Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good morning and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee for May and I start as usual with the recognition of the traditional owners of this place, the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people and reflect that we are looking at later on the outcomes of our work in Environment and Sustainability Department and that that was the core of the local indigenous culture of managing this place for its long-term sustainability and I'm just thinking walking today that we walk past a tree every day before we come to this office that's been there for two to four hundred years and was the centre of ceremonial burials and it's important to recognise that there is still significant marches in this landscape of the first peoples of this country. So I move on. We have all in attendance and no apologies. We also have Councillor Lorentson sitting in as an observer.
00:01:00 Would someone like to move the confirmation of the minutes? Moved Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Stewart. Would anyone like to discuss those? No? All in favour? And that's passed unanimously. We have no presentations or deputations so we move on to item five. And the first report is Planning and Environment Court Appeals number D209 of 2020 Refusal and Application for Operational Works at Jetty at 14 Fortside Court in Isabel. Now councillors, do we have any questions or queries of staff in regard to their report? Councillor Wegener: First, on page five, just one page into it, there's the list of conditions. And it said, number 17, the mooring must not be utilised for a liveaboard process.
00:02:00 Speaker 3: Purposes, yep. Councillor Wegener: Purposes, yep. Could we add or short-term stays to the boat? Speaker 4: That's covered by a liveaboard. If you're living aboard with a long-term short-start, it's the same thing. Councillor Wegener: Is it the same thing? So that's covered then? Speaker 4: Well, I've been carried it. Speaker 3: I think it's covered but, you know, if we want to be 100 per cent clear, we could add it. I don't think there's any reason why. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you think it's a valid point? I think we should use the plan scheme definition rather than the marine safety definition. So either as a permanent residence or a short-term accommodation. Mm-hm. Speaker 3: So we do want to say the mooring facility must not be utilised for liveaboard purposes including short-term accommodation? Yep. Speaker 4: Number 17. Oh, sorry. Number 17. That was 14. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. How many boats in the Shire are used for short-term accommodation? I don't know. Speaker 3: Are we able to find that out? I know how many, I think we know how many houseboats are on the river.
00:03:00 I should be able to find that out for you. Thank you. But I'll need to come back. Sure, that's fine. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There is other non-houseboat moored on jetties that I believe are used for short-term accommodation as well. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 4: I think there's one down near the, in Noosaville community. Speaker 3: True. Speaker 4: Where else? Speaker 3: There's one moored, just in a jettied area. Yeah. And how is that managed, people living on moored boats? Certainly not under the planning scheme. Speaker 4: Okay. They're on the river. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Can we ask a couple of questions? Just in regard to page six, where it was initially refused under delegation. Sure. The proposal is contrary to the Watercourse Works Code because it will lead to cluttering and adverse amenity. The legal advice provided suggested otherwise. That's correct, isn't it? Speaker 3: Yeah. The officers included that reason of refusal because the concern was that if this jetty
00:04:00 occurred, that it would be used for short-term accommodation. If this was built, then each of the other unit owners would also fit to it. And that's what will lead to the cluttering. The legal advice is this jetty on its own. Yeah. Couldn't be said to create cluttering, which it's agreed with. It doesn't create cluttering on its own. The concern is that it may multiply and will get more, and that's where the cluttering will occur. Okay. Mayor Stewart: So under the legal advice, it says that in future, that the owners will have an ability to, so the body corporate will have a say, because code is accessible, on whether or not they think a third or fourth jetty is cluttering. Speaker 3: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Why wasn't that the case in this instance? Speaker 3: Yeah. So under the 2016, there was no requirement for them to lodge a material change of use. There was only a requirement to lodge an alternative. There was only a requirement for operational works for the works. And operational works applications under the Act don't require owners' consent.
00:05:00 The new scheme commenced. It requires a material change of use for jetties. And under the Act, owners' consent, body corporate's consent, is required. Mayor Stewart: So that will potentially then prohibit, going forward, any future jetties in this complex? Speaker 3: Well, it would certainly allow for the body corporate to have input, and if they're agreeing or disagree, to consent to the application being lodged with council. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. That was my theory. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Then number 10, back on page five. Number 10 says, no boating devices are to be attached or moored at the jetty structure for the purpose of elevating a vessel above the water without council approval. Why is that important, to need council approval? Is that? Yeah. Speaker 3: It does require approval. It is part of the operational works. And we do find, the condition is there because we do find people go and install them once they have a jetty without coming to council. So it's a little bit of a reminder that you do need approval for those sort of works.
00:06:00 Councillor Wegener: There's a lot of, now people just drive their boats right up onto the pontoons now and it just brings it out of the water. Speaker 3: Yeah. And once upon a time, the boat lifting devices were quite large structures, which would have an impact visually for unit only. Some of the structures, the floating devices, they're quite discreet as well. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, it was interesting in the report that they tried to say it was building works, but it actually was in fact operational works. And they were very clear, weren't they, in their legal advice, that the differentiation was because it was tidal? Is that correct? Speaker 3: The appellant has made that argument. Yeah. Which, if they were correct, it would mean it would not require the application to council to just proceed under the old scheme. We don't think there's much in that argument. Yeah. So that's legal advice. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: That's what they said too. Yeah. Speaker 3: And it comes down to whether it's tidal. Yes. And certainly at times in that canal, especially during high tides, water flows in and
00:07:00 out of that area. Okay. So we can say it's tidal. Especially towards the loch and weir where that's situated. Yeah. Yeah. At times, you know, we've got photos and videos showing it flowing clearly in and out of that area. Councillor Wegener: With the access amongst the other tenants there, you've got one and two which clearly have access to the jetty. But then the other ones, so there's no common property right on the river, just there's no way to go from property to property sideways. How do people, the other tenants, get to the one jetty that's already there then? Speaker 3: Yeah. That is the issue. I don't know the history of that existing jetty, but it is common property along that frontage, but they have an exclusive use area. And they're all sort of petitioned off at the moment. So in theory, you can't traverse through other people's exclusive use areas. So yeah, I'm not familiar with the history of that existing jetty, but it may have been
00:08:00 created before the tidals come about. I'm not sure. Councillor Wegener: This reminds me of law school, because this would be just a classic law school exam, because there's so many issues in it, and the jurisdictional issue is off the charts. Again, what an interesting one, because does the planning court have jurisdiction over this piece of water? Is it a tidal zone, or is it basically a lake? And so what jurisdiction does council have over the water area? Speaker 3: Certainly tidal areas, we have jurisdiction in terms of operational works or works occurring. We have had advice when we were preparing our new scheme that our planning scheme can regulate use of the river. So yeah, because it is part of the local government area for Noosa Shire, our planning scheme can cover the river as well, and waterways. Speaker 4: Tom, the Noosa Waters area is actually a drainage reserve as well, as council has trusted. Really?
00:09:00 It has to make things more efficient. That's my recollection. It's certainly a reserve. I think it's drainage. Speaker 3: Drainage. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's drainage. No, it's not planning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cancel those. Councillor Lorentson: Cancel those. Brian, just to follow up on Tom's comments, that this is, this would make a good law and market question, I want to make reference to Over the Dicta. So, I'm looking on page 27, the recommendation made by our lawyers, McCulloch, Robertson, and I hope it's something that we take on board. They address the issue of how we can prevent this in the future and they make a suggestion that it has to be done by a scheme amendment. Have you given consideration to that, Kerri, because I think, again, the lesson learnt and the money spent in giving the legal advice, it'd be great that we look at stopping this from reoccurring in the future.
00:10:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, definitely. I definitely looked at it. What I have done is given this advice to strategic planning and highlighted those comments and also pointed out the areas that we would need to change. Because there are similar words to this in our new scheme, so it's important we look at them with future amendments to the scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd only make one suggestion that we just don't look. I think the living to two per unit complex is not the right way to go. I think it's, as you pointed out, if a unit complex has four, that might be reasonable. If it has 24, it's not. So it's about maybe the length of the frontage, how the distance between jetties, etc. Speaker 3: That's right. Yeah, because it has a particularly long frontage. So two, you know, I think we'd be happy to support more than two. 20 units is quite a lot. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions? Would anyone like to move the recommendation? And with the slide amendment added by Councillor Tom, it probably should be you then, shouldn't it?
00:11:00 It should be you. I'll move it. Councillor Lorentson: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And Secretary of Council Stewart, is there any further discussion? Councillor Wegener: Jeez, this is a really hard one. I know that we're not discussing it around the table here too much, but gosh, did it take a long time to go through this, the legal case. And to really get your head around the issues and the complexity of it. But I support staff in the recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Me too. I think, you know, this resulted when we did a bit of an audit of mooring, people putting, just anchoring their boats. And I think we do have to come up with a solution. I have no great trouble in this site of this one or one or two more. And I think, yeah. As we follow the course of what's recommended in the report and in the legal advice, we're going in the right direction.
00:12:00 All good? Those in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to the next item, and that's MCU 20 of 0106, Representation Development Permit for the Fuel Change of Use for a Food and Drink Outlet at 1 Acadia Street, Noosa Head. We have had a request that this be referred to the General. However, there may be some questions to be asked of staff before then. Mayor Stewart: I've got a few questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, Ms Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, the 10 o'clock close. What, if any, or A, who decided that? And B, was there any consultation done with any of the associations or the community in regard to making that change? Because the original on the town plan, as my understanding is, it was till 12am. But there has been a change. Speaker 3: Sorry, I'm just having trouble finding my report, isn't it? Page 30.
00:13:00 Page 30. Oh, is that what's wrong? Councillor Lorentson: It was an error. It was my error. Speaker 3: Sorry, do you mind asking that question again? Yes. Mayor Stewart: So, in the town plan for the consultation, it was initially 12am. It's my understanding that it was. And it's been changed to 10pm. So, when was it changed? How was it changed? And what consultation was undertaken to change it? Speaker 3: Yeah, I will have to consult with strategic planning and come back to you on that question. But I understand it was changed in response to submissions from residents in the area. But I will need to come back to you on that. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Any questions? Yeah. What were the submissions regarding around the, that came in, regarding the time change? I don't know. Speaker 4: Okay. So, just to clarify, the submissions weren't about this application. Oh, they weren't? What we talked about was the original town planning scheme. Okay. Or the town planning scheme was developed.
00:14:00 Yeah. And they were essentially around residents on the, you know, a bottom brush and a barrow and a rope. Yeah. About noise. Yeah. In that area. Yeah. Speaker 3: What's, over the last few years, what's been occurring is traditionally our Noosa Junction really didn't operate to win that even on a Friday night. It was very low key. And over the years, there's some businesses that have been operating past 10pm. And we've been getting complaints increasingly from residents up the hill, because the noise travels up the hill, depending on where the restaurant's located in the street, because there's some gaps in the building's opposite, which allows for the noise to travel up. So, they're citing quite an issue with some of the businesses down there about the noise that they're making. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, under the old town plan, there's a number of restaurants that are able to open, I've got at least half a dozen in front of me, until midnight, seven days a week. How do we correlate fairness, if we're now with all future, including Hastings Street
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Precinct, how do we correlate fairness to anyone willing to have a go, especially post COVID, that they have to close at 10, when the shop next door is open until mid-12? Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, planning schemes make changes all the time. And so, as the scheme changes, things need to change. The scheme changes in response to complaints and changes in the community with what we need. So, that's something that occurs when schemes change. Mayor Stewart: But the scheme's changed, hasn't it? So, what was the consultation or what consultation was undertaken to change it? Speaker 3: Well, obviously, it was changed by our strategic planning team, and Council ultimately endorsed it when they endorsed the planning scheme. So, it wasn't just changed by officers without going through Council. Speaker 4: And then Kerry's role is to assess the applications against the current scheme, and she's put in her report, probably her views and flexibility that should be put in there to reflect what's happening on the ground. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, there are, I've put in the report that in immediate proximity to the site, there
00:16:00 are some businesses that operate after 10, but the majority of them actually close at 10. So, there's not many businesses in the junction that operate after 10, except maybe on Friday and Saturday night. There's actually very few at the moment that operate there. So, the majority of businesses in the junction, I would say, do not operate after 10 PM, except Friday and Saturday night. Mayor Stewart: I've got a telephone call from Istanbul, Paradise Arcade, Kimchi Korean, Ikazaki Arte, Curry Junction Cafe, Theo's Tapas Bar. They're just a few that do have that. So, if this, if we make, if we endorse this recommendation, does that mean then all future restaurants will be closed? Speaker 3: Well, what I'm suggesting to Council in this report, I think that our scheme is perhaps a little bit restrictive at the moment. Yeah. I don't think we've got the balance right between, you know, having a main, you know, our, our, our junction where we can operate businesses and have an active nightlife,
00:17:00 but have a balance between protecting residential amenity from nearby residents. So, I don't think we've quite got that balance right. But I, and so that's why I am recommending some changes to the condition to allow a little bit more flexibility. But to go beyond that, I think we should go back to the scheme and go through a consultation process with businesses, as well as residents in the area, to work out what is the appropriate balance in terms of allowing some nightlife, but also maintaining nearby residential amenity. Mayor Stewart: But that wouldn't help this application, would it, if we go back to that? Because if we decide on this, we'll decide one way or the other, and then we go back Speaker 3: to consultation. Not in the short term. But in the long term, ultimately, the business owner could come back and change those conditions, if council were to agree to different hours. Mayor Stewart: Are you aware of how much it has cost them to make all these applications, and how much it would cost to come back to, to put that application in? Like, do you know how much money they've spent, or how much it would cost them if,
00:18:00 we say, if they didn't fall under that and then we went through this consultation and they came back? Like, what is the burden of cost to them? Do you know that? Speaker 3: The application fee for the original application for the restaurant itself and the outdoor dining area would be, based on Florea, it would have been approximately $5,000. To come back and change, there's no cost in making these representations to council. To come back and change it in the future of council is to change the scheme. If they're changing it consistent with the scheme, the cost would be around, it would be our minimum delegated fee, which is around $1,300. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So Kerry, there's, the reason we control hours of operation is really a pseudo way of controlling noise and amending impacts. But regardless of what we approve, all businesses are subject to the Environmental Protection Policy for noise. Is that right?
00:19:00 Is there still a, like, is there still another regulatory adaptation? Is there a new avenue to ensure that businesses can operate within a certain noise limit and comply with the higher laws in terms of amending? Because normally 10 o'clock is where, you know, in my old era it was, it was the background noise level plus 5 dBA, which we could do after 10, and then after midnight it might have gone down there again. Is that still sort of the regulatory framework or do we just rely, do they have to be licensed? Speaker 3: I'd have to check whether those provisions particularly apply to commercial premises. I've never seen them try to be applied to a commercial premises, so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's more about the impact on the residents. Speaker 3: Yeah. So there, what tends to happen more is liquor licensing step in around some of the issues, but it depends on what conditions they set in their liquor licenses as to whether they can take any action as well. So. So I, I don't think the Environmental Protection Act steps in in this regard. And the issue around hours in particular is, particularly for outdoor areas, there's
00:20:00 no sort of mechanism that can really control noise when it's an outdoor dining area, except the hours, by preventing it operating after a certain time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: For Monday, could you just bring back what might be acceptable limits if you talk to our Environmental Health Officer? Yeah. For a different time zone? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So if we wanted to, if there is a move to change the, you know, from the recommendation that we have, what we think should be the limits that would make, would result in a acceptable Speaker 4: noise for the general public. Just to be prepared. You're talking about from the DBA? Just from a decibel limit. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Because we have, you know, like in previous development applications where we, we had concerns about noise. We've asked them to put in noise monitors and sound meters and standards that they need to keep to. That may be somewhere we'll get to on Monday.
00:21:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. When I'll check whether the Environmental Protection Act applies and come up, whether we can come up with some noise limits. Speaker 4: Kerry, just to save time on Monday as well. My recollection is also that under liquor licensing there's some powers for liquor licensing to be used. Yeah. Are you aware of that? How that would apply then to what we do with our hours? Do they, do they do separately in terms of the hours of operation? Speaker 3: They do impose hours of operation on the liquor license. Yep. But they are guided by each local government in terms of the hours that the local government sets. So they follow us rather than us follow them. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did I see a request from the Acting Director to make comment? Would you like to come and speak to us as well? Sure. Speaker 2: Thank you, Chair.
00:22:00 Just following up from Kerry's comments on the planning scheme. So, well, two, two areas I think to just come back for Monday. One is that the operating hours from superseded old scheme through to the draft and through to the current. And, you know, what changes we're going to make. And I guess the opportunity for consultation, just confirming that. And then number two is really just coming back and confirming our intentions around the planning scheme amendments and a bit of timing around that. Those two elements. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Anthony. Councillor Wegener: I'll go to Councillor Winkler first. The amendments in the planning scheme are there to limit noise, excess noise. I see, to be honest, that there are some changes in the planning scheme. It's just people enjoying themselves at night as natural noises. It's as natural as the cockatoos in the morning, the cicadas, the bats, you know, the mammals. We warm blooded things make noise at night and that's just the nature of it.
00:23:00 And so, is it, you know, it seems to me that we're trying to actually put a cap, the planning scheme is putting an unnatural cap on natural noise. I guess it's more of a. It's more of a comment. But, you know, how soon can we get amendments through to rectify the situation? Because we're limiting natural noise here, which is. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, I understand our strategic planning team are working on amendments now to the planning scheme and hope to put that to council by the end of the year. So, yeah. So, yeah, sometime. Just to make comment on your comment. I'm not sure residents would feel that way to be woken up at 11, 12 midnight with people laughing, clapping, yahooing. They would feel that's natural and they should expect it. Councillor Wegener: Well, there is, I mean, it is the Noosa Junction and it is an entertainment district and we
00:24:00 are supporting the junction as a place of developing where, you know, it's a part of our walking bicycle strategy. We want to actually centralize instead of urban sprawl with what the focus is decentralization of population in this area. And this is, you know, a great area. I think it's probably the best place on earth actually. I mean, the junction is phenomenal. So, I just, I think that they're just fighting windmills by trying to stop the noise because it's going to get a whole lot noisier. There's no doubt about it. And that's just the progression of development of, you know, moving to Noosa as being moving to paradise. You're just going to have natural noise. Speaker 4: I think I've had some of the residents up there in my office over the years talking about the noise issues. And I think if you are moving in there now, you would expect noise because that's the nature of what you're moving into. But if you've lived there for 10, 15 years and suddenly you've seen the nature of what's
00:25:00 happening around you change, that's where that conflict arises. And you often see in plain terms conflict arising where you've got residential abutting up, whether it's commercial or industrial or whatever. You often get that conflict of noise and use happening there. Councillor Wegener: Can we make a list of suggested places where people can move where it's quiet? Because it would be extensive. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think there's two different things. One is, yes, we have in the last scheme identified a hospitality precinct where we want to encourage it. It's a small business ownership. I, as a young person, worked in a nightclub that trades at five in the morning sometimes in Noosa Junction and didn't get many complaints because it was constructed to be a late night entertainment thing. It had double door locks, high noise proofing. It had, it faced a big open car park so that people moving away didn't make noise. I was young so I probably wouldn't have listened if there was complaints back then. I know that there was.
00:26:00 So what we're dealing with here is not restricting people's ability to enjoy themselves. It's about businesses establishing a form of operation that fits within the community. And the other big change is not just we're trying to locate, it's the fact that we've become a little bit more to the outdoor culture. You know, this being outdoors up to 10 o'clock is a fairly new phenomenon in Noosa. It wasn't always the late night places were always open. It was always in highly soundproof venues. And now it's a little bit relaxed. And I don't think we should just swing one hump to the other way and say we'll live with it. Because, as the CEO mentioned, some of these people have been living there for many, many decades. And it's our responsibility to make sure the balance between commerce and residence is just like a short stay issue. Yes, we have made a planned decision to make it a hospitality area. We haven't made a planning decision to say that that comes at the cost of
00:27:00 amenity. And that's what we're trying to deal with on each application as it comes. Councillor Finzel: Regarding the point about impact on amenity, I've been to many small group meetings around the short term accommodation. The issue of noise amenity is coming up constantly. We have fundamentally changed through the impacts of COVID. And change is happening. A lot of the conversations have come up with regards to innovation. And even last night's meeting, there was discussions around apps and things available on phones to measure noise and things like that. Moving forward, are these considerations moving with, you know, the latest technology to be written into the scheme to address some of these issues as we move forward? And it's wonderful to look back and have our retrospective views and honour our history of how we've evolved. But I believe also, as a council, we need to be innovating and moving forward to address these issues. Regarding the issues around fairness and equity.
00:28:00 On page 31, the applicant talks about, under their representation, many of the restaurants in the street were established without the need for planning approval, and they exist under lawful use rights and didn't need conditions. As well as equity, we've got to look at unfair advantage in terms of trade. So while we've got Anthony in the room, is he able to come up and just through the chair, is he able to give us clarification? Speaker 2: I guess my interpretation of that would be every business is looking for a level playing field. A level playing field would be probably on a regulatory basis, on a cost basis, and that there's no unfair advantage. There's no fair advantage to any one provider that, you know, in a street or in a location.
00:29:00 So that would be my interpretation of that statement. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 4: And every business needs to comply with the legislation at the time that they establish their business. That's a requirement as well. And that does change over time. You know, there's requirements that, you know, the legislation changes or accounts of planning scheme or new laws come in and so on. Mayor Stewart: So that's a tricky part. Under the current rules, Kerry, is it correct that any current restaurant, cafe, bar that applies for outdoor dining will trigger an MCU and will require and will need to roll back their operating hours from midnight to 10 of 10pm? Speaker 3: This tenancy had never operated as a restaurant. So yes, under their planning scheme, they would require a material change of use to operate outdoor dining if they didn't already have an approval for outdoor dining. Mayor Stewart: That's for any restaurant now across the Shire? Speaker 3: That is. Mayor Stewart: So any restaurant that is not new, that is already in our Shire trading in Hastings Street,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 in the Junction, they want to apply for outdoor dining, that will trigger an MCU and if they're currently up until midnight, they're scaled back accordingly. Speaker 3: No. That's not quite true. We would take into consideration how they're actually operating, existing. So we'd give that consideration to that. They wouldn't necessarily have to scale back their existing hours. We would balance it up based on how they've been operating and their hours there, compared to the scheme of requirements. And the reason we make outdoor dining a material change of use is because it's essentially an extension to the restaurant business. So it means they have more patrons there, they generate higher car parking demand, the outdoor dining does raise potential issues around amenity in some instances, and so that's the reason why an application is required. Mayor Stewart: So currently, according to the new plan, outdoor dining is 10pm. So if they did apply for outdoor dining, that wouldn't necessarily trigger then 10pm.
00:31:00 Is that what you're saying? You're saying take into account how they're trading and what they're doing? Speaker 3: Yeah. So the hours originally imposed on this approval was consistent with the scheme. What I'm recommending to Council today is that seems a bit onerous, and that we do look at some change. But we don't agree fully with their proposed hours. We have basically allowed them to operate till midnight, seven days a week. But we restrict their outdoor dining to only operating till midnight on Friday and Saturday for the rest till 10pm. So I am suggesting that we do look at these hours with a future scheme amendment, because I do think they're overly restrictive. But we've got to reach the right balance in terms of allowing an active business centre and a great nightlife while looking at residential amenity. Councillor Wegener: Is the outdoor dining on public property? Or is that part of the lease? Speaker 3: No. It's on private property. Councillor Wegener: So the outdoor area is still on private property? Yes. Okay. So that's not an issue? Speaker 3: No.
00:32:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I just want to point out, I think we've got two issues here with Kerry. Operation hours and noise. Operation hours and noise. This is what we're addressing. And operation hours impacts the ability of the business to operate on a level playing field. Noise is a separate issue. I'm quite aware of the residents that have made complaints about the music emanating from the Noosa Junction. And the issue, and I've got their emails in front of me, their issues is about amplified noise. Brian, you raised the point about noise. It's about responsible business ownership. When you read the application in front of you on page 13, on page 33, the applicant's representation in regards to Council's position on amplified noise is that they, the applicant's
00:33:00 representation, sorry, the applicant requests there will be no amplified music on the Noosa Junction line. So I think these guys are really quite responsible. So I think the issue we've got is about amplified noise, not about operating hours. I think the two should be looked at separately. And again, conversation, mention about short-term stays. We've got to, I think, accept that we live in a tourist destination. And if we don't want people partying in residential streets after 10, we actually need to give them a place to stay. And I'm not talking partying. I'm talking amplified music. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As an observer, have you got questions? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, my question is, my question is, Kerry, do you actually agree that I think the two
00:34:00 issues are quite separate, that operating hours doesn't actually contribute to noise amplified, amplified noise outside is where we're getting a lot of complaints from the residents? Speaker 3: I don't fully agree. I do agree that the amplified music doesn't actually contribute to noise amplified noise and patron talking. But patron talking still creates an issue for residents. So in recent times, yes, the complaints we've received from residents is about amplified music, particularly with the markets, the twilight markets that occur. But prior to then, no, we were getting complaints about people just being outside and laughing and talking and having a good time. So because it carries, noise carries quite a long way up that hill. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Just one last point. So a lot of the businesses there can operate till 12 o'clock and a lot don't. So in allowing sort of a level playing field, allowing all the businesses to operate
00:35:00 at 12 doesn't necessarily mean that they will be operating till 12. Okay. Yeah, that's right. So to change that condition, we need to amend the Noosa plan is what you're saying. We can't condition this application to allow operation of hours till midnight? Speaker 3: That's right. I am recommending some change to the condition to allow a bit of flexibility. But I think if we want to go a step further and allow people to operate outside till midnight, every night, where noise can't be controlled, that we go through a scheme process. Okay. And we consider how we can manage this. And we talk to our traders and we talk to residents about that issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. One further thing for Monday, and it might be not possible. Developing applications like Bounce and Advanced Studio out near London Drive, we actually had requirements of specified noise limits and measurement devices so that they were self-monitoring. In this location where we tend to have a turnover of tenancies, is there an opportunity, whether
00:36:00 it's business owners or the association, to establish a communal sound monitoring system that has sensors at various locations that can be used? And it's not something that could actually give a more overarching picture. It may not be a, well, it's not just going to involve others, but it may give us an idea about if we do start to say, well, move from a land-use control to a performance based on noise emanation, is there a system that we could look at that said, okay, well, we do want Ocatea Walk to be a place where people can enjoy the outdoors? And then we just want it to be quieter. But we need the system to be able to establish. So is there something we can do before Monday to have a look at that? I'm probably looking at the director of the Melbourne Trust because it's probably a conversation with environmental health whether there are these systems elsewhere where you've set up commuters or sound monitoring that individual premises might have a sensor.
00:37:00 But the responsibility either becomes for the whole building owner or for someone else in terms of that. Speaker 2: My feeling is it's a bigger strategic kind of issue. I think whether we could certainly establish, is it happening elsewhere and could you do it? That would be a yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In terms of my thinking, certainly I'm along the lines of there's a strong relationship between being outdoors and for noise to come out. But if we are wanting to provide flexibility, then we have to have noise. Can we do it by setting noise limits? And the only way that's going to work is if we can complement it in terms of some performance. Of monitoring and assessment and ability to ensure that those noise limits are being met. Speaker 2: Or I will do a follow-up. Is it possible? Is anyone else doing it that we know of? And then I think the more strategic question around that self-management and the cost is probably a longer-term conversation with the association. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because certainly, like there was a deliberate decision, there is a link between a hospitality precinct, which is the term we use at the bank scheme, and an entertainment precinct.
00:38:00 And with the delivery, we didn't go to an entertainment precinct. Because that basically says that the local government has the right to override the state government's noise limits. So we're saying, you know, that was to me a conscious decision not to say that we want a whole lot of noisy activities, but at the same time we don't want to limit the original activities. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, what is amplified music? We've got a condition up there we're looking at, but what is the current situation for those outdoor spaces with amplified music? Speaker 3: In terms of this site? Mayor Stewart: In terms of any site in the junction? Or who is open? Who plays music? I mean, what are we? Is it apples to apples? What are we looking at? Speaker 3: Well, we have very limited control over any of the developments in the junction at present because they don't have planning approvals.
00:39:00 And many of them, they were built at a time when the scheme did not require planning approvals. So we are pretty well fully reliant on looking at licensing, then stepping in if there's a problem. Councillor Lorentson: But liquor licence, doesn't it only regulate noise emanated within a licence premise? That's right. Not outside. So that's Council's space. Speaker 3: Yeah. But more and more I'm finding liquor licences are looking to the local government in terms of how we want to see an area operate. And they may reflect that in their condition. So they are looking for advice from Council on what our position is for each of the areas. And each of the areas may change from Hastings Street to the junction, depending what the situation is. Mayor Stewart: So in this one, amplified music must cease. So that's specific to this, but then someone else who's already there could have music playing longer than that? Speaker 3: Yeah. So even though there's no approvals in the planning scheme, when we are referred liquor licensing applications from liquor licensing to comment on,
00:40:00 that we are able to advise liquor licensing on Council's current position, that this is our requirement for no amplified music outside, or these are the hours that we're setting for an area. They then reflect that in their conditions of approval. So over time you would find if we maintain these conditions or modified them, it would become a level playing field and everybody would have consistent conditions, at least on their liquor licence. Mayor Stewart: Do we know what time live music played in the junction until at the moment? Do we not know? Councillor Lorentson: Not yet. I don't know. Mayor Stewart: Not very late. Speaker 4: Nice. Mayor Stewart: We're a raw audience. With a boring crowd. I'll ask my daughter. Will you find a friend? Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Actually, businesses have existing use rights. So someone that has a business, a licence to operate with no conditions, can on-sell that.
00:41:00 That right never gets extinguished. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That is true. Okay. Yeah, so that's exactly true. So only when they make changes to their business can you have a look at whether you impose additional requirements. So use rights run with the land. They don't run with the person. Mayor Stewart: So would that be creating an unfair then play for some? Yeah. If you've got a business running that can stay open seven days away till midnight, that's more valuable than a business that is imposed these conditions upon? Yeah. Speaker 3: I imagine some people might pay more if that's what they wanted to do, to operate till midnight. But as I've indicated, planning schemes do change over time. There's a lack of theme requirements that change over time, and new businesses must comply with those new requirements. So we've got a lot of businesses in Junction. Most of them don't operate till late. There are some that do, but most of them don't. So we're at a bit of a crux where things are going to change, and we need to consider this.
00:42:00 Councillor Finzel: Before Monday, are you able to provide us with a list of who's there under an approval, and who's operating out of the right there, and they can operate without the existing use rights? There's two groups of businesses operating. Is that correct? Some that have come under approval, and some that have not come under approval. Speaker 4: So we're at a point where we can go through and audit every property in the Junction, going back to all files. Speaker 3: Sorry, Chris, a big time. Okay, we wouldn't be able to do that. Monday, how long would that take? Speaker 4: Weeks or months. Three years. It's a huge job to go through every property file over the last few years to have a look Speaker 3: I can tell you that most businesses in the Junction don't have a planning approval because they operated at a time when there was no scheme requirement. But it would take a lot of work to go through that, and I'm sorry, I just don't have the ability to do that before the ordinary meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I ask, would it be fair to say that, in fairness to this conversation, those
00:43:00 that have the ability to operate till midnight are actually paying rent that reflects that privilege, and those that aren't are paying rent that reflects that privilege, and those that aren't are paying rent that reflects the reduced hours? Speaker 4: We don't know what rent they'd pay. It's probably not a planning consideration that we would take into account. Speaker 3: Yeah, we don't have any idea of that. But up until recently, there hasn't been a big market for people to operate till late, so I'm not sure the rent would vary significantly between them. Speaker 2: Just a suggestion, I guess, to capture. Obviously, today, it's a short-term, a here-and-now. Decision on an application, and it's a re-presentation, and obviously, you can decide on the hours here. And Kerry has recommended, and I agree, there's the two, there's the kind of the overall approval and then the amplified music. I was just going to take us to the strategic side, which is, as part of a planning scheme
00:44:00 amendment proposal and process, information and audit is critical, and the questions you raise around what's the current status and the level playing out. I think that has to be, or will have to be, here's the picture, and as accurately as we can, between a number of systems and working with the association and the businesses, is over the next three to six months to get to that point of recommendation that we have some really in-depth information about operating hours, as much as we can. So I'm suggesting that that's the big strategic process to get this, if there is such a thing as a level playing out. I don't know if that's the plan field or what we can and can't do within a planning scheme. Today is about this one application around that recommendation. Councillor Finzel: Kerry, what we decide around this, will that set a precedent moving forward? Speaker 3: I think so. I think the expectation, if you change the hours, will be for every business to operate
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 tonight. Yeah, unless you can differentiate this business somehow to other businesses, and then I don't think we can. We have the acoustic details to know whether this building is shielded by other buildings that will stop the noise travelling up the hill. I can't differentiate it in any way, so it will set a precedent. Mayor Stewart: Is that important information that we should have before making a decision? Speaker 3: We asked the applicant to provide an acoustic report to demonstrate, to see whether that was available. The applicant's response initially to us was that they didn't want to provide an acoustic report, but they would accept a condition for no amplified music. So that was what they responded to, that request. They've now come back and said they'd like the ability to do amplified music, but haven't provided an acoustic report. Speaker 4: And that would come at some cost for them to do an acoustic report. Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I think we've exhausted our questions.
00:46:00 Oh, hold on, hold on. Oh, you have more before Monday? Councillor Wegener: Well, now we've got through the easy questions. Let's move on to the planter boxes. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. I agreed on that one. Councillor Wegener: So the stucco that they... It's not an interesting finish, as you say. Did you think of... I don't know. Would it be too hard to have a photo of that? I'm interested in the concept of, you know, what is an interesting finish and what is not. But coming from California, where everything was stuccoed, it is a very uninteresting finish. Speaker 3: Yeah. I might cop on myself. They haven't given me any details of what they propose to finish those planter boxes. Okay. But because there's no requirement in the scheme for such a provision, it's not reasonable for us to impose the conditions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And they're still on private property, right? Speaker 3: And they're still on private property. That's right. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's it. That's it. That's it. Thank you. Okay. So there's a matter to be referred to the General Committee, due to the significance
00:47:00 of the issue. Would someone like to move that? Move Councillor Stewart, second Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Pass unanimously. We then move on to item six, planning applications decided by delegated authority in March 2021. Councillor, have we all had a chance to look through those and make sure we don't have any conflicts? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I want to raise a comment. Conflict? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Conflict first? Councillor Finzel: No. Comment. Comment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Comment. Yeah. Okay. I'm just checking because this one... Councillor Finzel: Sorry. Comment, not conflict. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So then we go to the report. And Councillor Finzel has a question. Councillor Finzel: On page 48 of 64, I noticed there was an operational works minor change to approval regarding the ecological development plan, which I did ask Kerry for some information you provided. Just for the people at home, can you tell us a little bit about the benefits of the changes around the ecological development plan for that site?
00:48:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. So this application is really in response to changes agreed by council last year, where the developer thought to change the staging plan from three stages to four stages. At that time, we asked them to update the ecological plan to reflect that staging. And the advantages are that we've made sure that they didn't clear the whole site in one go, that they cleared it according to the staging. So until they're ready to develop each stage, the site would remain vegetated, so they're ready to go. So that's really, I guess, the advantage that I see. The ecological plan is about the clearing and how they'll go about that, but also about the rehabilitation of another site to offset the habitat trees that would be lost on site development. And so we continue to provide habitat for the Gloucester Black.
00:49:00 Yes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions about the delegated decisions? No. Would anyone like to move to the recommendation? We'll move to Councillor Finzel. Seconded. Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Okay. So we move on to the next item, which is the Environmental Development Department update. And we'll do this page by page. And the Acting Director wisely asks us to give him some hands up if we have queries. I might think of another one while I'm here. So first up, I'll just go, I'll read the item if you've got a question, the activity, if you've got a question, just indicate. Short-term letting superseded planning. Key strategic policy.
00:50:00 Councillor Finzel: Oh, hang on. When you're reading them all first, we have questions at the end. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, just indicate one by one. As you're by page. By page. So any questions about page 52? Mayor Stewart: I do. Here you go. No. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Anthony, as I emailed to you, further consultation and the next step when we get our information back from the public on 28th of May. Where to then? Speaker 2: It was on the short stay issue. Yes. This is short stay. Yes. And I'm just, I have got the next steps in front of me. I had a chair with yourself a bit later this morning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that clear? Speaker 2: One second. I'll bring it up on my screen. Mayor Stewart: I have it, but I just want everyone to know. Speaker 2: There we are. I've got it. Thank you. So obviously we extended the consultation deadline from 18 to 28.
00:51:00 So closing the 28th. Review submissions in June. I'll just quickly, we've got about four more steps. Then we've reviewed the local law July. Report back to council August, September. And at this stage, planning on, I guess, the gazette or the commencement in November. So it is a process, a number of legal steps. And process steps. But that's the current timeline. Mayor Stewart: So we'll have a couple of months, Anthony, based on that, June, July. Yes. For council staff and councils to review submissions and input from the community and make any changes then. Yes. That's correct. Great. Councillor Finzel: Anthony, last night I attended a meeting at the Surf Life Saving Club with about 250 people there. Two thirds of that group were representative of the homestays. They say that they may have been overlooked in some area with regards to input into this consultation period.
00:52:00 Is there any chance that we could get an extension beyond the 28th of May? Speaker 2: Always a chance. But I would suggest that really now it's to look at where the gap is, if they're saying there's a gap. I'm happy to look at that gap. Appreciate if there's any communication come through. I've been able to get a lot of information through to myself and Anita from that group. I haven't received any. Not directly. But happy to look at that. I believe it. It's important that we, you know, obviously we engage with a small stakeholder group locally around the provider side or management side. We've engaged with recognised rate payer groups or residential groups just last week, including the group against short stay. So if there's a large group, and I believe it was Airbnb that was driving the meeting. Councillor Lorentson: It was actually the Airbnb host. And I think they're meeting with council and I'm not sure whether they're actually requesting
00:53:00 an extension. They're meeting with themselves. Speaker 4: Yeah, they've got two of the Airbnb execs in town tonight. They're going to meet with Premier himself this afternoon. Councillor Lorentson: So we'll have a listen to what they have to say. I don't think there'll be a request for an extension. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. It's a discussion around it. Yeah. Speaker 2: Sorry, just to finish off. I guess that I think it's in everyone's interest to really, to do our best to stick to this timeline now. I think that if there's gaps, please tell me and Anita and we will work through that. But I think we've really got to stop moving those goalposts and for everyone, everyone, so that we can get some certainty. So ideally, for me, it would be understanding what the concerns are now and we've got still 17 days to deal with gaps. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Other questions on the article on that page? Councillor Wegener: On the economic development, the advanced research and content for the revised economic
00:54:00 strategy discussion paper. Speaker 1: Have we seen this? Has that come out? Speaker 2: No. No. Just an ad. So you've got a workshop booked in your diaries that you probably haven't got to yet, but it's in about five weeks time, I think. So we're working through pulling together a draft discussion paper, which reflects our conversations and hopefully absorbs the current status of things from remote working, biotech, short stay, et cetera, all the challenges we have as well, and we are starting to have some more expert conversations around that. Particularly sectors like technology and food and agribus, but we'll come back both to across industry groups and through to ET and counsellors, and they've started to be booked in now. So I think it is the end of 17th of June is the workshop on the draft discussion paper.
00:55:00 So there's an opportunity to really see how that's structured. We've taken everything to date and put that into there, but that's just still evolving. And obviously, we're still a little bit behind. We've got a lot of light on resources, but we have had some support from, I don't know if you met a consultant, Ralph, who's been helping us around that position in paper. But follow-up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a follow-on question from Matt. The review of the plan and turning it into a strategy of serving substantial policy change, potentially. Is there a property controls route set up? Is there, like, at this stage, I don't know if there's a policy change, but is there any council representation if there is? And is that something we could be looking at? Speaker 2: Yeah, I think when we get to that workshop on the 17th, if there's any concerns around governance, let's have it there. So we won't be going forward with any public consultation.
00:56:00 We're actually just pulling more of the facts and the trends together and the information to have a really informed conversation. So no decisions at that point. So if we, if councillors or executive team want to put more structure around that, happy to do that. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. The Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation is planning to have a circular economy symposium. And so I just would love to make sure, you know, to have a draft of this and to plug it in so that there's, that we're not missing anything, you know, so that they can work in a bit together and the information that comes out, you know, not, not duped by the public, but, you know, not, not an overcomplicated effort or overlapping or much, you know, just kind of mapping a coordinated approach. Speaker 2: We, Caroline's had one session with them, I'm pretty sure. And I guess this is certainly trying to be a higher level strategy directional document and, and, and framework and approach for us all to be able to go, well, there's the programs that fall out of it.
00:57:00 We've still to really, I think, work our way through the other, a schedule of activity plans at a council workshop because I think if you get too detailed, obviously if the longevity of that plan, starts to kind of be questioned. So I think we try, what we're trying to do is that directional, this is the direction we want to take. This is our, our appetite for change and innovation and all those things and diversification, how are we going to resource it, and then the program fallout of it. And I, I foresee the programs more as activity plans and operational plans or schedules, We've got to get a direction because the hard conversations need to be had around what does diversification in a COVID and post-COVID world look like. That's kind of where we're at. And are we going to focus on trying to pick winners in that? Yeah, yeah. Do you go, you know, what do we want to do within our, you know, tourism retail hospitality event to drive in fire tech and biotech and et cetera, et cetera.
00:58:00 So I think those, that's the discussion I think I want to have, which is we haven't set ourselves the, we haven't really agreed on the appetite and the resources. And that's where that, that's where we're heading. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I agree, that's probably one of my questions. I've done some background research looking at all the economic development papers produced since we first had an economic development board. And back early days, there's a whole lot of thinking around the knowledge economy, which we're starting to see, you know, 20 years later. And there's a whole lot of conversation about the difference between approaching the knowledge economy to the village economy and a lot of what the, you know, there's a village economy is around more traditional, short value chain, things like that. But to me, at the strategic level, where the local economic plan probably adopted the sector approach, it might be more important to go back to some of these fundamental, this is what we're trying to achieve for our economy. What's the programs we're going to get to, rather than just putting in, saying, this is a sector we support, this is a sector we support, this is a sector we support.
00:59:00 And to me, that's why I'm thinking there may be a role for, you know, more governance that we are going to make. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think expert involvement is, you know, a strategic direction, that stuff, I think. So there's nothing set in stone. We're trying to bring, hopefully, the intel to the table. That's kind of what we're doing, and we'll do that. Well, obviously, for council, executive, and then expert groups as such, before it's signed off later in the year. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I know that. Talking to Amelia and Karen, you know, I think that these councillors, we would love to have a vision, you know, to work on a vision, to be a part of this, to get in front of it, or at least be really a part of the development of this. Because, you know, we want to continue to progress forward. And as the world accelerates in change, we want to be ahead of it and leading it. Speaker 2: I fully respect, and the team respects that, and I think be confident in what we're trying to bring is all the gathering of the information and the macro trends and, you know, what we see that future to be, to go, do you agree with that?
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Is that what you see? How much appetite have you got for regulatory support to that resource investment? What's the priority? So, that's the conversation we're looking to bring to the table. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very good. Okay, I'll finish on that page. Next page is on page 53. Councillor Wegener: Oh, I have a question. Probably for Craig. Craig, you know, you are amazing, but you've actually taught yourself. Somehow you managed to have intensive, intensive community engagement with several hundred thousand little red flags, not all as parts.
01:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And what was their feedback? Can you please give us that feedback? Councillor Wegener: It's like a little white. I'm on the same page. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On that, it's interesting, damage to vegetation caused by the word flying copters. If I was to put my ecologist hat on, I would say ecological succession is created by one of the native species. I do think it's important not to typify a natural process as damage. And I think that part of the thinking is that nature created these animals to fulfill a role in our environment. And one of the things is that they progressively move from place to place and they defoliate and they do this, but that's a chance for nature to regenerate. It's probably part of the process that will ensure that we have diversity of species in those areas rather than becoming a monoculture of one dominant species.
01:02:00 Not that many people read page 53 and 64 beside a photo, but I did notice that that one made it to the social media and raising concerns, whereas to me it doesn't raise any concerns because of the natural process. Speaker 1: That's fair. It doesn't raise concerns for us either, but I do note it's something that came up a lot in the community feedback we got, which is why I highlighted it in the report. And I perhaps could have worded it a little bit more carefully in the sense that, like you, it's just part of a natural succession. But it's what we got a lot of feedback on. It was around as they moved from Wallace Park down to Goodchap Street and around the edges of Lacta Valley. You could see where they'd been. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other than Spencer Wiggins' comments, we'll move on to page 54. Do we have any queries there? I have one on the ring tail year old.
01:03:00 And actually I noticed yesterday, or I listened yesterday. There appears to be some action again in the year old. But the harvested areas have been sort of quiet for a few months. Have we got a sort of schedule where it's going? Because I do get a few requests from those people who love using those trails about how long it's likely to be closed. Speaker 4: So there are two different types of timber up there that's being extracted. One is the pine and the other one is the hardwood. So the hardwood is being undertaken through contractors for Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. And that's State Agency who have those rights. So they're tracking through pretty well. They're still working out there. The pine area, they've done a lot of work at the ring tail end. Eight months, two years ago. They've done a lot, particularly along McKinnon Drive. They're about three quarters of the way through the Urals area. And they're sort of working their way from that sort of south western end towards Pomona. About 25% left there.
01:04:00 They've put that on hold simply because of the contractual issues with the Chinese. A lot of that was going on export. And they're just working that through at the moment. But overall, in the quarter five year program, they're on track. We actually were a little bit ahead at the time, but we're on track. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So in terms of the tracking, when did we expect to reopen Trail 7 and 8? I can't recall. Do we have that sort of detail? Peter Mellon will have that. Speaker 1: Peter, our expectation was that they'll be open late this year or early next year once it was complete. We've already had a couple of instances where we've had people walk in on operations in place. So we didn't want to open and close the trails on and off over a period of time. But obviously, if it gets to the point where delays are getting quite ridiculous, then we'll have to review that situation up. I will note that those trails are accessible under event permits. So there have been event permits issued where we're able to control the time and numbers of people going through a location. We've been able to facilitate that.
01:05:00 Okay. Councillor Wegener: Question. I've had conversations with Jude Tulloch, and she's the Bushcare people. And considering that the last survey, there was enormous support for Bushcare. That was the number one thing that came out in the survey. I was just wondering, with the enormous success of Bushcare, with the land for wildlife and for the BCAs, how that they would go in, you guys go in, and you take out the weeds, like Lintana, slowly. And yet there's a system to it where eventually you get the canopy and then the weeds are snuffed out, so to speak. So you don't have to go in there and be weeding constantly. The repetitiveness of the monotony of weeding and weeding and then coming back a year later. And with that. With the public consultation and the interest in maintaining our bushland, is there some sort of project, a bigger project, maybe that we could come in and hit these weeds in a different way
01:06:00 instead of just the monotonous weeding but more along the BCAs, along the beaches there? Just wondering if there's anything out there that you think of that costs a lot of money but you didn't want to look at because now the public wants it. They said they wanted more environment levy. And the public's behind it. Is there anything? Speaker 1: I'll try and answer that. Certainly the comments you received with regards to the bushland strategic management plan around providing a, I guess, a cohesive prioritisation for the way we manage our bushlands. And the intent of that is regardless of the amount of resources that's put into it, whether it's 100,000, 1 million or 10 million, the idea is we should always be prioritising to get our best bang for buck on that spend. Because the nature of bushland areas, exactly like you said, is you could spend $10 million every year and if you don't plan it well, you would get absolutely nowhere over a period of time, which is why the strategic plan sets out these are our priority reserves
01:07:00 that we actually think by focusing on reserves that can recover, we can get them to a point where they'll self-sustain quickly and that means inherently that some reserves that are small, isolated, have a whole heap of impacts are not a low priority because the amount of resources we put into them would have to do them year in, year out, just to keep them at the condition they're at. Areas like the eastern beaches are a little bit different. Partly they have a much higher community interest and also through the chat we're focusing very much on the need for general resilience. So while in the sense that they are extremely difficult to recover, so in that sense they're prioritised actually reasonably low in a strategic plan, we're actually putting extra investment already into that. Our Works for Queensland team are out there working on those sites because even though technically according to the plan they're prioritised as low, there's a really strong community and also a climate change resilience impact. So I think the coastal area is an area you look at a broader scale project
01:08:00 or actually particularly as the Coastal Connect project starts to wind down, look at how we can continue to do that all the way along that 11.5 kilometres of the beach. And I think that the big project you speak of, Tom, is that 11.5 kilometres stretch, which could become arguably one of the only really good conditioned and weed-free patches of bushland for many hundreds of kilometres, I would imagine, where there's people involved as well. So I think that's the big project. I don't think we're ready to embark on it yet. I think the work the guys are doing through Coastal Connect are going to inform a lot more as to how much and how big that project is and what it looks like. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I should perhaps clarify, because perhaps Councillor Wegener was referring to the data from the budget process when you said that they'd support it. Likely one made a big deal of the result that was in our report in that regard, but if you recall, Councillor Wegener, the data on the screen from the presentation was different to the data in the report
01:09:00 and unfortunately after the meeting we got a call that said in fact in the report two categories had been switched. In fact, the higher support was for continuing acquisition of property. So that's a public clarification. That's my advocacy, once again, was wrong, but based on good information and wrong information. Okay, so 54, 55, 56. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Permits. The oyster project, where are we at? Speaker 1: Okay, sure. All the bathymetry and engineering design works have been complete. The submission for the draft ADAPT for the Fisheries Allocation Authority is completed and just with the technical advisory group for final comment, which includes the submitting agencies before it gets submitted, the final version.
01:10:00 TNC has been registered as a registered resource provider by DES for the purposes of the code of practice for using oyster shells. So they no longer need a beneficial reuse permit. That's a result of a code being introduced, actually because of the previous project that Noosa Council undertook. The state implemented that. So basically it's with the technical advisory group for final comment at the moment with regards to the Fisheries Allocation Authority. Mayor Stewart: So and then it has to be okayed by the state. Speaker 1: That's correct, yeah. Mayor Stewart: To get the permits. Yep. Okay. What's the chances of it not getting permits? Speaker 1: Well, very low. I think the process is very clear. The reason it's taken so long is because they've been in regular conversation with the state around the bathymetry and engineering requirements. The permitting area of DAF are on the technical advisory group. So they're actually providing input on an ongoing basis to TNC on the actual application
01:11:00 before it goes formally to the state. So I'm not, I am not aware of anything that's likely to create problems for them. The issue is not around the approval. It's really around the amount of work that's been involved in getting it to this point. Mayor Stewart: So it's nearly a year late. The original was supposed to be last year, the permits, June last year. Is that because the volume of work wasn't expected? Speaker 1: Two reasons. One, it took longer than expected to get TNC on the ground here. So they arrived about seven months after we, from when the agreement started. And then, yes, it's been the volume of work has been more than was expected to be able to get, not so much around the permits per se, but around planning and providing proper planning for the project. I think the Noosa River estuary is a lot more complex than some of the other oyster restoration sites that have been done where there's not as many competing uses and users. So yes, I think it's taken longer, well, it has taken longer than expected. I think the original agreement expected reefs
01:12:00 in the water at two years. We'd hope, I'd hope to be able to exceed that and get them in the water in February, but that didn't happen because of those delays. So it will probably end up being this summer before there's actually reefs in the water because not only we need to get the permits in place, we need to fit in with how the oysters behave. Mayor Stewart: We had a lot of money quarantined in this project. At what point did the state continue? Or, you know, it's just extension after extension. We're already 12 months down. Do we just say, we don't think we're ever going to get these permits or hands up, can't continue? Speaker 1: Well, none of the delays are delays in achieving the permits. There's been no feedback from the state at any point during the entire process that we won't receive the permits. The delays have been doing the work, not just for the permits, but for the design of the project and finding appropriate places to place oysters. At no point has the state ever said, we're not providing this permit or sought further information regarding the permits. It's been part of an ongoing conversation. Mayor Stewart: So do we just keep kicking the can down the line
01:13:00 until we get those permits then? Is that right? Speaker 1: Well, not forever. There's no doubt we would have preferred to have the permits in place. And certainly given the public scrutiny on the project, I would have much preferred to have had the permits in place earlier. As a personal level, as someone who liaises with TNC on a regular basis, I'm satisfied that they're going down the right path and there's no alarm bells being set off for me personally. I know Craig, he will hopefully be coming in. I've invited him to come in and present to all the councillors in about a month's time, in about mid to late June, to give you an update on the project. I hope that'll appear in your calendars in the next week or so, to talk through where it's at so you can offer more direct questions to Craig as well. But yes, you're absolutely right. There has to be a point at which we go, this is just getting ridiculous. But I don't think we're at that point yet. If council wants more information brought back to it around that, I can provide it. But at this stage, it's delayed.
01:14:00 But I think, as I said, the original proposal called for actual reefs in the river at the 24-month mark, which is still two to three months away. I'm telling you now, I don't think we'll be able to do that. But I do think we'll have permits in place at that stage. Speaker 4: The other thing on that one, of course, is that our payments are tied to milestones. We're not making any payments unless they meet milestones. So there's no late pay money at risk if you like until things are done. Mayor Stewart: But it has been quarantined, though, for that project, hasn't it? Yes, that's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Craig, just a clarification. I understand the engineering works, but the symmetry works? Like, the symmetry is written on with that metric survey that the underwater topography is. Yes. That's all... It's not really works, it's just a survey. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry, yeah. Not works, yes. The symmetry and the engineering is what works. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And from memory, what we're doing is we're trying to do a more all-encompassing survey such that when we do get approvals, it's not just for individual structures,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 it's about where they can be placed in a variety of locations, considering the symmetry. Speaker 1: That's right, yeah. So the intent was not just to pick two or three sites and say, see the sites you want, and just do them. It was to do it more broadly because the actual implementations had to be done on two stages, a couple of reefs in early, then completion of the rest of the reefs. So we wanted to have all the permits in place for the entire two stages, rather than go through a secondary process. Councillor Wegener: Sure. How's the chuck, the chuck project, the oyster shell project? Donut? Chuck, don't chuck. Chuck, don't chuck. That's it. How does that look? Has there been progress with that, didn't you say? Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'd have to take extra advice on that. I know certainly initially we had a couple of restaurants really keen, but that was just before COVID hit. I know they are getting shell from Noosa restaurants, but I don't know which ones and I don't know how many, but I can provide that to you. Tom was just about to be picking up the phone to Craig and asking. Okay, thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Other things on that page?
01:16:00 I had one. I thought it might be of public interest in terms of the Works for Queensland Natural Areas program and it may link a little bit to Councillor Wegener' comments before. So can you give us an outline of the sort of activities they are doing and just a bit of background? Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. As part of the Works for Queensland program, we've been employing an extra team of four, essentially natural area staff, doing a couple of projects through natural areas. It was put forward as a project to provide training and re-skilling coming out of COVID. It probably ended up slightly less like that because we had more than 200 applicants for the positions, including many people with a lot of skills. But that said, it ended up with a fantastic group of four. They've completed a quite significant re-vegetation project out at Cooroy at Ashgrove Park. They're doing a re-vegetation project down at Peregian Beach. And they've also been partnering with the Bushcare group
01:17:00 and the Coastal Connect program through the eastern beaches, basically adding extra value for money in that area through there. They've also been helping out at the botanic gardens and other bushcare sites as well. So we've had a heap of really great feedback from down at the eastern beaches, both from residents and from bushcarers on the work they've done. Although I do acknowledge, probably because we see that and a lot of other people don't, that feedback, they've probably slipped under the radar a bit. And I'll try and promote them a little bit more because we've been absolutely thrilled, particularly with the quality of candidates we've got. They're an absolutely fantastic bunch of kids. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very good. We'll move on to the next page. 57, nothing in 57. 58. Mayor Stewart: I have a question, probably for our CEO. In regard to the Coastal Hands Adaptation Plan, where are we with that? Speaker 4: Yeah, so we obviously got a lot of submissions when we went out to that.
01:18:00 Just about the process. I'm just going to talk about the process, not about what's in the plan. So the process is that we got feedback. We're going to set up a round table. We've got an extension of time. We've got time for the council to deal with that until the end of November. So we'll go through a process to review those comments. Mayor Stewart: We'll organise that round table. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anything else on that page? We'll move on to page 59. Page 60. You guys sound down for a minute. Councillor Wegener: The Food and Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Network FAN partnership, in agreement with the New South Wales Council, you said council activated. Did we? Yeah. How's that going? Speaker 2: Good. I can follow up with more on Monday. Carolyn's been dealing with the detail on that. I don't have it in front of me.
01:19:00 But we've been partnering with FAN for about three years. So FAN, Food and Agribusiness Network, who actually go right from Moreton Bay up to Gympie. And they received a million dollars from federal government three years ago. So that's over three years. So we partner within that context and have a number of obviously outcomes and events and relationships. So I can certainly pass that detail on. Well, I think you'll find more of the activity within that kind of agreement. And Carolyn could share that. So I'll share that for Monday. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. When is Carolyn back again? She used to. Monday. Monday. Yeah. So she's going to come right into. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, send it around. 60, 61, 62, well there must be a difficult plumbing question I can ask.
01:20:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, flip. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No? Okay. 63. Okay, we'll be through when someone likes to move the recommendation. Okay, I'll do it through right here. And the seconder, Councillor Wegener. Any further discussion? I need to say that it's a job well done. We have had a particularly busy time throughout those three months. We've got a range of different areas, but, you know, obviously, Speaker 4: we've got control, seeing the peaks fly. Yeah, we've seen the same in building and plumbing and all those areas, development assessments where there's obviously a boom on at the moment based on the federal government, you know, time-biased schemes and all those sort of things. So the numbers of applications and... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, yes, and so thanks, staff, for all their hard work. I know that some areas are under pressure, and I suppose that's something we have to consider in our papers as well
01:21:00 in terms of looking at what the trends are and what we might need to make sure we can continue to provide a level of service which is commensurate with the industry. Anyone else wish to comment? No? All those in favour? That's your notice. And we... And we can close.