Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. Do I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 20th of May? Thank you Councillor Finzel. Second. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting held on the 28th of May 2020? Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? No. There are no notified motions, no presentations and no deputations. That brings us to item 8 on page 4 of the agenda which is the consideration of the committee reports. Firstly, the planning and environment committee recommendations. Item 1 was referred to general committee. Item 2 was referred to general committee. Item 3, MCU20 slash 0037 planning and environment court appeal number BD1074 of 2021. Refusal of an application for multiple housing type 2 duplex at 11 Margaret Crescent Sunrise Beach. Items 4 to 8 were also referred to the general committee. Item 9, planning applications decided by
00:01:00 Delegated Authority April 2021. I have a conflict in this matter so I will hand over to Councillor Wilkie to assume the Chair to consider the conflict of interest declarations. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Ultram Properties number 9 PTY LTD which is item 12 in this report. I have a friendship with Lee and Rob McCready who are associated with this applicant. With, as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while this matter is considered and voted on. Thank you.
00:02:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Madam Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Altam Properties No. 9 Pty Ltd, which is item 12 in this report. I have a relationship with Lee McCready who is associated with the applicant as Ms. McCready was involved with my 2020 election campaign. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and vote on. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I also have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Altam Properties No. 9 Pty Ltd, which is item 12 in this report. On 24 February 2020, I sought a review of the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future News team,
00:03:00 of which Lee McCready was public identified. As a campaign manager, Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting of a decision that has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Wilkie: Does someone care to move the motion whether Councillor Stockwell remains in the room or not? Councillor Lorentson? No. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Councillor Lorentson, what's your call on this? Councillor Lorentson: It's in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that as Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it, only to note a decision that has already been made by staff. A reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
00:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any other Councillors wish to speak to this motion? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: We've debated this conflict of interest several times and we've gone over it thoroughly and Council has found repeatedly that Stockwell may stay in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak? I wish to close. Councillor Lorentson? I put the motion to those in favour. It's carried unanimously. Now we have a motion regarding the applications decided by delegated authority. Speaker 3: I move that the motion be carried unanimously. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move that. We'll have a seconder please. Councillor Jurisevic. Anyone wish to speak? We'll put it to the vote. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. May we have the Mayor and Councillor Finzel back please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
00:05:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is the Services and Organisation Committee Recommendations. These are on page 7 of the agenda. Item 1, Regional Arts Development Fund, RADF. Grant Recommendations 2020-21. Item 2 was referred to the General Committee. Item 3, Application of National Competition Policy Reform for the 2021-22 Budget. Item 4, 2021-22 Fees and Charges. Item 5, Go Noosa 2020-21. Peak Period Traffic Management Evaluation.
00:06:00 Can I have a move and a second? Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Can I say something about the RADF now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Mayor Stewart: Now we go to the General Committee Recommendations on page 9 of the agenda. Item 1, Application for Material Change of Use for Short-Term Accommodation at 75 Williams Road, Kin Kin. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to... Can you move a motion, please? And it reads... If I could have that scrolled down. Thank you. D. So I want Clause 21 to be deleted and including... 23. 23. Yep, that should be deleted. And an inclusion of Clause D include the following advisory note on the decision notice. 1. The site contains the headwaters of... The Kin Kin Creek, located on steep slopes, which ultimately drains through Noosa River into Laguna Bay.
00:07:00 Loss of vegetation on steep slopes accelerates erosion processes and leads to the degradation of water quality downstream, as well as the loss of soil from the land. It is recommended the ongoing management of weeds and replanting of native species is implemented on the land, particularly around gullies and streams. For information, please see the project... Mayor Stewart: And just for... I might read out what is being actually put... You've asked to be deleted. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm requesting we delete cause number 23, 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 council. A weed control management plan must be lodged in this area. With council for review. I'll see.
00:08:00 How was the last one? Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. I'm going to retry this today, because I don't believe that the conditions that were placed, condition 23 at Monday's general meeting, were relevant and reasonable. So I'm going to start with that, that conditions must be, they're required to be relevant and reasonable. I argue that what I've put before everyone here today is that the conditions must be relevant and reasonable. It relates to the application, which is an application for a development application for an STA. And the condition's also a reasonable response to the changes that the development will cause. I'm going to start by saying that I approve and support the removal of weed species in an ecologically important area. However, I do not believe that this should be conditioned in any way. In a material change of use application for short-term accommodation.
00:09:00 Instead, what I'm proposing is that it should be added by way of an advisory note. Since Monday's meeting, I've received advice from our planning officers in regards to the cost of section 23. So I needed to sort of understand, is this onerous and is it a reasonable condition? The response I received from our planning officers is, is this a reasonable condition? The answer is that the area that should be treated is 3,310 square metres. I'll quote, it's hard to determine a cost without knowing the weeds present and the treatment required. A range of $2 to $10 per square metre could be anticipated depending on slope, access or weed fall. This does not account for replanting. So my calculations are that, the cost can be anywhere between nearly $7,000 to $33,000.
00:10:00 And again, that does not include the cost of replanting. Further, I asked another question. Whether the condition imposed in section 23 actually achieved the best environmental outcome. The response I received, and again I quote from planning officers, I am concerned without any native replanting to seal the area, the process could lead to accelerated erosion due to lack of vegetation cover and proximity to a watercourse. This in turn will provide optimal habitat for weed reestablishment, perhaps at greater densities than the original equilibrium. So my opinion that what was proposed is not reasonable, not relevant and does not achieve the best environmental income.
00:11:00 It's my opinion that by imposing this weak management and rehabilitation is again my opinion an excessive use of power and to use terms quoted by the planning staff on Monday is possibly an overreach. Further, I believe it opens us to legal challenge. And for the record, we aren't having many home runs. So in front of us, the condition that I've just imposed is relevant and reasonable. And the advisory note which just recommends that the applicant engage in ongoing management on weeds and replanting with native species is reasonable and does not open us to legal challenge. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Lyons. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic: I might ask a question to start, if I may, Madam Chair. Sure.
00:12:00 As an advisory note on the decision notice, is there any obligation on the applicant to undertake any work whatsoever? Speaker 7: No, the advisory note is just that. It's an advisory note and suggests what would be good practice for the site. So it encourages them, but it does not enforce anything. It can't be enforced. Would anyone else like to speak or questions? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So if the advisory note was turned into a, was hardened up into a condition, that would represent a better, perhaps get a better outcome than what was proposed under 23, because 23 doesn't involve replanting. Is that the advice from the staff? Speaker 7: Yeah. So since Monday's general committee, Council's ecologist has reviewed the proposed condition
00:13:00 by Council, it's number 23, and recommended that he had some concerns about it. He said if we're just removing the weeds and we result in erosion, and we really should, if we want that to occur, we'd have to ask for some replanting, otherwise the site will end up in a worse state than it starts with. So we'd look to, he has put together some amended wording for condition 23, if Council wishes to add in a requirement for rehab. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Can I ask a question? Are we able to have a look at that alternative wording? Please. Speaker 7: Yeah. I've provided it to Kylie, but we can do so now. Councillor Lorentson: I've given it to Kylie. Speaker 7: Oh, you have? Kylie. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Kylie. So I might read that out. Yeah. 23, with the alternate wording from SCAR. Yes. The riparian buffer area, and within 10 metres either side of the mapped waterway, must
00:14:00 be rehabilitated by controlling environmental weeds and re-establishments. The rehabilitation of native plant species local to the area by an active management program to the reasonable satisfaction of Council. A rehabilitation management plan must be endorsed by Council through operational works application. Councillor Jurisevic: That's part of that as well? Sorry, that was- That's existing. Mayor Stewart: So Kerry, I've got a question. What would, do you have a ballpark figure, and I know it's hard, of what that would cost for? Speaker 7: Yeah. So the estimate of costing that's been provided to Councilor Amelia was really about weed removal, not including rehab. So he's given an estimate of between two and 10 square metres. I expected there would be some cost above that, again, to answer the question of rehabilitation.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, in your experienced opinion, do you believe that the cost of rehabilitation is a reasonable and relevant condition? Yeah. Speaker 7: So Council imposing conditions on a development approval is required by the planning legislation to ensure conditions are reasonable and relevant. So in weighing up this matter, we considered whether what's occurring on the site through this material change of use, and the applicant is proposing to use an existing house or short-term accommodation. So there's no works occurring on the site to accommodate that short-term accommodation in the existing house. There's no additional work for car parking areas or driveways or the like. So it will have no impact, or no greater impact, on the environmental values of the site and the use of that site for a permanent residence. So for that reason, officers do not consider the condition to be reasonable and relevant
00:16:00 to this application. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that an operational works application, as well, is that it would have, all the work within that operational works application would have to be undertaken before the proposed use of short-stay would be able to be undertaken. Is that correct? Speaker 7: That's correct. All conditions here have to be met prior to commencement of the use, including the requirement to remove the weeds and undertake rehabilitation. It's likely, though, with a rehabilitation, that that would be sort of a three-year plan, so we just need to undertake the works of weed removal and replanting, but then there'd be some ongoing monitoring for the next two years, so they could commence the use just after that weed removal and rehab. Councillor Jurisevic: Can you go back to the original 23? So yeah, further to the original condition 23, a weed control management plan, in my
00:17:00 estimation of what it would involve, would have included some sort of a replanting and a rehabilitation. So, the point of weed control and management is the fact that, yes, once you remove weeds, you need to rehabilitate that land, otherwise you do have degradation. So, could a weed management control plan, a weed control management plan, as previously suggested, not include revegetation? Speaker 7: I think it would be better if Council wants weed control and rehabilitation, that the condition is amended so it's clear to the applicant. Otherwise, no. I think there could be some confusion around the condition of what's required. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, I'm just aware that the motion we have before us actually has number 23 struck out, so that's the motion we're dealing with, just so you're familiar. So, which is the addition of the D, the advisory note, and then the removal of 23.
00:18:00 So, would anyone like to speak to this motion? Councillor Wilkie: Question. How many people live in the property at the moment, and how many are living in the property that are likely to be accommodated by its change of use to a multi-bedroom short-term accommodation property? Speaker 7: So, I don't know the exact number of people who live in the house. It's not something that I'm aware of, but I can see from the plans on page 10 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda that it is a four-bedroom house. Actually, it's got one, two, three, yeah, a four-bedroom house. So, you would, yeah, you would expect, yeah, I'm not sure of the combination that exists now. In short term, you may get two people per room, you may get one person in some room,
00:19:00 one not. Councillor Wilkie: So, okay. Okay. Okay. Is it likely, then, that there's a potential four-fold increase in human impact on that site due to the change of use? Speaker 7: It is possible that the short-term accommodation may look to accommodate more people, but for parts of the year, I'd expect if it's used short-term, it would remain vacant. So, it could balance out. I'd also expect when people are on holidays for a weekend, that they're not doing any mowing or anything like that. So, if there's any removal of veg on the site, I think they'd simply not be interested in that part. Councillor Wilkie: And if the applicant is unhappy with a condition that mandates weed removal and rehabilitation of the riparian area, that doesn't need to go to court, does it? They can make, what's the process for them to make representation? Speaker 7: They have a couple of options. They have the option to appeal immediately once the decision notice is issued, but a
00:20:00 better path would be for them to make representation. And come back and explain why they consider it to be unreasonable, or whatever their opinion is, and ask the council to remove it or amend it in some way. Councillor Wilkie: Would that then come back before the council for a decision, or would staff remove that condition, or otherwise? Speaker 7: Given the discussion on this matter, I'd be bringing it back to council. Thank you, Alicia. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Sorry, just to clarify a point that Councillor Wilkie raised there in the number of guests that we've had. One of the conditions that may occupy the premises at one time, my understanding is condition six limits that to eight guests at any one time. Is that not correct? Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Joe. You're right, that the short term is limited to eight guests. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll speak to the motion. I thank Councillor Lorentson for the research she's done on this. It's excellent. And it's helped inform the debate.
00:21:00 The change motion that she's brought before us actually articulates why it's so important that the environmental values on this site are looked after. And we have an opportunity before us now to ensure that the environmental values are looked after. Everything within our power. It may, I take the staff's advice, it may be an overreach, but it's an opportunity which I personally feel we need to exercise. It will not, the applicants, if they're of a mind that it is an overreach, they're perfectly within their right to make representation back to the staff without needing to go through an expensive court process. Even though we do have an excellent record in court, we hope we'll never go to that. We've had two wins today, I understand. One of them is four cases wrapped up in one, if I'm informed correctly. So we do have an excellent record in that regard. We don't ever want to test it in relation to this.
00:22:00 But I feel that I'll be support, Council Lorenton has very well articulated why it's important to protect the environmental values on the site. But I like the advice from the staff in the proposed motion that's maybe tested later or not, that will ensure that we exercise the opportunity, take this opportunity to do everything within our power to ensure that. I think we owe that to them. I think we owe that to the community to do that. And if, as mentioned on Monday, the applicants, we're assuming that, believing it's an overreach, we're assuming that the applicants see that as an impost, an unreasonable impost. But they may very well, may be very well be aligned with their values. They may very well be wanting to do that anyway. So it's a way of putting that to them and they can always make representation back. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Council.
00:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move an amendment, and that's to add condition 23, as staff have provided, it's not their suggestion, but removing the words, the riparian buffer area within 10 metres either side of the map waterway. Okay, so you haven't included the stuff down the back in that recommendation? Speaker 7: Yeah, that is the riparian buffer area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry, yeah, so take out the riparian buffer area, that within 10 metres either side of the mapped waterway, must be rehabilitated by controlling environmental weeds and establishing nature plant species local to the area by an active management program to the reasonable satisfaction. Council, a rehabilitation management plan must be endorsed by Council through an Operation Works application.
00:24:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Could I suggest that an area 10 metres either side might be better work? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy for you to suggest that improvement. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to second this amendment? Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the substantive motion has brought up, as Councillor Wilkie, the reasons why you might do it. Councillor Lorentson has said it's about the cost compared to the nature. I'm going to argue from a completely different angle. This is about whether to approve the development or not. This is about whether the material change of use meets the strategic outcomes of our planning scheme. And without rehabilitation, and without improving the natural environment, I don't think it does. Because it's a material change of use, so you have to look at it from the whole planning scheme perspective. Now, I personally believe that every time there's a material change of use and there's a planning gap, that there has to be a requirement to contribute to the community.
00:25:00 In this case, we know there's a water quality issue in the Kin Kin catchment. We know it's very steep. The staff have quite correctly pointed out that we don't quite know if there is a significant environmental weed program. But we do know what the strategic outcomes in the planning scheme say. And they say for nature-based recreation, the development shouldn't increase the impact. And it's about achieving, in my opinion... in these areas... the strategic outcomes for biodiversity and environment. And some of those are... natural waterways and wetlands are maintained in a natural state. And with development, providing for rehabilitation and enhancement to improve the ecological function and water quality. So clearly, the outcome anticipated and desired by the planning scheme is that development applications... I'll say it again... improve... enhancement to improve the ecological function and water quality. So that particular stretch of creek that's mapped on the biodiversity overlay...
00:26:00 is one that I'm reviewing the overhead satellite imagery... is one that isn't as good quality as the riparian buffer. The riparian buffer actually looks like it's in good condition. And it's quite a good ecosystem. And it may have environmental weeds, but they're unlikely to be dominant. So that's why I've taken that reference to that out. Because I do think that we do have to look at... what's the likely cost of doing this? And is that an impost? I believe that there can be a rehabilitation that is... cheaper than taking it to council for the Planning Environment Court by a long way... that does achieve some of these aims. You know, like another aim in the strategic outcomes. Ecological buffers to wetlands and waterways are provided to protect and improve ecosystem health. Water quality and habitat to flora and fauna... support fisheries, recreation, tourism. This is a tourism enterprise. And surely in a biosphere, we want all our tourism enterprises...
00:27:00 to have a plan to make the environment on the site as good as possible. So it really does come back to... is this a suitable application? Is this a suitable use for the site? And can we achieve the overarching aims of the Planning Scheme? And to me... the... the... the note is a very good one. Because it gives a why. Why should we be looking at this particular waterway? But I do think it is reasonable... for council to say that we want our tourism enterprises... to meet and try and assist... achieve the strategic outcomes... in the Planning Scheme. And that's why I've moved the amendment. Speaker 6: Can I just clarify to the council itself what the amendment is? It is simply to add a new condition 23... and not removing... That's right. ...the note. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure we have that correct in this. Thank you. So Councillor Stockwell is...
00:28:00 his amendment was to include a new condition 23... but to leave the advisory note... that Councillor Lorentson put forward... as an advisory note and that stays in there. I'll speak to this. Mayor Stewart: I won't be supporting this amendment. This is not a major tourism operator. This is not Sofitel. This is a family who can have a maximum number of guests... at eight people. This is material change of use for short-term accommodation. How we've got to weeds is beyond me. We are talking about conditions. These guys have a huge amount of conditions. They've got a contact person. They've got a code of conduct. They've got car parking. They've got waste management. They can only have eight guests. I believe on Monday... that now they can only be outside until 9pm. There are a number of conditions put across. This is a house. They can have a maximum of eight people at one time. That's a family. That's a husband and wife and six kids. Or three kids, a grandparent and parents.
00:29:00 And an aunt. This is not a major tourism provider. These conditions, which are potentially going to cost... which we've heard between $7,000 and $30,000 are onerous. Even our own planning department said... potentially this is overreaching, overarching. I think we've gone above and beyond. I think absolutely if this was a big operator, a big provider... and there were some really serious big environmental concerns... then that would be fair and reasonable. But I don't think in this case... when you're talking about a house... with a maximum of eight people allowed... with already stringent conditions... that this is fair and reasonable. So I won't be supporting this amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Again, I state I approve and support the removal of weed species.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 This is an ecologically important area. There's no dispute about that. Councillor Stockwell, you made reference to the cost. I also mentioned whether it was reasonable. Whether the response to the changes that the development will cause... are reasonable. Changes that a development... which is a change in application for short-term accommodation... for maximum of eight people... is imposing a weed management scheme and rehabilitation... and replanting. Is that a reasonable response to an MCU for STA? I'm challenged on this one. I would love to agree to the condition and test it... as Council Wilkie said. But I'm concerned that testing it... is going to delay this application even further.
00:31:00 I think inconvenience is not a reason... for not pushing something that is important to me... in best environmental outcomes. But I just think, again, we may be just pushing it a little bit. I use the word excessive use of power. In my opinion, I think that this cause is a little bit far-reached... and an abuse of power, in my opinion. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson raised a very good question. If this motion, as it is read there, is passed tonight... will it stop the business from operating as short-term accommodation? Speaker 7: So before they can commence using it for short-term accommodation... they must meet all the conditions of approval. So there is some work for the applicant to do... because there's some structures on the site that are not approved...
00:32:00 so they need to address that before they can commence... so there are a few things that they need to do before they can commence. So I don't think it's necessarily stopping them. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, but it's not... they wouldn't be required to do all this work on the riparian buffer... before they can operate as a short-term accommodation, is it? Councillor Finzel: Yes, they are required to. Speaker 7: So the conditions... They are required to do the rehabilitation and the re-removal... Before? Before they commit short-term. That's how all conditions of a material change abuse work, yeah. Mayor Stewart: So on that, following on from that Kerry... that would mean that this family or these people... would have to outlay potentially between $7,000 and $30,000... based on sort of let's look at... they're not set in stone figures... but they're a reasonable guesstimate. They'd have to outlay between $7,000 and $30,000... before they received one bit of income from short-term accommodation. Speaker 7: Yes, that's right.
00:33:00 They would have to meet this condition before they start. Councillor Brian's amendment... where he's removed the riparian buffer and changed the wording... has reduced the extent of the area that's now required for the works. So instead of the 3,300 square metres that was talked about... it's probably now around 1,600. So it's probably halved it. Councillor Lorentson: Is there a cost for an operational works application, Kerry? Speaker 7: Yes, there is. There's an application fee to council for the operational works... and you can ask me what that is. I think it would be our minimum delegated fee... which is around 1,300. Councillor Lorentson: And there's also additional costs of replanting. That's not being factored in the numbers that we're throwing around today. Speaker 7: No, the costs that were provided... were based purely on the condition for weed removal... as council put forward at the general. Mayor Stewart: And Kerry, on your figures, it was 1,600... and this is very crude math here without a calculator.
00:34:00 Me too. So we're looking at about between 3,200 and 16,000... if it was $20 a square metre or thereabouts. Sorry, yeah, about 3,200 to 16,000 potentially... if it was 1,600 square metres. Yeah. Plus the 1,300 that they incur. Speaker 7: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Plus potentially re-vegetation. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question from Anthony Dow, Economic Development Officer... Executive, excuse me. Anthony, is someone setting up... a short-term accommodation provider in the hinterland... and we have identified that there is a need in the hinterland... for housing choices and housing supply... particularly short-term accommodation. Can I ask your opinion on whether you think the condition placed is... No. No. Sorry. Speaker 6: It's not a question. It's a technical question in terms of creative life.
00:35:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Does council have an obligation under the local economic plan... to support small businesses? Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. Yes, thank you. I guess the diversification agenda... says that we certainly want to spread the load... from the coast of the hinterland. So that would certainly fit... that more accommodation provision in the hinterland... fits with that strategy. I think the provision of good quality accommodation... will support user trails, network, et cetera. So it certainly is something that we would want to encourage... and it would fit with our strategy around growth... in the hinterland rather than just... probably the more congested coastal areas in Pictard. Councillor Lorentson: So just for clarification... there is a need for short-term accommodation in the hinterland. Speaker 1: I think I would clarify by that... Sorry. Sorry. That's fine. Speaker 6: The planning team has already determined that.
00:36:00 That's why the planning team makes these provisions... for that to occur. And that's a policy decision the council made... when it establishes the planning team. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to speak to the question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just have a question. Just a question. When the application came in... and you were talking to the applicants... prior to this coming up as a debate... were any of these issues raised... around weed management and rehabilitation? Speaker 7: No. We didn't have that discussion with the applicants... because right from the outset... we didn't consider such a condition... to be reasonable or relevant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Are there any other operational works... that have to be undertaken... before they can start operating? Speaker 7: No. There's no other operational works... that they're required to do. The only other works... that they need to address... are the building works... that are on site without an approval. So they need to prepare plans... and launch building works applications... for those works. Councillor Wilkie: So they still have a fair bit of planning... and applications they have to go through...
00:37:00 Speaker 7: before they can start. So it won't just be the rehab... that's sort of delaying them... if you like. Councillor Wilkie: And just to be clear... they need to lodge a rehabilitation management plan... through an operational works application... with the council... before they can operate? Or do they have to have completed... all that rehabilitation and replanting... before they can operate? Speaker 7: So they have to lodge the application... for operational works... for the weed removal and rehab... and they would need to complete the works... based on the way this condition is worded. Council could amend the condition... to give them a greater time frame... if they wished. So to undertake the works... over a period of time... if that was a concern for council. Councillor Wilkie: So that would be... for example... that an area of 10 metres... either side of the map waterway... must be rehabilitated... by controlling environmental weeds... and re-establishing native plant species... local to that area... by an active management program... to the reasonable satisfaction of council... over the next five years.
00:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Yeah. Kerry, could it be the case... that the applicant... doesn't have the money... for weed rehabilitation... and management? And in which case... this application might fall through? Speaker 6: It's a bit hard... by staff... financial position... I think that's really... that's not a matter... for the council staff... to determine... whether they can or can't afford... that. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak to the amendment. Thank you. Look, I think... I agree... if all this work has to be done... before they can open... it is... it is unreasonable. Councillor Jurisevic: If it is... Councillor Wilkie: it is work that can be done... over the next five to ten years... I think that's more reasonable... given that... a short term accommodation business... we heard how... all the Airbnb's... and stays properties... in the hinterland... were chockers... and full recently... there is clearly a demand... for short term accommodation... there is the potential... for them to earn... tens of thousands of dollars... per year... if... if they wished... it is a lovely location... it's likely to be popular... I'm... more in favour...
00:39:00 of... of... a similar condition... that... has to be abided by... over the next five to ten years... which gives them a chance... to be up and running... as a short term accommodation business... given that... one of the strategic outcomes... of the Noosa planning scheme... is that development applications... must... improve... environmental outcomes... must improve... environmental outcomes... it's going from a home... to a commercial operation... which is... essentially the potential... of a... a... a hotel... in the hinterland... they're very... highly sought after... it's a beautiful location... I... I do agree... with my fellow councillors... that this condition... as it's currently worded... is... is unfair... so... I... I can't support it... Mayor Stewart: I commend... Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Stockwell here... I mean... I... I know what he was trying to achieve... with the original condition 23... and I thought it less onerous... than what's here before us... now... the fact that this is... the Rehabilitation Management Plan... that needs to be endorsed... by a council... through an operational works application... which would mean the... the applicant would need to complete... all of those works prior... to...
00:40:00 to operating as a... a short stay... I do find... a tad onerous... but... on the other hand... I do see... Councillor Stockwell's... point... this is a material change of use... and under a material change of use... it does give us an opportunity... there for... to... to... look at the application... and... see what conditions... it does and doesn't meet... within the... within the planning scheme... and... and look at those opportunities... for amendment... however... like Councillor Wilkie... I... again... in the original... proposal for... condition 23... didn't have a time frame there... it had a weed management plan... which I would have expected... to manage weeds... you would also... re-veg... okay... may... may not have been articulated... correct... sufficiently enough... but... I would have expected that... a... a weed management... slash rehabilitation plan... could be undertaken... over a... over a period of operation... this will become...
00:41:00 potentially a commercial operation... you know... has the potential to... raise... revenue and income... for the... for the applicant... and as such... some of that could be... re... returned to... to the property... to... to manage... better manage the... the weed infestation... that is within... a riparian buffer... in an area that we know... has been getting sufficient... that has contributed to the... silting of the... particular... for... re-establishment of... of degraded land... and... control of weeds in the area... so... I won't be supporting the amendment as it stands... but I do appreciate the intent of what Councillor Stockwell is trying to do... I also understand the... the perspective the other councillors are coming to... that it... may be particularly onerous... and I think the operational works application... could be onerous...
00:42:00 as the... the original... ah... motion had... of some sort of a... ah... a time spent... plan for... weed management... and rehabilitation... on the site... with the... material change of use. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question for... um... management planning... if I could... um... a rehabilitation management plan... can that be endorsed... by council... by means other than through... ah... an operational works application? Speaker 7: Well... um... it does take time to... review... such a plan... so that's why... um... the suggestion was... for an operational works application... so... it... it takes time and money for council to review it... because... ah... there's a... there's a fair bit in it... I think it's re... reasonable to charge... a fee... and you would do so... through an operational works plan. Councillor Lorentson: Um... is it reasonable to impose a condition... that... um... asks the applicant to... engage... or... um...
00:43:00 enter into an agreement... with like... Landcare... um... to... work on... weed management... um... I... I've put it in a form of... of an advisory note... is there something... can we get... without putting any onerous... um... conditions... um... just an obligation... for them to meet... with... Landcare? Speaker 6: I don't believe we could do it as a condition... that you require... an applicant... to deal with a particular organisation... um... having it as a... suggested solution... in a... in a... um... advisory note... might be fine... it's the best... but requiring a... an applicant... to deal with... company A... or... not the proper organisation B... um... I don't think it'd be... um... the right... condition... um... Councillor Lorentson: obligation to meet with... claiming officers... in council... to discuss how... best... um... to put together... a... a weed management plan... Speaker 6: um... is that possible? it's a... similar thing...
00:44:00 um... you know... someone has to... if... if for any sake... this... um... amendment... became... um... a condition of the approval... um... or something similar to it... then... um... obviously they'll need to comply with it... they're always welcome to come and talk to council staff... before... um... approaching that... um... requiring that the condition of that... ... Mayor Stewart: Councillor... any other questions? Councillor Wegener and Councillor Finzel... you're the only two who haven't spoken to this motion... if you'd like to amend it... Councillor Wegener: um... in this case... um... we... I think council would love to see in the... in the... yeah... community expects... to bring this property up to the Noosa standard... and you get one bite at the apple... when this... when this happens... and this is the... time of material change of use... okay... and so... if there's a certain standard... that... I believe the community expects... and... um... this... um... rise motion reflects... that... the standard...
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Mayor Stewart: thank you... Councillor Wegener... Councillor Finzel... um... Councillor Finzel: yeah... this is a... um... a challenging... um... situation... we'll find ourselves in... with this... um... proposed amendment... we take on board the staff recommendation... that they feel it was overreaching... and was not discussed with the applicant... during the process of application... with supporting... advisory note... and then we also have to take into consideration... the strategic planning... um... based... with the Noosa 2020... plan... that has been ratified... and it is... I agree with... Councillor Wegener... the only opportunity... at the material change of use... to... um... put conditions... around that... so... it's a... um... yeah... there's a lot of things we can set up... thank you. Councillor Wilkie: One more question if I can... please... um... if the... if the... excluding factor in this particular amendment...
00:46:00 is... the time frame over which these works... this rehabilitation work has to... take place... is it possible to move... understanding orders... it's a question to the CEO... uh... another amendment... which has a different time frame... for these works to be achieved. Speaker 6: There's two scenarios... this amendment is either successful... or becomes part of the motion... and... Councillor Wilkie: if it's lost... Speaker 6: um... there's two scenarios here... one is the amendment can be... might be successful... and it becomes part of the motion... someone can then move another... further amendment... including to... the then condition 23... conversely... if this motion is lost... someone could move another motion... um... along the same line... of the clause 23... um... with additional wording. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Mr CEO. Councillor Lorentson: Um... if this amendment gets passed... will it be precedent setting? um... will we be telling... anyone else in the hinterland... who... want to make an application... for an MCU... for STA... that there could be... onerous... um... conditions placed... on... that application?
00:47:00 Speaker 7: Um... if... if council... decides to include this condition... on... this application... and... um... it remains on... the notice... um... despite representations... potentially in the future... by the admin... still remains on... officers... will start to include... Councillor Jurisevic: One would assume that would only apply to an application where a riparian area or a mapped waterway might exist on a property rather than just any SDA application. Would that not be the case? Speaker 7: Yeah, certainly. Sorry, that's what I meant. Any that's got similar circumstances, whether it's riparian areas or important vegetation, we would ask for a similar commission. Councillor Lorentson: So, Kerry, what areas are we referring to? Kin Kin, Cooran? Speaker 7: All areas of the hinterland. So anything that's mapped by a biodiversity overlay as being a riparian area or a waterway or an area of environmental significance.
00:48:00 Councillor Lorentson: So would this potentially be perceived as discriminatory? It's a bit of a leaning. Yeah, that's... Mayor Stewart: Are there any other questions for Kerry? Before we vote on this motion? Oh, Councillor Stockwell, thank you. Of course, you'll have the right one. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It has been a good discussion. And while it is only one short-stay accommodation venue in the hinterland, it has raised philosophical questions. And there's no one sitting around this table that doesn't support short-stay accommodation and moving tourism to the hinterland. What we're debating about is, should we use... Should we use a development process to improve the environmental outcomes for the rest of the community? Should we use every material change of use to achieve a step towards the strategic outcomes?
00:49:00 And if the answer to that is yes, then the reasonableness and relevance comes through. And I think there's been enough discussion around the table to say that, while the core of what I move to the hinterland, I'm not going to move to the hinterland. I think the key is that, perhaps, what we're saying is reasonable, what we're saying is relevant, but perhaps not reasonable. Because I think Councillor Wilkie is heading down the path that it may be reasonable to require the progressive improvement of values adjacent to this MAC waterway over a period of years. We've talked about costs and with through the debate and also with discussion the staff over recent months, the definition of rehabilitation within a development context is perhaps the development of the waterway to be more sustainable. That is quite a high hurdle requiring operational work proof whereas I see actually that a progressive process of management of this waterway to remove environmental weeds and replace with
00:50:00 natives should be a process that is much easier to achieve. So that's probably in the word. But the heart of it is that we're dealing with a fairly good riparian corridor mapped in the biodiversity overlay of remnant plus a section of waterway that's mapped on the overlay code and an acceptable solution as outlined in our code in the planning scheme is that development provides for the rehabilitation of land within C, 10 metres either side of the centre wall, line of a waterway identified on the biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlay map. So that's basically what this is asking for. But we, to me, I think there probably is a better solution that achieves the performance outcome. And to me, it might be something that the biodiversity and this is the PO6 of the performance outcome that that relates to is the biodiversity and ecosystem values of a waterway, wetland and adjacent riparian zones are protected by the
00:51:00 development of that. It talks about avoiding edge effects, maintaining stream integrity, maintaining water quality, removing pest species and replacing them with local. So to me, if this was not to succeed, the most appropriate sort of an amendment may be a new condition which says that council requires the applicant to improve the biodiversity and ecosystem values of 10 metres either side of the map waterway by removing pests and replacing them with local native species over the next five years. I won't be voting for the amendment. Mayor Stewart: All in favour of Councillor Stockwell's amendment? Against? That's unanimous. Thank you. Which brings us back to Councillor Lorentson's original amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move another amendment. Thank you.
00:52:00 But an additional condition be added, number 23, that the biodiversity and ecosystem values. No. Councillor Wilkie: No. Speaker 6: No. No. No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 10 meters either side of the map waterway be enhanced over the next five years by removing pest species and replacing them with local native species. Councillor Jurisevic: Is pest species the correct wording there? Would that be adequate? Or pest weed Deputy Mayor Stockwell: species? Do we need to be more specific than? If they've got pigs in there, they want to remove them as well. Councillor Stockwell, would you like to speak to this? I'm arguing on Councillor Lorentson's behalf that this is a good outcome.
00:53:00 Councillor Lorentson: And I agree with Councillor Stockwell. And I believe this condition should be relevant and reasonable and a reasonable response to the changes that the development will cause. And I think it's a win-win to our economy and environment. I applaud the Councillor Wegener: recommendation. Are we sort of rewriting what the environmental team is going to be doing now? Making a sort of new game plan for giving approvals by, through this Council meeting right now? Speaker 6: Can we raise the last one? In a word, yes. What the Council's doing is saying that in this, again, this amendment is successful. What it's saying is that for these types of applications, you will be wanting applicants to work on improving their site over the next five years, rather than having to do it now.
00:54:00 And that's what staff would then have to look at building into this type of application or conditions for this type of application as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Kerry. Is this a measurable and assessable condition that staff could deal with? What's that? Speaker 6: I'm trying to work out how to say no. Yeah. Speaker 7: The original condition that we had is more measurable than this condition. But I think this is a reasonable response to where, to ask for some works and improvements on the site without costing a significant amount of money for the applicant. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I like this wording because it gives the applicant the opportunity to engage with groups like Landcare, for example, and work out a way forward.
00:55:00 Yes, I like this wording because it gives the applicant the opportunity to engage with groups like Landcare, for example, and work out a way forward. Council staff and work out a way forward without it being a hard mandated condition which if we wanted to go that way I think it's better to take the time to work out a standard condition and this is not the forum to do that if we wanted to impose it more regularly going forward. I like this one that's come out of a good discussion around the table about what we're all collectively trying to achieve in terms of allowing the property owner to have a flourishing short-term accommodation business which we know is good for the hinterland economy and also protect the values that we seek to protect in the new planning scheme through the biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlays. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you councillor. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Look I concur. I think that there is intent and there is expectation in what we're proposing here. I don't think it's an unreasonable condition to oppose that somebody that is going to get a material gain and benefit by commercial activity through an MCU has a condition placed upon them and the expectation to enhance the environment upon which that activity is undertaken.
00:56:00 I think this is a far more reasonable ways and means of presenting that to the applicant. I'm just concerned that it doesn't, apart from pulling two weeds and planting one tree, I've enhanced the map waterway over that situation. So I'm concerned that it doesn't go far enough, but I accept that the intent is there and I think it gives intent to applicants that there is an expectation that if they're going to undertake commercial activities like SDAs on their land that they should and that the people coming to stay at that SDA have an expectation that the land is going to meet the Noosa environmental expectations, that they're going to not come to a waterway, that they're going to not come to a waterway, that they're going to not come to a waterway, that they're going to not come to
00:57:00 a weed infested property, but they're going to come to one that at least is making the effort to rehabilitate and to remove weeds and to enhance the environment that they're coming to stay in. So I commend the condition and I hope that it does sufficient to, in the minds of the applicant, to make them realise that there is work to be done for the next five years. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Leitch. Councillor Wegener: It seems wishy-washy, you guys. It's a goal. That's our goal. It's our clear goal. How do we get to that goal? What are the directives? Does it have teeth? Does it have direction? Does it have detail? It's a terrific goal, but I don't think it's any different, or not much different, than Amelia's advisory note. I guess it is, but I think we need a programme to back up this.
00:58:00 It's a great amendment, but it seems like it needs to be a programme set to make this work properly with the programme, so people know what they have to do. It's a great goal. Councillor Finzel: Thanks. A question then. Could we go back to having an operational plan that is over five years? Yes. Speaker 7: Thank you. You could amend the condition again to still require an operational work application. Yes. Yes. And the timeframe, we could write into the condition to give them five years to undertake those works. Okay. Councillor Finzel: So would that satisfy Tom's question around this is a bit wishy-washy? Will that give us something more strategic and more clarity for the outcomes that we're trying to achieve? Speaker 7: Yeah. My advice was that the previous Commission 23 was a bit more strategic.
00:59:00 Yes, we were. It was much more measurable than this one. But I thought this was a reasonable position to take for the proposal, but that's for Council to decide. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Vincent, would you like to speak to this motion? Yes, I would like that. Councillor Lorentson: Can I amend this? Do we have to vote on that before we move on? Speaker 6: No. Councillor Vincent. Question. Remember, as you might recall under our standing orders, that when you have an amendment, you cannot amend an amendment. Councillor Finzel: So we vote on this? Yes. And then we raise another amendment. Okay. Let's do that then. Mayor Stewart: Would you like to speak to this amendment? Oh, do I need to? So you don't have to? Speaker 2: Well, do I need to say? You don't have to. Councillor Finzel: Oh, do you want it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll close it.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 By removing all pest species and replacing them with local native species and to do that progressively providing annual reports on progress, something like to that effect. Mayor Stewart: We might vote on this amendment. All in favour? That's Councillors Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wilkie, Stewart. Against? Wegener, Finzel. You voted against this amendment? You just get that you're against. Oh, so you're amending this amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we get that motion and then amend it. Mayor Stewart: I'm for. Excuse me. We'll call that again. Sorry. All in favour of Councillor Stockwell's amendment? Councillors Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Lorentson, Stewart. Against? Councillor Finzel: Is this one here not the original one? Mayor Stewart: This is the one here. Councillor Stockwell's Justice Amendment. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So I'm against it. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Against? Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener. Yeah. Okay. That's carried. Thank you, Kylie. That forms part of the original.
01:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the subsequent amendment. And in the spirit of amendments on the run. And to be enhanced over the next five years by progressively removing all pest species and replacing them with local native species, providing an annual progress report to Council. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I think that both Councillor Jurisevic and Wichita Washi Council are at a point. Mayor Stewart: I didn't even like to speak to amendment number three. Councillor Wegener: Kerry, when we say all pest species. You need to worry about that one too. Is that possible? Is that good direction to give? Mayor Stewart: On the fly.
01:02:00 Speaker 7: It's a nice objective, but it's perhaps not possible to achieve. It's a nice objective. So we could leave the condition as an objective and that's how we can interpret it. I'll be comfortable with that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Is that because there's likely to be a fly buzzing around the site or something? Something like that. Some insect that's not native? It provides a target. Yeah. It's aspirational. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to ask any more questions or speak to this amendment number three? I have a question. Councillor Lorentson: Annual progress report. Will that be subject to satisfaction of Council officers? I'm wondering what's the KPI? Is there a KPI? This is why you don't do things on a Monday. That's right. I have to stop it. Councillor Jurisevic: I couldn't have said it that much.
01:03:00 Do you want to answer that question? Councillor Lorentson: I just don't understand the point of a report unless it's measured against something. Going back to Tom. Speaker 7: The condition could certainly be improved by adding those words to it. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think it's getting on until hours to do that anymore. Mayor Stewart: So, would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll speak to it. Whilst I appreciate ... Again, I appreciate what Councillor Stockwell's trying to do. He's trying to do amendments on the run. Adding the word all challenges me because that suggests that weed removal is forever an issue. That anyone can actually achieve a complete removal of all pest species on a site or in an area is aspirational, but not necessarily achievable. An annual progress report to Council becomes quite onerous, but I appreciate that it doesn't
01:04:00 have to be a particularly ... The level of detail in the progress report against Council on how that's worded. I see that we've potentially come up with a ... I see that we've potentially come up with a ... Some additional wording on the further amendment. As it stands, I'm not prepared to support it because I don't think there is sufficient detail in there. Even though I like the intent of it, I think it needs to have one more go, right? Start from the beginning. Councillor Lorentson: You don't have to ... Councillor Wilkie: I'm only going to support it on the provides how it has progressively improved. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Leakey. Can I ask whether we could get the advice of the CEO with the wording, you ... Councillor Jurisevic: I have another question. Is there a time restraint on this or is there the potential to defer this so that we may look at correcting the wording with some staff advice?
01:05:00 Speaker 6: My advice is to resolve it this evening. An applicant is waiting for a decision and the wording needs to be right. My advice to council always is when you try and do things on the fly, that's when you get into trouble. So let's get the wording right before we finalise and move on to the vote. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell, do you want to reply? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I need to say that it does need a bit of refinement. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. So we'll put this amendment to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Stockwell, against? Councillors Drusevich, Finzel, Councillor Wilkie, Wegener. Laurenston and Stewart lost. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you want to have another crack for that? Speaker 6: Can I test council? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Please. I think the word remove or control listed pest species. Speaker 6: So can I just perhaps ask a question or two, otherwise we're going to have another four or five go at it.
01:06:00 Yeah. It's my understanding that council is looking for something that would enable you to ensure that over the next five years, and what's done is that it's certainly about what's going to be happening there, and maybe Kerry, from your perspective to be able to then enforce this condition or have this condition certainly about it, what would be the key issues that you would need to be able to see into that to be there? Speaker 7: Yeah. Well, I think Councillor Byrne was pretty well there, but I would add to the reasonable satisfaction of council. It gives us a little bit of control over the work that occurs, so I think that goes along with that. It's a long way to addressing what occurs. We probably can't remove all. I think Councillor Byrne was talking about removing or control. Or control, yeah. Or pest species. We are not aware of that. Councillor Jurisevic: I would remove the word all, but that would work for me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Listed pest species. Speaker 7: Significant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because you need a benchmark. Yeah, listed.
01:07:00 Listed? In our biodiversity, in our... Speaker 7: Yeah, that's what I did. Yeah, I think it looks good. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I move it? I'll move that. Councillor George's speech. And I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: If only you'd take the fire out of Councillor Stockwell's chapel. No, I think the matter's being debated. I think we've come to a reasonable condition that I think all councillors can... Thank you. Councillor George, you, before we go on, you... Speaker 6: Oh, second the original. Okay. Good point. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Gonzales. Councillor Gonzales, you said... Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you mentioned that. Okay, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I think the intent was well intentioned. But the long-winded way of getting to the final result, I think what Councillor Stockwell
01:08:00 was attempting here was, again, well intentioned, well-meaning. I think it's a reasonable way of of achieving that result. The expectation of moving always, progressively moving controlling listed pest species I think is a far better way of wording it and an annual report to acknowledge that it's being undertaken and that the Council can see that the work's being undertaken I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Dewsbridge. Anyone else like to speak to this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did I hear right when Councillor Dewsbridge said I was long-winded? Mayor Stewart: Would anyone else like to speak now? We might put amendment number four to a vote. All in favour? Announce. Thank you, Colin. Can you send us to the original? Thank you, Joe. Speaker 6: So it brings us to the original.
01:09:00 Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie spoke to that, the original motion. Not all Councillors need to speak to it if you don't wish to. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to the original? Councillor Jurisevic: I can't remember what the original motion was. Mayor Stewart: With the decision, the inclusion of the decision items, the advisory note. Councillor Lorentson: And trial, I also inserted the trial period, the outdoor noise. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Would anyone like to speak to that? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I'll just reiterate a point raised through debate that I said. Councillor Stockwell is right. An MCU is an option for us to look at the application. Had this been... An Airbnb off the cuff that was being built on the site, I don't think it would have been an unreasonable expectation to look at that. The fact that the use is changing, I think, gives us that same expectation. To look at the use on the site, the fact that there is a material change of use, and the opportunity here to not only control the short stay elements of it, but any other use.
01:10:00 Now, I note that, you know, along with this, staff have taken the opportunity. Turn around and see what compliance issues there are on site, and making sure that all compliances have been adhered to on site from building regulations. So, there is those opportunities to turn around and make sure that the property does comply fully before a proven use. And I think this is a... I know that 23 was a bit long-winded, and we got there in the end. But I think adding the condition of 23 is a fair and reasonable outcome to have an expectation that if there are weed management issues on the site, and a proliferation of weeds, that we have an expectation that we had to deal with them. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Husson. Does anyone else like to speak to this? Alright, we might put to a vote. Oh, sorry, be pardoned. Councillor Lorentson: I'll reply, Councillor Langston. No, I thank all the Councillors for a really good debate. We have arrived at what I think is reasonable and relevant conditions.
01:11:00 And I also want to note that we have demonstrated that we actually are understanding the implications of our decisions, and the implications to the interland and to the Shire. So, thank you, Councillors. I'm glad to be sitting at this table. All in favour? Mayor Stewart: Yes. Okay. Item two. Page 12, RAL of 35. RAL 20 slash 0019. Application for reconfiguration of a lot, one lot into two lots, and creation of an access easement at 23 Durrima, present Cooroybar. This is the subject of a further report later in the meeting, guys. Item three. MCU 19 slash 0081.
01:12:00 Planning and Environment Court Appeal. Bill number D176 of 2019. Refusal of application for 16 ancillary dwelling units at 64 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. This item was deferred to the ordinary meeting, so staff could provide us with additional conditions. These have been circulated to Councillors, so we'll deal with this item now. Are there any questions for Kerry? Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, is home hosting permitted under the current scheme or old scheme in industrial states? No, it's not. And can this be challenged given that the locality of this particular building is in what is described as an enterprise precinct? Does that change the definition or use in any way? Speaker 7: So the applicant's applied for ancillary dwelling units,
01:13:00 so they can't use ancillary dwelling units for home hosting. They would have to make an application for another use to do home hosting and Council would need to look at that and reassess that afresh. So it would have to be a separate application. They're not able to do it through this proposed settlement. Councillor Lorentson: So I'd like to move an amendment. I'd like to move an amendment, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a motion, but it's amending the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: I'll let the recommendations read the truth. So can I read? Speaker 6: And maybe just read out the changes from... Councillor Lorentson: The changes, number four, the ancillary dwelling units are not permitted to be used for bed and breakfast accommodation and or short-term accommodation. Speaker 6: And I think you might have also added the advisory note.
01:14:00 Councillor Lorentson: That was Brian's addition. B, to include the following advisory note on the decision notice that the proposed ancillary units are located in an area that is zoned low-impact industry under the Noosa Plan 2020 and a range of industrial uses are planned to establish them may generate noise, odour, dust, waste, nuisance or the like. These industrial businesses will not be required to include additional measures to address the potential impacts from these industrial uses. On the dwelling units, given they should reasonably be expected. I'll second. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Well, Perry, you just said that home hosting is not permitted under the old or new scheme. I still thought it's important that we have that included as a condition so we remove all doubt that the permitted use of an ancillary unit is not permitted under the new scheme.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 And I also wanted to highlight that we have a shortage in housing supply and not a shortage in short-term accommodation. So although this didn't come in our favour, I think the opportunity there is that it is going to be providing some housing supply and some housing choices for our residents. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so it's an interesting place we find ourselves. We refused this based on we thought the development was by proxy creating multiple units. We tested that concept in court and the judge didn't agree with us. The judge says it could be considered multiple units, but due to the technical definition of what constitutes a premises, it could be considered 16 separate ancillary dwelling units.
01:16:00 So because we lost that argument that the judge says, no, you can look at each individual building unit and say it's one ancillary unit, we are in a position that our case is a difficult one to proceed with. So while it's probably an application that has tried to use a loophole to create a whole lot of residences, residential dwellings, we've conditioned it such that it's clear what their purpose is for. So a person can't buy one of these and just live upstairs. You can't just live upstairs. You can't park your caravan underneath and say that's an industry. You must be doing an industry. So in that way, providing the conditions are met, I hope it does lead to a whole lot of people with small industries who can both live and work in the one place. That wouldn't be a bad outcome. What the advisory note is that what we found and one of the reasons why we tightened up on this in the new planning scheme
01:17:00 was that people going and getting caretakers approved and then the caretakers complained that someone's actually had the hope to create noise and smells next door in an industrial estate. So this said, if you're buying this, buy beware. This is what you can expect. If you complain to us about any of those one things, we'll put it on the list. And it'll be at the very bottom of the list. I'm not going to get any higher. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm disappointed with where the court took this one. It would be an understatement. The purpose of the answer again was to be a caretaker's cottage, caretaker to overlook the entire complex. I could understand, but a caretaker won't understand. Each of 16 units in a pretty eight-unit complex, all of which overlook the lake and the environmental area at the rear
01:18:00 sort of has me scratching the head a bit. But it is what it is, what's before us. At least we've conditioned the users accordingly. And as Councillor Stockwell alluded, there is no expectation of people living in these units. Having industrial users around them and capacity to play, but also that the use goes with the premises. So that I do see there is a potential here for an element of positive outcome. We have talked about shop-top housing in commercial precincts. In a way, this is a similar type of scheme, but it means that perhaps the business can live upstairs and work downstairs in amongst other like-minded businesses and have that capacity. So acknowledged, tolerated, not necessarily genuinely expected or preferred.
01:19:00 Speaker 4: In a way, I'm curious to see how this develops over the next five years. Peg, the enterprise precinct, have people in there. These are the conditions. The court said that we can't do it. But anyways, let's just try to learn from this. And maybe, who knows, there might be a good outcome despite our thoughts right now. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I thank Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell for those additions to the conditions. I think that they were important to stipulate and to specify. And I think they're good ones. And I'm hopeful, too, as Councillor Stockwell said, that people who are actually working in these industries and if they need accommodation, they can make use of that upstairs, we can effectively say we're potentially providing or housing 16 people,
01:20:00 which is a good thing, as we know we're at an affordable housing crisis. And I think it's a great addition to say, you know, fibreware, as Councillor Stockwell said. If you want to live here, these are the conditions that you must live under, taking into account the noise, the pollution. And as Councillor Lorentson said, good again to stipulate about no short-term letting, no home hosted. Although that's, as Kerry said, that's part of the conditions, it's good to have it stated and it's good to have that on record for our community as well. So thank you, everyone, for those additions and those conditions. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I would just like to add that I think we could look at this as an opportunity. I think particularly with arts, culture and heritage, who knows if this develops into a precinct where we have artists working together in collaboration and supporting one another for outcomes that enhance and promote that industry and also providing great opportunity for shared resources, perhaps around technology or other things.
01:21:00 So I think the conditions that we've put on are good. Thank you to the councillors that have raised them, but I see it as an opportunity considering that fundamentally we've been changed, how business is done due to COVID and how we look towards a brighter future. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: No, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. So this is to item number four, which is very similar. Planning Environment Court Appeal Number D102 of 2020, refusal of an ancillary dwelling unit at 1-33 Gateway Drive, Noosaville. This item is also deferred to the ordinary meeting so staff could provide us with additional conditions. Does anyone have any questions for Kerry? I'll move the motion. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I think we've just dealt with it.
01:22:00 The mirror reversal has just been at number four, so I think there's no need. We need to rehash. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, just to clarify for the sake of those listening, were these conditions that have been added here in the previous recommendation before us or have they been added here today, Madam Chair? Mayor Stewart: These are the same conditions, Councillor Drissett, Councillor Jurisevic: which has a previous application. Yeah, but they weren't on this. They were on the previous recommendation. They worked on this prior, so I'm just wondering whether they, just to clarify, whether they were on the agenda before, when the agenda was received, and that's as written, or have they... Mayor Stewart: I received... Councillor Jurisevic: You know, I know we've circulated for the purposes of the people that are watching that everybody understands that those conditions have been added is what I'm referring to. Yeah, I think,
01:23:00 Speaker 6: Councillor Curran, they weren't provided here, but that... Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it's the same word. Yeah, that it's understood that they've been added in this... Yes. Mayor Stewart: I won't... Anyone wants to speak? Speaker 7: Okay. Mayor Stewart: I won't waive my word. We'll apply. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Item number five, Noosa Bushland Reserve Strategic Management Plan. This item is deferred to the ordinary meeting and is the subject of a further report later in the meeting. Item six, Noosa Bushland Reserve Strategic Fire Management Plan 2021. Item seven, Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation New Partnership Agreement 2021-2025. This item is deferred to the ordinary meeting to allow us to hold a workshop yesterday to garnish further information. And so we'll deal with this item now.
01:24:00 Are there any questions for us? Councillor Wilkie: I'll second the motion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, councillor. Speaker 6: I'm adding the additions of, Mayor Stewart: or the motion in place, is that councillor note the report that the Environmental Services Manager to the Planning and Environmental Committee meeting will be submitted dated 8th of June 2021 and agree to enter into a four-year partnership agreement with the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation from the 1st of July 2021 as set out in attachment one to the report, authorise the chief executive officer to make any minor alterations to the partnership agreement as may be necessary and enter into the partnership agreement with the foundation. C, request the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation to seek more female representation on its board,
01:25:00 taking into account the relevant and necessary experience that is required by the board, by that board. And D, accept Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation's offer to place their internal governance policies on their website. Thank you to councillor Wilkie who D, was I believe brought up at the general council committee meeting on Monday and very kind of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation to make that offer to put their internal governance policies on their website. I think that creates greater transparency and I think it's a good move. In regard to C, when I did some research quickly I note that there's currently eight board members on the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, councillor Wilkie being one of them and they're all male and there's nothing wrong with that. But I think that it is time to have some female representation on the board. When I looked at the Australian Institute of Company Directors and I looked at some research, women on the ASX 200 companies,
01:26:00 women on boards of these companies have increased by two points in the last year bringing it up to 32.1%. So 32.1% of board directors on ASX 200 companies are women. That's three out of 10. Right now with the Noosa Biosphere we're at zero out of eight. So it's a new funding agreement and a new partnership agreement, sorry should I say. It's an opportunity to really, to drive that forward, to drive the recognition of women forward. And I think it's a good thing and I think it's something that this community as we, the River Stakeholder Advisory Group was a good example. The community wanted women, they wanted representation, they wanted equal and fair representation. Now I'm not saying have eight women on the board but I'm saying we can do better than having zero women on the board. So that's why I've moved this amendment to include the women being a part of this foundation. And I know there had been a woman on this board
01:27:00 previously and she resigned earlier last year. So I'd like to see another woman step up and I don't think it should just be you're a woman, you're on the board. Board members, as we've heard, have significant credentials and are very well resourced in regard to their intellectual knowledge about all things environmental. And they have a lot of university ties. So I know that there are a lot of women out there who have those credentials. So I'd like to see them to be a part of the board going forward. Whether or not that happens over the next 12 months, 18 months, but I think it should be noted and I think it should certainly be aspirational and I think it's something we should all work towards. Thank you. Speaker 1: Next question. Speaker 4: Speak to the motion. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Being on the board, of course, as was pointed out by Rex earlier, that I'm a male. There's three new female counselors. One of them could have got on the board, but I really, really, really wanted
01:28:00 that position on the board. But we did make a motion to this. In March, Duncan, a board member, proposed the board commits to an equitable gender diversity by 2025, implementing a plan to achieve this target. Concern was raised about the committee to a quota or a set male-female percentage split. The board is committed to a gender equality, however, recognizes that this is a complex process to achieve fairly. So this is in the minutes. So the motion was the board commits to achieving an equitable gender diversity by 2025. The board commits to developing and implementing a plan to achieve this 2025 target. And this was passed. So it's been hot on the topic and it's definitely been recognized by the board and it's just a fluke that there's eight men. And I'm sure that they're looking to address that.
01:29:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Friedman. Does anyone else like to speak in this session? Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, look, I commend the mayor on adding condition C. I'd go one step further to ensure that diversity is a key point on any board and any representation that diversity of gender as well as a range of other diversities that can be considered there, including indigenous representation, of course. I'll speak about more to point A. I agree to enter in the four-year partnership with the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation. I think what this does is show that we've reached a level of maturity and understanding of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve and the work that the foundation is doing. We acknowledge that the outcomes that the Reserve Foundation is achieving are to be commended and to be continued as Craig has undertaken
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 here to more closely align with the political term is quite a good outcome. I think to Rex and his team and the work they've been doing to date and the projects they've brought forward have been ones that this community can well be proud of and we'll expect great outcomes off and I look forward to the next array to continue to bring to this community. Thank you Mayor Stewart: Councillor Councillor Jurisevic: for your speech. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Briefly, being acknowledged by UNESCO internationally as a Biosphere Reserve is a really big step in the history of this Shire. Setting up the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation was a key step in getting others involved in meeting our obligations to maintain that endorsement
01:31:00 and to keep on, more importantly, keep on learning. A big part of the UNESCO Biosphere Program is about the Living Laboratory. So what this agreement does, it actually provides a little bit more in that regard, suggesting that operational funding is not just administrative funding. It is potentially being allocated to be able to hold symposiums or provide the funds to hold symposiums to look at getting the multidisciplinary knowledge around the table to address key issues that the Biosphere is facing. It talks about the potential to enter into a science brokerage arrangement. So to get them, get the Biosphere to work on behalf of Council to go out and access the research we need to address problems. So to me, this is another step on the way. And I think it's, well, we also need to acknowledge that it really is a vote of endorsement of the work that the Biosphere Research Foundation
01:32:00 has been doing and the quality that they bring to the task. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson: Karen How will this be managed and are there any risk? Speaker 3: I think any time we enter a partnership there's risks that one party or the other won't hold up their end of the bargain. The key action we've taken to mitigate risk with regards to this agreement is to not actually have any guaranteed funding within the agreement. So year in, Council will make a decision based on NBRS performance on whether and how much to fund them for the following year. So that's been the key action different to the previous agreements that have been undertaken to mitigate any risk to Council. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, Craig, it would be fair just under the Partnership Act 1891, can you confirm that this is not a legal partnership so we're not liable for each other in any way
01:33:00 Speaker 3: for King & Co on that matter who instructed that the current agreement did not meet that but they also just to remove any doubt provided some recommended wording that we adopted to make it even clearer. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Have we included review provisions to evaluate and monitor the success of the partnership? Speaker 3: There's a series of specific things that need to be reported in the annual report which includes the report on the return on investment. So the ratio of investment depending on what Council for their projects they deliver. Also around their community engagement and media presence and also around the success they have in delivering their projects on time. So when that's reported in the annual report that gives Council an opportunity to I guess decide whether or not the project has been worth, the partnership continues to be worthwhile.
01:34:00 Councillor Finzel: Would you please be able to clarify the difference between the partnership agreement and the funding deed to explain how the change seeks to more accurately reflect the working of the relationship between the NRBF and Council? Speaker 3: There's no latent difference between the two pending our advice but the term funding deed dates back to the two previous agreements where Council specifically provided allocated funding to NBRF. So we didn't feel that funding deed was an appropriate name for this. So we came to the term partnership agreement because that's why we envision and the way in practice Council's been working with NBRF particularly over the last 20 years. So we feel that rather than Council being a financial provider to NBRF Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And how will this impact the operational plans, budget and KPIs that were considered not relevant moving forward?
01:35:00 Speaker 3: They're still existing in the document. They're sitting there to be reported on in the annual operational plan. So none of the KPIs from the previous agreement have gone. They're all sitting there. They're just not being called KPIs because we didn't feel they were actually KPIs. Functionally, the way they're used will pretty much be exactly the same. NBRF will report against those criteria that's in the agreement as part of their annual plan. And then council will be able to use the success of otherwise of those reporting indicators to be able to make financial decisions on budget allocation. Speaker 6: I'll probably just add to that. The report that NBRF is required to provide will come to council at council meeting. And that report will be part of the council agenda as well. So the community gets to see what that report is. Mayor Stewart: Craig, can you confirm? Can you confirm that there's no money, there's no agreement for any funding in regard to this partnership agreement and that's a purely separate matter? So it merely is a partnership agreement?
01:36:00 Speaker 3: It is, that's correct. The only funding that can be allocated can be allocated either by council as part of its normal budget decision during the budget process. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Can application be made under the operational plan for any type of funding between, say, $5,000 and $50,000? Speaker 3: Application can be made under NBRF's operational plan, which they must provide to us by the end of February for council to consider as part of the budget cycle for anything that meets the definition of operational expenses within the agreement. They cannot provide anything that does not meet that definition or would be considered a project because that's considered outside the scope of funding. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. And Craig, aside from the four-year cycle to align with local government elections, what specific goals are you aiming for to provide certainty for the relationship? Speaker 3: I don't know that I have specific goals.
01:37:00 Certainly for the relationship, it's about us continuing to grow and work with NBRF and ensuring that through our representation on the board that NBRF is pulling in the same direction as council. Since the last agreement, obviously council endorsed the Noosa environment strategy, which not only is influencing the way we work as a council, we expect it to influence the way we work. For the first time in this agreement, we require an operational plan each year. Previously, all we've required is a request, a funding request. We're now saying our expectations of NBRF comes to us, not just with a request for funding, but actually what they're going to spend that funding on. And that assists us to align it with our environment strategy. Mayor Stewart: So would you say the conditions now are more arduous for the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation? They're more accountable now under this agreement than previously? Speaker 3: I think that's clearly the case, because both of the previous agreements have provided guaranteed funding. The previous agreement just for the first year, the agreement before that for three years. So while arduous implies a negativity, I think it just simply explains that the gradual
01:38:00 evolution of NBRF and the relationship in their organisation, that both sides are happy with this change. We actually see it as part of the movement of NBRF forward. Speaker 6: I'd probably just add to that, to me, this third agreement probably reflects the maturity of NBRF, which is also why it's probably moving from a funding agreement to a partnership agreement, but also why it's moving from a three-year agreement to a four-year agreement. They're probably more comfortable about that relationship and how that works, and the control for council really sits around that. There is no obligation to provide funding. That's part of the ongoing performance and the annual process to look at that funding is through the budget process. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Craig, given this is the third reiteration of this agreement, for clarity, how is acquittal of funds undertaken and what is to be included in the submitted written reports back to council to meet council's acquittal requirements?
01:39:00 Speaker 3: Just bear with me for a moment while I grab the relevant section of the agreement. That should be 6.2b, as far as I recollection. Yeah, so under the current agreement, under section 6.2, there's a several criteria there around performance reporting. So it states they must report on NBRF activities and meet council's acquittal requirements, including, but not necessarily limited to, provision of a six-monthly report against utilisation of the funding towards the operational plan, or as otherwise required by council, provide an annual report for each financial year submitted to council no later than 30th November, or within 30 days. They must also provide an audited financial report for each financial year and submit it
01:40:00 no later than 30th November, and these reports are provided to council to a council meeting and placed on the public record. There's also requirements that if council requests it, they must provide ad hoc reports within 30 days of any such request. That could come as a direction from council or from a council officer, would be my interpretation of that. And that could relate to any significant developments concerning the program or any delays or difficulties. So those are the conditions in the agreement. Thank you, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a follow-up from that, Craig. What would happen with any unspent funds or any requests for additional funds? Should they be required? Speaker 3: Any requests for additional funds would come to a council meeting. There's no provision within this agreement to provide additional funds to NBOF. There are some conditions around unspent funding.
01:41:00 Under section 7, 7.1 and 7.2, there are various conditions around the management of council funding. And those will lie under section 7, 7.1 and 7.2. And those will relate to the failure to comply with the agreement. So there's several provisions there that if NBOF fails to remedy, sorry, fails to remedy a failure to comply with the agreement in substantial respect within 30 days, NBOF must, on demand from council, repay council the whole amount of unspent funding for that financial year. Speaker 6: Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Just in reference to the partnership, why is this not a strategic alliance? The NBRF have no power to bind or represent council. Parties in the agreement are not carrying on a business in common with a view to profit. So just by way of clarity and for the viewers, can you explain why we put this agreement under partnership and not a strategic alliance?
01:42:00 And what's better for growth, a partnership or an alliance? Well, the NBRF has no power to bind or represent council. Speaker 3: I'll be honest, we did not really consider the wording to that level of the extent. It was made very clear, so long as it wasn't a partnership in the legal sense of a partnership, to us it seemed quite appropriate. We could have called it a strategic alliance. That wouldn't have been unreasonable. This actually felt a little bit more plain language, if you like, a little bit more user friendly. Speaker 6: I'll probably just add to that. The lawyers, the ex-lawyers around the room probably recognise that partnership can have a special meaning and a special legal obligation. But to the layperson out there, partnership means a good working relationship. And I think that reflects what this is about. We needed to make sure, and we got that legal advice, that we could step over that line and form what are called a legal partnership partnership. So there's no risk there for council, but it does reflect what the ordinary person's understanding of the word partnership means. How do you work together to get things done? Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Matt. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, just a clarifying question.
01:43:00 My question earlier, Clayton. I appreciate that there's wording in there that there's, which we get that we can't spend funds with regard to failure of obligations and the like. But I was more referring to should they be more prudent and they haven't actually spent all the operational funds. Does that also cover that element of it? Or is that an element that gets returned at the end of financial year? Or can they carry that over and request less in the next financial year as a finance bank that bank those funds for future provision? Speaker 3: Thank you, councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Sorry. I was just getting my wording right. Speaker 3: It just happened to me. So that's why. So under 7.2C, it states that if NBRF fails to spend the funding or part of it on the NBRF program, they are subject to the clause liable to repay council the amount of unspent money and the council may recover that money from NBRF as a debt due to council.
01:44:00 I don't believe what you're asking is the specific intent of that clause. The intent of that clause is around if they spend it on something inappropriate. Previously, functionally, NBRF, with their project funding, have been able to roll that over. But with operational funding, it was unspent. We've allocated less the following year. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the intent of my question. Councillor Finzel: Any other questions? I have a question. Yeah. It's noted on page 98 of 119 of the report under the funding conditions, there's no mention made of the general requirements around community engagement. Question. How come there's no mention of community engagement under this section, given the proposed funding date 21 to 25 agreement centres on continuing work with Noosa community to develop education and research projects that enhance and align with UNESCO, BAN and Biosphere program goals? How is the community engagement measured? Speaker 3: You're correct. There is no mention under 6.1, but under 6.2 with the performance reporting, one
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 of the performance reporting recommendations is that there is no mention of community engagement There's a range of methods of communication utilised and estimated audience reached. So there's a measure there for NBRF to be specifically reporting on the level of community engagement and the types of reach they're able to achieve. Councillor Finzel: So how has this been made transparent to the community in the past? Speaker 3: With regards to NBRF's broadly their transparency, NBRF have an outstanding website. I don't think there's another community group in Noosa that has a more transparent and open website. You can go on there today and find every project they've done over the last five years, the amount of cost, who contributed the funds, what the ratio was, and any report that came out of it is all listed very clearly and very easy to find. When I need to find research information, often the first five years. That's where I go, is the NBRF website. On there you'll also find their constitution, their trust documentation, their strategic plan and all their annual reports from 2017 to 2018, which outline the communications and outreach they've had into the community and also their audited financial statements for all the community to see.
01:46:00 Councillor Lorentson: Craig, there were some concerns in regards to membership, that the NBRF is not open to everyone. My question is, was it? Was it actually set up, in my understanding, in 2015, it was set up by Noosa Council, was it actually set up as a member-based community organisation or not? Speaker 6: No, it wasn't. The council adopted a model back there, and there was a lot of debate about this issue at the time, but essentially the model was to have a foundation which acted as a think tank or strategic type approach, and there'd be a separate organisation dealing with broader-based membership. So that was the model that was set up by council, and it hasn't been operating since that time.
01:47:00 Mayor Stewart: Any other speakers to this motion? Thank you, Craig. Thank you for all those questions. I read thoroughly your answers. Look, I think it's good to note that, as Craig has said, this partnership, it's a partnership. It's a working relationship. It's not a legally binding document. In no way are we implicated or liable for Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, and likewise, in no way are they liable to us. There is no guarantee for the community. There is no guaranteed funding under this partnership agreement. It is purely a good working relationship, and it's a way forward. Again, it's where we're going to head. I think it shows, as our CEO said, a maturity of the relationship between Noosa Council and the foundation. I think it's heartening to hear, Councillor Wegener, that there is the motion put forward to include more women. I think this is an important one. I think certainly going forward, the year we find ourselves in 2021, a board of all men
01:48:00 is hard to justify. So I think the addition of women and the determination of the foundation to include women is a great thing. And I think that the reserve foundation's own offer to place their internal governance policies on the foundation is a great thing. I think the fact that the organisation is on the website is also good. It increases transparency, and that's always a good thing for any organisation, having the community more involved and to know more about it. And so, yeah, I'm happy to support this resolution. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I've skipped to a motion. It's closed. Councillor Jurisevic: It's actually closed. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. I don't think anyone else has spoken to anyone else. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought it was very good. Oh, of course. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? You're not. Thank you. You missed it. Mm. Mm. Mm. Okay.
01:49:00 Okay. Speaker 3: Moving on. Mayor Stewart: We might, would anyone like a five minute, it's a restroom break, we might take a break probably for five minutes. We have three other items on the agenda, and I can see one going for a little longer than the others. Councillor Wilkie: Madam, Madam Mayor, we've got two more before we move the general committee. Oh, I beg your pardon. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah. It doesn't make sense. Yes. So item eight, amendments to commercial use of community land policy, and item nine, financial performance report, May 21. I move the general committee recommendations, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Oh, Councillor Finzel, thank you. All in favour? Thank you. We might have a five minute break here. You know us. Councillor Wilkie: We might have a five minute break here. Thank you.
01:56:00 Mayor Stewart: We're on to page 15 of the agenda and this is reports direct to the ordinary meeting. Item 1 is the further report RAL20-0019 application for reconfiguration of a lot, one lot into
01:57:00 two lots and creation of an access easement at 23. This is the further report requested at the general committee and we have our development assessment manager here, Kerry. Does anyone have any questions for Kerry? Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move a motion on staff recommendation, please. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll second that. Do you have a seconder? Councillor Wilkie: No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councilors, I've done some serious thinking about this and we had a wide-ranging discussion on Monday about whether the waterway in question was a waterway or a wetland. The staff is still divided on that. They said it is still a waterway and a wetland.
01:58:00 A waterway. A waterway. It is a waterway. There is a disagreement between the view opposed by councillors at the table that it was a wetland rather than a waterway. Staff advice is it is a waterway. And if you turn to page 24 on our Planning and Environment Committee agenda where it talks about performance outcomes, it says the biodiversity ecosystem values of waterways, wetlands and adjacent riparian zones, whether it's waterways or a wetland, are protected by avoiding any new development in a riparian buffer area and wetland area. And under acceptable outcomes, development and clearing of vegetation does not occur within a riparian buffer area or a wetland area. The fence line, the boundary line is considered development under the Planning Scheme. So we have refused a lot of other
01:59:00 developments because, development applications because they have developments that propose works or developments, some form of development works within a riparian buffer zone. Gem life is for one and there's an appeal pending about that. And that would be one of the key arguments for our defence of that appeal. If we start approving subdivisions that, or any sort of development application that involves works that will either impinge, go, that bisect or impinge or affect in any way a riparian buffer area, it really weakens our, it weakens the Planning Scheme, it weakens the preferred performance outcomes, the acceptable outcomes of the Planning Scheme. And I want to have my name on this, voting in favour of this recommendation because I don't want my name on an alternative recommendation that's going to be used in a court case about where the Noosa Council approved a development that involved works that impinged on or bisected a riparian, a riparian zone. The only reason
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 we were, one of the main reasons we were successful in defending a court case against the Queensland Investment Corporation, which is effectively the State Government, was that we have been consistent in upholding the Noosa Planning Scheme. And that means performance outcomes and acceptable outcomes of the Noosa Planning Scheme. I don't want this to be the decision that sent the Noosa Council down the wrong track. I acknowledge the expertise of a councillor, Councillor Stockwell, who is at this table, he has extensive experience as a town planner. But his view is still in conflict, his opinion is still in conflict with our professional staff. And when you have that internal dissension, what I'm worried about is unintended consequences for a range of other, other, other, other decisions down the track. We're already getting applications as the, the demand for land,
02:01:00 the developable land becomes higher because of scarcity. We're getting a lot of applications that are pushing the boundaries and staff are having to continually guide applicants in the right direction. We're going to be more and more having to defend these marginal applications. We do have an application to defend the Gem Life appeal. One of the key arguments is that what, why we refused it was because it had works that were in the riparian area. I don't want this, if, if the alternative recommendation gets up, I don't want that thrown in the face of our lawyers as an, as an evidence of inconsistent decision making regarding riparian buffers used to weaken our chances in that appeal. I think there are broad ranging unintended consequences
02:02:00 that could come through approving a subdivision that impinges on or has works in a riparian zone. And again, if the advice was clear, clear cut and unequivocal and the staff concurred, I think that could be justified. But where there is internal conflict between a councillor's opinion, no matter how knowledgeable they are and our expert staff, I think it's the wise thing to do is to back the staff recommendation. Of course, we want to help applicants at every turn, but this is a marginal application and Councillor Stockwell's advice, although you can understand why it's been proposed. And there are a lot of conditions. There are, you've seen the advisory note from, from Connor Neville, that if, if approved,
02:03:00 it would create two different parcels with covenants resulting in additional compliance and monitoring for the rate payers, increased potential for adverse ecological impacts, because this is one of the key arguments put forward on Monday, was that if you can get good environmental outcomes, it's worth considering an alternative. Mm. But having considered the, what's come before us, I'm not convinced that there will be better environmental outcomes, given that increases the potential for adverse ecological impacts with, resulting from increase in water abstraction, increasing water harvesting and interception, decreases the recharge of groundwater dependent systems, increase in hard surface areas, increased pressure to clear vegetation due to perceived bushfire risk from the new property being created. It's a septic system that's going in, failure to, failure of wastewater systems leading to eutrophication of waterways and groundwaters. And it's, it's an unreasonable ask not to have a, a new neighbour created by the subdivision
02:04:00 to not want a fence down the track. That means it, you can bet your bottom dollar that down the track, the council is likely to have to fend off an application to put in a fence line, because having a fence to separate properties in a, an area such as this, if they want to have some sort of animals there, it's entirely reasonable. Um, and as it says here, the perceived benefits do not outweigh the precedent of allowing development in a riparian buffer area. I think we need to think beyond this application, the flow on effects for, uh, court cases and our capacity to defend appeals, and also it is dubious, it is, it is questionable whether it will result in better environmental outcomes. So I, I think it was a great exercise to undertake, to see if an alternate recommendation would result in better environmental outcomes, um, uh, could it protect the riparian area? Um, I, I'm not convinced that it, that it does, so I'll be having my name on this, in
02:05:00 support of this recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question, um, certainly we do have to be careful about precedent, um, but, um, what was the nature of development within the riparian corridor in Gem Life? My, my recollection was it was both a major entrance road plus, um, construction within the riparian zone. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Um, that's true. The extent of works that were proposed with Gem Life were more extensive, expansive, than this proposal. But it is, has similarities in that the riparian buffer for Gem Life had also been partially cleared, and they were using the area of the riparian buffer. So there are, are some similarities. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Totally appreciate, councillor, um, Wilkie's point of view. Totally appreciate that you should rely on expert staff evidence.
02:06:00 Um, whether it's a wetland or a waterway makes zero difference. That's a technical ecologist argument about the nature of the landscape. In layman's terms, it's a stuffed wetland. It's an aquatic ecosystem that's regenerating with some melaleuca and other stuff that could be significantly enhanced by rehabilitation. Absolutely no difference in terms of if I was to suggest what is the most critical areas for rehabilitation and what's most likely to have, uh, the best bang for the buck, it is about 15 metres either side of the current dams and to the back of the corridor. Kylie, I'd like you to bring up another approval that was done by the City Council. This is a development that was in the planning and environment agenda. Um, this has a map waterway, which you can follow via the lowest contour through the
02:07:00 middle and up the pathway. It's not a riparian corridor. It is a waterway mapped on the biodiversity and waterways wetland. Not only has the, uh, it is a first order stream. It is, once again, highly degraded. It has the better value stuff protected in a park and it has some of the connectivity, um, within the pathway. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Brian, can you point out exactly what you're referring to there? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Uh, this is the creek. Okay. It starts up here with wetlands. Okay. But it's very first order. A few remnant bits of vegetation, but a defined bed and bank of a waterway. Now, staff have gone and looked at offsets and come up with a solution which they believe meets the performance criteria. I'm happy with that. It is not exactly what I thought would be the, the way I would design it to meet the performance
02:08:00 objectives, but staff have come up with a recommendation. But you can see here that in this particular case, because it wasn't a highly significant waterway in terms of ecology, it's a waterway that was designed to meet the performance criteria. Now, several lots and boundaries put through it. Um, the performance acceptable solution on this case is 10 metres either side of the waterway should be rehabilitated. We might have been talking about that earlier on in the meeting today. So that's already set a precedent about those schemes. It's not in the map riparian corridor, give you that, so that's a higher level of protection. But we have to be careful. So it is an area. It's an argument about what gets the best outcome. If we don't approve the development, the level of water extraction is no different. If we've got two boards or one ball, it's not in the regulated area.
02:09:00 They're both likely to be rural residential. They're not likely to be used for intensive horticulture. That's going to suck all the groundwater. It's a massive groundwater resource across that basin. So that's to me, a very minor chance compared to the current level of degradation talked about. It's going to be a septic system. So there might be eutrophication, certainly any way onsite wastewater has that, but that's why we have the modern Australian standards. And if you look at all the water quality testing that we've done in the rivers and lakes, septics have never been identified. Wastewater had never been identified as the course of nutrient. And in my studies, they rarely are. Generally it is very, very low lying areas that haven't got the modern wastewater treatment that you do start to get a signature from wastewater, human wastewater. So I think it's perfectly reasonable position that Councillor Wilkie's put up, that he's
02:10:00 concerned about precedent. But in this case, when the extent of development... The development within the riparian corridor is a boundary line and an easement to transverse two dams to get to an area at the back, I think it can be conditioned so that we achieve the performance outcome and reduce the potential outcome, reduce the potential impacts of the, not only the development, I think the development can enhance the ecological value if a water and environmental covenant was put over the right areas. So I won't be supporting the motion, but I appreciate the intent behind it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Smith. Question. Under the Planning Act, a fence line is considered development. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. So development is defined by the planning legislation, which includes subdivision, placing
02:11:00 of a boundary. Councillor Wilkie: So it follows then that if this is defended in court, or it goes to a court, then it's going to be looking at a very legalistic interpretation of what a development means in terms of that fence line. Speaker 7: The court will recognise that this is development through the riparian buffer. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we clarify that if an easement, sorry, if a covenant is placed over and an ecological area is determined for the internal development, then it's going to be looking at a very legalistic No fence passes through the centre of that. The existing fence and there are existing fence lines around the property. Do the existing fence lines constitute development? Speaker 7: If it's existing, it's existing. So obviously that's not new development, it's existing.
02:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And I'm just speaking of the alternatives. If the externals of the boundary of the property are not existing, then the existing fence lines of a potential environmental protected area were to be fenced, and that came outside of that riparian buffer area, would that all still constitute development within the prohibited area? Speaker 7: I think your question is, would fencing around the external boundaries of the whole property now constitute development? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I'm suggesting, there's been an alternative proposal presented, which mentions a fence that is basically in front of the current wetlands area between the housing and the
02:13:00 dam, the creek line, would that fence in that situation be considered as development? If it's a boundary fence outside of the environmental area, as opposed to through the middle of it, as a boundary fence would go in the current proposed recommendation or proposed development application before us. Speaker 7: Okay. So development is defined by the Planning Act as a material change of use, building works, or reconfiguring a lot. So that can be considered as development. That is development. The drafted motion for Council has included fencing to prohibit entry into what is the proposed covenant area and rehabilitation area. That fencing would be outside the area that's been identified by Councillor O'Brien as being
02:14:00 the area that we should protect. Yeah, that area is kind of very clear of vegetation. I don't have any concern necessarily about that fencing being outside the area that's fencing in itself. Councillor Wilkie: Question. In your experience, how are covenants enforced and are they very well enforced? Speaker 7: So covenants are attached to title. So they're on title. So when people buy a property, they can see that there's a covenant over title. With that covenant goes a number of requirements about how people are required to treat that area and manage that area. Currently, we're aware that... Okay. People are not abiding by their covenant conditions, but currently there's no officer charged with enforcing those requirements. So we're aware just through generally looking at areas around the Shire where people have been intruding into covenants and clearing those covenants.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Mayor Stewart: Kerry, Kerry, it would be fair to say though that, I mean, judging other people on what they're doing or not doing is potentially unfair to this application. But I think it's a good thing that we're not saying that they're going to adhere to the conditions. And just because other people aren't adhering to covenants, it doesn't mean necessarily these people won't. Speaker 7: I guess that's for council to decide. Officers are concerned that the covenant won't necessarily ensure the protection of the vegetation that we're trying to protect. Councillor Lorentson: So I'm trying to understand what's the purpose of a covenant if it can't be enforced or there's no compliance penalties. Speaker 7: A covenant can be enforced. All I'm saying is at the moment, we don't have any dedicated resources in council to enforce those covenants. Councillor Lorentson: And what are the penalties if they're not enforced? Do you know? Speaker 6: I probably answered that. I think it might have been 25 years ago.
02:16:00 Well, you've actually, you've got the right to enforce it if it's on the registered title. It's binding on success of the title and so on. So you can actually then seek court orders to bring someone in compliance with what their legal obligation under the covenant through an application for a declaration in the Punning and Environment Court. I think that would be the big stick, so to speak, if you ever got to that point. Obviously, we don't want to get to that point. We want to say to people, here's your obligations, which you're legally obliged to do. You need to bring that into compliance. If you don't, we might say that in the past. But that's what that is. We'll see any way. Councillor Jurisevic: Could it also be used as a point of prevention of sale or condition of sale that the covenant has been breached and that sale can't be undertaken until the conditions of the covenant are met? Speaker 6: No, that's not something the councillor could do in terms of its obligations under the covenant, sorry, its rights under the covenant. The person could do searches and find out if there's litigation occurring and things
02:17:00 like that. But ultimately, people buy, can't even import. People buy, when they buy the property, they buy the covenant on there and take that obligation on. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, there were lots of concerns about the alternate motion being precedent-setting. My understanding on Monday that the conditions were going to be written to avoid the fact that there was a possibility. Is that the case? Or I'm sort of understanding here that there is the potential of this being precedent-setting. Speaker 6: Yeah, one of the things, both under the Act and will be good practice anyway, is that if council are going against planning campaigners' advice and planning applications, we need to set out the reason why part of that decision. What's the reason why you're not going to follow their advice? So one of the reasons we set on Monday was a review report to go to the council meeting to look at the conditions that might apply if council want to approve it, would include
02:18:00 those reasons. So in the report, which is attached to the agenda, it does include the reasons which are designed to try and limit the impact of a potential argument that the precedent has been set. But the reality is that would still be a reason. Councillor Lorentson: It would still be a reason. Mayor Stewart: I'm not prepared to support this motion either. Councillor Walkie made some really good points. He talked about reputational risk. If you look at it the other way, there is a reputational risk that if we do take this to court and we lose, and the Planning Environment Court don't see the decision the way we thought it, that we will have our name on that document, which is a document which has incurred unnecessary legal fees and costs for our community. It's cost our ratepayer money. That's a reputational risk too. This is one lot into two. This is not Gem Life.
02:19:00 And these are substantially large lots. We have a precedent where we're already, when we talk about precedent, Councillor Lorentson has alluded to the fact that there will be conditions set out to ensure that doesn't happen. Councillor Stockwell has showed us up on the screen decisions that are already being made, precedents that have already been there. And still we find ourselves here debating this. So we can't necessarily say because we make a decision on this or every other decision going forward will be a precedent. The applicants are prepared to work with Council. We all know that. They've been really willing and able, and they are prepared to adhere to conditions that we set down. Often we have applicants who just, it's their way or the highway. It's not in this case. These are applicants who are very amenable to the conditions we set down. Probably the biggest champion of this environment and protecting ecological land is Councillor Stockwell. And he has said openly tonight that potentially we can enhance ecological outcomes through
02:20:00 the rehabilitation of land undertaken by the applicants. So that in my mind adds a lot of weight to my reasons and my decision making. So I won't be supporting this motion. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Kerri. Given that Councillor Stockwell has brought up another planning application that had similar conditions with regard to waterways and all the rest of it, is that a similar case to the one we have before us with regard to boundaries and waterways and riparian areas? Speaker 7: I don't agree it is. And the reason why is the site that's in Cooroy has no riparian buffer over that waterway. So the Jirrima has a riparian buffer that's mapped by the biodiversity. The one in Cooroy that Councillor Bryan refers to is not mapped as a riparian area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a good question.
02:21:00 Is it a waterway marked on the biodiversity overlay and does the acceptable solution suggest that it should be rehabilitated 10 metres either side of that waterway? Speaker 7: It is marked as a waterway. And it does suggest 10 metres either side. And that is essentially what we have been done. You might argue that we should have continued a little bit up further. But no, I think we have made a reasonable call. It's only a solution, not an outcome of the scheme as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, I believe that outcome meets the performance outcome. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you. Sorry, you have another question? I've just lost it. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wigley, while Joe is thinking about his question, would you like to speak to this motion? Councillor Wegener: When the applicant purchased the property, they did not expect to cut it in half. And if we let them do it, others will definitely be looking at their properties and saying, well, we're going to do the same thing. I mean, there's many, many, many of us that would love to cut our properties in half and
02:22:00 sell half of it. If we follow Councillor Stockwell and we let them cut this property in half, we are arguably changing the planning scheme here by order of councillors. Not by the democratic process and through staff. So the question is, what will happen next? Well, this year seems to be the year of unintended consequences. We have the quarry, we have the glossy situation. In this case, the council and councillors staff are split. In my campaign, I promised not to vote against the town plan unless there was an overwhelming public interest to do so. And this doesn't meet that threshold. Councillor Wilkie: Question for Kerry. Kerry, is there another subdivision application or reconfigure lot application in the same street that will involve works in a riparian buffer zone?
02:23:00 Speaker 7: Yes, we have another application which we will bring to council. It's slightly different. Instead of the lot boundaries traversing the riparian area, there will be a proposed driveway that they will need to construct through the riparian buffer in order to access the house site. So I would expect we're going to have, there will be other properties that are similarly constrained or includes the riparian buffer area in the area that we will get more applications for. Councillor Wilkie: Do you expect I'll be watching the outcome of this application with interest? Speaker 7: I think they will be watching it with interest and thinking that they may get a positive outcome for their proposal too. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, I've got a question for Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener, you said that let the democratic process go forth and have council staff decide. Would you suggest, is that? Councillor Wegener: No, I don't mean that. The planning scheme, when we make amendments to the planning scheme and change the planning
02:24:00 scheme, you know, we go through the community process, the, you know, community consultation process and so forth, just like we're going to be doing with short term accommodation and so forth. In this case, when we boldly move forward and allow our application that's clearly against the planning scheme, you're setting a precedence, as we've been talking about, and that's what I mean by. Mayor Stewart: Because I would say, if I'm wrong, the democratic process is that the seven of us were elected by the community. Councillor Wilkie: Point of order, Madam Mayor. We're debating outside of formal debate. Mayor Stewart: So thank you. Just democratic process is the town plan. Is that what you're saying? And that we had community consultation on that and the strategic planners and our planning department are. Speaker 6: Uphold. Mayor Stewart: Are governed or, yeah, their duty is to uphold that town plan. Is that what you meant in regard to that statement? Councillor Wegener: So I'm, I'm interpreting that. It is our job as councillors around the table here to uphold the town plan.
02:25:00 That, that's, that is our, that is our, our job. We're not supposed to go against the town plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So question. There was a statement about expectation. I'm going to go into expectation. I'd like the facts. So the, my understanding is this site is over four hectares, that under the 2006 planning scheme, a two lot subdivision could have occurred and that the riparian buffer area was smaller. And that in the amendment to the planning scheme in 2020, we actively considered lots size and actually decided to reduce the lot size to be consistent across the Shire and acknowledged that in doing so, we were creating the opportunity for residential lots in Cooroibah. Speaker 7: Yes, there has been a change and a review of all the waterways in our Shire, which was
02:26:00 done as a study for the new planning scheme and that resulted in some changes to the riparian buffer widths. On this side in particular, it did result in an increase for the riparian buffer from the old scheme. There was some changes to lot sizes throughout the, the Shire for the rural residential areas. And essentially there was a minimum lot size set consistent for all the rural residential areas because it used to vary depending on where you were located in the Shire under the 2006 scheme. And I'm just trying to look up or recall what that minimum lot size was for this area because I thought it was actually larger than the 1.5. It was two hectares. It was two hectares. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it still would have been able to be subdivided. It still hadn't been sufficient area for two lots in that. Speaker 7: Except it would have also. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Still had the riparian corridor to be. Speaker 7: Contravened the 2006 scheme because it went through the riparian buffer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, one more question.
02:27:00 Because the perception that we're going against the planning scheme. So the actual word in the relevant performance outcome is, if we don't go to the acceptable solution, in the performance outcome for waterways and wetlands, it says the biodiversity and ecosystem values of waterways, wetlands and adjacent riparian zones are protected by, and it's A that is the key point, avoiding any new development in riparian buffer areas and wetland areas. So are we suggesting is, or is it staff's interpretation that it's not? Speaker 7: Absolutely. I don't know how else to read that, but to read a void as it shouldn't be in there. Mayor Stewart: Any other speakers? Councillor Jurisevic: I've got another question. There was some comment made at some stage through the debate, I can't remember which was last, during which of the occasions,
02:28:00 that staff would have considered a more suitable outcome if the covenant didn't cover just one property boundary, sorry, it didn't cross two property boundaries, but the entire environmental area could be placed under one property ownership. Is that able to be achieved in any other way, shape or form? Speaker 7: That was what officers spent a great deal of time on with the applicant. To review whether they could incorporate their repairing buffer all within one lot, rather than put the boundaries through. What that resulted in was some proposals where the minimum lot size was not met, and the lot size got quite awkward in shape in order to accommodate and provide a suitable house choice. Right, so there weren't suitable options in the end. Councillor Jurisevic: So in this instance, if that element can't be achieved,
02:29:00 then the criteria here is that as the lot is fenced externally, that splitting of the lot would require a fence through the middle of the two properties and through that riparian area. Is that correct? Speaker 7: That's right. That's now what's proposed, is the boundary through the covenant area. So the covenant, there's actually two covenants managed by two separate landowners. Councillor Jurisevic: So apart from the covenant, there's actually two covenants managed by two separate landowners. If there was no fence going through the riparian buffer area to divide the two blocks, would that be a suitable outcome by the planning scheme as it currently stands before us? Speaker 7: Okay, so we obtained some advice about whether Council can condition no fencing, whether a covenant can ensure that no fencing is built on the boundary.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 The legal advice is a covenant can do so. It can include such requirements. The legal advice is a covenant can do so. It did not change officers' view around this proposal. This is still recommending that the proposed subdivision is not appropriate for the site. Mayor Stewart: We've had councillors Wilkie, Stockwell, Stewart and Wegener speak to this motion. Councillor Druzevic, Finzel and Lawrence, would you like to take an opportunity? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I've probably got some other questions. Okay. In relation to what the alternative proposal could offer, so as to whether or not to support the staff here. Some of the reasonings against an alternative increase in water abstraction. Can you please explain what increase in water abstraction means? Speaker 7: So these are points put together by Council's ecologist. And his advice is that the proposal results in potential for adverse ecological impacts.
02:31:00 From increasing water abstraction. So essentially extracting water from the ground. So ores and the like. Because of the water table in the area. So abstraction means extracting water from the ground. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you very much consumers. Anymore question for it. Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you speak to the discussion name? Councillor Lorentson: Well we can do that now and I'll clear it up. I'll do that now I suppose. What I'm asking myself is are we going against the plan? Are we eroding process? Or are we actually allowing a little bit of flexibility?
02:32:00 We've done this with other development applications. If we find that there is an overwhelming benefit, environmental or social benefit, then there is the discussion or consideration that we should look at changing the plan, and I hate to use the word changing the plan. So my question is, is there a social benefit? Is there an environmental benefit? And is it overwhelmingly enough to not go through due process? I sit very uncomfortable with this decision. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, that's the last one. Oh my God. So firstly, I'd like to thank everyone, all the staff, especially the work you've given. You did one application process, gave us a recommendation, you've gone back, you've given us a second option.
02:33:00 Thank you for that. And also to all the councillors that have given a lot of time and thought around this, and of course the advocate who has, you know, worked hard as well, and their representatives as well. There is process available to councils if we want to make amendment to any planning schemes. I myself have moved that when I first came into council, so there is a process. If we think that something in the plan is not right, there is a process we can adhere to. On the meeting of 8th of June, where we considered grounds to support the proposal, given the wetland area is substantially degraded, and the staff went away to give us a report on that. I noted the time and asked the question because Councillor Stockwell repeatedly said in his opinion. Given it was Councillor Stockwell's opinion and in his own words, I think that the staff has also given us a recommendation that the issues raised around the council,
02:34:00 at that meeting, was considered, but staff confirms the previous recommendation, and they stick to that. Tonight we've looked at what could go in the covenant, what's available to us, what is the meaning of development. Councillor Stockwell even called on the new Noosa Plan 2020, I don't know what section you're calling from, but you said number A, avoiding any new development, which is, of course, the New Noosa Plan 2020, which is interpreted by staff that we are to avoid that at all costs. Fencing was also told by staff to us tonight that is development, and we're also doing development on a riparian buffer. I support Councillor Wilkie Frank this evening, and I will adhere and take on board
02:35:00 the staff's recommendation that they will confirm the previous recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Hinslow, and Councillor Griswitch. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I don't do this lightly. I did visit the property, and I did have a look at, you know, and place my own opinion. I also walked the grounds with someone whose environmental opinion I respect quite greatly. I did have a look at, you know, and place my own opinion. I also walked the grounds with someone whose environmental opinion I respect quite greatly. I also walked the grounds with someone whose environmental opinion I respect quite greatly. And saw the potential here for rehabilitation of an area, a waterway, a wetland, whatever you want to call it, And saw the potential here for rehabilitation of an area, a waterway, a wetland, whatever you want to call it, that's currently badly degraded. And I think there is an opportunity here to get an outcome for the community. And I think an element of potential to not place any further development in the way of fencing through the property as part of this division.
02:36:00 I see, if I didn't see that potential, and I didn't see that, as Councillor Stockwell is suggesting, that there's an alternative that also meets the planning scheme, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be voting against this. And in this case, I don't, I don't believe refusing the application is the way to go. I believe there are opportunities here to get outcomes for the applicant and for the community, and for the environment. And for that reason, I'm actually going to, a few times in my time on council, vote against the staff recommendation here. And see if that does succeed. See if there is an alternative that may be able to comply with the planning scheme,
02:37:00 whether we're not going outside the planning scheme, to achieve an alternative outcome. Councillor Wilkie: Question for Kerry. Kerry, just for our benefit, what are the reasons why councillors can vote against the planning scheme? Under what circumstances can they justify a decision that's, that conflicts with the planning scheme? Speaker 7: Well, traditionally, the planning legislation has required that to be, to, to, that an application must be refused if it's in conflict with its planning scheme, unless there is significant benefit in the community's interest. So that has been the long-term wording in the planning legislation for deciding an application. So refuse the application unless there is significant benefit for the community. And it's in the community's interest, not just for the applicant. It's the wider community. Those words are actually gone now from the planning act. So they're a little bit different. And the decision rules now are about council must assess the application
02:38:00 against the planning scheme, but may consider any other relevant matters. So it's a broader context in deciding the application. And I guess what we're just considering today is we're being careful about our planning scheme. To ensure we're not creating a precedent. Because that is certainly what, something that is raised by the court regularly in appeals. They look for developments where council has potentially made a decision inconsistent to support their argument in their own case. And that's essentially what officers' concerns are here. I think this opens us up to that, that potential consistency. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just the, so, obviously the debate is turning on these points about whether you can interpret the Noosa plan to approve this development without going outside it. And so that what I, the question is about,
02:39:00 it's, we've looked at the performance outcome and you're saying performance outcome in relation to avoiding development, which is a boundary line, doesn't comply with the performance outcome. In that situation, is it then relevant for an applicant to demonstrate that it meets the purpose and purpose and overall outcomes of the code? And in this case, the purpose and overall outcomes includes that the development, design and layout provides for ecological connectivity across the landscape through protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of native vegetation and ecological linkages. And there's a number of similar things. That's what I'd have to, that's what an alternate motion would have to demonstrate that it met the performance outcomes and therefore would be in keeping with the Noosa plan. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. So the statement about no development in the riparian buffer is in the performance outcomes. There are then higher outcomes in the code that they need to demonstrate against. And that's really what Council's ecologist is saying this proposal does not meet.
02:40:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Any other questions? No. Councilor, would you like to apply? Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, it's been a really great debate. Thank you. And I thank Councilor Stockwell for getting us thinking outside the box and having staff bring that alternative report. But there's nothing in that alternative report that satisfies me that we are going to be meeting either the performance or the acceptable outcomes under the Noosa planning scheme. As Councilor Finzel rightly said, if we think the planning scheme, the outcomes in the planning scheme are incorrect or we need further refinement, we don't vote against them. We change them through the amendment process. That's the correct process. We know that this case is going to be watched very carefully by people in the same street who have similar applications to have works through a riparian zone. And it would be very hard to argue against their or very hard for staff
02:41:00 to refuse their application for the same reasons if staff are sending a message that, hey, we're going to ignore this staff's recommendations and find alternative motions and approve it. The protection of riparian zones are central to the Noosa planning scheme, both performance and acceptable outcomes, not only avoiding any development, but avoiding edge effects and damage from adjacent land uses. I was open to listening to an alternative because it was posed that we could still achieve acceptable environmental outcomes or better. But it's clear advice here from our staff that the recommendations are that it increases the potential for adverse ecological impacts and there would be no acceptable outcome that would mitigate against damage to the environment out there. Increase potential for adverse ecological impacts resulting from an increase in the take of groundwater, which the wetlands are dependent upon. Increase in water harvesting
02:42:00 and interception, rainwater tanks filling. So less water going into the ground. Increase in hard surface areas. Increase pressure to clear vegetation due to perceived bushfire risk because a new property is going to be out there. And also the potential for the septic systems to fail and eutrophication of the waterways, nitrogen and waste escaping into the waterways. And also the new owner of the property may want, of the new property, may want to have an animal on there and would need a fence and it's unreasonable We have been able to... Noosa Council has got such a good reputation and success rate in defending the planning scheme, so appeals against refusals, because council, meaning councillors, have consistently defended the planning scheme. Consistently.
02:43:00 When you do something like this, if you coerce staff to write an alternative report under duress, that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. That's an assertion on my character, and I think it's an undue one. There is no assertion or duress. Councillor Wilkie: I will argue opposite, because it was... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I made a point of order, it goes to the chair. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Wilkie, can you erase that statement, please? Councillor Wilkie: I'll clarify. When I said duress, it wasn't Councillor Stockwell, of course, that had the staff write an alternative report. It was us collectively. I'm equally culpable. So there's no offence intended. I do apologise if you've taken offence against Councillor Stockwell, because we are collectively responsible for asking staff, putting staff under duress to go against their own opinions and recommendations, and I'm equally responsible for that. But I have read the work that's come back, and I'm not satisfied that there'll be a better environmental outcome. I'm very concerned that it will create a precedent.
02:44:00 I'm very concerned that this decision will be seen, will be used against us in subsequent Planning Court appeals, and I really think it represents a turning point and a crisis point for this Council. It's very clear what the staff have recommended. I do respect Brian's opinions, but in this case, they're countered. It's not clear cut. If it was clear cut, I would go with it. But it's... The staff clearly do not agree, and I think that would weaken our case in an appeal. And as I said previously, at the risk of repeating myself, repeating myself, repeating myself, repeating myself, the case will be watched very, very carefully by people in that very street with similar applications coming before us. Councillors, please, let's hold the line if we disagree with the protections for riparian buffer zones.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Which are critical to Noosa's points of difference in the Planning Scheme. Let's not go against it now, tonight. Let's change the Planning Scheme. Please support this motion, Councillors. I'm before you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Councillors Finzel, Wilkie, Wegener and Lorentson against. Councillors Jurisevic, Stockwell and Stewart. The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you, Kerry. So, moving right along. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Kerry. So, item two, page 21. Further report. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Further report item two. Noosa Bushland Reserve Strategic Management Plan.
02:46:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Craig. Craig, I believe there have been some minor alterations to the Brookland Reserve Strategic Management Plans presented to Council at the last meeting. Can you outline what those changes have been? Certainly the changes were explanatory Speaker 3: in nature following the discussion we had at the previous meeting, looking at providing more information around the value ecosystems provide, particularly around the ecosystem services role. We looked at why the ecosystem services are considered a subset of the biodiversity outcomes which would be used to prioritise the bushland strategic management plan. We elaborated a little bit more on the focus of a likelihood of success in the prioritisation of bushland reserves. And we also included some information on how the coastal hazard adaptation plan and the coastal foreshore management plan will support priorities specifically in the coastal strip. Thank you.
02:47:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll move. I'll move the... Thank you, Councillor Spooch. Mayor Stewart: I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Grisham. Look, I think we've long needed a bushland reserve strategic management plan. And I understand that there were some reservations about elements of our community and our councillors. And I believe the additions that have been made here, fortunately, have addressed those concerns. The bushland reserve strategic management plan gives us a process by which to approach this in the future. Gives us an element of understanding of the values and the certainty around the success around the various bushland reserves and the best bang for buck opportunities to present themselves going forward. So, I commend staff for their time and effort. And I'll wait to hear from the rest of my councillors in the reserve in how they accept the Mayor Stewart: plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Spooch. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion or have any further
02:48:00 questions for Craig? I'll leave it, put it to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Craig. Speaker 3: Thank you, Craig. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Craig. Last item on the agenda, welcome Kerry and Tracey. Item three, T000039, mobile library contract award. And we have our Director of Community Services here, Kerry. Does anyone have any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move a motion. A little bit different to what you've got there. Just take out the total kilowatt in B, please. Yes, you read that out. Yeah, I did. Okay. So, the motion is a council note report by the acting manager of libraries and galleries to the ordinary meeting date of 17th of June, 2021, regarding the mobile library contract award. And award A, award tender T4039 for the construction and supply of diesel option for the
02:49:00 new mobile library to G.H. Barley Pty Ltd. B, install the solar rate on the council owner facility to offset the emissions of the vehicle and this be funded from savings in diesel over the life of the vehicle. And C, include in the operation for the mobile library an internal offset payment equivalent to paying the capital cost of the solar system over a 25-year period. Mayor Stewart: We have a seconder for that. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor, would you be averse to a couple of words being added into B? Sure. Offset the equivalent emissions of the vehicle's operations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Of the vehicle's operations, yes. Councillor Finzel: And would you mind if I add some extra wording on that to offset the Equivalent emissions. Can we bring forward a review of the GO Transport policy on page 13? Is this the... I think... Mayor Stewart: That's quite different, isn't it?
02:50:00 Councillor Finzel: We can do that at a later stage, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: On that note, if the council is accepting of those couple of words to be added there, I'll second the motion. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Firstly, this has been a very long and very well executed process. And so, I don't want to spend a lot of time on B and C. I want to spend a lot of time on A. So, I'm going to take a couple of minutes to address the issues that you've raised. What we have now is a proposal to modernise our mobile library service. To get a smaller, more agile vehicle that can do all what we've been doing traditionally, but also get into smaller sites. Can have staff that don't need a heavy vehicle licence. Can give us the flexibility to respond to community needs and also provide, at this stage, two local communities. The opportunity for a kiosk. This is taking our mobile library service into the 21st century.
02:51:00 The decision between us today was two tenders. The one that we are recommending approval after extensive analysis of the options. Versus a fully electric vehicle, which probably would be a first of its kind, but would be $150,000 more expensive. You can get a heck of a lot of... Renewable energy for $150,000. And so, yesterday we talked about this concept of achieving net zero fleet by offsets based on efficiency savings. And I thought today would be a great opportunity to demonstrate how that's happened. Now, Council, I did circulate some figures earlier on, but in our five minute break, I actually got some real figures rather than the ones I initially modelled. So, still the same story. Still the same story. The current vehicle annual diesel use is about 5,014 litres based on the 18,200 kilometres
02:52:00 of travels. That's about 13 and a half tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions. Okay. At an annual cost of around $6,900. This new vehicle, I've added in 50 extra kilometres a week. So, 20,800 kilometres. Annual diesel use will be $3,500. So, a saving of nearly 1,500 litres of diesel and emissions reduction by about four tonnes per year, but a cost saving of 2,000 tonnes per year. So, the proposal yesterday was to do these internal offsets. So, about one kilowatt of solar offsets about 1.35 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which in this case suggests about seven kilowatts of a solar rate is reduced. So, that's a cost of about $7,000.
02:53:00 So, those solar systems can be pretty well guaranteed for about 25 years. So, spreading that over the cost, if we did this internal offset, the same part of the operational cost of the library, instead of going to the electric vehicle, is paying around about $283 a year for offsets to pay for a new bit of solar on a council building's roof. So, for that $283 a year, that vehicle will be net carbon, and if we wanted to go the cheaper option, just buying offsets, it's about $191 a year, but then we miss out on the benefit of having the renewable energy and cheaper costs to the facility where those solar panels are. So, that's what BNC is about. It's about saying we're saving through efficiency a whole lot of diesel. So, that'll be some money off the operating budget. We'll put a little bit more on by saying this vehicle will have an internal offset payment to fund more solar on the roof for council building. I'll return back then to the overarching thing is, this is a really big day for our community.
02:54:00 The current mobile library used by date is last year, or the year before. And so, this will be a great thing when it's on the road, and I hope it builds interest and gets a lot more people engaged who might find it difficult to get to our two magnificent libraries in Cooroy and Noosaville. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor. So, I have a question. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding where the savings in diesel are coming from. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The existing vehicle, the existing semi gets three, it has one litre. It goes three litres. It goes 3.63 kilometres. And this vehicle gets 5.85. How's that from memory? Mayor Stewart: 5.88. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, 5.88. Close. Councillor Wilkie: So, the question I have, was there a budgeted amount for diesel set aside in the future
02:55:00 based on that larger vehicle? Is that where the savings, where is it, is it a real saving or have we budgeted money Speaker 2: for fuel? The budget. The budget for the 21-22 year was based on the existing vehicle because that was continuing, but the intention was that when the new vehicle, the tender had been awarded and we knew what we were purchasing, that there would be an adjustment to the fleet expenditure for that vehicle. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So, is there the money that's been budgeted for and fuel for the new vehicle? For this, the larger vehicle, which we no longer have, is that going to be sufficient to cover a solar array? Speaker 2: I would have to take that on notice, given that this has come up late in the piece, to
02:56:00 look at what the actual saving might be, given that the intention was that over the course of the life, that this would be a less cost to the rate payer. In terms of the life of, in terms of the operation of the vehicle. Councillor Jurisevic: Has the fuel consumption figures, 5.08 litres, considered that the vehicle would be laden or is that the unladen fuel consumption of the, quoted by the vehicle manufacturer? Speaker 5: That was provided to me from the fleet manager this afternoon. And I believe it is laden. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So, would it be fair to say that the vehicle will save in diesel consumption because of
02:57:00 those fuel consumption estimates? Speaker 2: Yes, it is correct to say that there will be a saving. It is a smaller vehicle carrying less stock and a more efficient vehicle because it is more modern. So, it is correct to say that it will use less fuel. Councillor Wilkie: Can I move an amendment? Oh, sorry. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just for the benefit of the viewers, Kerry, just there were two options, a diesel vehicle option and an electric vehicle option. Can you explain why we didn't go down the electric vehicle option? Speaker 5: Thanks, Councillor Amelia. Yes, I can explain what was provided in the report. So, the evaluation panel were very supportive of looking for options for reducing emissions. And through the evaluation, there are a number of different criteria that the electric option
02:58:00 did not meet. So, the diesel option was selected because predominantly the size. It has 20% larger size. It holds 500 more items. It has an internal cabin walk-through, which goes from the vehicle into the back, which creates more space and the feeling of space and weatherproofing. The contractor has significant experience in building specialised builds, builds like mobile libraries on diesel-powered vehicles. And we have strong confidence with addressing service or repair issues. Highly reputable contractor. Mayor Stewart: There were some concerns too, wasn't there, Tracey, that with the electric vehicle being of this size and this magnitude, and could potentially, and I believe it came from Melbourne,
02:59:00 is that correct, the manufacturers were down south, and that if there was any concerns or breakdowns, that it would actually have to be transported back there and be sort of fixed down there? Speaker 5: Yes. Sea Electrics is a subcontractor, and there is the potential that it would have to be fixed down there, and there's challenges with servicing and repair, because they're based in Victoria. Mayor Stewart: And I guess being based in Victoria and every time you've got a repair and you've got to go back and forward, that's time off the road and that's time away from our rate payer and people having, using and enjoying that amenity of our library service. Speaker 5: Yes, you're absolutely correct. So it would entail a contractor or a technician coming up to us to repair the vehicle, or time off the road for the vehicle to go down for repairs. Mayor Stewart: And Councillor Stockwell said there was $150,000, it was more expensive for the electric, but it was also the whole, there was a higher whole of life cost associated with the electric vehicle too, wasn't there? Speaker 5: Yes, you're correct. So the whole of life costing for the diesel option is $527,000, and the electric option
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 was $620,000. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Could I propose an amendment? So as it reads, but in B, I would like it to read, provide a further report to Council on the feasibility of installing. A solar array on a Council owned facility to offset the feasibility of installing a solar array on Council facility to offset the equivalent emissions of the vehicle operations to be funded from savings in diesel over the life of the vehicle, and the further point,
03:01:00 and to include. Sorry, should we add the report to, which includes the feasibility, no, sorry, just leave it at that, leave it at that. Mayor Stewart: I don't have a seconder for that much, I mean, Councilor Oreston, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Look, what I'm trying to do here, councillors, is rather than have the staff just go and there's a body of work that needs to be done before this can be achieved, I'd like to know if it's feasible, what the costs are, what the savings are, and give staff a chance to
03:02:00 do a bit of research that we're included in that, kept in the loop about how that's going. I don't know if... This is intended to have us kept in the loop on how that project is going, and if it's feasible or not, and what the costs are. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a clarification, councillor, is it your intention to maintain item C or to delete it? Councillor Wilkie: I would just like to... At this stage, I'm happy for it to stay. I would just like to... But I'd just like to work through the repercussions of B first, and then address C. Mayor Stewart: Could C be included, councillor Wilkie, as part of B in that report? Speaker 6: I think councillor Wilkie indicated that he would go test B first, and then what happens
03:03:00 to that where he... Councillor Wilkie: But in answer to your question, potentially, yes. But... Councillor Wegener: Yes, sir. Mayor Stewart: Yes, sir. Councillor Wegener: I have a question about the savings. So the savings we're interpreting from having a bigger car to now a smaller car, and so we're saving, we're taking... But is that really true savings? I mean, if I have a bigger car and I sell that and I buy a smaller car, I'm not really saving. That's just what the smaller car uses. I wouldn't consider that a savings necessarily. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll make it easy for councillors. I actually think there's no problem with the amendment as is. I think it's important. I'll be trying to move this sort of motion every time we buy a new bit of fleet. I think it's important that we do make a commitment. We have been marrying up between an electric vehicle and a new autonomous vehicle.
03:04:00 And I think it's important that we say to the community that this bus service is going to be carbon neutral. I think we make the commitment. I'm happy for the feasibility about whether it's a council owned facility or an offset. I think that's okay. I can... I think in terms of the logic to the budget, if we're reducing the operational budget, in this case on today's value, the difference between the last vehicle or the current vehicle, at 18,200 kilometres and the new vehicle at 20,800 kilometres, the difference is $2,023 a year in fuel. So when we're looking at trying to transition our fleet to zero net emissions, that is a real savings. It's a savings from emissions. And what I'm saying is when we look at the operational budget, that we bank most of those savings, but about $200 to $300 of it goes in offsets to make it carbon neutral.
03:05:00 It's simple. So I'm happy with the amendment in terms of the feasibility. We can look at the options of what's the most cost effective, but I would resist any change to see. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question and it might be directed at our Director of Corporate Services. Michael, Councillor Stockwell said that this should be done on every vehicle. It's important that we look at this. Can you tell us... Can you tell us, over the next 12 months, how many vehicles we will be replacing? Councillor Jurisevic: I can tell you how much the dollar amount is. I've got 1.7 million bucks off the top of my head. Speaker 6: Look, to the Mayor, we're looking at roughly 20 of vehicles, and 25 to 26. Mayor Stewart: So would that then, if we had to be consistent,
03:06:00 would that mean that every time we replaced a vehicle or plant, and then we're looking at 25, 26 in the next 12 months, we'd actually have to look at putting solar on 25 of our buildings? No. Councillor Lorentson: No. Speaker 6: I can answer that. Under this proposal, this relates to the library vehicle. No others. Sorry. The item reported to Council was about the library vehicle, not about a general plant. Mayor Stewart: But Council Stockwell said this is important to do every time, you know, every time we look at a new vehicle, that we should take this into consideration. So that was what I was getting to. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I have a crack at mine? Can I have a crack at mine to answer that, please? The situation here is we're changing vehicles. We're changing from a higher-consumption vehicle to a lower-consumption vehicle. What we're doing in our fleet, I would imagine, in most instances, is a like-for-like type replacement, i.e. a four-wheel drive for a four-wheel drive as it's come to the end of its life. So that may not be a comparable situation with each of the fleet vehicles.
03:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, question, have we got a desire to increase the fuel efficiency on all our new equipment? So recently we've transitioned to hybrid small vehicles for fleet. Speaker 6: Council, let me just remind you that what's being called council tonight is the mobile library inflation thing, not fleet and transport strategy, whatever it might be. Just a question about whether or not we're accepting a tender that relates to our mobile libraries. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add a comment? Can I just make a comment on that too? I understand we're changing the vehicles. I think in support of that, we're community expectation going towards, you know, zero emissions. Our commitment to climate change. And things around that and our fleet. I think we're trying to offset the emissions from now having a diesel vehicle. So I support it in a way that I think we should review in the next 12 months fleet options to electric vehicles to offset the fact that now we are getting a diesel vehicle as opposed to an electric vehicle
03:08:00 and trying to explore how we're going to offset that. Councillor Stockwell is talking about it in terms of the operation of the bus. I'm talking at a more strategic level to offset the vehicle emissions as well around the bus that's diesel. And for the life of that, how can we also contribute to reaching strategic targets around taking action on the climate change? And in support of our zero offsets and our emissions, is there a way we can add into this amendment the fact that we will bring forward a review in the next 12 months fleet options to electric vehicles, which I believe is currently being looked at through the GO Transport Strategy, through some ? Is this a point of order? Is this relevant? Well, I'm just seeing how I can add to that amendment. You can't. You can't add to an amendment. So it's not relevant to the amendment.
03:09:00 Mayor Stewart: You've still got time. Have you finished speaking to this amendment? The solar one? The amendment by Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I don't know what to say about that. Okay. Mayor Stewart: We've had Councillor ... Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll speak to it. Look, I concur. I think it's prudent to provide further report to Council so that we do see that there is a feasibility installing a solar array or I would argue some other type of offset which might be an opportunity for a wind farm. Yeah. But we should look at all options for the potential for an offset of the equivalent emissions of the vehicle, given that we're going down the track of a diesel vehicle in this case, as opposed to electric vehicle, which was the other option in. So I support the amendment. It would be good to know whilst Councillor Stockwell has done some preliminary investigation and some prior to some figures, it would be good to have an understanding of what the
03:10:00 actual equivalent emissions are. What the actual emissions of the vehicle will be and what level of offset that may attain more accurately. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wood now. Councillor Wegener: I think that this is actually an exciting day, as Stockwell says. I'm really excited about what Councillor Stockwell proposes. And what I ... By the way, I understand it is we are incorporating, internalizing externalities. That is, we have the externality of the energy, the energy of the energy, the energy of the emissions from the truck. And we're internalizing these emissions through solar panels to get a net neutral project, which is our library. And so I think it is a big day. And I'm really happy that we're talking about internalizing the externalities in this particular project. It would be great to move it through other aspects of all the different things we do.
03:11:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'd like to support this amendment and commend Councillor Stockwell for ... He's got a habit at the moment of just reminding us of our obligations to the environment. So thank you. Keep doing it. Mayor Stewart: Look, I think ... I'd like to thank Tracey. This has been a long road. And thank you very much for all your hard work. And Kerry, you too. I mean, this was clearly ... I mean, the community has been a part of this. The community wanted an electric vehicle. We all wanted an electric vehicle. But clearly, the diesel just ... I mean, this was a lay down in the air. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The question is, are you addressing the amendment or the substantive motion? Yeah, that was a kind of ... Did she take it? Mayor Stewart: No. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's a long one. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I will support this motion. But I do think ... I thank Councillor Wilkie because I wouldn't have supported the original motion put forward by Councillor Stockwell.
03:12:00 I support it because ... which we waxed lyrical about just on the last item on the agenda about a proper process. And if we want to amend something, we have to go through a proper process. So this is a further report to Council on the feasibility is the proper process. It gives the staff an opportunity to investigate and to see whether or not this is a proper process. So I'm happy to support this amendment. All in favour? I'll be your partner if I don't reply. Sorry, Councillor ... Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. Look, this is about due diligence. I know Brian's done a lot of work. He's done all the costs. We're not aware of them. Staff aren't aware of them. We need to all be kept in the loop about this. I'm just going to flag that if this amendment is carried, becomes part of the
03:13:00 substantive motion, I'm going to propose another amendment that B be amended to also include and feasibility of including in the operational budget the mobile library and internal offset payment equivalent to the pay in for the capital cost. So we know we're all on the same page about what we're signing up for, what we're signing ratepayers up for. So ... I commend the amendment to you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move another amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Let me get it out first. I'll squeeze it out first. So it ... Item B of the amendment ... Yeah. So B to read as is. Yeah. And ... Equal. And ... And the feasibility of including in the operational budget ... of including in the
03:14:00 operational budget for the mobile library an internal offset payment equivalent to pay in for the capital cost of the solar system over a 25-year period. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Brilliant. Councillor Wilkie: Look, it's ... it's consistent with what has been proposed in the original motion, but it just brings more information to us so we can all be fully informed about the costs and potential savings and give staff time to do a body of work that they can share with us before we adopt it on behalf of the council, the community and the ratepayers. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As for Shannon, I can't support this unless there's another amendment that comes forward and stipulates that it is our intention to make this vehicle carbon neutral. Very simple. I'll ... I'll vote against the substantive motion if we don't make that ... for that case. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 We'll deal with this amendment first. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Wilkie: I'll close. If no one else ... No. Mayor Stewart: Please do. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Look, there's nothing ... there's nothing in this amendment that suggests that none of us are against the ... the idea of creating a carbon neutral vehicle. We'd just like to know ... And we'll all be on the same page when we undertake that journey. Speaker 7: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Let's see if you're trying to reply. I'm trying to reply. You can get off here now. We'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stewart against, Councillor Stockwell. Motion carried. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know. I was going against. I've got a feeling there's an upper amendment coming. That's all right. Speaker 6: Councillor, the standard motion is about the tender for the library.
03:16:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak to the original motion if I can. Mayor Stewart: Yes, Brian's going to go first then. Councillor Wilkie: Look, it's quite easy to think that this motion before us is all about Councillor Stockwell's Councillor Wegener: additions. Councillor Wilkie: But it's all about the community getting a new mobile library. The mobile library has been well loved for more than a decade. It's part of the landscape and the hinterland and remote areas. People eagerly await its arrival. It has enriched the lives of so many. And the transformation to a smaller, more mobile library has been eagerly awaited. And there was extensive consultation. It's been an enormous amount of work by staff, especially Tracey King, our manager of libraries and galleries, who for many years has trucked the big semi all over the Shire, has a trucker's licence, thumbs up to you, Tracey.
03:17:00 So, I also support the notion that we need to measure the emissions, the impacts on the environment that our purchasers do have, so that's why I'm supporting, that's why I moved those amendments and that Councillor Stockwell brought forward. But it's about the community getting a new mobile library. It's eagerly anticipated. Thank you for all the work you've done. And I look forward to hearing from you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Would anyone else like to speak? Councillor Jurispeech. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I commend staff for their time and diligence on this. I know that it was our intent to see Council's first full electric vehicle come to the fore here.
03:18:00 And I know that staff pursued many avenues down that path. But at the same time, once again, we're just at the forefront of technology. And the, we're not at the forefront of technology. We're probably not quite there as far as solar vehicles in the commercial range goes for this type of activity. It will fulfil all of the criteria that staff had. This vehicle will provide additional safety for staff and for the community, because we won't be driving that articulated vehicle that's near the end of its life around the community. It'll modernise further library options, provide emission. And it'll be with solar vehicles. It'll provide the proposed change, provide an opportunity for reducing emission options over the life of this vehicle, which I find is a great outcome, or at least the next best outcome we could possibly have, given that we've gone with the diesel option. I commend Councillor Stockwell on his desire to see the offsets achieved.
03:19:00 And I do think we're delivering there. If he needs another amendment to further guarantee that we will look at the offsets over the life of the vehicle, I'd be happy to support that. Thank you. As the CEO reminded us, this is about the library vehicle and the library service that it's going to deliver to the community for the future. It'll be a far more nimble vehicle, a far more serviceable vehicle. It'll be a far more drivable vehicle. So it'll give a greater opportunity for more staff to be able to do it and not need a special licence to undertake the operations, which presents a challenge in itself and requires further skills and skill sets in driving what is a challenging vehicle, a very large, heavy, articulated vehicle around bends and hills going to Kin Kin and the like.
03:20:00 So the option here will provide access. It'll provide a greater variety of options with locations as well. And so I commend staff for bringing this proposal to us to upgrade the facility for the community for the future. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. And when do I raise an amendment then? Mayor Stewart: Now, when do you want to raise an amendment? Councillor Finzel: Oh, can I? Can I move an amendment now in support of Councillor Stockwell's desire to go to carbon neutral vehicle? I request a further report back to Council to measure the impacts of the diesel bus. And can we offset that by bringing forward in the next 12 months a review of the fleet options to go to electric vehicles? Yes. Speaker 6: So an amendment could deal with the library bus issue, but it's not about the report before Council tonight,
03:21:00 not about the council's fleet. Councillor Finzel: I understand that, but can't we look at other options to bring the vehicle to a zero carbon offset? Speaker 6: For the library vehicle? Yes. Councillor Finzel: But if we were to bring other vehicles, electric vehicles on, in the bigger scheme of things, would that offset the diesel in the bus? Speaker 6: No, so as I said, just to come back to that point before, that the issue before Council tonight is the library bus tender. So any decision that relates to anything outside that would be beyond what's being considered tonight. So it's got to be related to that library bus. Councillor Finzel: Alright, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Are you withdrawing the amendment? Do you want to make an amendment? Councillor Finzel: No, I'll withdraw the amendment and speak to the motion. Sure. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Right.
03:22:00 Okay, so thank you, everyone, for your work. I really appreciate that. I campaigned on this issue, and it's just wonderful that together we can strengthen communities. And we've worked together and the staff worked really hard to deliver a walk-in vehicle, which was, you know, really brought concern to community because socially it was a place where people meet, people can talk to other people, be engaged in community. It's great to be able to do that. And I appreciate that this additional library now provides kiosks. Smaller vehicles can get to other festivals and other things. And I think it's a win-win for community in terms of the service we've provided. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll make this quick. I commend staff and support staff for taking a pragmatic approach to this recommendation. I know that you guys were as disappointed as we do for not taking up the electric vehicle option. But as Joe, Councillor Jurisevic pointed out, right now, it's just not viable.
03:23:00 And the risk is too high for Council to pursue, given that the electric option in, particularly for a vehicle this size, is in its early stages of development. I know there's been a lot of heart and hard work put into this project. This is an important service to the community. And it's an important asset. And I just want to make note that we think that you guys are an important asset to this community as well. Thank you. Thank you, Tracey. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Just quickly. Councillor Wegener: This is very exciting. Thank you for your work, obviously. It's been fantastic taking us on the journey. And before, we had the big truck. And with my kids, I once called it a possum, because it carries little ones. And now this new truck, perhaps we could name it the honey glider, because it's smaller,
03:24:00 quicker, fits in the small areas. Thank you for your work. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll be very quick, too. Thank you very much, Tracey. This has been a long process. We've had a lot of workshops with it. Thank you, Kerry. This is a huge amount of work. We've all been disappointed about the electric. None more so than you. But really, when we looked at the tender, it was just a lay down in the Z for the support of the diesel. We'll certainly work towards, with the amendments that have been made, offsetting that and looking at how we can really help in other areas to mitigate that diesel. But thank you again. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 2: I'll put the motion to a vote. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think you're quite right. This isn't about my additions to the staff recommendation. This is about a major thing for our community. And reflecting over the last few minutes, it was my tactics that were wrong. I should have moved the additions as an amendment and brought that out so I could come back
03:25:00 to this. So I won't vote against this. I think it's far too important to support the library service. But I will say on a point of principle, I think it's very poor that this council doesn't show the leadership to step away from business as usual. I do think we have to make every decision a step in the right direction. And I think with such a high profile vehicle, this was an opportunity for councillors to not just ask for the feasibility, because there's nothing in B that said we'll do anything. It says we're going to look into a feasibility report. If you're a bureaucrat, that means, ah, that means we can put it off for a year and not make a decision. It's a very bureaucratic amendment that came to this point of town. I understand that it's good to get staff to report rather than the council rushing off before six. And I totally accept that. However, I do think it's important that we were making a decision between a costly low emissions vehicle and a diesel vehicle. And all we've done so far tonight is say we'll take the cheaper option. The more practical option, the more utility option, the one that has a shorter life.
03:26:00 We haven't said, but we're going to also take the step to be responsible with the emissions coming from that vehicle. I have ultimate support in my fellow councils and the staff that we will find a solution. But I'm just noting that I think tonight was an opportunity to say to this community that we're not operating business as usual. And a feasibility report says we might not be. But I will support it. I'll retract my previous peric stand I was going to have and say thank you, staff. It was an excellent process over the, you know, two terms of council. Lots of good feedback to the community to get to a point where in a few months' time we'll have a service going into the community we can all be proud of. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put the motion to a vote all in favour. Carried unanimously. Thank you. There are no confidential items. We have no submissions to public question time. Thank you everyone. That brings us to the end of our agenda. The next meeting. Thank you, Kerry.
03:27:00 Thank you, Tracey. The next meeting. Thank you very much.