Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Well hello and welcome everybody to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open and we begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, which is the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people and pay our respects to their elders past, present and future. We have everyone in attendance. May we have someone to confirm the minutes of the general committee meeting from the 12th of April 2021. I move Joe Jurisevic seconded by Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? We have no presentations. We have no deputations. Councillors just begin with a general reminder that we have staff here for questions. If we can limit our questions for information only and save our points. If we wish to make points, save it for formal debate. And in debate, a general reminder that we allow all councillors to speak uninterruptedly and that we debate the councillors and the whole staff.
00:01:00 We have some items referred from the committees. The first is the representations to the development permit for material change of use for a food and drink outlet at 1 Arcadia Street, Noosa Heads. And we have the territorial manager of planning here for any questions. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question. Kerry, this is about a dining application for one premises in Arcadia Street, Noosa Heads. But we seem to have been inundated overnight by a series of emails from parties in the in the junction area suggesting that this is to do with. Dining changes to the Noosa plan 2020 to do with all dining establishments.
00:02:00 Can you clarify why we seem to have that perception from riders and how it relates to just one application that we have before us? Speaker 6: Okay. So the application before us seeks a negotiated decision. So it seeks to change conditions of the approval for the restaurant that were issued. So that's the application that we need to look at today. I think this is a reason for traders in the junction because the hours of operation in the junction are perhaps a bit overly restrictive. And I'm certainly recommending some changes to the hours in the conditions. And I think it's also something that we should look at in a future review of our planning scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: So the changes made. So there were changes made to the Noosa plan 2020 with regard to operating hours of dining establishments. Speaker 6: That's right. So under the 2006 scheme, there was really no conditions of operation for the junction.
00:03:00 Typically, they all operated or were allowed to operate till midnight. Under the new scheme, it imposes some different hours of operation suggesting that Friday and Saturday night. They can operate till midnight. But after that, they should close at 10pm. Speaker 3: And just to clarify. And I might just jump in there. Noosa Junction Association is asking how to look at, you know, how did that process work? And I'm digging into that at the moment. I've probably got about 80% of the information I need to be able to answer that question, but haven't got all the answers. But what I'll do is I'll go back to the Noosa Junction Association and explain that process. And I'll copy in all councillors for information as well when I have that information. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you Brett. Just to clarify, that differentiation in the new planning scheme has no, sorry, that change in the new planning scheme has no differentiation between indoor and outdoor dining times. Is that correct? Speaker 6: Yes. I'm recommending a change. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, but in the Noosa plan as it stands, there was no differentiation between indoor and outdoor dining time? Speaker 6: No, not for the hours.
00:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: But traditionally, we've always had a different closing time for outdoor areas and indoor areas when applications for dining have come before us. Speaker 6: Traditionally, we have in areas that are in close proximity to residential uses. Okay. Because the outdoor dining area is an area that's difficult to manage noise and mitigate noise because there's no measures really that you can impose that help to address it. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So what you're recommending today in this is a change to a restriction of outdoor dining time which is different to indoor dining. Speaker 6: That's right. So I am recommending a change to what the scheme suggests is appropriate for the junction. I think that is overly restrictive. But I am recommending that Thursday to Sunday we restrict the outdoor dining area to 10 pm. 10 pm. Now that means the indoors could operate seven days a week until midnight. Okay. So it's just the outdoor. That's the recommendations around. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, in regard to a little playing field, can the businesses or the restaurants in close
00:05:00 proximity, some of them, quite a few of them actually, they currently though are allowed to dine until midnight seven days a week outside, aren't they? Speaker 6: There are a numerous number of restaurants that are allowed to dine until midnight seven days a week in the junction that don't have limits on their hours of operation. But on review, many few choose to operate that way. Many of them shut 10 pm, except maybe Friday or Saturday night. There are certainly some premises that operate until midnight more than just a Friday and Saturday. But they're few and far between. Mayor Stewart: But the option's open if they want to do that. Speaker 6: There is the option open to them. Councillor Wegener: And Eddie Cheeba's, which is right next door to the new restaurant. He's the new applicant. That actually can have outdoor dining until midnight seven days a week. Good question. Thank you. Yeah, that's a question.
00:06:00 What's the question? Yes, that is a question. Speaker 4: How come? Speaker 6: Yeah. So I have undertaken a review of the properties next door and I'm just having a look. Eddie Cheeba's at the moment advertises their opening hours to be 11 pm Wednesday and Thursday and 12 am Friday and Saturday. So that's their advertised hours, what's on their website. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, in regards to existing and new businesses that are covered under the new supply, which requires them to be closed outdoors by 10 pm. If they were to make an application for outdoor dining, my understanding, that will trigger an MCU. Can you explain that? Yeah. Speaker 6: So. Councillor Lorentson: And also explain the cost of making an application for a material change of use. Speaker 6: Yeah. So under both the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme, if people wish to do outdoor dining
00:07:00 and they've never had approval before in the junction, would have required an application to be made to council. So that's not new. That's something that's been in since February 2006. And the requirement is there in order to review potential changes. Potential impacts of noise, but also to review potential increases in car parking demand. Because you have a greater dining area, potentially attract more customers and you require more car parking. Councillor Lorentson: So can I ask for further clarification? If I make an application for outdoor dining and the space then adds to my GFA and may trigger then parking contributions, is that what you're saying? Speaker 6: That's right. Exactly right. Now, many of them, when they do so, because there's exemptions for kitchen, they will propose from parking and the way the scheme has changes in the scheme, it results in essentially
00:08:00 a lot of the businesses proposing an outdoor dining area that's equivalent to their kitchen and there's no requirement for car parking because their kitchen becomes exempt. Councillor Lorentson: So what are the cost implications of that? So to make an application for an outdoor dining permit, the cost of an acoustic report and potentially cost of car parking infrastructure charges. Can you give me an idea of what a small business may have to incur? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a point of order. I think we're going in very general territory rather than into the mattery forest here. I don't think that's relevant to deciding this application. Councillor Wilkie: I'll allow a question. Speaker 6: Okay. So costs. Our council's application fees are based on the size of the area that's proposed. So it will vary depending on the size. Typically for a restaurant, it's around $5,000 application fee to council.
00:09:00 But if they were proposing a very small area, there's an opportunity to also ask for a fee. So there will be variation around that. An acoustic report, which was asked for on this development, if they wanted to be outside, that's obviously done by a private consultant. So it can vary. Reports can vary between, I think, $2,000 and $5,000. Councillor Lorentson: And infrastructure charges, car parking contributions in Noosa Junction? Speaker 6: Yeah. I believe it's $15,000 a space. But can I come back to you on that one? I've got it here. Councillor Lorentson: So potentially, we're looking at $15,000, $20,000, up to $35,000 for a small business to make an application for an outdoor dining permit. Speaker 6: For approval. For approval. Yeah. And as I've said, what a lot of the businesses are doing is making sure their outdoor dining
00:10:00 area matches the same size as the kitchen, and then there's no car parking contributions payable. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, I've got a schedule here. It says, current, and this could be wrong, as at the 18th of May, Noosa Heads, Noosa Junction, $24,000 car parking contribution. Yeah. Thank you. That would be right. 24. So that's changed. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question about the report. Go on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you mentioned that the use of the more restricted dining hours in outdoor areas was an attempt to reduce noise nuisance. Is there any... And it is typical that 10 p.m. is used. Is there any... Have we been able to find out whether there is any increased requirements from others in terms of noise generation after between 10 and 12? Speaker 6: Certainly. Liquor licensings have different levels around noise. Obviously, they allow more noise to be made before 10 p.m. After 10 p.m., there's an expectation that it reduces.
00:11:00 But I haven't been able to find out further for you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So in more general terms, there is requirements for noise generation that we would have put, whether it's 10 or 12 without a licence. There is a requirement. If we can't control it by dining hours, there is options to say, well, this is what you need to keep to in terms of noise generation. Speaker 6: Yes. That is an option for council to impose a condition around decibels. Yes. And we have a lot of ratings for businesses that operate after 10 p.m. or even before 10 p.m. to try and set a suitable level. The issue with that and why offices didn't recommend it is it's very difficult to manage and implement and do enforcement on. So it's not... Because you're essentially having to tell people to be quiet while they're enjoying their outdoor dining area.
00:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Is there any request from the applicant to have amplified music outdoors after 10 p.m.? Speaker 6: Just a second. You go for that. Councillor Wilkie: Is there any request from this applicant to have amplified music outdoors or music of any sort outdoors after 10 p.m.? Speaker 6: Yes. That's one of the conditions that the applicant has made representations on. They are seeking that amplified music be allowed until midnight. Councillor Wilkie: Are there any other businesses in that precinct that have amplified music outdoors until midnight? Speaker 6: There is at least one in the junction. Okay. And that business is causing issues for residents of the hill. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Just with regard to amplified music, my understanding of amplified music would have been in reference to live music and or speakers in the outdoor area. Is there any differentiation between...
00:13:00 And it can only be amplified music that is put through speakers through the indoor area as... You know, an ambient background noise for diners as opposed to what's placed outside. Are we able to differentiate between the two and allow an element of mood music, if you like, within the indoor dining space? Speaker 6: Yeah. Certainly, if they go through speakers, there's the ability to put a noise limiter on them and to limit the noise that comes out of the speakers in the first place. So that is something generally that can be managed reasonably well. It does come at a cost, because you've got to have a noise limiter to do so. And yeah, they are different. Whether something is amplified by speakers can cause greater issues than if it's just a guitar. Who keeps a guitar? Okay. Councillor Wegener: I've noticed now that on Bottle Brush Avenue, which is right next to the closest group of
00:14:00 houses to the junction is on Bottle Brush. That's high density on that side of the street, and then once you go to the other, the next block up is low density. Is there a difference between how the noise from the junction will affect... Is there a different expectation for a high density area than behind it, the low density area? Because that first line of houses is high density. Do they have the same expectation for noise? Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, I would think that if you're... If you were opposite the road to a business centre, you would have some expectation that there would be noise coming from the property, no doubt, compared to houses up the hill. They're further away. They wouldn't expect to hear the noise. And certainly, in past years, many of our businesses in the junction closed fairly early and didn't create any of those issues for residents up the hill. So this is something new that we're seeing.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 We are getting complaints from residents up the hill. We're getting complaints from people who are hearing those businesses that have music, amplified music outside, but also hearing patron noise quite late into the night. Speaker 3: I'll probably just add to that. There may also be a difference in the type of residence. So, you know, someone who's moved in more recently, when they're used to or understand that the junction is now operating later at night than it would have five or 10 years ago, their expectations might be different. For someone who perhaps lived there for 10, 20 years, when things were quieter when they bought the property, and now they're finding that the amenity is being impacted. So there's probably a couple of different categories of residents as well. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Can I ask, how many complaints, are they written complaints, and can we get a copy of the complaints and sort of understand what the noise issues are? Speaker 6: Yes, we can look at that. So some of the complaints go to our residents. Some of them have come from environmental health. Some have come to property, given the twilight market operating. And some have come to planning. So it might take a little bit, but I can try and .
00:16:00 Councillor Lorentson: Just to understand what the issue is, whether it's amplified music, whether it's patron music. Yeah. That would be great. Speaker 6: Definitely both. I checked in with our environmental health officers, and they were saying the noise complaints they're getting is mostly patron noise. Mainly patron noise. Mainly patron noise. Councillor Jurisevic: Also gives an idea of where the receptors of that noise are, in relation to where the noise is being generated. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. One conversation . Did you have a question you wanted to add? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I do, Kerry. So just to reiterate with the amplified music, 9 p.m. Sunday to Thursday is the current condition, and 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday. So just, I'm not musical, so I'm an, like, just to clarify, that amplified means that they can still have low music playing, or is that just all music off altogether? So amplified music is when it's plugged into an electric system. So even if it's, say, a soft music going in the background that's then considered amplified.
00:17:00 That's right. So that any music whatsoever is ceasing. Acoustic guitar singing. Speaker 6: Well, they can have an acoustic guitar singing. It's not amplified. It's not going through an electronic system to amplify it. So they can have an acoustic guitar until midnight. Mayor Stewart: Midnight. If they wanted to. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Is that Friday? On any night? Because it's only amplified. No. Not in the current conditions. Speaker 6: No, until 10 p.m. So 10 p.m. at the moment. Mayor Stewart: Oh, yeah. Under that. Right. That's right. Speaker 6: Kerry, does liquor licensing. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Speaker 6: I think I need to clarify that. So amplified is plugged into an electronic system. Okay. So if you had a guitar that's not plugged in, there'd be no restrictions on that in terms of hours. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: What about voice on a microphone? That's amplified. Speaker 6: Yeah. So it's controlled by the condition. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, does liquor licensing have any obligations to police sound levels coming from these outdoor areas after 10 p.m.?
00:18:00 Speaker 6: They do. But they respond to complaints and they respond to whether there's a breach of their condition. So what I'm finding with liquor licensing is planning review or liquor license when they come into council is that liquor license are looking more and more for council to set the direction for a local area in what's appropriate in terms of noise levels, operating hours, everything. Councillor Wilkie: So is there an independent standard that they apply regardless? Speaker 6: There is a standard and you'll find, which is in place for the businesses down in the junction that we're getting complaints about. Councillor Wilkie: So has liquor licensing taken action against any businesses? Speaker 6: It's compliant with their conditions. Pardon? It's compliant with their conditions is my understanding. So the noise levels set by liquor licensing are quite generous and allow quite a bit of noise to be made. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: My understanding, Kerry, is that liquor licensing only regulates noise emanating within the premises,
00:19:00 not outdoor dining. Is that right? No, they look at both. They do look at both. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And I think the question that Frank was starting to ask but didn't quite get there was, are we aware of complaints that have been dealt with by liquor licensing with regard to noise in the area? Councillor Wilkie: I wasn't, but that's an excellent question. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought that's where you were heading. Sorry, I thought that's what you started to say. That was where I thought you were going. Speaker 6: Liquor licenses don't contact us generally in terms of the complaints. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So we have no way of knowing what they do. Speaker 6: No. And for privacy reasons, they don't share the complaints they get with council either. Okay. Thank you. Certainly, there's been a couple of businesses such as the one on the corner of Noosa Drive and Bottle Brush that recently shut down. They certainly shared that one with us. Okay. Because, you know, the approval was laxing, so they were keen to understand that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 6: Not getting complaints about that one. Councillor Wilkie: Would it be irregular to have a condition that allows outdoor dining but prevents amplified
00:20:00 music outdoors? Would that be unusual? Speaker 6: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Yeah. If I can. Yeah. So page 23 and 34. It probably was. Yeah. Can you explain the difference between a performance outcome and an acceptable outcome in that a lot of the communications both on this side is relating to the setting of acceptable outcomes. Can you explain what the performance outcome which is live music creates entertainment for patrons involved and see within the street scape and is sited to avoid significant impacts on surrounding residential land users, whether it's mandatory to achieve that or not? Speaker 6: Okay so under the planning legislation people are required to meet the performance outcome okay so the performance outcome of the scheme the
00:21:00 acceptable outcome is one way of meeting the performance outcome so if council was satisfied with the proposed change in hours met that outcome then you would Councillor Wegener: be voting consistent with the planning scheme okay so the planning legislation Speaker 6: requires people to meet the performance outcome okay so that's the left-hand side period 14 the acceptable outcome on the right-hand side which is where the hours come from is one way of meeting the performance outcome so what we have here is if you meet those hours then Speaker 3: you're clearly considered to meet the performance outcome with relation to Councillor Jurisevic: acceptable outcomes a a 14.1 doesn't apply here because the site is not adjacent to land in a residential zone that's right there's a number of
00:22:00 scenarios 14 14.2 just like music system operating outdoor spaces by time in Hastings Street mixed-use green suit on as the junction hospitality and 14.3 so Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 14.2 and 3 would apply here yeah yeah solid question on that if the applicant is in this case it doesn't wish to meet want to meet the criteria but not the acceptable outcomes I want to meet the performance outcome is that generally why when we ask for an acoustic report that's correct that they have to justify that a cameo that's right that's in the lack of that is you have no information to face have no information to determine Speaker 6: whether the buildings are located away that will mitigate noise for residents Councillor Lorentson: up the hill do we rate those outcomes scary in the context of the purpose on a
00:23:00 All of the aim of the major centre zone and the junction hospitality precinct. So I've got in front of me that, you know, the aim is development specifically, development specifically supports and provides entertainment, including live entertainment in suitable locations in premises such as cafes, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, cinemas, and markets. And these suitable locations where entertainment uses and street activation is encouraged and may occur into the evenings and late nights. So you've got to read one in context of the other. The two must be read together. Speaker 6: Yeah, well, both requirements apply. And as, you know, as we've pointed out, the performance outcome, if you meet that,
00:24:00 then you would be consistent with those higher order provisions around providing an area in the junction for late night entertainment. So it's about going through the process of demonstrating that you're not going to cause significant impacts on nearby residents. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, so this is to permit the activity, but to have restrictions on the time so that it doesn't, as you said, it doesn't affect the amenity of nearby residents. Speaker 6: Yeah, and certainly the junction, you know, it's a major centre for the Shire. It's an area where we want to encourage entertainment. And for nightlife, but it's about a balance in looking after residents nearby. All right. Councillor Wilkie: I'll try a motion. It's going to involve a change to A3. So it would say, agree, agree to, right.
00:25:00 So agree to amend conditions three, six and nine to read as follows. The approved use can operate during the hours of June, the hours of 6am to 12am, seven days a week, full stop, full stop, strike the rest of that, but then leave the clause about amplified music as is, and the rest of the motion as is. Speaker 3: Can I forget that you just read clause three out for those who are watching? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, so condition three would read as follows. Condition three reads as follows. The approved use can operate during the hours of 6am to 12am, seven days a week, and condition six,
00:26:00 amplified music must cease to operate in outdoor spaces by 9pm, Sunday, Thursday, be 10pm, Friday to Saturday. And the rest of the motion is the same. May I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Lorentson, thank you. Councillor, I do this because consistency is important. And we've got a situation where historically other businesses in this precinct have been able to operate to midnight, seven days a week. But we also have to balance. I think it's fair to say that there is an expectation that there will be patron noise seven days a week from the junction, which is a hospitality precinct, seven days a week, into the night. But the one thing that does have the potential to really interfere with residential amenity is amplified music in outdoor areas.
00:27:00 And for that reason, I feel amplified music, the 10pm on a Friday and Saturday night, is sufficient. A lot of patrons may have already left by then. There could be music inside the facility after that time. That's still permitted. So they can still enjoy music at the facility inside after 10pm to midnight on Friday and Saturday, and also from 9pm to midnight on Sunday to Thursday. But no amplified music. And the outdoor areas in those areas. I think this is a good balance. What we're trying to achieve that is consistency with what's allowed in other businesses in the junction and also recognition that amplified music does have the potential to travel and also disturb the nearby residences. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to make an amendment to that Council Walker's motion to include the review.
00:28:00 We've received But the CEO be requested to include a review of the operating hours of licensed premises as part of the next package of amendments of the new news plan 2020 and that as part of that review process consultation occur within the community and business associations. And Brett, just to clarify, does licensed premises or outdoor dining be included in that? Speaker 6: I think it would be. Mayor Stewart: Does that need to be included? Oh, sorry. The review of the operating hours of licensed premises. Which includes outdoor dining or is that taken as. Speaker 3: That would be covered by the. If you want to put it in, you can clarify. I think it would probably be covered by the premises because the license would extend to the outdoor area. Speaker 6: It does extend. The license does extend to the outdoor dining area. Speaker 3: Do we need to. A cafe may not have a liquor license, for example.
00:29:00 Maybe just which includes outdoor dining. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Does that need to be clarified if the outdoor dining is on public land or private? No. Speaker 3: That wouldn't matter. Speaker 6: No. The planning scheme just applies to private. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can we add to that amendment and residence? It does say that it's community and business association. You've seconded the motion. Councillor Wilkie: I love it. Oh, excuse me. I've seconded the motion. You've seconded. We can have further amendments if need be. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. No. She's seconded. I'll be the second. I'll be the second. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. That's right. Please wish to speak. Mayor Stewart: Look, just that I think this is important. We've had a number of correspondents from our associations requesting or asking us questions. And I think it's a prudent time. Our CEO's told us that he's looking into this matter. I think it's a prudent time that we do engage with our community as well as our business associations in regard to this review of these hours.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 I think it's very important they haven't had the opportunity specifically to make comment on this. And I think it's something that we need to hear from them. And we also need to hear from our community. So I'd like that we undertake a proper consultation in regard to this going forward or review at whenever, you know, at the earliest time. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I'll support the amendment. I think it's prudent that we do review these things from time to time. And we've had some input from the business community that they feel there's room there and scope there to review what we've put in. They don't feel like they were sufficiently consulted at the time of the process. So I'm happy to support that. And I'm happy to see as part of the package of the next lot of amendments that we do include a review of operating hours in these areas. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel?
00:31:00 Yeah, I'm happy to support the amendment. We all support community consultation because further down the track, we realise that that's good governance and people begin to trust our leadership decisions. I think it's good. I myself received correspondence over the weekends from all the business groups and communities. So I think it's timely given the fundamental changes through lifestyle with the outcomes of COVID and those impacts, socially and economically on our community. I think it's a good time to go back to community and revisit because change is fundamental at the moment. And as we know, community finds challenges around change and it's up to us to have the vision to move forward and collectively consult with all players on the field. To make sure all voices are heard and that they are considered in our decision making. So I support the Mayor in this today. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Robinson?
00:32:00 Councillor Lorentson: Tom, can you go first? Councillor Wegener: Just quickly, we all know that the Junction is on the precipice of great changes and we do want to have as much consultation about this to get a clear vision of how the playing field is. To know where the playing field lumps are or whatever. Going forward so that there's certainty amongst people that are willing to invest and make it better. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Robinson? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support the amendment. In particular, a review of the requirements for outdoor dining. I'm really concerned about the cost. The cost of MCU. The cost of potential car parking contributions. I'm really concerned about that. The cost of acoustic reporting. I think that as a council, if we're genuine in our support for small business, then we must be genuine in our intent to remove the barriers that set them up for failure.
00:33:00 And I think the potential of applying for an outdoor consent that's going to trigger an MCU that will cost a small business upwards of $44,000. Is something that's going to set them up for failure. But more importantly, what I'm concerned about, that it's going to have an undesirable outcome or I've seen businesses revert back to, sorry, what I'm more concerned about is the undesirable or unintended consequence of that, which may see businesses like Lightyears, like Tarko's, revert back to 10pm in an area that's been clearly identified. And I think that's going to be a real challenge. So happy to support a review that encourages consultation. Again, we must commit to consultation with the community. This is how we make better decisions and this is how we build more united and stronger communities.
00:34:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wasn't going to talk, but it's really important to focus on what the amendment says and not what it doesn't say. So it talks about a review of operating hours of licensed premises. There's a whole lot of new material which is based on a range of assumptions which is painting a worst-case scenario in the last speech. And I refute them. I think the new scheme has done a lot to encourage this nature of activity. It's always easy to add up costs and paint this as a move to be nice to small business. In reality, any business establishing will have some level of planning approval. What this motion talks about is that we may have the acceptable outcomes a little bit off. It doesn't mean that you can't bury the acceptable outcomes, as we've just established.
00:35:00 What it says is maybe we can have a look at those acceptable outcomes and tweak them to achieve. So it's probably really what it's doing is reducing the cost of... Having to do a sound report for things like we're currently getting if they comply with the new acceptable outcomes. It's not going to the concept of whether a card up and contributions are required, whether an MTU is required. They'll vary from site to site, from business to business. And there's many, many places in the Shire where people can have outdoor dining without incurring $44,000. And I don't want to see the headlines tomorrow quoting inaccurate or at least worst-case scenario. Councillor Jurisevic: Just before we vote, can I ask a question, if I may? With regards to what Councillor Stockwell was alluding to then, Kerry.
00:36:00 I think you're going to say I was right. I was heading down a question just to clarify. Now I've lost my train of thought. Sorry. Councillor Finzel: Can I just make a comment there? Am I allowed to speak? No. Councillor Wilkie: You can ask a question, though, Karen, if you want. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Will this amendment support a more even advantage in terms of trade where somebody's going to have to go back and have a look at what changes to the planning scheme should Speaker 3: be made and to consult the community and the business community, the business associations on the potential changes. Those changes come back to council to make that decision. So whether they're equitable or whether they're right, that will be the council's decision.
00:37:00 Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. I just remembered what the question was. With regard to, you know, I think it's a good question. You're talking about the cost like MCU's in there. That would only apply where there is a change to the existing use. This wouldn't apply where a restaurant is fitting into an existing restaurant which has existing use rights. Is that correct? Yeah. It would only be triggered where a commercial premises is undertaking a complete change from what it has previously. Speaker 6: That's right. It's only going to apply to what's new, if they don't have outdoor dining or they're Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And look, I of course support the Mayor's amendment. It's a good opportunity to address some inconsistencies that have developed in the junction through some historical approvals that have been given regarding hours of operation and what's come in under the Noosa planning scheme. So of course I support the Mayor's amendment. Thank you.
00:38:00 You should close. No, I won't close. Thank you. Could you put the amendment those in favour? It's unanimous. And now, the amendment now becomes part of the original motion and only one motion. So I've just spoken to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. While we're in the... Commitment phase. Commitment phase. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a further amendment. I'll read it out. That items B and C be amended to read include the following additional conditions. 15, noise emanating from the internal premises including amplified... Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just put them on the page. I take that. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. I think that condition 15 should say internal premises and outdoor dining area. Yes. Noise emanating from the internal premises and outdoor dining area. Speaker 6: Sorry. Is that even from a painter? No. I'm going to have to wait. Councillor Wilkie: I'm talking to the client. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Including amplified or non-amplified noise impact noise must not exceed between 6am and 12am, which is the proposed operating hours.
00:39:00 75dbc fast response when measured approximately at the same time as the proposed operating The containers or speakers used to amplify noise must not be located in any outdoor dining area. All amplified noise at the premises must be conducted through a sound limiting device at all times to ensure the noise does not exceed levels described in the conditions of this licence. I'm sure that should say of a licence, not this licence. The sound limiting device is to have a locking mechanism which is to be locked at all times except for inspection or maintenance work on the device. Access to the sound limiting device except for maintenance work is restricted to the licences nominee and the persons in charge of the premises at each time. The sound limiting device must be checked and if necessary calibrated by a qualified equipping engineer at least every 12 months until compliance with the conditions of the licence. Evidence of the sound limiting device calibration must be made available. Available to an authorized person on request.
00:40:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I can ask a question of the mover on this, does the addition of outdoor dining area in 15 not one Meفa kann lov A between schwalbe Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, because it deals with non amplified music as well So it was there was a late amendment to the amendment prior to the meeting which could have been 지나ptåacji Councillor Wilkie: And if you, in 15, do you want the word between to follow the word exceed on the second line? Councillor Jurisevic: It should not say, must not exceed 75 DBC between 6am and 16am. Councillor Wilkie: It's just the way that it's written here. Must not exceed 75. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, 75 DBC between. So if you move the 75 DBC, yeah, between's still right there. Cathy, sorry. Sorry.
00:41:00 Sorry, I only thought of this last line. The 75 DBC should be before that. That would be very helpful to try and get it ready for it now. I think that is more correct English. Speaker 6: Yeah, that looks better. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was worried about the... I guess you read that. Okay, so that paragraph now reads, Noise emanating from the internal premises and outdoor dining area, including amplified or non-amplified noise and paper noise, must not exceed. It should not exceed 75 DBC between 6am to 12am fast response when measured approximately three metres from the primary source of the noise. Councillor Wilkie: And before we go to second, I can ask you a question, Brian, is, do these conditions reflect liquor licensing requirements that currently exist? Could you answer this? Do these conditions reflect currently the licensing requirements? Speaker 6: No, they are conditions prepared by our environmental health. The noise level stat will require a lower level. The level is my understanding than what liquor licences would typically impose. What would liquor licencing? I'd have to come back and check.
00:42:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, second. Question? Second. Okay, second it for the purpose of debate. I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Thank you, Joe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so now I've concluded. So yeah, so this was my request to start to bring forward a condition to contain noise levels to what's the acceptable limit from memory. This is a sort of condition we put on places like Bounce, which was the backpackers that had a licence area backing onto residential. It's similar to the sort of provisions that were discussed for the Sunshine Beach Surf Life Savings Club. So basically, I've got no problem with the operating hours. But I think if, without the conduct of a noise report, we have no ability to suggest that they can't be used. They can operate in a way that the residents on the hill won't be affected. So this is the limits suggested and process suggested by staff to set limits that would
00:43:00 and monitoring mechanisms which allows us to say, here's an acceptable level of noise. The key criteria here is when we looked at creating the hospitality precinct, we deliberately didn't call it an entertainment precinct. Because entertainment precincts have the ability for local governments to vary noise requirements of the state. We did, as Rumi said, we wanted it to be low key, we wanted to have acoustic musicians, et cetera, et cetera. That's the nature of the use. We are having problems and there would be nothing worse for a emerging hospitality precinct to start having some of the battles with local residents. We have previously had a community meeting where over 200 people were in a community meeting and about 150 people turned up about the music and noise in the junction when the local placemaking plan was put to the community back in the Sunshine Coast Council area.
00:44:00 It's not meant to be overly restrictive and it's meant to set in a reasonable noise limit. I think, yes, it's going to require this business to have a response that's different to those who've had a historic response. But that is always the way. We wouldn't be living in cyclone rated houses if back in the 70s when we started to have the whole suburb being hit by cyclones. If we said, well, it's not fair. There has to be a little playing field that all these people with houses that aren't constructed to cyclone rating shouldn't be required to upgrade. I think it's about if we're going to set the limit and without a sound report, this is what can happen. That gives me confidence that this business can meet the specific outcome that's in the planning scheme. Joe, you had a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Kerry. Condition 16 there. If planners or speakers used to amplify noise must not be located in any outdoor dining
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 area. One, it suggests, firstly, that it could be located inside the premises. And secondly, is that a condition that applies to any of the other dining establishments in the area? In essence, can they have entertainers or speakers outside to amplify noise with time restrictions? Speaker 6: It's certainly a condition that's been used before on properties that are in proximity to a residential. But the Noosaville Junction, there are not many development approvals issued for the junction because they were issued many years ago. And those that were issued have very few conditions on them. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that it's an... What are we clarifying? Entertaining. Entertaining. Not entertainment. Hospitality. Hospitality precinct. Wouldn't there be expectations that amplified... Extern... Entertainers or speakers would be used in premises in the area?
00:46:00 Speaker 6: We're not saying they can't. Part of the... We're not saying they can't. It's that they can't have them outside. Outside. Yeah. But I would expect they would have them inside. So that's what I'm saying. The doors are open and the noise would still be heard by people who are driving. Councillor Jurisevic: The noise would still emanate from inside the premises. Yeah. But they can't be located outside. Mayor Stewart: But Kerry, how... 75 DCB, DBC, how noisy is that? Do we know? Like, do we have any idea? Speaker 6: My understanding, and I probably need to come back to you on this, is conversation level is around 65 DCB, so it's slightly higher than that. Mayor Stewart: That's not very high, is it? Speaker 6: No. But can I come back to you on that? Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, is there any opportunity for us to run this past just our environmental staff, and just maybe with just the business community? I just think it's something that I haven't really got my head around, so I don't want
00:47:00 to come and approve it and then find out afterwards that... Right. ...it's not reasonable. Is there any way we can put this on pause until we get some further, just further clarification and just further understanding of whether it's a reasonable cause or not? Speaker 6: Yeah. So these conditions have been written by environmental health officers. We can, between now and the ordinary meeting, ask the applicant if they're willing to extend the negotiated period out in order for the matter to be decided at a future council meeting. That would be excellent. Tom? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I answer the question? Oh, yeah. Go ahead. In terms of 75 decibels. So let's look at that. Vacuum cleaner average rate. I'll give examples given. Tom? Councillor Wegener: See, if we're normal at 65, the conversation, Joe, would probably be an 80. Very concerned that there would have been no Joe Grozone. So I do not want discrimination against Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Discrimination against me now. Of course. Councillor Wegener: So the question is, this couldn't happen.
00:48:00 I mean, people with loud voices, they wouldn't. Would that fit into what Brian is talking about? Speaker 6: Yeah. Look, I'll need to take the advice of our environmental health officer. Oh, OK. Councillor Jurisevic: Clearly, I couldn't meet you and talk to you. Speaker 3: Worried about that. Yeah, putting aside the shot of Councillor Jurisevic, the wording that's up there at the moment is neutralised to the source of the sound. It's about what the sound is, whether it's by music or by voices or whatever. It's about the sound level. So the question is whether that's the right level or if you want to have a DBA level actually imposed or not. That's the fundamental question. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, when we impose conditions on the Sunshine Beach Surf Club, how do they compare to, they were similar, but in terms of decibel level. Speaker 6: Yeah. I'll have to go back and compare that. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to the motion. Yeah. The amendment. The amendment. Look, I won't be supporting it in its current form, simply because we don't have sufficient
00:49:00 understanding of the conditions as they stand. I'm quite prepared to refer this to further consideration with additional information. And I think other councillors' questions are relating to that. But, yeah. The one particular condition that irks me as it stands is 16, that no speakers or entertainers can be located in an outdoor dining area at any time. That results in any time of, given the location is not in direct proximity to a residential area and is in the Arcadia Walkway, music is often heard and quite a good area for a lot of that sort of activity. I can't support it in its current form. But I am prepared to seek further advice and to review this to a further consideration,
00:50:00 either at Thursday night's meeting or in a subsequent meeting from here if the applicant Councillor Wilkie: is willing to agree. Thank you, Joe. Do the councillors wish to speak to the amendment? No. Councillor Finzel: I won't be supporting the amendment. Okay. We've just agreed that we would go back to community consultation. We've discussed unfair advantage in terms of trade. And given what's been said with the approvals in the past being made to operate, there's a lot of inconsistencies. I'm not prepared to drill down to conditioning this at this point. I agree with Councillor Jurisevic that we need more information. I just don't think we should be drilling down to conditioning this at this point. I don't think we have the conditions at this point on this amendment without further consultation and information.
00:51:00 Mayor Stewart: Councillor Shearer? I won't be supporting it either. I mean, this is just so much red tape. And I don't even... I mean, 75 DCB, if we're talking now, that worries me that that level is so low. As the other councillors have said, you know, we need further information. We need to take it out to community consultation. But this, to me, is a whole lot of prescriptive conditions that I think are unfair. And it's certainly unfair with one business compared to all the others. So I won't be supporting this. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: For all the reasons mentioned before, the amendment just in front of us, again, that presents more barriers for small business. And it's anti-competitive. I will not be supporting it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment?
00:52:00 Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll close. I tend to agree that, A, before the ordinary meeting, we should get more advice. I tend to agree that we need to make sure that what staff have recommended is what we expected. And if we aren't, I don't think we're going to be able to get any more advice. I think we're going to have to be clear on what 75 decibels, if that is the right level, through the whole day. I'm quite happy with that. I do think we have to be very mindful that we represent the whole community. And NUSA wouldn't be what it is unless we did approach development applications with the outcomes of the planning scheme in mind. And I'm quite happy for the outcome to be achieved. But I'm not happy to suggest that just by opening up trading hours that it can be, because we've got no evidence to base. And I know a lot of councillors talk about having an evidence base.
00:53:00 So I do believe it's appropriate to either restrict the licensing at the opening hours or have an expectation of noise which does not have a significant impact on the community, which is what the outcome is that we're discussing. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the motion to amendment. Those in favour? Mr Gaines? Councillor Wegener: I move and proceed with a motion that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to allow staff to provide an additional report which outlines an appropriate level of noise abatement or noise monitoring. And an indication of conditions placed on previous hospitality uses in the item. Speaker 3: So procedural motion is that the item be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting for consideration
00:54:00 of a further report from staff. Yes. Addressing the following issues. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Addressing the following issues. Number one. Appropriate noise levels for business uses. Speaker 3: Can I perhaps just flag that if this list is going to be extensive it might not be to be completed by staff by Thursday night. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I just sort of, an indication of. It's about this application is what I'm getting at. An indication of the sort of conditions placed on hospitality uses in the Nusa Lake Island. So I think there's only two or three where we've done it recently.
00:55:00 What are you looking for in the wording? And advice as to relevant similar conditions. Yes. In recent approvals for hospitality operations in the Nusa Heads area. Speaker 6: Not Sunshine? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Well, 4567 postcode. And Noosaville. 4567. In the Nusa area. Just take out the Heads. Sorry. Speaker 3: I'm going to be particular here. I don't want to be a big . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So from Mary Street to Sunshine Beach Surf Club. Councillor Lorentson: Who's this? Can I? Can I? So 456667. Sorry. Speaker 3: Sorry. Can I just jump in? Councillor, we've got to be quite specific. Okay. Advice. This is going to get too big. You're not going to get . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: An indication. I don't want to be extensive researcher. This is an indication that I think of a relevant similar condition.
00:56:00 So if they find two or three, that'll give us an indication. Is that good enough? Is that? Speaker 3: Okay. An indication of relevant similar conditions and recent approvals of hospitality operations in the Nusa area. In the Nusa locality. Speaker 6: That's a quick question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. I'm just. Just explain what you're trying to say. Yeah. Between the Noosaville business district and the Sunshine Beach business district. Between the Noosaville business district and the Sunshine Beach business district. And Sunshine Beach business district. Okay. Do you want to. Because I think there's only two or three. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you want to say Hastings Street and Noosa Junction? Let's be specific. Can we all speak? Speaker 3: So Kat in the Noosa Heads, Noosa Junction, Noosaville and Sunshine Beach district. Excuse me. There it is. There it is. Can we come back to number one?
00:57:00 Yeah. So again, that is a very generic issue that would be too. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, recommended noise levels for business uses. Hospitality uses. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Hospitality uses. Councillor Wilkie: Could be more specific. It turns to live music really, isn't it? Mayor Stewart: No, it's amplified as well. Councillor Wilkie: Amplified live music. Amplified music. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That don't. Well, I'm trying to get the. In similar. You're trying to find out whether 75 DBA is appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. But it may be if you're right beside the residence. It may be too low in this situation. In similar context. Similar location. Councillor Jurisevic: Similar context. Yeah. I would say hospitality uses in similar context rather than business uses. Speaker 3: Kerry, you're the one who's going to have to prepare this report. Does that make sense to you? And I don't mean that disrespectfully. No, no. We've got to work. Yeah, that's true. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You don't want to make it bigger than this.
00:58:00 I agree. Speaker 3: It just. The second one I'm okay with. Speaker 6: I think the first one, we're really just wanting an understanding what 75 DBA is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And whether AV. Speaker 6: The noise level's going to vary depending on where you are in proximity to residential. That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: We're talking about proximity to residential areas in this area. Speaker 3: Can I make a suggestion then? Yeah. So first one would be more information about. What noise levels. What different noise levels mean in practical terms. Meaning practical terms and in the context of the situation. And then the second one is about the application of this application at Moonsha Junction.
00:59:00 Because that then puts. I'll second that. Puts it in. Puts it in. That's about whether 75 is right or whatever it might be. And really what we're dealing with is this application. We're not dealing with the broader issue. We're dealing with this application. First the hospitality use. That report is not the full review of all of the issues. It's about how you can make a decision on this application. And the first part of that additional information is what does 75 mean? What's 80 mean? What's 85 mean? I'll second that. Thank you. And how does that then deal with this application at Moonsha Junction in the context of residents. And the second one is where have we imposed decibel limits in other applications in recent times. And understanding the whys and wherefores of those. So that would be my advice. That if you're looking for a further report or have received a motion that would cover what you need to cover. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We've got it. It's been seconded. Councillors can ask questions after Councillor Stockwell has spoken to it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. I just think from what people were saying is there was a number of people who thought they needed more information to understand what 75 decibels is like.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 And I think there was another core line of logic is about being equitable across businesses. And I think it's important to find out what we have imposed on other businesses to make sure that we are approaching the issue in a consistent fashion. Yes. Councillor Finzel, you had a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just have a question. I just need clarification. If it's a hospitality precinct, I thought that liquor licensing managed the noise. Speaker 3: Can you explain the difference between a hospitality precinct and an entertainment precinct? Yeah. Speaker 6: So just to start with that question, hospitality is a term that, council termed, has no meaning in terms of the liquor license. Entertainment precinct is something recognised by the liquor license. And that basically gives them a license to make noise and everybody else has to mitigate noise coming from the restaurants and bars.
01:01:00 So they're two different things. So certainly liquor licensing regulate all premises that are licensed. And that will include hours of operation, noise level, extent of dining, as well as some relevant ones about serving alcohol to people. Speaker 3: Just to add to that, the entertainment precinct is, you know... Councillor Finzel: But I thought it was a hospitality precinct. Speaker 3: Yeah. So there's two different things. So we've got hospitality precinct in our planning scheme. The entertainment precinct is something under the liquor act. Yeah. That's the things like Fortitude Valley in Brisbane. I think the little bar's one. I think there's one at the Gold Coast. We don't have any entertainment precincts under the liquor act in Mercer. Hospitality precinct is an issue under our planning scheme, which is how we manage all that. I'll call it that central area of Mercer Junction. Councillor Finzel: So is that putting council in the role of mitigating noise through our decisions for the hospitality precinct?
01:02:00 Speaker 3: Well, to some extent, all planning decisions we have where there's conflict between users, including if it's noise, whether it's industrial areas or this area, we do have that power to look at mitigating the impact of noise on the adjoining neighbours. So that could be in relation to a hospitality precinct. It could be in relation to industrial areas. We do have that power to deal with the noise. Councillor Finzel: So based on this application, going back to these acceptable outcomes, Herberts, the city, this is the application we're talking about, is this site adjacent to a residential zone? Speaker 6: No. It's in Arcadia Way. So it's not adjacent to a residential zone. But noise from the junction is being heard by residents who live on Nussel Hill. So they're experiencing and complaining about noise from businesses in the junction. Speaker 3: And that's as much about the topography. You've got the sort of hill going up behind and noise that's not necessarily screens it, but it's not necessarily screens it. Councillor Finzel: I'm just trying to work out why we're doing a procedural motion on this specific one,
01:03:00 which seems broader than actually looking at the application in front of us. Speaker 3: I can answer that question. That's why I was so particular about the wording in A, that it has to be in relation to this application. It's not about the entire review of all advertising. So the procedural motion you look in paragraph A, it's about this application, the context of this application, not about our approach to the whole issue generally, which is going to come up in the scheme review. So the additional information that would come to council on Thursday night relates to this application, not about the whole context of where we should and shouldn't have late night. Mayor Stewart: But wouldn't the information garnished from this be part of a wider review? And also, it would be good to, Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, to have the, you know, obviously you're going to write a report and have staff. It would be good to get feedback from our businesses in regard to the information that
01:04:00 we're requesting. Would that be, to get a, and to get the community's feedback. Like is this part, is that question really part of a wider review? Speaker 6: No, no, no. That's something that we will need to do as part of a scheme review. Speaker 3: Sorry, that will come out in relation to your amendment and what we did. But this is about this application. Yeah, no, I understand. Councillor Lorentson: But it would fall under. Yes. So Kerry, could we add maybe the information that I asked before, just for data, what are the complaints, where it's coming from, which are the businesses that are causing complaints. Is that relevant in this procedural motion? That would be covered in A. Speaker 6: Councillors may wish to add that in. But I was going to provide that anyway for you. Yes. Just be good to have all the information. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We've got a procedural motion then for us. Speaker 3: Can I just ask one more question then, please? Councillor Finzel: Yes. So, like, this might be a dumb question, but I'm just wondering, if we make a decision
01:05:00 on this application, then I feel like we're making that before we've done the broader community consultation and locking them into a condition before we've done the broader consultation. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Firstly, there's no such thing as a dumb question. That's a good question. It's a... What we have before us at the moment, which has triggered the broader policy question, is an individual application. It would be unfair to put the whole application on hold for this applicant because that would take time and this applicant needs an answer so they can manage their business. So we're going to have to make a decision on this application. What we then need to do is to go through a separate process of puts it before the policy question, and it might be consistent with what we end up deciding on this application or it might be different. But that's a decision the council's going to have to make. But ultimately, we do have an application that we need to make a decision on. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I add a further point to that? This is only a request for more information for Thursday night.
01:06:00 It's not a decision on the application. But you will need to make a decision on the application. On Thursday night. On Thursday. Yeah. But potentially based on more information coming to us. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay, councillors. Councillor Stockwell spoke to the procedural motion asking for more information to help us inform our decision making on Thursday night. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to it because it directly relates to the objection I had to the motion to the amendment before us. It does request some more information about different noise levels and understanding of what has gone for us in recent similar conditions and whether this is in keeping with conditions that council has applied to dining type establishments in and around the similar area in recent times and in keeping with our plans. So I think it's, again, there's no decision being made here. This is purely a request for more information so that we can be clear. We need to be informed enough by Thursday night to see if we want to add conditions limiting noise of the nature of which Councillor Stockwell was trying to move in that amendment to this
01:07:00 application or not. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. The councillor speaks to the procedural motion. Tom. Councillor Wegener: Well, the junction is, again, in a change. We're talking about a new vision for the junction. There's big planning going along here. And if we make a decision to allow the outdoor music, then we're making a decision that sticks forever and that we may end up in that situation saying, gee, we kind of wish we didn't give them that outdoor music there because it doesn't fit in with the next version of the junction that we're working towards. It seems to me that moving ahead prudently is a very important decision. It's very important until we get the massive shared vision for where the junction is going. And we don't want to step too forward too fast, but we do want to get behind the junction
01:08:00 with where it's going. So, I'm wondering, there seems to be an overlap. We want to give the applicant surety in what they're doing, but we also want to pull back and say that it doesn't overlap and can proceed further into where we want to go. The future, where we see it going. So, we don't want to step too far. So, that's where I'm seeing this. There's kind of two things happening. There's two gears going. One is we want to give the applicant surety in staying open, but the outdoor music, if we say, yes, you can have outdoor music amplified until midnight, we may regret that decision further. So, that's my feeling because it might be inconsistent where we end up with a junction in a year from now. So, I'm appreciating that we're really talking about this slowly, and I'm not quite sure where. But it sounds like there's quite a bit of discussion that's going to come on Thursday
01:09:00 night. So, is that it? That's great. Councillor Lorentson: Street scan. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to approve this procedural motion. I think we have an obligation to make informed decisions. I think we have an obligation to make informed decisions. I think we all need to be available here today and get as much information as we can and considering the wider and entire community. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anything from the councillors who wish to speak to the procedural motion? I'll speak in favour of that. We'll be discussing the last amendment. There were many very good questions about what it actually means, what 75 DB means. Is 85 more appropriate, 90 more appropriate? Where else have these similar conditions been applied? I'm the one who will be very interested in having that information to help inform a better decision on Thursday night. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add to that?
01:10:00 Yes, I support the motion. I agree that we want to get this right. We're in a transitional stage. We're projecting vision forward for the development of this precinct and we do want to get it right. So I think it's a great opportunity to get further information to inform our decision and support this business and the precinct moving forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only to think that I think it is what Councillor Wegener was saying. It's probably important that if we can come to an agreement as to what is the acceptable limits in this application, probably just set at least a benchmark to work on. And I for one, and Mary, I'm very keen to see that outcome achieved, which is a vibrant streetscape with music. It's just we need to make sure that we have the relevant provisions in there to make sure that it achieves that and achieves the vibrancy on that and duly affecting residents on the hill. So I think there's a bit more information we may get there.
01:11:00 Councillor Wilkie: I put the motion in favour, it's carried unanimously, thank you. Now with your indulgence, a strict five minute break councillors. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
75 minutes in ¶
01:18:00 Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Alright. We're all good. We're ready to go. Councillor Lorentson: We're right there? Yeah, it's on. Speaker 3: Good. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, welcome back everybody. We've planned a meeting open again. Thank you for your patience. We're up to item two, which is the Memorandum of Understanding of the University of the Sunshine Coast,
01:19:00 referred from the Services and Organisation Committee meeting. And it's a report by the CEO. Any questions of the CEO, councillors? Councillor Wegener: Well, I think we left it last Tuesday when we were going to ask just what would the job entail? Like what is the councillor's role on the panel? And would it be logical that once we split it up each year, a new councillor comes in and takes the position? Speaker 3: Yeah, so under the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, there's a management committee, which consists of two people from the native councillor end and two people from the university end. The proposal is that one be the CEO himself and the other be a councillor. What that management committee is designed to do is to look at building the relationships, looking at some opportunities that are out there.
01:20:00 I can't say the spot. So, yeah, that's really what it's about. And with rotation work, absolutely. Councillor Wegener: We had an informal discussion, can I bring that up, you guys, where we made a decision outside of here? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And was it... Speaker 3: If you want to tell me what you're trying to achieve, I can help you get it right. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, okay, to get it to there, where we decided amongst ourselves that I'm happy to go last in the third year because there's three more years. There's three more years of us in council. And I believe Karen wanted to be first. Is that right? Councillor Finzel: Well, it was open to everyone to put their voice forward. I was happy to say I'm happy to go first. Speaker 3: I know there are a number of councillors who are keen, which is great. That's a lovely point to have that everyone wants to get on this one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And on Councillor Wegener' suggestion, I'll go on the fourth year.
01:21:00 Speaker 3: So, perhaps, if I can assist with some potential wording then. So, instead of paragraph C, we might change paragraph C to read as follows, can we? Speaker 6: Well, no one's moving. Speaker 3: No, I'm just going to give them some wording to enable that to appear. So, have rotating council representation. On the management committee on an annual basis with the following councillors who want to take that role in this order. Very interesting.
01:22:00 I mean, the councillors can put in whatever order you want there in terms of councillor. One, two, three. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to go first. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Karen Finzel, Councillor Amelia Lawrence and Councillor Tom Wegener. Councillor Lorentson: Is it any time frames or? Councillor Jurisevic: A year, isn't it? A year. Councillor Finzel followed by Councillor Wollaston followed. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Gwynne. Mayor Gwynne. Councillor Gwynne. Speaker 3: Councillor Gwynne. I'm dead at the point. Just list their names out. Councillor Gwynne. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Gwynne. I just, I don't... Speaker 3: Councillor Gwynne. ... have a rotating council representation on the management committee on an annual basis
01:23:00 with the following councils to undertake that role in this order. Councillor Gwynne. Councillor Finzel, Councillor Lorentson and three, Councillor Wegener. That works? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: Yep, we have a mover for that. Cousellors Stewart, Walt Gertrick, necessary reps. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Ah, no look I think this is great. I think it's fantastic that all, that, that these three councillors want to be involved And I thank Brett and professor Helen Butter:" and I thank Brett and professor Helen Putting from you University of Sunshine Coast Vice Chancellor for their hard works in this memorandum of understanding. And I congratulate Councillors Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson on the appointment. I think they'll all make a terrific contribution. And I think there's a lot of information sharing, research gathering, and we can really lean on each other in two great organisations. So I'm looking forward to seeing what evolves. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors will speak. Speaker 3: Mr. Seager, I understand that Councillor Jurisdict was going to move an amendment, but he's already seconded the...
01:24:00 No? No, you're not going to move an amendment? Councillor Wilkie: No? It was moved by Councillor Stewart, I'm seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I want to do the same. I want to congratulate Brett for suggesting, I think, the memorandum of understanding, and both congratulate the CEO and Professor Helen Bartlett. To me, this is just a great way to bring policies, resources, projects together. And also for spreading risk. And I'm confident that both the university and council are going to derive lots of opportunities from this association. I think... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move an amendment. I've had a brilliant idea. I've had a brilliant idea. Sorry. I'm going to help you, councillor. Yeah. I forgot my secret word. What's your amendment, councillor? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just formulating my brilliant idea.
01:25:00 When Cathy scrolls down a little bit, and add a D, it says, request the chief executive officer to provide a report to council on an annual basis regarding progress and actions taken in respect of the memorandum of understanding with the university, and I might have a little slight addition to that, request that the chief executive officer and the relevant councillor, you can see in there, they can report on what they thought they would happen to do. Very good. Very good. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for the amendment, please. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ah, yes. It's actually councillor Jurisevic's idea, and I think it's a good one. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, good job. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: May I commend the councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: He's excellent at amendments. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak at the amendment? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I would also like to acknowledge the work by Brett and...
01:26:00 The university, Helen Bartlett, for the, oh, yeah, oh, the amendment, sorry, yes, I think the amendment then will be beneficial, so we act as a conduit to bring back the information to council, to the staff, and to the community about the information and ideas that we've gathered in that space, and I think it's a positive amendment to achieve and measure outcomes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: The, so, procedural, so this, the amendment that we, they, then can we speak to the original? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Give us one of the other items. Yep, get it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? No. No. We'll put the amendment those in favour. It's carried unanimously. It now becomes part of the original motion. Councillor Wegener, you wish to speak to the original motion? Yep. To the motion, sorry.
01:27:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I think this is really enormously important. I think that universities, we've seen a massive shake-up since the whole COVID situation. What, when I was at the University of the Sunshine Coast, one of the goals that they spoke of achieving was community output and reaching, you know, not, you know, tearing down the walls of the silo, opening it up so there's a free flow of information, and in some ways, you know, research isn't research at all if it hasn't, doesn't have an impact or if it hasn't actually gone out to the community, and so I find that we, we can really run with this, I'm hoping, and, and open up the Noosa community more to the USC and the sharing of information, because what a university was is probably not what they will be in the future. No. Councillor Wilkie: Not at all. Yeah, the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. I think it, since the, since we're dealing with the council representation, I think it's a, it'll be a good thing to have various perspectives, so that, you know, we, we are
01:28:00 very lucky to have a new suite of councillors who came in with very diverse interests and, and ways of living in the world, and dealing with such a large organisation as the university, it'll help perhaps, you know, focus the relationship on their interests a little bit in one year, and then maybe move on to the next. So, for example, you know, Biosphere, we're living with Biosphere, there's so many opportunities for us to have ideas about what might be good postgraduate research topics that we could feed in that would help us, you know, work out how to manage this place better. It may be that, you know, in terms of small business creatives in councillor Finzel's that there might be opportunity there to work with the, the business and the, the, the arts academics over there. And for councillor Lorentson, it's got a fantastic sporting, both academic, but also in terms of the institute there, so there's a range of different interests that could coalesce with council, and I think having the diverse representation from councillors
01:29:00 will be a good thing. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the CEO alluded to it in the, the meeting last week. This isn't an uncommon undertaking by councils to, to have a memorandum of understanding with organisations within their, within their, their areas, but in particular with universities. I think it's a great opportunity. We're already undertaking or have undertaken some scientific studies and utilised opportunities with the universities. I think it's a great opportunity. This just gives us a, a greater scope to expand the opportunities that exist and to, to look at where there may be areas of commonality between the, the university and the council for further research opportunities and further mutual information gathering that are beneficial to both our community and the university as a whole, and those that study there. Thank you.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart, please take the floor. No, I think it's all been said, so looking forward to what progresses and watch this space. Fantastic. Councillor Wilkie: I hope the motion doesn't fail her. That's carried unanimously. Now we'll move on to a report direct to the general committee, which is a request to apply a superseded planning scheme on an application to reconfigure a lot, a lot and four lots at 11 C Church Street, Pomona. And welcome Kerry, Patrick and Connor. And just to clarify, Kerry, for people who may be listening or watching at home, this report is not about deciding an application for a subdivision. It's about under which planning scheme the application will be assessed and whether or not the council accepts the request to have it assessed under the superseded planning scheme. The assessment has just yet to take place. Is that correct? Speaker 6: That is correct. That's correct.
01:31:00 So it's about deciding which scheme that we assess it under, the 2006 scheme or the 2020. The applicant, once we've decided that, will then need to make their application under the new scheme. So it does not in any way approve the proposed subdivision and that assessment still has to be made. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Question, Chair? To clarify on from that, should this be successful, how long after this approval to operate on a superseded planning scheme would the applicant have to lodge an application? Yes. Speaker 6: So the applicant, if we were to agree to accept an application under the superseded scheme, they have six months to lodge that reconfiguring application with council. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, why has the applicant, oh, you shouldn't ask why, what are the advantages or differences between making an application under a superseded planning scheme and under the Noosa Plan 2020? Speaker 6: Well, the applicant submits that under the Noosa Plan 2020.
01:32:00 The applicant submits that under the Noosa Plan 2016, the Biodiversity Overlay does not apply, whereas the Biodiversity Overlay applies under the 2020 scheme. The applicant also suggests that under the 2020 scheme, it's more restrictive around real lots coming off of NACSA, isn't it? Which we don't agree with the second part. We agree with the first one. Yes, the biodiversity does not apply under the 2006 scheme. It does apply under the Noosa Plan 2020. It does not apply under the 2020 scheme. But there are requirements under both schemes around real lots. Mayor Stewart: What if a landslide hazard overlay, Kerry? Can you tell me more about that? Speaker 5: That didn't apply under the 2006 scheme and now applies under the current scheme. It's confined to certain parts of the site, different levels of risk. Our assessment, a preliminary assessment is that it would not have an impact on a region
01:33:00 that would be dealt with at a time of development of dwellings or any future buildings on the site. It would be addressed through the provision of geotechnical reports and the like, which would include recommendations which development would need to comply with. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So at the time of building, they'd have to comply with certain conditions imposed based on the landslide? Speaker 5: There would be a geotechnical report which would include recommendations which they'd need to comply with those recommendations around stability. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So just following on the Mayor's question, that means the people who would live in those dwellings, they were approved under the superseded attaining scheme. They're no more at risk of having their approval made under the superseded attaining scheme than under this scheme. Speaker 6: That's correct. People building houses on these blocks eventually will have to comply with the 2020 scheme which has the requirements around it. Mayor Stewart: So that's quite significant. It's very significant for the people who are building houses on these blocks. So if they're not going to comply with those, for that overlay, then they actually have to. People building, just to rest assured for people in the community, the buildings actually
01:34:00 have to comply with the landslide overlay in the 2020 plan. Speaker 6: Yeah. That will occur regardless of what decision we make today. Yeah. But I'd expect for this site that it's not a high risk site in terms of the hazard on the site. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Just to clarify, does that shift the onus of compliance with the 2020 scheme to the developer on each individual lot as opposed to the developer of the lot as a whole? Speaker 6: Sorry, can you just ask that question again? Yeah. No, I think I understand. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So what I'm understanding is that under the current overlay, it's not going to be applied for landslip and biodiversity. As it's being assessed under the 2006 scheme, they don't apply. But under the 2020 scheme, they will apply once this has been subdivided under the superseded
01:35:00 scheme. And that will apply to each of the new four allotments. Speaker 6: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: By each individual developer on those allotments. Speaker 6: That's right. Councillor Lorentson: Subdivision and manage development. Yeah. Speaker 6: But in some instances, the hazard may be quite significant. We would actually look for geotechnical information around the subdivision before proceeding there. This site's fairly low. It'll be dealt with in the houses. Councillor Jurisevic: So in either circumstance, we still deal with the biodiversity overlay and landslip overlays, regardless of which scheme the land development is undertaken. Speaker 6: Yeah. To an extent. But with the biodiversity overlay, that decision making around that is really made at the time of the subdivision. Okay. Because where you place the lots, the roads all impact on potentially the biodiversity overlay.
01:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So following on from that, that then makes me ask the question with regard to the two sentences raised on page nine of the report. It says, the country plans to go to the next phase of land development. We also see development occurs within 10 metres of a waterway and 10 metres by the side of a waterway is rehabilitating compliance. Blah, blah, blah. The next, the last sentence. However, preliminary view indicates the waterways in a deteriorated state contain sewerage infrastructure and so may have limited impact on the number of lots available to be achieved. That is if it was under the new scheme, but under the old scheme, that won't apply. So is there any, under the old scheme, is there any opportunity for rehabilitation of the riparian area as a result of that sentence? Speaker 1: Oh, in respect, do you mind? Speaker 6: Sorry, there's two different things we're talking here. So the biodiversity is mapped and that's shown on page nine.
01:37:00 So you can see on the left hand side of figure six, that maps the biodiversity, the riparian area. So that's essentially contained within the proposed drainage reserve on the subdivision plan. Yeah. Next to you. The issue that we're talking about with the sewer line is in lot four. So if you look at lot four. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's only one of the lots. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Not all. Yeah. Speaker 6: So that's the proposed easement around there, okay. Yeah. So there's a creek or a waterway or a drain there that runs along the northern boundary of lot four, and that's also where the sewer is. And that's quite constrained. So the suggestion in the report is that the biodiversity overlay would, in that respect to that lot four, would not have a great impact on the layout or number of lots that would Councillor Jurisevic: be changed. Well, that then raises a further question. How are lots five, six, and seven going to connect to that sewerage and drainage easement? There's no easement shown on lots five, six, and seven, or are they intended to connect via the easement for access and services that's at the front at the moment?
01:38:00 Speaker 6: So that detail will be sorted with the subdivision application. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 6: This layout, there are some- It's only indicative. Yes. Well, that's what the applicants put forward. We can see some changes that need to be made to this layout, and that would be dealt with the next application. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I'm going to take it from a principal's position in terms of the only reason we would accept an application to supersede the scheme is we think there's an adverse planning change. So you've mentioned a couple. One is the concept of there being a difference in rear lots with, from memory, the old scheme didn't have a number where the new scheme we set a maximum of two lots coming off an easement. Is that where we're looking at as being a key difference? Speaker 6: The applicant suggests that. I think there's no real difference when it comes down to it in scheme. So the new scheme certainly makes a statement about no rear lots for medium residential.
01:39:00 The old scheme, though, asks for lots to front a road. So there's- Only medium residential? It's silent on bones. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speaker 6: So there's sufficient statements in the old scheme for us to deal with the intent of that requirement, which is really about making sure there's street car parking available for out the front for any overflow parking, I think. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Then the other one which was raised is the 2006 scheme talks about we would rely on the Water Census for Urban Design Code to have some works. It includes things like it shouldn't be designed to have a natural channel design, whereas at the moment, the drainage reserve is quite degraded. It's got lots of environmental weeds. Does the 2006 scheme make sense? The 2006 scheme allows us to actually condition it to have partial re-vegetation and removal of weeds. That's a good question. But we'll be saying that's a key difference is that would be considered rehabilitation, which the new scheme requires. Yeah. Speaker 6: So the 2006 scheme, it's our practice to require some removal of weeds and some rehabilitation.
01:40:00 But the extent and level of rehabilitation would be higher under the new scheme. Okay. That we would often require. Councillor Jurisevic: That was essentially the question I asked earlier. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. And so the part of that gully that's got the sewer line in, the reason it wouldn't make a big difference there is because it's got sewer lines there, you wouldn't want to be putting lots of vegetation in it to reduce it. That's right. That's right. Yeah. Other key differences we've mentioned, and Kathy, if you can bring up that table, is it went from one zone to another? And we can see there in Noosa plan it's called semi-attached housing, which was a consistent use for a duplex and multiple dwelling where the site is not less than 1800 square metres. And in the new scheme, dual occupancy and multiple dwellings are allowed. If we just scroll down, I think to me, that last row there suggests there's been, in terms
01:41:00 of the, actually the last box, instead of, in the subdivision state, the previous one, the new scheme, where the new scheme, four multiple dwellings, three with a plot ratio of approximately 400 and one with a plot ratio of 620. Suggesting the fact there's been a beneficial change to that, is that when you look at the, how, what I would have thought the developer would have, the value would have looked at in terms of land values, is they would have said, well, the highest and best use out of this, or maybe the highest use, actually there's an enhancement. You, you don't agree? Speaker 6: No, offices don't necessarily agree. We're not convinced with that. There are swings and roundabouts here. So, yes, the new scheme allows potentially more dwelling units to be placed on a property, but it's fairly restrictive. It's more restrictive in terms of the floor they can achieve, unless they do some more dwellings.
01:42:00 So, this table, which office has prepared for you, is based on the proposed number of lots. So, for instance, in the semi-attached housing zone, if they changed it to three lots, and they're all above the 1800 square metres, you would achieve some multiple dwellings under it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speaker 6: So, you think it's... I think it's about the same, but obviously there'd be a lot more work to know exactly the answer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The final one, in terms of, is it the applicant's suggestion that lot 100 is a drainage reserve? Because in the new scheme, we've actually got it coming out of a part of the next-door neighbour's lot, which has been zoned for environmental purposes. And whether a drainage reserve is the appropriate reserve, is that something that would differ if we went under the superseded scheme versus the new scheme? Speaker 6: The... If Council felt strongly that this land was of such environmental value, we could ask for it as public property.
01:43:00 It's not something that would be considered public, open space under either scheme. It doesn't identify as biodiversity, but if the values of their Council could ask for it. And that would be around connectivity with other properties, and whether there was, you know, worthwhile for Council to take it on and own the land rather than have it in drainage reserve. So, drain... Obviously, having a drainage reserve still offers a level of protection. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, who would own the drainage reserve? Oh, still State. State. Yeah. Speaker 1: Ah. But the Council is trustee for drainage purposes. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. That's what I was going to say. Which do we... Which do we trustee on the land? Speaker 6: So, it has a different status if it was drainage reserve, obviously, than public conservation land. Councillor Wilkie: Clarifying question, if I may. I'll finish. Yeah. With this application being assessed under the superseded planning scheme, the level of assessment is... If I read it correctly, impact assessment? Speaker 6: The reconfig application is code accessible under both schemes. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So... Speaker 6: So, up there is just a comparison of unit developments.
01:44:00 So, a duplex under the 2006 scheme is code. Multiple dwellings would be impact under the 2006 scheme. Under the 2020 scheme, duplex and multiple dwellings are both code. Councillor Wilkie: Right. So, that's what's allowable on the site. Speaker 6: Yeah. That's what's allowable on the site. In terms of looking at whether there's been an upzoning or it's about the same. That's right. Okay. So... But the level of assessment doesn't really come into play when you're looking potentially at compensation provision. Councillor Wilkie: No. I'm thinking in terms of people who may want to make submissions about the application. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: That... It's not going to be impact accessible. No. So, they're free to make submissions. Councillor Lorentson: They can make submissions. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of compensation, Kerry, what's the cost of not agreeing to the SPS request? Speaker 6: Well, that... I guess that's unknown. So, officers have indicated that we think there is some adverse change in the change
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 between the planning scheme because of the level of rehabilitation required. Yeah. And that would need to be quantified. But we don't have any idea what that would be. Okay. How... So, the applicant would have to demonstrate there's been an adverse change in the planning scheme. There'd be land value involved. And ultimately, it would go potentially to court. And that would determine the value. Councillor Lorentson: So, to understand the real cost, we would then have to look at the ecological cost of approving under an SPS versus under the UNISA plan. Has that been done? Speaker 3: The evaluation cost. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. Perhaps I can answer it this way. If the property is being rehabilitated, is it going to be rehabilitating the property under both schemes? Speaker 1: Possibly, yeah. Possibly. Like the drainage reserve lot 100 under the current scheme would probably be above 40,000.
01:46:00 Under the previous scheme, I reckon it'd be half of that. And then you've got ongoing maintenance costs after that as well for at least... For both. The park, if we've got it dedicated, does park. So, rubbery figures, very rubbery figures. Councillor Lorentson: So, just, sorry, one more question, Brian. So, what if we don't approve this SPS request? Can the applicant then super adverse changes compensation? Seems minimal, doesn't seem significant, say $20,000, $30,000, but does, what happens then is that the court will then allow, under the planning environment course, will then allow him to make his application under SPS. We can't go ahead with him. No, not quite. So, what would happen if we didn't Speaker 6: agree to this request today, for them to seek compensation, they ultimately then have to
01:47:00 make an application under the new scheme and have it refused or conditioned, and then they would need to make a claim to council around compensation, claiming the difference, you know, doing the exercise that Connor has just estimated, and request that of council. If council refused, then ultimately they'd make an application to the court, and the court Councillor Jurisevic: would decide whether we had to pay compensation. And in that compensation, I imagine any costs, all those costs of having to undertake those assessments would be included in that, or potentially included in that by the court's, the court's judgment. Speaker 6: I don't know whether the cost of the application to court, and the legal fees, and the valuation is all included. I have to check for you on that one, Joe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Sorry, just going back. So, in terms of the half costs, the previous stage of this development, the other gully on the premises, and it's largely just been re-vegetated
01:48:00 with melandra, from what I saw this morning, is that what you're suggesting would satisfy the woosard requirement for a natural tunnel design, versus multi-layered vegetation, which you'd expect, or is there, was that one, because it was a lower order, it was a less requirement? I'm just trying to get my mind, what is the, what is the $20,000 job, and what's the $40,000 job? Speaker 6: So, that's been our practice, certainly, under the 2006 scheme, to have it rehabilitated to the standard that one is. So, I understand you're suggesting that the 2006 scheme requires a higher standard, but that's been our practice to require it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, and just one question in my mind. Do you think under either scheme, or under the, you think under the 2006 scheme that four lots is an achievable yield, as, maybe not exactly
01:49:00 how they've shown, but four lots is an achievable yield? Speaker 6: Do you think they're going to have to lose a lot under both schemes, in order to achieve the access to each lot? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's not likely that the new scheme would have a significant adverse effect in terms of the lot yield. Mayor Stewart: No. Okay. Mayor Stewart? So, just, just to, coming back to, if we didn't approve it, and they went to court, and sought approval under the 2020 scheme, the one difference they would be, they'd have to do is, or the major difference is about the riparian buffer, and they have to rehabilitate that. That would be their requirement. Speaker 6: Yeah, the major difference is the level and extent of rehabilitation is higher under the 2020 scheme than the 2006 scheme. So, it would, the 2020 scheme does mean an improved environmental outcome for the site. Mayor Stewart: And in your opinion, does that make much of a difference, in your, in all of your experts' opinion? Speaker 6: Well, I guess that's for council to decide, but the, the 2006 scheme has been operating
01:50:00 for, since 2006, and I think it has delivered reasonable environmental outcomes. I understand that residents in the area are not happy with the first stage of the development, that they were expecting a higher level of environmental outcome for the site. But nevertheless, I think it's delivered a reasonable outcome for the environment. Councillor Jurisevic: Just, just to clarify, what, so the drainage reserves, the drainage reserves, the drainage reserve is, the riparian buffer is 20 metres wide. So, 20 metres from the drainage reserve? Speaker 5: No, from the centre line of the waterway, it's 10 metres either side. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is the centre line of the drainage reserve? No. Yeah. That's right. Speaker 5: That's right. Speaking, yeah. But the, the drainage reserve and the. Councillor Jurisevic: So, so essentially within the drainage, the, the rehabilitation would occur essentially
01:51:00 within the drainage reserve and partly onto the block. That's right. Just trying to clarify what, what the riparian buffer constitutes and what, what, what areas would need to be rehabilitated. Thank you. Speaker 5: So, just to clarify, the drainage reserve is generally reflective of the riparian buffer Councillor Jurisevic: area. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Councillor, do you have a question? Yeah. What would be the difference between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 with regards to the, the length away from the development the riparian buffer rehabilitation has to be? Is that 10 or 20? How does that differ? Speaker 5: Well, there was no riparian buffer in the previous scheme. It was a waterway and conversations, kind of correct me if I'm wrong, I think it would generally be within the bank of the waterway that the works would be confined to, as opposed to an area extending beyond that. Speaker 1: So, with the, the overlay under the 2020 scheme, it brings it front and centre at the reconfig stage. Whereas under the 2006 scheme, it sort of sits down in the operational work stage where
01:52:00 you have a look at the, the codes and start, as soon as you start putting culverts in, but it raises the level of assessment up into the sort of higher order reconfig stage because you've got your overlay and it's clearly shown that you need to do rehabilitation at this stage of the assessment. Speaker 6: Yeah. But essentially under the new scheme, you'd have a 20 metre wide area that's rehabilitated. Under the old scheme, it would just be within the. Councillor Jurisevic: Within the waterway. Speaker 6: Within the banks of the waterway. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So, where it protrudes beyond the waterway up to a distance of 20 metres from the centre line would be what they'd have to rehabilitate, which, yeah, okay. Councillor Finzel: Can I just bring some photos up of that culvert area of which you speak from the previous development that we've talked about today that the community is not happy with, especially around the rehabilitation. If you scroll down, I think there's one there at the culvert. I hope there is. Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
01:53:00 Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. Yeah. So, back one. So, not where the kangaroos are. Speaker 4: You scroll down. Speaker 6: Okay. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, see this area here? Yeah. That's like about, I don't know, two metres or it could be higher. I don't know. I didn't step under the block for the photo. So, this is what came to council in 2018 under delegation, and the community at that time was not happy with the consultation process around that with regards to the fact that this is actually a corridor that comes through a creek that goes through the town. Councillor Wilkie: So, Karen, is this a question you're going to actually play this? Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, this is a question. Okay. I asked about the buffer for the rehab, and you mentioned the culvert. So, this is the culvert that currently sits there. How are we going to mitigate flooding in the future when the neighbours that back onto
01:54:00 here that lost three metres of their property when this was developed are saying that flood water, heavy rainwater now comes down the street past here down to the creek, and there's not adequate drainage. It goes across the street. It goes across the road. They have sent reports into council to have this repaired. I'm waiting to hear back from staff. The question is how it's going to be mitigated. How are we going to mitigate that under which scheme because this doesn't look like it's given the desired outcomes in the community. That's what they're telling me. It sounds like you're making points. Oh, so can you tell me how it's going to be better under which scheme, please? Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Sam. And you're free to use the pictures during your debate. Speaker 6: Oh, my name is Sam. Thank you. Speaker 1: So, in terms of the neighbour and the loss of land, they actually had their boundary fence on the wrong side of the boundary. So, in terms of the water running down the road, there will be an extension of the Kerbin
01:55:00 Channel, which will then direct it into the upstream side of the culvert, which is the river, which then will allow it to go on to Church Street. We think that there's been silting up occurring in the riprap where it occurs now, so that's a maintenance issue that we need to get the developer out there to go and clean it out so that it allows for proper flows going down there. In terms of the flood design, that's all been done through a qualified engineer, RPEQ, it's all been signed off on. So, what we're seeing now is actually maintenance flooding rather than the development leading to increased flooding events. Councillor Finzel: So, who incurs the ongoing costs of maintenance mitigation? So, the developer. Is that council or flood? No. Speaker 6: As Connor has indicated, the developer is being asked to address this development. It's still on maintenance.
01:56:00 Yeah. And so, it's the developer to address. And how long ago was he asked to address that issue? Speaker 1: Well, I've only just seen the report from May this, yeah, the latest one, so I haven't gone further back than that. I think there was an occurrence in last year, around about this time last year. Councillor Jurisevic: So, to clarify, that's associated with the development of lots one, two and three? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's the curve and channel on the frontage of that. Previously, it just used to flow off the street over the land, but now that there's curve and channel, it's directing all the water down the road at the bottom end of the curve and channel. It's silted up and calling it to cross the road rather than going into the culvert on the upstream side. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Have you finished your questions? Because that raises a further question. Oh, yeah. You go. So, yeah. So, that raises a further question. If we've already got drainage issues and water flow issues and flooding, as occurs in Pomona, further development, oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, further increasing the riparian
01:57:00 area and further vegetative plantings within that area, are they going to be counterintuitive to water flow and drainage issues that already exist? Speaker 1: Well, you know, well, normally the modelling, they call it Manning's model. The R-squared, it's all modelled to allow for vegetated creeks and then you have your maximum modelling, you know, based on the whole creek being vegetated and your blockage factors and culverts and things like that, and with the design, with this, the end of that curve and channel is going to continue up, if this does go ahead, it'll be fully curve and channel all the way up to the top of the church. Councillor Jurisevic: That's fine, but within the drainage easement itself, I think it's state responsibility once it's been had by the developer and the council being the trustee, well, we won't be responsible for maintaining that? Speaker 1: We will be, yes, as with all drainage reserves. Councillor Jurisevic: As with all drainage, yeah. So, any fall within the drain becomes our responsibility.
01:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. You know, just to clarify, in terms of flooding, part of the reason that you do Wooslid is, is to increase, so the more vegetation upstream in the catchment will slow the water runoff going down, so in this case, increased vegetation within the drainage reserve will reduce the peakiness of the hydrograph downstream. Is this a question or a lesson? No. The question is, however, in this location, it's unlikely to increase the localised flooding on these lots and surrounding lots. Is that what, likely? You don't say? It's unlikely, yes. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I've just got one question. If we, you said that if we rejected it under this and they'd come back, they'd have to go to court under the 2020 and make an application?
01:59:00 Speaker 6: No. Thank you. First step is they have to make an application under the 2020 scheme? Mayor Stewart: And have it reviewed? So, if we reject it. Yeah. And if that's rejected, then, yeah. Speaker 6: But they might say, based on conditions, there's been an adverse change because there's a higher requirement for rehabilitation, and they seek those. Speaker 3: So, in a nutshell, if we said, no, you can't make an application under the superseded scheme, you have to come under the new scheme. If they come under the new scheme and they get a refusal, then they're going to have a compensation right, because they would have had a right on download. Or if they get an approval that has an impact on the value of the land compared to what they would have got, it's the differential that would have . Mayor Stewart: And we, the only figures we've got around that is what Connor suggested is potentially around the $20,000 mark. That's right. Councillor Lorentson: And the difference in value of land as well. Speaker 3: Very. Councillor Lorentson: So, what they purchased the land for prior to the use of Plan 2020 and the value of
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 the land post-2020. Without the added cost of having to rehabilitate the riparian zone, would that impact? I'm thinking it would impact on the actual property value as well. Speaker 6: Well, that's what this is all about. Other than the cost. It's having a look at the differences between the two schemes and the implications on development for the site based on those schemes. And then working out the cost of the land. Yes. So, there's a change in land value. Mayor Stewart: Based on land value. Would it not be reasonable that the land value has absolutely escalated? No. Speaker 6: Yeah. No. The land value is about immediately before the new scheme came in and immediately after. It's not about what it's worth now. Immediately after. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would like to move a motion. Okay. Very similar to the staff recommendation with the word not agreed to the request.
02:01:00 Okay. So, that recommendation, our last line just put not agree. And add. So, after Pomona and not agree. There. And add a motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you want to be capital letters and underline several times? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And this, and the council. And the council indicate a preference for the area identified as a drainage reserve to be a reserve for. Speaker 1: Environmental purposes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Environmental purposes. No. To link to other areas upstream. Speaker 3: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Speaker 3: Interesting.
02:02:00 Can you tell me what the difference is? The change. Yeah. I can look that long. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. And the council indicated preference for the area identified as a drainage reserve to be a reserve for environmental purposes to link to the upstream areas zoned for this purpose. Does that make sense? Zoned for this purpose. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask a question of staff before? No, we've got a mover and a seconder. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have got a seconder, sorry. We have got a seconder. So, councillors, a little bit of history. The first stage of this development did raise a lot of community concerns, but it also raised concerns from the natural resource management groups of the local area. Because while it is only an intermittent first order or second order stream, there are values downstream, including vulnerable and threatened frogs that have been identified reasonably close to this.
02:03:00 We have identified in the new scheme that the areas immediately have been zoned for environmental protection, environmental conservation and management. We've heard that the key difference is around rehabilitation. My view is the level of risk associated with not meeting care needs. I think the community's expectations as part of the development process and the level of risk of an applicant going down a costly court battle to get compensation balances each other out. I believe that regardless of the eventual outcome is that the community and I think council would like to see this area rehabilitated.
02:04:00 Yeah. And we're in a strong position to achieve that under the new scheme. I think that we can look at the response in the 2020 scheme being very much a response to the concerns that were raised on this site. The reason is very specific. It's big. And, you know, as was just identified, my reading of the Water Senses Development Design Code, to me, suggests a high level when I talk about natural drainage channels. But then I've got a natural bias that I've been working in rehabilitation for a long time. And so I look at what the other channel is. And yes, it uses native species, but it still is something less than what a natural channel to me. So if staff probably view that that doesn't get to a point where we're creating within this waterway an ecosystem that supports the higher level objectives of the NUSA plan,
02:05:00 then I think it's much safer to go down this route. And I do thank staff for bringing this to council. They didn't have to. And I presume it's because they realised that it would be one that councils might have a view on. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Question. Mentioned there is the level of connectivity to upstream and downstream areas, but I don't read a lot of that in the report. And Connor, perhaps, or somebody, please allude to the opportunities for, you know, increased connectivity to reserves above and below this particular block. Speaker 1: Yeah. Upstream, it connects basically up through to Cooroora Mountain and the catchment around there. And it's likely vegetated upstream. Downstream, it flows through a series of people's backyards, which are unprotected drainage easements. And they're vegetated until the end of the year.
02:06:00 So it goes through past the IGA car park and then goes, is parked on the ground underneath the railway and comes out near Pages and then drains to the north into the Six Mile Creek system near the showgrounds. Councillor Jurisevic: So do we believe that increased vegetation there, slowing down the thing, will actually assist in flood mitigation downstream? Speaker 1: Yeah. It has that potential to, yeah, mitigate and detain, detain, detain, detain, detain, detain peaked floodwaters on the site and also through the design of the subdivision as well. Speaker 6: So Figure 2 on Page 6 and Figure 5 on Page 8 sort of indicates where potential... Councillor Jurisevic: It gives indicative elements of vegetation above, not a lot below, and you really can't see the... Yeah. An indication of where the water course actually flows through there. Speaker 6: Yeah. Certainly it's more about upstream than downstream.
02:07:00 Councillor Finzel: I have a question then, if we're talking about below stream, there's been recognised that there's, in Cooroora Creek, there's a known population of giant barb-free frogs and tusk frogs, which require protection, and we do support that frog identification. We fund that and promotion of that group. It is a... Is this correct me if I'm wrong? It's a summer creek. It's mapped as flood prone on the flood. Flood overlay map. And is it suitable for lots in Church Street to be zoned medium density residential, if not 100% of the lot is flood free? Speaker 1: Good question. Speaker 6: Do you want to ask... Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Okay. Is it... The question was around the frogs in Cooroora Park. I was there with the people when we found the giant barb frogs back in, whenever, 2005
02:08:00 or... Yeah. This particular stream order enters downstream from where we found them, but not to say that they won't be in here. But this particular lot doesn't have what we call suitable habitat because it doesn't have... It's not vegetated at the moment. It'd be great to get it vegetated and provide suitable habitat for the frogs. Councillor Finzel: So would part of that rehab under the 2020 scheme help enhance that suitable habitat? Definitely. Speaker 1: Definitely. Even if... Even the provision of fire basins and detention systems and... Yeah. Would definitely do that. As to the flooding, I'll... Speaker 5: The flooding should be constrained... Generally constrained to the drainage reserve area. So the lots five, six and seven would be out of the flooding... Flood mapping. Okay. Then might be a little bit to the front of lot four. Councillor Finzel: A bit to the front of lot four? Speaker 5: Lot four.
02:09:00 Speaker 6: Okay. So that's part of what we'll look at with the application to subdivide the land as to whether the lots are suitably located in the ratio of flooding. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So would you say then that the 2020 scheme or the 2006 scheme best suit the mitigation of flooding around lot four? No real difference. Similar requirements. No real difference. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. And just to clarify, the applicant principally wanted to be assessed under the superseded planning scheme because they've received the conditions for rehabilitation of a lot and environmental considerations to be more onerous under the 2020 scheme. Speaker 6: They put... Yeah. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: That's correct. Speaker 6: And they put forward a couple of reasons. Councillor Wilkie: And what were the others? Speaker 6: Was it principally the requirement for rehabilitation? Yeah. Environmental considerations? Principally because the new scheme requires... It's identified by the biodiversity. The old scheme wasn't. They also raised the issue of rear lots. So the new scheme has a clear statement of no rear lots when there's only medium residential
02:10:00 density. It's our position, though, that the 2006 scheme also had a statement around requiring lots to have road frontage and that we can address the intent of that requirement. Councillor Wilkie: So that's equal? Speaker 6: Equal. Councillor Wilkie: So principally it's around... They've received the requirements under the 2020 scheme to be more onerous in terms of environmental... Yeah. Rehabilitation of it. Yeah. Principally. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify the word road frontage. Private road frontage or street road frontage? As in church street frontage? Speaker 6: Well, what's shown... Councillor Jurisevic: Because what... If they're creating... Speaker 6: Public road frontage. Councillor Jurisevic: So that would be considered driveway access for the four allotments as opposed to public road access for the four allotments? Because it'd be... It wouldn't be under a strata scheme or anything like that. So the road would have to be some sort of public road, would it not, to access the four lots? Speaker 6: So the scheme...
02:11:00 The 2020 scheme asks for no rear lots when it's medium residential density. The 2006 scheme asks for lots to have frontage to a public road. It's a road. Councillor Jurisevic: So if the access road... The access provision in to access the four allotments is to have frontage to a public road, is created, does it not become... Can it be a public road or is it a private road under some sort of a mutual scheme for the four properties to be responsible for? Speaker 6: Yeah. At the moment, they've proposed it as an easement. So it's over private land. So it's private. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's a private easement, but that wouldn't fall under the clarification of public road? No. It's privately... That's all I was trying to differentiate. Councillor Wilkie: The other thing to clarify... I'd like to clarify this. There's a lot of discussion around what conditions are likely to be imposed when the subdivision is approved. When it is assessed and a decision is made, is that report coming to council?
02:12:00 Speaker 6: So that would be good. Councillor Wilkie: Because I heard the comments before that the last subdivision was done under delegation. Yeah. But that is a problem that's coming from that. So I'm talking about this process going forward is going to be... Speaker 6: So that's what we're going to do, is we're going to report it to a council meeting. Can I just clarify? The matter is code accessible under the scheme. So if it's at risk of being deemed approved, if we go outside those timeframes, we... Officers would need to decide it by delegation. But ideally, we would aim to report it back to council. Councillor Wilkie: Or to call a special council. Or to call a special council meeting. That would be a private road. Yeah. Sorry, Brian. You had a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. In terms of the question of Councillor Jurisevic about the difference between a public road and a private easement with four or three lots coming off it, there's two reasons generally for that. One you mentioned is public road requirement is because we want to have ability to provide on-tree car parking.
02:13:00 If it's medium density, there could be a lot of overflow car parking. But isn't the other one generally if it's a private easement, developers tend to build the infrastructure at a lower standard than is required for a public road? Speaker 6: Certainly the standard for public road is quite high compared to a private driveway. But no, I don't think that's the reason for the scheme requirement. I think the intent is around street car parking and potentially also around amenity about the number of properties that are surrounding it. Because you've got high density on there. So it raises the issue of privacy and amenity. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Tom? If you go back and assess it under the 2006 scheme, would they lose the medium density zoning? Speaker 6: No. No. It's zoned semi-attached housing under the 2006 scheme. So it would lose it. Which has similar rights. Which has similar rights. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I thought Brian's table showed that and it didn't show much of a differentiation between. Speaker 6: Yeah. There were some pluses and minuses.
02:14:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion that's before us, please? Yeah, I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I support what Councillor Stockwell has put before us. I think there's much of a muchness. I think even staff have suggested it's sort of pros and cons on both sides of this. And with regard to the rights and the compensations that are possibly here. I think it's a good point. From the purpose of a better outcome for the community. I see the 2020 scheme offering far greater opportunities there. And I think it's appropriate that it get assessed under the 2020 scheme. Councillor Wilkie: Here we go. May the councillors speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion. Amelia? Yep. I asked the question before about the cost of not agreeing to the SPS request. And I'm happy to see that the cost of not agreeing to the SPS request has increased. And I'm happy to see that the motion actually reflects that ecological and environmental outcomes outweigh loss of land value.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 So I'm happy to support the motion. I want to just make a note that ecological cost of any decision that comes to council must be weighed against the financial cost. We say that we're different by nature. And I think we must start making powerful statements about this. Especially now decision making. An ecosystem has the right to exist. So on this basis, I'm going to support the recommendation that supports improved environmental outcomes, such as rehabilitating the riparian buffer. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart? Yeah, look, I support the motion for Councillor Stockwell. I think it's a good decision. It's a good decision for the community. There has been angst in the past. I think it's important to protect those environments. I think it's important to protect those environmental areas. And I think that, you know, the compensation, when we look at it, that line of day isn't
02:16:00 substantial. So I think it's certainly worth, in this instance, protecting the ecosystems. And also, you know, looking at this from a community point of view as well. So I'm happy to support the Councillor Stockwell's motion. Councillor Stewart? Councillor Finzel: Anyone else? Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Oh, yeah. Councillor Finzel? Yeah. I support the motion. Based on the issues raised here today, given the community desire to see the environmental significance of the area upheld and are prepared to support that, I agree with the increased rehabilitation opportunities that would be beneficial to the site that will help contribute to mitigating issues of the area. There's been a lot of discussion around the waterway. I think that, on top of that also, which has been raised, is the heritage around that area,
02:17:00 which we haven't debated or discussed. But I think it is worth noting that Church Street contains many of the, you know, the older Queenslanders. And also, we don't want to see the amenity of that area with the block-type housing that you saw in the photographs encroaching on that. I mean, it backs on to the trail. Council significantly promoting this tourism to come to this area Pomona is identified as a heritage town I mean we've got to look after our heritage overlay as well that our precincts are protected environmentally and our character and our history needs to be preserved so I'm happy to support the amendment based on the things the motion thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'm going to support the motion I feel very proud to be part of a council that's not takes the advice really good advice about the process and the pros and cons of assessing under a superseded planning scheme and the new planning scheme but what we're really looking for is the best outcome
02:18:00 on the site which will be live on well beyond what happens here today and it'll have real impacts in that community for years to come and so if we have the opportunity today to make a decision that results in better environmental outcomes for that community from here on I think that's the sort of legacy we'd like to to leave as opposed to not to undermine the data of risk based assessments they're very important I think this is we're doing what we ought to do in this case not what we are or should do. So I'm in favour of this motion wholeheartedly.
02:19:00 Councillor Stockwell you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, thanks councillors. This one revolves around our interpretation in terms of why you would or wouldn't accept a superseded planning scheme and I think it's a really good indication that if the reason the applicant wishes to go on a superseded scheme is to try and avoid some of the community expectations within the 2020 scheme that we don't agree with it and then that then looks at the process going into compensation then and it is in my mind you know in terms of that respect on land values I'm yet to be convinced and I do that for a number of reasons. Firstly, experience in real estate is instead of being a drainage area if it's a rehabilitated environment reserve it's probably going to increase value. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And secondly is we've talked about potentially accepting an easement and while we've got a ballpark figure of $20,000 extra for rehabilitation I'm going to put a ballpark in saying that's $20,000 cheaper than what we could require is to make that a road. So I think we don't want to either persecute or develop it I think from the community's perspective the best outcome is what we'll achieve is by assessing it under the current scheme.
02:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you Patrick. Thank you Kerry. Thank you. Thank you. This item is the commercial high use permits tender assessment page 13 of the general committee agenda. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair I'd like to declare a declarable conflict of interest on the matter. Yes Joe. I, Councillor Jurisevic, inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest on this matter as I have a long standing friendship with Fiona Tarr as one of the owners of Tarr's Enterprise product tender trading as Adventure Sports Kite Surf Australia to a deselected tenderer for the kite surfing lessons high use permit.
02:21:00 Fiona and I served on the Sunshine Beach High School P&C executive together for several years and our sons are in the same year of high school and our friends, our family have attended social gatherings in celebration with the Tarrs, their residents and local eateries over the years. Whilst we no longer share P&C committee roles and our contact is less frequent, we remain in contact principally through social media and our sons retain their friendship. As a result of my conflict of interest I'll leave the meeting where the matter is considered and vote it on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia. Thank you. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my children are both trained by the Noosa Surfing Academy who is listed as a tender applicant for one of the high use commercial permits. 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 and personal relationship with Noosa Surfing Academy. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room.
02:22:00 However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'll move the cap as long as it stays in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Do you wish to speak to it? Mayor Stewart: No, I don't. No, no. Look, it's a very, I think, you know, thank you Councillor Lorentson for making that declarable motion statement but I think that it's a long bow and I think we, you know, we all have children and associations and relationships. It's clearly not a close one so I think there's absolutely no problem with Councillor Lorentson staying in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors wish to speak to this motion. Put it to the vote. Vote in favour? Carried unanimously. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Rob? I'd like to clarify that I haven't got any conflict because I don't surf dance. Councillor Wilkie: Don't surf dance. So no 10,000 word declaration? No. Okay. Questions for Clint and Dennis? Mayor Stewart: I've got a couple.
02:23:00 Look, it just came to me when I was looking at the, on pages 19 and 20. So it was interesting to note that there was quite a few, so Go Right Away made an application for both, say both areas. Beach Access 14 and Beach Access 11. So did that happen? So that's, so they, and then you shared it around a bit. Was there any particular reason why one sort of Beach Access 11 was better than Beach Access 14 or vice versa or in their applications? Speaker 2: Well, the way it's panned out. The way it's panned out is that at Beach Access 14, which is closer to the rock wall, Noosa Learn to Surf, which is Merrick's business, submitted the higher quality submission. Obviously their track record, which you see there is 95, was, was close to outstanding as far as their track record in that field goes.
02:24:00 Go Right Away's was also very high. So the way it panned out was that Go Right Away was a little behind in its submission on this one. But it was the best submitter on the Access 14 site for which Noosa Learn to Surf didn't submit. It's possible, you know, Mayor Stewart: Sorry, so Beach Access 14 was Noosa Learn to Surf. Wasn't it? They've got 100%. Speaker 2: I beg your pardon. Beach Access 11. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 2: I beg your pardon. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I was just interested that they both applied and what was the differentiation that you Speaker 2: What we do say in our tender is that we don't award multiple, we wouldn't award multiple permits for the same activity. So in the event that Noosa Learn to Surf trumped at both sites, we'd have to give them
02:25:00 to us. Yeah. We'll decide for that purpose. Got it. Okay. Thank you. So it's through the chair. Speaker 3: It's a submission-based assessment, not a merit-based assessment. So it's a merit-based assessment and not a sharing-around type. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 3: Philosophy. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: All right. Speaker 3: Questions? Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, Chair. Can I just mention, about 10 years ago, I had lessons with Christy, a surf dancer, about 10 years ago. No, it just came to mind. Should I make that as a declaration? No. Speaker 3: I would have thought that. It's so remote. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, thank you. I just get terrified with conflict of interest. Speaker 3: That is so remote. I don't think it's . Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I just thought, oh my gosh, I've had lessons with... And she's great. Sorry. I've got just a couple of questions. There's sometimes a...
02:26:00 Oh. Sorry. How many new businesses have we given permits to this time around? Dennis? Speaker 2: Just the one this time around? Yeah. And from memory, the previous... Yeah. Previous time we went out to tender, we had a change over two of the permittees, so just one this time. Councillor Wilkie: Interesting. And where there has been a change, is it the situation that the previous applicant did not apply? Speaker 2: That is the case for that one for this time, yeah. So, we'll have a new business at the split refreshment there. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Okay. I just want to make a point. Just a reference to the weighting for track record and past experience. That carries a 50% weighting. Can you explain the importance of that, Dennis? And why we put so much emphasis in that? Speaker 2: Sure. We did talk about it in the debate prior to going out to tender, that's a fairly strong
02:27:00 weighting. It does reward businesses that have shown a good track record of operating on our beach. But the flip side to that is that, in the past, there's been a change over two or three businesses that have sort of rested on their laurels and perhaps their heart wasn't in it as far as activities, their activity under the permits goes. So, whilst it's a heavy or a strong weighting as far as track record goes, it still does go to the performance of incumbents as well and their enthusiasm and level of service for that business. So, it does provide the opportunity to address when businesses are perhaps resting on their laurels. Councillor Lorentson: And the increase in permit tenure from three to five years is also recognition of that capital investment and experience.
02:28:00 Speaker 2: Yes, it's acknowledging that running these businesses does involve a lot of capital investment in equipment and the like. And three years does come around fairly fast. For both the permittees and council to run a tender process. So, I think all parties were keen to provide a bit more surety. Councillor Lorentson: Could I add an advisory note to the motion? Chair? Councillor Wilkie: An advisory note or another clause or amendment? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, an advisory note. I'd like to add an advisory note. Advise all new loan to serve. Be child-friendly. The current serv dancing permittees of the upcoming Noosa World Surfing Reserve serve as code of conduct and the need for their businesses to align with the code once adopted. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you moving the whole motion with that added?
02:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Can we have a seconder, please? Seconder, councillor Stewart? Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? The advisory note is just to tie in with what's happening at the moment. The Noosa World Surfing Reserve, the MSQ, Noosa Council and the surfing community are developing what's called the Code of Conduct. And the idea is to promote safety and respect for other surfers. It's come about due to complaints in the Noosa with surf crafts interacting with other surfers and swimmers. And given that Noosa is a surfing destination, it's important that we protect the experience of surfing. By creating safer and more inclusive surfing environment. And more importantly, that we bring back the spirit of a lower. The surf schools and beach high businesses play a really big role in this. And they've got a responsibility to educate and inform their clients in surf etiquette
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 and community expectation. This advisory note just reflects that responsibility and role. And one that I think they'll take on board openheartedly. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yeah, I thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I fully support this. On my campaign, I raised this issue around Code of Conduct for surfers to align with the Code of Conduct for our trail users that's noted on entry to the trails throughout the Shire. So I'm happy to support this. I think it's a great idea moving forward, especially when we're moving towards respectful community and honouring one another in Australia. Aloha. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I support this as well. Many, many people these days start their surfing journey with the learn to surf class and the earlier we alert them to a code of conduct and to our history and to what the expectations out in the water for everything to move smoothly, the better. So yeah, thank you for that. Thank you.
02:31:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So more generally, I think it's good to see that this process has reaffirmed that our existing high use commercial users have been performing well because they've all had their good experience. And so these are, we don't do a lot of commercial activity in public space, but these are users that are integral to the beach experience. I think in the 60s, my favorite I used to go floating out the back and get my uncle to save me all the time. But they do have experience. And as the, I think the addition of the advice in regard to a code of conduct is good. And that concept that when you're being educated as a surfer, it's not just about how to nap up real quick, like I was a surfer.
02:32:00 It's about the etiquette. It's about the, you know, there is a culture of surfing. And that's part of the thing that we should be trying to encourage and part of the World Surfing Reserve ethos, which is all handily supported. Councillor Wilkie: Look, you have spoken. Councillor Finzel: Oh, to this one? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, I'd like to commend the staff for the process. That's been streamlined over the last eight years, and also commend them for actually reducing the number of commercial high use permits given out when the need is no longer there, as demonstrated with the kayak pipe, there's no need for that, for that business to be occupying very valuable public space. So the tender for that was removed.
02:33:00 And I think that's, that's great, because it does reflect the value placed on public space. It's for the public. And we're very careful about what commercial activities are permitted to use public space. And it's limited to those businesses that they couldn't really get anywhere else. Learning to surf, beach hire equipment, some snacks, refreshment, beach massage, which is lovely. And surf dancing. I mean, it's demonstrated the value of that and kite surfing lessons, so nothing's ever wasted. Now, I commend the staff on the process. And yeah, I wholeheartedly support the promotion as it is. Councillor Lorentson: Who's to close? I'd just like to add, I respect and want to note the council's engagement of an independent probity advisor.
02:34:00 It's critical that the council has an independent probity advisor. It's critical that the process of assessing tender applications, especially high commercial use permits, is equitable, equitable, and that it's conducted with integrity. So thank you. I took the motion, those in favour? Councillor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: It's been kind of a long journey just to see you.
02:35:00 Yeah, I want to thank Frank for all his work and the team that was involved in the negotiations, which was Kerry Pontini, John O'Connor and Ash. As always, it's not easy to keep seven unions. I think it was happy at all times. It's a miracle. But we got to a point, and obviously it's still, there's two ways two people tend to get, particularly unions sometimes. There's two parties doing agreement. The unions will one, but the council's on the other. So council have to agree to it. And then there's a process for staff to vote on this as well. So that process is coming up, and there needs to be a successful staff vote. And then it goes off to the Commission to get certified through that process as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I just wanted to clarify one point on page 31, if I may, Mr CEO. The last statement on the page, pay increases as follows. Year one, 1.6% or $23. I'm assuming that's per week. Because I think it's mentioned later on.
02:36:00 It just isn't clear through that, in that point there. So each of those dollar amounts is a weekly payment. That's correct. Thank you. Speaker 3: And what that does, we didn't have a weekly amount in the last certified agreement, but this recognises that some of our lower paid staff probably need a higher increase. So that's what would have done the either or approach. Right. Councillor Jurisevic: What pleases me with that is that's exactly what I suggested should be the way of paying increases for all levels. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Mr CEO, just the initial comment. The initial SMUSA Council Certified Agreement 2018 brought together the two Sunshine Coast Council Certified Agreements, which continue to apply. And then under risk and opportunities, it says the maintenance of a single agreement provides misadministrative improvements from a management perspective and supports a collective organisational culture, not impeded by barriers between the indoor and outdoor staff. Can you talk a little bit about that? Speaker 3: Sure. Most councils in Queensland, particularly the medium sized, small ones, would have multiple agreements, and the big ones as well, actually, some of those, where you have one set of industrial
02:37:00 conditions for indoor staff and one for outdoor staff. Some of them may even have more complexity than that. Brisbane, for example, had one for the bus drivers. They have different conditions that relate to different settings of their workforce. And that's what we inherited from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council in 2014. They had two agreements, one between their indoor staff and one with their outdoor staff, and they still have that agreement. Councillor Wilkie: They still have that agreement. Speaker 3: So one of the things we tried to do in the last agreement was to say, if they're one organisation, we should have one set of conditions that provide all staff, not have different conditions that find movement past the organisation. So if you look in the previous agreement, that was the one big thing we got out of, which was to have a one workforce type approach. And that's what we've stuck with this time. A couple of times through this process, some of the unions wanted to go their own way a little bit. But essentially, we said, no, we are one organisation. We need one certified agreement that applies to all of our staff, and try and break down
02:38:00 those barriers. Councillor Wilkie: Is that quite common? Speaker 4: The two agreements. It's becoming more so. It's trending across Queensland that more and more they're trying to split the indoor and outdoor. Part of that is to do with there's more indoor workers than outdoor workers. So they feel that they all just got caught up in the majority vote. But again, what Brett said, and what I've done in the past as well, is always maintain that one agreement. Because culturally, that doesn't split the systems. Everybody's under the same banner. Mayor Stewart: These increases, are they in line with other organisations? Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not as attractive as what it was in the past. What we did when we started this process, we mapped it out to our recovery journey. So the lower increase in the initial years are very consistent with a lot of other councils. They're actually quite lower than some councils. A little bit higher than some.
02:39:00 But at the same time too, you'll never get a complete parity across Queensland, because everybody's negotiating at different times. Everybody's got different base rates. But what this did was kept consistent with our journey on our co-recovery plan as well. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian. Just a question. In the past, we've sought to negotiate some flexibilities within the agreements. Have any of those been lost in this process, or any added? Speaker 4: Nothing's been lost. Yeah. What has been gained, and it probably is something that we can build on in the future, is that there's a varying flexibility of hours. So what COVID did in the last 12 months, flexible work arrangements and things like that became more the norm, more accepted. But also too, what we did need to acknowledge is that our workforce is not what it used to be. It's differences. And the six or six timeframes aren't always as workable for some as others. A good example was the single parent who would be happy to work a little bit more into the
02:40:00 evening, but doesn't want to get caught up in adjusting those standard span of hours, because if they can go and pick up their little one from childcare, that saves them a bit of money. They're happy to work into the evening just to make up that time. It's that flexibility that we've got into the agreement this time. Mind you, that wasn't easy to get that. But that's actually just planning the seed and building those foundations for what is the way of working in the future. Okay. Speaker 3: So the other thing that's probably changed in recent years is that, to some extent, certified agreement trade-offs, which was going back to those, you know, the history enterprise bargaining agreement, which is where you traded off different things. A lot of that's still been done. There's not a lot left to trade off. And a lot of other councils have probably come to the same conclusion, is that you try and do as much of reform, if I can use that term, through management, prerogative or management policies, sitting outside the industrial relationship. So that's been probably the other trend that's happened over the last five years or so, where you try and work out, okay, we want to get changes.
02:41:00 Can we do it through a policy change? And does it need to be in a certified agreement? Got it in there. Once you're in there, it's hard to change. That's probably the other big thing. Councillor Finzel: Well, that's a good segue in for me around policymakers making policy around these issues. Workplace entitlements is one of the most effective methods for assisting employees to seek support. So I'm wondering, in your process of reaching these improved lead management provisions, as on page 32 of 46, which is my question. Is there a point in your process of reaching these improved lead management provisions, how is the organisation taking into consideration that 55 to 70% of working females are estimated to have experienced or at risk of experience domestic family violence in their lifetime? And it's critical for strong organisational competence around the understanding of this and a response to family and domestic violence and ensure that it's prioritised. Can you tell me a little bit about what first lead management provision and entitlements
02:42:00 you've made in this process? And secondly, and it might be an answer to the CEO, how he's going to address the policy to recognise the protection and rights of women in its workplace who may be subjected to violence? Speaker 4: So thank you for that question. In the previous certified agreement, we do have domestic and family violence lead provisions. So they've been maintained for that. That provides a minimum of 10 days lead. Speaker 3: And that was brought in in the last agreement, wasn't there previously? It was 2018? Yes. We brought that in for the first time and unions were happy with that. Speaker 4: So those things have been maintained. On the back of that, Council has a domestic and family violence workplace strategy from which the development of a policy and training for staff were the next steps. The policy hasn't been developed yet, but at the same time too, that's actually part
02:43:00 of our plan rolling forward. Because the policy was done pre-COVID, we're actually now revisiting a few things and just reviewing to see if they're up to date and they're current. We've got a meeting with the training provider next week. We were to do training last year, but obviously a lot of things didn't go to plan last year. So that's those next steps. I think the other thing is too, is that looking at what the current workplace looks like. We talk about flexible work and things like that. The evolution of flexible work is just one example. Whilst we can have lead provisions on that, we've got to take into consideration safe work environments, not just only here, but at home as well. So the domestic violence isn't a narrow focus for us. It's not a narrow focus for society, but if we're going to get into supporting our staff, we need to consider that it's a broad range of things. So we've got good provisions there. They're well above. If you look at the Fair Work Act provisions, there's just one benchmark.
02:44:00 They're well above that at five days. Ours are 10. We've got a strategy. It's time to review the strategy and we'll develop a policy and revisit our training. And that's training for staff, but also for managers as well. Speaker 3: Yeah. We did training, I'm thinking about two years ago. It was the best training I've ever done. Yeah. Oh, that's fantastic. We could have done it last year. We'll get that going again. Councillor Wilkie: Just a follow-up question. Yeah, thank you. A follow-up question from Karen. You mentioned domestic violence strategy for a year, but then you're going to formulate a policy. What's the difference between the two? To your way of thinking, Frank, what will they do? Speaker 4: Yes. A strategy is a better approach. So it encompasses a number of different things. It's your training, it's your policy development, all those things. Your policy is more your position. So whilst they're in the certified agreement, it might detail certain things. A lot of that we carry into the policy because they've been certified. But there may be actually other provisions that we want to include in the policy model. So include things like how we very often we have managers do the training, who we get
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 to do the training. More prescription. More prescription. Yeah. Speaker 3: And you don't want that level of detail in the certified agreement because it's bouncing out. So you want to have that . Yeah. Just to get which one you put in which document. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. The other question I... Sorry, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Oh, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: You were on... Councillor Finzel: I was just going to ask about any of this process. It's been proven it's essential and reliable and workplaces are being recognised as a good data collection centre to help address these social issues. This disaggregated data, it's critical to effectively measure progress in achieving gender equality to ensure women and children are safe. How is this organisation or have you got any plan around improvement and continuous improvement delivery? Planning to capture data that could feed into the broader pool of society when we're trying to address this violence against women?
02:46:00 Speaker 4: That can be picked up in our review. That'll be picked up in your review? Yeah, we'll pick that up in our review because I think it's small steps in this space. I mean, it is a societal issue, but it's also too about breaking down barriers. We've got to provide an environment where people feel comfortable about firstly having the conversation, but also too that reciprocated conversation. I don't know a lot of people that would automatically put their hands up, but at the same time too, if we can build that capability, because it is a capability into our workforce, managers and colleagues, that they can see the signs, they know how to approach the conversations, that's those initial steps. And then we can look at the measures of success for this as part of an ongoing review cycle from there. Councillor Finzel: That sounds great. And when's that review anticipated for? Speaker 4: It's part of my branch plan for next year. Oh, fantastic. Yeah. We have tried to get a few things off the ground this year, but one of the big challenges is the training. It's a very stop-start in the training space every time you do go and commit.
02:47:00 It's more so the providers aren't able to. So we found somebody that we'd like to engage a conversation with and just see where it goes to from there. Yeah. But it's on the to-do list, Councillor. Councillor Finzel: That's fantastic. Thank you. I'm really pleased to hear there's been such attention given to this detail through this process and projecting the vision forward to help support and mitigate violence against women in the workplace. So thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Sorry. Further questions. The pay increases, particularly with the dollar amount. How does that apply to casual staff? I mean, I'm assuming that the minimum dollar amount applies to full-time employees. How does that apply? Speaker 4: No. It's all staff. Councillor Jurisevic: So $23, regardless of how many hours they work? Speaker 4: It's proportioned back against their hourly rate. Back against the hourly rate. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was expecting. Speaker 4: We don't exclude anybody from it. We have three streams under our . Councillor Jurisevic: So if someone works 50% of a full-time, they'll get 50% of that amount. That's what I expected. Yeah. By the way, nice to have you at the table, Brett. Thank you.
02:48:00 First time at the table? Speaker 4: Not with yourselves. Yes. No. But at a Council meeting. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor. We did all the negotiations in this room. So it's much more pleasant, I would say. Councillor Lorentson: Brett, can I ask a question? It's something that I've been asking Brett about, but now I'd love to hear it from the horse's mouth. Notice of disclosures. It's something that I would have loved to have seen in a certified agreement. And that's in regards to anyone that's got any outstanding DV, whether it's breached or not. If someone's got a DV that's breached or not. Or someone's got an ABO. Or someone's done anything that will bring the... Continuous disclosure. Will bring... Continuous disclosure. Yeah. Continuous disclosure. Yeah. On ongoing staff. But anything that'll bring... Renders a person unfit or improper and brings the Council into disrepute. I would have loved to have seen a notice of disclosure where they have an obligation to
02:49:00 have disclosed, for instance, that they have been issued an AB, whether it's breached or not. And then the... Then I would have loved to have seen a requirement that they have undertaken some type of behavioural change to identify that as an issue. Yeah. And that we're satisfied with that training. Why was that not included in the certified agreement? Speaker 4: Very simply, Councillor, that was something we probably wouldn't want to get into the certified agreement, because then that locks us into the future. And it may cost us in the future to change that. We can do that through policy. When you put things in a certified agreement, you're pretty much bound, and then you have to negotiate your way out of them. Whereas if we put into a policy, we can actually set the position for ourselves, having an organisational policy, without having to go through a whole engagement process, industrially. It's a really good question. And it's something that I've started to look in. Part of my history was working in organisations where we had criminal history checks.
02:50:00 Yes. And I worked through the advent of blue cards and all those changes. Oh, that's great. There's two things that I've been asked to look at. One is about what sort of criminal history checks we can do on people. Firstly, what I would say is that needs to be relevant to the role. You can't do checks on people and things that are in their history that isn't relevant to their work. That's a bit of a leap of minefield. The second thing is what sort of disclosure about their past, where it may not be relevant, but if it's relevant to the context of the conversation here, where do we stand on those things? It's an interesting one. Councillor Lorentson: I think that... Can I interrupt? Yes. But given now that the workplace, we've identified that people are working from home... Yes. Speaker 3: I would say not all staff work from home. Not all staff work from home. The outdoor workforce, for example, have the same rules. We have to work... It's a bit hard to pave a road from the backyard. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. What happens outside of home impacts your ability to perform your job. Speaker 4: Yes.
02:51:00 Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So I understand that. And I'm also excited that there's still opportunity to introduce a notice of disclosure, but in policy statement as opposed to a certified agreement. Speaker 4: If we do it in policy, then we can change with legislation, change with our position. We can ramp it up. That's more flexible. Absolutely. It's more flexible. Councillor Finzel: Yes. And agility. You can move. Yes. Speaker 4: If we put in a certified agreement, we are locked in for a couple of years and can't go back to it. And if we start wanting to negotiate in terms of that, those people who have been involved in the process usually know that it will come at a cost. If we put a policy in place, it can change in six months, it can change in 12 months. It gives us flexibility at the end of the day. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, probably a little aside, but just sort of tangents off the question of criminal history checks. A recent court ruling that you can't discriminate based on criminal history now with regard to employment. Is that something we're aware of? Speaker 4: It's something we'll do our research on to make sure we've got a very clear position.
02:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. I was very interested to read that. I thought it was an interesting standpoint that the court had taken. Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Councillor. I mean, I go back 20 years when I was doing criminal history checks and it's relevant to the job. It's contextual for how far back. It's just not a straight line on any decision. Councillor Lorentson: It's an inherent requirement of the job. Absolutely. So it's got to be relevant to the decision. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Are you aware of that court decision? Or is that, I'll flag it and try and find it. Yes, I'd be very interested. It's been one of the decisions in the investigation. Yes. That one astounded me, actually. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillors care to move the recommendation? I'll move. Move. Councillor Jurisevic: Clearly an important element of council obligation to its staff to get this right. For me, one of the pleasing things is to see a minimum dollar amount, particularly for those lower paid workers. Whenever you work, negotiate on percentages alone, someone on $100,000 getting a 2% pay increase gets $2,000, someone on $50,000 gets $1,000.
02:53:00 The divide continues to grow. So ensuring that that divide is managed and maintained and people on lower wages aren't left behind is an important aspect of it. So very, very pleased to see that starting to creep into employment agreement decisions. But again, good to see that we've managed to, for the second time in my term here, negotiate an outcome that benefits all staff and that everybody, including all the unions, can agree on going forward. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to just thank Brent and the CEO and all the staff that have been involved. I know the process, it seems long and challenging. And I'd also like to acknowledge the staff in this space because, you know, if you've had people voted to represent their staff, they also take on that arduous role of, you know, representing their peers through this process.
02:54:00 So, yeah, I just want to say thank you to everyone. Everyone involved, that we've reached a hopefully equitable outcome, that we've got room in, you know, with policy and things around that, that we can address things that we've identified today. And I'm pleased to see that the Noosa Shire Council is working towards addressing this pressing social issues of domestic and family violence with the recent groundswell of attention from policymakers, the media and the general population. I'm pleased to hear back from you, Brent, today that you sound more than capable in this role to drive us forward as an organisation that can be really active in this space in providing, you know, safety, support and data back to the wider question around how we address this societal issue.
02:55:00 And it also segues into the, you know, the memorandum. And the memorandum with the university because, you know, they are also in that space collecting data around these issues. So, I think the council is being very progressive and I want to congratulate everyone that's contributed to that in some way. So, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I too would like to thank Brent and Brett and all the staff involved in these negotiations. I counted eight unions. So, to get them all to agree is no easy feat. Right. And it's also, as Councillor Jurisevic said, really pleasing to see that our lower paid workers are getting an increase. That's really important, especially with the financial pressures that COVID is placing on many of our families and obviously with affordable housing being in the crisis that it is. It's great to see that, you know, we have negotiated that and acknowledge how important they are to our council. Thank you.
02:56:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to reiterate the thanks that we give to staff, CEO, Brent, and everybody involved in the process, in the smooth process that this has been, once again, and the negotiated outcomes that have come that everybody can benefit from. So, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I put the motion all in favour. It's unanimous. Well done, Brent. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, thanks, Brent. Thank you, Brent. The agreement did assign Santa Claus responsibility, so it was you. No. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you very much. That falls to Brent. He doesn't realise that yet. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, your excuse. Item 6, Financial Performance Report for April. Welcome, Michael Shave.
02:57:00 Director of Corporate Services. Thank you. Questions for Michael? Councillor Lorentson: No. I'll start page 34, Michael. Just something that stood out to me. Local laws infringement revenue, $82,000 above near-to-date budget. That's probably great from an accounting point of view. As a councillor, I think, oh, my God, that's not a great thing. Where do those, do you have the information? Do those fines come out of dog parking? No. Why such an increase? Speaker 7: I think you've got to go back to the budget. It was a conservative revenue budget due to COVID. Okay. It's not necessarily above, absolutely. There's been basically no COVID in Noosa. So it's been business as usual for months. Hence, our regulation around parking has pretty much gone back to normal levels early on. So revenues above those conservative forecasts.
02:58:00 Based on the conservative forecasts. Okay. It's no. It's no. It's above and beyond our normal level of compliance. Speaker 3: And you might recall that during COVID last year, there were virtually no parking financing issues for a couple of months. That's true. So now they're back onto the normal cycle of things. Mayor Stewart: Any concerns that you've got? Anything keeping you awake? Because Brett always asks. Speaker 7: In terms of the operating budget, I think no. Everything's tracking well. We're slightly under with our expenditure. Further VEX summary, you can see everything's green. Probably with the capital expenditure wise, I think we need a good run of weather. We've got a lot of work to do in the next probably six weeks to make sure we get plenty of cash spent and the work's on the ground, finished or even commenced. So we need a good run of weather. We've had a bit of some hiccups over the last month or two. Councillor Jurisevic: We've ordered the sun. It's out today. So it's good. It's all good.
02:59:00 Just a question. Brian and then Joe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In fees and charges, at least building application fees is up. But we've been advised that there's also a spike in planning applications, but they're not listed. Is that because we preempted that there would be a spike in planning applications around this time because of the change in scheme? Speaker 7: And possibly we, in terms of BR3, took up that spike. And we took up some in building and plumbing. Some year-to-date spike. But theirs is probably still trending, trending a bit higher. But talking to actually one of their guys this morning there, it's very, very busy. And they're, yeah, they're trying to just keep up with demand at the moment around the application. Speaker 3: Homeowners grant stimulus, I think, has really gone to the ground. People are just spending up on their building stuff. It's huge. It's huge. Councillor Jurisevic: Chair Michael, one that caught my eye was commercial lease revenue 148k above year to date budget. Seeing as holiday parks are mentioned elsewhere and Sunrise Shops has been at a major vacancy there for some time, where are we getting our, is that just the conservative budgeting and we didn't expect the return to COVID as soon as it is, is the result of that?
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, there's a combination there, Joe. Ferry revenue has definitely well above forecast. We were very conservative with ferry revenue given, you know, when we put the budget together, it was a COVID budget and we thought we'd have longer periods of lockdown and so on. And similarly with the Sunrise Shops, we allowed some provision for some rent relief based on economic circumstances. Again, things have been, gone well, the shops have been, you know, those tenants have been earning income. They haven't met those 30% thresholds in terms of income reduction to trigger those Commonwealth rent relief measures. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, so we've had, so the better outcomes have been, okay, that's, I assume that, but I thought I'd double check that that was in.
03:01:00 The next one I've got is natural areas costs 52k above year to date budget, 60%, or 795 and 1.3 million spent. 60% at this point in time, we're 75% of the way through the year at the end of April. I would have expected that would be close to the 75% of the spend, or are we expecting a big spend in the last three months with natural areas? Yeah, without digging down into that area, Joe, I'm not sure. Speaker 7: It just sort of seems out of sync, that's all. Yeah, it could be a budgeting timing issue rather than anything else, but yeah, it appears that they've got a bit of spending to do in that month or so. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we be able to clarify that, if that's the case? Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. That'd be great. Thank you, Roger. My recollection also was they jumped in a bit of proactive tree work ahead of time as well. Speaker 7: Yeah, we dealt with that at BR3. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but being, my thing being 52k above year to date budget, but they've only spent 60% of their budget, I would have expected that would have been above 75% this year if it's a linear factor.
03:02:00 But if it's a, you know, there's a major project to be complete in those last three months, I'd expect a surge there. I'll check that. Yeah, there's just the imbalance between being above budget and being up to 75%, so. Councillor Wilkie: I'll just jump in there if I can, Joe. Yeah, please, that's it for me. On the statement of financial position, Michael, on page 43, can you help me understand the provisions line item? We finished 2020 with provisions line item of $4.6 million. We're currently at $2.5 million, but we're projecting to finish provisions of $7.5 million by the end of this financial year, 2021. Why the increase from last year? What are we setting aside money for there? Speaker 7: Your chunk, that change. That change would be around our landfill. We've got some significant remediation works to do over the next few years with our cell capping.
03:03:00 Basically, what happens is you fill your cell, have to remediate, put the layer of clay and cap it, and then you move on to the next cell, which you'll see in our 10-year capital program, there's some significant forward budgeting allowed for the cells. So this is obviously providing for that. And under accounting standards, you've got to provide for the capping or the cost of capping and remediating. Councillor Jurisevic: We've also been undertaking more capping and greater sealing to try and capture more methane. Speaker 7: Yeah, so that's predominantly that movement in that. Councillor Wilkie: So it's not put aside on a pro-rata basis. Look, we're at $2.5 million. So by the end of this financial year, it seems like a huge jump to get to that by the end of 2020. Speaker 7: Yeah, it's probably just more an accounting, you know, pro-movement type issue. Councillor Wilkie: It's not linear. It will be that. It will be. Because you need to set aside that amount of money. Okay. Correct. The other thing that affects the bottom line positively, the equity in a positive sense,
03:04:00 is the asset re-evaluation surplus, which has jumped up to $103 million. What does that actually mean, the asset re-evaluation surplus? What's the process by which that figure has arrived at, and what's its implications? Speaker 7: So effectively, that is allowing for inflation on our asset base. So each year is part of our re-evaluation. So under the accounting standards, every five years, you have to re-evaluate your assets so that the value you're holding represents the cost of replacing those assets. Otherwise, you could... It's called cost versus current value. But for instance, if you bought a building now and you did it, and in 20 years' time, you couldn't... It's 50,000. You can't say it's 50,000 in 20 years' time. It's actually inflates in value based on... It's pre-negated based on... CPI and so on. So that's in the accounting standards that each movement, each year in that, you're recognising your reserve, re-evaluation reserves.
03:05:00 Mayor Stewart: And it's been about $17 million down. Speaker 7: It's based on... On the year to date. No. So that will be, on a full year basis, it'll be increasing from 86 million to 103, but that's... That's right. ...allowing for also that significant capital works we're doing over the last few years. So our asset base is growing. Yeah. So when you allow that extra inflation on that bigger base, it's a bigger number. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that that... In fact, the... I'm just looking at the figures now. 86,525 at the end of 2020, and 86,525 currently year to date in 2021. Does that mean we actually haven't undertaken the work that it happens in the last three months or... Speaker 7: It does. As part of your end of financial year process, like that for the moment, Trent and the team... Councillor Jurisevic: When I saw the figure happen, James, I assumed... Speaker 7: I assume the value was there going through evaluation process of our, I think, waste and our other parts infrastructure, and then that'll flow through to... Councillor Jurisevic: So it's an indicative figure for last year, put in there until the process... It is. It's a nominal figure. Speaker 3: Yeah. And for those councils who aren't on the audit committee, there's a rolling program
03:06:00 of doing different categories of evaluations each year, different asset classes, so we just work through that over the year. Speaker 7: But we also, for budgeting purposes, allow an inflation so that we're not under depreciating our assets over in between those actual re-evaluations, so that helps smooth out our rates, pricing decisions. Councillor Wilkie: And why has there been a significant drop in the current liability of trade and other payables from last year? We're paying... We're paying... We're paying... We're paying... We're paying... Current liabilities, trade and other payables... Speaker 7: That's a year in, year out proposition. It depends on what... At the end of 30 June each year, what... How much creditors you have to pay that you haven't paid. And that... I mean, it's good. Yeah. And look, that could be 10 million. It could be 5 million. It just depends on the cycle. But I would expect... No, it's a nominal figure, the six and a half.
03:07:00 However, I think you would be looking at probably about 9 to 10 million. Well, so that's the estimate. Speaker 3: I'll keep pushing you through the KappaWorks program. You're going to have a lot of bills coming in around about June. We're trying to get them in. We're actually asking to put them in. So it's likely to be higher. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but pretty... As part of the COVID process, we started paying on a more frequent basis than we... Yeah. That rather 60-day cycle, 90-day cycle, 60-day cycle, then the 30-day cycle. I'd expect that to be down to reduce, which is why we're seeing that lower value there at six. But of course, yeah, that end of financial year will be the lag between what we've got waiting to be paid and waiting for those invoices to come in to pay those, obviously. Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. Interestingly enough, we... Sometimes we have to chase our suppliers to get invoices, which is a bit surprising because cash is king, but we're onto them. Councillor Wilkie: And again, you've probably told me before, Michael, that what...
03:08:00 Under current liabilities, what classifies as other? Because it's... We have $4.7 million of others. That's a lot of other. Yeah. Speaker 7: Oh, well, you've probably put me on the spot. I need to... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 7: I'm sure if you gave me 10 minutes, I could remember what that was, but... Councillor Wilkie: I've... Yeah. Could... Yeah. I can chase you on that. Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move it. Move for Councillor Jurisevic. Second for Councillor Stewart. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, it's our financial management from the team. I don't see any areas here of grave concern. Capital Works are keeping time. We've got a lot of... A lot of inter-financial year pains to come through, but everything's on track. No red lights flashing and no major discrepancies to concern us. And considering where we are with having gone through a COVID year, I think that's a pretty good position to be in.
03:09:00 So thank you to you and your team and to all staff that ensure that we retain that sound financial position, which was backed up by Treasury through the week before that I unfortunately missed. Councillor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you, Michael. Thank you very much. Thanks, Michael. Speaker 4: And, Councillors, that is the last item on the agenda. I declare the meeting closed, and thank you very much.