway far outweigh the negatives. And I believe that if we continue to remove the pathway for the sake of removal of the pathway, we're facilitating a poor outcome in the overall scheme of things. Because the pathway will enable us to do what we haven't done in that area successfully in the past. And that is maintain that road reserve with a decent amount of protection. And if we continue to do that, we're building a road reserve that will have a decent amount of vegetation and remove weeds that we could never remove in the past because it was a weed infested lot before this ever began.
00:54:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, councillor Smith. Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Wilkie: Um, Madam chair, I'd like to try an amendment which, um, suggests my help, um, alleviate some concerns about process. And it would be, um, as read, but on the second last line, request staff to conduct public On the future of the temporary park, as soon as possible, we'll stop. Speaker 4: So could I just clarify that? So you're going to... So the second last line where it says remove, take all of that out? Councillor Wilkie: To, yeah, conduct public consultation on the future of the temporary park as soon as possible. Will that change it too much, Mr. CEO? That's an alternate motion.
00:55:00 Speaker 1: That's an alternate motion. Speaker 4: So the way that the standing orders talk about it, you can't have a motion that's directly negative, that negates the motion. Right, okay. And the question is whether it negates. It probably does. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, okay. Speaker 4: I think the better way to do it would be to put this to a vote if it's unsuccessful, and that might be something you can consider. That would be my advice to council. Right. Mayor Stewart: Would you like to speak to this motion, councillor? Speaker 4: My advice to councillors, I think this may be a direct negative. I think it's borderline, but it probably is. Okay. And that if councillor Wilkie is so inclined, he should withdraw that proposed amendment and then speak to the motion itself. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Well, look, thank you, Mr. CEO. Look, I'll take your advice. I was intending to find a way forward that we all could agree with,
00:56:00 so I will withdraw the proposed amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, councillor. Would you like to speak to the motion put forward by councillor Wegener? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, I'd like to hear, we've heard a couple of points of view against the motion. I'd like to hear others for the motion before I speak, please. Speaker 2: As well. Do you want to speak, councillor? Councillor Finzel: I can go to you. It's fine. Do I just go back to speak? Speaker 1: Yep. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, we have a difficult decision here before us. What is unfortunate is that this started well back before I was on council. With regards to process and how things are delivered on council, I feel that there's been a failure here for everyone involved. We're looking at a $7 million project with a two-year lead time that would have gone through all the process. Obviously, through the concept design, no one ever considered at any point a temporary pathway
00:57:00 would in fact then bring us to this decision tonight for consideration for inclusion without all the due process on a project this large. I feel tonight that we are here now debating the cost of this and how we're going to do that. It sounds a knee-jerk reaction to me. And this is where council reputation does come into play. How do we miss the ball on a $7 million project? And now we're debating the cost of $131,000 to remove in full for a part of a $7 million project that wasn't even considered with a brain tank of people working on a $7 million project. In keeping with the Noosa design principles, we're going to be working against council tonight by saying,
00:58:00 oh, we'll just put this rail up here or pick that here, you know, in a meeting that we have a short amount of time to debate a very complex issue. What is the cost to remove the temporary path? What is the cost to retain the path? What does the community think? We are here before us tonight to make a decision with regards to this, with not all the facts before us, nor a two-year lead time on a design of a pathway across the Shire, all other Kin Kin you make reference to, they have had to wait the whole time I've been in council. I've been in and out with community consultation on what that community needs. At no point has anyone just gone throwing a bucket of money and gone, oh, here, have that, you can address that, fix it how you like. Every step along the way in the past year in my role here, I have had to be taught time and time again by staff and everyone else, this is the process, that needs a review, that needs a consultation here, that costs us there.
00:59:00 The budget has to move this, we've got to delegate here. Then before us tonight, councils, is a decision where we have to debate all those issues in a short time frame. I don't have all those levels of expertise. I've been in this council for one year learning as best I can. This is a challenging decision. And I hope we learn from this tonight that we do include all concepts, that before things come before the council for a decision, we truly have worked as hard as we can as an organisation to look after the best interests of ourselves as an organisation and the community and the money that we're spending on people's behalf. We're currently sitting in a budget review, trying to determine best outcomes, best outcomes for people moving forward. The project cost savings of approximately $500,000 on page five of this report, from the initial report that came to council, said at practical completion were reallocated within the 2018-2019 capital works budget
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 with the intention that any required funds would be sought as part of a future budget review once a decision was made at the end of the defects report. Can you please, can I allow to ask a question now? Speaker 4: My advice would be that you finish your debate and then ask the question at the end of that, otherwise it might be an idea that you finish the debate. Okay, alright. Councillor Finzel: So we find there's $500,000 sitting there with funds reallocated. There is opportunity to use that money to either replace the path or remove the path. The decision before us here tonight, councillors, is how we best use the money that sits there. The problem before us that is a concern for everyone's reputation is all the other elements that normally are associated with a project.
01:01:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Madam Chair. With reference to Councillor Finzel's over there, there is no money sitting there. Councillor Finzel: It's sitting here, it's said. Councillor Jurisevic: There is no budget allocation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once again, I'll call upon Councillor Jurisevic, he's not, on the point of order, he just disagreed with something you've said. Thank you. My apologies. My apologies. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, have you finished? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Mayor Stewart: Would you like to go, Frank? I'm happy to go. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, look, out of respect for you, Mayor, I'll go before you and you have the final word before Councillor Wegener. Look, councillors, I like to flag that process is a big concern for some of the councillors and the way this has come before us, it's not a normal situation, but it is an evolving situation and council has to respond this way. And I wondered if it would be, put councillors' minds at rest
01:02:00 and perhaps members of the public's mind at rest, if we could agree to defer the decision on this and move to, well, dispense with the... Councillor Tom's motion and move towards one that supports public consultation about the future of the path, because it may be a better process going forward. But I can't ask that of you realistically. I'm going to ask that of you anyway. But I have to use my time now in a formal debate to say what I need to say about Councillor Wegener's motion. So I know that the Mayor is one for quote. So I thought I would dig out a quote to commence my argument. And that's from the English parliamentarian and philosopher Edmund Burke. And that is that the public interest requires doing today those things that men and women of intelligence and goodwill
01:03:00 would wish five or ten years hence had been done. And we've taken pledges under the councillor code of conduct to act in the public interest. The reason councillor's relationship to this one individual were recorded in this conflict of interest declarations is that this resident is requesting councillor's overturned staff recommendation and remove a public pathway that runs on community land near his home. And these declarations help give assurance that decisions we make here will be in the public interest. And the key question is what is in the best long-term interest of the community? Are we going to spend $100,000, $130,000 which I see would be for the benefit of the individual mentioned in the conflict of interest declaration or as we've heard now a revised figure of $65,000 to benefit the wider community? Are we really going to deny public access, restrict public access
01:04:00 through the community's own land to the most visited national park in Australia on the say-so of one intellectual resident and I know subsequent emails have come in against the wishes of other residents or the general public contrary to the principles of our ever-evolving and highly significant transport strategy? Or we could retain this attractive walkway for the benefit of others who have requested it remain and the general public who also use it. The path was intended to be only temporary that is true. But residents who also live nearby and further afield have since requested it become permanent in the public interest. Councils are often accused of being too inflexible and locked in not being able to respond to public need and valuable opportunities and the public benefit as they arise. If we were to keep the path for a lesser amount this would prove the opposite. There is an argument that making the path permanent
01:05:00 would be a breach of trust. I believe to act in favour of the private over the public interest would be a breach of trust. And if this path in any way impinged on the private owner's land then these arguments would carry more weight. But this path is on the community's land and allows walking access to the most visited national park in Australia. What is the detriment to this private individual? The pathway is on public land. They have no more say over it than any other neighbour or any other member of the public. Other neighbours want it to remain. Do their wishes have less weight than that of the individual mentioned in the conflict of interest declaration? Improving pedestrian access is something we're continually striving to improve at every opportunity. Both in response to residents' requests that crop up regularly under the cycling and walking strategy. It's also one of the key objectives of the transport strategy. A strategy formulated after extensive public consultation
01:06:00 and is continually having new initiatives and actions implemented in the public benefit. One of the prime focuses of this strategy is to improve pedestrian access in and around the popular hotspots in Noosa Heads being Hastings Street and National Park. Any suggestions a pathway like this does not fit this Council's strategies in my view are absolutely false. Again, arguments about breach of trust. The community has placed their trust in councillors to act according to the council's code of conduct which requires us to make decisions in the public interest. In my view, to waste ratepayers' money removing this public asset and denying community access to the community's own land to the most popular national park in Australia is a breach of trust in my view. There are several lawyers and an ex-American attorney around this table
01:07:00 so I'll use a legal question here to help with this decision. Ki bono. Ki bono. Who benefits? If we remove the path, who benefits? Not the ratepayer because they'll be paying $130,000 and have no asset to show for it. Not the nearby residents or the general public as they will no longer be able to take an attractive walk and safe walk to a national park on a less crowded pathway. They will need to cross the busy park road to access the boardwalk and their safety will not be enhanced. Who benefits? Not this council's reputation as good financial managers or a group able to uphold our responsibilities under the Act to make decisions in the public interest. Ki bono. Who benefits from the path's removal? One private individual in my view. That's it. Tom made a reference to a headline
01:08:00 he would not like to see. There's a headline I would not like to see and that is that council spends $130,000 to remove public, to remove public pathway to Australia's most popular national park after complaint from one resident mentioned in a conflict of interest declaration. I would fear, I would not want to see that more than the other. But councillors this is, it splits right down the middle this one and there are extremely valid arguments on both sides. I respect the desire expressed by councillor Tom, councillor Finzel, about the promises made. And that's why if we can agree to not support councillor Tom's resolution and move towards one that involves public consultation afterwards, I think that would be a good outcome. So for that reason, more than any other, I ask that we not support councillor Tom's
01:09:00 and that we allow councillor Tom, if he's so willing, to move one about public consultation if he's wanting to. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, just for the record, I did not make any mention tonight of a broken promise. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thanks. Thank you, councillor Wilkie. Look, I think I'm going to come back to what I said on Monday. There's one word which we can't escape, and that's the word temporary. The first word of our report states just that, the temporary path. It was always meant to be a temporary path. We have letters from Hutchinson's builders, from our own council, preliminary works, temporary path. This was well known. There's no longer a need for it. This is a $7 million world-class boardwalk that was designed over two years. This was a temporary path. If it hadn't been meant to be a permanent path, it would have been under all of that specialty and design process done at that time. There have been three, why are we here? Because there were three people who wrote in and said, oh, I like this path, let's keep it.
01:10:00 Is that in the public interest? Three people have written in, in support of this path, and we are taking away a promise to a community and an asset that was always meant to be temporary. Now, we've received a number of emails since this particular incident featured on Facebook. I would have to say that more of the ones that I have received are about taking it down than keeping it. Irrespective of the feedback that we have received, this is not trial by Facebook. No council-authorised consultation. No consultation has been undertaken in this regard. Proper process was not followed in regards to community consultation or feedback. This isn't about the popular vote, but let's look at it if it was. These are some residents in our Shire whose emails I've received. Dear Mayor and councillors, we would like to register our absolute objection to upgrading a temporary walkway that was at the very beginning slated for rehabilitation and natural reinstatement after the build of the upgraded pathway that now exists. We are distressed that for a minor
01:11:00 and perhaps negligible benefit in the neighbourhood being touted as a supposed positive access on a minor portion of the Park Road closure Speaker 2: to the National Park entrance. Our biggest issue is safety. Mayor Stewart: Dear Mayor Stewart, I was advised last evening that there is a proposed vote being voted upon today to spend our precious funds on a second wholly unnecessary pathway along the high side of Park Road. I would like to express my horror at the stupidity of such a proposal. We already have an enormous pathway servicing this area. The impact of adding a futile second footpath to this fragile area of Noosa defies logic and shows both an arrogant waste of limited funds and an ignorance of the prospective damage and dangers, impact, pedestrians, congestions, child safety. A third email. A second pathway on the opposite side of Park Road to the wonderful award winning Oceanside path deliberately planned for and built to high standard is unnecessary, misaligned to the unique and natural amenity of our wonderful park and represents both a waste of ratepayers funds
01:12:00 in addition to an incomprehensible backflip on assurances that Council have previously made to Noosa residents. As a permanent resident ratepayer in this Council area and a regular user of Park Road and Noosa National Park to run, walk, swim and surf, I can see no justification for seeking to establish a second permanent pathway along the roadway with the associated damage to our uniquely lush natural landscape. Another one. It is wholly unnecessary to have two paths in the same area, one of which was only temporary while an amazing boardwalk was established. Why would Council bring upon itself extra pedestrian danger, especially in this busy area? This is from a resident in the area. So that, if we're going by popular, shows the feedback that I've received certainly not 50-50. Speaker 2: Now, where am I? Mayor Stewart: Is there a need? I'd suggest there isn't and indeed from the feedback I've received it certainly shows a lack of community support.
01:13:00 As I said, initially there were only three submissions which has brought us here tonight. Otherwise this path would have been done by delegated authority and long gone. It was temporary. It's not identified in any of our walking and cycling strategies going forward. There's been no forward planning for it and there was never meant to be. It's part of no capital works infrastructure budget because it was never meant to be. And proper planning process design and implementation has not occurred because it was never meant to stay. It isn't disabled compliant. It's not all abilities. It does not meet full accessibility standards. As I said earlier on Monday, it doesn't have to and we have other paths in the area. I'm simply stating this because it does not add any value or extra resources or benefits to our community that the already $7 million boardwalk does. Provides no additional safety features. Indeed many would argue and many of the residents who live in this area that we are creating an unsafe space and encouraging people to cross a busy road. I've also received feedback from an architect and a well-known designer who stated that if the path were to remain
01:14:00 and be upgraded then it would be impacted by tree roots over time and become a public liability issue for Council as the large koala tree roots break up the concrete. Similarly having concrete around tree roots is detrimental to landscape and in addition these koala trees support the koala corridor along its edge. Now this Council has always gone into bat for the koala so why would we change now? Now Council Stockwell talked about Kin Kin. Well I'd say that's politicking at its worst. That is looking at a community and putting community against community saying we'll take it from here but we'll give it to you guys. It is not right and it is not how we do things. As Councillor Finzel said it's all about process. It's all about looking at what our community needs, what they want and everyone goes through the exact same thing. To just throw it at one community to pull on some heartstrings is not fair and it's not right. People who do say it's unsafe.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 I'd take the people who live in the areas word because they're the ones living and breathing it every day. You'd also said that people benefit. Well we've seen that four properties actually benefit this path. Frank talked about the public interest. It's in the public interest to maintain our promise. It's in the public interest to have built a seven million dollar boardwalk which we did. It's not in the public interest to support three submissions that get us here tonight. I would say and I keep coming back to one word and it's a promise. It's an undertaking by Council which we gave to our residents. This is a path that was only temporary and would be removed with completion of the path road boardwalk which has long since occurred. We must honour our word and our promise to our community, our residents. We are nothing if we can't be true to our word. In the end, you have an electorate of one. It's called your informed conscience. In all good conscience, we must honour our word. I support Councillor Wegener' motion. Thank you.
01:16:00 Councillor Wegener: Well, Joe admits nobody's going to leave the $7 million masterpiece to dangerously cross Park Road to walk on this path. So the popularity of it just diminishes radically there. And that's basically an admission that we are doing this for four properties only. We're talking about safety. You know, it would mention that there was never any proper discussion of why this path is actually safe. And because it's not. And I would just, I just expect more out of Cal, out of staff, out of our decision making process to say it's safe. But no, no real discussion, no real evidence, no stage, no nothing. Brian, that's a fantastic furphy, taking money that's not budgeted and promising it to Kin Kin.
01:17:00 Connectivity. There is no connectivity. Again, this plan was not a part of a master plan. There's no master plan. There's no connectivity. Exercise. This is a beautiful national park. It's not a gym. We respect people that do that. That exercise there, but it's primarily the most beautiful national park on the planet. Disorganized. I share Karen Finzel's frustration. But most of all... I am frustrated with the small vision thinking here. We have a $7 million masterpiece, prize winning masterpiece on one side, and we are quibbling over anything under half a million dollars is a quibble. This national park brings in is the primary destination for a $1.2 billion tourism.
01:18:00 And we are talking about trying to save. A $100,000 path that was ill designed. I think to start with, you tear it out and we go back to the drawing board and we say, I don't care what the cost is, let's make the greatest path network on earth in the greatest national park on earth. That's what we should be doing. This is this is absolutely a distraction that that that that is mind blowing. Anyway, to me, I would love to see further jogging trails through there, but I want them to be safe. I don't want them to be connected, and I want them to be well planned. That's not too much to ask. But most of all, we made a promise to a resident, and you don't go against promises to residents in this situation. This is too big. We have to wear the white hat. Let's all wear the white hat. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favor of council, council Wegner's motion.
01:19:00 Councilors Finzel, Wegner and Stewart against. Councilors Stockwell, Wilkie and Jurisevic. Do you have the casting vote? I might choose to support council Wegner. Carried on the casting vote. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. Good luck for tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, councillors. Are you making that on time? Councillor Wegener: No, I'll get there on time. Councillor Wilkie: That's all. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. No, thanks, sir. Mayor Stewart: Congratulations on your first year of 2020. Speaker 1: And you too, Mayor and councillors. Thanks, Frank. Now we go back to item one. Mayor Stewart: Application for material change of use for a residential care facility at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads.
01:20:00 I inform the meeting that I have a, I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as the applicant De Luca Charitable Foundation Limited is building this facility for the benefit of young care and I'm a board director of young care. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Speaker 1: I suggested deputy chair. Sorry. Is my computer there? Councillor Wilkie: No. Sorry. Speaker 4: Councillors, in the absence of the mayor, normally at an ordinary meeting, the deputy mayor would automatically assume the chair. But Councillor Wilkie has been called away to another appointment. So the process now is I will call for, whether someone wants to nominate someone to act as chairperson for the consideration of this matter.
01:21:00 I'll nominate Councillor Jurisevic because he's on the right side of the table. So there has been a nomination from Councillor Stockwell to nominate Councillor Jurisevic to act as the chair for this matter. Is there a seconder for that? I second the motion. Is there any discussion on that proposal to have Councillor Jurisevic act as mayor for the consideration of this item? Or act as a chair? Act as manager. Act as a chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Look out. Speaker 4: If not, I'll call the vote on that. All those in favour? So carried unanimously. So I hand over the chair to Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr CEO. Councillors, we've got item one, the development application for material change of use for a residential care facility at 32 Viewland Drive. Those are heads before us. Are there any questions or further discussion on the item? Speaker 4: Do I have a mover? Sorry, can I just clarify what we're moving? So it is the motion that I think Councillor Finzel wants to move includes some additional items from that which was considered at the general committee on Monday.
01:22:00 And if that's the case, it might be a good idea to read them out for the benefit of those people who are watching online. And I'll have the second motion. I'll just read it out. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's why I didn't want to move it. Councillor Jurisevic: To clarify, Mr CEO, what's before us as a recommendation to council is what came from the general committee. If the councillor is intending to make any changes to that. Speaker 4: No, my understanding is Councillor Finzel wants to move it including those changes. She had put that forward. Councillor Jurisevic: Hence, that's why I asked. Were there any changes and no one stood up? So Councillor Finzel, you have some changes or some additions to add to the motion. That's correct. Councillor Finzel: I would like to include item number D, include the following advisory notes on the decision notice. One, the site contains some significant mature vegetation that will be removed as part of the site's development and consideration should be given to its reuse,
01:23:00 such as making it available to a local woodworking turning groups, using it on site as a feature piece or the like rather than mulching the timbers. Item number one. Item number two, there may be a requirement to establish a cultural heritage management plan and or obtain approvals pursuant to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 ACH Act. The ACH Act establishes a cultural heritage duty of care which provides that a person who carries out any activity must take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. It is an offence to fail to comply with the duty of care.
01:24:00 Substantial monetary penalties may apply to individuals or corporations breaching this duty of care. Injunctions may also be issued by the Land and Resources Tribunal and the Minister administering the ACH Act. ACH Act can also issue stop orders for an activity that is harming or is likely to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage or the cultural heritage value of Aboriginal culture heritage. You should contact the Cultural Heritage Unit to discuss any obligations under the HCH Act. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you wish to speak to that councillor now that Councillor Stockwell has seconded your motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, what? Councillor Jurisevic: Do you wish to speak to the motion now? Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to ask a question, Kerry. Do we need this condition or is this mandatory? Speaker 2: The way the proposed motion is worded is it's worded as an advisory note.
01:25:00 So it's reminding the developer of their obligations around cultural heritage. So it's not a condition. It is an advisory note that we include on almost all of the ACH Act. It's an advisory note that we include on all our development approvals. So this process for investigating cultural heritage is not involved into development assessment processes, but it is an obligation on all developers. Councillor Jurisevic: Anything further, councillor? Speaker 2: No. Councillor Jurisevic: In that case, if there's no discussion, I'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. I'll get to that councillor. The Mayor back in. Thank you. Sorry, councillor. I'd forgotten that you actually had an additional moment. That's fine. I was reading what was in front of me from the previous meeting. That's fine. Thank you. So the idea was to stand and make that motion with that chair. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thanks, Kerry.
01:26:00 Goodnight, everyone. Goodnight. Thanks, Kerry. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now up to one. Mayor Stewart: Oh, thank you. Item 3, Proposed Lease Shop 8, Sunrise Beach Shopping Centre. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the media that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my children are both casual employees at Cafe La Monda and El Capitano, which I believe are also owned or part-owned by the director of Tanglewood Company, Proprietary Limited, Ryan Taylor. In addition, during the 2020 election campaign, I had election material on display at Cafe La Monda. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe that a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Taylor. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting
01:27:00 on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that we've been through the discussion, I'll make the... The motion that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on the matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Lorentson does not have a close personal relationship with Mr Taylor and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Speaker 1: I would need to vote on that and I'll move. I'll move the resolution. I'll second that. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Would you like to speak to it? All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Item four, Budget Review 3 for the 2020-2021 financial year. Speaker 1: Can I have a move there? No, just a second. Mayor Stewart: Item five, Financial Report March 21. Can I have a move and a second for the Adoption General Committee?
01:28:00 I'll move that. Councillor? Thank you. Councillor Finzel, all in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. There are no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. There are no confidential items. There are no questions submitted for public question time. The next meeting will be held on Thursday the 20th of May 2021. And as of the 15th of April 2021, it's rather auspicious because 12 months ago we were all inducted as new councillors. So congratulations everyone and thanks to the staff and CEO. It's been a big year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And a year we've had a revolt already from the new members. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. I declare the committee...