Noosa Council Watch

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

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

General Committee Meeting - 12 July 2021 Transcript

Monday 12 July 2021 · 3 hours 5 minutes of recording · 2,778 lines · 15 voices, 7 named

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

Speakers: the machine separated 15 voices and names 7 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, good morning everyone and welcome to the General Committee meeting of Monday 12th of July. We begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we're meeting, that's the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people. Pay respects to elders past, present and emerging. And so what a fantastic end to NAIDOC week it was last night with Ashley Barton winning Wimbledon. We have an update from the head of our COVID task force. I'll just read it out. It says, it's regarding the use of masks. I'm delighted to bring you some good news this Monday morning. There's been a change in the mask wearing directives, which means that masks are not required when you're working with people that you regularly work with and can maintain social distancing. Therefore, if you're working in your regular workspace with your normal team, and can keep a gap of 1.5 metres of distance, you can take the mask off for that time.

00:01:00 If you go into a space where it is difficult to maintain the 1.5 metres, for example a small tea room, then you should wear your mask. If you're meeting with the public, however, then you do need to wear a mask, even if you are behind a counter. I hope this brings a smile to your face. Next item is minutes. We mainly have confirmation of the minutes. Please. Thank you, Brian, seconded by Councillor Jurisdict, all in favour. We have no presentations. We have no deputations. And, Councillors, just a general reminder, when we're asking questions this morning, the questions are to specifically elicit information. This is a note to self, as much as anyone. I resist the urge to use a long preamble to promote points of view before we actually put the question out of respect for our staff. So, Councillors, there's been a suggestion that we move to item two on the agenda first,

00:02:00 which is the application for a referral agency response to the dwelling house filling beyond 3 metres on the footprint of building a legislature in Pomona. Deal with that first, because there are other items on appeal of a similar nature. That being the application for short-term accommodation, we can deal with them in a block. So, if there are no objections... Speaker 4: Why are we dealing with them in a block? Councillor Wilkie: Well, because they're all of a similar nature. If we deal with the one with the issue of Pomona first, we get that out of the way. We don't have to, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I think each applicant should have a single... Councillor Wilkie: I beg your pardon, no, sorry. I should rephrase that. Each item will be considered individually. There'll be motions moved on each single application. Thank you. Yeah. But we'll deal with them in a single block, meaning that it's consecutive. Yeah, thank you. You happy with that? Sure. Yeah. Okay, so the item we're going to first is item two on the agenda, which is the application

00:03:00 for a referral agency response to a dwelling house filling beyond 3 metres of the footprint of building at 11 Church Street, Pomona. Any questions for staff councillors? Mayor Stewart: Kerry, I have a question. Just some further conditions came around for... Soil erosion and sediment. Could you just explain those further conditions that have been added to that application? Speaker 4: So at Planning and Environment Committee, Councillor Stockwell raised that he would like to come specific conditions around sediment erosion, given the extent of fill on the site. So officers have drafted those in order to ensure that the extent of soil is appropriately managed on site. And we don't get any runoff into nearby waterway. Great. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move it. Would you like me to read out the additional? It's with the additional conditions 11 and 12 that you see on the screen there, Councillor,

00:04:00 under the heading of erosion and sediment control. Number 11 being prescribed water contaminants, as defined in Schedule 10 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019, must not be released from the site or to waters within the area. It should not be released within the site or be likely to be released should rainfall occur, unless all reasonable and practical measures are taken to prevent or minimise the release and concentration of contamination. Sediment and erosion control measures must be in place prior to works commencing. If such measures are not in place or are not satisfactory, on-the-spot fines may be issued. Such fines can be issued if sediments from the site are found to enter or have the potential to enter Council's stormwater system, natural waterways, any downstream stormwater filtration system or are adversely impacting on other properties. It is the site's principal contractor who is responsible for ensuring that sediment erosion control measures have been revised to address predicted rainfall events and achieved the desired environmental outcomes. Council may request further controls to be installed should the implemented measures

00:05:00 be found inefficient. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder, please. Seconder, Councillor Driscoll. Councillor Stockwell. I do so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As was revealed in the answer to the question, there is in this application an extensive amount of cut and fill exposing it, potentially exposing sediments to the forces of nature. We did recently look at the adjoining waterway, which we identified as potential for long-term connectivity and improving its environmental values. Sediment erosion control is something that is a very slow process that we sometimes forget. And it will probably surprise Councillors who know this particular waterway that a story by Brian O'Connor, I think, in Cooroora Connect identified that 88-year-old Daphne Doran remembers as a child when her family owned a strip of land running from Pottery Street to the present-day IGA, the old Bullocky paddock that became the focus of debate recently.

00:06:00 It was unofficially known as Kookaburra Creek. Daphne regularly caught mountain perch and lobbies while her daughter Diane, one of nine children, used to swim there when younger in May. We sometimes forget that this just over many years and decades of continuing sediments go into what could be a lovely little swimming hole in the middle of Pomona and turn it into what is now a gully. Yeah. It's important that if you're going to start reversing those trends that we look at every opportunity to make sure we have all the requirements for development to be sustainable. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions of staff or comments? Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Brian gives the close. All in favour? It's carried. We now move to item one on the agenda, which is the other change to a development approval

00:07:00 for a material change of use for multiple housing type 2 and 3. That's from page four of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move the motion to request staff to prepare a further report for the ordinary meeting dated 15 July 2021, including conditions for approval of the application, write to the Minister, State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning to request his agreement to make a temporary local planning instrument to make short-term accommodation an inconsistent use of the medium density residential and high density residential zones on the basis that further short-term accommodation is depleting housing supply for permanent residents.

00:08:00 And this poses a significant risk of serious adverse economic and social conditions in Noosa Shire. And the delay involved in amending the planning scheme would increase this risk. C. Note that Council at its ordinary meeting of 18 March 2021 resolved to update the Noosa Council Housing Needs Assessment prepared by Briggs and Morda Pty Ltd in 2017 with regard to the provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 and the local housing situation and trends. And that this review shall address the supply of housing for permanent residents and the impact short-term accommodation has on this supply and inform the assessment of future development applications for short-term accommodation. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that, please. The seconder is Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell. I'm going to make this brief. I've asked to vary the staff recommendation for three reasons.

00:09:00 Firstly, because we must be consistent in our decision-making. Like cases, we must be consistent in our decision-making. Secondly, because this should be decided in like manner. Two, that we must lead with honour and play fair, and not make policy on the run. And three, that in order to avoid unnecessary legal challenges, we must develop a clear statement around short-term accommodation before resolving to refuse short-term accommodation applications. Before I start, I want to make my position on this matter clear. Short-term accommodation should, in the long term, be considered as a priority. In my opinion, be an inconsistent use in the medium density and high density residential zones on the basis that short-term accommodation is depleting housing supply for permanent residents, and this poses a significant risk of serious adverse and social impacts, including changing the character and culture of a community.

00:10:00 Enough is enough. I agree with the change in policy position of council officers. But I do not agree that using an individual land use application is how we do this. I do not agree that defending a refusal decision without data, without an endorsed change of policy, and based on the reason that one more STA is sufficient to change the intent of a zone, will stand up in the court of law. The Noosa Plan 2020 makes short-term accommodation a land use, not an impact. The Noosa Plan 2020 makes short-term accommodation a consistent use in the medium and high density zone, subject to impact assessment. Council's own guide on short-term accommodation states, where short-term accommodation is identified as consistent in the zone, it is generally considered an appropriate use in the zone, providing it can operate in a manner that does not adversely impact on its surrounding

00:11:00 and the residential amenity enjoyed by permanent residents. The Noosa Plan 2020 makes short-term accommodation a consistent use in the medium and high density To change our position on short-term accommodation, we must have an endorsed change of policy, a peer review housing needs report that unequivocally supports our changing position, or a legal instrument that allows us to suspend the operation of short-term accommodation provisions in the Noosa Plan while the planning scheme is being amended. Now I'm going to go quickly through my three reasons for varying the staff report. One, consistency in decision making. It's well established case law, the importance of consistency in planning decisions and that council is required to have regard to the importance of consistency in decision making. Like cases should be decided in like manner so that there is consistency. To do otherwise without providing adequate reason for doing so is unreasonable and will be challenged in the Planning and Environment Court.

00:12:00 Consistency in planning decision is also important for the purpose of securing public confidence and integrity of council and its officers. Between September 2020 and March 2021, council approved three short-term accommodations in similar zone applications as Chunola Street, Noosaville, including 1-27 Hill Street, Sunshine Beach, approved 22 September 2020. 3 Robert Street, Noosaville, approved. 3 Robert Street, Noosaville, approved. 18 February 2021. 1-20 Nanaguy Street, Noosaville, approved 18 March 2021. Council officers' report for these approved short-term applications state that the above application for short-term accommodation meets the strategic outcomes of the planning scheme and complies with the relevant codes. So a few months later, without notice and without an endorsed change in policy position,

00:13:00 we're sitting here refusing almost identical applications. Chunola Street, Noosaville is a like case to 3 Robert Street, Noosaville and should be decided in a like manner. It should be approved, not refused. 2 My second reason that we lead with honour and play fair and not make policy on the run. The applicants and the town planners have spent months preparing applications based on the positive advice provided by planning staff. Council staff provided confidence for applicants to move forward. The applicant town planners relied on the officers' advice and council statements to the public. They trusted and believed in the integrity of council to play fair and follow due process. 3 My third reason that we avoid unnecessary legal challenges by developing a clear statement around short-term accommodation by 1 writing to the minister to request his agreement to make a temporary,

00:14:00 local planning instrument to make short-term accommodation an inconsistent use in the medium density residential and high density residential zones. On the basis that further short-term accommodation is depleting housing supply for permanent residents and this poses a significant risk of serious adverse and social conditions in the Noosa Shire and that the delay in amending the planning scheme would increase the risk if this is not accepted. 2 My second reason is to resolve to update the Noosa Council Housing Needs Assessment that was prepared by Briggs and Mota in 2017. This review shall address the supply of housing for permanent residents and the impact short-term accommodation has on their supply and inform the assessment of future development applications for short-term accommodation. Again, I repeat, this is how we can improve housing.

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 This is how we can change the interpretation and approach to the planning scheme. This is how we refuse applications for short-term accommodation in medium and high residential density zones without the risk of legal challenge. And this is how we strengthen and maintain the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of council by following due process and by playing fair. Short-term accommodation should be an inconsistent use in the medium density and high density zones. On the basis that it's depleting housing supply and this poses a significant risk of serious adverse economic and social impacts. Again, including changing the character and culture of our community. But again, I stress this cannot be done on the run and it cannot be done through an individual land use application. And it cannot be done by unnecessarily spending tens of thousands of dollars of rate payers money in the Planning and Environment Court.

00:16:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Joe. Questions for staff and possibly Kerry and possibly the CEO. Within our medium density residential, high density residential zones, do we have a designated visitor accommodation area? Speaker 4: Yes, we have a, there is a different zone. So it's called the Tourist Accommodation Zone. So in Noosaville, there is an area that's owned tourist accommodation that specifically accommodates visitor accommodation. So that is adjacent to the medium density. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's not, if not within, it's a completely different zone. So it doesn't have to be differentiated from the medium and high density residential zones? No, it's a separate area. So that would be an accepted, if this was what we were writing to the Minister, that would still be considered an accepted area for state accommodation. Yeah. Thank you. I've got a question. Speaker 8: Just to follow up that. If you have a look on the report in the Planning and Environment Committee's agenda on page 11, that shows the location of that zone.

00:17:00 Councillor Jurisevic: No, I was clear on that. I just wanted to clarify whether or not we would have to differentiate if the visitor accommodation areas within the zones, whether it would have to be differentiated outside of those to not be considered in the medium high density residential areas. Mayor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, just on the question about, on the basis that, under B, on the basis that further short term accommodation is depleting housing supply for permanent residents. And this poses a significant risk of serious adverse economic and social conditions in Noosa Shire. In regard to the adverse economic conditions specifically, I don't know, I guess social, what evidence do we have besides the 23% that you've said in the earlier meeting that 23% of our housing stock is being used for short term accommodation? What other evidence do we have that is having serious economic and social impacts? Do we have any studies to back that statement up?

00:18:00 Do we have any evidence to back that up? Speaker 4: So one, this is not officer's recommendation. This is coming obviously from a councillor. Those words in there are reflective of the act and they are the test that we would need to meet in order for the minister to sign off on a temporary work or planning instrument. They're reflective of the legislation. We have, I've talked to strategic planning and we have limited data at present. But I'm not sure the minister would require, would require hard data. Because what we're saying is this is an emergency. We've got a situation where increased population migration into Noosa has impacted our housing supply of Noosa. And that's what we're concerned about in terms of an economic sense and a social sense. Mayor Stewart: So is it more prudent to have the update on the housing needs assessment prepared before we write to the minister? I guess that's my question. Speaker 8: As a matter of the council, I guess part of this process is that what the motion says

00:19:00 is you can go to a vote to say put something in place temporarily. At the same time we finalise the housing needs assessment. And then we determine what we really want to do on a permanent basis once that's in place. And it's obviously a question about whether or not the minister will make a temporary local planning instrument without that in place. But I think the idea, I don't want to support the council immediate motion. But the idea is to try and put something in place on a temporary basis until we get that permanent report. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question on process for TLPI. The way I, well I probably don't have a lot of knowledge, but the way I've interpreted it is that there's a number of steps. The first step is you have to get ministerial approval to go down the course of a temporary local planning instrument. Then council would then have to consider a temporary local planning instrument and adopt that. Is that correct? Or would we have to adopt a TLPI first? Speaker 8: I might ask Rowena to comment on that.

00:20:00 She's the president expert on this. If there is an expert, there's not that common sense. Thanks Rowena. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 3: Councillor Stockwell, we do have to ask the minister for the support, the agreement to pursue it. The process that the department actually recommends is having a meeting at officer level. First with senior executive in the department to sort of gauge the level of support, ministerial support for it. And then council would, I guess, be informed by that meeting as to whether they're pursuing it. But you do have to have the ministerial support before you can do it. The process is then to do a public notice advising that you're putting in place the temporary local planning instrument in place.

00:21:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there'd be a second. This wouldn't be the last. This council would see it. We'd have to then formally adopt one if we were going down this path. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Tom. Question to Brett. Concerning B, where this is just, you know, part of the application for an STS, staff recommends to refuse it. Is this the right place to actually be making such a motion? To write to the minister? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a mayoral minute come before us or some other way of dealing with this in a much more transparent, I guess, as a way so that we can bring everybody along with the journey saying, this is what we plan to do. I mean, I completely agree with Amelia on just about everything. But the question is, is this the proper procedure? Thanks. Thanks, Frank. Speaker 8: It's probably a little bit unusual, but in the sense you've got four applications before you today to be determined, it's probably appropriate because otherwise you're doing it in a vacuum

00:22:00 and there's no real pathway forward. So it's a touch unusual, but I think it is appropriate given you have a block of applications before you, which if you refuse, it's setting different policies. So you really need to determine a pathway forward and your policy on there as well. And to a large extent, these applications have brought that forward. It's really important for council to try and work that way too. Joe, then Karen. Councillor Jurisevic: So in that sense, conditions B and C would only be required to be moved once. Speaker 8: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And A is something that could be applied to each of the subsequent applications if that was the chosen path to go. Thank you. Karen. Councillor Finzel: I just disagree with the comments made by the CEO. I don't disagree with- Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Karen. This is a question. Okay. Or you're putting a point of view. It sounds like you're putting a point of view. Okay. All right. You can leave that for the day. Councillor Finzel: With regards to the process to move forward on the letter to the minister, you said the

00:23:00 first step from the staff was the officer level meeting. Does that come before or after the public notice? Speaker 3: Before. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Before the public notice? Yeah. Would you say that town planning is a process that should engage the whole community? Speaker 8: I can answer that. So there's a process in the act of going through temporary local planning instruments. You can't commence that process until a minister agrees. So she talked to you about when you get into public engagement, you won't get to that until a minister agrees you need to start the process. That's always the first step, once you get through that step. So we write to the minister, and the minister is through negotiation with staff, with government staff. The officer says, yes, you can go ahead. Then we come back to council and say, well, go ahead. Here's the process for doing the community engagement on that proposal. Okay. With regards to the- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm just . I just need to check. My recollection is that on temporary local planning instruments, there's some differences

00:24:00 in terms of engagement. Speaker 3: There is no- Yes. The whole purpose of a TLPI is expediting the process because of urgency. Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sure. In approval of the new NUSA plan, the NUSA plan 2020, there was a condition placed on by the minister with regard to short-term accommodation with a two-year timeframe. Can you just remind me of what- Yeah. The parameters of that review were for that two years? Speaker 3: Broadly, we're monitoring short-term accommodation. We're monitoring the planning scheme in relation to how it's meeting the state planning policy on tourism. We're also monitoring the planning scheme in terms of meeting the state planning policy on housing choice and affordability.

00:25:00 We have clearly circumstantial events of the last year or two that were not preempted when the minister set the conditions, so it may be that to get accurate monitoring or useful monitoring, that two years does stretch out to two and a half or even three years in terms of seeing what is happening in NUSA and whether those things are going to be implemented or not. So we're monitoring both sides of it. We're monitoring the economic health of the Shire as well as the housing. Some of the housing, they come together in terms of the economy can't function well if companies can't engage staff because those staff can't afford to live here. So there's a lot of uncertainty in terms of whether or not we're going to be able to

00:26:00 manage the relationship between the housing and the economy. Councillor Jurisevic: So is what's covered in B covered in that two-year review? Speaker 3: They're similar. So the review is, and the housing needs assessment as well, they're both looking at the same types of data. They're looking at housing affordability, housing choice. They're looking at the effect that's having on local businesses in terms of recruiting, attracting and retaining staff. They're looking at the tourism industry and how that contributes to the economy. It's looking at various aspects of what is really one big problem at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. So in terms of requesting a TLPI in the middle of a two-year review, would that be considered

00:27:00 an unusual circumstance, given that we've got a two-year review? Or would that be reiterating the fact that there's a more urgent need to address this at this point in time, even though they're two-year review? Speaker 3: The TLPI gives you the opportunity of saying, we know that there's a problem and we want to work on it quickly rather than waiting. Or far more quicker than waiting. Waiting. Waiting for the monitoring process to be complete and then drafting scheme amendments and then going through the consultation required. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That answers my question. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Question to the CEO. With regards to collecting data for these studies and amendments back, what is the recommended period that that data is collected to get a good outcome or the favourable outcome? Speaker 8: With the adoption of the plan being the 30th of July 2020, the Ministerial Commission said two years.

00:28:00 That was the condition that was imposed. What this would do would be to effectively say to use the housing needs assessment, which is part of that process, as a precursor, if you like, to moving forward more quickly. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. No questions? Is the housing needs assessment of which you speak, is that what the staff is currently working on? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Can you tell us when that is due for completion? Speaker 3: It's very hard to say. But I would like to think within the next couple of months. Within three months. Councillor Finzel: October or September? Speaker 3: Around about. It largely depends on what you're looking for. What else we have to do between now and then? Sure. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Question. What would be the normal process if we were to separate the questions today with, if we parked the applications in front of us today, what we're making a decision on, and we looked

00:29:00 at this alone, what would be the process after you've collected all the data through your study? What would be the process then to start the amendment? Speaker 3: The report would come back to Council with various amendments. There are various recommendations for scheme amendments and we'd be going through each of those prospects with Council. I mean, there may be things outside of scheme amendments as well, looking at, that are separate issues. But going through and then formally proposing scheme amendments and putting those first to the State for a State interest review and then to the Commission. Okay. Speaker 8: And just at that time, a tool for where the Council would look at whether it wants to bring forward something to a local, to a big bank then, and do that quicker, or just

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 do it through a normal bank scheme where the amendments, where the changes will occur until they're then considered? Sure. Exactly. Mayor Stewart: Rowena, just a question. I'm writing to the Minister of the TLPI specifically for this making an inconsistent use for medium and high-density applications. So, is this, I mean, this is part of a bigger picture that you're looking at in regard to rezoning. Is it, with this, if there is that and this facilitates or expedites a process, so then this is something that secondary dwellings could be talked about? Is this something that if there's, is this, is there a whole range of things that we could look to address or we can't do that? Speaker 3: No. I wouldn't. I would not complicate it with various aspects. I would, you know, Councillor Lorentson has a particular issue that she's proposing, and I wouldn't complicate it with a number of issues. Mayor Stewart: No, not on this specific one, but is there, is it the same process that for other areas?

00:31:00 It's the same process for other terms of work. That you two write in different things? Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Can I ask, Rowena, the Commonwealth Skills Priority List, or the Commonwealth Skills Priority List that was released last month, data on statewide shortages of workers, and there's specifically regions that were identified and what the labour shortages were. Is that information relevant when we write to the Minister? Speaker 3: Yeah, it's all relevant. We do look at where job vacancies are, and the higher number of job vacancies at the moment correlates with what our main industries have. Councillor Lorentson: That information, I think, will really be quite relevant. There's currently more than 39,000 jobs being advertised on SEEK. That's in Queensland, and then it does go specifically into regions, so I'll flick that to you. Jodie, I have a question.

00:32:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Given that we've talked about the timeframes of planning amendments and the like, what sort of timeframe is likely around a TLPI in going to the Minister? Do we have any sort of... No. No. I think we have a timeframe of approvals of TLPIs in the future, in the past, that we could have some idea of how long that process might take? Speaker 3: If the Minister was of a mind to support it, it could be done within a six-week period. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So it could be quite an expedient process. Thank you. Speaker 8: I'll just clarify the question, Councillor, fair enough, before, about the public advertising, how that would work. So the local... The whole idea behind the TLPI is that if it's fee-gated, so there's no engagement in that process, the engagement comes from that local and then expires and you have to move to a permanent one. So it puts in place a temporary protection before you go to the permanent one. It's the permanent one where the advertising is served. Councillor Jurisevic: So, in effect, this is asking for a halt until a more thorough process can be undertaken,

00:33:00 which may then... Is that a temporary halt process? Speaker 8: That's exactly how a TLPI works. It puts in place a temporary halt on everything or puts in place something on a temporary basis. While it's reviewed. It can be two years. Yeah, it can be a short-term period and then you bring in your permanent one through another process. Councillor Jurisevic: But that allows it to go through a full review of the normal process and may be overturned or continued on. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, we've approved three. We've got four before us. How many... Do you have any further applications for medium density for you on your desk at the Speaker 4: moment? Yeah. We have around 10 to 15 at the moment in various stages of the process. Mayor Stewart: So, based on the fact that they've already put their application in on the proviso that what we've talked about as being fair and consistent, would that instrument impact those applications potentially? I don't think so. I don't think it would impact those 10 to 15 applications. Speaker 4: A temporary local planning instrument?

00:34:00 Yeah. Yeah. So, it would inform the assessment of those applications. Mayor Stewart: So, they've done... Those people have put in good faith, like everyone else here, on the basis that they think the medium density is potentially supportive. However, they will then... Those 10 to 15 people will then be jeopardised by this. Speaker 4: So, the Act requires us to continue to assess those applications under the current plan. The current planning scheme talks about maintaining those areas that are predominantly permanent, which officers are indicating we've got a problem here. So, we could only have regard really to the temporary local planning instrument. So, I think that clarifies those requirements. Speaker 8: Okay. Just to be clear. So, if we've got these applications going through the assessment process at the moment, I can say, if we go to the Minister and say, we'll have a TLPI. Okay. The Minister says, yes. We then get the Council to go through a process to make a TLPI.

00:35:00 Does that then immediately impact on the applications that are in training? Speaker 4: So, the applications will still be assessed under the 2020. The Council will be able to have regard to that temporary local planning instrument. Mayor Stewart: Which would make it inconsistent, deem it inconsistent. Speaker 4: It doesn't make it inconsistent. But it sends a clear statement that we've got a problem with our housing supply, which is what officers are raising under the 2020 scheme. Councillor Wilkie: And I'd imagine that once this, if this motion is passed today, that would be noted by the industry? Yes. And that would send a message then, staff would probably, we would communicate that intention to the applicants. Absolutely. And they would have the option then to withdraw or proceed? Speaker 4: Yes. We would definitely have discussions with our current application that we've got in, depending on what Council resolves. And make sure all the applicants are aware of that, and the potential consequences. And they would have the option to withdraw and get partial refunds, or continue on with their process. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisevic, just for the purpose of moving this along, I'm going to speak

00:36:00 to the motion. I'm going to speak in favour of it. Mayor, Councillor Lorentson and I haven't spoken very well about this. In terms of equity, I am in favour of approving the application. I do acknowledge that the staff have an obligation also once that data comes to hand about the influx of population and the impact that's having on supply of permanent housing, that they are obliged and quite within their rights to have a recommendation for refusal on the basis of how it's impacting on housing supply in the median density residential zones, but I do agree that I will support approval in this instance. I do support the idea of applying for a temporary local planning instrument.

00:37:00 That will of course signal to the state and the industry that the Council is considering a change of direction. It supports the direction the staff want to take on this and it also puts a stop to the change of direction in the short term about how Council is likely to treat these applications. Then when the full review happens, as Councillor Jurisevic's question revealed, there's an opportunity for the community to have a say for a full review on that stock, the impact on the need for short-term accommodation. The whole process can be reviewed at the public consultation at that point, but I do favour applying for this temporary local planning instrument. Not only does it signal to the industry, but it also sends a...there's also a political statement implicit in that that we believe, me personally, that we're placing the value on keeping our communities connected and we will...personally I think short-term accommodation

00:38:00 has fragmented our residential communities to a worrying point. The supply of permanent housing is a very important issue. And I think if I'm genuine in my view that we need to do what we can to protect the supply of permanent housing, this opportunity comes up, I need to support the staff's contention in the long term, but also the way we get there has to be equitable, it has to be humane, it has to be compassionate. It has to be clear. It has to be clear. It has to be a clear process. And for that reason, I think this motion encapsulates all those aspects and I will support it. Now, the council. Tom. Councillor Wegener: Question. Do we have to do this? I mean, do we...is this a requirement to go through the state to change...to refuse

00:39:00 these? Because it seems though the tools were already here. We have the planning scheme. We have the information. We have the information. We already have what we need to do. Let's...shouldn't we just get on with the job? That's the question. Do we need...do we need to do this? Or do we have the tools in our hands right now to get the job done? Speaker 8: I'll answer that. Councillor, the recommendation starts with the...to review the application. My understanding is the reasoning behind Councillor Amelia's alternative wording is that there's not sufficient grounds at the moment to be able to do that. And that to start with, the application should therefore be approved. But in the meantime, to enable sufficient evidence, if I can use that word, or sufficient arguments to be able to rely on something new to be able to refuse those types of applications in the future, there are two things that should occur.

00:40:00 One is the TLPI to put that in place to provide the basis for future refusals. And the second is the formalisation of the...how do you need to set them. That's the first thing. So I think Councillor Amelia's recommendation...sorry, reply to this motion is to approve this application but to put in place two things that would help to reduce the loss of future applications. Speaker 4: What was... Councillor Wegener: So just...sorry. Speaker 4: Yeah, go on. Councillor Wegener: So the time frame... It is, yeah. Thank you. That...again, what is the time frame for the success of this? You said it could happen in six weeks. What is the likely time frame? Speaker 3: It could be longer. It could be longer. I cannot tell you whether we would get the Minister's support or not. I cannot tell you how long it would take to get an answer as to whether we have the Minister's support or not. Councillor Wegener: But we have the tools now to do it.

00:41:00 Speaker 4: Well, as the officer who is responsible for assessing these applications, I think there is sufficient in...requirements. In our planning scheme to refuse the current application. That's the recommendation. Obviously, these things are open to challenge. And it would be preferable for Council to develop a TLPI and complete the housing study that would further support these refusals. So I think that is good practice and process for us to do that work. But nevertheless, I think there is sufficient information now and requirements in the scheme to refuse these applications. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. May I speak to the motion? Oh, go on. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Please. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Mayor Stewart: I would like to make the addition to Council Laurenston's. And I'm not sure, Brett, I might have some help with wording. With the current applications that are before Council, those 10 to 15, are excluded from this. Speaker 8: Well, it's probably the wrong time to do that. No.

00:42:00 At this stage, we don't have a temporary local TLPI. If we get to the stage of getting Minister's approval to remove these applications, that doesn't mean we can implement a TLPI. You have to come back to Council to make that decision. Mayor Stewart: And at that time, can we do that? Okay. We have to look at it. Have a look at it. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finchell. I have a question. Thank you. It appears today, and I understand, I just need to put a little background while I'm going, is that we have again blurred what is before us, which is the applicant. Okay. So, can we separate the applications and go through each one of them individually and vote on them? And at the end of that, can we bring in the temporary instrument rather than blurring it with this and debating the debate that seems to be around the policy issue? Councillor Wilkie: In answer to your first question, Cam, we are handling each application separately today. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Can we amend that and take B out and can we take C out and just keep A in this amendment?

00:43:00 Councillor Wilkie: Well, in my opinion, that would substantially negate the thrust of this motion. But if this motion does not get up, you would be free to move another motion based on A. Councillor Finzel: Okay. I think we're blurring it. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: But if I can ask the question to CO, Mr CO, if Councillor Finzel, for example, were to remove B, would that substantially negate the thrust of that? You could just move an amendment where you would remove B or C, but not B and C. Does that make sense, Cam? Can you repeat what you did? Councillor Finzel: We can debate it. They'll keep me to look forward. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. Can I just clarify? Just to clarify, Councillor Finzel's point there. I'll go back to the question I asked the CO earlier.

00:44:00 Each of these applications will be dealt with individually with point A if we decided would be something that could be reiterated each time or the staff recommendation on each of the subsequent ones. But B and C is something that could be common to all applications from here on. Okay. Here on in. So it only needs to be stated at the one time. Correct. And then every application still gets dealt with individually. That's my understanding. That's correct. Okay. Does that clarify, Karen? Councillor Finzel: I think it does clarify, but I think a clearer process would be more better moving forward for this debate because I think, from my opinion ... Okay. It sounds like ... Well, okay. Councillor Wilkie: Would you like to speak to the motion, Karen? No, I think you had a question. No. Councillor Wegener: I was ready to speak to the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I did have a question following on from before you spoke about something that Kerry mentioned. So with the introduction of a TLPI, you mentioned that on the date that occurred, we could then

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 go back to the current applications that are in the system and staff would talk to them saying there's been a change, give them an opportunity to review or withdraw their applications. In the case of the applications before us today, was that ... I mean, my understanding is that staff were supportive of the applicants through the process and until the final level of assessment occurred, the situation changed and the applications were no longer supported. Was, through the process, that opportunity given to withdraw or review the application given to the ... The current applicants before us on the basis that staff had a change in the parameters they were applying to those applications. Speaker 4: So the applications ... This use is identified as a consistent use in the zoning, so that's

00:46:00 what the scheme says. But it also sets out a number of requirements in the scheme that they must continue to meet. And so until the applications were finalised, until the assessment was finalised of these applications ... We've done the research to look at how many short properties were being used for short term accommodation. We didn't know the answer as to whether it met the planning scheme until right to the end. So these applications have been ... The applicant has been told that it's been recommended for refusal before it was on the agenda, so they were advised of that. We've had further discussions with the applicant if they'd like to put the matter on hold. They've indicated they'd like the decision from the application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other councillors wishing to speak to the motion in place? Councillor Tom. Councillor Wegener: When looking at these, the staff says we have to look at this in light of the whole Noosa Town Plan. And I'd like to start with bringing us back to what we should be doing and the very basis

00:47:00 and philosophy behind the plan. And it says, 2.2 Noosa Town Plan, Noosa is one of the most desirable places in the world to live. This status has been both the result of good fortune in terms of climate amenity and natural resources and good management in terms of how consecutive generations have cared for the place and evolved a set of community values and planning principles. These are longstanding values and principles that have shaped the development of the Noosa Shire and have been the foundation of the planning scheme. So we have principles and we respect amenity. And key challenges in the Noosa Town Plan. The scheme focuses on a number of key challenges, including diversity and housing choice to provide suitable resident accommodation for low-income earners and key workers. So we know that we respect amenity. We know we like our, we plan, we've done an incredible job planning Noosa for a very

00:48:00 long time. We know that this is one of the key challenges that's facing us. Now, we have to look at a number of key challenges. We have a huge influx of residents and we have a change. There's been a change, a seismic change before our eyes as councillors. We've seen an enormous amount of people coming in. We've seen the short-term stay. We now know that 23% of these areas near the beach here from Tewantin over are short-term stays. We see a big, big, big change. It's time to react. Consistency. We need to stay consistent with the big principles, principles of amenity, the principles of shaping this, having a hand in shaping our community. We have got a letter from MARTU and Pivotal and RG Strategic and it says, interestingly, the officer's report for the above recent approved short-term accommodation all indicates that short-term accommodation meets strategic outcomes.

00:49:00 For the planning scheme, whereas less than four months later, the same officers are reporting that the use does not meet the strategic outcomes. Well, it is consistent with our big picture that we are in charge here, making good decisions going forward for the entire community. And I consider this when I was young story on driving the boat through the Los Angeles Harbor area. There's a big ship coming at us and the captain said, stay on course because we're going to miss the big ship. Well, of course, the captain goes to sleep, driving along, the big ship starts speeding up. And I'm kind of looking at it going, oh, for God's sakes, you know, do I stay with, do I stay consistent or do I wake up the captain and say, things have changed. The ship's coming close. We're going to crash. Well, of course, the captain then says, well, change the direction of the ship. Well, that's exactly what's happened since this March 2.

00:50:00 The consistency is maintaining the town plan, maintaining the town plan in a changing circumstance. The circumstances have changed. We all acknowledge that they've changed. There's a tipping point. It did. It was a knife edge last time, four months ago, it was like, eh, okay, you know, prove them. Now that we're on the other side of that edge, we've crossed, we've crossed the barrier. We have to do our job and we have the tools to do our job. The staff recommendation is to refuse it. Do we need to write to the minister? Maybe that will help. Yes. We probably a good idea. I don't know if it's the best thing to do here. I don't approve. I don't, um, don't want to do it right now. I think this should be in a separate motion and a separate feeling maybe at the end of this. But for now, we know that the environment has changed. It's our job to step up and say, if the times have changed, then we don't, we, we are losing

00:51:00 our amenity. We are losing our permanent renity. What's happened here is a Noosa, say Noosa is a good restaurant and used to work really good two years ago. Nobody ran their campaign on, um, the, the, the, the shorting, how does it lack of workforce now? That wasn't an issue back then. Now it's an issue. It's like when you say it was a very good restaurant, lots of people are coming here, having great service from the staff. All of a sudden we've realized that this restaurant has a whole hell of a lot more tables and a lot less staff. It's not working. We're going down. It's out of balance. It's our job to fix that. We're the captains of the ship. We can't, and they've delivered us the instruments to do this. Why back off? If this is a courageous, this is just what we have to do. We have to make hard decisions as a counselors that restaurants not going to work. There's all those tables.

00:52:00 No, not enough staff. We can fix this. That's our job to do it right now. The best we can. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The speakers so far have been spot on, all of them, and they're all in agreement. Councillor Wegener might not realize it, but what Councillor Wegener said is absolutely true. Absolutely. So all we're really debating in this series of motions, and this one brings it to a head, is what is the best way forward to achieve those outcomes for our community? Councillor Wilkie: Mm-hmm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the best way forward, in my opinion, is as the motion has put it, for the reasons that Councillor Lorentson has outlined it. We have heard that there's perhaps only 10 applications currently undecided in the medium density and high density residential. We've already approved 69 superseded planning applications and have another 111 waiting for approval. So are we fighting the right fight at the right time?

00:53:00 Absolutely. To me, I made a commitment around short stay accommodation, and I see this motion as the safest and least expensive option. A number of those 111 applications for superseded sitting out there are going to be decided on the basis of whether we think there's compensation. The risk of compensation in terms of a problem is very high. So it's probably a little bit more than our ability compared to the risk of probably a million dollars mint in court appeals if we just refuse without a, changing our policy position, we're doing this. So how did we get here? I think there's a little bit more understanding needed in terms of these specific applications. When we first went out for the first draft of the Noosap plan, we had a thing called the short stay overlay, which identified those parts of the Shire that we thought were traditionally

00:54:00 All of those are areas that traditionally have had a mix of residential and tourist uses and the scheme supports the mix. So we are really having this classic dilemma of two different intents. So the strategic intent of Noosa Plan 3.2.4 is housing to meet diverse needs of the community And as Councillor Wegener elegantly pointed out, things have changed significantly since we did the planning scheme. So significant, I don't need any more data. I would go to court and say this is the worst housing shortage in Noosa Shire's history right now. And if that's not serious adverse social conditions, I don't know what is.

00:55:00 So, but we do also have 3.26, which is a diverse and resilient economy. And part of that is that tourism is a key sector of the Noosa economy and will continue to be so into the future. Key visitor areas including Hastings Street, Yippee Terrace, Noosa River, Tewantin, Marina, Noosa National Park, Sunshine Beach, Bridgham Beach, Noosa North Shore and the Hintley. And what is the outcomes we seek? Well, the most specific outcome to that is that Noosa continues to be a highly regarded destination for visitors from around Australia and overseas. And the key sentence is varying types of accommodation and services cater for visitor needs. So our assessment is not just based on a really strong need to have better housing choices, but it's also about do we have accommodation? That meets visitor needs. So as I just pointed out, we've got up to 180 superseded planning applications for houses, mostly I would presume, maybe units.

00:56:00 You can guess that the average is three bedrooms. That's 540 new beds potentially approved since the start of the Noosa plan. Now, some of those might be for existing use rights. Let's go to 340. That's a huge major new capacity to handle more tourists than we did a year ago. I don't think there can be any argument that there's an overriding need for more visitor accommodation. On the other hand, what we're finding is the strategic outcome for housing choice. And it says attractive and diverse living opportunities are available, including for key workers, low income earners and the elderly. A significant portion of new developments comprise smaller dwellings located close to activity centres with ease of access to public and active transport. Now, none of these particular applications in this one are going to be for the low income earners, the key workers or the elderly, perhaps.

00:57:00 But what B does is acknowledge that it's not just supply that's on a downward trajectory, but demand's on the way up. And the demand, there's two horses in the race. Those who are buying their second and third houses who can invest in Noosa, who are driving the property price up, it's like a big industrial flan blowing into the coastal communities that's making this huge real estate bubble that means that progressively the whole market gets dragged into this era of difficulty for those that have to buy within price range. So it's not just the impact of what will happen in these particular areas where there are a whole lot of existing visitor accommodations, but it's the impact on the rest of the market that one market at one market just keeps on cascading down until families like my own and all my son's friends who a year ago were living with their partners in rented accommodation are now either moved back with their parents or they've moved to Nambour.

00:58:00 And so the Noosa population, if we don't do something, it won't be an age pyramid where you have more people down here and less at the top. We'll have the classic 1960s model figure, you know, the 38, 28, 38, where we have this huge gap in the middle of where our workers come from, where our families are intergenerational equity. So in terms of B, I believe that we can't not do it. It is the most safe and secure way to say to the market, we think at this point in time, enough is enough. And you can still apply, but you do it with your eyes open.

00:59:00 Just refusing an individual application based on the grounds that we've already know that the consultants already told us they're going to appeal is probably not going to send that. So if you want to make the strongest possible message to the consumer, you've got to do it. If you want to make the strongest possible message to the community and to the development sector that, wait a minute, this policy is changing, you go down this line, I think it's really important to understand that, yes, this plan was built a few years ago. I think the last point I want to mention is why I disagree with the staff recommendation. And it's nuanced on what councillors do. And that's what Lawrence and said. And that is after we came back and got the feedback on that short stay overlay, there's a whole lot of people in it that said they don't want to be in it. There's a whole lot of people outside. So one of the things we did was review not just short in the low density residential, we reviewed what the settings were in the medium and high density.

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 And for me, and I believe it was the majority position. The reason why it's consistent in those zones is because we thought it was fair to continue to provide visitor accommodation in those areas traditionally associated with holiday accommodation. Each one of these sites are almost surrounded by visitor accommodation. And to me, that is what the intent of the Noosa Plan 2020 was. I went back through the whole scheme trying to find it. And you can only find an indirect reference to that as being perhaps the policy direction that's in the Coastal Communities Code, where it says that they shouldn't be in a location which are predominantly residential in nature. So we have this a little bit of a two way pool with saying that we can't have it here because there's too many visitor accommodation, but we can't have it over here because they're still predominantly permanent in nature.

01:01:00 To me, it is far better to perhaps leave it. So to me, it is far better to perhaps leave it. I think the idea is that all those who have applied, or have applied under an old scheme and go down this path. Because I think that is about also the integrity under our code of conduct, about the public messaging that's gone out. I do believe it is about credibility and I do believe it is about saying, yes, we are fair, but we realise that we have to take a tough stand and this is the way to do it. I think that the other alternative, if we were to approve them. There are areas where there isn't already a lot of visitor accommodation, exactly to what I believe is the opposite of what we want it to be. And if we take out B and C, what does that mean? Staff are still going to come up here and recommend a refusal and we're just going to have more likelihoods of appeal. So this is the most sensible way. It doesn't mean you have to support the TLPI once it comes back to staff if the Minister agrees.

01:02:00 We can have that debate. If you need more information to make your decision, the time to do it is when we've found out whether the Minister will go down this path. It's not now. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Right. This is a challenging situation. I do agree with most things that have been said at the table and I am 100% for looking after the most vulnerable people in our community and making sure that there is fair access to affordable housing that is available. I'm all about amenity in suburbs and the neighbourhood. In fact, in February I brought it to the CEO and raised a red flag along with Councillor Wegener back to staff to address the saturation point and what mechanisms have been available to address this. What I disagree with is policy on the run. I don't disagree that we need to go down and put the TLPI in place.

01:03:00 And I do understand that the planning scheme is about at its higher order, at its higher end, is to find hopeful moments of socially transformative possibilities. However, I think having a debate around policy making that needs a process to follow which we've discussed today is not the place today. What we have before us is applicants that have followed the process, that have taken advice off the staff, that is consistent with decisions preceding our arrival at these reports and what before us I believe today is to be fair and give equity to these applicants that in good faith have followed the process, listened to the staff, paid good money and arrived at this place. The debate before us today is to address those issues of inconsistency.

01:04:00 To address the issue of doing policy making on the whole. We talk about engendering trust with community. We talk about excellence in council. I think we can do better. It's not good enough to arrive at a table today and blur this, applicants, with policy on the hop. Given the issues were addressed to the CEO, we did go back to staff and say, can you keep us abreast in the reports of what is happening with the short term accommodations? Where are we at? It has been raised. I think what has happened is the planning scheme has worked to its ability. It's done, it's made visible what was previously invisible. And this is an important dimension of the ethical and political project of critical social theories. We are faced with a pandemic. We all agree that these things have arrived and found us at an intersection. We are the leaders. We have to make these decisions.

01:05:00 I put forward that we would be able to move ahead with the TLPI. If we could draw the line in the sand, say, August 31 as a deadline, that we could bring through the applicants that are before us that have followed the due process, so it is fair and equitable to them. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, could you give comments to the councillors, not the staff, please? Councillor Finzel: Oh, I thought I was walking away. Sorry. My apologies. There was no intention to direct that at the staff. I thought I was looking around the room. Thank you for the reminder. Now that I've lost my train of thought, thank you. We all have at our hearts those being dispossessed or with our housing, we value and understand all of this. We understand the loss of amenity. We've heard everyone talk about it today. My concern is the process.

01:06:00 Where no workshop was brought up to councillors, prior to now. We raised the issue with the CEO in February. There was opportunity, I believe, for this to be discussed prior to this agenda item. The process of waiting for the housing needs study to come before us and follow the due process would be working towards excellence in council, while maintaining our ability to support these applicants who put in their applications in good faith. So I think it's not fair and nor is it equitable to be discussing these applications around the process of changing the planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Look, I might just break it down.

01:07:00 So in regard to A, I absolutely think we need to, for all the reasons already stated, we need to approve this STA application as well as the other three before us. As Councillor Lorentson said, you know, it's very much planning policy on the run. There was no engagement with councillors. We haven't undertaken a proper process in this regard. We have no evidence to back up the 23% housing. I haven't seen any documents or evidence to support that. Not approving four STAs in medium density when applicants have done everything by the book is not the answer to our affordable housing crisis. I believe we're just opening ourselves up to potential litigation and incurring more costs for our community. Our code of conduct as Councillor Stockwell set round at all times to strive to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of council and avoid any action which may diminish its standing, authority or dignity. Frankie talked about we must govern with equity, equitable, humane, compassion. Well, in this sense, when we've already approved three,

01:08:00 we must do the right thing and we must be consistent in fairness in our governing. Now, I'm happy to support number B and C on the basis that I think that we need to. Certainly, we need further information, we need data, and we are in a housing crisis. When we look at our real housing crisis, it's our affordable housing crisis, it's our worker accommodation, it's our at-risk and most vulnerable. We need to look at rezoning, which Rowena is doing. We need to look at our lazy assets, which we are. We need to re-look at car parking contributions in and around the junction to help create appetite for worker accommodation to be built. We need to look at ancillary dwellings. We need to revisit industrial areas, look at accommodation above worker space in these areas, something which we refused, yet applicants were successful in court. We need to work with our backpackers to provide rooming and accommodation. As Tom said, times have changed. We need to be flexible and we need the planning scheme to amend that.

01:09:00 We need to look at a bigger picture. So all of those things, as well as this, need to be taken into account. If we really want to be serious and have the hard conversations, they're the things we need to be looking at as well, not just writing to the Minister. This is a good start and it's an important one, but this needs to be a multi-pronged approach. So I'm happy to support that, but I think on the back of that, we need to bear in mind that there is a lot more work that needs to be done in this area and we need to start making those hard decisions and we need to start questioning some of our planning schemes. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't disagree enough with the element of blurring. I think this clarifies the situation more than anything else that we've spoken about. This clearly turns around and tells us we want to draw a line in the sand and I don't think we can articulate it more clearly

01:10:00 and we're going to back that up with the support of the Housing Needs Assessment. I think B clearly states that. I think B and C in this case should apply regardless of whether we decide to approve or refuse this application. That's how strongly I believe in the statement there and one of the reasons I circulated some information about what a TLPI was was to see if other councillors supported the concept. I was intending to fully go down this path myself. I thought this was the instrument that gave us clarity in the process. The challenge we have before us with short-stay accommodations and housing affordability housing availability and all the rest of it is a huge influx of investors who are now seeing short-stay accommodation as their means of paying for their investment properties where in the past a lot of those would have been long-term rentals. Obviously the value in short-stays is being seen far more as an economic benefit

01:11:00 for those investors that are paying a far higher price for their properties. Noosa is one of the most desired places in the state if not the country for investment of property and it's having an impact on housing availability which impacts on housing affordability. All of those pushed down. Every house taken out of the long-term market or out of the residential market for short stays becomes one less house available for somebody to live in permanently on a permanent basis. The element within the planning scheme as it sits at the moment is that staff are using and refusing these applications before us is a word predominantly and I believe that's an element of subject it's a subjective term. There's no definition as to what predominantly is. Is it 51% of housing in an area, in a street, in a region? I mean how do we clarify

01:12:00 when enough is enough and too much is too much? How much visitor accommodation is too much? How much do we actually need? I mean what is the level of diversity that Councillor Stockwell related to? When, you know, what needs to be resorts? What needs to be housing type opportunities? What needs to be rental and unit type accommodation available for visitor accommodation? There's a lot of questions that I don't believe we've ever gone down the path of answering. One of the reasons I didn't support the, when we were discussing the draft planning scheme and we changed from lines on a map incorporating where those short stays could be accommodated to the situation we have now is because a lot of the short stays and the majority of short stays are in medium density and high density residential areas. And a lot of them are in visitor accommodation areas

01:13:00 and more correctly in visitor accommodation areas. And if we had clarified what visitor accommodation areas were and where short stays could go, we probably wouldn't be here today arguing what we have here. And I think the comments by Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Lorentson have other reasons why we should support what's before us. I concur that what Councillor Wegener has said is true and correct. We have reached a point. This is the way that we identify that that point has been reached. From our Council perspective and saying that we need to deal with it from here on in. I think this is clear. I think this is concise. I'd be interested to see if the Minister agrees and will provide us with a TLBI when we're going through a two-year review. But that waits to, you know, this is the message that we're sending and the clearest message that we as Councillors can send, I think, to the Minister

01:14:00 Speaker 7: that something needs to be done at this point in time. Councillor Jurisevic: As for the applications before us, which is probably more relevant to each of the applicants and waiting to hear us, I do agree. I do believe that there are, their conditions should be approved, as we have done, to be consistent with those that have come before us at this point in time. Also with those, with the understanding of the applicants of what they were applying for. Had we drawn a line in the sand and not approved the first three, might have a slightly different opinion. But I think the way, the method going forward and the method of approaching this is the correct method here. BNC clearly send a message that we're drawing a line in the sand, that there are issues here that need to be addressed, but that we're acting in good faith with the applicants that have come before us. We can't now go back and say, well, we changed our minds on the way that your applications, here's your money back and thanks for giving us your application.

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 I think we acknowledge the fact that they've gone through due process. We'll accept that at this point in time and that from here on in, we set a clear understanding that we will be looking at medium density, residential, high density, residential zones and short stay applications in those areas. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor. Just to close, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. So today, I'm asking that we approve the application based on previous planning decisions because council is required by law to have regard to the importance of consistency in decision making. Understanding that you do otherwise without adequate reason is unfair and unreasonable and will land us in the Planning and Environment Court. And we will, in my opinion, lose if that happens. And then we have achieved nothing. If council resolves to refuse short term applications, then it must change its policy. And part B and part C of my motion sets how we do this. Not on the run

01:16:00 and not through an individual land use application, but through due process, through a temporary local planning instrument and or through a needs assessment report that provides a clear and transparent statement to the community on council's position. This is how we captain our ship. This is how we change our course. And this is how we say enough is enough. This is how we refuse applications for short term accommodations in medium and high residential density zones without the risk of legal challenge. And this is also how we strengthen and maintain the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of council by following due process and by playing fair. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: With the motion by Councillor Baylor, Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart, Wilkie. Against?

01:17:00 Councillor Wegener and Councillor Finzel. The motion is carried. Councillors will call for a five minute break please. Thank you. Five minute break. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you.

01:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, welcome to my application for some kind of commendation. Do you have any questions or stuff, Brian? Just a question on the process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question on the process.

01:26:00 In terms of for the record, wouldn't it be better... In terms of for the record, wouldn't it be better... I was going to say that no, the council has resolved to... I was going to say that no, the council has resolved to... Something like that. So when we're going through... Councillor Lorentson: Yes, I'll move the motion. A, request staff to prepare a further report for the ordinary meeting dated 15 July 2021, including conditions for approval of the application. B, write to the minister...

01:27:00 Sorry, excuse me. For reasons already discussed in the previous... Councillor Finzel: I won't go over... Councillor Lorentson: I won't go over all those reasons, but I've asked staff to vary... Sorry, I've asked to vary the staff recommendations for the same three reasons, that we must be consistent in our decision-making around short-term accommodation before resolving to refuse the applications, and that's through B and C of my motion. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: You don't have got B and C. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. The previous motion. B and C of the previous motion. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to this. Yes, go on. I'm going to speak to this because, even though it's very similar, I actually had the opportunity to speak to Dr Ross, the applicant, and I think it should be heard what he said, because he has really gone to great lengths to preserve amenities. So I'd like to read out some of the things he's doing.

01:28:00 He's made 11 submissions. 15, sorry, 11 were made properly. Request twice in the last six months of further information. At no time was he given an information or alluded to that it wouldn't be approved. Further requests were made to meet Council's approval. He stated three years ago he started this journey, looked at low-density residential, and then changed to medium density because he realised that SDA would be consistent in that area under the current plan. He was told a number of weeks ago that it was recommended for approval, and a week later told that it was recommended for refusal, and he quickly chose his spot because it's in coastal holiday accommodation. It has STAs all around it. It's 150 metres away from cafes and shops, and it's 350 metres to the beach. His idea is that people, when they go there, they won't use their cars, and they'll just walk everywhere. He's worked for 12 to 18 months to make this home STA compliant. I believe there's an underground car park that's going in at $350,000 to keep cars off streets. All noisy aspects of the home, laundry bins, all designed to be underground.

01:29:00 The house will have sound detectors around the perimeter of the property and boundary spence. $60,000 to $80,000 is being spent on dense vegetation. The roofline is being brought back to maintain privacy. He moved the pool so it wouldn't incur additional noise. I believe he's looking at having a disability access through a lift. Had surveyors in to ensure that the gradient of the driveway wasn't a slipping hazard and didn't interfere with the footpath. The last request was for drainage, and I believe there's a special pump system going in or being looked at to always remain dry when there's wet weather on the property. The applicant, in my opinion, has done everything by the letter of the law to comply, and historical and previous cases suggest that he would. And so I feel that this is a good example of someone who really does care. He's a local, does care about the amenity. And preserving the environment and the community that he lives around.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 So I'm happy to support the recommendation that this application be approved. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Swiper. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think it's important to identify why we vary from staff recommendations. And the overarching ones have been expressed by Councillor Arnton. I do think there are also plenty of ones. And to start off with, I should acknowledge that I actually think this series of recommendations have been a blessing in disguise. In that staff have made a professional assessment and identified that in their opinion, things have changed and that Moorwake should be placed on two performance outcomes or two elements of a performance outcome within the medium density residential code. And those ones are clearly identified in the report. And that is that medium density residential neighbourhoods are predominantly home to permanent residents and H short-term visitor accommodation is predominantly home to permanent residents. And they are predominantly provided through well-established resorts and hotel units. So it's clear that what staff have said in their professional opinion is that things have changed to the point that they should have significant weight.

01:31:00 My view is that, yes, that is a valid argument, but that has to be read in association with other things. So for me, my reason for varying from the staff recommendation is related to another aspect in terms of medium density residential overall outcome. And that talks about the character of medium density residential neighbourhoods varies due to factors such as proximity to beaches. And the Noosa River is another one. So what we're saying here is that, yes, predominantly across the whole zone, we are looking predominantly residential neighbourhoods, but that that can be varied. And in this case, it's varied because it's proximity to the beach in an area which has eight tourist proximity. And that, as I said, couldn't be argued under the Noosaville locality code. Oh, sorry, that was in the Coastal Communities Code where it talks about, and I've lost it now, so I'll just do it from the head.

01:32:00 It talks about that new short stays shouldn't be in areas which are predominantly residential and neighbourhood in nature. And to me, that is the argument which says, well, the flip side then must be the case that you try and put your short stay in areas which are traditionally tourist in nature. To me, they're the planning grants. It is a balancing act. And in this case, I think the other arguments weigh in favour of going down this path. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Sumpter. Councillor Thomas. Councillor Wegener: Quick question, Kerry. Amenity. Is an amenity, the amenity of an area, an asset? Would you consider it an asset, a Noosa Shire asset? Speaker 4: Absolutely. I'm sure our residents consider amenity one of their highest assets. Councillor Wegener: And protecting amenity, protecting our assets, key job of council.

01:33:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, a key job. And that's one of the chief concerns here is that the extent of visitor accommodation is now dominating these areas. So it's impacting on the fabric of the neighbourhood. It's impacting on residents' amenity. Residents are telling us that. They're clearly voicing that. Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to the motion? Yeah, amenity is an asset and we have to manage it. That's our job here in council is to manage our assets. Number one job. There's a letter from the applicant. Can I read from this letter from the applicant? Is that okay to read, Brett? Okay. The applicant sought advice regarding the purchase of an investment property in Sunshine Beach used as a short-term stay.

01:34:00 The letter says he wanted to buy a home for short-term rental. And to me, I never can get past that. You don't buy a home in this beautiful place for a short-term stay just as you don't buy a home to make surfboards there. I've tried that. It doesn't work. There's businesses you don't do because it takes away the amenity. And we've found clearly that the short-term stay affects the amenity. We need to protect this amenity. The refusal of this application protects the amenity of our beautiful residence of Sunshine Beach. When I moved to Noosa in 1998, all of my friends lived in Sunshine Beach in flats and units and so forth. And now that is changing. And so those people like myself and like most of us in the room, they're going to, you know, they're going to say, you know, that would have moved into these places are now not having that opportunity.

01:35:00 That the future of Noosa's fabric, there are strands out there. We're pulling some of those strands out because nobody has the opportunity to move in as permanent residents here. They're moving into Gympie. They're moving further away. We're losing the fabric of our community, which is the amenity of our community. And that's what we're here to protect. That's our job to do that. So. Um, that that's that's my point at the on this template at this time is we need to protect the amenity Council is our staff has said we're there. That's exactly what they're doing. It's our job to follow through the staff recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, I'll refute part of that argument, Council. We know that there are steps to buying a home. Not everybody can. Live where they want to live, and some people do invest in property, and that's one of the reasons that people people buy investment properties and and and often with the intent of living there in the future.

01:36:00 Circumstances may have a situation where you continue to work where you work and live where you live with the intent of, you know, future people to future payment and with future intent of where they're going to live in the future. So there are stages to buying a home and and a ways of moving forward. Again, I mean, for with regard to each of these applications before us, I think the goalposts that were in place were and the the advice being given with these, these were these were to be supported, the applicants continue to act in good faith, pursuing their their opportunities here as Councillor Stewart has said, this, this African has gone above and beyond with that with elements of it.

01:37:00 I don't I don't necessarily agree that all all short stays are great. I don't necessarily agree that all all short stays are great. We I don't think it's as clear cut as as it could be in our planning scheme. And I think more work needs to be done as this stance with the timing of the the application through the process of any planning team. I believe that I'll support the Councillor Lorentson's motion to look at a review of this report for with conditions for approval of the application. Councillor Finzel: I agree that this applicant worked extremely diligently to comply with the planning scheme and with what was recommended to him by staff. To refuse this application at this point where he meets us at the intersection of a housing crisis is both unfair and has no equity.

01:38:00 So I will support the request to prepare conditions for approval in the reports. However my concern is that we did not wait for policy to follow a process that is available as Councillor Wegener has alluded to. The planning scheme has been there and I won't reiterate all of what was available to us. I strongly disagree with how this has been managed. As I said this was raised in February to staff about our concern, Councillor Wegener and myself, about intensification of short term accommodation working against the town plan that also promotes amenity of neighbourhoods. Which has also been confirmed today as a value. It is a value that all of us do not want to see diminished.

01:39:00 What I strongly disagree with is how we've arrived at this place and we are debating policy at the table. I agree with the process that was given to us today from the staff member with the housing availabilities needs study. That is due to finishing in February. We can follow due process, we could have a workshop to councillors, we could then have a workshop, after the workshop report to council to adopt and have the letter to the minister. Now we have today not adhered to any of those processes available to us as councillors, to us from the staff, all for our community. We have not adhered to any of those processes available to us as councillors, to us from I think that important elements around governance, good governance, is to engender trust in our

01:40:00 community, to show that we work with excellence for outcomes that are for the common good for our community, and I think that the town planning tool can be used either with a focus to regulate or a focus to empower. I would like to think that as we head towards excellence as a council and looking after our constituents that voted us here to represent them is about empowering. We have been fundamentally changed through COVID. We sit at the centre of a worldwide pandemic. We are not alone in this. However, to get the best outcomes, I think the process available would be a good and solid way to move forward, to look at the broader picture of these impacts, not drill it down to a pointy end about the impact. I think it is important to think about STAs when, as the Mayor has said today, it is a broader issue.

01:41:00 It is about availability. It is about affordability. It is about what stock is in the market. It is about who has the ability to purchase in this market and have a say. Where is our most vulnerable seat? All these things need to be addressed in a much broader issue. So I find myself stuck between a rock and a hard place today myself because I personally wish to support the applicant. In terms of his fairness and equity on a case-by-case application and I support, as I said, the staff to prepare conditions for approval. What I am upset about today and what I think could have been done a whole lot better is separate the policy, which should have preceded this decision making, and follow the due process, which I might add is underway. And we can expect that to happen. We can expect that to happen in November and August. I guess the other issue that is raised is how do we move forward with the applications

01:42:00 that sit in the pipeline with no clear direction as to how do we proceed forward. I don't know the answer to that, but I am sure if we could have debated this at a workshop or at some other time we could have found equitable outcomes for all players. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson in this class? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Councillor Finzel on the issue of separating policy. I just want to confirm that Council has an endorsed policy document on short-term accommodation and it's called the Noosa Plan. So what we're doing today, we had to make reference to the Noosa Plan. So change in policy position is a change in our direction in the Noosa Plan. So I refute what you've said. If it says that it should be treated separately, it can't. The application is going to be assessed against the Noosa Plan and the Noosa Plan is our endorsed

01:43:00 policy document, our primary policy document on short-term accommodation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. If the motion has in favour, Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart, Wilkie against. Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener, motions carried. Thank you. Now move to item 4 on the agenda, which is the Duke Street application, material change of use, short-term accommodation, multiple housing, duplex and short-term accommodation on Duke Street. Sorry, Kath, that should say Wilkie, not since I remember. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. And that's from page 60 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Can I do that again? Yes. Councillor Lorentson.

01:44:00 Councillor Lorentson: Lou, the motion, A, to request staff to prepare a further report for the Ordinary Meeting dated 15 July 2021, including conditions for approval of the application. Councillor Wilkie: Can I have a seconder to that, please? Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Again, all the reasons stated in the previous applications are relevant in the application. I do want to note there is a slight difference. Duke Street is located in a high-density residential, although this is our first application in a high-density residential zone. This area is clearly not home to permanent residents. And again, my reasons for previous applications apply here. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Thank you. It's similar to what I did in the last application.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 I think, for me, it's important to understand why I'm varying from staff recommendations on planning grounds. And so, this time, I have found the Coastal Communities Local Planning Code. And the argument which Councillor Wegener has put forward is quite a valid one. And it's about the overall outcome as expressed in the Coastal Communities Local Planning Code. And it talks about development in Sunshine Beach, number five, three, is for visitor accommodation is managed appropriately so as not to reduce amenity of the surrounding permanent residents and retain an adequate supply of permanent housing in the local planning area. So, as we said, that is a valid argument. But it has to be measured against the other outcomes, which I believe, in terms of the approach we've taken up to this point in time, have significant weight. And that's the overall outcome, same one, for development in Sunshine Beach. Number two says, has a comparatively high proportion of multi-unit accommodation for both visitors and residents. So, it's saying in the scheme that we recognise that these areas have got a high proportion

01:46:00 of visitors as well as residents. It talks about, in PA1, development enhancing the role of the Coastal Communities of Beachside Residential, which also includes a considerable amount of visitor accommodation. And the other thing, I suppose, in this location is, as I said, the Coastal Communities Local Area. One I've mentioned before, PA15, visitor accommodation is not to be located in areas which are predominantly permanent residential dwellings. So, that gives a reverse, a thing saying that probably we should be prioritising a little bit in areas such as this. And that's reflected also in the visitor accommodation code, where the overall outcome, number E, talks about the density and design of visitor accommodation integrates with the urban or landscape fabric of its particular locality. And in my view, this particular locality is one that has a high proportion of visitor accommodation already, and therefore, this development would integrate with that fabric. And they're the reasons why I support varying from the staff recommendation.

01:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question. Councillor Wegener: Question for Kerry. On page 65, it says that a pool and associated deck is located in the communal area to the rear of the building. So, the top story is for resident, the lower story is for an STA, but they're going to be sharing a pool. Does that work? Speaker 1: Well, it's a common property area. It's a communal area. So, if they were both permanent residents, they would be able to utilise those communal areas collectively. I can't talk for the person that lives there permanently. But I... I presume that they may feel that someone who's not permanent living below them and using the communal areas may create some further issues and tensions, and I think that's reflected in some of the material that's been put forward in the submissions regarding how the premise

01:48:00 is currently being used. Speaker 4: Traditionally, properties of use of both permanent and visitors don't work very well. There is a bit of a conflict. But nevertheless, that's what's proposed in this situation. Yeah. The pool will be in communal areas, as Patrick pointed out, so both units are able to use the area. Councillor Wegener: We have received a lot of complaints from apartment complexes and so forth, where there's a communal pool and the residents are there, and then a short-term stay comes in, and it just throws out the amenity of the little community. Yeah. Speaker 4: Usually, it's not a good result for the permanent resident in the other unit. Councillor Wegener: What would happen if the upstairs became an STS as well? So, obviously, you have two short-term stays and one pool. Speaker 4: Well, there might be potentially less conflict on-site that may occur, but we're adding more visitor accommodation in the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Maybe more or less. Thank you. Just a follow-up question. Councillor Wegman made a statement and posed it as a question, that we've had a lot of complaints about pool conflicts where there's a mix of residential and visitors.

01:49:00 Have we had a lot of complaints for that specific? Or have we had a number of them? Speaker 4: I don't know the exact number, but certainly over the years, various complexes in the Shire, people have raised that potential conflict where you have permanent visitors together. If you have somebody wanting to use the pool and surround and stay up late at night, they tend not to work well together. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Gerritsen? I'd suggest that conflict exists in any area where one pool and there's multiple units could arise. Whether it's all permanent residents or all short-stays or a mixture of both. My reasons for supporting the motion, thank you, by mental blank going on a tender there. That is similar to Councillor Stockwell's, I concur. If you look at figure 10, the property is surrounded by short-stays.

01:50:00 I believe that with the number of short-stays there, a permanent resident within that number would already be suffering amenity and conflicts. It's probably not an issue to have an additional short-stay in amongst all the other short-stays that are there. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wynne? Councillor Wegener: Well, by approving these, are we really sending a message that we're drawing a line in the sand, saying that we are not going to be supporting short-term stays in all these areas in the future? It appears to me there's a lot of talk of saying, we're going to draw this, we're going to send a letter to the minister, this is going to draw a line in the sand. Is that accurate? I think not. I think that what we're doing is we're approving these applications. There is no line drawn in the sand. I think that we could do better. Speaker 4: I think BNC helped draw that line for us.

01:51:00 I think that flags that we're going to have a close look at this situation for applicants out there. I think it does certainly flag it. Councillor Wegener: It flags it. Sorry, Tom. Councillor Wilkie: Had you finished speaking? Councillor Wegener: Yes, I finished speaking. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Question. Question, Councillor Tencent. Councillor Finzel: Aside from the DMAT modelling at 23% for housing stock that you referred to with this decision making. What other evidence or facts do you have to support that? The increased intensification of short term accommodation, please. Speaker 4: Well, I think there's been a few things pointed out. So the 23% comes from the DMAT modelling that was prepared by Unity Water and Offices. So it shows that 23% of the coastal areas are being used for visitor accommodation, short term accommodation, which I find quite significant. There's also the Regional Movers Index, which I've made reference to, which talks about migration in coastal areas.

01:52:00 We are a region that's experienced the highest growth in the area. 49% increased growth from migration. We've also, as Councillor Stockwell pointed out, we've been receiving a lot of superseded scheme applications. And a lot of those are being approved because of the potential compensation. So we certainly had a run of people buying properties up before the new scheme and putting short term accommodation. And since the new scheme has come, we've also had applications that have come in. Kerry Jones. So I think there's, I think it's pretty obvious out there that we have a housing problem. Question. Councillor Finzel: At what point did the staff recommend that when you got information on these intensifications of, you know, the 20% increase, the Regional Index and the superseded applications, at what point did staff take that information and prepare to refuse these applications?

01:53:00 Speaker 4: So I think there's been a bit of discussion today about how these applications are handled. And that's been one of the reasons cited why we should be approving them. I think that it's good, if perhaps you hear from the author who has managed this one, about the discussions they've had with the applicant along the way. Because I don't think that's a fair position to take on this application. So that's... Speaker 1: Well, in regards to this application, there's been no communication to the applicant. That would be approved. The application has run its course. Went through the information request period. There was notification. And then we got into the decision making period. And during that process, I would advise it would be refused. So there's been no, as I said, no discussions that this application was going to be supported. Mayor Stewart: That's in regards to this application. That's right. Yeah. Speaker 1: So I'm not sure whether some of the comments about the advice that's been given to applicants relates to when they make initial inquiries over the phone.

01:54:00 Because if people are calling up and they're asking us questions around where a property is situated and what the process would be to obtain approval, they're fairly narrow conversations relating to tables of assessment and what they would need to provide with the application. I don't believe there'd be any discussions there as to whether an application be supported or otherwise. I think any discussions there would relay the fact that it'd be an application that would be assessed by an officer. Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah. I think, sorry, if I just may add to that, undoubtedly with the first two applications, it would have been better if we had told the applicants early. So that's certainly our practice of trying to inform applicants early in the process rather than the end. Bad news early is a better approach. But it didn't occur on these because these are complex matters. It's not straightforward. Yeah. You can hear the discussion today. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, just on what Councillor Finzel asked about what the evidence used for the showing

01:55:00 at the OSTA is, you mentioned migration and Noosa being the most heavily migrated place. That's quite separate when we have permanent residents moving here to looking at STA accommodation though, isn't it? Speaker 4: Would you agree with that? Mayor Stewart: Migration here is people moving here permanently, people from Sydney and Melbourne who are going to make this their home. It's different to people just using holiday houses. Speaker 4: Yeah. No. It's different to the issues because our population has significantly increased beyond what we thought it was going to in a short period of time. So that migration comes from the city areas to the regional areas. So I think it's really relevant because it's making it very evident that we have a housing supply issue. Available housing is a problem. And I think visitor accommodation is one of the issues that's eroding our housing supply. It's not the only issue with our housing supply and the cost of housing, but it's certainly a factor that we need to have a look at closely. Mayor Stewart: And just on the 23%, sorry, what was that? Was that coastal towns or was that in Noosa, the 23%?

01:56:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. So it comes from the DMAP model and the coastal areas includes Tewantin, Noosaville, Noosaheads, down to Peregian. Unfortunately, it's not broken down into those areas. And I think 23% is across that whole coastal area. So I would expect in some localities it would be lower, but also in some areas it'd be a lot higher. So that's specific to Noosa Shire, that 23%. That's right. So it's, absolutely. It's the coastal area of Noosa Shire. Councillor Finzel: There's a question. At what point did the staff, I don't know how the staff operates, but collectively I had discussion that this was an issue that needed to be flagged and be brought up to council before we got to this point. Was there any discussion around that? Speaker 4: Absolutely. We had a lot of discussion with our strategic planning section, as well as officers in the development assessment area. So development assessment officers sought advice on the planning scheme and really what

01:57:00 council was intending by the planning scheme requirements. So the recommendations are considered to be in the planning scheme. So it's consistent with the conclusions drawn by both strategic planning and development assessment officers. Councillor Finzel: And at any point did you discuss the idea to perhaps bring it up to council to have a discussion or a workshop prior to these applications on the agenda? Speaker 4: We certainly had the discussion with strategic planning. So they're aware of the issue, they felt they're working on it already with the housing study. My issue is we had development applications with a time frame, a statutory time frame that we must meet. So it didn't provide for that opportunity to have those workshops with council before putting it to council. Councillor Finzel: Given that two councillors, five are CEO, raised this issue in February, do you think it reasonable to think that if there had time to be raised, any feedback back to councillors?

01:58:00 Speaker 8: The question really is one of process. At the moment we're dealing with the applicant process. So obviously we can't on individual applications. The council's got a policy on that where councillors don't get involved in applications until the report is in the agenda. So that's the current council policy. I've certainly, and I've done it, when you've discussed it with me, certainly accepted that I think council staff, and it comes back to myself, could have played with council but we still have this housing availability crisis. And what else can we do? I don't think it's a policy, but that's a different issue to the individual application. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, you must close. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I'll close it. Again, I'm not going to go over what I've already stated. But in fairness to the planning staff, I do want to sort of just make a statement.

01:59:00 We passed a mayoral minute on housing affordability. And that was a collective statement on our change in policy direction. We've also been in constant conversation with the Business Roundtable and with the business community, addressing issues of labour shortage. So in fairness to the planning staff, our change in policy position was impliedly and explicitly actually stated. Really? Yes. Thank you. Oh, sorry. So again, I don't disagree with the recommendation to refuse this application. I just believe that in order to change our policy position, which has been made in a public arena over the last six months, we need to just do it in a legal and lawful endorsed

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 instrument, like the Temporary Local Planning Instrument and through a peer review assessment, a housing needs assessment. But I, again, take responsibility in this recommendation. I would love to approve this refusal, but I just don't think we are doing it the right way. Sorry, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Right. We'll put the motion as in favour. Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart, Wilkie against. Councillors Wegener and Finzel. Okay. We'll now go to item six, which is a similar type of application. And it is a report direct to the General Committee on page four. Material and change of use, STA at Lowry Street, Puget Beach. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to move the staff recommendation.

02:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener is moving the staff recommendation for refusal. Okay. We have a seconder for that, please. Councillor Finzel. Councillor's waiting at four. Councillor Wegener: Clearly, we're going to our medium density residential zone. This is predominant. This is, we want to maintain the predominantly residential neighbourhoods. Clearly, looking at page 11. Is it 11? Page 13. Page 14. Um, you know, there's a, they're looking at how many holiday letting, how many short term stays are already there. It's clear that, that already we've passed that point with predominantly residential units here. So on, on, just, just on the medium density residential code saying that we want to maintain

02:02:00 the predominantly of residents, um, we should refuse this. But going on, as we've already spoken quite a bit, that we're eroding the availability of permanent housing supply. We want to maintain permanent residence, predominantly permanent residence dwellings. Yeah, so it's totally consistent. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Yes, please. Kerry, do you think this material change of use for short-term accommodation in Peregian is different to the other applications that are before us today? Speaker 4: I do, in some respects. One, we haven't had an application yet in Peregian Beach. Two, when you look at the mapping of the extent of short-term accommodation in the median density dwelling,

02:03:00 it's incredibly high. It's nearly 50-50. There are slightly more permits. So I think it's a fairly obvious statement when it comes to the word predominantly. Three, I think that where this is located, it is on the western side of Davidlow Way, in an area that's not being used for visitor accommodation. It's clearly permanent residency. So I think council could reasonably make a different decision today. Councillor Lorentson: There are 86 objections to this application. What weight should, when we're assessing short-term accommodation against the whole plan, what weight do 86 objections carry? Speaker 4: So I will always tell you, in terms of submissions, that it's not the number. Obviously that identifies the interest in an application, but it's about the issues people raise. So whilst it's quite telling that we've got 86 submissions, it really comes down to the issues and that's what council should place the most weight on.

02:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: This is an impact-assessable application. It is. What impacts are you considering when we assess this application? Speaker 4: So we're considering a range of impacts. We're considering, we're looking at the housing supply and the intent of the zone to provide for permits and visitors. We're looking at our scheme intent to provide unit developments in the Shire and the median density zone. We're looking at our scheme intent to provide unit developments in the Shire and the median density zone on our tourism industry. We're having a look at the impact it will have on neighbouring amenity immediately next door, but also the neighbourhood amenity, the impacts on the fabric of the neighbourhood. So we're looking at a range of issues. Councillor Wilkie: In terms of saturation of STAs in that median density precinct, you said it's about 50%.

02:05:00 Yeah. How does that compare to the median density saturation rates in the median density zones for the other, the Sunshine Beach application? Speaker 4: I probably don't have a percentage for you for the others, but when you look at the mapping, it's clearly beyond the others in terms of the percentage of properties that are being used for visitor accommodation. Councillor Wilkie: And in terms of number of submissions rise, how does the 87, 86 submissions compared to submissions rise, rise to the STAs in median density in Sunshine Beach? Were they made? Speaker 4: They certainly weren't worth the same number for the others. I just wanted to make sure. I've forgotten the number for a minute. But certainly this one stands out with the most submissions against the application. So I'm just looking at Duke Street. We received three in total. Two objecting and one impartial. If I go back to Ferguson Street, we got 11 submissions against.

02:06:00 And in terms of the number of submissions against, we received three in total. I'll have to come back to you on Norther Street. It actually doesn't specify it. So I'll come back to Council and let you know how many submissions against Norther Street. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. You're the consultant on this? Yes. So is it correct that last week you notified the applicant that the application had been completed with the recommended approval decision to be supported by the Council and was on the manager's desk? Had you had any conversations with the applicant and said there was a recommendation for approval but it had to go further up the chain? Speaker 2: No. There was no recommendation for approval that was given to the consultant.

02:07:00 It was a discussion that I had with the consultant about the considered submissions and that I was not specifying what kind of recommendation as we had not finished our discussions and the assessment process. Councillor Wilkie: Excellent. Thank you. So you're saying the applicant was given no indication prior to the report coming out whether it was being refused or not? Speaker 2: I gave a call when the report was finished. That was when I have called the applicant and let them know that it was recommended for refusal. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: John? Certainly to the other application we've addressed here today. From a consistency, from a consistent with the planning scheme, is this consistent with the plan? Yes. Is this consistent with the planning scheme for short-term accommodation in the medium-density residential zone? Speaker 4: No. The recommendation is for refusal. The scheme calls for it to be predominantly permanent and we've got nearly 50-50 of sites

02:08:00 that are currently being used for visitor accommodation. That's not including all the properties that have a development approval that have interchangeable rights. Councillor Jurisevic: So the difference in this area compared to the three applications previously before us was in those three areas there is a significant amount of short-stay accommodation already existing. But in this area there isn't. Is that the answer? Speaker 4: No. So the other three, yeah, this area has a significant amount of visitor accommodation. It's nearly 50-50. Okay. The other, it doesn't quite get to that same amount. There's less properties in those areas that are being used for- Councillor Jurisevic: So it's the other way around. That there's more short-stay accommodation already available here. More short-stay. So the predominance of short-stay is already evident. Yes. As compared to the other areas. Speaker 4: Yeah. So when we think about, when we're unsure about what predominant means, because it's close to 50-50, I think it's pretty obvious. Nice. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the question I asked earlier, is what, you know, how do you define predominant.

02:09:00 I don't want that to be a clarification. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Brian, you had a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And it may be one that has to be taken on notice for Thursday. Do you recall whether the short-stay overlay was restricted to the eastern side of David Lower Way or not? Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't recall. I think it was. But I've come back happy to check. Speaker 8: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So for the reverse argument, necessarily of staff, but there is some, in the Medium Density Residential Code, it talks about the Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood. And I said my position was always that those areas that are traditionally tourist should have more. I don't believe this is a traditional tourist area. I do think there's a clear demarcation at this point between the east and the western side of David Lower Way. I do believe this is a residential neighbourhood. And therefore, I don't believe it meets the overall outcome in the Visitor Accommodation

02:10:00 Code, which says the density design of Visitor Accommodation integrates with the urban or landscape product of its particular locality. So we can get away from the need to define whether it's a local neighbourhood or a zone neighbourhood in terms of the strict legal interpretation of the Medium Density Residential Code to say, well, it doesn't meet the overall outcome of the Visitor Code. I do believe this is traditionally a residential neighbourhood. And therefore, I don't support the incursion of Shorts Day any further. Councillor Finzel: In support of equity and fairness, Blake, the applicant, according to page four of today's general committee agenda, says it was a properly made application on the 18th of May. Given you had evidence of 50-50, at what point during your engagement with the applicant

02:11:00 did you raise the evidence? I'm just trying to identify at what point in your engagement with the applicant did you tell them about the 50-50 evidence? And how that may affect the outcomes? Speaker 4: So I might answer this. Currently, what offices need to do to work out the extent of Visitor Accommodation is look to a database. It's not currently mapped. So they've got to then go to a database and compile all that and map it in order to see a clear picture. That takes some time to do. And currently, it's not being done until the end of the process when the offices are spending – when we're in decision phase and we're doing our file and assessment of the application. So it's not being done until the end. Councillor Finzel: Question.

02:12:00 Given the discussion we had before about staff talking about the red flags and the intensification, did you not readjust your process to then put that further down the track? Speaker 4: Or was there an opportunity to do that with the database? I think I understand your question. Here in Council's discussion today, it is obviously a clear thing for us to tell applicants earlier in the process. So we can change our process to try and do that research of the database and inform applicants earlier. So yes, I do agree that we can do that. Councillor Finzel: And in this case, Blake, at what point was the applicant advised of the evidence of the 50-50? Speaker 4: So the applicant was – The applicant was advised at the end that their application was going to be refused when that database – Recommended. Recommended, sorry. Recommended for refusal when that was compiled for the applicants. Yes. Not advised until the end of the process.

02:13:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 4: But can I state that there's been a lot of discussion even with the first three applications about predominantly. This is something that the applicants can also similarly compile, the applicant's consultants to review. Whilst, yes, officers can do it, but there's no reason why applicants can't do it as well. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Does the planning scheme provide any clear definition of the word predominantly? Speaker 4: No. And I've said before to Council that I would like further clarification around those words. Councillor Lorentson: And can I add further clarification, if we do ask the question, around the word amenity? I think I'd love amenity, party house, and predominant. They're the three words in the proposal. I would seek further clarification. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just – there's an email we received by the applicant on this. Figure 9 on page 13 shows another short stay opposite this on Lowry Street.

02:14:00 Do we know any detail about that particular complex? Is that a 15-unit complex that is predominantly short stay? Speaker 2: I don't know the exact number of the units. Is that a unit complex? It is a unit complex. One minute, let me go down. Councillor Jurisevic: And we don't know how many units within that complex may be short stays. No, not in our record. Speaker 4: Are we talking about Glen Eden? No. Councillor Jurisevic: No, it's opposite. The applicant has mentioned that the property that's marked in blue, which is on the western side of David Low Way, and is on the opposite side of Lowry Street to where the applicant's property is situated. Speaker 4: Yeah. I'll just point out to councillors the map of submission locations on page 15. So there was – and I think – I can't see this because she's more than me – but there was a number of submitters who raised some concerns. I think it's coming from the complex you're talking about, but I can't quite view it.

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It does appear to come from that complex, which is – So that would suggest there's a mix of permanent and short stays in that complex if you're getting application or letters of rejection from that complex. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel of the University. Speaker 6: No? Councillor Wegener: No. Councillor Wilkie: A good question. Councillor Finzel, wait a minute. Councillor Wegener: How far is – Is this from downtown Peregian, like, you know, the surf club? Just estimate. Speaker 4: Well, I'm being told it's three kilometres. Driving distance takes me about five minutes. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. It's three kilometres. So it's not – Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: 1.5. Councillor Wegener: So you wouldn't call it ideally located next to a town centre, restaurants, things like that? Speaker 4: No. No. Right. I think it's a little bit removed from the village centre. It's more located in – well, I think of Daywilloway as the traditional, you know, residential

02:16:00 area. Yeah. Traditionally, we haven't had the holiday houses in that area. Yes, they've been along the coastline on the opposite side. They're not where this site's located. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Yeah. Look, given the differences that the staff have alluded to here, that there are rather few – one – or a small element of short station on the western side of Daywilloway, but the predominance is on the eastern side, and this would set a – continue to set a precedent on the western side. I'm prepared to support the staff recommendation on this one. The proximity to the local amenities and all the rest of it as well, it's not in really walking distance or provisions like that, even though it has that – really access – probably really access to the beaches and the like. So, I'm prepared to support staff recommendation on this one. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Anyway.

02:17:00 Councillor Livingstone? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. I'm – I think it's very clear that this application at 2 Lowry Street, Peregian, is very different to the previous applications before council today. There are no previous decisions made by council officers recommending approval of a like development. And so, in this case, we must assess the application across the whole scheme. And I agree with staff that this dwelling is not appropriately located in Peregian Beach, and that the area is predominantly residential. The planning scheme prioritises the preservation of areas which are predominantly permanent residential dwellings and seeks – and seeks to protect the amenity of surrounding residential areas from the impacts of short-term accommodation. Further, the dwellings located within the coastal communities area, which under the Noosa plan requires that visitor accommodation. They cannot be located in the areas which are predominantly permanent residential dwellings. I therefore support staff recommendation and the 86 objections received by staff objecting

02:18:00 to the proposal. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion? Okay. Councillor Whitton, are you ready to close? Councillor Wegener: Yes. It seems like we are all – we all have the same vision, I believe. Getting there is a little bit – we have two different paths, as we've seen. But in this case, you know, we're all on the same page, it looks like. I need to say nothing more to make the point. So, yeah. We're done. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much for those in favour. Lawrenceon, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Finzel, Stewart and Wilkie. Move to the next item. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Kerry. There's the Noosa Cycling and Walking Aggregative Implementation Plan.

02:19:00 Made in the niche? No. Councillor Jurisevic: So we're – oh, okay. Councillor Wilkie: And that's from page 28 of the Services and Organisation Committee agenda. That's 28. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, because we were dealing with the short studies and – Yeah. I see. What you've done there, Frank? Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Okay. Questions for staff? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is this your first time up here? Speaker 7: No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We don't have to plug you in then. Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah. Good. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move. Yeah. I'll read out the amendments. Oh, I might as well read out the whole motion. The Council note the report by the Project Doctor of the Services and Organisation Committee dated 6 July 2021, and A, note the submissions received during the community consultation on the draft Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Implementation Plan, provided an attachment one to the report. B, adopt the final Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Implementation Plan, provided

02:20:00 an attachment two to the report with the following amendments. One, on page 38 of the plan, change the infographic to read $1.45 million per annum over the next 10 years estimated to be spent on the bike riding and walking infrastructure in Noosa Shire in addition to external grant funding, and two, under the future projects on page 39, delete the website link to Your Say Noosa and replace it with that one. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. Is it an average of $1.5 per annum, or are we actually spending more than that sometimes? Speaker 7: Yes. That's an average number. That's not the actual number. It varies up and down. Is that significant in the information that you're considering moving? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. If I get a second, I'll explain what the issue is. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second. A second, Councillor Chesney. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So what brought my attention in the beginning in those wonderful pages up front with all the infographics about how much, it talks about $22.68 million, which is a much more respectable figure, over the 10 years. That relates to both Council's contribution plus envisaged grants at the time.

02:21:00 What this motion, then when you get to the back, it just talks about the $1.45 million. If you read the detail, according to Aidan, it would say in the paragraph above that that is exclusive to all those grants, whereas if you just do like I do and read the pretty pictures, you wouldn't get that indication. So all I'm saying is, if you read the detail, you'll find that this is what, over the next 10 years on average, is what Council put in. And so that's the change. The other one was the reference to future projects that referred people to the consultation web page, whereas now that's not going to be the active page, it's going to be in Council's normal website. To talk more generally, this is the end of a very long road for some Councils pushing the barrow for four or five years, perhaps. And it's come up with an outcome which I think will serve us well for the next five years. I think that... I think that when you look at some of that information, 3.4% walk to work and less than

02:22:00 one from memory, or around 1% ride to work currently. That's what this strategy, one of the key things we want to change. And one of the infographics talks about if only 22% of people rode their bike 10 kilometres to work and back each day across the globe, in major cities across the globe, we'd have over 40% reduction in carbon emissions. So it also talks about for every dollar invested in cycleways and cycle improvements, that from memory, it's $5 in benefits, both from reduced health cost, reduced congestion, a whole lot of other benefits. So there's a whole lot of reasons why this should be a really central strategy in this Council era. I've said for many years that I think Noosa should have... Has reached peak road. Yeah. Peak road to me is, you're building a community, you're building lots of roads, you're building

02:23:00 lots of roads. We've got to the point where we don't need too many more. We need to look after what we've got. We haven't reached peak cycleway. I think we're just on the start of cycleway and walkway. Over the next 10 years, the impetus for change will grow immensely. The existential threat to future generations is one that can be solved by doing lots of good actions that make economic sense over the next five to 10 years in this arena. It is one that makes positive change to the experience of both residents and visitors. Because you can see some of the early big investments proposed by this strategy is in terms of the Noosa Parade and the extension of the Garth Proud Bridge so that cyclists and walkers can make it more safely into the Hastings Street area. And one of the other bits of information in the strategy is about the Noosa Parade. We can see that 30% of riders, 29% of riders are female. And that safety is a big factor in increasing that.

02:24:00 And we also know that mothers wanting to get their kids, they want to have the off-road paths. Now, do I think the strategy, do I think it's ambitious enough in terms of the $1.45 million and the $22.68 million? No way. I think the big challenge for us is to make sure the $22.68 million comes somewhere close We should be looking at doubling it. We should be looking at going every grant we can possibly and every source of revenue such that Noosa, that has previously been recognised having the best tracks and trail network in Australia, I think it was a Channel 7 linked survey. We need to stay there. We need to get back up there because there's a lot of other councils investing more at this. And to me, it gives us a framework, it gives us a priority on when to invest. And so it's up to us to drive how we can look at priorities and how much money we do plough into this strategy. And to me, that's the challenge in years to come. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell.

02:25:00 I'd like to move an amendment that reads C, investigate opportunities to enhance or add end of trip facilities in key centres and tourist hubs, implement a prioritised program for upgrading of existing public facilities, example, public toilets with showers and the construction of new end of trip facilities, including electric charging stations and lockers as well as surfboard racks at designated beachside locations with the latter being considered as a short term priority issue and investigate opportunities to partner or incentivise private sector to develop end of trip facilities for their workforce at key locations. Councillor Wilkie: Can I have a seconder to that please, for the purpose of the debate, Councillor Wegener? It'd have to be you. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. In my opinion, an integral part of the success of the Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Implementation Plan is the provision of infrastructure and facilities at the end

02:26:00 of trip, at the end of trips such as public toilets, showers and electric charging stations. I've added to that surfboard racks and lockers. I've also added to that designated beachside locations and I've asked that this be considered as a short term priority issue, not a long term priority issue. Noosa is a surfing destination and if we're committed to getting people out of cars, onto bikes, onto footpaths, then we need to add end of trip facilities and infrastructure in key areas and tourist surfing hubs such as surfboard racks and lockers. If you ride a longboard or a stand up paddler or have children who ride longboards, the most common way or possibly the only way to get to the surf at Noosa Main Beach, Noosa Woods and Noosa National Park is by car. If we provide surfers a safe, secure area for them to lock their longboard and stand

02:27:00 up paddle boards that is conveniently located near the beach, then we have more chance of achieving our objective of making walking and cycling and catching public transport the preferred mode of transport for our residents. The infrastructure is going to create opportunities for kids and residents and visitors to run walk and cycle. So I hope you support this amendment that we add lockers as well as secure surfboard racks at designated beachside locations. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask Councillor Lorentson a question? Can I ask Councillor Lorentson a question? Are you talking about things where people can leave their surfboards there permanently? Councillor Lorentson: I've actually got some pictures I'm glad you asked Joe. So I first actually just want to sort of note that a longboard and a stand-up paddler they're actually quite expensive pieces of beautiful

02:28:00 equipment. People spend upwards of you know three thousand dollars for a longboard. So I do emphasise that the infrastructure has to be secure and so the picture below is a picture that I got from Waikiki of the racks. I think the top picture Andrew Bock who's a local architect, he provided me some drawings of what he would love to see at places like Noosa Woods and the Police Beat and even the side where the Surf Life Saving Club is. So secure padlocked, um sheds where people can leave their longboards and know that in the morning they're not going to Mayor Stewart: be um they're still going to be there. I've got a question um what are you talking about on this Speaker 7: will this be on public or private land? It's a proposal. Yeah oh that's certainly something. Councillor Lorentson: Um well Noosa Woods um so I'm that's Crown land

02:29:00 I think it is Noosa Woods. Noosa Police Beat is council land and the Surf Life Saving Clan uh Surf Life Saving Club although Crown land council manages it. So I don't think um there will be any complications with that. I think it better be straightforward. I have a question also Councillor Wilkie: um for the staff. The most of that motion went out with except for Councillor Lorentson's addition there went out for public consultation as part of seeking feedback. So the addition is to talk it comes under the course about public uh upgrading public facilities so on public land to improve these things. Was there any was there any feedback through the process about lockers or surfboard racks? There was no specific mention of surfboard racks Speaker 5: um but there was one um request for uh bike lockers. So secure bike lockers that was one of

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 the requests we had but that was it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: And so there wasn't an opportunity for the public to make comment through this process on the idea of surfboard racks or lockers on public land? No. Speaker 5: Was it public land for private use? No not through the your say community feedback. Councillor Wilkie: Uh would the staff be open to investigating these measures as part of um with the investigative opportunities department sent by the private sector to develop facilities which goes to Speaker 7: I certainly think there's room to investigate it um there's some tricky um things to navigate between land ownership whether how it's operated financially there's going to be some rules around leasing the sheds and stuff like that so there's definitely quite a bit of investigation required and potentially trialling before it's implemented permanently look um I'll speak to them speak to the

02:31:00 Councillor Wilkie: amendment I I really appreciate what Councillor Lorentson is trying to do but I I won't support it in its current wording for a couple of reasons the first is that the idea of where where these this amendment this wording is placed it's talking about upgrading public facilities that is public land to include lockers and surfboard racks for essentially private use and I think that is a an issue that if we went out to public consultation on that we would got some submissions about that. I don't think it's a good process or fair but I think it would be fair and reasonable if this amendment doesn't get up for a following amendment to where it could be tacked on investigate opportunities to partner in the incentivised private sector to develop in the trip facilities such as lockers and surfboard racks for the workforce at key locations so I

02:32:00 won't support it um because I think this is something we would need a PIR public consultation on and I think I'm more in favour of exploring opportunities with private leaseholders such as the surfboard to provide those sort of end of trip facilities because it's an opportunity for them also to earn the next income we also see how popular they are I've also had questions about I think we need to investigate it first rather than commit to it because I question if it's the local um the locals my understanding is the locals who surf are in and out early they have no trouble getting a park and if there was surfboard racks provided it doesn't necessarily follow that they would not drive down their island I just think more investigation is needed but I will I could support it being investigated as part of something could happen on private sector. Can I ask a question

02:33:00 Councillor Lorentson: um am I reading correctly 2.3 actually says investigate opportunities so there's no commitment in that in that clause to commit to lockers as well as surfboard racks the wording says investigate opportunities not commit to opportunities could I just answer that Councillor Wilkie: the next sentence says implement a prioritised program for upscale and degrading existing public facilities example public court in this chalice with the construction of new mobility housing Councillor Lorentson: I read that in context of the first question, which was investigate opportunities, so maybe clarification. Can I get that clarified? Because I think there's a costing issue as well, and I think there's pragmatic issues about how the locks, whether we need keypads, etc. So my motion was to investigate the opportunities.

02:34:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question along similar lines. Currently, we already have a program to implement, a prioritisation program for upgrading and reducing public facilities, i.e. public toilets, not necessarily with public showers, but each of those. Do we not, within our infrastructure plan? Speaker 7: In an asset management plan that manages those facilities. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that also not... Let us look at opportunities where new facilities may be required or based on demand or needs? Are you talking about just public toilets? I'm talking about either public toilets and or any other facilities, i.e. showers or charging stations or any of that sort of stuff. Speaker 8: Most of them are no particular toilets, but what I call life spaces. They were a good use in the work that the Queensland made to do refurbishments and things like that, but not necessarily... I haven't, at this point, been looking at doing upgrades to those types of facilities.

02:35:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So as far... At this point in time, my understanding is we don't have a policy in place for where new facilities may be required or a review for new facilities. Is that perhaps a better place for that to fit when we implement something along those lines as opposed to... We're in here already to investigate sufficient... Speaker 8: Well, in terms of the facilities that you require to do the adoption of this strategy, that's what is cool about it. You don't have to look at what additional facilities and . Councillor Wilkie: Can I speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Yes. I've actually had my surfboard at the Hawaii surfboard rack in Waikiki and done exactly what you want to do. I've done the long walk down to the surfboard rack, unlocked it, taken it out. And I've noticed that what's nicest to me about that rack is the community that it actually brings there. It's a little micro hub of local community with their surfboards,

02:36:00 having this particular place as a place of their own in this tourist empire on Waikiki Beach. And Noosa is a much smaller version of that, a main beach. But maybe that would bring this. I would... I really support this. And then looking into that, the concept of bringing a local... A local culture into this area, which is predominantly tourists. And I really actually see something really special potentially happening there. So, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can I pass this over to you? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, like Councillor Wegener, I'd like to say that I've had the experience of locking my board up at Pipeline because I'm a goofy footer, but I'd be lying. Speaker 2: I didn't know what you meant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But... I actually, like the fine-tuning on the word and putting that sort of short-term priority issue, I do agree with investigating it. I don't have the concerns about public land. If anyone's ever watched a bank robbery movie

02:37:00 or anything, the key or the money is always in the locker at the public train station. And this is what this is. If it's near a beach reserve, then it's for the intended purpose of the beach reserve. Yeah. It's got that link, and therefore the commercial use of state land is probably going to be one that you could satisfy the hurdle. The fact that it could pay for itself, or it'd have to pay for itself in my view, it means that it's not going to be a great cost. And it could, as Councillor Wegener, could sort of just establish a little bit of a local difference if it was designed appropriately. So I'm happy for it to be part of an investigation option. I know it's something Councillor Lorentson has proposed for some time. Also, we were in one of our coffee chats, we had a surfer who has got some disabilities, who said for him to pursue his sport, it'd be really wonderful to have these sort of things. So there is

02:38:00 a broader access issue as well as the obvious one of if we can get surfers starting to use the bus to get there, whether it is early in the morning or not, it starts to breed behaviour. So I think it's a good idea that what we do in Noosa is we don't throw everything on top in the car. We go on the bus and we try and have industry opportunities so that we don't do that. Speaker 8: One of the things, there have been a few questions about, you know, are we implementing or are we investigating what we're doing? But what I think that's cool is that the first part of it is that we investigate. That's what we did first. Once we've done an investigation, then we look at implement. So I would read that the staff will investigate and not the experts. Only once we've got to that point, then we look at implementing the program after Councillor Jurisevic: that point. Okay, that reads better. The word implement does credit. Councillor Lorentson: Can I, is it too late for me to add another word? It is. I want to add example, public

02:39:00 toilets and add disabled public toilets. That's a different notion. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Yeah, right. I'll argue that it was already covered in existing public facilities and the need for disabled facilities would come out in that. Look, I support this, provided that is, yeah, the investigation is the crucial part. I mean, the opportunity for, for me, the part that's missing is water stations and end of trip facility. If you want to incentivise people to get on their bikes and all the rest of it, you make sure that there's water available for them or to walk, is you make sure there's water available for when they get there and when they leave. So that they can fill a water bottle and have adequate water supply on their way. I would envisage that's in any element of upgrading existing public facilities anyway, and that it's implied without having to be stated there. But I mean, for clarification, I'd love to see water stations added as a word in there. But I see, I do acknowledge

02:40:00 what Councillor Lorentson is trying to achieve here. I'm interested in knowing how sand poured racks and things may work, whether there's a commercial element of this. And I do think one of the things that we do in that last line, investigate opportunities to partner or incentivise private sector to develop end of trip facilities. I believe that's in our planning scheme. I believe that new developments are required. To provide workplace end of trip facilities for their workers. So we already incorporate that in our planning scheme, but that could be further expanded on with that requiring the opportunities for surfboard racks to be placed in commercial properties as well. So they may be able to hire those surfboard racks as a commercial add on and an opportunity, a commercial opportunity here. So they don't necessarily have to be on public land. They could also be incorporated within commercial spaces. That would also go in the opportunity. I believe bicycle racks have been included in

02:41:00 what needs to be considered. Of course, if you want people to cycle somewhere, you need to provide a place where they can lock up their bicycles safely and all the rest of it. So the type of end of trip public facilities is something that I would think would come out in the investigation of opportunities that's already stated within. But I'm happy to support Councillor Lorentson in adding things along surfboard. Councillor Finzel: Well, I have had the opportunity to travel to cold Hawaii and have seen firsthand the beach locker concept. So I do support that anywhere where we can support a sector of our community to engage in positive lifestyles, health and wellbeing and contribute to zero emissions in Noosa. I think it's fantastic. The one thing that I would like to add is that any consultation out to community of course is around behavioural change. So just to ensure

02:42:00 that we do get that data and get that education out there as part of that investigation to see who would be engaged in the lockers and that we would get good use in that. So I support that change. And I would like to say we are here because of this great strategy, the plan that's been done. I just want to just continue on Councillor Tom Wagner's great viewpoint that that's Councillor Lorentson: how we really need to start thinking about tourism. People coming to Noosa, we're not going to stop that. But in managing the impacts and Brian, Councillor Stockwell is very much into destination

02:43:00 management. But to me, it's about rethinking tourism where we put the interest of our residents first. And this is an opportunity. This is an opportunity to give residents benefits of increased tourism to Noosa. Let's love tourists, but let's make sure that they're not left behind. We come before them. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And I put the amendment back in favour. That's unanimous. We go back to the original motion, which becomes part of the original motion. And Councillor Stockwell has spoken to it. This would be your opportunity, Karen, to speak to that. Councillor Finzel: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to say thank you to all the staff for the great job they've done. It's been a big project. And I think it's a really good reflection of our community, staff and council have worked together over a long period of time to bring these outcomes to fruition. So thank you.

02:44:00 Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Same thing. Thank you very much for all your hard work. This is a very in-depth, detailed and thorough document. And we really appreciate your hard work. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I concur. Finally, it's been a long time coming, as Councillor Stockwell has alluded to, that we've managed to put this strategy together. It identifies areas of concern that we've had for a long, long time, which are missing links, which are off-road cycleways that have been addressed. The Bendigo Cycling Strategy identified that off-road cycleways was one of the ways of increasing safety and uptake of cycling. There's fear and concern of riding on on-road cycleways that prevented a lot of people actually getting on their bikes and driving on them. Having lived in Canberra for many, many years, and the off-road cycleways there, it's one of the highest uptakes of cycling in the country with the level of off-road cycleways. So I commend staff on looking at those missing links, identifying those missing links and

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:45:00 starting to address them already in our capital lease program. The opportunity for off-road cycleways and of course, of making the on-road cycleways safer where we possibly can in discussions that we've had about the opportunities there. So again, I commend this as a report that's been well received by the community, well commented on by the community, and I look forward to the implementation of the cycling and walking strategy and implementation plan over the next 10 years. And I hope that, like Councillor Stockwell does, that we have the capacity and the funding available to deliver more than what we're paying for at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors wish to speak to the motion. Second. Councillor Lorentson: I get asked the question all the time, what's council doing to solve congestion and parking issues? And I always make reference to our walking and cycling strategy. I think this is possibly the most significant initiative and implementation plan in achieving our goal to get people walking and out of cars.

02:46:00 Also, I want to bring up, I was at Pomona just recently and got, and I keep getting told the same question. I asked the question, you know, what are your parking issues? And they tell me the issue, in their opinion, is not lack of parking, but lack of connectivity on footpaths that they drive because they can't walk or ride to the centre. So from coast to country, I'm excited. And I think, yeah, we're on our path to solving traffic and congestion and getting people moving. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, Mr Clarence? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. I think the theme that everyone's picked up on for this particular part of the strategy hasn't been about the recreational use, which it does link to in terms of this trail network, which we're dealing with separately. It talks about how this strategy is part of the,

02:47:00 the approach to addressing congestion, which is one of the big issues for parts to the east of us here. And what the strategy does say in that is that one in 10 of all the times we jump in the car in Noosa, we go less than two kilometres. You can walk that. So the suggestion from Councillor Finzel that one of the most important bits in this strategy is the behaviour change. And it's not just those. About one in five car trips would take about 10 to 15 minutes on a bike at average speed, less than four kilometres. So what part of it is the behaviour change of getting people who might be a little bit uncertain if we get the infrastructure right and they feel they can ride off road, then they might invest in a bike, use more bikes for transition. And if they do invest in a bike, it's 1% of the cost of running your car. And if you, to ride that 10 kilometres to work each day, it saves you $1,700 annually.

02:48:00 So as I said, I think the strategy is all about changing mindset about what it is to get to places in Noosa. It's about getting there and enjoying the ride or the walk on the way to get there. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion over to Taylor. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Item seven is the Tewantin bypass day one automate relocation tender. Report to LEG gold general. Hi. How are you? Speaker 6: Ondrej Nosyw children. Hello Ondrej. How are you doing? Good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This will be your first time. Oh, dear. It would be hard question. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions of staff or someone can have it. Please move the mic over to the Tewanten area. I'll move the motion. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic. I'll go second just to prove I was here. Joe, do you speak to the motion?

02:49:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Obviously a critical bit of infrastructure required for the Tewantin Bypass Stage 1 to be undertaken. The water main relocation, along with a number of other services that need to be relocated need to be undertaken so that we can get on with the job of doing that. The sooner we undertake this task, the better. I believe that the tenders received have been sufficient in nature to give us the best opportunity here to progress forward with the best results for the community. Speaker 4: Question? Councillor Lorentson: Question. I was just going to ask, can you talk us through the community engagement or consultation process? How are residents going to be updated or notified about activities and their impact? Speaker 6: Of the trunk water main? Yes. Okay. So currently today it's been more around early works and there has been some early works are split in a couple. There's basic clearing and then there's the energy relocation which is now complete and

02:50:00 now it's a trunk water main. So it's early works have been sort of combined as those three elements pretty much. In terms of at the moment, we're pretty much in consultation with TMR because this is TMR's funding project. So there needs to be some consultation and approval with TMR. How we do it. So far we're looking at the award of this contract and starting it. Also finishing with the detailed design which is not far away as well. So there's going to be a bit of a combined, I suppose, committee consultation with this. So probably roll out over the next, I don't know, probably a couple of weeks or so once we have the lockdown dates and when we know we can contract the award with the preferred tenderer and then from there we'll know when they can actually start the site. Councillor Jurisevic: Question with regard to impact on residents and water availability. Will there be shutdowns of water supplies over the period of this water main relocation? Speaker 6: No, not at all. No. So basically it's designed that there's basically dual water mains which are going to be relocated.

02:51:00 So they'll be built offline and then one at a time will be cut over the live connections. I thought it was handy to tell the people. That's right. They won't lose their water. Absolutely not. Councillor Wilkie: That's the extent of the water. Where will that extend from to? Speaker 6: It's round about, it's probably in summary, it's about close to a kilometre of water relocation. So the first section is pretty much along Becklands Road. It's about probably 3.0 metres there. Councillor Wilkie: And which side of the road is that? Speaker 6: So if you're driving towards Cooroy, Noosa Road on the left hand side. We've done the pre-clearing at the moment. So the other one is actually a crossing just on the intersection. There's going to be a water main crossing there as well, which is only about probably 30 or 40 metres of that. So the majority is going to be offline of the road. Councillor Jurisevic: And it's essentially being undertaken so that the water main and pipe work isn't underneath where the new roundabout is going to be situated and more serviceable from when the new roundabout is built? Speaker 6: Yeah, pretty much. So you've got existing bow people you have to cut into. So basically the majority of that water is going to be offline. That's right.

02:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just a question about capacity to deliver on time. With the amount of work, civil work that's going on across Queensland at the moment, the supply chain of materials is buying out costs. How confident are you with this tender that there's all the costs and contingencies covered? Speaker 6: Yeah, pretty confident. So basically we've had seven responses. From a program perspective in terms of procurement materials, it's sort of ranged from three, four, five weeks. So M&K, so the tenderer, is probably more on the lean side, on the three weeks timeframe. But I think based on looking across the board with all the tenderers, the program seems to line up generally. So I'm pretty confident that M&K can pretty much start as per their program. And they've got pretty much a 10 week program to complete. So yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And what is the financial risk to council for this TMR project? Speaker 6: Well, zero I think in my mind because under the funding agreement, basically TMR are funding

02:53:00 the entire project. So at the moment what we've nominated there is actually some contingency from the tender price to what we actually budgeted. But on top of that, TMR have an overall project budget over the budget. So if we do for some reason have to exhaust that budget which we're seeking approval for, we actually have access to those funds as well. Speaker 8: And the council was set quickly ahead of the Tewantin K pipeline council prior to 2010 using the land water and sewage services as a council. They were the primary contractors, the people who did the pipe work and the people who made the council business around the Tewantin K pipeline. And that was better than anyone else? No, that's just what I did. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I just have a question. Under the finance, you've allocated $10,000 to RKO for cultural heritage. Can you talk to me a little bit about how that process works? Speaker 6: Yeah, sure. So basically, the cultural heritage requirement is that before we start disturbing materials,

02:54:00 so we've done the initial clearing, so we have to do the grubbing to remove the roots and then we have to strip the tops off where the pipeline is getting built. So before we do that, we have to engage with the cultural heritage consultant and during the works where we disturb, they have to be on site to do the inspections. So our methodology was to maintain... I suppose that's a requirement to, in terms of paying for the consultant to ensure it's done properly. So there's a non-maintenant amount there, but $10,000, which covers probably a couple of weeks worth of work and engagement, et cetera. Which we already have done, so it's more so about now saying when do you come back on site towards early September to do some work. Councillor Finzel: And just a further question on that. When and if something is found of cultural significance, what is the process? Speaker 6: Well, for one thing, we'll have somebody on site, a consultant on site,

02:55:00 and my understanding is that they probably will be quarantined for a certain amount of time, depending on what they find. Alternatively, there will be a cultural heritage management plan in place that if the contractor finds it, then there's going to be a road back to how that gets resolved. Mayor Stewart: Okay, terrific, thank you. Speaker 6: So we think there's some risk in that, I think, and where the trunk water main is, it's probably a lower risk because it's not down in the creek area and stuff. It's a fair way away from that. Councillor Jurisevic: It's fairly accessible and fairly open sort of ground now, particularly as it's been cleared, so. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillors will speak to the motion. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say, just to note in the report that our staff have scheduled these pre-works while the design's still going to try and bring forward the project as early as possible. As we know, this project has been held up for over a decade by TMR, not investing as it would under the de-mining agreement. Speaker 6: True. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, we'll say that it was triggered a decade ago when the trigger came in.

02:56:00 The fact that we have got investment now is great, and that this is the first stage is excellent, but just to bring forward as fast as possible and acknowledge that it's good to see that the state is investing in their agreement. We keep on maintaining all those roads that were de-mined 20 years ago, and our expectation is that this will be the first of many on a progressive basis to get the bypass which was committed to and approved by our minister some years ago. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillors wish to speak. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, you wish to play. I think it will be the first road by Councillor Stockwell there. It's a long-overdue project, one of, I think, four or five stages that we hope to undertake with TMR support, long overdue, and the community is looking forward to seeing this finally coming to fruition. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Wanda. Thank you. Thank you. Frank. Councillor Wegener: Frank. Can I run to the toilet? Councillor Wilkie: Of course you can.

02:57:00 I'm nuts. Item eight now is the Tourism Funding Agreement review process. It's a report from the CEO. Any questions to the CEO about how this is going to work? Mayor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Mr CEO, just on, I think, the consultation. You've talked to the Chairperson of the Tourism Nursery and the CEO of the Tourism Nursery, so I take it that this is, the discussion's been positive and this is supported by Tourism Nursery with the way forward? Speaker 8: Yeah, that's certainly the case. The Tourism Nursery has raised the pay-by-concern. That's certainly the result there. And we said a few weeks ago about how that might work. And so what it said is that we'll try and get this done at least six months before the next agreement starts. So they're very happy with that. I've also provided a list of details. So we're putting a page 26. Yeah, round area. You know, where I listed out the sort of things we're looking through. I've got to do that all through with the Chair and I'm happy to see all that as well.

02:58:00 And probably just point out the two that you talked through with the Chair was that I think the process does need to include that we look at the governance role at the moment, probably through over June, and that we'll do that in conjunction with the Tourism Minister and I was very happy with that. But the second is that there's, you know, federal money that washes through there from Council. And we need to make sure that their internal controls are in place as well. And we want to make sure that's the case. I think it would be fine to do that. So we'll do that in conjunction with them as well. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 8: Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, further question, CEO. In terms of the timeline you've proposed, you've got the intent to complete by the end of this year. Does that provide us for sufficient time to have reviewed the Local Economic Plan and adopted our overall strategy direction in terms of how we allocate and prioritise funding in economic development? Speaker 8: Yes, it's literally done that way. As you know, we're working through a process to develop our update for a new Local Economic

02:59:00 Plan in place. That's probably going to be around September, October. We've seen a lot of consultation that's occurred through that. So at that point, we look at, you know, if we've got money to spend on economic development, we've got money to spend on tourism, the big component of that. What's the mix that we want? How do we want to allocate those resources? So by the time we get to finalising this funding agreement, we should have a good handle on, you know, more or less, the same, whatever it might be, in terms of that allocation of resources in the economic development for this particular activity. So that's the intent for us. Councillor Lorentson: We've got in place a really solid governance agreement with the New South Wales Fire Sphere Reserve Foundation. I note on page 27, the report makes reference to that agreement. Will we be using the legal document as sort of a template for this funding agreement? Speaker 8: Whether it's the exact template, but I think there's a lot of good stuff that we've just

180 minutes in

03:00:00

03:00:00 recently done through that Fire Sphere Reserve Foundation up there. So I think it creates a really good template. Will it be the same? Probably not. It's just a different topic and different issues. But I think the issues that are covered by the council is a really good checklist of what we need to have in the agreement as well. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: So we can move this motion. Look, Councillor Wegener, seconder, Councillor Stewart. You don't have to speak to it. Councillor Wegener: No, no, I want to speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. The other councillor wants to speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I will. As the observer for Tourism Noosa, I'm very supportive of this report. In a world of COVID uncertainty, I totally understand and support Tourism Noosa's position that it needs to provide some certainty to its industry, and this funding is a form of

03:01:00 certainty. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Yes, just following on from the challenges of the budget discussion. The discussions that we had and the fears that the tourism body and members had. And following on from that, we are in keeping with bringing forward this review process as was promised. Councillor Wegener: We have a question for the CEO quickly. With the jobs that Tourism Noosa does and destination management, how does that fit in? Is that part of what they do? Is it exclusively? Is it 50% of what they do? Speaker 8: No, no. One of the things that I think has been clarified over maybe a year or two is that the role of destination management is primarily one for council. But we need to work with Tourism Noosa on that as well. So their role is primarily around destination marketing.

03:02:00 They do a brilliant job at that. One of the best in Australia. When we look at destination management, they need to have input into that process and how we develop that. But ultimately, the destination management is people who manage Noosa is the local government. That's what we do. We set transport strategies and planning schemes, all that sort of stuff. So as we develop the destination management framework, Tourism Noosa has to be an important part in that. But ultimately, that vision is what I think is going to come through. Councillor Wegener: One thing that Tourism Noosa has proven to be exceptionally good at is reports and statistics and monitoring and so forth. So that is a part of what we're going to be looking at and discussing. Speaker 8: That's correct. But then the question is, what do we report and monitor on? And I think in the past, I go back maybe five or six years or so, more recently, a lot of that has been about the number of visitors, the growth of that has been primarily in Canada. In fact, we should be looking at what's the economic value, which might be looking at yield and things like that. So you have a look at how do we, are we trying to attract more numbers, are we trying to

03:03:00 attract a greater yield from the people who do come, which then preserves that experience. So that sort of stuff I think we're going to work through about what that indicators would be like in terms of what we want them to report on. Because once you then ask them to report on it, that's what they'll focus on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll talk to them actually. I think it is a wise move. I think it is a wise move to provide certainty. I think as has already been mentioned, we are very fortunate that our economy is underpinned by a large degree in tourism and that we have one of the, we have the premier tourism destination body. But there's another element of what Tourism Noosa evolved to do, which I think also could be quintessential in this agreement, and that is sustainable tourism industry development. We were the first tourism organisation to have a sustainable industry development. We have a new development manager, and we have things like Noosa Eco Check.

03:04:00 We have things like organising forums to try and encourage people to get to zero emissions. We have a whole range. We had the stuff on improving the sustainability of events, for example, which led to, in conjunction with Plastic Free Noosa, which led to the change in state legislation. So that is another element of what Tourism Noosa does that is leading edge, and it shouldn't be lost. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much. Any other council members to speak for motion? Tom, do you wish to close? Councillor Wegener: No. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. A question to the CEO. There's normally a monthly finance report on the agenda. Could you update us on that? Speaker 8: We normally have the report to the general committee, the finance update, but you need to have it once a month.

Elsewhere on this site

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

What was said

Latest