Noosa Council Watch

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

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

Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 8 June 2021 Transcript

Tuesday 08 June 2021 · 2 hours 31 minutes of recording · 1,990 lines · 14 voices, 5 named

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

Speakers: the machine separated 14 voices and names 5 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good morning and welcome to the June Planning Environment Committee meeting. We pay our respects to Elders past and present and thank them for their custodianship and ongoing connection to the land to which we are addressing today. So the first item is attendance and apologies. I note that all councillors are in attendance. The next item is confirmation of minutes from the last meeting. Would someone like to do that? Councillor Stewart and Councillor Finzel. Is there any discussion on those weighty documents? No? All those in favour? We don't have any presentations or deputations. So we move on to item one which is a material change

00:01:00 of use for an application for short term accommodation at 75 Williams Road, King Kidge. Do we have any questions of staff on this one? Councillor Weasley. Councillor Wegener: Just to start with, when the property sells, when the particular property in this case sells, the right to run it as a short term accommodation runs with it, it doesn't? Speaker 8: Yes. The approvals are issued over the land, not to the person that runs. If the property sells, it will remain available for the next landowner. Councillor Wegener: And the reason I ask is, both this property and the adjoining property are owned by the same landowner and the same landowner lives, the two houses are 150 metres apart. But the landowner isn't objecting to the application, because he's actually making it, because he owns both properties. But if the landowner sells his present house and the new person

00:02:00 comes in, they'll be moving in knowing well that this is an Airbnb next door. Speaker 8: Yeah. So we think there's sufficient separation if the properties are owned by different landowners. Anyone buying the next door next property would have the opportunity to do a search to identify that there is an approved short term accommodation. Choose whether to continue with that purchase or not, if they didn't feel comfortable with living next to a short term accommodation. But I think the primary issue is there's quite a bit of separation between the houses and that rural system maintaining residents amenity there. Speaker 3: I'll just come back to your original question. That's the same for all planning applications. Planning approvals always run with the land, not with the owner. For the subdivision, there are planning applications for any type, not just short stays. Yeah. Are all applications run with the land? Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, the conditions, and there are a number of conditions sit down, they're across the

00:03:00 board conditions that we implement in all short term . Speaker 8: Yeah. We've developed, obviously, a set of conditions for short term and just tweaking them slightly depending on what the proposal is. So in this instance, you'll notice a bit of a difference in the outdoor areas. It's adjusting till 10pm. It's probably suitable in this area. Because it's so remote. Because it is so remote and separated from neighbors. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Just following on from that. Oh, I was busy. . Through the chairman. Through the chairman. I have had emails from people in the hinterland regarding short term accommodation with reference to like you're just going to tweak it. Does that mean there will just be no sort of rules or regulations? No. It's a short term stay. You're just going to modify it as you go, depending on what you have with council. Speaker 8: Well, if the situation called for different conditions, we would recommend to that council,

00:04:00 to council. But really, I don't think there's any additional conditions or different conditions we should be imposing because it's in the hinterland area. I think the conditions that we've come up with work, whether it's hinterland or urban, and they'll just be modified slightly to recognize the situation as they arrive. Speaker 5: So can I just add maybe that in this circumstance the conditions are the same as what we've been imposing on those within the medium attached housing, sorry the medium density residential zone and the only change here is the extension to 10pm at night for the outdoor areas where the other applications have been approved to 9pm at night. So all the other conditions as I said are the same. Speaker 3: And Patrick is that because of the distance between the houses? Speaker 5: The 10pm, that's correct. The comment was made earlier that there's a 150 metre separation between the house which is in the same ownership, it's actually 50 metres and then other houses are at least 150 metres away from this dwelling but considering those other applications are often duplexes with party walls and we have up to 9pm in those areas, I certainly think that in this area a 50 metre separation at 10pm is suitable.

00:05:00 Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: What is the significance of the report noting that an extra lounge room and a couple of bedrooms and such were added on without development applications being made through council so that when you looked at the property you said hey wait a minute there's an extra wing here. Does that weigh into your decision at all? Speaker 5: From my point of view in terms of the overall assessment of the land use, I don't believe that there's an extra wing here. I don't believe that it adds any additional issues, the main issue is that there's development that's occurred there which hasn't got its required approval, there should be appropriate approvals provided in terms of making sure that it's structurally sound and safe for people to use whether that's on a full-time basis or on a short-term basis.

00:06:00 Speaker 8: And you'll just note condition 1 calls for them to obtain a building approval for those unapproved works before they commence the use. And that's really about making sure it's structurally sound and safe for the guests. Councillor Wegener: And do you guys, when making this decision, do you look at the Hincheland Economic Plan and Scheme which actually supports accommodation in the Hincheland based around the trails network and all the infrastructure we're putting in there that there actually is a council is advocating for this sort of use of the land? Speaker 8: Yeah, well those sort of objectives and goals are incorporated into our new scheme. That's why short-term accommodation is supported there and other types of accommodation in the Hincheland are supported in the Hincheland. So certainly visitor accommodation in the Hincheland supports our rural tourism in the Hincheland.

00:07:00 So it's relevant to consider. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Jurisevic, we had a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Can you just bring this up? Sorry, Kylie, can you bring up figure 2, the site plan? Page 2. Page 9 of the agenda. Just a question for staff. Can you clarify where Williams Road is? Is it a private road that serves the property because it's not actually mentioned on the diagram? My assumption is that it's that red checkered road or easement there through property 1 to get to property 2. Is that correct? Speaker 5: That's right. Well, it's actually, I don't know. If you follow the wording of Black Pinch around to the left, I'm not sure if I should, that's it through there. Or actually, the one that goes this way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The Black Pinch Road is actually Williams Road. Can I just point? Yeah. I'll save you. Yeah. That's Williams Road. Where?

00:08:00 Oh, yeah. That way. Councillor Jurisevic: So the indication of Black Pinch going around the corner there is actually incorrect. That becomes Williams Road there where the words Black Pinch are. Speaker 5: Well, just to the left of Black Pinch. That's right. In that area. At a pinch, Joe. It's Williams Road. That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Hi, Patrick. Condition number 6, conditions the number of guests that are allowed to occupy the premises at any time. My question is, can we regulate the maximum number of families? Given that it's not the number of occupants, but it's often the number of families that occupy a short-term accommodation property that contribute to impacts on noise and light issues. Speaker 5: With our short-term applications, we haven't gone to that extent in terms of limiting the number of families. We've always been looking at the number of bedrooms and the number of persons that can

00:09:00 stay there. I'm not too sure whether that's a good thing or not. I'm not sure whether the multitude of families, if it was still within that limit of eight people and four bedrooms, would be of a significantly greater impact. So I hadn't thrown my mind to that. Speaker 8: I don't really think it's really relevant for us to get down to that sort of level of detail. I mean, short-term accommodation is used by families, but it also might be used by a group of friends going to stay somewhere for the weekend. So I'm not sure we want to regulate who the occupants are. I think it's more relevant to regulate the number of persons in the premises. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to add, just for consideration, that a lot of what I'm hearing in the community is that a family with three kids, so that's five people, make less noise than three couples using a house. Three couples. Three couples are going there with the intent often to sit outdoors.

00:10:00 And a family's there to use the premise for enjoyment. Just something that I'd like to leave with you guys for consideration. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's an interesting point. And so I'll pose this as a question, although it's not. A single family in a holiday home could apply as a short-term accommodation. I think that's a good point. Two families in one dwelling is not a dwelling house. So are we restricting the number of families in superseded planning schemes that are asking for the approval under the old dwelling definition? Speaker 8: Well, one, we cannot impose conditions on the superseded scheme request. There's no ability to impose conditions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, that's a bad one. Speaker 8: Sorry. But we could make a note, couldn't we? No. And two, the illegal advice we had at the time was that we could not impose conditions

00:11:00 on that. Oh, did it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I forgot that. I know I put it before. Speaker 8: But it became, it was a dwelling house, regardless of the number or type of occupants. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just background is, if you have two families living permanently in a dwelling house, it's not a dwelling house. But if you have two families short-term, the controversial legal advice suggests I was wrong. Speaker 8: Yeah. Just a response to Council Amelia's question. I think, I don't feel comfortable with it. But I'll certainly refer that to strategic planning for consideration. Because if we wanted to look at doing that, we'd have to put further requirements in our planning scheme. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just note, in the complaints management process, Kerry, on page seven, there is a requirement that the number of adults and the number of minors is identified in the complaint process. So I don't know. Why have we asked for that? Sorry. Where are you looking?

00:12:00 Condition 21. Condition number 21. Mm-hmm. Complaints management. The contact person must keep and maintain a register of the use of the premises and record in the register the number of adults who are users and the number of minors and individuals under 18. Can I ask why that requirement was put in? I don't know. Speaker 8: I don't know. Yeah. Well, I agree with you. That's very, it is very specific. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And I'm wondering whether, and that's what made me think, is there an opportunity that we can regulate a number, maximum number of families if it's one or the other? Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And perhaps not in this case, in Kin Kin, but it might be if we're looking at a case by case situation. Maybe it's more relevant in places like Noosa Sound, for instance, where there's six bedrooms. So, you know, maximum three families, not five families, for instance. I don't know. It's just not a food for thought for you. Speaker 8: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I will have that discussion with strategic planning.

00:13:00 Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to change tack. This is a code accessible application? No. It's a... Impact. Speaker 8: It is impact. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. And I've raised the concept. It has both got a riparian corridor, vegetation of state significance, and also a waterway that's mapped on the wetlands and waterways and biodiversity overlay, riparian overlay. I highlight that AO6-2, which is an acceptable solution, identifies that there's a need that development provides for the rehabilitation of the land within, A, a riparian buffer area, may not need it in the riparian buffer area, B, a wetland area, and C, 10 metres either side of the centre line of any waterway identified on a biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlay map. So this site has got one of those. Have they proposed to rehabilitate that waterway?

00:14:00 Speaker 5: There was no proposal to rehabilitate the waterway. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did the application in any way address the performance outcome of that? I think the application only mentions the performance outcome, and then AO6, which amongst other things says that maintaining water quality through filtering sediments, nutrients and other pollutants, and G, removing pests and replacing them with local native species. There was no information or proposals relating to that? So I can only refer this matter to the General Committee for that matter to be addressed. I believe it's a requirement of the Code, and therefore there needs to be either condition or agreement of the applicant as to how performance outcome AO6 is achieved. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question in that regard, if that's okay, Mr Chief. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's okay. I didn't ask a question. I know what the answer is going to be. Councillor Jurisevic: Is the condition relating to waterways and that something should be done at the time of the development

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 and the building of the construction of the premises on the lot, or when a change of use is applied for? Or does it matter? Speaker 8: In my opinion, it would be more relevant at the time something is built on the site. So I think that when we're considering this matter, we need to think about whether this proposal, the use of the house for short-term accommodation, will have results in any great impacts on that waterway or not. And my expectation is that it wouldn't have no discernible or greater impacts on the use of that house for permanent residents. In fact, permanent residents are probably likely to have more impact on the values of the site than visitors who come to stay there for a weekend. I can't imagine them going to the waterway and clearing undergrowth or anything. So I would consider such a condition would not be reasonable and relevant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So your position is not reasonable and relevant.

00:16:00 My position is? It's not a matter of reasonableness or relevance. It's a matter that this doesn't talk about the previous development. And Kabi talked about the development application in front of us. And they must comply with PO6. I'm saying that they do not. That there is no way that they're looking from the image of that site, that they're maintaining water quality through filtering centers, using other pollutants, and they have got pest species throughout there, whether they're listed pests or just in exotic weeds, that are limiting the achievement of that performance criteria. Speaker 3: So it's very clear. Councillor, is there any other information? Yeah, I've got it. Yeah, I've got it, yeah. Mayor Stewart: Impact-accessible caring. Have we heard any feedback from relative neighbours or potential impacts, people who have been impacted in the area? Speaker 5: There was one submission which was made to the application. It supported the use. It made some comments about the works that had,

00:17:00 that had occurred, and it had also raised a preference that Williams Road have some additional maintenance undertaken to it. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 5: So one submission in support. That's correct. Thank you. Speaker 9: I just have a question. If the building that had taken place had gone through the normal process, would this question of the PO6 have been addressed then? Speaker 8: Quite possibly. I'm not sure when the house was built, but if it was built under the 2006 scheme, unless the house was located in the riparian buffer, or was removing vegetation that's mapped as significant by the biodiversity overlay, no, there would have been no requirement to rehabilitate the site, because there would be no assessment triggered for council to make. It would have just gone to a private certifier. So what we do need to consider is the Planning Act requires all conditions to be reasonable and relevant.

00:18:00 So those words are important when we consider whether we impose rehabilitation requirements on this site. And Office's recommendation is that it's not. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And my request will be that we identify, whether it's through negotiations, how FNG can be achieved by this development application in Performance Outcome PO6. It may not be the accepted solution, as put in the column to the right of it, but it may not be the accepted solution, as put in the column to the right of it, but I do believe every development application that comes through to us, we must ensure that those requirements are met. Speaker 3: Councillor Rennie, do you need any more info from staff or any other questions? Speaker 9: I just have a question then, because people have contacted me regarding short-term accommodations in the hinterland, as yet we haven't gone through a process and a feedback from that. Given this is what sits before us today, I think this is the first one we've looked at for the hinterland. I think we're going to see a lot of issues around this land use and things like this.

00:19:00 Do we need to? The questions posed to me were that, should there be a different set of guidelines around or conditions around short-term stay in the hinterland? And I think today this has raised things that we're going to face moving forward. Given we haven't read all the submissions back from the STAs, are we prematurely moving into making decisions around this without covering all the bases? I know we've got a currency... Speaker 8: The application has to be assessed against the planning scheme, and the planning scheme doesn't set any different requirements for short-term accommodation in the hinterland compared to the urban area. So if we wanted to set different requirements, we would have to amend the planning scheme. Speaker 9: So we can make an amendment to do that? Speaker 8: If we wish to, but I'm not sure what there would be, what additional requirements would there be. Speaker 9: I think the questions have been raised and we haven't gone through all those applications yet. Speaker 3: So the submissions that are out there at the moment relate to the local law, not the

00:20:00 planning scheme. So the planning scheme relates to where, for want of a better phrase, where short-term should occur and what zones are permissible and not permissible, what conditions that land use should occur. Speaker 9: Yeah, I understand that. But in some of those applications that I read, these issues around land use and material change of use and different things in the hinterland came up in those submissions. So I'm sure staff read... Councillor Lorentson: On the local law. Sorry? On the local law. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 9: So surely... I don't know. Do staff take that into consideration? I know you want more specific information on that, but do you record everything that comes back on those? Speaker 8: Our strategic planning team will summarise all the submissions received to the local law for council consideration. Certainly in the assessment of a development application, no, because we are required to assess the application against the planning scheme. Speaker 9: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Just a question. Can we go? Okay. The house on page 12 looks really close to the property line. The addition to the house is very close to the property line.

00:21:00 Is that a violation of code, potentially, if it's within that close to the property line, the edge of the roof? Speaker 5: The bottom picture on page 12? Yeah. Well, I think figure four on even the previous page is my understanding what the submitters raised concern about, and that's potentially the carport being over that boundary. Yeah. I would suggest that the building would meet the setback requirements to the boundary. I'd probably have to have a look at the scheme in relation to that, but that's something that would probably be dealt with by the certifier. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I note on that image it does look like it's over. It does. Also, when you go on to the council interactive website, it doesn't. So, you know how there's a little bit of . Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 8: So, I mean, the number one condition on this approval is to say they cannot commence the use until they address the building works.

00:22:00 But that's their first step that they need to do. Councillor Wegener: Is there any way to put a stay on the short-term request until it's compliant? Speaker 3: That's effectively what condition one does, Simon, to say that the . Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess it does. Okay. Councilor Lawrenson? Councillor Lorentson: Another concern I have on page 14, Kerry, and I don't disagree with your approach that it's case-by-case in particular. We've extended the outdoor area use from 9 p.m. what we do in medium density to 10 p.m. My concern and just question is note that despite the separation from surrounding properties, it's noted that noise from outdoor areas in the hinterland can travel a significant distance in a rural area. Have we actually looked at how far the noise does travel?

00:23:00 And have we sort of sought out any, I don't know, industry advice? My concern is, is it going to be problematic? And are we relying on expert noise limit advice on these sorts of issues? Speaker 8: No. We have no acoustic report or expert advice around this. Officers have made what they thought was a reasonable recommendation to Council, remembering that we will continue to work with them on this issue. We have conditions of approval that we can fall back on to ensure compliance. Councillor Lorentson: And that's the complaint management process. Speaker 8: Process. And also the local law. But if Councils are not comfortable with 10 p.m. and feel that that may be problematic, then perhaps we should change back to 9 p.m. Councillor Lorentson: Is there an opportunity maybe to trial that 10 p.m.? I think it's fair and reasonable, but I don't want to be in a situation where if the approval stays with the land and you've got eight, four families partying on this site, that

00:24:00 we're in a situation where we are now with some of the unregulated properties where noise is an issue. Can that 10 p.m. be tried, perhaps? Or can we give some thought to that between now and the general meeting? Speaker 8: We can give some consideration to that. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Yeah. Speaker 8: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any other questions? Speaker 4: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I, because I've been suggested, I'll move that the matter be referred due to the significance of the matter. Speaker 9: There we go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, if I've got a seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? We move on to item two. And item two is application for reconfiguration of a lot and creation of an access easement at 23 Jirrima Crescent. Speaker 3: I will second that.

00:25:00 Mayor Stewart: We had we received information from the applicant, they have stated that they will rehabilitate and re-vegetate the corridor along the waterway with an environmental covenant, can you explain a bit more about what they're prepared to do? Speaker 5: You'll find on page 21 there's the proposed plan of subdivision and it does note on that plan of subdivision that they're proposing an environmental covenant which would extend a maximum of 30 metres from the top of the bank on either side of the waterway and that the proposal would involve rehabilitating the area within the covenant. Speaker 8: So a covenant sits on title, so when people, typically when people buy a property there

00:26:00 is a search done and at the very least will identify a title and obtain a copy and they would see the fact that it's an environmental covenant, so it's a way of alerting people to the fact that there's some protection of vegetation on here, a covenant has a document attached with conditions and requirements that the landowner or landowners current and future would need to. Mayor Stewart: So it has to be adhered to with the sale, yeah, so going forward. What was the, Connor did you attend this premises? Speaker 2: Yes I did, yeah. Mayor Stewart: What were your thoughts about the subdivision initially? Speaker 2: The condition of the land or the actual proposal itself? The proposal itself. The proposal itself was contrary to the requirements of the planning scheme because it provides development within the riparian buffer area.

00:27:00 There's not many instances in the past where we've approved riparian or development in the riparian buffer area contrary to the scheme. So in that element, my thoughts was that it set a bad precedent going into the future by allowing development in the riparian buffer area even though there might be some derived benefits for getting it rehabilitated, a small portion of the riparian buffer. Currently it's 150 metres wide. They're proposing 60 metres wide. Plus 65 metre wide rehabilitation area. So what it in effect does is actually waters down the provisions of the planning scheme to permit development in the riparian buffer and have additional lot yields. So from a planning scheme point of view it's contrary to the code.

00:28:00 I think just to clarify. Can I ask a question? Speaker 8: If I can just clarify. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What is the definition of development under the Planning Act? Speaker 5: Rehabilitation. Reconfiguration of a lot. It does include reconfiguration. Yes. Speaker 8: MC material change use, reconfig building work. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It does say, because the only nature of development is the boundary line going through it. Is that right? There's no construction or structures in that riparian buffer? Speaker 2: You're increasing the scale and intensity of use within a riparian buffer area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's where you're coming from? Yes. Yes. So it's just that the potential with two years it could have. Mayor Stewart: There's already one house there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You don't have to clarify, so. Yeah. Speaker 8: Two things. I was going to say that it's not just a boundary line. Obviously people expect, or some people like to fence their properties, which is a reasonable expectation. Covenant can't prevent that.

00:29:00 That results in clearing of the vegetation in the riparian buffer. So it's not just a boundary line. What I did want to say before, just to clarify Connor's point, is since 2006, that's when the biodiversity overlay was introduced. There's been no development approved in riparian buffers. The only one that's been approved is the aged care McKinnon Drive, where it's located in the buffer, partly. The only other ones that Connor's referring to is, there are some properties in the Shire that are fully covered by a riparian buffer, and they have no artificial infrastructure. So there's no construction to build a house in the riparian buffer. So there's been inconsistent practice of not allowing any development in the riparian buffer. And I would be concerned if we start burying that, because it will set some difficult precedents. Mayor Stewart: How big are these blocks we're looking at each? Speaker 8: They're quite large, aren't they? Yeah. They're about 1.5 hectares, and 2.5.

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 Speaker 5: So it's an existing four hectare lot. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 8: It's about 16 acres. Four acres per hectare. Mayor Stewart: Approximately, yeah. Yeah. It's a big, big area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand the precedent argument. I have difficulty in not seeing that previous clause I made, in terms of, you know, there's two aspects of the width of the riparian, of the corridor map. There's one aspect which was mapped as a result of trying to protect the aquatic ecosystems. And then there's a wider aspect of the corridor, which basically is based on the terrestrial movements through these areas. Now, it is mapped as a waterway, but it is impounded, is that right? So it's actually farmed dams? Speaker 2: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's in-stream dams. Speaker 2: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the impact of those on the environmental value is farmed dams.

00:31:00 So it's a lot more significant than a fence or intense use. So that's the waterway. The width they're proposing is 30 metres either side? Yeah. And if that waterway of that scale, that is adequate to protect the aquatic ecosystem, probably it's only needs 10 to 25, depending on the nature of the waterway. So outside that in the biodiversity corridor, there is some other indications that it may be useful. For example, for things like koalas. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yeah. Prior to it being disturbed, it was a regional ecosystem that supported koalas. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To me, the benefit of rehabilitating 30 metres either side is significant in achieving both the connectivity PO5 and the waterway and wetland performance outcome in PO6 in the overlay code. Is that correct?

00:32:00 So is there a potential to condition anything additional to that to A, suggest clearing controls to fencing, and B, an encouragement for broader rehabilitation in terms of koala tree plantings? If my understanding of that area would be, is it scribbly gums? Robusta. Robusta. Yeah. Is there an ability to condition, if we were seeking to approve or gain the applicant's consent to broader rehabilitation measures which both aquatic and terrestrial conservation, and the intent of the biobased ecosystem, improving the overarching ecosystem? Speaker 8: I'd suggest that the applicant has indicated to us they're not willing to rehabilitate the whole of the riparian buffer. This is their proposal. Mm-hmm. But they don't think it's reasonable to rehabilitate a wider area.

00:33:00 That's why it's not proposed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm not thinking necessarily of full-blown rehabilitation, because I think my understanding is that the koala aspect, I'll ask you, are there historical sightings of koalas in this area? Speaker 2: In the region, I can't say specifically to Jirrima, but yeah, definitely in the region along McKinnon Drive. No. No. Speaker 8: I mean, there's three basic requirements for this site to subdivide.

00:34:00 To meet the minimum lot size, which they do. To ensure development is clear of the riparian buffer, which they don't. And to rehabilitate the riparian buffer, which they're only partly proposing. Councillor Jurisevic: And the, as Brian clarified earlier, the element of development that does not meet that criterion is the fact that it has a fence line going through it, which could be, I don't know, required, you know, could be fenced and cleared as a result of that. That's right. Speaker 8: I mean, the principles are, sensitive environmental areas are better held under one land ownership rather than several. Councillor Jurisevic: Right. Given that understanding, looking at the adjoining lot to the right in that image, how is the second block there, just near the mouse, where the mouse just went, so there's 11, 10, I'm assuming 9, 8. So how is 8? Able to be created. Speaker 5: That lot was created in 1986.

00:35:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So it's just a historic. That's correct. So it hasn't met, so that criteria for one and a half hectares is post that. Speaker 5: That's right. Under the superseded planning scheme, the lot size requirement in this area is two hectares, and it's reduced down to one and a half for the current scale. Councillor Jurisevic: That was my solution, potentially, but that's the answer. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you did mention that you've been through iterations of trying to get the lot boundary alignment to try and get it to comply, because the minimum lot size is on the left-hand column, so it has to be met. Did you look at the option of a BattleX block in number 10 to try and bring the boundary of lot 11 down in front of that 30-metre corridor? Speaker 5: There's a number of iterations of plans that were proposed to try and achieve the minimum lot size requirement for both lots. There was even some put forward where they didn't achieve it for lot 11, quite substantially below. There's a number of issues associated with that, and primarily they were really constraining

00:36:00 the developable area of the site for a dwelling and associated outbuildings to impact on how it's going. Mayor Stewart: We've talked a lot about this is all planning schemes, this is all facts and figures. We have an affordable housing crisis here in the Shire. This would enable redevelopment, another house for a family potentially. Has that in any way, doesn't come into any considerations that you have to make, does it? Speaker 8: Subdivision of environmental areas I don't think is really appropriate. This is not going to address our housing crisis. Speaker 9: It won't address it but it will provide a house. Speaker 8: No, and I think our better option is to really look at other options for affordable housing. Allowing these sort of incremental subdivisions is not going to solve it in any way and what it does is just undermine the planning scheme.

00:37:00 Mayor Stewart: But there is potential, as Brian said, to address the concerns raised. Could you potentially go back and ask the applicant, couldn't we, about the fence line and if you have a fence? Speaker 8: We can discuss with them certainly if they're prepared to do further rehabilitation. So that's a question we can ask. The applicant I think is probably willing to say they won't fence the property but I think that's not a reasonable condition that we can pose. I think any property owner, especially in a rural area, would want to fence the property. Speaker 9: Can I just ask a quick question? Sure. Just at the corner, can you just explain to me then the covenant, what you would want to achieve when a covenant goes out of this? Speaker 2: So the covenant sets out the criteria of how that particular portion of the land is to be managed and to promote the ongoing environmental values remaining in existence in that area.

00:38:00 It generally requires the landowner to remove weeds, revamp the land. Vegetate it to a certain width and undertake no activities in the land that will cause environmental degradation. Speaker 8: So an environmental covenant is essentially an agreement between the landowner and council, can't be removed without council's consent. Mayor Stewart: So it's a pretty big deal to put an environmental covenant on your property, isn't it? Because you're basically earmarking your property and saying I won't touch this part of it and I won't develop it. It's a big thing. Speaker 2: It's attached to title, yes. Speaker 8: Yeah, it is. We do have quite a lot of examples in the Shire where people are contributing the conditions on environmental covenants. They're not, yes they're created, but then people don't always adhere to those requirements. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We had a question from Councillor Dursley. Councillor Jurisevic: So within an environmental covenant, could the environmental covenant cover the fact that no fencing is permitted within that and no clearing is permitted within that environmental covenant area? Speaker 8: We can try and impose that, but I think that's an unreasonable requirement on the landowner to not allow them to fence their property.

00:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It's not their position, it's their own imposition. Speaker 8: Yeah, it's probably a legal question, Joe, but my understanding is the covenant is really about, as Connor indicated, it's about maintaining the land appropriately, not preventing a fence being built. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think other forms of covenants does allow you to have things like access, fencing in, but it seems important. It would have been, sorry if I can just, in a way what the suggestion or the inference would be is that it's akin to asking the applicant to enter into an infrastructure agreement, but in this case it's about what they won't do, not what they will do. Is that something, you know, when they proposed it, rather than saying, if you're, if, and I can't predict what council is, is if we went to them before the general committee and said,

00:40:00 if council was of a mind to approve it, would you be, what would you be offering? Would you be, you know, good? And then whether it's in the environmental covenant agreement or whether it's in a separate agreement that still runs with title. Is that something we could investigate? Speaker 8: We could have the discussions with the landowner and I can seek some advice about whether a covenant can prohibit fencing on boundaries. And, yeah, I'm not sure an infrastructure agreement would be the... No, I'm just thinking about, you know, whether it's in a separate agreement or whether it's not. I don't think that's the right... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's just that it's the same philosophy. Speaker 8: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Where they propose it and... Speaker 8: Yeah, it is an agreement. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: But you essentially asked my question. I was going to ask, can we investigate that before Monday's meeting? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you have a quick response? Councillor Lorentson: I just wanted to add, and everything's been discussed now, but I just wanted to add that the feedback that we've been receiving, Kerry, is that the applicant is proposing to be fair

00:41:00 and reasonable and work with council. So, yeah, I support Brian's suggestion that we meet with the applicants beforehand and see if there's something further we can add to the environmental covenant. Speaker 8: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I suppose to me, because I look at this site and I see a degraded waterway. Yeah. And I look at the purpose and overall outcomes from the overlay, and I personally believe that a approval with conditions would achieve the purpose better than a refusal. Yeah. Okay. So, that's where I'm at. So, if we can meet those overall outcomes and the performance outcomes, I don't believe it does set a bad precedent, in this particular case, because of, A, it's not a pristine waterway that's in there. It's a highly modified one with depth exams. It's not remnant vegetation.

00:42:00 So, it's, you know, any, to me, the question is, is the potential downside of two families living on the lot, or two, likely to exceed the potential upside of a conditioned approval that actually improves the environmental values. So, that's, to me, the argument we have to look at. Councillor Jurisevic: One further question, if I may. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If an environmental covenant was placed across that, what limitations would there be for access to the back lots of those two properties? I.e., would a pathway, a track, you know, vehicular access through there be counterintuitive to an environmental covenant? Speaker 8: Well. Councillor Jurisevic: If one doesn't exist, already exists. Speaker 8: Yeah. I think it would be counterintuitive, but you would have to allow people to access the rear of their property. That wouldn't, I wouldn't think that would be reasonable. I mean, that's just coming to my head here. Speaker 5: But there is an existing culvert, I believe, isn't there?

00:43:00 Yeah. Well, they have proposed a covenant, and they have included an access easement to the rear of the site. Councillor Jurisevic: They have a, for both lots? Speaker 5: Well, that's, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Or a separate easement for both? Speaker 5: Well, the easement gets lot 10 through lot 11 back to lot 10, where, and then the person, the owner of lot 11 would be able to obviously use that area themselves as well, if the existing culvert was sufficient to accommodate. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll clarify that. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 8: Can I just ask Council just to, a few points on what the thinking is around the rehabilitation that we should discuss with the applicant? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. Yeah. This is just my view. My view is that, from a waterways perspective, what they're proposing is good, but there's a value to it. There's a potential within that broader, you know, how wide is the riparian corridor at that point? It's 60 metres or something, 90 metres wide? About 80 metres wide each side. 80 metres wide? Yeah.

00:44:00 Is to see if they're prepared to, to me, create koala, just, not necessarily full rehabilitation, but a range of koala potteries that are endemic, or have native problems, I suppose. Yeah. Speaker 3: So can you clarify that? So can I just get you back to page 26? Our Council was talking about trying to match the overlay on the riparian buffer. Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. To me, that is, is that there's a riparian rehabilitation that they're proposing, and outside that is, let's call it just a koala enhancement, rather than rehabilitation. Speaker 5: In the full extent of the riparian buffer? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 8: So currently, our scheme would require, if this subdivision was to be completed, if this subdivision didn't go through the riparian buffer, rehabilitation of the koala waterway. Speaker 9: Hmm. Oh. I don't know why I didn't ask about that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It depends on how you define rehabilitation. Speaker 8: It depends what's reasonable and relevant.

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 Speaker 4: Oh, we're going to have a few of these this month. Yeah, we are. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, and councillors, I suppose part of this is the development control staff grappling with the new scheme. Yeah. And there was enhanced requirements in there. In the last one, I don't think, you know, it's just about us, I suppose, and, and professional staff giving us advice about how this should be interpreted correctly. And both of that last application and this one are ones that are at the. Yeah. The edge of that. Mm-hmm. So, you know, in different ways. And I'll, you know. Speaker 8: Yeah, I think, I think so. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Can I just add, Kerry? The way I've been talking to the applicant is, yes, we can approve this if these conditions are met, rather than, I, I, I, that's how I sort of would approach it. Whatever conditions are necessary to get this through. Speaker 8: Possibly. I will indicate to the, the applicant that council is potentially considering it favourably.

00:46:00 Right. Subject to. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And to me it's just that they satisfy performance outcomes in Table 8.2.2.3 and you're going to find another sticking point. Speaker 2: Councillor Bryant, just in terms of the rehab of the waterway, what were you envisaging there? Because it does, if you're rehabbing, reconstructing the waterway, you do have access issues to the rear of the lot there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm just talking about what they're proposing. I don't think, I think it's too late to try and take away the palm dams, etc. They're already there, but the existing, you know, the vegetation enhancements on the, in the, you know, they're right there. Yeah, alright, land based. Yeah.

00:47:00 Okay, would someone like to move that case to general meeting? Oh, I will. For further information, it's seconded by Councillor Stewart. All those in favour? And we move on to item three, which is an application that doesn't have a waterway. Speaker 8: That's great water view. Close by, close by. That's great water view. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this is material change use at Planning Environment. Court appeal for the refusal and application for multiple housing type Q duplex at 11 Margit Crescent, Sunrise Beach. Do we, so this is just a motion to defend the appeal, is that correct? Yes. Bearing in mind that we are an appeal, we shouldn't be talking tactics or anything, but if there is questions or clarification. It has been requested by the committee. Yeah, it has been requested by the committee, so is there any questions today?

00:48:00 No. You're all good? No, you don't. Councillor Lorentson: Not together. Not together. No. Okay, no. I'll ask my questions secretly. Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's good. So any questions? Speaker 4: Okay, someone like to move the item. Moved Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Finzel, all in favour? Speaker 8: So, our mediation is booked in this month with the registrar, so that will be happening too. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks. Item four, material change use Planning Environment Court appeal number D176 of 2019 on refusal and application for 16 ancillary dwelling units at 64 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. I've asked for this matter to go to General because I may have an alternative to that. Just once again, this is in appeal, so I'm happy to provide questions to staff or matters you'd like. But if we're going to talk tactics, it would better be, in my opinion, be done within a closed session.

00:49:00 Speaker 9: This is a great settle, the appeal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any questions? We might as well just move to General then. I'll move, because of the significance of the matter, it goes to General Moody. Speaker 8: Would Councilors like our planning solicitor to be available at General? Speaker 9: I actually think that would be good. Tim's online. Speaker 8: Tim finds it hard online. That's why he came on last year. Mayor Stewart: But I hear him and ask. I'm not going to be at General. General Moody. So can I just ask a couple of questions now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Relating to the information that's already public? Mayor Stewart: Yes, but it probably relates to the next one as well, because I believe that's an ancillary dwelling. Again, it's noted. Both of these, it's noted that we have agreed to settle the appeal.

00:50:00 We're recommending to settle the appeal with conditions. How did we get it wrong? How did we? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's an item that should be discussed in closed committee. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All right. Speaker 8: I don't think we got it wrong. Yeah, we can talk about it. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask for some information? Can we get some information on the number of cases that have been challenged in Council? Can we get some information on the number of cases that have been challenged in Council? And the total amount of cases that were won whilst unsettled? And the total amount spent on legal advice? Speaker 3: Where from, Councillor? Councillor Lorentson: I'm just in context of all these agreed to settle cases that are coming into Council. I'd like that information for myself.

00:51:00 Okay. Speaker 3: I can figure it out. I've done a report on that previously. I think it was towards the end of the last term of Council. So I can dig that out and maybe update that if you want. We've done that. We've done that previously. Went through all that. I'm trying to remember the date. It would have been 2-19 or 2-20. Councillor Lorentson: Could I grab it? It's pretty old though. Can I also get the amount of cases that legal advice has been sought? So when we've engaged with legal advice as opposed to those that are actually brought to Council? Speaker 3: That would be really difficult to track through. I'm sure we'd have to go through every application we've had in the last years and go through each file and find out more. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just have you read this report? It would be excellent. Thank you. Keep it out please. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So Councillor Stewart, while it's probably never been done at this committee, if you're not going to be in general and would like further information to go to that committee, we can hold this over to the last item of agenda to close this meeting and have a discussion. That might also inform whether we need legal opinion at the general committee.

00:52:00 Mayor Stewart: Thanks. Thank you, Mr Chair. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if someone would like to move this, be held over to this in the next. This one will be held over to the ultimate and the next item to the penultimate items on this agenda. And we close the committee to talk about legal. Speaker 3: The second part at the moment, you're just holding the matter to the last time. Yeah, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm trying to. Speaker 3: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? And would we like to do the same thing for the next item? Yes. Okay. So that item is going to be held over to the penultimate. I just wanted to use the word penultimate. Agenda to be dealt with to discuss legal matters in closed session. All. I moved it. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Okay. So we move on to the next item. And. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. That is the Noosa Bushland Reserve Strategic Management Plan.

00:53:00 Speaker 3: Michael and Craig. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now this item has also been requested to go to the general committee to answer those questions or further information that the councillors would like. Mayor Stewart: Craig, or Michael, just on page 65 it says, six amendments were made to the draft plan. Do you have what those amendments were after consultation? Speaker 6: On this attachment, yes. We do. So, they are, they should be shown as changes, yep, in the actual document, perhaps, and or in red. Yes, so page 17, and we took out a table which is page 28 and page 30, and

00:54:00 we put the rest of it into an appendices at the back of the document. Speaker 1: Just to confuse things with the bushland strategic management plan, we did them in track changes, but in the fire plan we highlighted them in yellow, because the changes had already been made and it would have taken too long to go back and redo it. So, my apologies for the inconsistent methods. I noticed that. Speaker 3: Yes, I know. So, what we're dealing with at the moment is the bushland. So, they're in yellow. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. It was an issue that we highlighted in the drafting, and it's an issue that's come back from the community to us and, no doubt, in the submission process loud and clear, is that the methodology we did for prioritisation

00:55:00 placed a 47% of the weighting on biodiversity, and with some different criteria that are different aspects of what we would consider to be consistent service functions. The feedback from the coastal community is they can't believe that the coastal beach reserves can be that lower priority, considering their role, their consistent service role and importance in climate change adaptation and trying to protect it. I suppose the question is, is this really a bushland reserve biodiversity management plan, or is it a strategic plan to guide where we should be putting our resources based on where we think the most important reserve line is? Speaker 6: Essentially, it's both. Biodiversity is the main scope of our works, and, of course,

00:56:00 our primary role is ecological restoration. And, of course, we have certain obligations under our understanding and feed relax. It's essentially, you know, we have a lot of land-based restoration efforts, and that's usually our prime role. And a huge, big factor in that, too, is the likelihood of success, too. So, yeah, which is a pretty big factor in this prioritisation scope and methodology. So, yeah. Speaker 1: And certainly, to your point, Councillor Stockwell, around the coastal beach reserves, the likelihood of success is actually the major factor in that, which is probably the most controversial part of the plan, I think, which is the most interesting part of the

00:57:00 plan, if you look at it compared to a lot of other land plans that don't really consider that. Obviously, Council, I think, next year is going to invest $1.3 million in our environmental reserves, not counting fire management, so pretty much just an environmental restoration of our reserve network. And we tried to take a really big step back and go, OK, over the next 10 years or so, the Noosa ratepayers are going to invest $15 million, for argument's sake, inside these reserves. And we wanted to look at a way where 10 years' time are not exactly where we are today. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. When we maintain our roads and our parks, we spend a lot more than exactly what we want us to have them as good as they are today. But we felt we could do better with the environmental reserves, and that's why we prioritised the likelihood of success, to try and avoid the merry-go-round of treading weeds just enough to keep them at bay, but actually to focus on areas where the, I guess, opportunity for recovery was the highest. Any prioritisation mechanism

00:58:00 is going to have, not winners and losers is the wrong, I guess it probably is, but is going to have some areas rated more highly than others. And in areas where they're rated really highly, some of them actually don't need a lot of work. They're actually already pristine sites. Other ones with a relatively small amount, we feel, can be self-sustaining. So the contrast is to compare that with, say, a small urban block with a lot of edge impacts, where we could put a lot of resources into, only to have those edge impacts continually impact on them. The reason the coastal reserves scored quite lowly in the criteria we did was partly based on that opportunity for them to fully recover in the short term. I don't know that rating the role that coastal areas playing in ecosystem services would necessarily cause them to be phenomenally higher. I think some of the issues around, well, a lot of the concerns in the coastal areas is around weed management. Now, those weeds that occur in those coastal areas actually support the ecosystem services

00:59:00 role. So taking a large area and placing the asparagus fern with native shrubs doesn't necessarily massively increase the ecosystem service role that that area provides. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There is a controversial statement, but we'll get to that. Speaker 1: Well, and I'm not using science facts. I'm just using intuitively the fact that a dense weedy understory is holding that tune together in exactly the same way. One of the ecosystem services. Yeah. As opposed to, say, the ecosystem services provided by a rainforest riparian corridor or up Kin Kin, where people don't live, so there's not as much buying to it. But cat's claw control, $1,000 spent on cat's claw control up there would actually retain that riparian ecosystem and stop that ecosystem being destroyed and sediment flowing into the river. So there's a lot of balancing going on in there. And I certainly understand the fact that some people in the coastal area feel that that's been denigrated or that it's not being taken notice

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 of. But the work that the chap highlights says there's a lot more to the restoration and management of this land above being, I think, six of 178 reserves in our network. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so what I take from that is, regardless of if I was to say, now, let's go back and redo our prioritisation and say the biodiversity and ecosystem services are equal in value, which would bring the coastal reserves right up with a rainforest along Kin Kin. You would suggest that the outcome in terms of their relative priority, because although likely the success would still drop down. Yes. So if we did a two way analysis, which might be good to communicate to the community about why that you'd still say it's unlikely to change its priority rating. Is that? Speaker 1: Well, it wouldn't change it significantly in the point you'd end up with the coastal reserves at the top and the other ones down the bottom. Okay. But I would also suggest the ecosystem services rating of some of those other reserves away

01:01:00 from the coast, if actually sat down and consider them, would also be rated very highly as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And normally in those two way analysis of ecosystem value versus likelihood of consequence or likelihood of achieving a desired improvement, you get to a four way plot and then you say, is any of the ones that we wouldn't prioritise have a high cost of doing nothing? And that's where the coastal reserves come into it, isn't it? Is that from a coastal hazards perspective, there is a very high cost of doing nothing to protect those areas. Is there an opportunity to explain that in a paragraph or two in the draft and say that these issues, because of this issue, the assignment of resources and priority will be dealt with in a coastal management plan? Speaker 1: Look, certainly that's, yes, that'd be perfectly capable of putting that in there. Obviously this is a reserve. This is how we manage our bushland reserves for ecological and ecosystem purposes. The

01:02:00 cost of doing nothing from an ecological point of view on those coastal areas I would suggest is not as high. We're not suggesting we don't do any action of any kind in those coastal reserves, but to simply not say do weed removal in some of those coastal reserves, I would suggest is not a higher cost as not doing weed removal in the upper reaches of Kin Kin. I would suggest if we were balancing those out, I think the overall cost is actually higher to not work up there than it would be in the coast. That doesn't mean... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we were to let it to its own and we do have all these neighbour impacts and we do have a degradation resource that we have two big storms in two weeks, then we could actually lose it all. So that's a fairly high cost. Speaker 1: Oh, it is. But at the same time, a lot of those neighbour impacts, a lot of the encroachment issues, the beach access issues, some of those are within the scope of this plan and some of those are much larger. And obviously, as sea levels rise and those storm surges become larger, this is not the only protective mechanism for those coastal dunes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can I ask for next week to come up with how you think that might be happening? Because

01:03:00 in my view, in a climate change context, the importance of ecosystem services goes up dramatically in terms of the functions that our neighbours have. I think we need to consider how we do this in the natural areas to help us adapt to a changing climate. And I think, as a result, we need to not just be fairly narrow in our view about what ecosystem rehabilitation does. And I think it's worthwhile noting it in the strategic plan so that we keep on saying, is it just... Biodiversity is important, but trying to work out and say, well, these areas contribute to the overall health and wellbeing of our community, of our people. Councillor Lorentson: To add to that, Brian, to me green buffers are as important as grey buffers as part of the solution of coastal erosion, so recognition that we have declared a climate emergency and we take that seriously and recognise the importance of green buffer zones as part of the solution.

01:04:00 And I think that needs to be identified in the strategy somehow. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm glad Craig that you brought up the term in terms of success in able to do that. Would you agree that having a strong volunteer base in a bushland reserve would aid in the capacity to be successful in rehabilitation of a reserve? Speaker 1: It would, yes. But having a strong volunteer base wouldn't necessarily change the way that we would stand back and prioritise that reserve as part of the overall network. Councillor Jurisevic: But would it not aid in the prioritisation of that reserve from the fact that you would get a positive result because of the assistance that Council would get in delivering in those areas?

01:05:00 And the willingness to actually undertake work in those areas? Speaker 1: I think that's a factor and that was incorporated to a small degree within the scoring system of the prioritisation as it was. The nature of our volunteer network is it's very focused on smaller urban areas and are not involved in some of our larger, I guess most iconic reserves because they're not in places where people live. So what we've tried to do with the plan is try and step back a little bit from being too reactive to I guess where all the squeaky wheels are. And I don't mean that in a negative sense. But try and prioritise based on I guess some independent criteria. And volunteerism was part of it. The other way we deal with that is through effectively funding a bush care program. So we recognise that people want to work at the end of their street. It might not be a high priority. It might not have magnificent ecological values. It might not be contributing enormously from an ecosystem services point of view.

01:06:00 But it's people's local patch and they love it. So that's why over the last couple of years we've essentially gone from zero to I think next year $35,000 worth of funding just within the bush care program to support actions as well as staffing on those sites. And you'll see us continue to try and sneak that up over coming years to try and I guess fix up that disconnect where a small urban site is not a massive priority for the resources we've got in the context of our 178 reserve network. But we still provide the support to the volunteers. Councillor Jurisevic: But in relation to what you were mentioning, that fringe weed management and the rest of it, I mean a volunteer base can facilitate that whereas council necessarily don't want to spend the resources on that. So facilitating the volunteer network to maintain those edge boundaries and things like that but also there is value in rehabilitating each of those reserves even though it may not be the highest priority in terms of reserve management overall.

01:07:00 Speaker 1: There's not a reserve in the network we would like to see rehabilitated. There's 178 there. The idea of this plan is not to suggest that any plans are unworthy of rehabilitation but it's being quite honest and realistic. Noosa like every other council has a whole heap of small reserves which are not in great condition and won't be in great condition anytime soon. What we're trying to do with this plan is not be here in 10 or 15 years saying the exact same thing but actually targeting the ones we can fix soon and work down that list. Councillor Jurisevic: So where we get the best return for our investment. Speaker 1: Yeah. So start at the top of that list and continue to work down to the point where instead of having half a dozen reserves on maintenance only where they need one run a year, continue to build them up. So as we get further and further down that list we're in a position where in 10 years time we're not just treading water still. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there a value in targeting particular weed species and trying to eradicate or, okay, everybody tells me eradication is not possible. Reduce. Control. Reduce. But better control those weed species and actually targeting the largest outbreaks

01:08:00 of those weeds to reduce the incidence of spread. Speaker 1: There can be. It depends on the damage the weed causes. Cat's Claw is a really great example where we've been really proactive in targeting and identifying weed species. We've been trying to identify locations in the upper Noosa and upper Mary rivers to try and identify where those areas are because it's such a transforming weed it can really pull down riparian vegetation and we're targeting that specific weed. Some other ones such as, let's say, Singapore daisy are a lot more challenging. They're incredibly widespread, very difficult to treat where they occur and as much as they frustrate and annoy people because they see it in the crease, it doesn't have the same impact as something like Cat's Claw Creeper. So, again, it's all about getting the best value for the spend that we're trying to make. Councillor Jurisevic: The difference in something like Singapore daisy, if you don't manage it, it will spread far and wide and then becomes harder and harder to control and manage and to actually take

01:09:00 back. Speaker 1: Well, we certainly take that into account. In a lot of areas it's recently contained, largely because it's already completely spread through some of the ecosystems. But what we do do, and we talk about having a large reserve network, all reserves, regardless of their rating, will be inspected minimum once every two years, most every year. And one of the main reasons behind that is to identify emerging weed threats. So even in a low priority reserve, you do an inspection annually and discover, hold on a sec, there's a new infestation we can get on top of now. Or like these other reserves, it'll take our entire annual year's budget to get Singapore daisy out of that. We've got a new reserve here. We've found either new infestation or a new weed. A new weed. Hold on a sec, we haven't seen this before. Let's get it now before it gets away. So it's not to say there's no work occurring in those reserves. It's just where we have the ability to prioritise. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I was suggesting that is the type of approach that if you target something starts to flourish, that you target it immediately and try to prevent spread, where we've

01:10:00 got something spread that is so widespread and if it's not managed, continues to encroach to a large degree that there's an argument there to spend resources on better managing the outbreaks that you've got, particularly the larger outbreaks where it's getting out of control. Speaker 1: There's certainly a case for new outbreaks where they've recently arrived. They're following on the example of Singapore daisy. We could quite comfortably spend our entire $1.3 million next year tackling Singapore daisy and not necessarily getting on top of it to any great extent. So the idea behind this plan is to try and recognise, well, in areas where it's new, we can get it under control quickly, then we'll do it. But in areas where it's already got away, we're actually better off investing elsewhere because it takes an awful lot of work to get it under control. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I've got a different opinion. There you go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I think one thing I should say is that while we're tinkering in the edges, the whole

01:11:00 approach is a very good one. I'd go back to the late 90s when I was doing my research and rehabilitation and we had a thing called, new, called the Titanic theory. That was all about looking at restoration that you weren't, like you used to, target the worst sites first. What it said was when the Titanic was sinking, they saved the women and children first. Things that could go on and breed and go on with more value. And that's what we're really saying is here, we're looking at protecting and restoring the best first, which is always the best investment. Then we're looking, which of these ones can we rehabilitate so we put it on a trajectory so ecological succession can get back towards what was a completely natural system. And then we're dealing with the really high cost remediation. So what systems have degraded to a point where it's unlikely we'll get them back to a pristine state, but we need to manage to remediate to get the majority of the values back and the ecosystem services. So to me, that's the key is, I'll presume individual reserve plans do set out what the

01:12:00 objectives are for each individual reserve. So we know this is what we're trying to achieve out of each of these particular sites. Speaker 6: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I look forward to your thinking and- Councillor Wegener: With, watching, there was a group of four people that were on grants that went around, one of Phil Moran's crew that went to different places. There was a group of four. Do you know who I'm talking about? Speaker 9: The Houston Nature's. Councillor Wegener: Well, no, there's a group of four, not volunteers, but young people that were part of a grant funded group that went from property to property helping out. And I've heard just incredible things about this group of wandering people. The name of them amaze me right now, but it just seems like it was a really positive grant program that went on under Phil Moran. Phil was telling me about it, how spectacular it is. They're creating the vibe, the energy, because obviously there's a lot of energy that goes

01:13:00 into this situation where you're trying to eradicate plants that can't be eradicated. And it's a matter of actually keeping the vibe going and keeping the front going without feeling. You know, completely. Speaker 3: Roaming Restorers. Yeah, the Roaming Restorers group that's run by them here on Friday. They go down to the property. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. I just heard such great things about them. And so listening to all this, it's a matter of just keeping the stoke going, you know, and just by quenching through. Another concept is the KPIs. Could we look at koala habitat being restored and actually as just as one sort of KPI as moving through a particular corridor that has been regenerated? Speaker 6: I believe it's probably more of a question for the Koala Conservation Plan rather than

01:14:00 essentially. You guys, yeah. Essentially across a broader landscape than our reserve network. So perhaps we, perhaps we take more notice. Yeah. And then we'll get back to you. Councillor Wegener: I know there's a lot going on. I noticed that in the public consultation, one of the notes was improving koala mapping. And it says that you're working with Queensland Government to update the koala mapping. And so that just seems like just something that, you know, another searching for good news stories to come out of, of the work that, fantastic work, the work that's being done. And one more little pedantic thing on page 10. This is something I don't want, impossible for you to see, but it looks like a strategic plan should be 2021 instead of 2020. 2025. Right under 3.2 planning drivers. Speaker 1: Yes, you're correct. Councillor Wegener. This draft has been in tow for a while.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 It started in before 2020. Each time we've revised the years have popped up one. And clearly you missed one of those charges. Speaker 4: And I think that might be the first point of detail that you've raised. That's probably been the last. That's probably been the last. Was there a hand going up? Councillor Lorentson. Oh, I'm sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Just to add on my point before about green buffers and their roles in climate change. Can we somehow include that as part of one of the objectives? So there's no mention of the role that these ecosystems or visioning groups have in protecting our natural assets, which is possibly our most important asset on the tourist perspective, which are our benches. And I think that should be prioritised. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we all. Speaker 9: That's a good segue for me into that. Okay. Yeah. To keep the state going.

01:16:00 I want to make a comment on page 40 with reference to our community engagement and our groups. I've caught up with the Eastern Hedges community groups. You've said in here that council will continue to support the community groups, preferring Can you talk to me a little bit about how you're going to support these community groups of great work that Eastern Beaches does, given the comments raised about green buffers, the CHAP and all of those things. These groups, those layers in particular, are very concerned about all the issues raised here. In what way are you supporting them outside independently of this plan, as you're saying? Speaker 1: To continue with this. Yeah, when we talk about being independent of the prioritisation, the intent of that comment was to suggest that we weren't going to force bush carers to go and work in only our high priority reserves.

01:17:00 So the use of the word independent was to suggest that while where bush carers are active in sites that we don't have in the highest priority, we'll still support them. So we do that through a couple of ways. One is through continued increased funding to the bush care program, where we're able to provide contractor support, not just directly to the groups, but also in kind. And we also want to help assist them accessing grant opportunities. A good example being the project out at Calusa Street, which many of you'd be familiar with on Heathland Drive. I don't know to this point how much they've accessed in external funding, but it's certainly well in excess of $60,000. And I'm sure I'll have Jill on the phone telling me there's a lot more than that, because I feel it might be. And that helps we're able to bring some money to the table. Of course, we also committed $225,000 over three years to the multi-year environment grants to the Eastern Beaches Collaborative to continue their work up there. They were far and away the most highly funded group on working on council land as part of any of those grants.

01:18:00 So there was also significant work that went to keep it in Kin Kin as well. But that was reflected in the environment strategy where one of the actions of the implementation plan was to continue to work in those eastern beaches. I've had some good discussions with some of the people involved. I met with Chip Tullock last week and we spoke at length around, I guess, what a new approach looks like for those coastal dunes. I think we both agree that the challenges of the restoration of the coastal dunes aren't being met by the current structures we've got in place. That we'll be here in 50 years with relying on a bunch of volunteers in nodes to reduce those coastal fortunes. At the same time, I honestly don't believe that just throwing bucket-loads of money at it using the same systems we're doing at the moment is going to solve the problem either. So it's good we all agree a new approach is needed. Actually, what that new approach looks like is where we're challenging, we've corresponded since, just starting to throw around some ideas on what sort of approach do we need for this entire 11.5 kilometre stretch that sits largely outside of this.

01:19:00 Just recognising it as an unusual and difficult approach for that area. The plan does allow for that, it allows for areas that have significant or different issues to have specific management plans or ecological restoration plans put up and we envision that for the coastal fortunes. So I think that's how we're supporting them at this point, but I think the next support we need to do is develop a detailed ecological restoration plan as part of the coastal foreshore management plan, which has been funded by Council next financial year, to properly prioritise and come up with a new model that is going to work long-term. Because I actually don't think that just pouring more and more money into asparagus for an eradication is going to get us a good return in the long term. It doesn't mean we don't need to invest, but we need to think about what that investment looks like and we're only at the end of the first year of that three years funding. And while I think that's helpful, I think something we've learned already is that it's not going to be the panacea to eradicating those weeds down the eastern beaches.

01:20:00 Speaker 9: So given the amount of money that's been given and it's outside of this plan, is it the environment strategy or where does it sit that there's strategic KPIs or indicators that, what's our return on that investment? If it's not this document, where do we find that? Speaker 1: The environment strategy has a specific ecological indicator, sorry, action in the implementation plan around restoration of the coastal fortunes. And I'm trying to think of the way that we're going to do that. The wording in the environment strategy around coastal resilience, I can't think of it off the top of my head. But that was the justification for that action in the plan and that was one of the reasons. Speaker 3: And that's reported to council on an annual basis as well? Yeah. And it was reported late last year? Yeah, it was last August, September. Yeah, so that'll come back again in progress in terms of the environment strategy and those specific outcomes there. Speaker 1: And there's specific, there's monitoring tools in there around vegetation cover.

01:21:00 I don't know that they're that specific to the coastal areas because one thing we do find in those areas is that we don't get a lot of change in vegetation cover in those areas, even where they're really actively and effectively restored. Because a lot of the time we're dealing with understory weeds. Councillor Wegener: I was just going to mention that we're going to be talking to Javier and Chris Bowden about drones and data transfer. And one of the things that the drones could be looking for is the restoration or the, you know, the growth of the understory weeds along the beaches there. And we just need data, you know. If we're one year into this program, the more data we have as the program develops so that we can actually measure success better. Maybe that's just one of the things that these drones can do up on a daily flyby. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Put a flamethrower at the bottom of them. Speaker 9: Yeah. Given that, the use of the drones with the data, have you looked at the latest, like, technology available through the blockchain to, like, follow that data and measure that data?

01:22:00 Is that something you're looking at? Speaker 6: In the context of this plan, no. We use what's called BOAS, Pushland Operational Assessments. And that basically assesses the key condition of the reserve. So all of our eastern beaches has been, was assessed in 2016. And we periodically do that every five years or so as per this plan. So the condition of those dunes from an ecological perspective has been done already. So. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So. We were referring it to the General Committee for further information. Speaker 4: So I'd like to move that. Move Councillor Finzel, second Councillor Stewart, all in favour?

01:23:00 That was unanimous. We then move on to the Bushland Reserve Strategic Fire Management Plan. Speaker 3: On page 74, Councillor. Speaker 1: I told you I'd give you so much money. That's good. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. Do we have any questions from staff in regard to this? Mayor Stewart: Peter, I've got a couple of questions from the letter that SaferShore wrote, or the report. Starts at page 82. And then, specifically my question, the first one's on page 83, where the author says, it was apparent through the risk management plan could better meet principles and guidelines in the following areas. And it said, went on to say the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services is developing a bushfire risk management framework. When released, which could be used to reassess this plan, did we do, did we look at re-looking at principles and guidelines and did we consult with Queensland Parks?

01:24:00 Speaker 7: Yes, we did. On a number of occasions. We didn't always get a response from our consultations, but we did send the plan out on a couple of occasions. We also sent the draft plan out to QFES, and their response was to pass it on to their policy area in Brisbane. And, yeah, we didn't hear back from QFES in that regard. So we haven't heard back from QFES. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Have we looked at, or have we seen the Queensland Parks and Wildlife, have we seen their bushfire risk? Is there a risk management framework at all? Speaker 7: Not the draft at this stage, no, we haven't seen that, so I guess that's been produced at some stage. Mayor Stewart: I'm just going on, on page 85.

01:25:00 Fire management planning table. The absence of a category response for council once it becomes aware of a fire on land it controls. And then it says here that, further down, council should seriously consider the development of a unit within council that is responsible for this role. Many councils around the state have introduced the role of a bushfire mitigation officer whose role is to formulate plans, advise on things such as training, purchase equipment, PPE. Have we done that? Speaker 7: We've addressed it in the plan, we certainly support the employment of a fire officer in council, that would certainly assist. In terms of our capacity to respond to bushfire, again, it depends on what capacity, even if we have a fire management officer, and also the equipment, it depends on the scale of the fire basically, so obviously if it's just a small fire out on the bushland reserve, we can respond.

01:26:00 If it's anything bigger than that, we still play a reporting role, so we actually go out and inspect, we'd be there to provide a support role to QFES who are the lead. Lead agent in terms of emergency response. Speaker 3: Yeah, I might get Craig just to also update the council on what's in their proposed budget in terms of their fire response, which is out for consultation. Yeah, that'd be great. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. So the intent there is to build up council's capacity by the employment of a fire management officer, training of up to 20 existing staff, kitting out of vehicles and provision of equipment to be able to transition over the next two to three years, to us to be able to have our own capacity. To undertake our own hazard reduction burns. Right. One thing we've seen over the past 12 to 18 months is the challenging accessing and using contractors when conditions are great. We all know how difficult and narrow the windows are. Really good example is last week where we had really good conditions on some of the reserves and national parks who had everyone ready to go, were able to get away several burns and we weren't, although we were able to get a couple away earlier, a couple of months earlier.

01:27:00 So that's the key thing coming out of there. We actually discussed at length the point you've raised in the review because it's not the intent for council to become a first responder for fire. That's not our role. It's never been our role. And I actually think the response on the review took the legislation a little bit out of context, to be quite honest. We need to recognise and respond and have procedures on how we deal with fire. It doesn't mean we as an agency have to be able to undertake that response ourselves. Of course. Otherwise everyone who was a land manager would have to have capacity to undertake and fight fires on their lands. Once we have trained up staff, there's no doubt that we'll be in a better place to support first response agencies like the Rural Fire Service or QFES as directed by them and in whatever capacity they need the support. Okay.

01:28:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So question. Back on your summary. In your summary of the peer review comments on page 78, there's a couple of interesting points. One was to develop community campaigns to reduce dumping of green waste into bushland reserves which can increase fuel loads and are frequently the source of environmental weed invasions. But they didn't say the last bit in our strategic. Like this is something that obviously is desirable. Have we actually got anything in any strategies that talk about that as a campaign? Speaker 7: We have a faction. I think on. That's it. Garden waste. I don't know if there's an annual program. Certainly the bush carers do some of that. They provide that sort of information to Novus. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just think it is a very valuable thing to do. You know, like when we talk about prevention, both from a fire and a weed management perspective of having some sort of behaviour change program targeted at people who are joining bushland.

01:29:00 I think it's something we should consider in the future. Speaker 1: At the moment, we do it somewhat reactively. We do have materials ready to go and when we receive complaints, we quite regularly let a box drop. Areas reminding people of their legal and moral responsibilities, if you will. I was just quickly trying to recollect whether there was a specific action in that within the bushland strategic management plan, but I can't pull it out in front of me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I remember back in the 90s when I wrote a university assignment called Manning's National Area Neighbours. Yeah. And it's good to have them on site for a whole range of things because they might also be the ones to first spot the fires and things like that. Speaker 1: Another thing that comes out of that is council support for NICA's Urban Wildlife Garden Program too. Part of that is creating that good bush neighbours, so to speak, ideal and spreading it through the community like that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the other one that I put my mountain bike helmet on, restrict vehicle access to fire trails for emergency services use only. They're talking about vehicles, aren't they? As in cars and maybe motorbikes?

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 Or are they talking about it should be kept and not used for recreational purposes? Speaker 7: I think they're referring to indiscriminate use by four wheel drivers. Pretty hard to keep motorbikes out and still allow mountain bikers. But yeah, it's an interesting comment, but it's something we do anyway at an operational level. So the way we design our gates. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The purpose is that if you get excessive use for recreational four wheel drivers, they can make the access track eroded, chewed up, unable to be accessed by the emergency services vehicle. Speaker 7: Is that the reason why they're looking at it? I think they've lagged at that because of that. But also once people have access into those areas, then you get at those other activities like camping, for example, little campfires, those sort of things, which are often a source of pollution. Councillor Lorentson: Just a quick comment. Craig, you mentioned the peer review support, that it's taken the legislation a little bit too far.

01:31:00 My question is, is that position supported by our legal advisers? Will we be compromising any duty of care if there is a catastrophic bushfire event? Speaker 1: That's probably something I'll need to take advice on immediately. In the legal review, it quotes, if there is a catastrophic bushfire event, then we need to take all reasonable steps to extinguish or control the fire. There's nothing that suggests that council doesn't have a role to take all reasonable steps to extinguish or control a fire. The review seemed to suggest that council had to maintain a capacity in their own right to do that. Councillor Lorentson: And that's how I've understood the report, so just asking that have we sought legal advice? We haven't, no. Okay. Is it proven that we do, Craig? Or Brett, if that question may be for you? Speaker 3: I think 90 per cent of council across Queensland wouldn't have any firefighting capacity at all. They wouldn't deal with that. The question is, what's reasonable in terms of our capacity and scale as a risk management

01:32:00 type approach? So we've got advice from insurers previously, in terms of what our coverage is and what our insurance obligations are. And I'm reasonably comfortable that we're protected under an insurance perspective, because I was very concerned about if we're getting into council undertaking protective or proactive burns, and one of those got away from us, what's our liability? We are protected from an insurance perspective, so I think that would cover the other issues as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Craig, just going back to your point about, you know, all the things we're dealing in, the fire management officer and all the engagement we're going through. I think we're already doing this to a degree, because I think Cheryl and James do as well. But it says, some states, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government, have introduced the Natural Disaster Resilience Program, which allows for landlords in vulnerable locations

01:33:00 to make appropriate mitigation strategies. They say, I'm not aware of such a scheme in Queensland. However, councils, and I'm going to say, they do now consider that a scheme, and they've I think it would. I'd probably have to get an update from Cheryl and James as to exactly what they're at. Speaker 1: It wasn't the intent of this plan because this plan is very much around the way we deal with fire risks on our estate. But some of the comments that came back certainly wrapped up the fact that, and we recognise, this is only one small part of our fire response. Another one is that it's to support communities around preparedness. I can touch base with James and Cheryl and provide an update for you by Monday. Mayor Stewart: I know they're at the right point. They're doing a tremendous job going around to the communities. I'll have an update for you.

01:34:00 I thought that would fall under that. Okay, thank you. Speaker 4: Mayor Jurisevic, do you have a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Just further to the CEO's response to the previous question. With regard to our, I mean, the lead agency in fires is Udipus and not Council. Correct. Our role and responsibility in dealing with fire is as DLEMG and our management of the event when an event occurs and all the other elements of that. And the same would apply for the other 76 councils in Queensland. Okay. Is that the sufficient understanding of Council's role in fire management in relation to that? Speaker 3: The additional part, so every council in Queensland has a disaster management role. And that's what we talked about there. And that's for all types of natural disasters. And we have a coordination role. The lead agency in fires is Kipis, but we help coordinate evacuation centres and communication.

01:35:00 But we're also a landowner, a landholder. And our obligation in terms of fire management. We've got to protect that land and that's where, I think that was Councillor Amelia's question before, is about how do we, as a landowner hat on, not the disaster management hat on, but our landowner hat on, have we done everything to make sure that we are protecting that land from fire, if the fire breaks out, what's the obligation? So that's the issue and that's what I was concerned about when we got advice around insurers, if we are actively managing that land by ourselves undertaking burns. To limit fuel loads and things like that, and one of those gets away and leaves our land, and goes on to other, are we covered by insurance, if they cover, and we are, that was the main issue that I was concerned about. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And in the query, Councillor Jurisevic used a few FLA's for their acronyms, for our thousands of viewers, most people would have guessed, Kipis is Queensland Environment Fire and Emergency Services, the LDNB is local fire and emergency services.

01:36:00 So it's a disaster management group, I just want to use the FLA comment that's out there. TY, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: FLA's what, TLA's what. Speaker 4: Okay, so was this one requested to go to General Committee, I can't recall. Councillor Jurisevic: It was? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Due to the significance of the matter? Significance of the matter. Would anyone like to move in that regard? Councillor Stewart and second Councillor Finzel. All in favour? All in favour? That was unanimous. We then move on to the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation new partnership agreement. Speaker 1: Straight again. By myself, all by myself. Speaker 4: And this one was requested. Once again, have we got questions and queries? Mayor Stewart: I have a question.

01:37:00 Why have we changed from a funding deed to a partnership agreement? What's been a catalyst for that? Speaker 1: It was when we initially started having discussions with the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation late last year. That was their request. They inquired about whether it could be called a partnership agreement because they felt that the relationship between Council and NBRF was stronger than a, I guess I saw it as a master servant type relationship using the word funding deed. So we obviously took legal advice because partnership agreement can have a specific legal meaning. And the advice was comfortable that actually didn't change the intent or the meaning of the document to call it a partnership agreement. Speaker 3: So symbolic in that sense. Speaker 1: Yes. Mayor Stewart: The reason I ask is the partnership agreement we have with TNC in regard to the oysters, it's quite, it's a collaborative approach. So when we can't get things like state permits and they're not reaching KPIs within time frames, there's not much recourse because it's a collaborative approach that we still

01:38:00 seem to have. Is that a similar situation here by entering into another partnership agreement that collaborative approach works well when things are going well, but if KPIs aren't being met and objectives aren't being met, is that then a disadvantage to us because we don't have that recourse? Speaker 1: Sure. There's probably, there's two parts of that. Firstly, with regards to the alliance and funding agreement with the Nature Conservancy, there are, of course, the payments are milestone based. So there is recourse there in the sense that we just don't pay if the milestones aren't Mayor Stewart: reached. But we don't, there has been, in that example, timeframes that haven't been met 18 months later. We're still sitting here with nothing, with no, well, if it's not met, we're pulling the plug because it's seen as a collaborative approach and that was what the intention of the document was. So that's my question for this one.

01:39:00 Speaker 1: I was just, there are mechanisms within that document to bring that discussion forward, specifically around the NBRF arrangement. It's a bit different in the sense there's no guaranteed funding for NBRF. It's decided year in, year out during the council budget process. So this partnership agreement at no point says NBRF will receive a certain number of dollars in any given year. It basically says that these are the principles under which NBRF and council work together, and that on an annual basis, council review its funding based on the provision of an operational plan. I think partnership agreement is probably a reasonable phrase for that sort of approach, because council has an opportunity every year to decide, well, we're really not satisfied with the work that NBRF has done in the past 12 months. We simply won't fund them during the year. There are other clauses in the agreement to deal with periods in between if they don't meet or if they break any specific agreement. There are specific clauses within the contract. But given we provide funding on an annual basis, it provides a fair bit of protection

01:40:00 for council already. Mayor Stewart: And why the three to four years? Speaker 1: That was, we felt, firstly four years, I guess, provides a little bit more consistency. But we actually looked at it from an election cycle point of view in the sense that to have it three years would have meant it would have been up for review around about the same time at the end of this council. We actually felt about 12 months after a new council is sworn in is a really reasonable timeframe for a new council to be able to assess, I guess, the value of that partnership. And looking at this council now, which is very different to the one that signed the previous agreement, I think probably 12, what are we, 14, 15 months after it's been sworn in is a really good time to be able to assess the value of NBRF, highly or lowly, to be able to make that call. So that's primarily the reason, to fit in with an electoral cycle and provide better decision making. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Craig. Speaker 4: Another quiz? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a push over the staff that on Monday I'll probably be suggesting an additional

01:41:00 clause within the agreement. I think, just like we did recently with a Moen contract, I think it's important that we try and bring all our partnerships together with us on the zero emissions journey. And I've had some feedback from our emissions carbon reduction project officer suggesting that it is perhaps a big ask from community groups to get to zero emissions by 2026, but it is something that she's willing to work with them to do emissions reduction plan to reduce fuel associated with their transport, electric use in their operations. The hard one might be the scope three, the waste and the embedded amounts, but just I'll do that publicly. I actually do come along with some thinking about how the agreement could be implemented to be modified to include a clause which says that we're going on this journey together. And hopefully the biosphere and any projects that might be funded by council also has at the top of mind the desirability to reduce emissions wherever possible.

01:42:00 Mayor Stewart: Craig, can I just go back to... Sorry, give me a little latitude here because I'm not here on Monday so I can't ask these questions. So I'm just going to... It's okay. I'm going to give latitude. I appreciate the latitude given. Through the chair. Sorry. Just on page 93 of the report, just in the new partnership agreement says the definition of operational expenses has been somewhat broadened, making it more about more than just administration. This new definition is intended to still allow for direct funding, so as long as it's identified in the operational plan. So I think that's a good point. And the key performance indicators have been removed as a separate item. Several of them were not very relevant. There were no links. So are there under this partnership agreement, those KPIs that have to be met for funding

01:43:00 and the broadening of the operational expenses, what was the catalyst for that? Speaker 1: Okay. The first one around the KPIs. We looked at... The KPIs weren't in the first agreement. We inserted them in the previous agreement. When we reviewed them this time, we looked at how they'd been used over the previous three years. And the only way they'd been used was reported on in the annual plan. And barring one of them, they weren't very effective KPIs, was my feeling on it. So we took them out. Instead of incorporating as KPIs, we put them as specific criteria they must address during their annual plan, which is provided to help inform council's budget decision. So in that sense, they're providing the answers before we provide them with budgets. So it was seen as essentially achieving the same outcome. The only KPI we saw in there that was a really high value potential as a KPI was around the return on investment, the ratio return on investment. But again, that is provided during the annual plan, which we use to inform our budget decision.

01:44:00 So there's nothing lost to my mind by not having them called KPIs because they're still informing our decision on funding, NBRF in the same way. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: And so the second part of your question. Speaker 8: Operational improvement. Speaker 1: Yeah. The previous agreement provided for two pools of funding, for operations and for projects. And they're very clearly, essentially operation was administration expenses and projects were for, I'm just trying to recall the NBRF's terminology, the big ideas type idea. As part of this agreement and for the second half of the previous agreement, we no longer fund significant project costs to NBRF. It was felt that their role was more of a catalyst organisation and that we shouldn't be directly funding large investments through the organisation. What that left us was with a little bit of a gap in the sense that they were no longer able to access funding to say, do preliminary studies or support and research under the

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 former definition of operational expenses, which when you look at some of their previous projects, such as the Noosa Environmental Education Hub. The Noosa Trail Network, they were very small initial scoping projects, which led to really big external investment, particularly the Noosa Trail. So we broadened it a little bit to allow for scoping studies to be incorporated as long as they submit them and tell us what they are as part of their operational plan. It was designed to allow that capacity, but it still has to be presented as part of their operational plan. And if we don't support it, then we don't fund it as part of the budget process. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: Other questions? Speaker 4: Councillor Laurenton? Councillor Lorentson: Craig, how does the agreement deal with material conflict of interest? I'm looking at termination provisions and there's no termination for material conflict. If you say, I'm looking at relationship with parties, condition 12.3b, there's a clause

01:46:00 in there. I'm just wondering whether that's absolved under conduct or not. Or how it's addressed in the agreement. Speaker 1: Can I take that under advice, Councillor Laurenton? I can't answer that off the top of my head on the front. Can I take that advice and provide an answer on Monday, if that'd be okay? Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And my other question- I'm probably just thinking about that one. Speaker 3: Normally, it's the entity themselves that have to set their rules for- That code. Yeah. The same with the tourism industry or any other community organisation that would fund. They have their own rules for how they manage conflict of interest, based on their own government. So that would normally be the case, rather than us requiring that through a refund for parties. Councillor Lorentson: So there'd be no notice or disclosure of the conflict of interest required by Council? I'm sort of thinking, is that a standard clause in the agreement? I'm not quite sure. Speaker 3: So, Councillor, just to check what you're- So, imagine whether it's Tour of Noosa,

01:47:00 the Biosphere Board, or the local footy club who would provide money to you, they have to have their own rules in place about how they manage conflict of interest. What are you trying to get at there? Is that they would need to do what? Councillor Lorentson: More, I don't know. What I'm thinking is, any decision- Any decision- There needs to be a notice of disclosure that if they can't take in any decision that, you know, where there's a personal gain or whether- I don't know. I just think that for the sake of openness and transparency, that there's a notice of disclosure or something in the agreement. By, say, for example, a board member, again, whether it's Tour of Noosa, the Biosphere or the local footy club- That's already resolved as part of their constitution. An operating occupation. It's separate to this agreement. That's right. Speaker 9: If I can add to that, my understanding is Tour of Noosa and both NDR have their own

01:48:00 internal policy documents. That will be gone. It's organised. It's actually going to form an internal document. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But I suppose the question is, does the partnership agreement that Council just requested, they have a statutory one, if they're dealing with their money? I suppose it's just a question we can look at on Monday, whether there's a- Yeah. Speaker 3: And then we deal with every other organisation we can. Yeah. Yeah. Which is a hundred bucks. Speaker 1: Prior to Monday, I'll make contact with NBRF and just so I'm clear as to what provisions they have in place so I can report on that. Speaker 9: Okay. Would that be part of us seeking to work together? Would that be part of that thing? Would that come under operational? Speaker 1: Remind me of the context of that phrase, please. Sorry. Speaker 9: Well, you've just written in here that they counsel on NRBFC to work together, just with regards to conflict of interest. Yep. What you'll find out, would that sit under operational plans moving forward? Or where does that sit conflict of interest?

01:49:00 Speaker 1: I'm not quite clear I understand your question. Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Speaker 9: I'm just trying to link where that's going to fit in with us being involved together. Yes. Well, Wilkie said they have their own agreements in an organisation. Yep. So I'm just wondering, where does that sit, that information that you're seeking? Where will that sit when it comes back to council? I wonder which part of the document. Could it be under the operational plan or- Speaker 1: It could do. I- It's more likely. Speaker 3: It's more likely that they've got their own governance practices in place. It's part of their board rules or whatever it might be. Speaker 9: So I guess the question is, how does that information feed back to us? Apart from just answering this question, is there something, somewhere that gets embedded Councillor Lorentson: in- And that's why I've requested maybe look at a notice of potential conflicts as part of the condition of the agreement. Just something to think about. So we're- Speaker 3: We're looking at a notice from a different organisation or other organisations that we fund give us notice when they're dealing with conflicts.

01:50:00 That's probably a broader conversation. But we'll get that information about what they have in place at the moment and have that available for Monday. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I just have a question on page 93. A clause has been added for City Council may elect to, on a commercial fee-for-service basis. And in addition to funding the operational expenses. It's just not clear there, who's going to get paid if we seek this commercial fee-for-service place? Speaker 1: That would be NBOF. Speaker 9: They get paid? Speaker 1: So the intent of that clause, the reason, it comes back to if Council identifies a project which is a high priority for WIT, that NBOF has skills they might be able to assist with, we could directly fund NBOF to be able to do that. So let's say for argument's sake, there was a piece of research that needed to be completed

01:51:00 and Council had $20,000 funding allocated. This clause just allows us through the agreement to be able to fund NBOF. Doesn't mean it's not still subject to the same procurement restrictions, which it is, but currently the agreement would have been unclear if this was the only way we can fund NBOF. So that was the thinking behind the addition of the clause. Speaker 9: So there's a commercial fee-for-service basis. Where do we have a KPI or measure the outcomes of what we've paid for them to produce? How do we measure that? Speaker 1: Well, that would be as if any procurement would provide a scope for what we want to procure through there, and the KPIs would be attached to the scope of any project. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 1: Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Craig, Council offices have been working closely with NBRF and nominated members in

01:52:00 the development of this agreement, and the support of this agreement was endorsed by the NBRF board on the 14th of May 2021. Given this is the first time that it's come to our attention, just the change in agreement, is there an opportunity between now and the general meeting to have a workshop? Just so that we get our heads around essentially the major differences between the funding agreement and this partnership agreement, and just have a look at it in a little bit more detail. Is that possible? Speaker 3: Alright, Councillor. I don't really like having workshops when something's on a council agenda. I think we should deal with that through an open council process. Often workshops are used as we're starting to develop policy or working things towards it. But I think once we've got items on a council agenda, we should deal with it through the council meeting process. That's always, I think, the best way to do it. And if you've got questions of staff or whatever, absolutely. Councillor Lorentson: I'll be trying to accept questions to you after this.

01:53:00 That's fine. Not a problem at all. Thank you. Speaker 4: Okay. So this one has been referred to the general committee for the significance of the matter. Can someone like to move it? Councillor Finzel. I'm looking at Councillor Wegener. He's saying he's seconding it. And we're all in favour. And that's unanimous. Can we move on to? Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: Item nine, which is planning applications decided by delegated authority April 2021. And the first item on the agenda is declarations of conflicts of interest. And Councillor Finzel, you seem to be at the top of the page. Yes. Speaker 9: Do I stand up? Speaker 4: Speak to it. That's it. Speaker 9: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties. Number nine, P-T-Y-L-T-D, which is item 12 in this report. I have a relationship with Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, as Mrs.

01:54:00 McCready was involved with my 2020 application. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties, which is item 12 in this report. I have a relationship with Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, as Mrs. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you.

01:55:00 Speaker 4: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Number nine, P-T-Y-L-T-Y-D, which is item 12 in this report. On 24 February 2020, I was the reviewer of the Independence Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the future initiative of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting of a decision that has already been made just by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I expect the decision of the single councillor left on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 3: Thank you. And I might just explain for those who are watching at home the provisions of the Local Government Act where a majority of councillors end up with a conflict of interest and how the process goes from here.

01:56:00 Normally, under rules of quorum and so on, a decision can't be made if there's not a quorum at the meeting, but the Local Government Act makes a specific provision that for dealing with the conflict of interest where a majority of councillors at the meeting have declared a conflict, then the remaining councillors, no matter what number, can determine that position on the conflict of interest. So, with Councillor Wegener being the remaining councillor, he has the ability to make a determination in relation to this matter, which is the request by Councillor Stockwell to stay in the room and he can ask Councillor Stockwell questions or he can make a determination of what he wishes to do. It's my understanding that this is not the case. It's my recollection that on the previous occasions that Councillor Stockwell had declared this conflict of interest at council meetings or in general with me that the majority of councillors had agreed that he could stay in the room, but ultimately that's a question for Councillor Wegener to make at the moment.

01:57:00 You can determine, you know, ask questions or to determine whether he stays or goes. Councillor Wegener: Well, I'd just like to take the moment to enjoy this. It's first in the history of Noosa where one councillor has such power, and I would like to use it to the best of my ability. Yeah, this has come up several times in the past, hasn't it? Yes. Councillor Stockwell. And we've always voted for that you could remain in the room as this would not affect your ability to open-mindedly look at the conflict of interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think always. I think the first time it came up I was voted out of the room. I then sought advice from the department and gave the advice to councils based on the guidelines and ever since then I have remained in the room. Based on the guidelines.

01:58:00 Councillor Wegener: Mm-hmm. And this goes back to prior to the election. Prior to the election that you asked for information. Oh, so that was during the election campaign where I submitted that requirement of the independent Deputy Mayor Stockwell: council election observer. It was subsequent to the first time it came up that I sought advice initially from the integrity commissioner who, while having the legislative responsibility to provide advice to councils, declined to do so because they're too busy. And they referred me to the department who oversees this section of the act and they gave me advice to go through the guidelines with councillors. Which, if I recall, it was a rather long declaration of interest to identify where I thought it was possible for me under the guidelines to remain in the room. Speaker 3: So, councillor, we do have two choices now that you can either determine that councillor

01:59:00 Stockwell wishes to stay, which would be the first wording on the screen there, or alternatively that he should leave the meeting room. That's your call. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I'll consider that. I remember going through this before and we all voted that councillor Stockwell could stay in the room, the first one. Councillor Wegener determined that it is in the public interest that councillor Stockwell participates and votes on the matter because he believes that, as council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it, it is only to note a decision that has already been made by staff. A reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Speaker 3: Yes, you will assume. So, councillor, what you have before you is a report from staff, a development assessment staff, on the matters that have been decided under delegation. It's just a report of information. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, thank you, councillor Wegener. I think you exercised your duty as council for that period.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 Have you got questions? I'll start with the first one. Councillor Wegener: Number 28, the reconfigure of Lot 1 into Lot 19 in Park. So that's a proper development of 19 properties. This is the one on Pearson Road? Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Could you just give us a little overview on that, please? Speaker 8: Yes. So it is a proposed subdivision. It's a residential zone block. So the proposal was to create residential lots, so generally 600 square metres and above. The proposal took some time to assess by officers because there was a waterway through the site

02:01:00 that the new planning scheme identified with the requirement that it remain as a natural waterway. So there was some series of amendments required to those plans to achieve the scheme's intent around that waterway, which they did. Councillor Wegener: How long ago did they begin the application process? Speaker 8: So the application was lodged in 2020. I'm not quite sure of the date, but it was lodged last year. It only decided in April this year. Councillor Wegener: So was it in the list you proceeded? Speaker 8: That was under the new scheme. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it would have been lodged after 31. Speaker 8: That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The application was, as submitted, was consistent with the new scheme, other than with respect to the number of lots crossing a map waterway. That's right. Speaker 8: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so you were able to negotiate an amended layout so that it did reach the performance

02:02:00 criteria within the code that we talked about once or twice this morning. Yes. Speaker 8: That's correct. The applicant has made representations to conditions of approval, which we're currently reviewing. Councillor Wegener: Obviously, when you give an approval like this, you're looking at the traffic and all that going through Cooroy and how this development is going to fit in. But it is another development in Cooroy, which, of course, the locals would be saying is at capacity now. Is there any more developments on the horizon there like this that the community should be aware of, that they might not be aware of? Speaker 8: There's certainly further land to develop in Cooroy, including subdivision, as well as sites that are zoned for development of unit developments. Subdivision applications currently under the Noosa plan does not require public notification,

02:03:00 but the application is available on Council's website. If residents wish to view. But this development was consistent with the zoning for the site. It was intended to be zoned and developed for residential lots. So a review of it didn't find that there was additional traffic requirements required based on for this subdivision. Councillor Wegener: So if it's already, if it can be cut up, a property of land like that, and it's already been, if it's in the proper zoning and so forth, it's already in the proper zoning it's already been assumed that the traffic. That's right. It has been looked at prior to. Yeah. So that's not a condition of actually. No. A condition. Speaker 8: Certainly with any subdivision, we make sure the road layout continues to function and the intersections work, but the development is envisaged by the scheme. So it is intended that these lots occur there. Councillor Wegener: Anyone, I'll ask it again, but you answered already, but a bigger, a much bigger schemes

02:04:00 out there, do you think? On the horizon? Speaker 8: I might have to come back to you on that one, council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's certainly state government land that could be bigger. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. There is council owned land. It's industrial land though, off Carpenters Road, Jarrah Road. That's quite a large parcel of land that council owns. So there's certainly that parcel, but I can do a review and come back to you. Councillor Wegener: It's something, I guess of course I'm from there and the residents are, it's getting busier and busier by the day, there's just no doubt about it. Yeah. And people always complain after the fact, like, oh my God, it's so busy, why did you do something about it? It's like, oh, well, this is the time right now where things are being done. And actually when the new planning scheme came in, that was actually the time to do something about it. I'm glad you corrected yourself. Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. That is the time, because this is planned to happen. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just- Pearson Road's on the eastern side of Thames. Yeah. Yeah. So they would require to go over the main road's shame intersection at Miles Street,

02:05:00 the worst intersection in the region that has had no action despite previous attempts to identify that it should actually be up-close. Councillor Wegener: Well, Jack, the energy within walking distance, just walking distance into town, but, you know, you still have to. Well, there is a light. Actually, the school light is there so that they can cross the road. So that's a big plus. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So would you like to move it? Yes. And the motion is to note the report and I'll second it. Neither of us can move amendments, so I presume we just want to vote. Okay. So Council Wilkie, we're doing an unusual thing. Proposing to go into confidential session.

02:06:00 So the proposal is to close the meeting to the public in order to deal with two items that are subject to appeal in order to discuss confidentiality. Thank you. Confidential legal matters. Would someone like to move along those lines? Move. Councilor Wigner, seconded Council Stewart, all in favour? That was unanimous. And we'll just give a moment for the live

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:29:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We can't see it at the moment. Now we can. Yes, I'll second it. Speaker 3: Just that's to refer the matter to the general committee. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All those in favour? Pass unanimously. And now we deal with item four, which I would like to move the committee recommendation. Councillor Finzel and seconded by Councillor Stewart. All those in favour? Thank you, councillors. Again, that's to refer the matter to the general committee. Speaker 4: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Being 12 o'clock.

Elsewhere on this site

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

What was said

Latest