Ordinary Meeting - 20 May 2021 Transcript

Start of recording ¶

00:00:00

00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. Do I have a move for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 23rd of April? Thank you, Councillor Winzell and Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. All in favour? Can I have a move for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting held on the 23rd of April? Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded by Councillor Winzell. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have two petitions. To present to the CEO, the first petition is to save glossy black cockatoo habitat at Grass Tree Court, Sunrise Beach.

15 minutes in ¶

00:15:00

00:15:00 a number of... three businesses, Bounce Backpackers in Mary Street, Noosaville, Restaurant 3287 in the Terrace and Sunshine Beach Surf Club conditions have been imposed. What is the latest or the most recent conditions that have been imposed in this particular hospitality precinct in the Noosa Junction? All of these... None of these businesses are actually in the Noosa Junction hospitality precinct. Can you let us know what the most recent one and what those conditions were in regards to the Noosa Junction area, particularly where this business... we're talking about? Yeah. Speaker 2: I couldn't find one that's been issued under the current scheme, the Noosa Plan 2020, otherwise I would have provided. There's certainly an approval list given under the previous scheme, the Noosa Plan 2006, where there was no operating hours for that approval and they were allowed to operate till midnight. Mayor Stewart: Seven days a week, yeah? Speaker 2: Yep. Mayor Stewart: And what about noise? Any restrictions on the amplifier music

00:16:00 or the noise restrictions? Speaker 2: No, there wasn't. So that approval was reflective of the 2006 scheme which has limited requirements for businesses in the Junction. Mayor Stewart: And so how long ago was that approval granted? Do you remember? In what business it was? Speaker 2: No. No, sorry, I don't recall. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, I have, in answer to your question, I have a copy of the, an approval given here for the Village Bicycle. Would it be in the latest? Previous scheme and it does stipulate in relation to noise that external speakers or amplified music was not permitted and that internal amplified music must be directed away from the external areas. Mayor Stewart: Does that have hours pertaining to it, Councillor? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. In terms of the hours, the approved use must not operate outside the hours of 5 to 12 a.m. with the use of the outdoor dining area permitted only

00:17:00 after 10 p.m. After 10, outdoor dining after 10 p.m. only on Friday to Monday nights. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, referencing the reports being made with the three recent approvals at Noosa Heads, Noosa Junction, Noosaville and Sunshine Beach, the surf club is 1850 square metres and located in an area that's zoned open space and recreation and the application in front of us is a restaurant with an area size of 116 square metres, 68 internal, 24 kitchen, 24 outside and it's also located within a hospitality precinct. Has proper consideration been made to the site's location and size and building design and does it matter that we're comparing an 1850 square metre site to a 160 metre site?

00:18:00 Speaker 2: So what officers have recommended is we have recommended to council that we limit the hours of operation. But we haven't recommended to council that we impose noise limits. We've recommended that we control the potential impacts of that use by a limitation on the hours of operation. Our councillors at the general committee explored potential noise conditions that can be imposed. This development, this applicant has not prepared for that. We've had an acoustic report to enable, to inform us appropriately what those noise levels might be. So we have drawn from other approvals and sites around the Shire on what might be an appropriate noise level for this development. But it's difficult to tell because we don't have a detailed acoustic report to draw from.

00:19:00 So we have drawn from Sunshine Beach, notwithstanding it's a much bigger size, because that, the surf club is in proximity to the Shire. And we're trying to ensure that noise from that club wouldn't impact on their residential amenity. Similar to the intent with this application. We know that noise travels up the hill, up to Noosa Hill, and that we've had complaints from residents both about patron noise and music. So we have included for council an alternative motion which includes some hours. If council wishes to change the hours to midnight, seven days a week, we would suggest and recommend to council that you include some noise levels on them. To ensure that if it becomes a nuisance for residents in terms of noise, we can come back and have a discussion with the operators of that premise. Councillor Lorentson: A clarification for councillors and for anyone listening tonight. Planning approvals. Once we condition this approval, does it get extinguished once the existing businesses sells his business?

00:20:00 Or does a planning approval run with the land? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. So planning approvals run with the land. They're not issued to an individual or an operator. So you can have one operator who manages the business very well and manages the potential noise impacts. But you can have another operator that wishes to offer a different type of business and attract perhaps a younger crowd that can be a lot noisier. So development approvals run with the land. We have no ability to change or council them unless it were a request of the applicant in future. Mayor Stewart: Does that make then an unfair plan? We've got so many other... If it does run with the land, there's a number of businesses that have been highlighted at the last few meetings that are in that area that have no sort of stipulation or limitation. And that then runs with the land.

00:21:00 So if I buy or take up a business there, then I've got longer trading hours. Then to someone who would limit a business like this that is, say, directly next door. Does that create an unfair plan field in your opinion? Speaker 2: The applicant is suggesting that it does. But I'm suggesting to council that planning schemes change over time and for good reasons. We do introduce new requirements that would need to apply to new premises or business when they change or expand over time. So in the long run, over time, if we do change the hours around the operation, potentially businesses will become consistent in the way they operate. Councillor Wilkie: Just a follow-on question. Kerry, is it... Does my understanding correct that these sound levels, these conditions set objective sound levels so that if there is an excess of noise and there are complaints,

00:22:00 then the Office of Legalisation of the Council do have something to gauge the complaint, respond to? They can make an objective call as to whether the noise is excessive or not. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. There are noise reading equipment that we can employ to determine whether they're meeting those levels if council imposes them on the approval. So there's an objective way to determine whether it's creating a problem for residents up the hill and it's being too noisy. Councillor Wilkie: So if council didn't stipulate noise levels and there are complaints, then when the investigation is underway, the investigator would probably have to say to the resident, I'm sorry, council didn't stipulate any noise levels. So if they've allowed live music to tend here, you have to live with that. Speaker 2: That's exactly right. We wouldn't be able to step in in any way and assist those residents in addressing potential noise issues

00:23:00 that they're raising if there was no conditions. It comes down to the conditions on the approval. Otherwise, we have no ability to step in. Mayor Stewart: What are the conditions on an approval for liquor licensing that each business has to adhere to in regard to if they have a liquor license? There is certain noise conditions upon their approval. So if that was the case, then liquor licensing could step in? Speaker 2: That's correct. Liquor licensing do impose conditions on their approval and they do impose conditions around noise. In my experience, it's quite generous and we do have a number of businesses in the junction that are only subject to liquor licensing conditions and are causing issues for residents on the hill because they are nosy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to follow up on that, Monday I suggested a motion that set a 75 decibel limit and since then we've had representations highlighting what the liquor licensing requirements are like.

00:24:00 And I think it's important that we, on Monday I suggested 75 decibels and here that's consistent. The 75 decibel limit also apply if you want to provide entertainment but do not obtain an acoustic report to submit with your new license or alteration. In your new, the alternative motion, which is not your recommendation but a response to the debate, you suggested higher limits. And I suppose the question is, with those higher limits, we've suggested noise limiting devices. And my query is, if 75 decibels is really pipe restaurant music, we probably don't need, if they're going to, I'm looking at the option, if they stick to 75, they probably don't need all the noise limiting but if they want the enhanced level of decibel reading, then they probably do. So is there an option to have that sort of a condition that they can have up to 75 but if you want to go higher to these limits, then what you've suggested in the alternative motion.

00:25:00 Would that be something we can consider? Have I lost you? I'm sorry. I just think that 75 appears to be a baseline for pipe restaurant music. So you probably don't need a whole lot of technology to say you're keeping with it. But if you did want to go to having soloists and maybe even small bands, then you would definitely need something to work out whether you can meet the standards that are likely to be required. Speaker 2: I understand what you're saying. I'm just giving it some consideration. And it sounds logical and practical what you're saying. The concern is that how do you, if it's piped music in a restaurant and someone decides they like this song and they want to turn it up a bit, there's nothing limiting that. How do you ensure that it stays at 75? It's the sound limiter that will do that.

00:26:00 Speaker 3: Question. Councillor Finzel: If we went back and reduced the hours, would we even have to consider the decibels? Speaker 2: So the recommendation to council was to control the potential noise impacts by using the hours and not having a decibel rating. Or a sound limiter on them. So it's a simple way of managing noise potential impacts from this decision. So the recommendation was a change to what we originally had on the approval. It was recommended that we allow them internally, because it's inside the building, to operate until midnight, seven days a week. But outside, between Sunday and Thursday, they finish at 10pm. Friday and Saturday they can go until midnight. Now officers thought that was a reasonable balance, given we have a business centre where we want to allow entertainment uses and night time uses to occur.

00:27:00 So we thought that was a reasonable balance in the absence of any acoustic report from the applicant to determine whether their building and the building design and the layout of the junction actually helps buffer noise to residents because we don't have that information for us. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, given the site's location, so we're talking about a restaurant that's located in Arcadia Street. If the restaurant was noisy, which residents would be impacted? I'm just trying to understand. We're looking at an application, one application in front of us. I keep going back to the question, are we giving proper consideration to the site's location? And this site is, this restaurant's located in Arcadia Drive. So the noise guidelines,

00:28:00 I actually don't mind the noise guidelines that are provided in the amendments, but are we going a little bit too far given the site's location? Speaker 2: Well, we don't know that because there's been no acoustic report provided by the applicant. It was asked of the applicant to investigate that to determine whether the building design and the layout of the junction actually helps buffer noise. But we don't have that information to know whether they're going too far. That could have been resolved by the applicant. They could have provided an acoustic report and potentially demonstrated that the way the design is, noise is actually not going to reach residents on the hill. But we don't have that information to know. Councillor Wegener: Just to back up, the liquor license regulations is a pretty much one size fits all situation. And council is being asked to modify,

00:29:00 scale back the liquor licenses regulation to fit our Noosa standards. Speaker 2: Sorry? Councillor Wegener: Okay. Is that a question? Oh. Well, first, the liquor license regulations, they're a backdrop, aren't they? So if we say nothing, they will still be in effect. Speaker 2: That's right. If we are silent on noise conditions, there will be noise conditions on a liquor license. But as I've suggested to you, in my experience, liquor licensing with conditions are quite generous. They allow noise to be made from these venues. We've got venues in the junction that only have a liquor license, not controlled by planning conditions, and they're creating a noise nuisance for residents. So I'm suggesting that default position isn't perhaps the one we want to take. Councillor Wegener: But when we're looking at this, wouldn't it be, ideally, wouldn't it be better to have a sort of master plan

30 minutes in ¶

00:30:00

00:30:00 with the arcade to set the sound because we're setting one location in a bubble, in its own, where the next place has sound regulations and across the road there's a whole slew of them. It seems to me it would be ideal for them to work together on a sound plan rather than us ad hoc putting regulations on this one. Is that possible? Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, that's really what we're suggesting to Council. I'm recommending some change for this business to allow a little bit more flexibility than the conditions we were originally opposed. But I'm suggesting don't go any further until we go through that scheme of amendment process and we investigate what is appropriate for the junction and we talk with traders and residents. Councillor Wegener: So that's the amendment process that we're talking about. It's going to be, right, okay, get this through. But when we have the amendment process there's much better understanding of the amount of sound,

00:31:00 what each individual business can do. We'll work that into the master plan, put that into the next town plan. Speaker 2: Yeah. Obviously, our strategic planning team are going to be looking at this. But they could certainly seek advice from an acoustic consultant around that if Council were concerned and wanted to look at it in that detail. One more. Councillor Wegener: So, what if the group, if the association works together and came to Council and said, look, this is what we would like to do. They've all agreed to this. We've got, you know, self-regulation here because it's for the good of the whole. Would we respect that as a Council? Speaker 2: I think we would definitely need to take that consideration. These are our Noosa Junction traders. But we also, I think, need to take into account our residents as well because they live in proximity to the Junction as well. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Okay. We're going back to existing use rights.

00:32:00 If I recall what you said earlier is that if we amend the planning scheme, we can only affect businesses and applications from that time on. But those before that, from the 2000 scheme or earlier, if they've got time constraints of midnight and no noise constraints, there is nothing that we can do to retrospectively change those that have come before. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yeah. Existing use rights are protected by the planning legislation. So that's true. But new schemes cannot override existing use rights. But if we have a plan in our planning scheme about, okay, for the Junction, these are the hours we want to see our businesses operating, we can ask liquor licensing to look at imposing those new requirements around hours of operation. Councillor Jurisevic: But as far as would that apply every year upon renewal of liquor licensing licences or whatever period they are

00:33:00 renewed on and could it be applied retrospectively if changes were made? Speaker 2: No, I'm not fully across liquor licensing, but they're not, liquor licences go with the person, the licensee, and they only get reviewed if the licensee wants to change it or it changes hands or it stops operating. It's not something that's done retrospectively or renewed annually. So they continue on for some time until the licensee seeks a change. Councillor Jurisevic: So where a planning scheme cannot look retrospectively and the only time that we can amend conditions is if there is a change of use in a premises, liquor licensing can look at a new owner to a premises and apply different conditions to the owner even though through the planning scheme it has existing use rights. Speaker 2: That's correct. And obviously it's up to liquor licensing what approvals they issue.

00:34:00 I mean, we can advise them what we would like, but it's liquor licensing that issue the approvals at the end of the day. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, we've got a request for a deferral and you talked about not having an acoustic report Mayor Stewart: from the applicant. Is there an opportunity if we did defer it that we could ensure that that acoustic report was provided and that would give us further clarification and information? Speaker 2: Well, the applicant was asked to provide an acoustic report as part of the information request to this application. They declined. They said they didn't want to and they would accept certain conditions including no amplified music. They've made no indication in this letter that they're now prepared to give us an acoustic report. So, I'm not sure if their position has changed there. Kerry, Councillor Lorentson: what is the cost of an acoustic report? Speaker 2: It can vary. Obviously, it's done by an external consultant. So, I understand it can be

00:35:00 around $2,000 to $5,000. Councillor Lorentson: So, for a small business, that's quite onerous. Speaker 2: So, just remember, my understanding with liquor licenses, they have to prepare an acoustic report to get their liquor license. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Does that mean they haven't got their liquor license yet? Speaker 2: I'm not sure. Not sure. Councillor Wilkie: Did you say that they were not prepared to provide an acoustic report and they would have to accept conditions that said no amplified music? Speaker 2: That's correct. So, that's in the report to Planning and Environment Committee. Councillor Lorentson: So, the amendment we have in front of us potentially may be more advantageous for the applicant. You just mentioned there's no requirement. Under the amendment, there is no requirement that they get the acoustic report. Yet, if they seek to get their license under the Office

00:36:00 of Liquor and Gaming, there is that requirement. So, this is potentially the better way to meet the requirements. Speaker 2: Sorry, which is the better way? Councillor Lorentson: What we are proposing, which are very similar noise limits to the liquor gaming laws without the requirement of them getting an acoustic report. I'm just looking at the two together and thinking that potentially we may be offering something a little bit better. Councillor Jurisevic: As a Mayor Stewart: first amendment motion. If they want a liquor license, they have to provide an acoustic report, that's what you're saying, is that correct? Speaker 2: Yeah, my understanding is if they want to have music at the venue, they will need an acoustic report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other than pipe music. Speaker 2: Other than the pipe, yeah, low-key music. Councillor Jurisevic: So, those are the ones. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a clarification, and I was trying to scan

00:37:00 through. You said they initially made that submission to information request about no amplified music, but was there a subsequent request for it to be included? I'm just Yeah, Speaker 2: so during the application process, that was part of their response to council's information request and obviously the decision's been made. The applicant has an opportunity to make representation. As part of those representations, they've come back and said, no, I'm sorry. Whilst we said that, we would now like the opportunity to have amplified music. Mayor Stewart: Given that there is a request that's come before council, I think it only fair that we debate that request. So I will move the motion that we accept the deferral of this item to a further meeting and with consultation undertaken. Do we have any words

00:38:00 like that? Defer to a future council meeting to allow staff to hold further discussions with the applicant in relation to hours of operation. But I do this because this is a request that's come before us and I think irrespective of whatever way we vote, we should deal with this first and then we move on. So I'll move that motion. Speaker 2: Second the motion. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Mayor Stewart: Look, as I said, this is for the purposes of debate. We've had a request. I think it's only fair at the applicant that we debate this. We've asked a lot of questions. Thank you, Kerry, for providing those answers. And I think it's a reasonable request and I'd be interested to know if they would be prepared to provide a further on asking for a deferral to provide further acoustic reports. That's something that if we do have a deferral, we can actually obtain further information from them. We can have further review. This has been we've received a lot of feedback about this and I think, you know, we don't instead of applying by the seat of our pants and what's 75 decibels and what's 65 decibels and what does that mean and what does that mean?

00:39:00 I think we have really we go through the proper process and refer this to a further meeting which might be a sensible way to go. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The applicant sent a letter requesting a deferral so that certain things would take place. It was a conditional deferral deferred for the purpose of undertaking a further consultation with the applicant and also interested stakeholders. With the motion before us, does it run the risk of the applicant not agreeing to the deferral because it's not strictly to the conditions under which they made the request? That is, that consultation with other stakeholders take place. And are they risking a deemed refusal are we risking are they risking a deemed refusal or the wording as it is? Deemed approval. Oh, it's co-accessible so we deemed approval.

00:40:00 Speaker 2: No. So there's no risk in this. Councillor Jurisevic: If they request Speaker 2: a deferral. and it's not deferred exactly for the reasons they've thought that's okay because it's their loss in that if we go outside the negotiated decision timeframe council cannot issue a negotiated decision so we make no changes to conditions so the risk is all theirs in this instance. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just to clarify and purposes of debate I'm needing an amendment to add the words noting that it is inappropriate for other stakeholders be it business or community groups to be involved in these discussions.

00:41:00 Mayor Stewart: The motion before us says deferred consideration for future council meeting to allow staff to hold further discussions with the applicant. So it's only the applicant. Yes, that's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, Speaker 2: that's how I read the wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'm just providing clarification. Speaker 2: Yes, okay, Mayor Stewart: thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a move. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that amendment for the purposes of that. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no real. I just think it's really important to understand that this is representations to condition not a code accessible. There's been some representations made

00:42:00 which have tried to make this a test case to be a pilot for a much larger issue which is appropriately dealt with as a scheme amendment. It's not appropriate to use this application to prosecute a larger argument. It's not fair on the applicant to try and resolve a range of issues within the resolution of this simple request to amend a condition. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I support the amendment because it basically reinforces the Mayor's original motion that we're deferring consideration to a future council meeting to allow our staff in relation to the hours of operation and noise and there's nothing about wider consultation. As said before, it's more appropriate that that takes place as part of feedback and consultation as part of amendment planning process. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's on the end of stakeholders and stakeholders. Cathy, I think it would be appropriate in your view.

00:43:00 Councillor Lorentson: I support the amendment. I think just by the correspondence we've received by the applicant and the associations, there's a lot of confusion and a little bit of anxiety. And I think that we need to press the pause button and just get some more information and perhaps more clarification is needed for all of us here and for everyone at the table and also by the applicant and the associations. I think we've all made it very clear that we do support small business and I think that needs to be properly explained to the applicant who is probably at this moment just worried about the implications of any decision that's made today. So the pause button I think is the right decision.

00:44:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll support the amendment. I'm not sure I support the motion once the amendment has been out of tilt but I'll support the amendment for the sake of it makes no difference to the original motion. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thanks. That brings us back to the original motion. Now, do you Councillor Wegener: have a question? Do you question? that this is making where we're actually taking a bad situation and making it worse? Actually, considering the applicant right now, he came to us saying that he's not interested in the noise. We've taken that on and saying, no, we actually are very interested in the noise because we do want limitations on it. Originally, I was thinking it would be great just to give it to the liquor licensing because I would like to have a level playing field in the arcade and it seems

45 minutes in ¶

00:45:00

00:45:00 as though the backdrop of the liquor licensing regulations is that level playing field. By us making noise restrictions, we're making the playing field lumpy again. And that was my initial gestalt was, I don't like that. That's not part of my philosophy. But now, it seems, are we making it more difficult for the applicant at this point, do you feel? Speaker 2: I'm not quite sure how to answer that one. I guess offices are recommending in their professional opinion a way forward for this business. It's recognised it's perhaps the temporary way forward until we do the wider consultation with the community around the scheme amendment about what we want to see in the junction. So, we do need to make a decision on this application. Officers felt they tried

00:46:00 to come up with a balanced approach to that, knowing that there's Councillor Jurisevic: no amplified music as part of the conditions. And yet, in the recommendation, amplified music has been placed in there. I'm trying to question why amplified music was added if that wasn't something that was requested by the applicant. I think their concern was more around the hours or was that simply to be consistent or more consistent with other operators in the area adjacent

00:47:00 to this application. Speaker 2: So, this restaurant has a development approval already. So, we have given a development approval. The conditions of the approval say no amplified music which was reflective of the applicant's response to the information request. As part of giving that development approval, they have the opportunity to come back and negotiate conditions. The applicant has now said we'd like the opportunity to have amplified music. Councillor Jurisevic: Ah, thank you. Thank you. That clarifies something in my head that I've lost track of. Speaker 2: Thank you. to change that condition to allow amplified music but limiting the time. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we're doing a disservice to the applicant to defer it. I think most of the people around the table don't have a problem with changing the operating hours to midnight. I don't think I think most

00:48:00 of the people around the table don't have a problem with setting realistic noise limits that allow slightly louder noise before 10pm and slightly less loud noise after 10pm. So, unless the applicant wants to now during the deferral period go and do a acoustic report we'll be none the wiser. I think most people have made the decision what they'll accept. Um, trying to drag it out I don't think will have any impact on the final decision. Yeah, I, Councillor Jurisevic: I agree with Council Stockwell's assessment of the situation here. I don't think deferring this, uh, considering, um, the clarification that, uh, that we just got from staff with regard to what was requested by the applicant in the first place and what the, uh, subsequent discussions led to, uh, I don't think there's any need for a deferral motion. I'll go back to the original, uh, assessment and, uh, and make the appropriate judgments.

00:49:00 Councillor Wegener: Is this, is this to the? It's to the, Mayor Stewart: uh, Councillor Jurisevic: deferral. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, to the deferral motion. Then we go back to the original motion. Yes. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Well, there is no motion yet. Councillor Wilkie: Look, um, Council Lorentson made a good point before and that is that all the other parties that have become interested in this one particular application seem to be under the misapprehension that we're asking the business to close at 10 p.m. Mm. Whereas we're looking at a midnight closure time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm. Councillor Wilkie: So that's, a deferral's an opportunity to reassure them of that and, um, and bring everyone along. But also the, the process that's been suggested as part of the amendment to the planning scheme, that process is the, is the opportunity also to bring everyone around the table and move together,

00:50:00 move forward together. So, I'm of, I see benefits in, in either deferring or pushing ahead with the application tonight because, um, whether we decide it tonight or we defer it, the other interested parties will soon become apprised that we're looking at a midnight closure which seem to be their main sticking point anyway. Mm. So that can be, um, um, dispensed with. And look, um, I'll, I'll, um, I'll not support the, the motion to defer because I believe that we do have the information before us to, to make a, a decision tonight. Councillor Finzel: Thanks. Mm. Yeah, this has been a tricky one. Um, given that it, it's got two, it overlays here. We've got an intersection of a single applicant that wants to have his business, you know, approved and moved forward.

00:51:00 He's agreed that, um, to the hours to operate are limited. 9 p.m. Sunday to Thursday, 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday to reduce noise. Staff has told us that, um, the idea of regulating without decimals conditions are restricted because they've tried to give us a balanced approach by reducing the number of hours. At our first meeting we agreed we would increase to 12 and we're gonna still stick to what the applicant agreed. I've had no correspondence from Herbert to say that he's not happy with this. That has not landed in my inbox. Um, I don't agree with moving it forward. I think we can make the decisions tonight because the other overlap where we sit is community consultation, fair and equitable, to ensure this is done not in a rush, but it's done in a proper consultative process where we respect all players, which is the people up the hill

00:52:00 affected by the noise, all other players. We wanna try and work towards getting a more reasonable and fair outcome for all operators in this junction. It's a new space. It's innovative. It's to support this business. They did not supply the acoustic report as requested. They chose not to. We can't guarantee that they're going to go forward and provide it anyway. I think I could move an amendment. Do I do that now that we go back to the original? No, you're supposed to do it this first. Okay, thank you. Sorry, I get . Anyway, thank you. I will not support the deferral. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I support the motion. I don't disagree with anything that's been said at the table here today, particularly what you said, Councillor Wegener,

00:53:00 that perhaps the deferral may actually equal a disservice to the applicant. But in front of me, I have a letter, a letter that reads, I refer to the above application, which is due to be considered at tonight's ordinary meeting. Council and staff have been working through the representations which relate to hours of operation and noise. My client believes that Council's response to these representations in terms of the conditions proposed will have widespread detrimental implications. Accordingly, our client has instructed us to request a decision on its application to be deferred. There is no ambiguity there. The client has asked for a deferral and I would like to respect that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Dr Lawrence. Just a question. Are the widespread detrimental implications referred to in that letter what's been proposed

00:54:00 to be handled through a scheme amendment to the planning scheme process? Speaker 2: Exactly. I don't agree this has widespread implications that will be handled through a scheme amendment process if Council chooses to change the planning scheme through that process in consultation with traders and residents. There's no issues with this one. Councillor Jurisevic: And just a further question to clarify that, with regard to the conditions that the staff have proposed in the in the recommendation to this meeting, those conditions are consistent with the NUSA Plan 2020 and consistent and would be applied consistently to other businesses that operate and make application under the NUSA Plan 2020. Speaker 2: If I can just clarify when you say are we referring to the recommendation or the alternative motion? No, the recommendation. Okay, so the recommendation to Council is a variation to the hours that are currently specified by the planning scheme for Noosa Junction. They are

00:55:00 less stringent that allows them to operate at greater level hours in the scheme actually required. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Further to that, so any further applications that come to us in the junction or any other area, we could apply the same conditions of a less stringent nature to the plan if required until such time as the NUSA Plan may go through an amendment process. Cool. Speaker 2: I think that the hours that offices are recommending are a reasonable interim position until we can go through the process of a scheme amendment process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because then there may have been an interpret that we're going against the NUSA Plan if we do vary. So the requirements as you, I think you referred them to, they're actually listed as acceptable

00:56:00 solutions for live music and what you're suggesting is your solution would be still consistent with, in your view, exceeding the performance outcome which is permissible of, for live music. So the performance outcome is live music creates entertainment with patrons and vibrancy with the discreet streetscapes and is cited to avoid significant impacts on surrounding residential land uses. And you suggest in your recommendation to vary what was the original condition, would you think there's good grounds to say that can still be met? Yeah. Speaker 2: That's just one solution. We're saying that I think it meets performance outcomes of the scheme. That's right. Thank you. We're not varying the scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: Appreciate the clarification. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I just need to clarify with regards to my comment about not receiving correspondence. I did in fact receive correspondence

00:57:00 from David Langdon on behalf. It was correspondence directly from Herbert. Just to clarify that. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. This is a really tough one. I agree that I agree with what everyone said around the table. But I think what Councillor Lorentson has said fundamentally we have a letter before us in writing. We can't second guess what they're thinking. We know what they're thinking in regard to this letter. And I think we have to honour their wishes in regard to varying this. However, it may be potentially it may not be you know looking at this further down the track will just take off my train of thought. Sorry. I think that this is a really tough one. And even though I move this motion I agree with what people said. But I am going to stick with what I've got in writing before me that they've requested a referral

00:58:00 and I think we should honour and respect that. So I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. All in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Clare Wegener and Stewart against? Councillors Finzel, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Stockwell. That the motion was. That brings us back to the original motion. Councillor Wilkie: On the page 16. You might have to read that one out. Councillor Lorentson: It's in the report. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. It's in the ordinary meeting report. Yes I will. So basically the report agree to amend conditions three, six and nine to read that the approved use must not operate outside the hours of 6am to 12am seven days a week. Which basically means the business can operate till midnight seven days a week. But amplified music must cease to operate in outdoor spaces by

00:59:00 9pm Sunday to Thursday, 10pm Friday and Saturday. The rest of it then any solid structures through the required painted boxes must have an interesting finish. But the change to the recommendation that appeared on has appeared since Monday is noise emanating or non amplified noise and patron noise prior to 10pm must not exceed 90 decibels fast response when measured approximately three metres from the source of the noise. Noise emanating from premises including amplified or non amplified noise and patron noise up to 10pm must not exceed 85 decibels fast response when measured three metres from the source of the noise. Entertainers or speakers to ensure that noise does not exceed levels prescribed on the conditions of a licence.

60 minutes in ¶

01:00:00

01:00:00 The sound emanating device has a locking mechanism which is to be locked at all times except for inspection or maintenance work on the device. Access to the sound emanating device except for maintenance work is restricted to the licensee, nominee and the person in charge of the premises at any time. The sound emanating device must be checked and if necessary calibrated by a qualified acoustic engineer at least every 12 months to ensure compliance with the conditions of this licence. Evidence of the sound emanating device calibration must be made available to an authorised person. The CEO here requested to include a review of the operating hours of licensed premises which includes outdoor dining as part of a new package of amendments of the Noosa Plan and that as part of that review process consultation occur with the community and business associations. Indeed note the report is provided in accordance with section 6535 of the planning act 2016.

01:01:00 Councilor, you can Councillor Wegener: We're all back councillors, give me a few seconds, we've got to speak to it first. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah councillors, consistent with other businesses in the junction that operate tonight this allows this new business to do the same but the main impact of a business in this precinct with the residents living on the hill and the amphitheatre effect of the noise travelling from there is likely to be most noted when there's amplified music and hence the condition that even though they can operate till midnight that amplified music must cease by 9pm Sunday to Thursday, 10pm Friday and Saturday but there's no point in saying that they can have amplified music to 9pm

01:02:00 some most most days and 10pm on Friday and Saturday without stipulating that it must be within certain limits so that if there are complaints then an independent arbiter like legalising or council staff can make the judgment whether the noise is excessive or not these limits are what are consistent with what this council this new council has imposed on the Sunshine Beach Surf Club the decibel limits are the same and the noise is an is an objective impact regardless of the size of the venue that can be about 1800 square meters or 200 square meters but if there's 90 decibels of noise emanating it from there it's still 90 decibels of noise and still has the same impact on residents living nearby it's it's a good start and

01:03:00 under the it's quite common for the council to implement some set some sort of objective standards by which noise amplified music coming from a premise can be measured in the case of complaints so that a judgment can be made whether the complaints are justified or not. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to move an amendment to C so following this review the applicant may make an application to council to change the development approval conditions to be consistent with any planning scheme amendments made as part of this review. I'll second that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. That's the motion. He moved the motion. Oh sorry sorry councillor. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. I'll move the motion. Councillor Lorentson: It's basically I've just added that to um recognize um and advise the applicant that if an amendment is made to the NUSA plan regarding our

01:04:00 outdoor dining that will adversely affect the affect him then he can have his hours um of use amended to reflect those changes. Go for it John. Councillor Jurisevic: You first I'll go second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No wait a minute, I'll wait a minute, I'm sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: I won't support the amendment I'm sorry the uh the amendment is redundant uh because that is the process by which any applicant can go through uh their their application at any stage if uh there are changes and the changes are favourable they can make uh application to uh to uh to amend that but we can't be retrospective we can't go back and change them unless the applicant makes uh make submissions so uh for the sake of uh not creating redundancy or uh in uh in our um in our um our resolution uh I I find that uh adding that clause is a clause for clauses sake because that is part of due process in any development application process.

01:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: Look I agree with councillor Jurisevic the clause is redundant but I I see value in people who are have an interest in this application to see this particular point made explicit in the amendment that's it it helps understand it the layperson understand why the amendment is made to the NUSA plan regarding outdoor dining. Planning is a very difficult field, and for people who are following this, I see no harm in making, as Councillor Jurisevic said, an integral part of the process, explicit, by including it in this amendment. Mayor Stewart: I agree. The amendment, I'll support it. I agree with Councillor Walke that it is, in the planning scheme, it's very difficult to understand, and for a lot of people, I mean, it's a lot to grapple with.

01:06:00 This just gives some clarification, a bit more transparency, and so it's in my mind that I'm happy to support it. Anyone else? Councillor Lorentson: I do. I'm actually quite surprised at some of the comments made at this table. We're sitting around this table, and we're confused, and we're asking for clarity. We've got letters and emails from associations. There is ambiguity. I think we owe it to the applicant and anyone else listening, or any other small business who don't understand small print, who don't understand process. We owe it to them to be simple and clear in our messaging, that we're there to support them, and that if there is any adverse changes in planning scheme in regards to noise and hours, the applicant has the opportunity to make another application to see those changes. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. All in favour of the amendment?

01:07:00 That is Councillor Finzel, Wilkie, Lorentson, Wegener, Stockwell, Stewart against. Councillor for Respection? And carried. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And for what I was standing at before when I realised they were out of order. I'm going to try another amendment, and it's in relation to condition 18, and I'm just going to find it on the screen. But anyway, I wrote it down. And it's only a small amendment. Instead of saying all amplified music, all amplified noise, it says any amplified noise. Any amplified noise?

01:08:00 Comma, other than low level pipe music no greater than 75 decibels. That's a good idea. End of comma. And that's the amendment. I'll get a second. I'll explain what I'm trying to do. Councillor Jurisevic: It's not great. It's not normal. It's not great. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, can we get a second? I'll second that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Just making sure that the actual wording is correct before you say a second. I can change it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the intent here is, before I highlighted that the liquor licensing says if you don't provide an acoustic report, their licence will say 75 dB.

01:09:00 And we also know that the standard for pipe music is about 75 dB. So one of the things that the applicant may be concerned about is the cost of going to the noise limiting device. And what we're doing, what this amendment does is put the same hurdle, I suppose, as liquor licensing will. If you want outdoor solos, maybe even a small band, then you need to have your noise limiting amplified device. If you just want low level pipe music as a restaurant, that cost is not there. So they're going to have to go to additional expense. If they want a licence to have the soloist or the band. The trigger for licensing commission is 75 decibels. So I'm suggesting the trigger for our enhanced monitoring of noise adopts the same level. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I have a question. If you're mentioning 75 decibels there, and an earlier commission, 16, talks about a level of 85 decibels, is that a conflict with that?

01:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. If you look at... How do they work together? I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: And also 15 mentions 90 decibels. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Amplified on or amplified noise. Amplified noise. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So 18 is the requirement for the monitoring. So those other two ones still work. But what it says, if you want to go over this limit, then you need, for amplified music, then you need a noise limiting device. A noise limiting device won't work on anyone talking louder than 75. It only works on amplified music. So the condition is specific to amplified music. So it's about the nature of the noise that can come from amplification. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can we just look at the conditions of 75? Councillor Wilkie: So are you saying that if you want pipe music, it doesn't have to be... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It doesn't have to have a noise limiting device on the monitoring. Councillor Wilkie: I don't mean so. It's only if they want to have loud entertainers that they have to have a sound monitoring device. Yes. It makes it easy for them.

01:11:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And to clarify that, that if it was turned up, that would constitute noise above 75 decibels and somewhere between 85 and 90 decibels. Yes. And conditions 15 and 16 would apply. Yes. Thank you. That's how I understand it. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, I'm not a sound engineer, and I'm taking the word of councillors. Can I get some expert opinion on this? Speaker 2: I'm not a sound engineer either. But 75 dB is a noise limiting device. But 75 dB is the standard for pipe low-level music. So I think the condition, the amendments proposed by Councillor Stockwell are reasonable and would work. Fantastic. Anyone else like to speak on this amendment? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Some people with loud voices may go above that, but that would be not real important. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They're calling this... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm glad you stipulate who. Councillor Wegener, significantly. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.

01:12:00 Thank you. Look, I'll support the... Sort of support the amendment. It says person talking normally at one metre, 60 to 65 decibels, except if you chose Jurisevic. Pipe... Restaurant music is 65 to 75 decibels. And the intent here is if the applicant only wants to have pipe music through a system, play CD, they don't need to go to the expense of having a sound limiting device. Keep it simple. Without that amendment, they could be up for some expense. So I think it's a valuable addition. Councillor Jurisevic: I concur. I think it's a valuable addition. It takes out the need for a sound limiting device in the event that pipe music isn't being utilised and is a reasonable condition. Now, mind you, it doesn't take in patrons that can be louder than 75 dB. I'm glad. I probably can't eat there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Noise limiting devices don't work. I can hear that. Mayor Stewart: I just want to comment too. It cuts down on red tape, which is always a good thing for a small business, especially

01:13:00 ones starting up. And we really need to support our businesses. So I support the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Stockie. Councillor Wegener: Yes. It seems very clever. Councillor Stockie, you're not here just for your looks. At first glance, it seems very clever and very helpful. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? All in favour? That is unanimous, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't remember who's spoken to him. Frank is. Mayor Stewart: I have. Oh, you have. Yes, Frank has. You said you were with Joe. Would anyone like to speak to this? Councillor Wegener: Ah, this is the original motion. This is the original motion. This is the original motion. Councillor Wilkie: And just to clarify to those listening at home that it's the original motion with the two amendments from Councillor Robertson and also Councillor Stockwell included.

01:14:00 Mayor Stewart: So Councillor... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to the motion. Look, I think this is the original outcome. I think it identifies the request of the applicant to... to dine till 12 o'clock indoors. It adds the opportunity for outdoor dining and amplified music, which wasn't originally requested, but was then subsequently requested as a condition. It applies reasonable noise limitations, which we have applied to other businesses in recent times. And again, it's consistent with the outdoor dining times from other premises that I can recall. As having decided on in the junction area in the past with outdoor dining ceasing at 10 p.m. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. I just want to reiterate what was said today about planning approvals.

75 minutes in ¶

01:15:00

01:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, you mentioned planning approvals run with the land and not with the business or person. And you also said just because an existing business is quiet does not guarantee that the next business is quiet. That was really important for me. As a council, we need to let businesses, especially small business, just get on with growing their business and hiring our kids and supporting our community. But we also need to respect and manage the impacts that their business have on surrounding residents. So I'm really quite happy that this amendment and what's in front of us today does exactly that. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wegener: This must be the first time council has so furiously debated a point that was not even requested by the applicant in the beginning.

01:16:00 I'm looking forward to the amendments to the planning scheme, to the town plan. I'm looking forward to the junction working together to find a plan so that it's mutually beneficial for all the residents. I'm looking forward to seeing the restaurants and bars and music making places around there. Because the junction is just a spectacular place with enormous potential. And I think that any way that we can help them get there. And originally my thinking was, it would be best if the level playing field was just to back off and just go with the liquor licensing regulations to every business there and not to keep the council's fingers out of there. But it seems very clear that we need to get the liquor licensing regulations to every way to go. And by limiting the sound coming from there with the decibels and so forth, as Brian said, is one is what the applicant wanted in the first place.

01:17:00 And second, it is a consistent approach that will be changed with the new amendments to the planning. So I'm just looking forward to the whole time working together because it kind of goes against my philosophy to have a whole bunch of restaurants with different regulations around them. And one here and making a decision based on this one premises alone and not in the context of all the others. But I'm sure that that's going to come. So I'll support it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Yes. Councillor Finzel: It has taken us a bit of a round and round the mountain to get here. But I think we've arrived at a reasonable outcome that takes into consideration, firstly, a new business owner and him getting a new business. And secondly, getting legs on his business and growing a successful and thriving business in an innovative precinct that has a great vision for moving forward to the benefit of the entire Shire socially and economically.

01:18:00 I think it's good to be consistent. It's good that we can clarify, you know, the overlay. We've clarified that we've got two separate issues because we do have opportunities to support wider consultation for the business. We've got the scheme amendment. And let's hope that we can iron out some of these things and get a broader, consistent approach that benefits all. I like the idea that if we could look at having a precinct that has a sound collective device that somehow can monitor that. You know, moving forward, there's lots of innovation in the areas of IT and things like that. So hopefully we could get our heads together. We've got an innovation precinct in Peregian. Let's use the latest technology and what's out there, or apps or other opportunities to look at how we can benefit everyone moving forward, residents and business alike. I think that the opportunity to do fair and reasonable consultation back to everybody

01:19:00 in a measured way that's not reactive. And then we all have time to pull back and think about that. And we do have, I believe, opportunity for the applicant to come back to Canberra and be able to come back to Council at any time and be able to liaise again with Council to amend conditions. So I'm happy to accept this tonight moving forward. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'm happy to accept this motion too. The aim of the 2020 Noosa Plan, the aim of the major centre zone and the Noosa Junction hospitality precinct is to cater for a number of things. And some of the words here are quite visitation to the centre, particularly at night. Similarly, the Noosa design principles on page 23 encourage outdoor dining, which all leads to this application. This application, in my opinion, because it's a start-up small business, must be two things. It must be fair. It must be consistent. And I believe that the things, the decision we've arrived to tonight is both fair and consistent when we look at other businesses in that area. It also takes into account with those noise regulations our residents, who we have heard

01:20:00 from as well. And I think the addition of C, with the review by the CEO, that's incredibly important, that we review the operating hours of licensed premises, including outdoor dining. We'll do that in association with our community, our residents and all our associations. And that will undertake proper process, which is a great thing. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, sure. I'll be supporting it. I think, while I said we shouldn't defer it to allow broader consultation because it's not a test case, I think that the Council making a decision which sets what we think are the appropriate standards for the hospitality precinct will go a long way to making it clear to both the community and the business groups what we think is the right outcome, what is

01:21:00 the right balance. And that's what we've been trying to get to. So it is only a minor code accessible application for outdoor dining and extending the licence period. But in the same time, what it establishes is what we really want to get out of the hospitality precinct. What we initially visioned was noise limits that are in accordance with a soloist or a guitarist or a duo playing outside the restaurant and they stop at 10 o'clock or they start singing sweet nothings after 10 o'clock so it's nice and low and quiet and not upsetting people. That's really where we've got to. We were hampered a little bit by the fact that we don't have an acoustic report and that's why I was quite comfortable with staff's suggestion in the alternative motion to look at what happened to Sunshine Beach for the supply savings because they had an extensive acoustic report. And I was also, I think, satisfied from a community perspective when I read that anything over 75 decibels requires an acoustic report to get licences. So we've got this sort of trigger. If you want to operate here, that's highly unlikely to upset residents.

01:22:00 If you want to go a bit higher then you need to do a bit more work, have a bit more technology so it's managed and monitored appropriately. I think it's the right balance. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: There was inconsistency around the historic approvals given here but I think collectively we've listened to that and responded in a balanced way. We've, the applicant gets what they want and we've also given some certainty to residents that noise emanating from this business won't be excessive or if it is, there's a way of managing that. The applicant is able to offer dining to midnight, seven days a week with low key music as an accompaniment as requested and he can request changes should the amendments to the planning scheme be more liberal. And I think I commend everyone for the way they've contributed to this well-rounded final motion and I think it will help the Junction become a more vibrant and prosperous, which is the intention under the Noosa 2020 planning scheme as it was under all planning

01:23:00 schemes. The things are happening there now and also give certainly the residents that action can be taken if their amenity is adversely affected and I can thank councillors and staff for their help on this. Mayor Stewart: Thank you councillor. We'll give a motion for vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. There are no confidential items. Before we get to public question time, I'd just like to announce that Noosa has won the Queensland Top Tourism Tour Award for 2020. This is a competition run by the Queensland Tourism Industry Council. So congratulations Noosa. Thank you. Yay. Councillor Lorentson: And Tourism Noosa. And Tourism Noosa. Mayor Stewart: Tourism Noosa. Councillor Lorentson: Go Tourism Noosa. Mayor Stewart: We're now into public question time. I believe we have a submission to public question time from Maxine and Spencer Hitchin

01:24:00 on behalf of the Glossy Teens. Summarise. And Maxine and Spencer are with us today and would you like to come up to the podium. Speaker 1: Yeah. And just as an introduction, the question time provides an opportunity for rate payers or residents to be able to ask questions of council. There are some limitations around that where the question, where the time is two minutes per question. But it does allow that opportunity for a question to be raised. Coming forward. Please come forward. Yeah. Speaker 2: To be raised. Speaker 1: There isn't an opportunity to debate or respond to that. So if there's any further follow up that's required, that's considered at a further meeting. Sorry. So welcome. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity. Yeah. You can speak. Okay. I'll probably do most of the speaking so we can get it done. But okay.

01:25:00 So first of all, the background to a lot of you know anyway. But just to let you know, Spence's petition has now raised more than 3,000 signatures since this was done the other day. And it's growing as we stand here. And the petition is for the Uniting Church of Queensland to come to council and discuss a better option for grass street courts on Wise Beach Queensland. The development application was approved by Sunshine Coast Council and should never have been approved. The site represents a critical site for our much loved and fussy vulnerable glossy black cockatoos. The current approval fails to provide protection for, we now know, 104 plus faded bee trees, not the 70 plus faded bee trees, which are continually renewed in a forest. There is also no fresh water source close to the proposed offset site. There is no signs to back up the offset site success.

01:26:00 There is no back up plan if there is no back up plan. There is no back up plan if the offset site fails. Where do our glossies feed while they wait 10 minutes to see if the offset site will meet their requirements? The requirement is further emphasised by, in actual fact, the Queensland Government's own fact sheet. Glossy black cockatoos require a combination of resources across the landscape. Feeding trees, nesting sites, roosting areas and water sites. This site has it all apart from the nesting sites. But we know they are in close proximity. The loss of any one of these requirements could compromise the ability of this species to persist in the landscape, which is out here. The multiple gloss of black cockatoo flocks that are utilising this site instinctively know where this site is and what time of year to feed on these grounds and meat. And that's now the autumn-winter time. We have absolutely no idea why this site has been chosen and we know that this site

01:27:00 has been chosen because we need to study it and find out how we can best help them now and into the future. The proposed offset site cannot replicate what we have. If this fails, our glossies will starve and that's the real fear that Spencer has and all of us have. And they will become extinct. No church or council should want that for our children's future. And that's why Spencer's here today. The glossies need a land swap to give them the right to live. They need the best chance of survival. Please hear our voices for the glossies. Now, our actual question is, would Noosa Council be willing to enter into discussions with the United Church Australia Queensland Synod around a land swap so that the fuzzy, vulnerable, glossy black cockatoos feed trees habitat at Rusty Court, Sunrise Beach can be returned to conservation status?

01:28:00 And I think that's what we would really be looking for. Thank you. Thank you, Maxine and Spencer. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for being with us today. We really appreciate you coming in and taking the time. I have an answer to your question. Yes, council would be willing to enter into discussions with the United Church Australia about a land swap if the church wishes to discuss such a proposal with council. However, it is council's understanding that the church have a contract with Lendlease to develop the individual land swap. It would be a great opportunity if works to commence on operating the intersection shortly. There is, however, limited land owned by council that may be suitable to the development and free of environmental constraints, but other lands owned by council also contain significant vegetation. It should be noted, through the 2006 Girraween master plan, 4.4 hectares of land is rezoned and dedicated as open space conservation.

01:29:00 And this area was added to the Girraween Nature Refuge. This refuge is a protected area consisting of 14.3 hectares immediately adjacent to the site and connecting to the national park, supporting the glossy black cockatoos. The rehabilitation of degraded bushland using the vegetative material from the site as required for development approval conditions is expected to lead to a positive outcome for native fauna in the area and include the provision of glossy black food trees at a ratio of 8 for every 1 clear. Whilst the science is not clear on the reasons why glossies favor one tree over another, the provision of additional food trees through the area is seen as a positive step in ensuring potential food trees continue to exist in the locality. There is also evidence of glossies feeding on planted trees and they are known to use other species of she oaks including forest she oak, horsetail she oak, as well as the river she oak. I hope that answers that question.

90 minutes in ¶

01:30:00

01:30:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Question two. Okay. Unfortunately, oh sorry, can I ask the question first? Okay. We have asked, we have asked on our community's behalf that the Uniting Church Australia Queensland Synod decision makers meet with us and walk the site so they can see, like Mayor Clare Stewart did, what our concerns are. And how the glossy black cockatoos are utilising the site. The current use of this site is not reflective of any of the ecological reports or ecological management plans. The reports were all done in the low season time, not when they're there at the sortimental time. The report has not mentioned the use of this site by glossy black cockatoos from other areas.

01:31:00 Currently, we have 22 glossy black cockatoos from other areas. Coming from the west, specifically to feed on the favourite bee trees on this site. Bringing their newly fledged juveniles, we have three, who have lost extensive habitat from the droughts, storms, development and the 2019-25s. The loss of this habitat, without knowing the significance of the glossy blocks, could lead to a regional extinction, like seen in the South Australian mainland due to habitat loss. We should be hearing from others. We should be hearing from the community. We should be learning from others. Mistakes, not following them. Our children's voices are not being heard. They are the ones that will suffer the most. Our schools surround this site that will be destroyed. They will have to pass this site on a day-to-day basis. We all don't want to look at the destruction of the city, yet it seems to be okay for our children to suffer this on a daily basis. Our children do not want these trees destroyed.

01:32:00 They are looking to Council and to the Uniting Church Australia Queensland Synod for climate change action, not inaction. The destruction will be contributing to climate change, the extinction of our beloved glossies and many other vulnerable and endangered species of flora and fauna. Our community do not feel we have had adequate consultation as described in the Ecological Management Plan. The contact person keeps changing. The webinar recording and the Q&A were never supplied from back in December. Unfortunately, not question, or our question, unfortunately the local community does not feel it has been adequately consulted or listened to. Can the Council contact the church, the Uniting Church Australia Queensland Synod to request that they undertake community consultation as required?

01:33:00 As referenced in Section 8 of the Ecological Management Plan. Further, can Council or the church provide a detailed list of the community consultation that has occurred so far? Thanks, Maxine. Mayor Stewart: To answer the question, Blue Care has advised Council that community consultation is being undertaken to match each phase of the project. To date, Blue Care have undertaken a number of key stakeholder engagements related to the development, including a virtual webinar held in December last year that was free for members of the public to attend, and one-on-one discussions that are in keeping with Blue Care's COVID-19 safe community consultation approach. The project information website, phone number and email address has been made available and is regularly monitored by Blue Care. An outline of Blue Care's proposed further consultation with the community has been requested and will be shared with the community once received.

01:34:00 I want to thank you once again. Maxine and Spencer for coming in. We really appreciate it. Spencer, thank you so much. Thank you. That brings us to the end of the meeting and the end of the agenda. So the next meeting will be held on Thursday the 17th of June 2021. I would say that the meeting is closed. Thank you.