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.

General Committee Meeting - 14 June 2021 Transcript

Monday 14 June 2021 · 2 hours 41 minutes of recording · 2,254 lines · 15 voices, 6 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 15 voices and names 6 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 Councillor Wilkie: Good morning everybody and welcome to the general committee meeting. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we are gathered here today. That's the Kabi Kabi or the Gubbi Gubbi people, pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. We have an apology from Mayor Clare Stewart, may we have a confirmation of the minutes from the general committee meeting held on the 17th of May please. Who? Councillor Finzel, seconded Councillor Stockwell, all those in favour? It's carried. We have no presentations or deputations and we have items referred from committees, the first being an application for material change of use for short term accommodation at 75 Williams Road Kin Kin, councillors would you like to ask more questions of staff, we

00:01:00 have Patrick and Kerry here, or would you like to move straight to the formal motion? It's done in silence, we're sort of used to it at the bottom. We need to call more. Okay. Does someone care to move a motion or get things underway? Move your motion with any change? I'll move my motion please. Councillor Lorentson? Yep. And we have a motion. Councillor Finzel? Just to clarify, that's a motion with an addition. Could you read out the changes please Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to add condition 7.1 shall apply for 12 months after the commencement of use. This is in reference to the outdoor areas that are conditioned at the moment not to be used after 10pm. So I repeat, condition 7.1 shall apply for 12 months after the commencement of the use unless further extended by council in writing. After that time, if not extended by council in writing, condition 7.2 shall apply.

00:02:00 7.2 not to be used after 9pm each night. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: We have a floor, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I've just added that condition. I just had a couple of concerns that arose from just my questions at the planning and environment meeting. The report acknowledged that noise from outdoor areas can travel quite a significant distance. In rural areas, my concern is we actually don't know how far it travels and what the actual impact may be. Given that the approvals run with the land and not the person, which means that once it's given it can't be revoked, I just thought it's prudent that we trial the time for 12 months before giving it forever rights. This condition is similar to the condition that I asked for the Sunshine Beach Surf Club. I just thought it's prudent that we trial the time for 12 months before giving it forever rights, and I think it provides some consistency in our decision making, and it also respects

00:03:00 and acknowledges that the surrounding residents have a right to acquire enjoyment, and that this amenity must be protected. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Appreciate it, staff. Kerry, a condition like this, does it require the applicant to apply to council after 12 months for the extension in writing, or does council make that decision, will staff make that decision? Speaker 7: The applicant would just be required to put a letter or an email in writing to council making a request. It wouldn't require an application fee. If there are no complaints received, officers would just agree to it without it coming back to council. If there were complaints received from residents in the area, officers would report it back to council for your consideration. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you for clarifying that understanding.

00:04:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, is it appropriate to have some type of advisory note where council notifies the applicant that the 12-month date is due? I'm just concerned that if the applicant hasn't made note of the 12-month date that that might lapse. Speaker 7: Look, I think it's really for the applicant to manage that. I don't think our systems have the capacity to do that. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to add an additional condition, and the condition would read, environmental weeds in the biodiversity overlay area and within 10 metres either side of the mapped secondary waterway must be controlled by an active management program to the reasonable satisfaction of the council. A weed control management plan must be lodged with council.

00:05:00 Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so because the site has got a significant area at the rear of the property, which is in the biodiversity overlay, and I understand it's quite healthy vegetation, but it's also got a secondary waterway. In the performance outcomes, they are required to address the overlay, and at this stage there's no requirement other than in these cases. So having looked at the site with staff on intent, it is very steep, so it's probably not one where you would have significant rehabilitation requirements. It does look like the secondary waterway has got some regrowth happening, but there is evidence that there is environmental weeds, and as it is in the mapped biodiversity overlay, I believe it's important that we do achieve the overall outcomes and the overall outcome

00:06:00 for the biodiversity overlay. So the idea of the biodiversity overlay is that waterways and wetlands overlocated is to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance ecologically important areas and improve connectivity and ecological linkages across the Noosa Shire. So this is probably an action that is reasonable and relevant for the scale of development being proposed. We're not asking for any plantings. We're just asking for good stewardship of those areas, which will help to enhance the ecological importance. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. How large is this area covered by the biodiversity overlay? Speaker 7: The site has an area of, what, 39 hectares, just approximately, 39.8 hectares. So it's a large, large site. And I would estimate probably half of the site. Oh, yes. Probably half, at least half of the site is covered by the biodiversity overlay,

00:07:00 including the riparian. So nine hectares. Councillor Wilkie: It was covered by the biodiversity overlay. Speaker 7: At least. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: So which is 19 hectares. It's 190,000 square metres. Is it not? Oh, sorry. Nineteen hectares, 190,000 square metres. Speaker 4: I think the site's only just under four hectares in size. I beg your pardon. Am I right there? Speaker 7: It's 39,870 square metres. Speaker 4: Now that's four hectares. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the entirety of the site. It's only two blocks? Speaker 7: Yeah. Good point. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. The land area is 39,870 square metres, which is 3.9 hectares. Speaker 7: Yes. I'm sorry. I'll put an extra zero there. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I was needing a deep in. Speaker 5: So roughly two hectares of that. That's what Kerry's saying. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. And would an active management program take the form of a VCA, or ...

00:08:00 No. What does that mean? Speaker 7: No. It would just mean a program of how regularly ... You know, there's different types of weeds on the property, and so there'd be a different treatment plan for the types of weeds, I would imagine. And then we would specify a timeframe of how regularly they would need to go in and actively manage the weed. Councillor Wilkie: And how ... Is it ... How useful is it for the council to impose this sort of regime on private property through a town planning act like this? Speaker 7: These sorts of conditions are imposed by our offices and council on developments in the hinterland, particularly for proposals that involve rural cabins and the like, where you're putting a number of people on the site. Obviously we haven't dealt with the short term accommodation use in the hinterland yet, so this is new, I guess, for the council to consider. And it's one we need to think about whether it is reasonable and relevant to impose on the applicant.

00:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: And how would the conditions of the management program be worked out? What is it likely to involve? How onerous is it? What would be a minimum requirement? Speaker 7: Well, I'm not an ecologist to know exactly, but I can only sort of reiterate what I've said in that. The first step would be identifying all the environmental weeds on the site and looking at the best form of treating and managing those weeds. It is a very steep site, so they'll have difficulties in getting access into the site. I imagine that may need to be done on foot. I'm not sure the site's accessible by vehicle. So it will be quite some work for the owners, I would imagine. Councillor Jurisevic: But there will be opportunities for organisations such as Landcare to assist the property owner with land management practices, if needed, I would assume?

00:10:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, I imagine they could approach Landcare for some assistance there. Councillor Jurisevic: With regards to environmental wounds in the biodiversity overlay, and you do mention it's a little odd for dealing with short stay accommodation in the hinterland. If this were a development application for this building, would you consider that? If this were a development application for the building to be built on this block, would we look at applying the same sort of environmental management of the biodiversity overlay for this property? Speaker 7: Sorry, do I just...? Councillor Jurisevic: If this was a development application, i.e. for the house to be built, not just to be converted to short stay, would we look at managing the environmental weeds in the biodiversity overlay if a development application for the building to be built were before us? Speaker 7: So if the house was located outside the mapped area by the biodiversity overlay, and outside the riparian buffer, which it is, then there would be no application to Council.

00:11:00 It would be approved by a private building certifier. Councillor Wilkie: What if it was a commercial operation, like a bed and breakfast, for example? Speaker 7: Bed and breakfast is mostly accepted development now under our new scheme, so that wouldn't come to Council. What would it be? If it was, say, for instance, some cabins on the site, it would come to Council, and offices or Council would be able to impose conditions around managing the environmental weeds on the site. Councillor Wilkie: Because it is essentially a tourist facility now. Speaker 7: It is. It is proposed. But I think what we need to weigh up is, in terms of whether it's reasonable and relevant, there needs to be a direct connection with conditions and the proposed use. So does the use of this house for short-term accommodation... Yes. ...warrant, is there a connection with having to require environmental weeds to be removed from the site? So does it place any greater pressure on the environmental values of the site? Yes. I would suggest to Council the answer to that is no, and that it is an overreach.

00:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And now I've got a question. The overlay code in PO6 quite clearly states the biodiversity and ecosystem values of waterways, wetlands, and gas riparian zones... It does that. ...avoiding new development in the riparian buffer area and wetland area. It does that. Retaining aquatic and terrestrial habitat in riparian zones. It does that. Maintaining and enhancing wildlife corridors and connectivity along watercourses and drainage lines for native fauna. It does that. Avoiding edge effects and damage from adjacent land uses. As long as there's not adjacent cattle, we can presume that it won't have edge effects. Maintaining stream integrity and bank stability by minimising bank erosion. We haven't got enough information to judge that. Councillor Wilkie: It's just a question, Bob. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I am. I'm going to it. Maintaining water quality through filtering sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants. And then G. This is a performance outcome. It's not an acceptable solution, but G says removing pest species and replacing them with

00:13:00 local native species. How can it not be reasonable and relevant if it's a performance outcome? Speaker 7: Just because it's in the scheme doesn't make it reasonable and relevant. So you still have to decide, as required by the planning legislation, to impose conditions that are reasonable and relevant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But if the development comes to us and is... I'm just getting into debate, Brian. Okay. Yes, sir. I agree with you. I'm getting into debate. I accept direction. Councillor Jurisevic: You'll have right of reply. I'll speak to it. Yeah. I don't necessarily agree with what's been said there by staff. I believe this is an opportunity. The intended use of the site is changing. We're going into a tourism use now. And I believe it's an opportunity through that tourism use to look at the environmental management of the parcel of land, because it's part and parcel of being...

00:14:00 I don't know. In the Noosa ethos of being a green space to come to with good connectivity and I believe good weed management within areas that have a biodiversity overlay. So I support Councillor Stockwell's amendment here. I do think because of the change of use of the property from a residential or a rural residential property to a tourism use, that within our planning scheme, that this gives us the opportunity to ask the owners to do a little bit more. So I'll support the amendment. Councillor Finzel: Can I just have a question? If this goes forward, how is compliance around this issue managed? Speaker 7: So the condition calls for a weed control management plan to be lodged with council for review. So it would have some timeframes in there for the works. So officers would need to carry out an inspection from time to time to show that those works

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 were being done. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Tom. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to it. I believe that this short-term stay here is leveraging off of the Noosa environment and the biosphere and people will come here expecting that this is as nice as it can be, as pristine as it can possibly be. That would be the expectation of the people coming to that Airbnb because of the ethos of Noosa. And so I will support the amendment. But also this property has significant other things it has to deal with, namely the secondary structure built on the property attached to the house. That has got to go before and be approved because it was an unapproved development. And then whether that garage or power port is too close to the boundary line is another one. So this property has quite a few things to do and approvals to get before it gets approved.

00:16:00 But also it has got to go before it can even move into the short-term stay. So right now is the time to make sure that this property is consistent with Noosa values and of course with the Noosa planning scheme. And so I support the amendment. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. An ecologist's report, will that go with the application to do the build correctly through the right processes? Does that go with that application? Speaker 7: No. No. It's not located in the riparian buffer area or taking out significant vegetation. Okay. So they'll just be required to lodge building plans with the certifier. Although because the carport is so close to the boundary, it will come to council for a review of that carport in terms of that part. So would that be a compliance issue? Yeah, it is. So one of the conditions calls for them to seek their building approvals before they

00:17:00 commence their use. Okay. So they're required to make sure that the structure is sound and has been built soundly. So it's like a pigeon. Councillor Finzel: How come this is before us for a short-term application when all these other planning issues have not been addressed? Speaker 7: Because we are required to decide the development application that's been lodged with us. So I can't put it on hold until they're addressed. We've addressed it through conditions of approval. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion. I don't disagree with anything that's been said at the table. However, I think that the condition should be made as an advisory note. I go back to the report itself and I ask the question, is the condition appropriate, fair and reasonable? And I just think that it's too onerous a condition to be placed on a development application for a material change of use for short-term accommodation.

00:18:00 I do agree with the planning staff that I think it's a little bit of an overreach and I'm hesitant to see this be challenged. I'm going to just run with the experts and which are the planning staff. Again, I'd like to see this as an advisory note that they consult with land care. And council and understand their social responsibility to maintain the area. But I just don't think it's fair and reasonable to be actually added as a condition. So I won't support this amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to the amendment. We are acting on the assumption that the owners don't hold their sedators and it's a possibility

00:19:00 that this may not have occurred to them, that this could be part of a development application. They may fully intend to rehabilitate and look after their land well and they may be in support of this. There are ways in which they can make representation if they think it's too unethical. But to include this as a condition may actually be consistent with what they intend for the properties, for the property, and as Councillor Wegener says, it may even involve, it may even provide the visitors an enhanced experience of the Noosa hinterland. So I think it's worth testing this amendment and the condition that's contained within

00:20:00 it to see, and the owner does have full right to either accept it or make representation against it if they think it's too onerous. So I will support the amendment. Councillor Finzel: All right. This is challenging. Giving the points to being brought up around the table, I do agree in principle around the amendment with regards to the transfer to become a commercial operation, to line up with the ethos of the Noosa biosphere and gives protection that the property's managed. There's nothing to tell us back today, is this person, how do we know that they're going to manage that property? Is there any link back for the future to say we can have these issues addressed or look after the land?

00:21:00 So for, to test it, I'm prepared to support it today. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. I think, to me, it's a mature change of views. So implicit within the planning scheme saying it's not acceptable, it's not code, it's a mature change. It says there's higher impacts than the house that was there. And to me, it is an obligation on council to ensure the purpose and overall outcome of the biodiversity and wetlands overlay code is achieved. How this motion has done it is by the very least, that could be considered acceptable. So if you, if the applicant was to follow the acceptable solutions, that secondary waterway would be rehabilitated for 10 metres either side of the waterway. It would be the performance outcome, as it says, to remove pest species and replace with native vegetation.

00:22:00 In this case, I've kept it such that they may replace with native vegetation, but looking at the site, that removing the pest species is probably our nature to replace with native vegetation. So it is the lowest possible level of condition to achieve the biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay code. But I think it's important that we do everything we can to ensure that that's achieved. So every time a application comes before us, look at how we take those steps to achieve that overall outcome. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Lorentson. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the motion. And only Councillor Lorentson has spoken to the motion. Anyone wish to speak? Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 5: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I suppose, firstly, to the additional conditions for noise.

00:23:00 I think that's a wise move. Secondly, overall, our planning scheme does encourage rural tourism. And I think it's great that these people are doing that. It's interesting. In my mind, it wasn't the thought that you'd be converting houses to stand-alone short-stay accommodation. It was more about getting the cabins, et cetera. But there's a range of different tourist offerings. I think it's important that we do build within our rural area, our hinterland, the increased opportunity for people to stay there. I know people very close here have had a weekend in Kin Kin at one of the beautiful short-stay houses in Kin Kin area. And it's a wonderful experience. And I think, as far as the use is concerned, I think it's a great use. It's in a very nice part of the world. I'm sure the visitors will love the road up. We're going through the creek crossing. And if they bring their mountain bikes, they can easily connect to the Noosa Trail by driving down Williams Road, down the Black Pinch.

00:24:00 And some of the nicest, steep rides are just in that locality. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any other councillors which would speak to the motion? Speak to the motion? Yes, sir. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener: I'm in favor of the motion. And I'm in favor of Councillor Lorentson's amendment. I think it's a really good idea to test this. When we accept a development application, we have one bite at the apple, it seems, to get it right. And by the 10 o'clock, maybe too noisy, and maybe sound does carry to other properties we don't know. So I think it's very reasonable to give up a year to make sure that we do not do something we regret in the future that all of the many other residents will regret around there. I do not believe that the interpretation of the town plan supports short-term stays in medium density or especially in low density.

00:25:00 But in this case, in rural residential on 98 hectares, I believe that... That town plan does support this use of the property as a short-term stay. It's very consistent with our desire to open up the hinterland to more business activities. Farming is very difficult out there. It's very difficult for people to maintain their property and get some sort of income out of it. We are supporting that part of it. We are supporting this as a part of our hinterland walking and biking strategy. And we would love accommodation out there for those people that are taking up our infrastructure that we're building. It's for Noosa residents, but it's also very much for tourists with tourists in mind to bring them to the hinterland. And as of right now, I think it's a fantastic opportunity for businesses to build in the hinterland and pull part of that congestion away from the beaches.

00:26:00 So I support this. Thank you, Tom. Speaker 2: Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: I concur with the thoughts of Councillor Stockwell and Wegener there. I think we do get some diversity in the form of accommodation offerings that we have. I think the hinterland offers an experience for a certain type of tourist market. I don't think we're being inundated with applications in the hinterland for this type of thing. It's also on a large property, and it'll be an experiential opportunity. I think it's a great opportunity. It's a great opportunity to undertake. So I support the motion, and I commend the amendments of both Councillors Stockwell and Lawrence with regard to noise and wheat opportunities on the block. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'd like to add also that I think it's, I support the amendments.

00:27:00 I think this is a new area that we're moving into out in the hinterland. As everyone has said, we want to support and we are supporting through infrastructure bills and investment of money into the hinterland. But at the same time, we also want to make sure that the desired outcomes for the amenity also of the hinterland, which is our environment, where people come for that experience, that we need to know that we're looking after that further down the track, given the Kin Kin quarry issues and decisions that were made in the 80s and how that's affecting the environment. I think it's good to be cautious around these things and test these development applications and short term use accommodations moving forward to ensure that we are getting the best social, environmental and economic outcomes as we're meant to as local council. And so I support this today. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Look, Councillor Lorentson has the right of reply.

00:28:00 I think councillors have eloquently summed up all the arguments. Thank you for supporting the motion. Nothing more to say. Thanks. Thank you. I'll put the motion all in favour. Councillor Spice, unanimous. Thank you. The next item is the application for reconfiguration of a lot, one lot into two lots and creation of an access easement at 23 Durema Crescent to Royver. Okay, this was also discussed extensively in last week's meeting. But there's been some developments since then. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone have a motion they'd like to move? Do you want to go straight to motion? The one on the screen there. I'll read it out. The council note the report by the coordinator planning to the Planning Environment Committee meeting date, date to June 2021, regarding application number RAL20 of 90019 for a development permit for reconfiguration of a lot, one into two lots, situated at 23 Durema Crescent,

00:29:00 Croyver. And request staff prepare a further report for the ordinary meeting date of 17 June 2021, including conditions for approval of the application. I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded. Seconded. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So councillors, it is rare that staff and councillors have different views to the extent that I have on this one in the way where, once again, looking at the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Code and what it means to appropriately achieve the outcomes and how we assess applications. I have forward to you some information based on a site inspection and the review of all the online information available. As I'm suggesting, we vary from staff recommendation. We do have to provide the grounds for that variance under the Act. And so I will not go through the great detail that I've provided in writing to you over the long period of time.

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 But I will just use the maps. So this map here we're looking at is the regional ecosystem maps produced by the State. The north star is roughly where the property is. And you can see the 12.34 that goes up to there, that is suggesting that this site was once a wetland ecosystem, with the longer description, 12.314, that's a higher eucalypt-dominated system that is adjacent. So if you scroll down, that's what was envisaged. So that's what is remnant now. So it shows the whole site's outside any remnant vegetation. It shows all the area that's mapped within the overlay code is not remnant vegetation. And it shows that the large tract behind is vulnerable. So vulnerable suggests there's a limited amount of that type of regional ecosystem left in Queensland. To the right is endangered. So there's even less of that. So what we can see here is from the mapping that while the current state mapping and our own mapping shows this as a watercourse, it is actually, in my opinion, it's all between those two remnants are farm dens. It's actually a degraded wetland system. And that's really important when you come to think about what a riparian buffer might want to achieve.

00:31:00 So if you move on. Furthering that, the state has mapped what they call groundwater dependent ecosystems. So this is suggesting that the vegetation, if it was to be natural, would be based on the groundwater characteristics. And it's the bottom of the valley. And it gives further evidence that this is a wetland rather than a waterway. It's a lentic rather than a lot of ecosystem. And that has inference on what is achievable or what is maybe impacted. The fact that it's been damned, and it's not just one. There's two dams on this property and several, I think, upstream from there, suggests that it is not, has got fairly low ecosystem values.

00:32:00 Our biodiversity overlays and wetland buffers are in part based on an assessment called the Waterways Assessment Report of 2017 that was done by the Mary Catherine Committee, Landcare and Assistance to Healthy Land and Waterways. And they've got a prioritisation matrix and scoring. And from me going through it on this, this particular site, it's a priority five, if you think that the wetland can be restored, which is debatable considering the level of disturbance, or priority seven, which is the lowest priority of a waterway management. So overall, in this case, we're not dealing with the sort of high quality, high ecosystem value ecosystem. So, and what we're looking at is a boundary that goes through along a dam wall. So if you keep on scrolling, that gives you the, probably the overarching view of the landscape, and you can see that the blue line suggests it's a waterway.

00:33:00 In fact, it's a thalweg, and there is no defined bed and banks downstream of this property. So to be a waterway, you have to have defined bed and banks. This one is a low valley bottom, which would normally be in a mellow local wetland with sedges and has been identified in state mapping in the wetland area as potentially habitat for the Wollum froglet, which is a listed vulnerable species, threatened species. To the left, however, that big remnant is also vulnerable, and the species in this property that you can see that the back part of the property is already regrown. There's several very old trees there, a number of scribbly gums, racemosa, and a number of some carpic bonifera, or turpentine, as well as a few other species. So it suggests it's a particular type of ecosystem, which is called 12-3-14a, which has both koala habitat value, and also has, is known to be the habitat for the threatened eucalyptus conglomerata.

00:34:00 So in terms of achievement, achieving that overall biodiversity outcome, there is lots of opportunity for improvement here. And to me, that's what we have to look at in this application. Can we improve and get towards the outcomes stipulated by the Biodiversity Overlay Code, rather than look at where the mapping is? The mapping is indicative at the strategic level, at the site level, there is perhaps other opportunities. So if we go on, the next map just shows that this area is in the koala priority area, which is a blue hatch line, but it's not a core habitat. It's not mapped because it's not a remnant and it's having significant koala values, but it does show that increasing connectivity towards the rear of the property will have benefits of, you know, achieving that outcome with increased connectivity.

00:35:00 So there's two performance outcomes in the Biodiversity Overlay Code. One says P05, development is designed and operated to maintain and enhance connectivity between and across ecologically important areas and connect habitat and support unimpeded and safe movement of terrestrial and aquatic fauna. And P06, which we were just talking about, I won't read them out again, but that's about the biodiversity ecosystem values of wetlands, waterways and adjacent riparian zones are protected, including a range of different strategies. So what I suggested is the fact that a boundary goes through an existing farm dam across the wetland, does not have any significant ecological impact. If we were to identify the house site at the front of the block, which is the most logical place, the chances of having an extra household or of having any significant impacts, there's certainly a groundwater dominated system will take decades to

00:36:00 get from the front of this property to the back. And the improvements by rehabilitating this area will actually have a much higher buffer. However, I'm suggesting that re-apart linking up to the remnant, that that would add significant benefit from the perspective of achieving the outcome of the biodiversity overlay code. And hence, it's my view that in all these things, we should look at achieving the planning outcome. But we have to be very mindful of not creating precedent. So that's why we're just at the extent to write out all the thoughts because there'll be other things that we need to look at. There are other times where a boundary or boundaries through a watercourse will have impact and will be a counterproductive development. In this case, I think there is a high likelihood that if we can condition the development appropriately, that there's a much stronger chance of achieving the outcomes of the code.

00:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just a question Brian, did you mention Thalwood? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did. That was for you. Councillor Wilkie: Could you explain what the Thalwood is for those that don't know? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So Thalwood, where they mark the waterline is actually the centre of the valley. So normally the centre of a watercourse is the Thalwood, but also in this case, because the Westland is just the lowest point of the landscape. And I suppose one thing I didn't mention when I'm looking at this site, the four metre contour, which you can't quite pick up, it's just near that blue line on the right and just on the other side. That is the depression that would be most logically, you can see four metres there and on the other side. That in my opinion is where the wetland would have been. And that's where in high flows, you'd probably have that as a ponded wetland. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. And like me, I'm sure all councillors are open to what fluvial geomorphology maps can reveal about the great Atlantic ecosystems and Thalwoods. So thank you. All those are just for you. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, I have a question. On page 26 of the report, it's noted that considerable time

00:38:00 was spent with the applicant to explore alternatives. Was such an option explored? Speaker 7: No, the options that officers explored was looking to see whether they could subdivide the site without placing a boundary through the waterway. So that was with lot sizes. Okay. Yeah. So it wasn't this option that's now proposed by Councillor Stockwell wasn't explored, just the other. Councillor Lorentson: My next question is, we've got Councillor Stockwell's opinion. We've got a council recommendation. And we also have the applicant who submits that the proposal they put to council offers substantial benefit to the waterways and ecosystems. Who's right? Speaker 5: I'm right for that, Councillor. That's up to you to determine. Councillor Lorentson: So my next question is, are we outside our jurisdictional power to be making such reports?

00:39:00 Speaker 7: Well, I think council needs to make a decision on this application. It's a code accessible application. So we have a timeframe in which to make it, otherwise it's deemed approved. So officers will put forward their recommendation and an assessment against the scheme. But it's really for council to decide. I think as Councillor Stockwell's indicated, and officers have as well, we need to be careful in this one, because officers can say it will take precedent. Councillor Stockwell's obviously presented why in his opinion it won't, that there's good reason for this to happen. Councillor Wilkie: So if this motion before us was carried today on Thursday night, which is when the final decision was made, we'd have a report which would contain all the conditions under which that subdivision

00:40:00 would be allowed to proceed or not. And we would have the original motion that we wish to, recommendation if we wish to fall back on that, if we're not satisfied and the conditions are sufficient. Speaker 7: Yeah, and based on the discussion that council have had and Councillor Stockwell's position on this, we would have some reasons why we were going to vary from council officers' decision. So that's clear to try and prevent it being precedent. Councillor Lorentson: If the recommendation is approved, Kerry, will council consider conditions or consider how much, how large the riparian buffer needs to be, and whether or not the waterway needs to be more than 15 metres each side. Is that something that you will be considering as part of possible changes to relevant conditions?

00:41:00 Speaker 7: Well, officers' recommendation is refusal. So our position hasn't changed. We would try and base conditions on the discussions that we've had. So we would try and base the conditions on the discussions that we've had. And I think that we should have a discussion in council as to what council would like to see. Councillor Wegener: I think that the big question is precedent because, you know, we look at this and it seems clear that Councillor Stockwell has a great idea and that's what we want to see. But when it comes to the overarching effect of this, this is a question to you, Mr. CEO, what will the precedent be for the person next door, for the people at Kin Kin, for people all All over the place who have a similar situation would love to cut their block in half because, you know, that sets the value up of property. It changes the, does this have the potential to change the property values, you know, in similar circumstances around the Shire with this precedent? Speaker 5: Good question.

00:42:00 The answer to that really lies in on what basis council would agree to approve this application and what conditions. And whether those same context or that same scenario would exist in future applications. So one of the things, probably coming back to Councillor Lorentson's question, is that if the council wishes to make a decision on a planning application which is contrary to the staff recommendation, it needs to set out the reasons why and what's the basis for that. So that's why those reasons need to be very carefully articulated and set the parameters, if you like, about why this decision would be made. So that it would be different to what has been recommended by staff and that would then hopefully or potentially then quarantine that precedent aspect to the only those set of circumstances. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. And that can be done? Yes. Speaker 5: Well, it's not that it can't be done, it has to be done. Councillor Lorentson: It has to be done. Excellent. Yep. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question.

00:43:00 Yes, Karen. These proposals that are being put forward, with the priorities A5 and 6 around the benefits, to the wetland being rehabilitated moving forward, will that come under the covenant? You know we talked about last week about the covenant link to this and it goes to the title? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Perhaps that's a question to me because they haven't recommended it. Councillor Finzel: Oh, oh. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My intent would be the area I've identified as the environmental rehabilitation area would all be under covenant. Councillor Finzel: It's all under that covenant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's my intention, yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: The property owners are comfortable with that? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I didn't negotiate conditions but it was suggested that they thought that was the best place to rehabilitate when we're on the site. Councillor Lorentson: Brian, a question to you then. Would they need to fully plant out and rehabilitate the entire area or is it just parts of the area? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the, to me, I did go into a little bit in the information I gave you yesterday,

00:44:00 but the back part would probably have benefit from some augmented canopy species. But then as long as you're keeping stock out and you're controlling the exotic weeds, the nest will be natural succession. It won't be hugely successful. In the wetlands, I'm just suggesting it's the understory that needs to really be upgraded because it is already going back towards a more natural state. But yeah, so the details of the rehabilitation plan or the covenant, that will probably be where that's not there. But to me, I've tried to suggest that it's not necessary to re-vegetate this multi-stratum vegetation. Just that the back we're saying is koalas, so planting some koala trees, planting that, having an area where the threatened species, eucalyptus conglomerata, can be planted, adds

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 a bit of diversity. To me, they're the sort of benefits you get from doing it. Councillor Lorentson: So question I asked of Kerry before. I'll be better directed to you, Brian. In your opinion, is it necessary for the waterway to be more than 15 metres on each side? Is the large riparian buffer that's been conditioned at the moment, is that unnecessary in your opinion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to be really specific. Because it's a groundwater dominated system and because it's so degraded, any further width is not going to help. Councillor Lorentson: It's going to add wetland value. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's why I said when I was on site, I saw a slight variation in topography, which in these areas makes a difference to what sort of tree is growing. And you can see on site that you go from the Melaleuca dominated community very quickly into the eucalyptus. So to me, to get an ecosystem recovery, it's really only that corridor between the two four metre contours that roughly reflects where probably you would have had this nice

00:46:00 wetland. It's not just up the road on the eastern side of Jirrima Crescent, there's a lovely remnant stand. And to me, in terms of water quality, because you've got grass, the overland flow is not going to be giving sediments into the wetland. And with the groundwater, the most important area to denitrify is actually in that area that's wetted right near the wetland. So having lots of tree roots and everything helps with carbon to denitrify those groundwater flows. Councillor Finzel: Fantastic. Brian, just given we've heard a lot about your opinion again yesterday, what informs your opinion around this? Do you have qualifications? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm an expert. I've got a PhD, a Masters in Ecosystem Wetland and Aquatic Ecology and Rehabilitation of Wetlands. So the people who did the study, for example, are people who would probably look to me for

00:47:00 advice. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And question to staff. Do we have anyone on staff that is able to have qualifications that match this to be able to provide expert advice? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think it's... Get up to me. I think in terms of the quality... I think that's the question I was going to ask about matching. In terms of the back part, our ecologists would have better qualifications than me. I'm only talking about the wetland waterways area, which is my specialty. So yeah. Yeah. Aquatic Ecology is my thing, whereas I have had Masters that include Restoration Ecology as well. But Connor is very... Had very good skills in this. So yeah. Councillor Finzel: I guess I'm trying to establish why then in the report or communications with staff that was this discussed throughout those pre-lodgement discussions? Or... Speaker 5: I think Kerry had answered that. The pre-lodgement discussions really played a strong role. I don't know whether or not one of them appraised that subdivision layout could be amended

00:48:00 to stay out of this area in terms of where these boundaries would go. That was what the conversations were in the pre-lodgement. Or in the NB assessment process. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I acknowledge the staff concern about precincts, hence why I've tried to go to an extent to identify the grounds, which the CEO has mentioned is trying to keep the degree of sets of precincts to similar contexts in the future. Like if this was a remnant wetland, there'd be no way I'd be going down this path. Councillor Wilkie: Just for the purpose of moving this debate on, I'll speak to the motion. This is... It's highly unusual to have... And it's never done lightly to ask staff to present an alternative report recommending approval and never recommended refusal. It's... It's not done lightly and with the deepest respect to staff. I'm open to the report coming to us at the Thursday meeting so we can go through the

00:49:00 conditions. Could we have someone like... It would be great if we had someone like Connor Neville available to give his expert opinion on that evening. Because we will still have the staff recommendation to fall back upon if we're not satisfied that the ecological values can be protected suitably by the alternative recommendation as opposed to the original recommendation by staff. But I'm open to the report coming on Thursday night so we can see the conditions under which this may be approved by the council. And I would be very interested in what the staff have to say about that, including Colin Neville. So it's only for the purpose of keeping an open mind. And I respect... This is... We're asking you to do something under duress.

00:50:00 Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. I'll ask a question. I'll ask a couple of questions if I may. First, before speaking. Mr. CEO, the recommendation before or the motion before us requests a further report, including conditions for approval of the application. My no means means that this approval is forthcoming. It means that we've got a set of conditions that we can consider again Thursday evening. Is that correct? That's right. That's right. So as Councillor Wilkie alluded to there, we've got a... We'll have two options to consider. A question for staff. One of the things that we discussed at the... Or was discussed at the planning committee was one of the reasons for refusal of this is because a fence line, as I understood it, was considered... Trying to get the words right. A fence line could be considered development under a development application and hence could

00:51:00 have clearing either side. That was one of the reasons that staff were reluctant to make this approval. If there's an opportunity here to place this under some sort of... Some element of covenant as the application... As the applicant has suggested here or other protection mechanism and rehabilitation mechanism for the backlots here without a fence line going through as part of that development approval, would that be something that staff would be amenable to? Speaker 7: So at the planning and environment committee, officers were concerned that a covenant could not prohibit a fence being built on the boundary. The legal advice is that a covenant can do so. It can prevent a fence being built. Officers still remain concerned about that because I think people feel they have the right to build a fence on the boundary and that there may be pressure down the track

00:52:00 for council to permit that to occur. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. I'll speak to the motion now. Having visited site with Councillor Stockwell and spoken to the applicant, the applicant has... One of the things the council may not see or may not be aware of, there is a mobile phone tower in lease A if you look at page 21 of the development of the report. One of the things that the applicant was very adamant to insist when that was placed on the block was that the access easement for that was to utilise the existing driveway access for that was to utilise the existing driveway access. So this property could have had a road right down the middle of it to access that easement. But due to the diligence of the applicant, the resident, they insisted that other alternative

00:53:00 means of accessing that lease in. So that gives me a heart that this applicant has the environment foremost in their thoughts as part of this. Also, having spoken to them, they were... They appeared to be very adamant about this. They appeared open to at least looking at other opportunities. And probably haven't, through the period of this, even with a couple of suggestions, hadn't looked at all the options and all the alternatives. But I'm pleased that they proposed an environmental covenant. And I don't think some further opportunities there for environmental protections would be something that they would not be welcoming. As Councillor Stockwell said, the value of the waterway here is the value of the waterway. It was challenging. It was quite weed-infested. It was two man-made constructions with a roadway and pipework across to... So it's more of an overflow with flooding than a generally flowing waterway from what

00:54:00 I saw. That was my opinion as well. And obviously obstructed by weeds in some areas for water flow, particularly Singapore, Daisy, in the northern portion of the property. I see that we can get a mutually... We can get a mutually beneficial outcome here if we work or try to work towards this. And I said, I haven't seen the conditions that staff could bring for approval to this. And I'm at least prepared with an open mind to have that option placed before us, because I think this is an opportunity here to enhance connectivity and have some environmental outcomes without impact. Thank you.

00:55:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor de Moorraph... Councillor Wegener: Can I just ask a couple of questions. Here you can see that the... I can see everyone talking about how we need to solve this problem. It's a very, very bad experience. And, as a matter of fact, we're making a lot of money on that at the moment. I completely overlooked that, that there's a tower on the property and the road runs right through the middle. Councillor Jurisevic: No, it runs on the left-hand side of 11 there, Tom. You can see the easement running up the side. It doesn't run through the middle. It was proposed to run through the middle of the property as I understand it, but the owners of the property spoke to the tower developers at the time, I'm not sure whose it is, and suggested the alternative there, which was upgraded to facilitate access to the tower on the left-hand side of it. Councillor Wegener: So that's a much bigger road on the left-hand side. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a more prevalent or prominent access because it not only services the property next door, but does lead to all-weather access to the tower as opposed to going through a wetland.

00:56:00 Councillor Wegener: So there's a much more substantial bridge just like off the property. Councillor Jurisevic: I would say a bridge, but certainly some pipe work underneath the access track. Councillor Wegener: In order to put in a tower, there's pretty big trucks that roll over that area. So site 11 doesn't get the tower, site 10 gets the tower. The tower is still on site 10. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The road before the tower is on the other side of site 11, which there's quite a bit of driving going up and down those roads to get to the towers. Which is actually on property 46. On property 46. The right. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Now, Tom, do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: I'm just asking questions about that.

00:57:00 Questions about the towers, that's just something I didn't see, and having experience with these things, there's a lot of, I'm just wondering if that changes. So go ahead, I'll speak to it later. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right, so we've had Councillor Stockwell, Wilkie and Jurisevic speak to the motion. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to add, I'm looking forward to the report back from the staff. I think it's good to debate this. I think, you know, fundamentally things have changed since COVID. I promote more people around the table and getting good input from everyone. I have spoken to the applicants, they are more than happy to work with council and everyone to get outcomes that, you know, bring rehabilitation, they want to work with us, and I think looking forward to a future that we have to carefully consider all options on the table. So it'll be good to have your report and bring more information back for us to consider, especially given that the staff explored other options and not necessarily.

00:58:00 So we're the ones that have been raised today in Dr. Pinck, Stockwell's, Councillor Stockwell's opinion. I was about to say doctor because we've come upon this on the job. Anyway, so yes, thank you. I'm looking forward to that. Councillor Wegener: Okay. You want to speak to it? No, you go. Okay. It seems that we've, the science that Councillor Stockwell is referring to seems to be pretty watertight, that the question now moves in reality, in these narrow circumstances, are we changing the town plan through the council decision versus the democratic process of voting it and going through the process? So, I would, on Thursday night or before that, I'd like to speak to you about that. I'd like to speak to you about what it is, exactly what we're doing here as a council, as a new council. I'm not quite sure of the legal impact of going against the staff recommendation. What are the implications of that and what are the implications to all the other properties?

00:59:00 And as the CEO said, it has to do with how we write and the conditions we put on it. But again, this is all pretty new to me and I want to be sure to get this right. So, I hope, I look forward to speaking with you and if any other councillors would like to join me in, you know, going over this with Kerry and Patrick, that'd be fine. But I look forward to, you know, learning more before Thursday night. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Yeah, just further to what Tom's just said, that's my only red flag. Will this case set any precedents for future development? That aside, I'd like to thank Councillor Stockwell for the extensive work he's put in, in providing this report. And I want to just put out there that there's no dispute. The applicant and all of us around the table, we're all got a mutual goal. And the mutual goal is achieving best environmental outcomes.

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 I've spoken to you. I've spoken to the applicants. We've all received correspondence from the applicants. I thank them for their flexibility and willingness and their genuine, their genuine intent to achieve the best environmental outcomes. So, I'm looking forward to the report on Thursday. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? Councillor Wilkie: No. I'll put the motion to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. It's carried. Councillors, there's a couple of items, three and four, which involve legal advice, which we may wish to discuss in a confidential session. If it's all right with you. Yes? Speaker 5: Yeah, I'll move it. The Chair can actually do it. I can do it? Yeah, the Chair can decide to shift items from the order of business if you want to. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm proposing we move items three and four to the end of the agenda and deal with them

01:01:00 then, and make the decision in open session after the competition session, if that's okay with you. So, Kerry and Patrick, the legislation will need you. And at this juncture, if it's okay, five-minute break, please. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

01:09:00 Thank you. OK, welcome back, everybody. We're up to item five, which is the Noosa Bushland Reserve Strategic Management Plan, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Welcome, Craig and Michael, councillors. Again, this was discussed quite extensively last week. If someone cared to move to a motion, we can have questions as part of that as we go.

01:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: At the meeting last Tuesday we were talking about the desirability of including some words to reflect, I suppose to provide an explanation in terms of the prioritization from a coastal management perspective and it's something that will occur in the Coastal Portfield Manager Plan rather than this plan. Have you had a chance to draft those up or is it something that you'll need till Speaker 8: Thursday? We've drafted up some wording but we're unable to do it in time to present a further report to this committee so if Council wants to consider that revised wording it'll have to be as part of a further report to the Deputy Mayor Stockwell: ordinary meeting. That's fine. Alright. So can I move accordingly? Yeah. There may be further consideration until Thursday's ordinary meeting? I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Do we need to give a reason in order to give start time to it? Yeah, to a further report.

01:11:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't know if there's any other issues that you wish to raise? Speaker 7: Do you want to specify? Addressing... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Addressing... Addressing... The... The... The... The... The... The mechanisms by which coastal foreshore will be prioritized for management action. Councillor Jurisevic: That's good to know. Coastal foreshore, is that the correct wording? Councillor Wilkie: Coastal foreshore reserves? Yes. Bush... Bush reserves? Bush land reserves. Yeah. Beach reserves... Bush land reserves. Bush land reserves rather than the beach itself. Speaker 4: That's... That's why I was trying to clarify. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I'll second that.

01:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Moves, Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Okay, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As I said, we received a range of submissions from those groups questioning why they didn't get as high a priority as they thought was required. I think staff explained that the prioritisation was in the draft strategic management plan based on ecosystem values, and that even if we did include a range of ecosystem service functions in the prioritisation, that because those coastal foreshore bushland reserves have so many pressures in the way of existing weed problems and neighbouring impacts, etc, that the likelihood of success of returning those ecosystems to an undisturbed type system is low, and therefore it's unlikely to change the priority in this plan.

01:13:00 But we recognise that the importance of maintaining native vegetation on our dunes is critical for our response to the threat of coastal storms and erosion. So putting a bit of an explanation. So putting a bit of an explanation around that is what is proposed so that it's clear. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for the CEO. Mr CEO, with regard to consistency across all of our management plans and actions, shouldn't they have an element of consistency in the messaging they're having? If one plan says one thing and another plan prioritises a different area, shouldn't the prioritisation become consistent across our plan? Speaker 5: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So to further that, should there be reference, and I've had this conversation with you, Craig, just our declaration with climate emergency, we should align also with the Noosa Biosphere.

01:14:00 I'm still questioning the criteria and the amount that was weighted for social value. And the question I ask of you today, Craig, is have we factored in the importance or the interconnectedness of people and the environment? And is that fairly reflected with a 12% weighting in the criteria under social values? Speaker 8: Look, certainly social and cultural values were both weighed in, which combined to 22% with cultural values as well. Cognizant in our mind, this is a plan for our bushland reserves. The bushland reserve network occupies less than 4% of Noosa Council and is pretty much the only land that we have specifically dedicated for environmental purposes. So in that sense, it's not designed to be a biosphere plan where we're weighting equally the role of people and the environment. This is very much for the very small amount of land that we've dedicated for its environmental values.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 So we felt when the prioritisation was done, it was appropriate on these plans to more highly prioritise environmental values and biodiversity than it was for social and cultural values, but they weren't ignored. Councillor Lorentson: Asset protection, that's not part of... So I'm going back to the bush carers on the eastern beaches. Their role is providing green buffers for coastal erosion and climate change. But it's also the opportunity we have not to retreat from our obligations as trustees for our beaches, which is a major asset. How have we addressed that asset protection or is that covered in infrastructure management plans or should it be looked at under this plan? Speaker 8: It's a really good point you raise, Councillor Lorentson.

01:16:00 When we prioritise for our day-to-day management of bushland reserves, we don't generally consider asset protection, but it goes to the point of how I don't believe this is inconsistent with the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan, because where that is looking at the way we're protecting all our assets around the eastern beaches, this plan is only a small part of that. So if we compare the way we prioritise our bushland management, for example, on Noosa North Shore versus the eastern beaches, the foreshores on the Noosa North Shore have an opportunity for retreat. The ones on the eastern beaches don't. I think that's a really strong case to put extra resources into the eastern beaches, whether that's just vegetation management. The Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan identifies a range of actions to build resilience, including managing beach accesses, managing encroachments. Vegetation covers only one of them. So it's not expected that this plan will do with all aspects of those coastal reserves because it's dealing with a prioritisation across a very large and diverse network. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: The question following on from the question I asked the CEO

01:17:00 is that once things like the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan are complete, will that mean a revision of the Reserve Strategic Management Plan to align more closely with that? Or would we just be referring to the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan or Coastal Foreshore Bushland Reserves? Speaker 8: I think a key action out of the chat, can I call it the chat? I think everyone knows what we're talking about, is the development of a Coastal Foreshore Management Plan, which deals with those specific issues that are related to those eastern beaches. Councillor Jurisevic: So it'll be a supplement to this just for the coastal, in your mind? Speaker 8: That's right. The way the Bushland Strategic Management Plan is set out is there are certain locations that require specific management plans. They are generally where our normal ecological principles and where the interests of the public clash. Examples are heritage parklands, where the current strategic plan calls for a detailed management plan for that site, as it does at Noosa Banks, as it does for the whole eastern beaches.

01:18:00 And in the current draft budget add to the community, there is a budget there to develop a Coastal Foreshore Management Plan to deal with all those things falling out of the chat specific to the fortunes in the next financial year. Councillor Jurisevic: So what we're likely to see as a result of this deferment is that clarity coming through within the Reserve Management, Bushland Reserve Strategic Management Plan to refer to. Speaker 8: The intent is to explain that more clearly in the document. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: One of the quotes that was kicked around here months ago was, you can't improve something unless we can measure it. You know that I've been requesting measuring, the constant monitoring of the beaches, you know, through a monitoring system. And one of those could be drones or whatever, to look at how the coastal erosion is going, how the planting is going to make sure that more paths aren't being put in there,

01:19:00 that it's not being destroyed. I don't see it in the plan here, but is that on the cards coming up? Speaker 5: Tom, this plan is about all of our bushland. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I know. I'm just looking at the beaches. Not about the possible issues of that site. Yeah. That's a microcosm of what you... Speaker 8: It is. And the rationale for having a specific management plan for that whole eastern beaches would be to deal with things that are specific to the eastern beaches. It's not to say that technology can't be used across our whole network. I think there's a range of different uses beyond just the eastern beaches where we can use technology to better, I guess, prioritise the way we do work. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. Yeah. Further to the question, thank you for breaking that because that was the next line of questioning I had. Unfortunately, the PDF takes three days to load on my iPad and I can't go to the specific pages associated with it. But in the... No, no, I need the... No, yeah, that's not a lot. Thank you. The diagram... Measurement and clarity around that,

01:20:00 I refer to page 36 in the strategic plan and Heritage Park in particular when looking at the diagrams here around 2010 and 2018. Taking out the red areas, which is the parkland, as opposed to the bushland, even though the two have a synergy, there appears to be... And this is around the element of measurement and acknowledgement of the... Acknowledging success or otherwise of the work we're undertaking. Over those eight years, would you... There appears to be a less... I'm trying to think of the word. A lessening of the biodiversity or the environmental outcomes of an area like Heritage Park there, that there is less green, OK, take out the red,

01:21:00 and more yellow and brown areas, which are very poor and moderate condition of bushland. How do we... Through this strategic plan, how do we measure success and how do we ensure that we're working towards improvement and not further degradation of challenging areas like Heritage Park? Speaker 8: I mean, to the point of Councillor Wignert, we need to be able to measure and the bushland operational assessments or the methodology we've chosen to try and measure. We need to take one of those essentially quantitative mapping and turn them into a qualitative figure, which we can do when we look at it across the whole network. When you look at those two maps, there's a bit of a mix. Some areas have improved and some areas have declined. But even just as we look at that, for example, we currently have our Works for Queensland team working for us. They've been with us about seven months. It was this mapping through the BOAs that specifically led us to target key areas

01:22:00 within Heritage Park for Singapore daisy control on the basis of this measurement we've been able to do. And if we can continue to do that every five years from all of our key sites, we'll have a lot better ability when we have resources to be able to target them into the key areas. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, we start targeting the very poors and the pools and we work our way. We should gradually build to a map that shows at least moderate, good and very good increasing over time. Speaker 8: Certainly our principle is to start from our strengths and work out. At Heritage Park, it's a tier one reserve, so it's been identified as having very high ecological values and will need a fair bit of further investment over the next few years to see continued improvement. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element from memory that gets mentioned there is illegal dumping, so green waste dumping within reserves and management of that. Is there much being placed in that regard

01:23:00 within the plan? Speaker 6: Following the endorsement of this plan, it'll signal to us that it's actually a priority under this plan now and we will just continue to do our best that we have the resources to be able to get our campaign on at tier one sites. So there will be a lot more of adjacent landholders and neighbours harm interaction. So we should start seeing a lot more of an improvement in that space. Councillor Jurisevic: I would take it that's an acknowledgement that a lot of the weeds we're seeing are garden escapies and we could see that better manage the problem by prevention in the first place than curing in the final place. Thank you, Michael.

01:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Craig, a quick question. Acquisition of new land via the environmental levy. Has that been considered and how does council propose to manage given that already we've got 178 bushland reserves with an operational staff of six people and a budget of 2.4? Has that been considered as part of the reserve as part of the plan? Speaker 8: Not as part of this plan. This plan is how we manage the land that we've got. So obviously purchases for purchases of land for environmental purposes are driven partly by our environmental strategy priorities and also by the conservation land guide which identifies which blocks are there for purchase. Whenever we bring in ongoing maintenance costs of it are as part of that decision. So for example we'd be much less inclined to bring a block forward to council

01:25:00 to purchase if there was going to be really significant future ongoing maintenance costs or would balance that against just how high the ecological values are for the site. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I add an element to that? There was a change at the way council manages those land acquisitions during the last term of council from memory where part of the spend of land acquisitions and part of the spend of environment levy was to ensure that a management plan was done for the acquisitions for the first five years so that we did land management practices so that when it did come back to council reserves as part of the acquisition the land management had been undertaken or at least a plan of attack. Speaker 8: Yes it depends on the block but any block bought through the environment levy is funded through the environment levy for its maintenance. Which it wasn't before we made that change. No which it wasn't because that was why there was a concern about us essentially creating a rod for our backs over many years of purchasing land and relying on rates to be able to manage them. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion.

01:26:00 We have a motion to refer to Thursday night for a further report which will articulate the way in which the bushland foreshore reserves will be catered for under the coastal hazards adaptation plan and the coastal foreshore management plan which has been budgeted for in the proposed budget and we can discuss it further then if you would like Councillor Klein in favour of this motion to move it forward to Thursday night and get the further information. Councillor Klein. Speaker 5: Councillor Klein. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Any other councillors to speak to the motion? I'll put the motion at the heart of the category. I do want to say Deputy Mayor Stockwell: because I think there is some thinking to be done before Thursday and coming out of the question of Councillor Jurisevic and the CEO's response and coming from the question on social values and the thing we've got two options on Thursday. One is we are happy with adding a paragraph or two to the plan to explain where we're heading and the other option is to go back and review

01:27:00 from a policy perspective whether the prioritisation in the draft is the way we wish to go and the draft financial sustainability policy this year has been proposed to say that we invest in natural areas or natural assets based on their biodiversity value and their ecosystem service value and this plan is saying we in our bushland reserves we're putting a 47% weighting on the biodiversity value. Then we're adding some ecosystem service type concepts in there so ecosystem services can be provisioning you know things like food production wood and fuel in this case water so there is a score in the prioritisation about water weight and that's saying there's inherent value of clean water through natural areas. It's looking at supporting services which is about soil formation and things like habitat provision which once again is biodiversity orientated so you one of the options is to say okay that's one way to prioritise

01:28:00 but then there's the other two types of ecosystem services that at the moment are getting a combination of 27% or something like that of value and they're the cultural services the spiritual aesthetic educational recreational value and what we're saying is well maybe if that should be equally as high and then the last lot which is regulating services climate regulation flood regulation water purification that to me is where the real thinking has to be. Historically yeah retaining the biodiversity of Noosa has been really important but going forward investing in climate regulation is addressing the existential stress to humanity. So we have to be really clear either in the words or whether we ask some staff on Thursday night to go back and we revisit this from a whole policy perspective about those fundamental questions in the prioritisation which are reflected by the numbers besides the different criteria we've currently got in there

01:29:00 and whether we want to go into that process again to come up with a different solution. Potentially it might come up with the same answers. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? Carrying it unanimously Item 6 Bushland Reserve Strategic Fire Management Plan Peter. Thank you. Thank you Michael. Speaker 8: Okay. Are you going to be taking steps? Yes. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Again this was was debated and discussed quite extensively last week. Council's keen to move straight to the motion. We can have questions as we go if it needs to. I don't think Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've been Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Joe. I'll move. I'll move. Thank you. Moved Councillor Jurisdict, seconded Councillor Lorison. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Trying to bring up that thing and see if I've had any

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 comments in there that I don't don't recall having too many comments with regard to this. I thought it was a fairly comprehensive and considered plan. Fire Management obviously has some challenges to the future. We're looking at changes in our financing of fire managing in our budget currently and being clarity and getting a greater engagement of the entire population, not just the rural regional areas. And I'm sure many areas such as the Peregian residents will be appreciative of the amount of effort that we need in fire management to protect the Peregian community. Now I commend staff for their work on this. I didn't have too many issues with it personally. And I'd like to hear the comments of my fellow councillors before I close. Councillor Wilkie: I have some questions. I wasn't present when this was discussed on Monday. But in the peer review report, it says it must be noted that the reviewers received no information after multiple requests from the Queensland Royal Fire Service in relation to the local area QFIS.

01:31:00 This is a bushfire management plan. My first question is, how has that situation, in your opinion, impacted on the outcomes we're getting here when the peer reviewer didn't get the input he requested from the rural fire service? Speaker 4: It would have been nice to get some feedback from QFIS, but I don't think it's that critical. Yes. Particularly around the fire trial standards, because there's always been a bit of debate about how actually wide fire trials should be across their network. So that sort of particular feedback would have been nice. But I think that's something we can continue to pursue offline with QFIS. And through that peer review process, I think what we've come up with is probably a fair and reasonable outcome.

01:32:00 In terms of the fire trial standards, we did a review of all the different standards across Australia. And this seems to fit with those standards. Councillor Wilkie: And I'll catch up with you offline. Were you able to find out the reason for the breakdown in that communication? Sure. Speaker 4: I think they're just very busy, but I think that's probably... Councillor Wilkie: And the other one was, consider amending Council's matrix to include the consequences of multiple fatalities and contemplate another matrix which better suits us. Which, if I understand correctly, he feels we're underestimating the consequence and the possibility of. Entrapment and deaths resulting. Yeah. So did you take his advice and amend the matrix to reflect that? Speaker 4: We haven't amended the matrix in that respect. Again, we're basing our information on the state fire hazard mapping. In terms of our reserves aren't highly visited compared to some places like Noosa National Park, for example.

01:33:00 A lot of our visitation is really around the periphery. We don't get a large number of people in the centre of our bushland reserve network. So I guess we made that call. We felt that our assessment was quite good. Ground knowledge. Yeah. But also noting that the way the fire management plan is set up is that we do an annual review of the risk assessment process. So over time, as we implement the fire mitigation measures, we expect those risk assessment calculations to change. So it's certainly something we can consider in the next phase of the risk assessment. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Having said that, Peter, one of the things about our reserves is a number of our reserves are relatively small, but they are in amongst suburbia. Yep. The ones in Noosa Park, Lake Heritage Park, Satonay, Harlow Street and the like.

01:34:00 Fire management is still an element of need in those areas. I mean, how do we manage those challenges in those tight confines, if you like? Speaker 4: Yeah, that's correct. It is a small area of land compared to private land in National Park. As mentioned previously, it's only 4% of the Shire. But the challenge is that these reserves are very closely integrated with our reserves. So it's not just urban areas. And the risk assessment process we've gone through is those combination of mitigation methods. So it's things like, you know, the fire trail standards, the planned burns, the fuel reduction zones where needed. So we've tried to look at that interface the best we can. Again, relying on state mapping and say, these are the highest risk areas and this is the top of mitigation.

01:35:00 We have to put in those place. Councillor Jurisevic: The other thing with the number of air reserves is they abut or rejoin state reserves or national parks and the like. So I would assume that when fire management is undertaking in those areas that we would try to add that connectivity when and if it's possible to undertake. Speaker 4: It is rather a mixed bag of networks, if you like. Because some areas are very closely, like they bought a national park and large protected areas. And then there's other reserves that are isolated and out on their own. So it's a real mixture. So we had to go through each particular reserve and try and, you know, assess what the risks were based on that connectivity. And the possibility of fire moving through from protected area into a natural area, into a bushland reserve and then into the urban interface. Councillor Jurisevic: The other question I have, based on the peer review report from the draft that we had originally.

01:36:00 What changes, if any, have been made as a result of the peer review report to the plan before us today? Speaker 4: Oh, I think in the council report I referenced nine changes, is it, from the peer review? So they were the ones in the table. Councillor Jurisevic: Attachment two, the summary. No, that was the public consultation element. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did the peer reviewer pick up the inconsistency in capitalisation in your photo of capital? Oh, peer review, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Point five. Point five is where you picked those up, Peter. Is that it? Page 78? Yeah. Speaker 4: So nine changes were made. So we did take on board the peer review comments. Yeah. And they're highlighted in the FMP. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I guess because they weren't sort of in red track changes, I didn't read them. Speaker 4: As I read the report, I sort of. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 4: My apologies for that. That's all right. In my ambition to get the fire management plan done, I just went in and changed it, and then I realised I needed highlighting, so, yeah.

01:37:00 Okay. The main changes are in the action plan, though. So the action plan is like, you know, 70, 80%. Councillor Jurisevic: The principles didn't change as you see. Yeah. The actual specifics. Yeah. With regard to . Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Peter, have we addressed in the plan processes that look at the impacts and implications of bushfires to protected fauna and species? I'm thinking this as I'm thinking of the Sunrise development application. Does this piece of work, does it impact on? Yeah. On any changes we may be able to make in looking at mapping, protected species mapping and overlays in council? Because every bushfire changes ecosystems, as we've sort of discovered with the Sunrise

01:38:00 development application. Is there an opportunity in this plan where we can include processes to address any potential changes to mapping? Speaker 4: It does do that by default, if you like. Okay. Because the planned burn program, for example, is based on the broad vegetation groups. So they're the different types, different types of vegetation require different fire regimes. Fire regimes. So if we can best utilise our planned burn program to bring it back to a BBG type, that will support that. Probably the challenge again is in, particularly around urban areas, the more populated areas, the chance of getting more fire than what you'd like and actually changing the ecology of that site is quite high. So that's something that's, you know, sometimes out of our control, you know, from indiscriminate

01:39:00 fires, whatever. But by trying to model the base, the habitat that we're, you know, trying to achieve through our planned burn program, that will support those species. The next step we could take, and it doesn't address it in this plan, is to look at some specific species, you know. So you can look at fire indicator species. An example of that would be, say, ground parrots on the North Shore. So we've got some very good research, very good information on how to manage that sort of vegetation and habitat based on research that's been done. So a fire-dependent species, we could, you know, try and, I guess, prioritise that area for works and try and maintain that habitat. Unfortunately we don't have all of the research information we need for all the other species. There's 116 listed threatened species in Noosa Shire, so it's a matter then of deciding,

01:40:00 well, what's our priority? You know, do we focus on ground parrots, do we focus on other species? In a way, koalas are also dependent on, you know, a certain type of habitat. Having eucalypt forest, which again is very much a fire-dependent sort of environment. Councillor Jurisevic: I assume that would lead you to some sort of checkerboard approach. You wouldn't burn an entire area with a vulnerable species in there in particular. You'd burn a small section so that they could continue to live around it. And as that area's been burnt in that year, the next year you may burn another section of that area. Speaker 4: Yeah, so if we've got a large enough parcel of land, we can have fire management units within that parcel, so then we can do it. And that's what we do typically. We'll do this block one year, maybe this block a couple of years later. It allows for movement. That's what I got from you. Provides that sort of diversity. For the smaller blocks, we have to, if we can't, if we haven't, you know, can't do that, then we're looking at a mosaic burn, which we try and do as well for our small blocks.

01:41:00 But that's where we're looking for a patchwork of burns, again, to give form and movement, to create a bit of diversity in the environment. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element with regard to burns, is how successful is it as a means of weed management as well? I mean, do we actually eradicate or can we limit or discourage weeds by a plan to burn? Because it's the native species that tend to recover better than the weed species in some instances. Speaker 4: Yeah, so we can use planned burns a bit like any sort of weed control in terms of like, you can either slash an area or we can treat it with chemical control or you can burn it. It's another method of control. It's particularly good for rehabilitation sites because after you burn, you've got an ash bed on the ground and then you can seed it, you can reseed that area and we get natural seed come in. So you're actually, you know, encouraging the natural regrowth.

01:42:00 And you can spot and detect the weed coming through, if you see a weed, you can... Yeah. For really thick areas, you know, sometimes you get big clumps of lantana that dominate the landscape. So we can burn that out, opens it up, took it a weed control and then reseed it or replant. Yeah. Excellent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to come to mind, in terms of, we've had some very hot fires in 2019, 2020. Did we have any learnings there that there may be some local understory species that actually require a hot fire to start the succession process or not? I'm just thinking that, you know, obviously there is in Victoria, there's certainly the Speaker 5: mountain ash required. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a lot of areas that require a hot fire to reseed, to resprout, I should say, you know, to reseed. But anything that's of interest, I'm thinking more of the listed species though. We know the ground parrot, if you leave it too long between fire, you lose its habitat. But is there anything else that we've identified? Speaker 4: When we had the 2019 fires up at Cooroibah, our rainforest areas didn't actually burn.

01:43:00 It just singed the edges, if you like, so it actually stopped the carry of the fire through the landscape. But around those edges, we're actually seeing some recruitment coming up of rainforest species. We thought, oh, that might actually knock that rainforest back a bit. But we're actually seeing some regeneration there. So that was... Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I thought that was a typical thought process that, yeah, once the rainforest is damaged by a hot burn, you won't see it recover. It's just a matter of how much you're going to have to do to get it back to the ground. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We hope there's some good rain after the 3-2-1, but I know Cooroibah's going to dry out. Councillor Wilkie: One last question from me. The council's been unanimous in supporting the budget item to resource this. Can I just refresh, for the benefit of those listening, what will that money go towards? What sort of equipment and personnel will you be using that money for? Speaker 4: So that's... Did you want to answer that? I can try. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. Great. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. It'll... We'll have a dedicated council fire management officer with specific expertise in fire management.

01:44:00 We'll be training a range of staff across council in controlled burns. And over the next two years, we'll be building our capacity to undertake controlled burns ourselves within council. One of the key challenges we've had previously, and we envision having with this plan if we didn't do something different, was the fact that we've been using contractors to do burns. And they're excellent contractors, but they're just under a lot of demand. There's a lot of pull. And on the odd occasion, the conditions are really good. It can be really challenging to get them to Noosa, as opposed to a bunch of other different places. So we found it was essential to build our capacity to do it ourselves. It won't happen overnight. It's very specific skills. And of course, continuing to work with all the other management agencies doing burns as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So what you're essentially saying is we'll be better resourcing our internal staff to manage our strategic fire management plan? Speaker 8: That's our intent.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 And I think the fire management plan calls for roughly seven controlled burns a year. We don't believe we could achieve that with our current system of utilising contractors regardless of funding. So this is our methodology to get us to where we need to be. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 8: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Peter and Craig, for this body of work. It's tangible evidence that the council is proactively moving towards a more active approach to managing fire on the council's reserves, which is only 4% of reserves. But it is part of this new council's commitment to be more proactive in that space, following what we learned and experienced during the Peregian and Coorooa fires in the past year. So thank you for the work you've done on that. I know you'll be working hand in glove with QPWS and QFIS to keep the Shire and residents safer from fire.

01:46:00 And also it'll go a long way towards alleviating the very real concerns that residents do have about the threat posed by fire, given that we are facing changing climate, hotter, drier summers and greater fire risk going forward. It's a very responsible, proactive approach and thank you for the work you've done on it. Any other councillors to speak to the motion? Joe, do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: I need to read out the points that you just made there. Yeah, I'd like to thank the staff for their time and effort. I think this goes a long way towards a better understanding of our roles and responsibilities in managing our own bushland reserves. Again, just to clarify, 4% of the entire Shire or 4% of all the reserves? Speaker 4: The entire Shire. Councillor Jurisevic: The entire Shire. So it's a 4% of the entire Shire landmass that we're responsible for managing. But again, we work in conjunction with all those other agencies to ensure that all those other reserves are looked after and a great partnership with QFIS and QPWS in undertaking

01:47:00 that very large task. Thank you. And we have the National Patent and State Broth. Good work guys. Thank you. Mayor Paterson. I'll put the motion to those in favour. Councillor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you Peter. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now we move to item 7 which is the Noosan Biosphere Reserve New Partnership Agreement. Helen Craig. This was discussed last week also. I had a big question.

01:48:00 Councillor Finzel: The Council make the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 8 June 2021 and defer consideration of the matter to the Ordinary Manager. Councillor Wilkie: For the purposes of the debate, Councillor Scott Wilkie. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Oh, thank you. Yeah, after having done considerable readings and putting forward questions to the staff and the fact that the Mayor is absent from the meeting, I just think we need to put that forward to get further information. I haven't had time personally to drill down into what all that means, especially given the increase for four years of the contract. And in the back of my mind, I'm always referring to the Kin Kin Quarry.

01:49:00 We want to make sure we get it right. We're making changes and we want to make sure that this is benefit to all the players involved. So that's why I put the recommendation up. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillors speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only a question. Are we happy that we've got enough time before Thursday? That's right. And is there an urgency in having it because it runs out? Speaker 5: There is an urgency in getting it adopted. Now, if you want to have a workshop, you have to get it organised. Councillor Wilkie: Great. Anthony, you wanted to say something there? Speaker 5: Can I go to the... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, please. Approach the bench. Excuse me. Councillor Jurisevic: But you've always wanted to say that. The only not lawyer in here ever wanted to say that. Speaker 1: Thank you, councillors. I just, it is, the timing is probably against us and Craig has some personal leave for the next couple of days and I'm conscious of the item before, there's some follow-up work, so I think obviously the discussion will take place, we might need more time if we still want to do that type of work, a workshop, even though we've got the contractual obligations, but concern on the workload and I guess from my point of view, there was a lot of discussion through, you know, the contractual obligations, but concern on the workload and I guess from my point of view

01:50:00 through budget time as well and the commitment here, while it's extending a year, there's no commitment financially on a year-by-year basis. Every year they have to, you know, I guess resubmit and justify and report on a six-monthly basis in detail, so I guess I'll just put that on the table for discussion. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Craig, are you on leave from tomorrow? Speaker 8: I'm on leave this afternoon and tomorrow and I'll be back at work on Wednesday. I'll be in a position, I'm not going to contradict or false, but I would be in a position to hold a workshop on Wednesday or Thursday, given the fact it's not, most of the changes to my mind have been relatively clearly spelled out, they're not extensive, so it wouldn't be something that would require any significant preparation, it would be more of a discussion around the existing report to my mind.

01:51:00 Sure. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, you had a question? I'll ask a question of the CEO, in the event that time is a factor here, I mean, is there an opportunity to have a special meeting and you deal with this item separately if need be before the 30th of June? Speaker 5: Yeah, there's always an opportunity to have a special council meeting. It would be good to have this put to bed satisfied because the private sphere will be looking for their funding once the budget is adopted on the 30th of June as well. Councillor Wegener: Can I ask? So, Craig, you are a part of the writing of the agreement from the get-go, from what I understand, you, Rex and Rod Smith, but you are absolutely involved in the preparation of this document. Speaker 8: I have, I've been involved in all aspects, not only in the drafting, I've been working with NBRF, but also the liaison with our governance team, liaison with King and Carlyle, but the legal review that was done of the document as well, which informed the final version.

01:52:00 Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And so, a question to the CEO, I mean, this is our time to ask questions. I mean, if we had questions of this particular document, we had a committee meeting, we have today, Craig's in the room, if I had questions, I would definitely be ready to go and, you know, then that's what we're here for. That's what today is for, isn't it? Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Look, I'll speak to, Amelia, you have a question. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, my question is, which of our councillors want the workshop? I'm happy to support you, Karen, but I've actually done enough investigation over the last week that I don't require it. So, my question is, what is the feeling? The motion there is to allow councillors to hold a workshop. Is that required? Is how I'll be voting on this? Councillor Wilkie: That's, if I can answer the question, I'm open to that. So am I.

01:53:00 I think councillors need to do what's needed to satisfy themselves, so if a workshop is what's required, I'm happy to support that. But if there's time between now and Thursday for Karen to meet one-on-one with Craig, would that be sufficient? Or would you want all of us there, Karen? It's a question for you. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I'm open to either. Let's see what the other councils have to say. I just think given the issues around community and this whole subject, what we're doing, we need to get it right. I just think that the importance of it should give us more opportunity to explore that. I've put it up there. We can debate it and take it to the vote. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to the motion. I'm satisfied. Some of the councillors have been on this journey for quite a long time and I respect the right and the diligence shown by the new councillors to want to get across the information.

01:54:00 I'm happy to support the motion as it is for the workshop for all of us to attend to make sure that we're all on the same page with this. I'm open to it and I support the motion. Councillor Wegener: This is a question that I guess this is the first time that we've actually ever asked for this in the year that I've been here that we've actually asked for another workshop in between the general meeting and the ordinary meeting. Is that right? Speaker 5: I can't recall another one but there may have been. I just can't recall. I thought there was one recently made. Councillor Wegener: It seems very unusual to me that this... Councillor Wilkie: Are you speaking to the motion, Tom? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'll speak to the motion. I just find this to be very unusual, especially when, as Craig said last meeting, that this is more restrictive to the NBRF than the agreement that it's replacing.

01:55:00 It actually says year by year funding where before it was different. It is a much more restrictive document. And so when you read it and you ask Craig some basic questions, I don't see it necessary to in this instance of this. Yeah, I just don't see any need at all for another to risk postponing this to have a meeting for the meeting before Thursday. I mean, there's lots of big issues. This is not one of them. This is a pretty, pretty clear cut thing. This is, I think it sets a precedent for if we didn't ask the questions in the committee and didn't ask the questions in the general meeting, then we'll have a motion for a special meeting, you know, to drag Craig and the team in here again to answer questions we should have had ready before.

01:56:00 So I don't see any reason to have a further meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Joe and Amelia. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that there's a change from the previous agreement to a new style of agreement, a partnership agreement, and that councils are requesting more information and may need a workshop to get their heads around it. I have no client with this. I don't think it's going to impact on the timing of the decision in any way, shape or form. There is another option if we need it with regard to a special meeting. I don't necessarily see it coming to that. And I welcome the opportunity for councillors to ask more questions and ensure that they are comfortable with what's before them before they make their final decision. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia. As I've just mentioned, I've done a lot of investigation over the last week.

01:57:00 There's not extensive changes between the two agreements is probably what I probably want to point out to you, Councillor Finzel. But I'm happy to support your recommendation to get a workshop. Probably my only criticism of the report is that it would have been great to have had a workshop before it came to council. But having said that, I'm satisfied that all my questions are answered, but I'm happy to support you. And I think having informed decision making is vital to the process. So that means a lot. I'm happy to have a workshop in between now and Thursday. I'm happy to support that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm quite happy with the proposal as was put up by staff. But I think there is actually benefit if even one or two councillors wanted to have more information to establish that they understand the relationship we're entering into.

01:58:00 Because we're entering into a partnership. We're not entering into a funding agreement. And part of that, to me, one of the key changes is we're actually starting to refine what we expect, where we'd like NBRF to focus from our perspective and what we'd like them to do. So in terms of we've had conversation before about the role of council in sustainable science brokerage. And what we're sort of saying in this agreement is we see that as a valuable role that NBRF could play and that we might in the future ask them to investigate. Or try and get research partnerships or projects around questions that we'd like to be investigated. So it is important, I think. And if we can save it at a general meeting so that dinner doesn't get cold, I'm happy to discuss it beforehand. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, you were supposed to close. Councillor Finzel: Oh, no. Nothing for you to say. Councillor Wegener: I think I just have a question. So at the meeting.

01:59:00 I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's Councillor Stockwell, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Finzel Wilkie. Against? Councillor Wegener? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Craig. And Anthony, for your input. Very much appreciated. The next item is the amendments to the commercial use of community land policy. That's referred from the Services and Organisation Committee, which was . There's a few minor changes made as a result of that discussion. If I remember rightly. Councillors, just to move things along. Does someone care to move the recommendation? And we can ask questions as we go, if needs be. Councillor Jurisevic: This was referred from Services and Organisation Committee. Councillor Wilkie: Services and Organisation. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm trying to find the . I'm trying to find the . Thank you. I should have known that. It was on my committee. I was just trying to find the recommendation. Hang on. It's not on the committee. Councillor Wilkie: There were some suggestions made of the minor changes made and councillors. Amelia, moved by Amelia, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Okay, Amelia, would you like to kick off?

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Oh, nothing. I think everything was sort of considered at the Services and Organisation Committee maybe. Nothing more to add than just thank you and just bringing the 2014 document to 2021. Thank you. I can't remember who referred it. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, Joe, you've got some questions? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, it was principally on the significance of the item. I think the issue being commercial use of community land policy, I thought that all councillors should be across it and that if there was anyone that had any issues, it should come to this committee so that whilst it was discussed at the Services and Organisation Committee, it just gave councillors another opportunity to look at what I think what is a significant policy before council.

02:01:00 And if there were any concerns, they could address them here. If there are no concerns, well and good. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, I apologise. I think it was Tom, you might have had some questions. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, just in the very beginning, the goal in the background is so that community use is not unreasonably diminished and the environment is preserved. And there's quite a bit of work going on in front of Netanya on the beach, the main beach. And of course, we've been talking about sales. I particularly talk about Bistro C and the forefront there, is that, are we looking at that as well, you guys, with this, in this policy? Speaker 9: Through the chair, councillor, are you talking about the beach, the parade in front of the boardwalk? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, the beach, the land that, the community land that has been, that is used by commercial

02:02:00 uses. Yeah. Outdoor dining. Yeah. But also the barbecue that's behind it. Speaker 9: Well, it doesn't apply to footpath trading permits. Yeah. This permit does not apply to that. So that's just on page 11 there as well. What it does refer to is all of the other use areas. So particularly the balanced part of the beach. And you'll see their policy scope. It includes freehold land, trustee land under the control of councils such as parks, reserves, roadways, pathways, footpaths, foreshores and bathing reserves. So in terms of Noosa main beach, roughly speaking, in front of the boardwalk, is the area that you would refer to as the beach area. Councillor Wegener: Mm-hmm. Then it says, the commercial use activity must enhance the visitor and local experience

02:03:00 of the Noosa Shire. And of course, I'm a stickler for that because, as Brian pointed out at front end of Tanya, there was, on public property, a barbecue that the public was not able to access. Mm-hmm. And I believe- Question. Question time. Oh, question. Councillor Wilkie: I'm putting a view. Yeah. Question. Councillor Wegener: Will you be looking at those spots in particular? Speaker 2: I can answer that one. That issue did come up in the development application that was considered last year. And there was a condition about that encroachment issue, which sort of came to light as a result of that development application and approval. So a condition was applied. The other issue that came up was around sales, the area of sales' footpath dining permit. So the property section oversees the footpath dining permits and dealt with sales' sales permit to be reflective of the area that it was using within the road reserve there that's

02:04:00 on the Esplanade. And the issue of the barbecue area, which also came up, became a condition of the development approval. And now that Natanya is undertaking those works, that condition comes into effect. So there's a requirement currently under them proceeding with those works to rectify that encroachment. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Because there's always a pushing back and forth between private people wanting to move out onto public spaces and the public wanting to use that public space that the private people want. And so there's that interchange. And I just think that when you're dealing with- Councillor Wilkie: Are you putting in your time or asking a question? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. You are considering this. You are. You recognize that constant change, that constant battle. Yes. Every day. Speaker 9: Through the chair. Yeah. And this policy really speaks to that. Yeah. In that they're about the need for balance. And that's what it strives to achieve.

02:05:00 Yeah. Thank you. I had to bring that up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think my question's to the CEO. Sorry, was I- No, you're first. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. In the commercial high use permit, the change that says, will not be supporting application received outside of the tender process, will not be supported unless council identifies an overriding community need for the activity. Happy with that. And then suggests and agrees to amend this policy. My question to the CEO- Chicken or egg? Isn't that implied anyway? But yeah, isn't it? It's a chicken or egg situation. Speaker 5: Yeah. And to some extent, that's why this policy's here, because we've recently adopted those. Is that last month? Yes. Yeah. So we do need to have the policy and the practice in alignment, whether you've got the policy or not. Yeah. Yeah. There needs to be alignment. It's the answer to your question.

02:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So maybe I can think of better words for Thursday. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. A question. Sorry. Joe, then Amelia. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that the policy... This is a little facetious. Given that the policy is the commercial use of community land, why is it that the policy doesn't apply to footpaths, trading and dining, markets, lease sports, ground sports, performance, commercial leases and events, and non-commercial recreation use, private community, non-profit or school curriculum activities when most of those are commercial use on community land? Why do we differentiate? Speaker 9: Well, through the Chair, Councillor, they're covered under different tenure arrangements, different policies exist. They're different permits as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So this policy is intended to apply specifically to those high use and or low use commercial uses on community land. Correct. Correct. Just trying to clarify why there was that differentiation between. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia. I think at the services and organisation meeting, I asked the question of whether some

02:07:00 of our core principles, our corporate principles, are the same. And I did get a reply from the CEO saying that that is in the process. Governance is actually looking at that at the moment. So thank you. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia, do you wish to close? No. Thank you, guys. Put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Speaker 8: The last item is. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: The third last item is financial performance report for May. The month of May. Which is. Welcome, Trent. Councillor Jurisevic: The only one. Councillor Wilkie: Direct to General. Direct to General. Welcome, Trent. Welcome, Trent. Speaker 9: Afternoon, councillors. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Capital expenditure.

02:08:00 I think we've taken a huge leap in the last month from where we were. Previously, they were on track. It was the only one that was potentially planned. How are we tracking for, given that there's a significant amount of capital expenditure due to occur in this month, how are we tracking at the moment? Speaker 3: Councillor, there's obviously a significant number of major capital works projects that are either currently left for construction, following tender, and also under tender. We're. Councillor Jurisevic: 73 million to go through this month or something? In that vicinity? Yeah. Speaker 3: In terms of budget estimate, yes. A lot of it will come down to the timing of the capital works invoicing and whether those major projects reach milestone. Now, most of those are multi-year projects, such as Hinterland Playground, River Street, and a lot of bridge renewals. Councillor Jurisevic: There'll be a bit of scope there for. Speaker 3: That's right. So, we've already allowed a lot of those in the draft budget for next year. They're multi-year. So, they'll end up being carry over if we don't get that invoicing and that milestone

02:09:00 completion of those stages of works in the next four weeks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question. When we talk about bridges, is the Wapunga Lane bridge one of those? Speaker 3: I do believe that those bridges are currently under tender review. Under tender review. Speaker 5: The tender response is coming, I think, isn't it? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 5: Oh. I was just trying to provide some money for that Kin Kin connection. Councillor Jurisevic: On page six, Trent, I note under rates and levies, the tourism and economic levy is 75K below budget or revenue. Yes. Is that a result of the changes we made for COVID allowances with that? That would have taken in with the budget. So, why are we actually under budget there? Speaker 3: We allowed for... We allowed for a price reduction as part of the budget. So, it's built in there. The 5% was built in there. What you find in that 75K is primarily in terms of what we estimated, the business impact

02:10:00 in terms of businesses that are considered eligible under the levy, to pay the levy in terms of business closures, temporary accommodation, and the business activity at the time, pre-COVID versus post-COVID. So, obviously, when we put the budget together, we're using the number of households, businesses and households in our rating system during February, March, which was early pre-COVID. Councillor Lorentson: That's great data for tourism and news for yourself, Anthony, to actually work out 3% drop in businesses that's taken on tourism. That's a reflection of the market, I would think, Trent. Yep. Speaker 3: It's... I'd have to defer that one to the... Yeah, but I'd love to analyse that information. Potentially an economic consultant to estimate what the cycle's done over the last 12 months, because obviously, this is both the July rating levy as well as the January.

02:11:00 Now, we'd have to come back and do some more analysis on whether it's primarily been from the July rates issue or whether that's come back up in the January rates issue. I don't have the information at hand yet, but it'd be an interesting analysis. Councillor Jurisevic: I agree. Sorry, the follow-on question I had in relation to that. Given the discussions that we're currently having around the current budget discussions and the removal of the tourism and economic levy, that 75 below budget, what impact is that having on the amount that is provided for tourism and economic abuse through Tourism Noosa and all the activities of Anthony's department with... Speaker 5: It's the same as the decision that was made by Council to cut the levy in terms of the budget in the budget process. And that is there is zero impact on Tourism Noosa because their funding is guaranteed under the funding agreement. Transport determines how much money is paid. So any reduction in the tourism and economic levy impacts on other economic development

02:12:00 activities that our staff are undertaking. And that impacts on Anthony's area. So there's no impact on Tourism Noosa. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was the answer I was expecting. And that's what I wanted to clarify. Speaker 3: And to reinforce Brett's comment, through our budget process, as you know, the revenue and funding sources differ from our build from base commitments to budget expenditure. So any commitment to contracts or LEP implementation programs and Anthony's team resource, branch resources, they're separate discussions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All good. Councillor Wilkie: Isn't there another question on that from Councillor Tewson? Sorry? No. Amelia, you had a question? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I always make a song and dance about legal costs. Interesting on page eight, oh, excuse me. Interesting on page eight, Trent, that we're below year-to-date budgets. So we're in June now. And all those estimates that we're above what was anticipated for spending, we've actually

02:13:00 fallen below. Is that how I'm reading that correctly? Correct. Speaker 3: So at budget review three, which was undertaken, we did the work on that in March, and then I got to them in April. At the time, we obviously reassessed organisation-wide where we were year-to-date with our legal expenses, which as you recall, at the time, were year-to-date running over, but then looking at what was upcoming in terms of upcoming activity, appeals, et cetera. Conservative estimate was that we were going to obviously exceed it significantly. Now, obviously, a lot of that's timing, so whilst we're running below budget now, it'll be interesting to see where the timing in that discussion is in six months' time, because if the appeals are still happening, it'll occur in the next financial year. Councillor Jurisevic: Given those figures and those changes, are we to see what the impact on the surplus slash

02:14:00 deficit will be at the end of the financial year? Correct. Speaker 3: So we'll obviously have a draft position in a month's time as we come into the financial Councillor Jurisevic: year. I'll be watching the figures with great intent. I'm sure you will go. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors, we've got two items, confidential items, coming up. Is there any other questions for staff? Any other councillors want to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the financial performance report be accepted. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Lorentson and moved by Councillor Jurisevic. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I will. I will as soon as I move it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for another comprehensive report. Well, I've looked at a good outcome for the end of financial year given the circumstances that we've been under with COVID over the past 12 months or more, nearly 18 months now. So thank you. Thank you, Trent. And thank you to all those that contribute to a good financial outcome in this organisation. Councillor Wilkie: I'll finish with a question. Given that we budgeted for a deficit this year, do you think that is it likely that

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 we're going to end up with a surplus? Speaker 3: Well, I'm not going to muddle it up. I'm going to make that fit at this point in time, Fred. That's what I said. I'll be watching the figures with great intent. What you'll find is we come into the end of financial year, we have what we call the finance quarter soft close at the end of June, and when we get to finalising the financial statements in the year, there's always a number of big moves. One of them is obviously taking into account the refinancing costs of the QDC loans, which you haven't seen coming through the figures there, which is in the realm of $2.5 million. And then any adjustments we need to make for landfill rehabilitation, which is another big one. But those two aside, we'll come pretty close, I believe. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say we're in a better financial position at the end of the financial year than where we expected to find ourselves at the beginning of the financial year? Far, far better, councillor. Thank you, Trent. Councillor Wilkie: Any other customers to speak for the motion? The motion is all in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Trent. Thank you, please.

02:16:00 Thank you, Kerry. There's a motion before us whether we go into confidential session to discuss council's legal position on a couple of issues. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that because I do want to talk about tax, which should be done in closed session. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by councillor Stockwell, seconded by councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous. So live stream. We'll do that.

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:39:00 Speaker 5: All good? We're back live? We're back. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Welcome back everybody. We're discussing items 3 and 4. That's the Planning and Environment Court Appeal number D176 of 219, Refusable Application 16 Ancillary Dwelling Units at 64 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. We have a motion here to defer consideration of the matter to the ordinary meeting dated 17 June to allow staff time to provide additional conditions for consideration by councillors. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell wishes to speak. The councillors wish to speak to the motion. All in favour? That's unanimous. We now have item 4, which is Planning and Environment Court Appeal number D102 of 2020, Refusable of Ancillary Dwelling Unit at 133 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. Also, the motion is to defer consideration of the matter to the ordinary meeting dated 17 June 2021.

02:40:00 To allow staff to provide additional conditions for consideration by councillors. We have a mover please, Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Anybody wish to speak to the motion? Put the motion. Those in favour? That is unanimous. And that is the end of the meeting. Thank you, Kerry.

Elsewhere on this site

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

What was said

Latest