Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Good morning and welcome everybody to the general committee meeting. We begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Gabi Gabi people and pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging. We have no apologies. May we have someone to confirm the minutes of the last general committee meeting held on 12th of July please. Moved Councillor Finzel, seconded Councillor Stockwell all in favour. We have no presentations, we have no deputations. The first item referred from committee is MCU 210054 development application for a material change of use short term accommodation at 30 Kingfisher Drive, Pergian Beach and I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 9th of January 2020 one
00:01:00 of the 21 objectives to this application, Susan Francis, donated $750 to my 2020 election campaign. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Ms Francis is one of the 21 objectives whose views on this application align with the staff recommendation. Therefore, though I choose to remain in the meeting room, however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate. In the decision. Speaker 7: Councillors, given it's the chair of the meeting who has declared they obviously can't take part in this process to determine whether or not they can stay, can I just firstly check whether any other Councillors have a conflict of interest they wish to declare on this matter? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now I've seen that. So I have a similar declaration. I didn't wasn't aware she was a projector. I'm sorry. Speaker 7: So, but the amount is important and my suggestion is we hold, we don't move forward until you
00:02:00 determine that. Okay. It is a critical issue in terms of the amount of any donation. And just for information, if it is above $500, it is a declarable conflict of interest. It's below $500. If it's not, if it's above $2,000, it is a prescribed conflict of interest and that's why the amount is important. Speaker 8: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm thinking it's a similar one, but I'd better double check. It'll take a while on this computer. Should we deal with Councillor Wilkie's? Speaker 7: No, we can't. We need to determine whether you have a vote, what type of declaration. Mayor Stewart: Do you want a list of the objectives? I've got that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I know. I know she's objectives. No, it's the amount of donation that I need to know. Mayor Stewart: Planning online.
00:03:00 $500. No, I don't want it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: $500. Speaker 7: On the 7th of January. That's declarable. Yes. Mayor Stewart: Yes. Speaker 7: So I think it needs to be similar. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on the 7th of January. Yes. One of the 21 objectives to this application sues Ms Francis, donated $500 to my 2020 election campaign. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Ms Francis is only one of 21 objectives to view on this application. My only staff recommendation. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decisions. Speaker 7: Okay. So councillors, are there any other conflicts of interest? Otherwise, I'll just outline the process on this one. So the process is we need to appoint another chairperson to deal with the conflict of interest
00:04:00 provisions. That obviously can't be either Councillor Wilkie or Councillor Stockwell and they can't participate in any vote on this. That includes the selection of the chairperson. So we're looking for someone to nominate the chairperson. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that Councillor Stewart be appointed the acting chairperson. Speaker 7: Second by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor, you happy with that? Yep, no problem. I'll put that motion. All those in favour. And you're voting for yourself, I assume? Sorry. It's for the purpose of considering the conflicts of interest. Councillor Stewart will be the chair of the meeting. Okay. As carried by all. Mayor Stewart: Any questions? We'll deal with Councillor Wilkie first. Any questions for Councillor Wilkie, no problem.
00:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: I have come to know her through my work as a councillor. We have met at the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association meetings, and our interaction is usually restricted to council business. Councillor Lorentson: Over what period of time have you known Susan Francis? Councillor Wilkie: Probably 20 years, as a journalist. I live at Peregian Beach. Councillor Lorentson: So I'm defining a personal relationship with Councillor Wilkie as someone that I don't socialise with. Mayor Stewart: Susan Francis is the wife of Barry Cottrell. No, a partner, I think. Wife. There's a media statement here that says it's his wife. Okay. Just on that, Barry was the President of the Peregian Beach Beach Community Association
00:06:00 from 1996 to 2020. Do you socialise at their house? Councillor Wilkie: That's not quite true. Barry was President from after the day I was elected, from the death of my father. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: From 2017 to 2020. 20? December 20. From the death of my father to last year, I think. Yeah, December 2020 is what this says. But not 1996. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, beg your pardon. He might have been a member since 1996, when it was founded. Beg your pardon. Sorry, yeah, I retract that. Do you socialise with Barry at his house when Susan's present? No. Councillor Wilkie: I don't socialise with Barry. We meet to discuss work. Councillor Wilkie? Mayor Stewart: Brett, when Dave Cookman donated $500 to my campaign and he's a member of the Sunshine Coast Aviators and is now, well, I think it was established that he's not on the executive anymore, I've always left the room. Does that mean then, following on, that I was under
00:07:00 the assumption I had to leave the room? I've always left the room when Dave's names come up. He had been previously on the executive of the Sunshine Coast Aviators. So how is it different here? Speaker 7: Well, it's up to each council to determine whether or not they make a declarable conflict of interest, whether they wish to report to stay in the room or they choose to voluntarily leave the room. Every case is different. Every relationship is different. Every background is different. So I can't recall the one you're talking about, Bailey, but I can't remember the exact details of that. I think that one also may have been that he was undertaking some work on that site. That may have been different as well. I just can't recall off the top of my head, Mayor, on that one. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask this question, and this is to you, Brett? I'm just trying to remember. We had some issues right in the early days, 15 months ago, with the NBN Tower. So if someone signed
00:08:00 a petition, they were, or the decision was made that they leave the room. Is that correct? There was no exchange of money. There was no money amount. It was just a signing of a petition. Speaker 7: This council's been under two regimes in relation to conflicts of interest. There's one that's been in place for a number of years, which was changed in December last year. So I can't recall whether that was under the previous legislation or under the legislation that applies now in relation to it. So the previous legislation dealt with perceived conflicts of interest and material personal interest. And then in December last year, it transferred into declarable conflicts of interest and prescribed conflict business, and the thresholds and that process changed. I can't recall off the top of my head in relation to the NBN Tower issue. My recollection, it was before that period, but I can't recall exactly. It was, yeah. Yeah, it was. It was under the previous.
00:09:00 Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll move this down. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I have a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. You said that you meet with Susan Francis with regards to council business. How do we know that any of those conversations wouldn't result in a financial gain around property use in the Peregian area? Councillor Wilkie: I can tell you definitively that there is no personal benefit that Ms. Francis or myself will gain through my participating in this decision. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to move that Councillor Wilkie, in the public interest of Councillor Wilkie, participates and votes on this matter. Mr. Councillor believes that as Ms. Francis is only one of 21 objectors to the application which aligns with the staff recommendation, Councillor Wilkie would be able to consider the matter impartially, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the financial decision. The final decision, sorry, is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: May I like to second that? Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to the motion?
00:10:00 Mayor Stewart: You have to second it first. No, you're second. Councillor Wilkie will second it. Do you want to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I feel that there's no material gain here. We know constituents and people do support particular persons in that regard for standing for council. I don't believe there's any material benefit one way or the other here. It's an objection to the motion. It's an objection to a development application for a short stay, which many people have a perspective on, and I don't think that Councillor Wilkie will, that will alter Councillor Wilkie's Councillor Wilkie: perception on this matter either. So I'm happy for her to stay in the room. Mayor Stewart: Would you like to speak, Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Wegener: Early on, I said that with the new conflict of interest regulations coming into that,
00:11:00 the biggest worry is that decisions will not be made on reason and argument, but will be made on sabotage and by, and conflict of interest. Here we have a situation where Mr. Peregian himself knows just about everybody in the community, and he especially knows about the people who contribute to the Peregian community. And to, in this instance, to label him with a conflict of interest is going into the sabotage versus reasonable arguments area. In this circumstance, he socializes with these people as community people that want to benefit the community, not for people that want to extract value for money. So, in this time, in the interest of argument being made on reason and judgment, the decision being made on reason and judgment, I will support the motion.
00:12:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Anyone else would like to speak to this motion? I don't have any further questions. Councillor Stockwell? Speaker 7: No. Mayor Stewart: I'll be fine. Sorry, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I'm hearing what Councillor Wegener is saying, and I hope that's not what he's inferring with this declaration. I'm a little bit torn. I have been the subject, you know, I put my hand up all the time with conflicts of interest. And what's going through my head at the moment is the reasonable man test, the pub test. I know in the interest of argument that the man on the street, if you tell the man on the street, a councillor was given $750 as part
00:13:00 of their election campaign, has not had a personal relationship, but has had some type of relationship with the objector. Thank you. And the question is, if the man on the street was given $750 for a long period of time, would they believe that he would make a decision impartially, regardless of whether there was gain or no gain? And I think that's what is tormenting me. And that's the question that I'm asking. And I don't believe that he's passed that pub test. So for that reason only, that reason only, I'm going against the recommendation to keep Councillor Wilkie in this room. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to this too. Look, I appreciate Councillor Wilkie being open and honest, and
00:14:00 he always takes the moral high ground. And that's clear and noted. I am similar to Councillor Lawrence, and I look back on when we have stepped out. Councillor Finzel, whether or not it was before the last legislation came in, or the new legislation, whatever it was, she signed a petition for an office tower and she was out of the room. I received $500 in a donation from someone who I barely knew before the election, and I'm out of the room. So I think to follow precedent and to follow what's transpired, and as I said, I think that's what Councillor Wilkie said. I wholeheartedly believe Councillor Wilkie would make an impartial decision. However, that's not the question. The question is, Councillor Wegener alluded that it could, but it is under legislation, describe conflicts of interest, you have to declare, sorry, a declarable conflict of interest, you have to declare. And that's what Councillor Wilkie did, and that was the right thing to do. So I don't think it's
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 sabotage, as Councillor Wegener said. I think it's the right thing to do, and required by legislation. It's a declarable conflict. And going on the precedent of what we, of everyone's actions, I'm going to say that I think you should be out of the room based on what other people have been out of the room for. So I won't support Councillor Wilkie Speaker 12: staying here. Councillor Penfield? Councillor Finzel: Yep, these are legislated decisions that we're having to call on today. I appreciate that Councillor Wilkie has informed the meeting and put this to the vote according to the legislation. I agree with the decisions and things that have not been made yet, but bringing into the conversation, consistency in the process. I think that's what we should be in the approach around people having to leave the room based on certain requirements.
00:16:00 I agree with the consistency. I rebut the idea that it's about strategically trying to obstruct fair and reasonable debate at the table today. One of the concerns that worries me is the 20-year relationship, and can there be impartiality? We don't know. We don't know what the future holds. There's a lot of things outside that relationship we don't know, and can it be fair and impartial? I don't know. With regards to consistency of previous recommendations and votes for people to leave the room, I will not support this motion. Councillor Wilkie: May I ask a question, Mr. Chair? I'll have you through the chair then. Oh, through the chair. Councillor Finzel: Yes, yes, go ahead. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Is it true that with the $500 declarable declaration with respect to the Mr. Cookman and the lease given to the North Shore, sorry, the aviators, that Mr. Cook, the question
00:17:00 was whether or not Mr. Cookman has a personal gain from this because of his offering flying lessons from that site? Mayor Stewart: I was never aware of that. Councillor Wilkie: It's probably a question to the CEO. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I was never aware of that, and that's not why I left. Speaker 7: Look, that was quite a while ago. I can't recall the details of each and every conflict of interest that every council has made over the last 18 months. I simply can't make a comment on that level of detail of the council. Councillor Wilkie: And was it your personal choice to leave the room or were you asked to leave the room by the other councillors? Mayor Stewart: I was under the assumption I had to leave the room because, and it's probably on me that I had to because he had donated $500 to my campaign. I was under that assumption and it may have been misguided. We never voted on it. I voluntarily left the room. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah.
00:18:00 Question to the CEO through the Chair. When it comes to the vote on declarable conflicts of interest, has it been largely the case that councillors have accepted that the declaration on the conflict of interest is what's principally required and that it's been, when the councillors have voted, it's been overwhelmingly for the council to vote on it? Speaker 7: Certainly my recollection is we're a council that's made a terrible conflict of interest and they've requested to stay in the room. The vast majority, if not all, and I hesitate to say that, but clearly the vast majority of the councillors have supported the request of a councillor to stay in the room in the past. Councillor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say that a decision for me to leave the room today would be a departure from normal procedure? Speaker 7: I can't recall off the top of my head, and I'll have to go back through the minutes for the last eight or nine months to see whether that has occurred before, but as I said before
00:19:00 in the answer to the previous question, the normal process has been for the councillors to abide by a request for councillors to stay in the room. On occasion, obviously, there have been some questions to clarify whether that's the degree of the perceived conflict, but it's in the vast majority of cases that I can recall the councillor has been able to stay in the room with full support of that appointment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I've got a question. Councillor Lyonston, I have a recollection that someone did request, and I'm not sure if it was you, to stay in and you were voted out. Do you recall that? Councillor Lorentson: No, what happened was that I had a declarable conflict of interest in regard to the Lakepool application from Noosa North Shore. I requested, I declared openly my relationship with the applicant, and I thanked all the councillors for trusting in my integrity. They voted
00:20:00 to keep me in the room. I chose at the ordinary meeting to remove myself from the debate and vote after self-reflection and asking myself the same question that I posed to Councillor Wilkie. I don't believe, have I in fact passed the PUP test, and I took it upon myself that I didn't. Whether I felt that I could remain, whether I knew in my heart that I could be totally impartial, but on the street, I don't believe people would believe that I could be impartial. For that reason, I chose to leave the room. That's all right. Speaker 7: And if I can clarify. Sorry. Can I just start by clarifying the answer I gave before and probably just remind me, there's probably only one that I can recall previously now where the councillor has requested a stay and has been asked to leave by their colleague. That was actually Councillor Stockwell with some of the early declarations in relation to land care.
00:21:00 And then after a period of time, the councillor has changed their mind. And for those declarations where Councillor Stockwell indicated that he believed he could stay in the room and being partial, the decisions were that he could stay. That's the only one that I can recall. Councillor Wilkie: And is it true that the particular application that Councillor Lorentson was talking about involved an application by an individual who had supported your election campaign? He had an application before us. And today, this application before us is from someone. To Ms. Francis. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, you're right. Mayor Stewart: Tom, that's interesting. Councillor Wegener: So the connection is that Ms. Francis has one day made a contribution to Councillor Wilkie.
00:22:00 But the only connection with her with this particular case right now is that she signs a petition. One of the 21 people decided. She signed a petition opposing this, the short-term stay here. So the only real connection she has with this is that she signed a petition to it. That's it. Mayor Stewart: She made a submission, Tom. Councillor Wegener: Made a submission. Yeah. Okay, right. She made the submission. A submission. And that connects her to this application. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask the question directed to the CEO? Have we had any similar situations? And what has been the decision of Council? Because I'm hearing what you're saying, Councillor Wilkie, that the connection may be a little bit arm's length, that the petitioner and the applicant have removed. I'm seeking advice from the CEO how this sort of matter has been dealt with in the past.
00:23:00 Speaker 7: Again, I haven't had the time to go back and check every single conflict of interest that's been made over the last nine months. But certainly there have been cases I think I can recall where someone has had an objection before where they may have been able to stay in the room. But please don't quote me on that. That's from my recollection of the various applications over the last nine months. Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, there's only been one case where a councillor has declared a conflict of interest, has been asked to leave the room, and that has later been reversed. Speaker 7: That's correct. That's my recollection. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair. Yes, please. If we're discussing, you know, the relationship, Tom, that you asked, Councillor Wegener, regarding the petition, I didn't even know that, like, no one knew me with the regard, there was no relationship even mentioned around my signing of a petition, which was before I even ran
00:24:00 on a campaign. And I was out of the room for the decision. And I was out of the room for the decision. Councillor Wilkie has declared that he's a 20-year relationship with Susan Francis. And we're all talking about arms and lengths, and arms lengths. I was out of the room from someone I barely knew, because I signed a petition. This woman signed a petition. Frank has said he's known her for 20-odd years. Speaker 7: Can I clarify that question, maybe? And I'm forgetting my recollection. Was that the NBN one? Yes. Yes. Was that under the old? Speaker 3: And if I can make a comment, because I get to sit in on these about DAs. Certainly councillors have left a room where they were a submitter to an application, but I don't recall any councillors having to leave the room because they know a submitter to an application.
00:25:00 Mayor Stewart: Even, not know Kerry, have received financial benefit. Is that the same thing? Yeah, same thing. Councillor Stockwell, you had a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I was just going to clarify. The same NBN tower was where I declared that one of the submitters, who was a neighbour, was a volunteer. And I, from recollection, did go out of the room, but that was under the old legislation. My reading of that level of interest now would be that I wouldn't, probably wouldn't even declare, because I wasn't able to tell you that it was $500, so that's the only one I can recall of where I've got out as a result of a submitter who built my campaign, under the old legislation. Speaker 7: I think everyone has spoken to the motion. Any more questions, if not, whether councillors have any more questions? Mayor Stewart: Do you have any more questions, Councillor Wegener? You're right to raise your hand. Councillor Wegener: No, no questions. The only question is... The issue is this application, and the question is, there would be no conflict of interest had this person not made an objection to the NBN.
00:26:00 So, it's a person far outside of the argument process that made a submission, which has muddied the waters here. Is that a question? Yeah, that's a very funny question. Speaker 7: Can I translate that question to, is the question whether or not the declaration relates to the fact that there has been a donation? My reading about the answer would be yes, that once you have a donation that is above $500, in this case, $750, then there is no requirement to make a, sorry, a declarable conflict of interest declaration, which is what's been done. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll ask a... A question along the lines of what's been asked here, sort of in a different fashion.
00:27:00 Let's see, if we knew that a person had signed a petition against a particular matter coming before council and that person had donated to an individual's campaign, would we have to declare that? Speaker 7: If you were aware of it, it would be a similar scenario to this. If someone had signed a petition objecting to an application, is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Objecting to an application? Well, to any matter. I'd have to think about that one a bit more. There's a difference between... The legislation has specific provisions about applications. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's more about planning applications than it is about the general matter? Speaker 7: Certainly, under the definition of prescribed conflict of interest, there are specific provisions about whether someone has an application to call council, it could be your brother or whatever it might be, or if someone has objected or made a submission in relation to an application. That is dealt very specifically in the declaration. Okay. Thank you. So, in the legislation in relation to prescribed activities, that's prescribed declarations for declarable conflicts of interest.
00:28:00 It is more of a generic catch-all and deals with... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm trying to look at the catch-all of whether a petition and an objection to a development application would have the same weight and that, but by what you were saying, they do Speaker 7: hold the same weight. Well, it's related to a development application. Not a general petition. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Okay. There's no more questions. We might put... Can I ask one last question? Councillor Lorentson: Is there another option that Council Wilkie can remain in the room to debate the issue if he's not voted in to stay to vote? And is that something that Council Wilkie would consider? No. Speaker 7: Okay. The motion is before Council Wilkie. The Council's consideration at the moment is that Council Jurisdict motion that Council Wilkie stay. Okay.
00:29:00 So, it's a motion that's before... Councillor Finzel: Could we vote that motion and then put forward the other option? Speaker 7: It's up to Council. You've got a motion before you've got to deal with one motion at a time. You've got this motion, of course. We've got to deal with this motion. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Council Jurisdict, did you want to finish? Councillor Wegener: Councilor Wilkie is consistent with the objection. It would vote the way that person wanted them to vote. What if Councilor Wilkie was doing the other thing and the person jumps up and says, hold on, I don't want Councilor Wilkie to vote that way. I donated $750 for him. There's a conflict of interest. I'm trying to get my head around the strategy and letting people who are not actually involved in the application or in council determining who can and can't vote by donation.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 That's what I'm trying to get my head around right now. This person who is outside the loop, so to speak, of a decision determining the outcome by a cash donation. The question is, do we let this person on the outside determine? Speaker 7: It's not the person on the outside, but if the answer there is no, the legislation is very clear. If it's a donation through an election period, then that triggers obligations on behalf of the council to make a declaration. If it's above $500, if it's below $500, you don't need to. You can choose to, but you don't need to. If it's above $500, below $2,000, then you need to make a declarable conflict of interest. If it's above $2,000, you need to make a prescribed conflict of interest. That's the issue. Mayor Stewart: That's right. We might put the matter to a vote. I'm sorry, I didn't get a vote from Councillor Griswitch.
00:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I can see that some councillors think this is drawing a bit of a fine line on the process here. The fact that a councillor has received a donation from an objector to a development application. I was wondering how it would differ by the question I asked with a petition. Clearly, development applications through the legislation are seen quite differently through the process. The interesting part here is that I would suggest Ms Francis is one of a number of objectors from the Peregian Beach Community Association on this, and that most of the views would be aligned from that perspective, and most of the members of those 21 objectors would be a part of that organisation. My best guess. I do see that from a pub test perspective, somebody donating to a campaign may be seen to be having a closer relationship.
00:32:00 I mean, why would you donate to someone's campaign unless you thought that there was a relationship? But it may be that philosophically, someone believes that Councillor Wilkie's ideals and perspectives are one that they support, and as a result of that thought. I don't see that Ms Francis here has any direct benefit or otherwise from this. I think this is a philosophical stand with regard to short stay accommodation in the Peregian area. And as such, I see enough of a void there to permit Councillor Wilkie in the room. I do see that other councillors. I don't think councillors can see that from a pub test perspective or treading a fine line, but I do see enough of a divide here to see that Councillor Wilkie could remain in the room.
00:33:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour of Councillor Wilkie staying in the room? Stockwell? Unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: Not allowed to vote. Mayor Stewart: Oh, he's not. Councillor Wilkie remains in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, look, I'll move the same. Given that we've just given that declaration and that resolution to Councillor Wilkie, I'll move the same resolution for Councillor Stockwell. That Councillor notes the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell in terms of public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates in votes on this matter because Councillor believes it. Ms Francis is one of only 28 objectors to the application, which aligns with the Staff Registration Act. I'll move the same resolution. Councillor Stockwell would be able to consider the matter impartially and therefore reason for personal trust to final decision made in public interest. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that.
00:34:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Stockwell, I'll ask the same question that was asked of Councillor Wilkie with regard to your relationship to Ms Francis. Is it personal in nature or anything more than a collegiate business understanding through Council operations? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I've only known Ms Francis since I came into Council in 2007. It's 2016 and it's always been discussing matters in relation to Councillor. No social interactions of any kind other than at the occasional PBCA meeting. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to ask any questions of Councillor Stockwell? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour of Councillor Stockwell staying in the room? Councillor Wilkie can vote on this too. Can Councillor Wilkie vote on this now? No, no, no. Okay. All unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie, I'll revert back to you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: I think, do we need a resolution to come back on? No, because the resolution was only for the purpose of complicating.
00:35:00 Councillor Wilkie: Right. Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Thank you, Councillors. That was very robust. It was very robust, really. As it should be. As it should be, thank you. Thank you. We now come to item one on the agenda, which is mentioned before, MCU 0054, development application, material change of use, short term accommodation, a 30 Kingfisher Drive, Peridgian Beach from page 48. Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Councillors, we have Kerry Coyle and Patrick Murphy here for questions. And there's been a request, Councillors, that we, if we do have questions, we can make sure that they are questions for the purpose of eliciting information, which we can then use in debate and associate with commentary. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Kerry, you, or Patrick, do you have an idea of when this application was lodged, the date the application was lodged? Speaker 10: The application was lodged on the 31st of March.
00:36:00 31st of March. 2021. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. And the second question. At what point... At what point... To my recollection, the first time that we've had the matter with regard to the refusal of STA applications based on the information of the percentage of short stays in the... That we're aware of, 23%, I think was the figure quoted, was last month, in last month's meeting, July meeting. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That's right. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Oh, sorry. Councillor Stewart. Kerry, I... There's been a lot in the media about the 49% increase. And it's subsequently come from... And I've got a statement here from the Chief Economist of the Regional Index of Australia, stating that the 43%, it wasn't actually the increased migration to Noosa, it was in the March quarter last year, it was 0.7%.
00:37:00 And in the December quarter, it had increased. And currently in the March quarter this year, it was 49% more at 1% than it had been at 0.7%. So, and she confirms that this... So, the 49% has moved from a 0.7% increase March last year to 1% decrease. So, we haven't had a 49% increase in migration to Noosa as such. She also mentions in this email that the CBA index is only for inflows from Greater Capital Cities. So, it actually doesn't take into account net flows. So, if people leave, that's not actually taken into account. So, 0.7% to 1% is where the 49% increase has come from. In regard then to 23% increase... With respect, Nancy, do you have a question? Yeah, no, I do. Because I'm getting to... That was flagged last time as a big issue, about a 49% increase. So, I just wanted to clarify that.
00:38:00 But I wanted to then raise another question about another percentage noted and ask where that's on page 61. It is noted that 23% of dwellings within the coastal area have been used for the purpose of short-term accommodation. Can you just clarify exactly where that 23% came from? Speaker 3: So, there's, I guess, two questions. The 49% came from the Regional Movers Index, and I'm happy to provide that to you. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, which... Yep. Speaker 3: I think I already have. Mayor Stewart: And that's the Chief Economist who clarified that statement of the Regional Movers Index. Speaker 3: Okay. My reading of that index was there was a 49% increase to migration coming to Noosa from the city areas. That's the urban areas. Okay. Mayor Stewart: I can send you the email, Kerry. Speaker 3: Yep. Thank you. The 23% comes from DMAT, which is a model produced by Unity Water and Council Offices. So, it's a detailed model. It's done site by site, having a look at how the site is being used at that point in time.
00:39:00 So, that 23% was across the coastal areas, which included Tewantin, Noosaville, Noosa Heads, all the way down to Peregian. So, obviously, that would vary across the localities. I would expect it to be a lot lower in Tewantin, but I expect that percentage to be higher in some localities. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'm assuming that Unity Water do that when a new connection is made, or a new... Sorry, a new... Not a new connection, but a changeover of ownership is made, and a new owner is registered for that site, that they ask the question of the use of the property. Is that correct? Speaker 3: No. It's their forward planning model. So, they own the model, and it's what they use to plan for water supply and sewage and the network throughout the Shire. So, it's a model detail, so they can make sure infrastructure is sufficient to cover. Councillor Jurisevic: But where do they obtain the information with regard to how many properties a short stays? Speaker 3: As I said, it was done... They produced a model. Council officers then went through it site by site to make sure it was accurate.
00:40:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, so the information comes from council officers who... Speaker 3: So, it's based on development data they've received from council previously about approvals, but then officers have done a site by site analysis. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Question, through the Chair. At what point did the... The planning staff get these figures from the Regional Movers Index and the DMAT to inform their decision that they arrived at the August meetings? Speaker 3: At the July meeting. So, through the assessment of the last applications that went to July, we looked at the scheme requirements in terms of the requirement that, yes, our coastal areas will accommodate a significant amount of tourist accommodation, that our areas, the res medium area has to be maintained predominantly permanent.
00:41:00 We saw that with many of those applications last time, it wasn't being maintained as permanent. So, we looked further at the statistical information available to look at what the percentage of properties were being used for visitor accommodation. So, it's throughout the assessment of those last four applications. Councillor Finzel: And during that time, did you draw on any of the stats that are currently available from our own council information? Sorry, can you just rephrase that one? When you were looking at statistics to inform your decision around those meetings, did you draw upon any of the stats that our planning staff have been keeping with regards to matters around neighbourhood amenity and housing and intensification of STAs as this was raised to the CEO in February?
00:42:00 Did you draw on any of that? No. I understand there was an Excel sheet being kept of percentages and all that. Did you draw on that information to inform your decision? Speaker 3: Absolutely. So, we drew from a range of information. We have a range of data. We're obviously keeping a lot of the stats in development assessment on strategic planning, but we also had discussions with strategic planning. We've been working on the housing assessment update. And we drew on the stats around complaints people are making around short term, the stats around number of superseded planning scheme applications that we're receiving. So, a range of sources when we were considering those applications. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thanks, Tom. When you're considering amenity, how do you measure amenity? Do you measure that through red letters coming in, or stats, or how do you feel that you can touch the call? That's a good question.
00:43:00 That's a great question. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, amenity is something that planners talk a lot about, and it can be a little bit subjective at times. I mean, you can measure noise. You know, there is a... I'm a tool that measures noise. But obviously, over time, there's... You know, residents have been raising issues with short term accommodation well prior to the new scheme commencing around the impact it's having on their residential amenity. You know, telling us stories about people swimming, and jumping, and yahooing in the pool at 2 a.m. quite regularly. So, there's... I guess, whilst amenity can be a little bit subjective, there's a lot of stories out there from residents around how it's impacting on their amenity. Councillor Jurisevic: One would suggest that noise is only one element of amenity, right? Speaker 3: Yeah. Definitely. Noise is one. But it's the primary issue people are raising with these. They're also raising issues about number of cars parked in the street, bins on the footpath,
00:44:00 and yeah, those sorts of issues as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So, in essence, amenity also raised... Rise around management... Property management. Yeah. And then bins not being brought in. Limits to vehicles and... Mayor Stewart: Sorry, Tom. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, you have a question? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I do. Kerry, on page 61, it says there have been 150 additional dwellings approved for short term accommodation under the superseded plan, but we don't know, or you can't confirm, can you? I think in the last meeting, the statement was, how many are just protecting the land use right with no intention of ever using the property or formalising their existing use rights. So, we don't have that data available, do we? Speaker 3: No. It will vary. Some of those will be existing short term accommodation. Some of those people may never intend to proceed with short term accommodation, but some of them will. So, we don't know. Those applications have only been processed in recent times, and they do have six years
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 to commence the use under their superseded plan. So, we don't know exactly the scheme request where they received approval. Mayor Stewart: And just on page, the 50%, how is the 50% assessed on page 61 that are being used for SPAs in that area? Speaker 10: Well, that relates to the mapping that's throughout pages 59, 60, 58. And so, those, there's data that we've got from a spreadsheet from April last year, which informs those stars on the map. And I counted the properties, counted the stars, and- Could that? Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And is that people who are solely using their properties for STA, or people who live there and rent it out? And what's the breakup of it? Speaker 10: I don't have a definitive breakup, but it could be a combination of people that are using it permanently for short term accommodation, or those that are using it for occasionally Councillor Lorentson: for short term accommodation. And Patrick, I think I actually have a breakdown of those numbers.
00:46:00 So, of the 332 dwellings used for STA, that comprises 94 townhouses, 77 apartments, 149 dwelling houses, four duplexes, four home hosted, and four secondary dwellings. My question in regards to the 50%, and I couldn't find this anywhere, when we say that 50% of homes are used for short term accommodation. Are we 50% of what, medium density areas, or are we talking precinct and neighbourhood? And what is meant by precinct and neighbourhood? Speaker 10: Well, on the map on page 57, details, and as outlined, those areas that have known medium density residential, and that's considered to be the medium density residential neighbourhood in this instance. So, it's referring to that area. Speaker 3: And that's been matched, because our planning scheme asks that the medium density residential neighbourhood is considered to be the medium density residential neighbourhood in this
00:47:00 instance. So, we have mapped what is zoned medium density in that neighbourhood, and it's 50%. So, it's not meeting that requirement. Councillor Lorentson: So, the 50%, Kerry, can I ask, it captures all the existing resorts and motels that have always existed in that medium density area? Absolutely. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, question. At the old caravan park site in the village itself, its own visitor accommodation, there was an improvement in the size of the old caravan park site. Do you want to give us an approval given for how many visitor accommodation units, please? Speaker 10: There's an approval for 32 motel units and 20 visitor dwelling units. Of the 20 visitor dwelling units, one was a manager's unit, and the remaining 19 were three bedroom. And for the 32 motel units, 10 were two bedroom and 22 were one bedroom. And this results in a total of 99 bedrooms. Councillor Wilkie: 99 bedrooms, specifically for visitor accommodation? Speaker 10: Specifically for visitor accommodation. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: In the original draft 2020 plan, there was scope for a tourist zone where short stays were considered to be appropriate, which was then overturned.
00:48:00 Does the mapping here on page 57 resemble that tourist zone that was previously considered? The short stay overlay? The short stay overlay, thank you. Speaker 3: Yeah, there was an overlay that was drawn with the first round of planning scheme amendments where council would look to support short-term accommodation and make it consistent. And generally that aligns with the RADS medium area, except not on the western side of David Lowe. So that provision, there was a lot of submissions both for and against that. That provision was not included in the planning scheme and does not belong to part of the scheme. Councillor Wilkie: I understand, thank you. Councillors, given that we can ask questions throughout the debate, I'd like to move. The recommendation, please.
00:49:00 May we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Okay. And councillors are free to ask questions throughout the course of this debate. Councillors, today we have an opportunity to not worsen the permanent housing availability crisis. We can do this by refusing this application to convert another home into another short-term accommodation business. This application conflicts with the higher order principles of the planning scheme. It is recommended through a refusal by expert town planning staff, and is objected to by 21 residents, and as contrary to our shared objective of addressing the shortage of housing availability for permanent residents. Last meeting round, we moved a motion unanimously to urgently address, quote, the shortage of housing availability for permanent residents in Noosa. The motion also sought interim policy responses to the impact of short-term accommodation approvals upon available housing support. The very foundation of this motion was an acknowledged shortage of housing for permanent residents in Noosa
00:50:00 and the link between short-term accommodation and this shortage. We know that every time one more home is added to the short-term visitor accommodation pool, there's one less available for permanent letting or residence, therefore making the crisis more acute. We're not facing a shortage of visitor accommodation crisis. It's a permanent housing availability crisis. The data and the community is telling us loud and clear the proliferation of STA into medium-density residential neighbourhoods has gone too far. As the report states, despite the area being intended under the Noosa Planning Scheme as a predominantly residential zone, approximately 50% of dwellings in the zone are now short-term accommodation. The proliferation of short-term accommodation has dramatically reduced the availability of dwellings available for permanent residents. It's been rightly said that the term predominantly is critical here. Predominantly means the most dominant form of. At 50% saturation of STA's in this zone, permanent residences are no longer the predominant form of accommodation,
00:51:00 contrary to the scheme's strategic intent. Visitor accommodation is meant to be part of the mix, not the predominant form of. In Bridging Village itself, less than 200 metres from this site, new visitor accommodation development on the old caravan site is bringing, as we've heard, 99 new visitor bedrooms, and 51 visitor accommodation units online in a precinct specifically designated under the Planning Scheme for visitor accommodation. As I said, we're not facing a shortage of visitor accommodation crisis. Today, we're being asked to play our role in addressing a shortage of permanent housing crisis by not willingly letting another home become an STA business. Approving this application is contrary to the purchase and overall outcome and performance outcomes of the Coastal Community's Local Plan Code, under the Noosa Planning Scheme. Staff are recommending refusal. The residential community of Peregian Beach Beach are asking us to support the staff recommendation
00:52:00 to preserve the residential nature and amenity of this medium-density residential neighbourhood. We know that there's another 51 accommodation units being built in the nearby visitor accommodation zone. We know we're not facing a shortage of STA crisis. We know we're facing a shortage of permanent housing crisis. We know the data shows an estimated 50% or more of the nearby residential, medium-density residential community has already converted to STAs. Noosa, like Peregian Beach, is a community first and a great place to visit, with ample investment opportunity. We cannot honestly lament the lack of permanent housing and then, with our community and staff urging us to refuse this application because it would further deplete the dwindling of permanent housing, willingly do the opposite. Councillors, I understand this is a tough decision, but that's what we've been called here to do for the long-term benefit of our community. Pivot has become a key word in recent times, meaning the capacity to respond to rapidly changing circumstances.
00:53:00 New policies will eventually catch up with where we need to go and help inform decisions. But it's clear today that we as councillors need to pivot and play our part in helping to maintain the fabric of the medium-density residential communities as residential neighbourhoods first and foremostly, not as visitor facilities. The same goes for the accommodation business zones. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Question. Kerry, for the accommodation that is currently at Peregian Beach, that Councillor Wilkie talked about, at Peregian Beach Beach Caravan Park, what accommodation is currently there? Speaker 3: What's the mix you saw? So the site, it's in behind the Peregian Beach Beach Hotel and the IGA, so the site is currently vacant. It's vacant? It's vacant. They have an approval issued some time ago for visitor affairs. They have a visitor accommodation on the site and they're currently constructing that development now. Mayor Stewart: And what is the make-up of that visitor accommodation? Speaker 3: It is self-contained housing as well as sort of motel-style units, although some of them contain two-bedroom units.
00:54:00 Mayor Stewart: So quite a different experience, you would say, to a house for a family. You couldn't take your dog there, per se. Speaker 3: No. I would say, you know, a number of them are designed like large holiday homes. So they're three bedrooms or four, some of them contain. They're quite large. So as to whether they have their dog, that will be up to the managers. Councillor Jurisevic: Quite a diverse mix. Yeah. Speaker 3: They each have their own sort of open space and room outside. So quite capable of accommodating a dog. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic? Yeah. Kerry, I just want to clarify a few other things stated on page 61 and ask some other questions as regards that. It says, at the moment, more recently, approximately 115 additional dwellings approved under the superseded planning scheme requests, with numerous requests still to be decided. So under the superseded planning scheme, how many requests have we had for short stay accommodation?
00:55:00 Speaker 3: Just this year, I think the number came up to about 300. But I can give councillors the latest data after the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: We can get some clarity around not just this year, but since the year before. The 12 months. The 12 months. Yeah, sure. We can clarify exactly how many under... Do we have any idea of those, of how many were pre-existing? Speaker 3: No. No, we don't have... That's what I asked. We don't have that data around what may or may not have been already being used for short Councillor Jurisevic: stays. Speaker 3: No. No. I can tell you what has been approved and refused or withdrawn to date. But we'll... Councillor Jurisevic: Maybe that breakdown would be... Yeah. But we won't have... Speaker 3: We're still... Won't have decided them all until about mid-September. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: The second question I've got then in relation to under the 2020 planning scheme, how many requests... Or sorry, how many applications have we had under the 2020 scheme for approval of short stays? And you don't have to answer that now.
00:56:00 Yeah. I mean, if that's... If that's data you don't have at hand... Speaker 3: I think we've got... Had eight in total, not counting the ones on the agenda at the moment that we've decided. Councillor Jurisevic: In total from the 2020 scheme? Speaker 3: That we've decided. Councillor Jurisevic: And they can still apply, obviously, under the new scheme from here on in. Speaker 3: Yeah. And we've got other applications that are still to come before council. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So I'll restate that there's applications up until the 1st of July. What was the date of the Super Suit scheme? It was the 31st of July, was it not? Speaker 3: Yeah. The last day of the 31st. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. That answers that. Cancel them. I didn't ask those questions. Hang on. I'm still going through them. Is there a time limit for use as an SDA? I.e., if a property is approved as an SDA and not used as an SDA, is there a time limit under which they have to be used for an ongoing period? Speaker 3: So under... If they make application under the 2020 scheme, they have six years to commence that use.
00:57:00 If they received an approval under the Super Suit scheme, they have six years to commence If they received an approval under the Super Suit scheme, they have six years to commence that use. So that currency period is the default period set by the planning legislation. Councillor Jurisevic: That's to commence the use, but if they cease using it as an SDA, do they lose the rights of use as an SDA? Speaker 3: There's no... What the Planning Act says is about whether they abandoned the use. So there's no timeframe given in the legislation around what might be considered being abandoned. Speaker 7: And that's often been a grey area over the years, about proving whether the use has been abandoned or it's just been temporarily suspended while something else happens. So it's always quite a grey debate. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'd assume that... I'd assume an element of that debate comes under the pre-existing use rights under the Super Suit Planning Scheme. Would that be correct? That people would have to prove their previous use rights? Speaker 3: Yeah. So we are getting a lot of requests from people who previously operated short-term accommodation prior to the new scheme commencing, looking for us to confirm their existing use rights.
00:58:00 So they're providing a history of how that property is being used. And we do have some properties that may not have been used for short-term accommodation for one year that still have existing use rights. Councillor Jurisevic: And just because a property is approved for short-stay accommodation doesn't mean this property will necessarily operate as a short-stay accommodation. It just provides the owner with an alternative option from long-stay and short-stay. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yeah. That's right. Yeah. So people may operate one year, then decide not to operate the next, but then recommence the following. So they have that ability under the planning legislation. It's all about whether it's abandoned. Councillor Jurisevic: That's a grey area I talked about. Yeah. One would assume that it would also be... Well, whilst this isn't a planning matter, that it could possibly be seen as a value added to a property in the property market. Speaker 3: Yeah. Certainly, some people view that, which is why offices have been approving a number of
00:59:00 short-term stay, because the original advice we had was that a property that has the right for short-stay potentially has an increased capital value. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell, you had questions? Councillor Lorentson: I just want to go back to page 61. Approximately 50% of dwellings are being used for the purpose of short-term accommodation. Approximately is probably the word that concerns me most, given that we've got a residence industry that are relying on information and previous planning decisions made by council. Okay. I'm concerned that they need probably a little bit more detailed numbers than... Question? Amelia? My question is, do we have an exact number? Speaker 10: Well, you could go back and have a look at that for you. Speaker 3: I mean, it's shown on the mapping.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 The mapping was done in April 2020. Yeah. And obviously, that's going to change. Yeah. But April 2020 suggests, you know, those properties have increased capital value. So, operating prior to the new supply in 2020. So, it's an important date. In the lead-up to the commencement of the new supply, I'd suggest probably more properties started using it for short-term. Okay. But we can count them again to give you an exact number of what's shown on that map. Councillor Lorentson: Great. And my only other question, and this is probably my real question, is that to give an application or an applicant took that STA number to 51% or 52% or 53%, would it be rejected? And does that in fact change the intent of the zone? Speaker 3: The planning scheme talks about that the res median density has to be maintained predominantly
01:01:00 permanent. You know, and I've said to council previously, it'd be nice for a little bit more clarity in those words. Predominantly, though, means dominant form. And I would think that if a property, if an area has 51% that's predominantly permanent, or sorry, 51% that is all used for permanent, I wouldn't think that's predominantly. Predominantly to me means the greater amount of, the higher proportion of, the dominant Councillor Lorentson: form. Have we had any legal advice as to definition of predominant? Because again, grey areas. Yeah. Speaker 3: It comes back to the, what the courts tend to do is come back to the dictionary definition meaning. So, which talks about dominant form. Councillor Lorentson: So, and maybe not a question to ask a planning officer, but would you think, given just your experience in planning and environment courts, that it would be unreasonable to say that
01:02:00 if an application brought that number to 51%? 52% or 53% it would be rejected? Speaker 3: Yeah. It's certainly not, I don't think, a straightforward argument to make in the court for either party, for the applicant or for council. I don't know what the court would decide at the end of the day. But that's where I come to. Our planning scheme talks about it. Maintaining is predominantly for permanent residents. So, to me, that goes to whether there is a need for more short term accommodation in the area. And maintaining accommodation for permanent residents. And there's certainly, the applicant would not be able to demonstrate that there's a need for more short term accommodation. Speaker 7: And I think the most important thing that Kerry said in that explanation was also, she'd probably like to see some more clarity around that definition as well. That would make her job a lot easier. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: In regards to the motel, the Scanlan development behind the IGA, did they not come to council
01:03:00 in the first place? They did come to council when they put in their application for permanent housing. They didn't actually want short term accommodation. That was actually recommended by council. Is that the case? This was before my time. Speaker 3: Yeah. There's a little bit of history with that site. A lot of history. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A lot of history. Where do I start? A little bit of an understatement. A million dollar court case history. Speaker 3: So that site, we've referred to it as the Peregian Beach Caravan Park. So it is traditionally being used as a caravan park for years and years. At some point in time, it sold and it became, the owners suggest it wasn't viable. Our planning scheme at the time sought to maintain the site for a caravan park to provide a variety of visitor accommodation in the Shire. So you'd have, you know, it's seen as sort of low cost and, you know, it's been for families or what not. And we also have, you know, more boutique at the higher end. So it was important to maintain that variety of accommodation across the Shire.
01:04:00 So it's always sought to maintain a caravan park. With, throughout the last 10 years, they demonstrated that it wasn't viable. Through appeal process, not decision by the court, the appeal process, we accepted that. And accepted that an alternative form would be sort of a motel. So that was the first thing that we did. And then we went on to develop a new style of accommodation. So not, it wasn't necessarily the high end, but it was sort of, you know, the next step up. And it wasn't low, but it was sort of the next step up. So the scheme always sought, as does, as there is a number of sites in the Shire, identified specifically for visitor accommodation. That's one of the sites. So that site, Peppers Resort, the Beach Road Holiday Homes. There's a few key sites in the Shire that are protected for visitor accommodation. Recognising that tourism is an important element with our tourism economy. So, yes, the developer did come wanting to do permanents, or a mix of permanents and
01:05:00 visitors. But we maintained it should be kept as visitor accommodation. He, the owner looked to... To change the type of accommodation through the appeal to all visitor accommodation. And we settled the appeal. So this was obviously at a time when there was not the evidence of a housing crisis occurring. It was at a time where we were seeking visitor accommodation to be maintained. So, yeah, quite a bit of history on that site. Councillor Lorentson: And a couple more questions, if that's okay, Chief. Where are we up to with our housing needs assessment report? And why was that a part of it? I think it was on page 61, requested, a needs report requested of the applicant. Speaker 7: Probably the answer to the first part. We've got Anthony on line. He was following through that decision from the previous meeting. So he'll be able to give a quick update on that, if Anthony's there. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I'll hold it in here. I was listening to everything. Thank you. Hey, Anthony.
01:06:00 Councillor Lorentson: Just where were you? Speaker 1: Canceling the question. First question. We've run the housing needs assessment and the response to the resolution from last month. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 1: So the housing needs assessment report is, that's the piece of work being undertaken by Rowena. And that is on schedule to come back to council in October. And we're going to work through whether that's obviously coming in a formal report or more likely in a workshop. Format. And separate to that is a response to the resolution instruction, the CEO to investigate and come back on, I think it was five or six points. And Kerry Contini and myself will be bringing that report back to council. And again, that's in October. So at this point, October is when we're doing two things. Speaker 1: One, responding to the resolutions around the housing needs. And two, a likely workshop on the detailed housing needs assessment report.
01:07:00 Speaker 1: That is the big piece of work that we've all been waiting for, really. Councillor Lorentson: So in regards to that big piece of work we've been waiting for, in 2017, I think it was, we commissioned Mortar and Bricks to do that work. You're saying that we're doing it in-house this time round. No. Have we commissioned an independent? No. Have we commissioned an independent person to put that piece of work together for us, Anthony? Speaker 1: No. Not at this point. We agreed. So Kerry Contini and myself will be responding to the report that referred to an independent. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry for confusing you. I'm making reference to the updated Mortar and Bricks report. Who is putting that report together? Speaker 1: Yes. There's two separate things. And I was referring to in the resolution of council last month you referred to an independent report. We will address that. And then that's separate.
01:08:00 And as part of the housing needs assessment, we will be bringing either peer review or independence to that report. We're currently an internal team, including obviously Rowena is pulling that together. But there will be a peer review and some form of independence brought to the whole process. But we're actually working through how that is best, I guess, brought to the table. Councillor Lorentson: So an in-house report. We'll be coming to us first. And then we're looking at the resolution from last month to investigate an independent peer reviewed report, a more detailed report. Is that right, Anthony? I'm just trying to get some clarity over the reports. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. And so to clarify, the housing needs assessment report, which has been worked on for the last six months or so internally. Thank you. Led by Rowena. Yeah. So the plan is coming to a council workshop. Currently, that's the plan.
01:09:00 Speaker 1: We might come straight to council. But the plan at this point is to engage back with council in October around the detailed report. We are planning on having a peer review type process within that draft. We certainly acknowledge the need for fresh eyes and professional, I guess, expertise as well as the internal to bring that. So we're looking at that, how best to bring that to the table. That will be clarified when Kerry Contini and myself respond to the resolution in detail in October in a separate council report. So we're coming back to council with a report responding to the resolution from last month. Yeah. The detailed resolution with five or six points, including the request for independence. We will bring that. Speaker 1: Running alongside that is the detailed assessment, the housing needs assessment report. Thank you. And we will bring in the form of a workshop so we can have much more of a, I guess, in-depth
01:10:00 discussion, debate and understanding of all the data. Speaker 1: We all recognise this is a global challenge and then an Australia challenge. And then we are at the tip of the challenge. So we need time to discuss and debate that. But we'll be bringing all that to council in October. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And Kerry, question to you. Has council ever approached council? Has council ever applied a need assessment for applications that are consistent use in zones? Speaker 10: Just to clarify, there was no needs assessment requested in this instance. The applicant made a statement that the area was suitable to provide predominantly permanent residential accommodation. Yep. And the report just notes that there was no detailed analysis provided by the applicant in that regard. That myself as the officer undertook that assessment as is reflected in the mapping. Councillor Wilkie: No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Councillor Stockwell, you had a question? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One of them answered in terms of the date of the stars that we're counting is April
01:11:00 2020. And we haven't been updated with approvals or going backwards. But that's fine. Then the date of the model run that Unity Water did. Councillor Jurisevic: Question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What was the date of the model run? Speaker 3: The dates line 2007-2008. 2017. Is it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's the date of the run. It's likely that there's going to be more. Now, the next one goes to another part of the potential impact. This site complies with the requirement for car parking for a house for a single dwelling going short stay accommodation. Is that right? Like it complies with the performance? Speaker 10: It has a different requirement. It's a double garage. And then there's a concrete pad adjacent to the front boundary, which could take the extra car space.
01:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: When we look at it, it's got five bedrooms. It could be a duplex, a kitchen downstairs, et cetera. Is there a way to condition use based on to limit cars? Because obviously, as you mentioned, one of the potential impacts is if we move from the traditional holiday home to the modern Airbnb-type booking, is you tend to get, you know, multiple groups using a single house. And therefore, it creates the car parking issue. Is there a mechanism to approve the land use with restricted number of vehicles? I know it would be a nightmare to do it for compliance, but... Speaker 3: That's the issue. I don't really think there's any practical way to do that. I think the only practical way would be to limit the number of persons. I don't think it would be useful for us to try and talk about, you know, one family group of 10 people or, yeah, one group of people coming in one or two cars.
01:13:00 I just can't see that being practically workable. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stewart, you had a question? Mayor Stewart: So Councillor Jurisevic asked the question that this application came before you in March 2021. Speaker 10: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: So at that time, Noosa Council had considered other STAs in medium density, hadn't we? Speaker 3: Yeah. We had considered one in January, February and March meeting. So this was lodged on the 31st of March. Mayor Stewart: And they were all approved, weren't they? The precedence was all approved. Speaker 3: That's right. Yeah. Well, those applications were approved. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, those applications were approved. When this came before you in March, was there any information requested by council staff? Or were they given a heads up that this may not be approved? Wasting their time? Speaker 10: Well, we had the information to be able to move forward with the assessment of the application. They were given a heads up around the time of the last council meeting that this was looking
01:14:00 problematic in terms of its compliance with the scheme. Mayor Stewart: But when they applied in March, and we were in July last year, there had been no, before the meeting last time, when the application was before you, there had been no further request for information by staff or staff? Speaker 10: No, there hadn't. Speaker 3: No, officers hadn't done the work yet to look at the mapping and the extent of it. But we'll just draw your attention to page 61, where there's a quote from the applicant about how they have addressed the extent of visitor accommodation in the median density area. That was their position around it. And in my mind, they really hadn't done any details. So I think it's important to have analysis themselves to have a look at it. And then it's clear when you do, it's non-compliant. Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, it's paragraph four?
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 3: Yes, that's right. Sorry. Page 61, paragraph four? Speaker 10: It's in italics. Speaker 3: The paragraph starts with the applicant submits? Yes. Mayor Stewart: This property was purchased by the applicant, I think, in February this year for about $3 million, thereabouts. So would it be fair to say that if this was going to be used as a short-term rental, sorry, as a permanent rental, it would be cost prohibitive for a lot of people, if we're looking at a yield? Speaker 10: That's not a matter that I've considered. It's not a relevant matter. Speaker 3: The planning legislation specifically says we can't take into consideration someone's personal financial circumstances. So it's not relevant. And frankly, all the houses in that area are going for that, whether they're permanent or visitor. Mayor Stewart: I guess my question is, when Councillor Wilkie talked about a housing crisis and affordable housing, that this perhaps may not fall into that realm of affordable. Speaker 7: I don't know.
01:16:00 I'm just glad it's a question. I'm sorry. commercial rents or whatever. That's outside the planning. That's outside the planning. Speaker 3: Yeah. Officers really aren't talking about affordable. We're talking about supply of housing in the Shire, and that's what we have a few concerns. Obviously, affordability is a big issue for the Shire. But what we're raising here is also the supply of housing. So they are two different things. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, we've called for other speakers on this. There's only one speaker on this. Councillor Jurisdict? I've still got some questions, isn't there? Yes, OK. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, we've all got questions. Councillor Jurisevic: We've all got a few questions before we speak to the matter, because it will determine how we speak to the matter. Councillor Stewart, are you finished? Mayor Stewart: No, I've just got one more question. Just on page 54, the coastal section 1.5 of the Noosa Plan 2020 state's local plan codes prevails over zone codes. That's correct, obviously. And so in regard to PO1, what's the plan? Performance development enhances the role of the coastal communities as a beachside residential
01:17:00 area, which also include a considerable amount of visitor accommodation. Would you suggest that this falls into acceptance of PO1? Speaker 3: Yeah, what we need to be careful about doing is reading the planning scheme in isolation of each provision. Mayor Stewart: I'm just sorry. I'm just reading what's in the report. Speaker 3: Yeah, but you're picking out one provision. And yes, I would say there is a considerable amount of visitor accommodation. And that is envisaged for the area. But we need to read the scheme as a whole and all the requirements together. Mayor Stewart: I'm just looking at the performance out codes that are noted. And not only one, I would suggest, and it's not a question, but there are a number there that it adheres to. So when I'm looking at this, this overrides the zone codes. Is that correct? Speaker 3: If there's a conflict between the code and the locality plan, if there's a conflict, it's said to triumphant. But I don't consider there is a conflict between the codes.
01:18:00 There's a story between the codes. The local plan code envisages there will be visitor accommodation along our coastal areas. And it says there will be a considerable amount. But the local code also suggests that our areas will have mixed development. It will have unit development, housing development, and visitor accommodation development. It also suggests specific to this site, which is in the coastal communities code, that the area in close proximity to Peregian Village, which this one is, will be for multi-unit accommodation. This is not multi-unit accommodation. So it envisages the area be developed for duplexes and units development. This is a house that's being used for short-term accommodation. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? I just want to clarify a couple of things. The 50% of dwellings being used for the purpose of short-stay accommodation within proximity
01:19:00 to the subject site. Patrick, was that done by the blue stars that are marked on the images on pages 58, 59, and 60? That's right. Speaker 10: So it refers, it starts with the map on page 57, which defines... Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to clarify a bit of that, if I may. Councillor Orenston quoted a number of figures of the breakdown of the accommodation in this area. Can you just... Thank you, Councillor Orenston. Can you just say how many copies that was again? Councillor Lorentson: Sure. I can actually read. It came from Rowena Skinner. I'll just pull out the email. Anthony... Sorry, Anthony sent it to me. Speaker 3: I've got it handy. Councillor Lorentson: Can you just rattle it off again, please? Yep. I've got in front of me a number of houses. Oh, I've got it handy. Councillor Wilkie: There it is. Councillor Lorentson: 300... Councillor Wilkie: Okay, thank you.
01:20:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes. So Peregian Beach tourism carrying capacity work from April 2020. Peregian Beach has 332 dwellings used for short-term accommodation, comprising 94 townhouses, 77 apartments, 149 dwelling houses, four duplexes. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, 77 apartments? Councillor Lorentson: 149 dwelling houses. Dwellings, yep. Four duplexes, four home-hosted, four secondary dwellings. Four secondary dwellings. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's 332. 332. Yeah. Within the medium density zone here though, Patrick, I know that you've got a star on a property. If a property had multiple units in it, and we've got something like 77 apartments and 94 townhouses for a star, what would that be? Would that constitute one star if there was one unit within that complex? No. Speaker 10: Or is that the entire complex? The star will represent one property within a collection of units.
01:21:00 That's what I mean. Councillor Jurisevic: If there's five units and there's one short stay, there'll be one star? Speaker 10: That's right. So in an instance there, you can see... I might just come up and point to it if you don't mind. This is clearly like there's a unit development through here. Yeah. It's showing a number of units that have been used. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's trying to indicate that there's multiple units within that complex. That's right. So multiple stars and multiple units within that complex. But it doesn't actually tell us how many units are in the complex as a percentage of use. Overall, have we actually done a count on how many dwelling units there are within the medium density area within Peregian Beach? If 332 are STAs, that would suggest there's only 600 odd dwellings, dwelling units in the medium density area. Speaker 10: I haven't counted the specific number of dwelling, like a dwelling house. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that what you're saying?
01:22:00 Like a... A unit is a dwelling? How many units in total? How many apartments in total? How many dwellings? How many duplexes? How many actual living units are there within this Peregian area? If there's 332 dwellings being quoted as being STAs currently, and you're saying that's 50%, that means there's only 664... No, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: That includes the low density residential units too, doesn't it? Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. That encompasses... That's why I'm trying to make heads or tails of those figures in the 50%, where Speaker 3: the 50% comes from. So, Councillor Joe, you've asked us previously to come back to clarify that. We'll come back with the data for you. Councillor Jurisevic: If we could do the actual breakdown of how many units there are and how many actual STAs there are. Councillor Lorentson: And I've actually started getting that information, Joe, so I've got here that I actually... I'm just trying to clarify. That's all right. Councillor Wilkie: I'm just trying to clarify where... We've got discussions going on. Okay. I've got a question. Question, Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Just on... Since there's been a change from, I guess, recommendations to approve to recommendations to refusal, what is the framework that was used by council or officers?
01:23:00 What assessment tools were used when you changed from recommendations for approval and median density to now recommendations for refusal? What assessment tools and what framework did you use to change policies? Speaker 7: I guess we went through similar things last month, the same issues, just wanted to go through that. I'd like a question. Yeah. Well... Sorry. Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 3: So, what changed for us is our planning scheme, applications assessed against the planning scheme. So, they're required to be assessed against the planning scheme. Our planning scheme has requirement about the res medium areas must maintain predominantly permanent. Okay. So, the assessment was made on the other three that were recommended for approval that it complied with that requirement. Having a look at that area and the greater area, there were three that were recommended for approval. The last four applications that went to council did not. They were clearly in an area that was predominantly tourist accommodation. The mix had got to such a point that it was pretty close to being more tourist accommodation
01:24:00 than permanence. As I said to Councillor Finzel, officers then started having a look at the information behind to have a look at really what was going in the Shire and the concern was that we had a housing crisis. So, we've had signs coming of this for a while now, but it became more and more evident that we have a housing crisis and that short-term accommodation and the extent of it in the Shire was contributing to our housing crisis. Mayor Stewart: The housing crisis came in December. We put up a minute about that. So... Christian. Yeah. No. Yeah. That is my question. So, was that it? So, that was just determining we're having a housing crisis and looking at the assessment that they are infringing upon 50% approximately, because we don't exactly know, do we, from what Councillor Arnston's question was. We're getting more data on approximately.
01:25:00 Speaker 3: Well, the mapping looks pretty close to 50% to me. I think that's fair, but we will do an exact count for councillors as has been asked. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So, that was the framework. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Jo. Sorry. There were two quick... Two quick questions. The Unity Water report that you mentioned there, 2017, was that the date that it was commissioned or is that the date that it was released? Speaker 3: Oh, I don't know. I'll have to come back to that. Councillor Jurisevic: So, when did that information come to Council staff? When were we aware of that report? Speaker 3: That DMAT is part of our Council resolution for infrastructure charges. So, that's the background data and reporting behind the infrastructure charges resolution. Councillor Jurisevic: So, when did it become available to Council staff? Any time you would have dealt with infrastructure charges. Speaker 7: Yeah. Over the last couple of years. Councillor Jurisevic: So, it all depends on whether... It was released in 2017. That means we've had that information for four years. Speaker 3: Yeah. I'll have to check with the officers responsible. I'll clarify that. Councillor Jurisevic: And a question for Anthony, if I may. Who's the chair? Anthony, if you're still there.
01:26:00 From here. From an ECDEV perspective, and it might be a plan, have we ever done an accommodation capacity assessment and seen what the available... I know we're doing housing needs and I don't know whether this comes into the housing needs and is part of the housing needs assessment. Does accommodation, available accommodation, short stay type accommodation, come into the housing needs assessment as an offset of what's being taken out of the housing market for short stays in particular? Or have we ever done a capacity of what is available in the region for short stay accommodation? Speaker 1: Yes, Councillor. So, we've done it in the past and the updated housing needs assessment will include capacity data. And as part of our ministerial conditions around monitoring of short stay accommodation, short stay and planning scheme zoning and decisions, we will be reporting in that assessment
01:27:00 report will include capacity and tracking, and that will actually inform our ministerial conditions as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Of all of our short stay, available short stay accommodation, including resorts and things that have been built specifically for short stay accommodation? Speaker 1: It should take into account the categories of accommodation. My understanding is that what we'll have, as much as the data allows us, is a total volume, I guess, of permanent rentals, short stay, broken down by categories. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. That's it from me. Thank you. We have speakers to the motion, please. Councillor Wegener: Tom? Are you ready, guys? Can I just say one thing? Yes. I'm going to ask you. You can ask after Tom. Councillor Wilkie: After that. Councillor Wegener: Sure. Councillor Wilkie: I know. Yeah. Sorry.
01:28:00 Councillor Wegener: Amenity is an asset that we have here. A very, very important asset. And we talked about this last, in the last meeting. This asset is what we moved here for. A lot of people moved here for, to enjoy this asset. And it's incredibly valuable. And it's a very valuable asset. The STAs are eroding this asset. And we don't need studies, and we don't need numbers to know that. We have lots of . Point of order, Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, Chair. Have an opinion. Excuse me. Excuse me, Councillor. What's your point of order, Councillor Lyson? You're making a statement of fact. Can you clarify that it's a statement of opinion that STAs are eroding? Thank you to help. Councillor Wilkie: I'll just, Councillor, I'll just let you know, debate is for an opportunity for councillors to express opinion on their take of the situation. So it's assumed. And within your, within your debate, you're able to express your opinions.
01:29:00 I ask that when councillors are expressing their opinions during debate, unless they're impugning proper motives to yourselves or staff, that we hear them. We hear them. We hear them out. And use your own. Use questions. And use your own debate to express an alternative opinion. Use your debate. Yeah. Use your debate. Rather than. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And apologies. Councillor Wilkie: We'll afford you the same respect. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Continue, Tom. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Well, amenities and assets. Few people moved here to enjoy this asset. In my opinion, the STAs are eroding this asset. We don't need a study, although we're happy to get one coming up. But we have plenty and plenty of evidence before us in the form of letters and so forth. And of course, all the submissions for the short-term laws that have also, I don't know if they influenced this decision, but it's obvious that we, that this asset is being eroded.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 And it's our job to protect this asset on a much bigger level. Second, tourism, by adding to the short-term accommodation, we're really adding to tourism, the tourism economy. And at the same time, looking at the whole of the Noosa plan, we're repeatedly saying, well, we love our tourism, but we're moving away from that. We want to diversify. We want a more diversified economy. And short-term states are adding on to tourism. But it's a doubling effect, because by adding on to the tourism effect, it takes away the place where a CEO or a very important person or a nice person with a job that's really going to bring longevity and further value to the community by donating their time, but being a part of the fabric of the community. So it's a doubling effect. By taking one house out of that, you are adding to tourism, but you're also detracting from
01:31:00 the long-term base of people that will come here and can work here and become a part of the fabric of our community. So looking at the overall plan, Noosatown plan, it is very clear that we have plenty of short-term accommodation, and we need to diversify economy, move this direction, inviting people that will move here and be a part of the fabric of our community. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Any speakers? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. I feel a little bit like a permanent house in a residential zone on this issue, about 50-50. There is very valid arguments on both sides. There is no doubt about it. The difficulty I have is that the analysis we have available to us is dated.
01:32:00 It may be easy to assume that since that analysis, there has been proportionally more short-stay approvals compared to the number of short-stays that have been reversed. About a year ago, Tourism Noosa was making a lot of concerns about the fact that they were losing a lot of stock because of that in-migration of people who might have traditionally let their holiday homes who were moving here. So we know that there's two ways. We can assume that the trajectory in the medium-density residential zone is probably still a little bit towards increasing short-stay, but we can't do it with confidence. We can talk about what the court is likely or potentially going to assess when it looks at the dictionary definition of predominantly, and if it takes a very narrow view, if the applicant can prove it's 49.5%, then 50.5% of the court might go their way.
01:33:00 And that's the sort of... The resources to fight that in court is what I have concerns about. I know the flip side of the argument is because it's impact assessment that the applicant should demonstrate need. And once again, that's a little bit what Councillor Jurisevic was talking about. That's the planning scheme identifies different overall outcomes. One is about housing choice, and one is about the need to sustain a variety of tourist accommodation to satisfy our industry. For me, the other point in this equation is, it is different. Peregian is different to Sunshine Beach.
01:34:00 We saw some of those areas in Sunshine Beach are really, you know, predominantly holiday in nature or those zone medium-density residential, whereas here, Peregian's always had the mix. And the issue there for me is, well, I don't know. I mean, the issue is, once again... The fairness about the people who applied prior to last month. Speaker 6: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The fairness to those people who were zone medium density and came back to the planning scheme and said, we prefer to be zone tourist accommodation. And we said, no, we made the overt decision not to increase the tourist accommodation zone because tourist short-stay accommodation was impact assessable in the medium density residential zone. So for me... Yes. You know, the final one on this particular application is around car parking, because we know that's an issue that has generated community angst, not just in Noosa, but everywhere. And this being a large house, and that's for Councillor Stewart, it's a large and obviously quite impressive house that may generate more than what car parking is. And that's one where the impact is, you know, weighs a bit in the refusal side for me.
01:35:00 But at this stage, in my assessment of the dual outcomes that the scheme tried to achieve, the fact that I think the fairness and integrity of our public pronouncements and decisions when, you know, at the time the application was made, if this application was made after last month's meeting, I might come to a decision, but to me, it's still the same scheme. To me, I need the, to change my traditional view about this is where we have supported short stay accommodation in these sorts of areas in the past. It probably has to wait till October. It has to wait till I've got a review of the Housing Affordability Study and hopefully a review also of the data around what is within the holiday accommodation before I can change what I've traditionally said.
01:36:00 And this one, this house in particular, is a difficult one in that, as I said, I do think that the likelihood of the parking being sufficient is perhaps debatable. But at this stage, I'm going to stick with what I did last month and not support the refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll speak to it. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, look, I don't support the refusal either, which is probably no surprise. There's been a lot of talk about this 49% increase in migration to Noosa. The Chief Economist of the Regional Index of Australia has said this is a sample of movements, not a census, and it only covers the customers of one bank. The data shows, and this is from an email, the share of overall movers in the March quarter 2021 for Noosa LGA was rounded to 1%.
01:37:00 This was 23% more inflows than in December quarter 2020, 49% above the inflows in March quarter 2021, which was at 0.7%. So that is where the 49% comes. This is a holiday rental. It's very close to shops and it's directly opposite the beach. It's on the side of Peregian that Councillor said in the last month's meeting was the appropriate side for short-term and holiday accommodation. It was on the right side of David Lowe Way. They have to adhere to a code of conduct. Strict measures will be in place. And if we have any faith in our local laws, they will be well used. The area is zoned medium density. It contains a mix of dwellings, as noted on page 52. It fulfils the performance codes for coastal communities, I believe, PO1. It enhances the role of coastal communities as a beachside residential area, which also include a considerable amount of visitor accommodation. PO2 contributes to the lifestyle and amenity of residents and visitors in the coastal communities.
01:38:00 PO14 provides the diversity of the types and style of visitor accommodation to cater for a range of visitors. So, a motel-style room is very separate and a different experience to a family who want to bring their pets on a holiday and stay in a home. This house was purchased, as I said, and I found this out by Googling it online. And it was purchased for the purposes of a family using it as their own holiday accommodation, but then supplementing it with some income and then with their ultimate goal of moving to the property. If they don't rent it out as an STA, what will happen? Will they sell it, will they rent it out as a permanent rental, or will they lock it up? Now, if they lock it up, what does that contribute to the amenity or fabric of the society? How does that help the little kid making ice creams who is waiting on customers, or the local businessmen waiting for people to come and spend?
01:39:00 If we, as I said, and I'll say it again, you walk through Belgravia, you walk through Kensington, they are ghost towns, there is no fabric of society because they are simply locked up. Now, on page 61 of the report, it uses the fact that there have been 115 additional dwellings to approve STA or comm under superseded plan. We don't know how many are just protecting land rights with no intention of ever using the property as an STA or current STAs formalising their existing use rights. So we can't really take that into consideration. Planning online shows objections, and the majority of the objections are from one particular community organisation. We lobbied hard with the template letter, and at the last STA in Peregian, we debated, they did the same thing. They've done it again. I would challenge whether this is truly representative of the whole of Peregian, of all of the area, and the thoughts and wishes of the whole community, or just a small group. We can't change policy until we are armed with information.
01:40:00 We can go on and on about STAs, and them being the cause of all our housing woes, but it's simply we don't know if it's true. We have an international housing crisis. The Fin Review over the weekend said housing prices in the US, even in places such as Phoenix, have increased by 27%. In the same paper, the Commonwealth Retail Boss, Commonwealth Bank Retail Boss, Angus Sullivan, tipped strong demand for residential property to continue on the back of super low fixed interest rate deals. He said he expected house prices to rise an additional 4% through the spring sales season, which would bring the annual lift in the five capital cities to 20% and 25% in Sydney. It's not just happening in Noosa, and we can't say there's a housing crisis because of STAs. We are seeing the lowest ever vacancy rate for accommodation in Australia-wide. It's not just Noosa, it's not just Queensland, and it's not just Australia. Low interest rates, a desirable location, and COVID have increased the demand for our dwellings. Until we are armed with all the data, all the facts, we can't determine what's best. We can only follow through with the process and policy we have currently in place.
01:41:00 And that policy, that document, the doyen of all things that we uphold, the Noosa Plan, states that this dwelling has a consistent use in the area it is situated to be deemed suitable for STA. Councillors, I come back to those words. Fairness, consistency, and an even playing field. If this had come before us in February, there would have been a recommendation for approval. What's changed? We know that there is a housing crisis, but we don't know what's causing it. Indeed, if that was the case, then back in December, everything should have changed from then. Holding the line in the Noosa Plan, as you all espouse so readily, is what we need to do in this instance. Holding the line until we are armed with the facts, the data, and the correct information to make the right decision. It must be, it is deemed consistent, and I object to this refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I don't support the refusal.
01:42:00 I believe that we have to follow the policy and the process, especially in the name of equity, and the time of the application. I agree that we don't have all the evidence before us, and I believe that for due diligence and informed decision making, it's prudent to wait until we have the reports back in October. When the staff will respond to the resolutions, through the workshop firstly, and then a report in October. We're in challenging times, given that we are fundamentally changed by COVID. COVID has impacted the housing, not just here in Noosa, across the globe. People are looking towards, for good leadership, and I think to provide good leadership that is fair and consistent. That we need to be informed by policy and data, that I'm not satisfied that we have all of that.
01:43:00 With regards to performance outcomes, PO 14 clearly states that it offers a diversity of types and styles to cater for a range of visitor experiences in close proximity to key tourist areas. I agree with everything that's been put to the table today, and we are in challenging times indeed. But I think we need to rely on true and correct information, not outdated information. We need up-to-date, current and informed information, considering the pace we're moving, the time and place given COVID, and how we have to be agile and use informed data and stats to speak to us in this current time. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to first start off with just a conversation I had with a resident last week.
01:44:00 We keep making reference to housing crisis. He made me think about this quite differently. He said that what we're actually experiencing is what's referred to as an economic crisis that's being brought about by low interest rates, and people demanding return on investments. They're making lifestyle-driven purchases. The workplace has changed since COVID, but people are learning to work remotely. So the pressure that we're seeing on accommodation is a casualty of this economic crisis. Also, I want to make quick reference to the ABS, another resident that I've spoken to, about data. He's given me reference, and I'll throw this to the planning officers, and Patrick, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics has published a regional internal migration estimates.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 It's a temporary publication provided in response to COVID-19 and the heightened interest in internal migration data. So it throws its, it's the most up-to-date information we have, about these trends with data up to September quarter of 2020. And it's quite an interesting read. And again, changes the conversation a little bit. Now back to 30 Kingfisher Drive. Noosa and the rest of Australia is facing a challenge in regards to housing supply and availability. But as we stated last month, at last month's round of meeting, that shouldn't be the reason that we changed the interpretation and approach to the planning scheme. Last month, we resolved to work on data and empirical research to inform policy changes. We need this body of work to be done, in my opinion, to substantiate any changes in policy relating to short-term accommodation.
01:46:00 As Councillor Stockwell correctly stated, we just can't rely on unity water data or CBA regional index or DMAT, because in my opinion, it's not reliable, nor accurate, nor up to date. So in the meantime, each planning application that comes before us must be assessed on its planning merits and whether it meets the outcomes as sought by the Noosa Plan. Further, we need to also understand when the time that the application was lodged and what information and relevant planning material was available at that time and what information was out in the public domain. At the time this application was lodged, which was on the 31st of March, Council had considered other STAs in medium density zones and they approved all of these applications. Planners were guided by this information
01:47:00 and these planning decisions. At no stage was community or industry told that there is no need for short-term accommodation in Peregian Beach. I note, and we've had a good conversation, that Council's needs assessment housing report will be brought to Council in October. So until that's complete, until that's made public to industry and community, again, we can only assess the applications against the Noosa Plan. I do want to note that it seems irregular, in my opinion, that planning officers and not Council have decided when enough is enough. I go back to the planning scheme, which was, you know, years and years and years in the making. And I look at it as the guiding document that controls land uses and development of the Noosa Shire.
01:48:00 So back to application of 30 Kingfisher Drive. I believe that this application can be supported because I go to the strategic framework and it's consistent with the strategic framework. It's located within the medium density area. It's located in close proximity to the tourist and recreational areas. It's approximately 190 metres from the town centre and it's opposite the park and beach. The proposed short-term accommodation at 30 Kingfisher Drive supports Noosa tourism industry and provides what's referred to as an alternative form of visitor accommodation to resorts, motel and motel and hotel developments. Not all people want to stay in resorts and hotels. People want to bring their pets on holidays. They want to spend $5,000 a night or they want to spend $100 or $80 a night on holidays. And that's why alternative forms of visitor accommodation
01:49:00 is encouraged and supported in the Noosa Plan. This application meets the performance outcomes of the Coastal Communities Codes. It provides visitor accommodation in proximity to key tourist areas such as the Peregian Beach Local Commercial Centre, beachfront park areas and bikeways. The subject area is located in areas that caters for both visitor accommodation as well as residential dwellings used for permanent accommodation. We know that STAs do have the potential to have significant impact on the amenity of surrounding areas, as mentioned, noise, car parking, waste. However, that's why we condition these development applications. So we provide the opportunity to regulate or mitigate these potential impacts. And further, we're in the process of completing a code of conduct, which again will mitigate all these potential impacts.
01:50:00 Issues of noise nuisance raised in the objections of this application and party houses. I keep saying this, it's not acceptable in any short-term accommodation use. And we have the advantage of being able to condition those impacts. Also, I want to note, the applicant has actually stated that they actually proposed to use the house that both permanent and non-permanent and short-term accommodation and family holidays. So when no one's visiting Noosa, as they are doing at the moment, as, you know, 10% occupancy rates at the moment in short-term accommodation, they will then revert that to short-term, to longer-term accommodation. They're also bought the place to enjoy themselves. I've been criticized by saying that these, a lot of these non-permanent
01:51:00 short-term applicants are not mum and dad investors. This applicant is a mum and dad investor. And I actually spoke to them and I want to share this information. The applicant invests in the community and they invest a lot in the, in the Peregian community. The house was furnished by the shops in the Peregian Village, the beautiful homes where store, which I wish I could remember. When they visit, this family eat at local restaurants. They buy locally made products and they choose local experiences. The guests who are going to be paying upwards of $500 a night will be shopping locally, eating locally, choosing local experiences. That means they get their hair cut, their nails done. They hire surfboards, surf coaches, hire private ships. They eat out. They go to gyms. They take yoga classes. They take Pilates classes. They visit our hinterland
01:52:00 and markets, our bars, our distilleries, our galleries. They walk our trails. They visit our park. The home will employ managers, cleaners, handymen, electricians, plumbers, painters, gardens, lawn maintenance providers. My family is the typical Airbnb visitor. When my children were on tour and when the world was pre-COVID, I spent a lot of time in Airbnb in the south coast of Victoria and in New South Wales. We were the family. We didn't go to grocery stores. We shopped out. We mingled with the locals. We enjoyed local experiences. We still have friends in these pockets of the world that come and visit us. In fact, family from Torquay came and visited us just recently. I'm going to just quickly wind this up. I did get a lot of stats before this meeting and I'll share this one. The number one industry subdivision
01:53:00 of employment for Peregian Beach is food and beverages, 7.9%. The top five occupation sub-major groups of employment in Peregian were health professionals at 7.4%, education professions at 7%, sales assistant and sales people at 6.7%, hospitality, retail and service managers, 5.8%. So, in closing, we cannot allow changes to our visitor accommodation without proper consideration of these proposed changes and this must be made public as tourist accommodation is vital to the businesses in Peregian and to the whole Noosa Shire community. And any decision we make to limit or reduce the number of STA is going to have direct impact on these industries. And finally, again, to recap what Council Stockwell said, we also have a duty
01:54:00 as a Council to ensure that we maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Council. And that demands that we make informed decisions based on up-to-date data and empirical research and economic and social impact analysis study. It also demands that any change of policy is communicated to industry and community within the public domain. And for this reason, I refuse to support the application and I, oh, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah, Lars, Lars, lucky Lars, apart from the, apart from the mover. Look, Councillor, I won't, won't delve into too much of this. Councillor Clarenston's outlined the economic value of SDAs. Councillor Stewart talked about the housing crisis because of SDAs. Well, I don't think anybody's actually saying SDAs are the cause of the housing crisis, but they certainly, you know, they're, if long-term accommodation
01:55:00 is taken out of the, the housing availability, and we keep, keep debating on every one of these applications the benefits and otherwise of SDAs, that, that, that there will be, there will be an impact on the available housing, housing stock for long-term, long-term residents. But it's interesting that the migration data, and I thank you for clarifying that 49%, I didn't believe that figure last month and I was trying to work out where that 49% came from and yeah, 0.7 or 1% change. Speaker 9: That's an interesting statistic because that means that people Councillor Jurisevic: are actually moving here for long-term. So, and that means that there must be housing stock available for them to use. So they may well be buying properties that have SDA approval but not using them as SDAs. I don't know. A lot of this information isn't, isn't as clear cut as, as we think. But to have an increase in the migration data suggests that that's,
01:56:00 to me, and that's me personally, suggests that there must be people that are finding properties that have, may, may have approval for SDAs that, that, that are being utilised for, for longer stay. I'm not prepared to refuse this on the basis, there's still some information that, that I'd like to see and some clarity in the, in the figures that have been quoted before us. But, like the others, I mean, I'm, I'm, I like Council Stockwell and I'm on a finely tipped edge at the moment and I think by probably given the information, if we can clarify the information by any application received before the first of, by the, the end of the financial year, I'm probably likely to, to continue to support anything after that time I will probably not support because I think we've drawn, you know, staff have, will be indicating to applicants that they've drawn a line in the sand. But, I do think we need to go and look at this more closely
01:57:00 under our, our planning scheme and our planning scheme amendments going forward. But I'm, I'm willing to support the, the application for, for this property in its location where it is. I think it, it, it does suit a, a tourism locality. To the, the shopping centre of, of town and, I, I think it will add to the, the element. There is one, one thing that I, that, that I don't support and that is the sheer size of the property. You know, with the, the number of bedrooms and all the rest of it. It has the potential for a large group to want to utilise this. And they're the ones that we tend to have the most, most difficulty with. But of course, if, if all of the elements of short stays we've been talking about with regard to residential amenity are applied, I, I, I see
01:58:00 as a suitable location to, to be approved. So I'll be, I won't be supporting the recommendation before. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Just in closing, a few points. It seemed to be, listeners may be given the impression this is a debate over the value of the visitor compared to the local resident. We, we know the value of the visitor. They spend their money. They make a contribution to the economy. But so do residents. And residents are there for the long term. And residents are the ones who keep trade going and flowing through the doors of businesses in the low season. And residents are the ones who are, live in these, these communities full time. And I think their value should not be underestimated in terms of when we, when we come to assess the mix of a, the residences versus visitor accommodation in a community. We know the value
01:59:00 of the visitor. We also know the value of the resident. What we're actually being asked to do here is assess this application against the merits of the planning scheme, against the outcomes of the Noosa planning scheme, and to hold the line on the Noosa planning scheme. We've heard from the expert staff that this application conflicts with the higher order principles which take precedent over the, the, the code of the zone. Which also is impact assessable. So staff have correctly assessed the impacts of another STA in this medium density residential neighbourhood. And they've said it's going to further detract from the higher order principles of the planning scheme, detract from the availability of permanent accommodation in the medium density zones in Peregian Beach. We know that from the data before us that there's at least approximately 50% of all the properties in this, this medium density residential zone
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 has been converted already to short term accommodation. We know the higher order principles of the planning scheme say it should be predominantly for residential use. We know we're already in April 2020. We know that there's been 115 applications for short term accommodation granted not just in Peregian for short term accommodation since the planning scheme was approved after that. So it's likely to be more short term accommodation. We know that the staff are recommending refusal. We know that the community in this area is recommending that we support the staff in their refusal of this application. We know that there is a specifically set aside for visitor accommodation there's a development under construction in the Peregian Village itself. 99 bedrooms all for visitor accommodation.
02:01:00 It's a mix of 51 different townhouses and units some up to three bedrooms in size where they will get an experience of not just being in a motel room but also a townhouse by the beach right in the heart of Peregian Village close to shops. There is clearly no need for more visitor accommodation in this precinct. If you all could take a guess of what the reports are likely to show is that the trend is likely to be that short term accommodation is going to be around 50% or higher. If I had to bet that would be my guess. We're asked to make tough decisions and pivot. The reason why there are changes in the staff's assessment of the short term planning short term accommodation applications against the planning scheme is because
02:02:00 they have new data. We know that there's a it's already gone past the point of the point where residents permanent residents in medium density residential neighborhoods could be shown to be the predominant form of accommodation. And I'll go back to the motion it's in black and white. It says the acknowledged shortage of housing availability for permanent residents. And we know that simple maths decrees that you take one more house convert one more house to short term accommodation you reduce the dwindling available supply of permanent housing available for permanent residents. That's the reasons why I'm supporting the staff recommendations for refusal
02:03:00 in this application. Put it to the vote. Those in favour. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilkie. Those against. Councillor Laurencson. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stewart. The motion is lost. We have a Speaker 7: Councillor my advice would be that it would be logical for councillors to move a resolution seeking reviewed staff report for Thursday 9th which would include Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move that. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor to move Councillor Lorentson. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Lorentson? No. I've said enough, thank you. Councillor Stewart? No, thank you. Anybody else? Put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Councillors, it's been a while since you started this meeting. May we have a short adjournment? Yes, please. Anyone want to be talked about? Then we'll go on to item two.
02:13:00 We're ready? Thank you. Speaker 7: Ready you are. Mm. Councillor Wilkie: Welcome back everybody. We're now to item two on the agenda, which is MCU 210079,
02:14:00 which is a development application for a material change of use short-term accommodation at 4 Teales Street, Dorothy Beach. Tom, do you wanna move? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yup. I move the staff recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, move Councillor Wegener. Seconder, for the purpose of debate, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question to you and I. Does there are previous interest needs to be set in place? Mayor Stewart: Yes, I would. No, I don't think she made an application. Councillor Wilkie: I don't believe Susan Francis made an application. I'll double check that, but I don't think she did. Good question. Yeah, good question. Councillor Lorentson: I'm sure it would have been picked up. I don't think she did. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener, you have the floor. I didn't think of that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was asking a question. You cheeky bugger. Mayor Stewart: Bridging Beach Community Association made a submission. Alex Murray made two. Christopher Mackey and Penny Holcomb and Graham Reid are the ones I've got on my...
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Look, I'll second it. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Obviously, we just... They spent two wonderful hours talking about the last one. The same issues apply, generally speaking, except that this one is much further away from the town centre. And the argument that they say that this is conveniently located right next to the town centre, restaurants and so forth, is not accurate. And so, when the tech community, when they all went in there, they bought their properties probably years ago. And so, when the tech community, when they all went in there, they bought their properties probably years ago. So, do you think that they anticipated this SPS situation coming where all of a sudden neighbors' houses would be used for short-term accommodation so easily? And we are hearing that no, they did not expect that to happen, and we also are hearing that the amenity of the neighborhood is being eroded by the short-term...
02:16:00 And it's not necessarily that the party houses. Yes, we can regulate many of these things, but part of the amenity is just knowing that you have neighbors, that you live in a community, and you live in a place where a person across the road is going to be there for a long time, and the dual majority of people. So when we talk about predominantly short-term stay, I think even 25%, if there's 25% short-term stays in a community, I would say that's predominantly, that's on the edge of what is predominantly residential versus short-term stay. Meaning that 75% resident, 25% short-term stay still could actually mean predominantly short-term stay. I'm not down with that 50%, 49%, whatever.
02:17:00 So in this case, we have a neighborhood which doesn't really, it's in medium density, but it's a long ways away from the town center. You would have a resident there that bought there, surely not expecting this to be a tourist zone. It is, even though they're closed, it might not be exactly what 50% short-term stays. You can look at the stars on the map and you can say it's definitely borderline, not being predominantly. Residential anymore, it has a feel of a tourist zone, that's what we don't want. And I think that the residents have spoken very loudly in their belief and their interpretation that their amenity has been being eroded. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Lorentson: Respect to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll keep this much briefer than the last application.
02:18:00 I don't agree with that. I think that the reason for refusal that there is no need for additional short-term accommodation. I asked the same question. When was this change of policy ever endorsed? When was it communicated to industry or community? And when, exactly when did this happen? For what reasons? And each application must be assessed again on its own merits and against the provisions of the planning scheme. And this is a matter of course, the plan was established in March 2021. And it was lodged in April 2021. At the time, council considered other STAs and medium density zone and they approved all these applications. Planners again were guided by these planning decisions and this information. I've been informed by the applicant's town planner during that during this application, council officers did not request any further information or clarification of information.
02:19:00 But the fact is they released information wanted to assist in their assessing the application. And they progressed all the way through public submission phase and then through to the decision phase. So when they were advised that the application will not be supported, they were quite surprised by it. So, on assessing this application against the NOESA plan. So, on assessing this application against the NOESA plan. It can be supported on a number of grounds, including that it's consistent with the strategic intent of the Noosa plan, that it's consistent with the intent of a coastal community's locality, with Coorijin Beach detailed as a focus area for visitor accommodation. The design of the existing dwelling minimises potential perceived impacts on the adjoining properties, and this property, there is sufficient car parking available on site.
02:20:00 Again, I won't revisit the reasons I've already stated in the previous application, and I will not support refusing this application. To do so, in my opinion, is unfair, unjust and unreasonable, and in my opinion, it will severely put at risk the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of council. Again, we've resolved to work on... Up-to-date data and empirical research to inform policy changes, and this work has to be done before we can substantiate any changes in policy relating to short-term accommodation. Again, the fact that Noosa's facing a challenge in regards to housing supply and availability should not be the reason that we change the interpretation and approach to the planning scheme. And not without, again, up-to-date data.
02:21:00 Mayor Stewart: I also received similar information and I was informed that when the application was put forward or lodged in March 2021 we had considered other STAs that were in medium density and approved and at no time were these applicants were they given any indication that it was likely to be not approved and it's my understanding that council staff didn't request further information regarding this or as I said they weren't in any way shape or form given a heads up until recently when they were said this looks like it's not going anywhere it comes back to all the arguments put forward in the earlier one this is an area within Peregian Beach it's used for holiday
02:22:00 accommodation I believe it does adhere to performance outcomes specifically 14 and 15 and one and two and it's a family home you know it provides for an accommodation type that other people you know you can't in a motel you can't take your pets you can't take large families can't necessarily take grandma and granddad you can't do that in resort complexes at one two bedroom and I come back to what Councillor Wilkie said in the last instance this is actually all about the resident these decisions because our business owners are our residents they're the ones who are impacted by these decisions so yes we care about the visitor but this is all about the economy of our local area and that economy is run by our residents they're the owners of the cafes they're the owners of the hair salons they're the owners of the shops so when we make these decisions and when we stop accommodation and we potentially stop people coming to visit then we potentially impact our residents economy and our residents daily wage so I feel that this these
02:23:00 decisions are very much about the livelihoods and the consideration of our residents and I come back to Councillor Wegener saying the majority of Peregian or the residents were spoken and they don't want this well there's been five submissions in regard to this particular application and we take each application on its own merit three of those five submissions came from one was from the Peregian Beach Community Association which opposes short-term accommodation and the other two was from the same lady who had made a submission twice and there were two separate submissions as far as I'm aware so the five submissions there were three who came from the same organisation so I wouldn't say that represents the vast number of people or residents in Peregian and I don't think as we've said all along we made a resolution until we have further data and research and until we really have the facts and the correct data we can't make decisions and we can't change policy
02:24:00 we can't change process so we have to stick with the town plan and this according to the town plan according to what the resident or the owner was information given to them this would originally this was deemed consistent so I won't be supporting the application recommendation by staff thank you Councillor Finzel: I just have a question on page 67 it says that the it was observed when a site inspection were made carried out in the dwelling no building approval was located in council records how did Speaker 10: it arrive at that thank you for asking the question well it was actually raised as part of one of the submissions or one someone nearby phone made a phone call and I discussed it with them and they
02:25:00 were concerned what was happening on the site so I did inspect the property and observed the works taking place unfortunately I wasn't didn't have the proper safety gear to go on to site at that point in time but did make subsequent contact with the applicant on a number of occasions by email they didn't respond to me I did actually ran into them as at a meeting and they gave me a verbal response in relation to that matter which said it was their understanding that the builder is going to apply for an approval but that's the only response I got in relation to the date so to clarify work had Councillor Finzel: commenced on the property prior to council having any awareness before the they might come they've Speaker 3: commenced work without a building approval okay so they haven't done it in the correct order okay thank you it's the nicest way to put it Councillor Jurisevic: Joe that would draw my question as to one would assume that no use could take part particularly
02:26:00 for in a way of short term accommodation if appropriate building certifications were in place Speaker 10: you might recall with the Williams Road as property which we approved in in Kin Kin and they were undertaking some works and we included it as a condition that the use was not to commence until such time as the building approvals were so I would suggest Councillor Jurisevic: that if this is unsuccessful and that is the case if this does not have a building approval that we could put that condition in there as well yeah I think that should be a standard condition for all that they have to have approval for and certification for the house as he currently stands and do we Councillor Lorentson: publish the name of the builder yeah that's pretty bad any more speakers to the motion the council's Deputy Mayor Stockwell: approval I'm not going to repeat previous arguments I'm going to do the unusual thing of identifying
02:27:00 the elements in the refusal that I agree with and the elements of the refusal that I agree with is that the coastal communique number one the extent of this accommodation as a resident so he wrote at the available supply of tenant housing in the local plan area it is very clearly that's the case but it is very clearly that's the case but can we do something about it I don't think we can do anything about it we've won that war we had an invasive force that started several years ago and in the Noosa plan 2020 we made it inconsistent in the low density residential zone we've had a couple of hundred I believe or near that amount of superseded planning applications in the low density residential zone but we said that's the line of the sand we've crossed that we've said no we've said there is a place for where we want it there's a place where we don't want it we don't want to progressing into our suburbs which are you know the vast majority of our coastal local planned area is low density
02:28:00 residential what we've been arguing about is the little skirmishes around the outside of the wall the little skirmishes are in the medium-density residential zone where we're trying to get the right balance between holiday and permanent and so I think we should be celebrating in a way that this is the first meeting we've had since this council made a very bold step to make short stay accommodation inconsistent in the low density residential zone because that's where the pressure was really being heaped on what we now have to decide is is there further pressure that will further erode the medium density residential zone from achieving the multiple objectives within that zone and you know for me um what I can't agree with is number three and hence why I'll say with my previous position of not supporting this recommendation thank you council stop right Councillor Wilkie: and the speakers to the motion
02:29:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll add one point there just because the property is approved as a short stack doesn't mean it'll be short stay forever I mean uh some people do use that opportunity for um for an investment perspective to uh to finance their uh their purchase as do uh as do many others uh see the uh the value of long-term accommodation uh not long-term rentals as uh as a means of doing it I think the uh uh what we're seeing what we've been seeing with migration data is that there's uh there's been there's been some movement in the opposite direction and that uh people are seeing the opportunity particularly through covered and I think they say this that there'll be a saturation point for each year where um there'll be an economic viability and I think there's a number of properties that aren't looking at that at that element at this stage but they're looking at the opportunity of uh of value adding to their property by having it uh approved as a short-term accommodation Councillor Wilkie: property thank you any other classes we'll speak to the motion
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Councillor Finzel: um I'll just say yeah I'll just I'll just reiterate I think um things have uh accelerated due to covered we're fundamentally changed in our approach um we are all about achieving balance for visitors and residents alike we are just having to move quickly in the space and in support of process and equity given the times of applications made unfortunately we've arrived at this intersection and there's a few casualties along the way but I still um strongly support up-to-date data and stats to speak to us so that we get this right moving Councillor Wilkie: forward thank you thank you councillor at the risk of sounding repetitive um I just want to make it clear that um the recommendation for refusal is something the staff put before before us because
02:31:00 this application does conflict with the Noosa planning scheme the higher order principles of the Noosa planning scheme we're being asked to uphold the principles of the Noosa planning scheme um the situation has changed we have new data before us that shows that uh arguably there's clearly an oversupply of visitor accommodation in the medium density residential neighborhoods and I support also the call from the data in these reports that are coming our way and I believe that we're all heading in the right direction with that um I don't want to give it give anyone the impression that if by refusing this particular application for short-term accommodation we're going to be there'll be insufficient visitor accommodation available in Phrygian Beach we've seen from the maps that at least 50 percent of properties in the
02:32:00 medium density residential zone are already available for visitor accommodation and business owners are dependent all year round on locals who sustain their businesses in the downtown areas of Phrygian Beach we're in danger of experiencing what the reports have shown us from other communities around the world where neighborhoods have been hollowed out they're no longer home to permanent residents and they become visitor accommodation precincts and there there aren't the locals to sustain the visitors through the downtime of the seasonally affected tourism trade the refusal is consistent with a factual assessment of the proliferation of short-term accommodation in the zone and what the community is telling us about its impact on medium density residential
02:33:00 neighborhoods uh I'm that's why I'm supporting this motion to refuse but I do look forward to further data down the track council leader Mr close yeah yeah get away and respond to Joe Councillor Wegener: it but it is going to take a minute because uh the response I'm going to give is uh so I'm not going off on one of my stories oh I'm disappointed um so you know things may change in the future you know right now um Jewish accommodations are hot so people are going you know kind of crazy getting on the bandwagon but I was talking to Ann Kennedy uh last week and I said so why did you start clean tech and she said well in the Sunshine Coast when they're closest when they're when we were amalgamated she said we tried to break the trend of boom and bust and tourism and building has a boom and a blast and they said what can we do to diversify the economy away from the boom and
02:34:00 bust of tourism and start working on these green technologies which which seems to be prolific on the Sunshine Coast and showed up out of that came clean tech which has really great jobs really great great companies that are here for the long term going forward in maintaining our economy diversifying away from tourism and that's what we want um so I think that when Joe says you know things may change I think we should be on the front foot to be saying well we know that there could be a blue with us but we're we're really putting all of our baskets into the two all of our eggs in the tourism basket and we know that that's a mistake we've learned that over and over um so that's that's so that's that's what the town plan is all about I mean when we look at this application um in with the entirety of the town plan well that's where the town plan is is really moving um that we want to diversify our economy and not put all of our eggs in the tourism basket
02:35:00 um when when Amelia asked when did things change um you know how do how do these people all of a sudden did this this uh change come about well I don't think it I think it's pretty obvious that it was going to come I mean I I when I look at the town planners I just say come on how did you possibly not know that it wasn't going to change the backlash started years ago under the Wellington um mayorship and there was a lot of community uproar and so I I think that um it it this change has happened now but it probably should have happened earlier but it's definitely good that it's happened because it's very obvious that the community the residents that are there are could have been putting up with this for long enough and they wanted to stop the residents wanted to stop the rape that that is that is us and um and they want actually to go back to uh the the steady flow but not the boom of us which we know is coming um when we say that business owners are residents that's true
02:36:00 and I I but by saying that they want to continue on the boom cycle right now and not be prepared for that with what's inevitable is is what happened the argument there's another equally true side of the argument so I will looking at the the entirety of the new plan it's clear to me that I will move to recommend the refusal of this application thank you we'll put the motion those in favor Councillor Wilkie: Council we're going to Council Wilkie those against Council Laurison Stockwell Jurisdict Finzel and Stewart the motion is lost last time someone care to move the motion before us move Councilor Finzel seconder please seconder Councilor Jurisdict sorry Councilor Laurison is the second Councilor Finzel used to speak to the motion I think we've said enough thank you okay any other Councilors to speak to the motion put
02:37:00 the motion those in favor uh Councilor Stewart Finzel opposed Councilor Laurison are you in favor and Councilor Laurison uh against Councilor Wilkie and Wegner and that's carried we'll now move on to item three thank you Kerry and Patrick thank you item three climate change response plan and community consultation submissions that's page 84 of the planning environment committee agenda and welcome Rebecca and Annie okay thank you Speaker 7: Councilors some questions for staff one of the questions that was asked at the planning environment committee was whether or not there was any need to look at any of the wording I changed the wording
02:38:00 as a result of the publication last week the staff have gone away had a look at that there's a lot of work involved in that maybe I'll just get Rebecca to give a quick update on that yeah so the information we provided you was based on us doing a Speaker 11: review of the latest IPC's report we feel that the climate change response plan is consistent with the science and the latest findings of that report that the response plan provides a pathway for a more resilient Noosa in terms of preparing for the impacts of climate change and for reducing emissions and we'll continue to monitor the science of course as things continue to as we continue to learn more but at this stage from a staff's perspective we don't feel like anything needs to be changed in the response plan at this point Councillor Wilkie: will the state government give you any guidance on that if it needs to be I believe so yes they would do yeah Mayor Stewart: Council does anyone wish to move a motion I've just got a few questions for the CEO
02:39:00 just under section 4 the local government act 2009 relevantly provides the state parliament requires anyone working in local government abides by the local government principles section 4-2b outlines that the relevant principles to climate change is sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure and delivery of effective services so just on that is it correct that Noosa shy cannot place climate policies above all others if you read sustainable development to meet action on climate change then is this is is this not of equal importance to management of assets and delivery of services it's just a question for the CEO Speaker 7: I'm not sure I understand the question so I'm talking about the principles I'm just talking about Mayor Stewart: climate change in general and about the policies just that we can't put climate change embed them in it we've got to treat them of equal importance under the act there's management of assets and
02:40:00 deliveries of services I'm just confirming if that's right yeah I guess I'll get into that in Speaker 7: general terms the the council will adopt a whole range of strategies and policies covers all sorts of topics and each of them has the same weight in terms of adopting by council resolution so I'm not too sure that's right no it's going to be on that but you know what I'm saying is that every policy that the council adults has weight every plan the council adults has weight some councillors and some people in committee will think that some are more important than others in terms of resolutions all those Councillor Jurisevic: resolutions have equal weight be fair to say though that the the elements of flow through from policy and and across policies and down through policies would would give weight to the other to the level Speaker 7: of their policy yeah it's also fair to say there's probably um I'm afraid to term hierarchies there's
02:41:00 There's probably a framework in terms of different documents as well which the Act sets out. So the Premier planning document, if you like, is a full plan. So that does have a greater weight. That's the overarching document that sets out what Council's long-term goals are. And then you sit underneath that operational plan and policy design. So that's the one that probably has the greater weight, if I can use that term, in terms of its application. Mayor Stewart: No, just another question on that. No, just, Annie, this might be a question for your bit. Page 9 outlines, number 1, plan is structured under 8 things, strong leadership and governance. So good governance is within the local government principles, but nowhere does the Act identify that Council have a leadership role on climate change. So Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2009 sets out the local government principles. None of them have to do with teaching the community. So is the word, should the word leadership be in there if we actually can't do it under the Act?
02:42:00 Speaker 7: I can answer that. Council has a range of roles, and Council would have heard me talk about this before, where sometimes we're advocates, sometimes we're partners, sometimes we do delivery. So the Act doesn't talk about having an advocacy role. The Act doesn't talk about all those, you know, partnership roles and so on. It's a role that the Council plays in terms of being able to achieve its objectives. Sometimes we do things directly. Sometimes we advocate to other levels of government. Sometimes we provide information to our community. The whole range of roles that we can play to achieve the objectives that we're trying to achieve. Mayor Stewart: Just on page 16, the $35 billion, where does that come from and what does that represent? That's what it's costing.
02:43:00 For example, the cost of extreme weather in Australia is more than doubled. It's totalling $35 billion. I'm just wondering what that represents and where's it coming from. Speaker 3: That's right. Mayor Stewart: Page 16. Speaker 11: There's just been a number of studies that have been done by various agencies to try and cost what the damage costs would be from extreme weather and climate-related disasters. So that $35 million is from one of those studies suggesting that, you know, that the cost of extreme weather in Australia has more than doubled since 1970, totalling $35 billion over the past decade. Mayor Stewart: So is that what the government has spent or what it's cost? Because it's spending and costing are two different things. Speaker 11: Yeah. Annie was just saying here, it's from the insurance industry.
02:44:00 So it's what it's cost in insurance terms based on damages and calculated costs based on that. Mayor Stewart: So it's cost, I guess, the community, not government. So is that correct? Yeah. I'm not sure. Councillor Jurisevic: What's the next question? Mayor Stewart: Just the $35 billion. Yep. So what does it represent and where's it from? Because if it represents government spending, it's a different thing to actually represent. Speaker 7: I don't know if it's referring to policies paid out. Mayor Stewart: So cost of extreme weather to insurance companies. Speaker 7: That's right. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, Mayor? I'll come back to them if I do. John? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you for all the time you've taken to produce this. But just from an overview perspective, based on all of that community consultation and input,
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 were there any significant changes to the policy from the draft that went out? Speaker 11: No significant changes. But it helped to clarify the areas of concern for different groups out in the community and for individuals. And many were able to provide some detailed comment that allowed us to make improvements to the wording within the plan. Councillor Jurisevic: I know that seems to be the only change were tweaks in that on wording. The essence of the plan didn't change. It's just some tweaks and some improvements on the language being utilised. Speaker 11: That's correct. Yeah. Thank you. I was happy with it. I was happy with it originally. I'm happy with it now. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Go on. Tom. Councillor Wegener: Could you give us the next step to describe the implementation plan next that's going to spin off from this? Speaker 11: Yeah. So for the next couple of months, Annie Grant and I will go away and start building up a more detailed action plan. So in the back of this document, there's a set of priority actions.
02:46:00 We'll flesh that out a bit more in terms of some of the staff resources or other partners that we would need to collaborate with to be able to implement those actions, what it might look like, and specifically what sort of programming we would need to do around it, what budgets required. As part of putting that detail around it, we'll establish the community reference group. And one of their objectives is to establish a community reference group. And I think as we discussed at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting, that Implementation Plan will be important for informing Council's budget deliberations early next year as well. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Amelia, would you like to move your motion? We're going to ask questions as we go. Yep, sure. Shall we move this along? Councilor Lawrenson's motion.
02:47:00 Councillor Lorentson: It's an amendment to the motion. Yeah. I'd like to include... An addition. An addition, yep. Read out the addition. So D, request the CEO to investigate options for the formation of a new reference group or the like to participate in Council's climate change response and contribute to practical solutions. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Lorentson: No. Seconder. Councilor Whetstone. Councilor Lawrenson. No. Thank you. We have low or no representation of young people in any of our advisory groups. I want to first acknowledge the great work done by Dahlia at the Education Environmental Hub and the Youth Summit Group, and I expect that this group will be represented in this Youth Council-led Youth Reference Group. And what I'm envisaging with this group, that it's going to be quite broad.
02:48:00 I'd love to see youth between the ages anywhere as young as 8 to 19 involved. This, to me, is our opportunity to give kids an opportunity to have, A, a meaningful role in politics and decision making, particularly matters that affect them directly. And it's also our opportunity as a Council to listen to all of our constituents, including our kids. What does climate change mean to a 10-year-old? What does it mean to an 11-year-old, a 12-year-old, a 15-year-old, and an 18-year-old? How is this impacting their mental health and future? And what do they want us to do about it? And how can we include these goals and initiatives in our implementation plan? What actions do we need to make? What actions do we need to take to make their future more sustainable and liveable? It's interesting. I talk to a lot of kids, and they're seriously exposed to social media.
02:49:00 And they're all over the threat of climate catastrophe. And they blame us adults for making the world a worse place. And they're really worried about it. They're depressed. Some of them talk about not wanting to have kids. So that's why we need to support, nurture, and support our kids. We need to help and empower young people not only to participate in debate issues that affect them, but to also expose them to political processes and allow them to contribute to practical solutions that will help shape their future. They are the beneficiaries of this response plan. And they're the ones who must keep us on our toes and make us accountable. We have a responsibility as a council to give our kids faith in the future and faith also in local government. And let them know that good things can come about with good leadership. We need to do what we can to protect their rights to a sustainable and liveable future.
02:50:00 So I hope everyone can support this addition. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just a question to Councillor Lorentson. Part E of the recommendation is that the CEO develop a detailed implementation action plan in consultation with the community reference group. Do you envisage the youth reference group to be part of that or a separate group? Councillor Lorentson: No. I've actually had some conversation this morning with staff and that was initially where I was going. I thought it would be great to have two youth people represented in that community reference group. But after a bit of consideration, I think that is the concern that they may not feel comfortable around a table with the same group or with adults. And that's the option to investigate. So it would be great to just have a couple of options. Maybe run a parallel group to the community reference group, a subgroup, but allow them
02:51:00 to be in their own environment where they can freely and comfortably and confidently contribute. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Yeah. Of course you could see our lovely aspirational thing. We've been driving elements of this for a long, long time. And I've been banging on about circular economy for as long as I've been on council. There's still elements that where we have changed needs to be driven. How do we ensure that this filters through to the operations of council and that we lead the way in implementing the changes here? I know we're doing parts of it. There are elements that conflict with some of the operations here. There are elements that conflict with some of the operations here. How do we ensure that this filters through to become the new norm for all of council officers? Very good question. Speaker 7: It's right. This goes over the whole of council application. And four weeks ago, Rebecca had a session with our whole leadership group that's all managed across the entire organisation having a look at, before this policy comes up to council,
02:52:00 everyone have a look at it. These are the implications for your area. Let's talk through what this means. Are you ready to be able to implement once we get it adopted? So we've done that readiness to be able to go forward. The second thing that will happen obviously is once we get the detailed implementation action plan is how we then roll that out through the organisation. So there's two parts to that. One is what I call the awareness component about what people need to be doing. But the second then I would also be budget issues, setting up projects or doing things. And that timing, to have this done in three months' time, will actually be quite nice going into the next budget process as well, where the council can then resource up to be able to implement any projects that it wants to do. Speaker 11: We've got climate change as a standing item on the leadership agendas too. So as they meet monthly or periodically, we'll have that opportunity to call in advice and information from the group and share what we're learning along the way. Councillor Jurisevic: So elements of procurement, such as using resources.
02:53:00 I mean, the most common example would be, you know, the use of recycled materials in asphalt and concrete and things like that as the norm and the standard rather than non-use of recycled materials. I mean, how do we put that forward? Part of the regional roads and transport group, I put that forward to the entire group. And the TMR to try and look at an implementation across a range of councils so that it becomes the local bystander as opposed to individual councils trying to stand up to this. And, of course, an example was 21 councils in Sydney combined for that buying power of 21 councils to lead a new standard which brought prices down by 20%. So those are the sort of things we'd be looking at and how do we then partner with other councils from a procurer perspective as well for those sort of things. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's an example of the sorts of things that we'll be looking at within this implementation plan and that they will be prioritised around what we actually need to do. So, as I said, we've done a lot of research.
02:54:00 And what you've just given an example of is a fantastic way that so many other councils right throughout Australia work together on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And as part of the work or grant that we've just been awarded through LGAQ, there's now another five councils that are actually working together to actually build that alliance. So that could be one of the projects that is actually looked at as part of that alliance. But it's more of an example rather than that's specifically what we're going to do. It's actually looking at all of those sorts of things when we go through our procurement. What do we have to do in advocacy? What do we have to do within the education piece to get example projects like that up? Councillor Jurisevic: I think I need to send you a copy of that presentation I sent to TMR and to the regional race transport group so that you can see how at least one other conglomeration of councils has done it. I'll do that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the council's supposed to speak to the motion, please. Yeah, I've just got a question. Councillor Finzel: So firstly, I'd like to thank all the staff for their contribution to this document, which
02:55:00 is pretty broad and comprehensive. So thank you. Just a question. With the community reference groups being set up through the CEO, I noticed ZEN has already been stated as inclusive because of memorandum of understanding. CEO, are we planning to do the same with ZEN? With the Sunshine Coast University, given we've now got the memorandum of understanding in place with them? Speaker 7: I'll take advice from the staff. We'll probably give them a bit more thought in terms of where we're going with the group. Speaker 11: We've also always had a strong partnership with the University of the Sunshine Coast on a range of projects, including to help inform some of the priorities of this document. So I imagine that will continue. Whether they want to come on board as one of the members of the community reference group, we'll provide an invite there.
02:56:00 But it's for them how they might want to participate. As you said, there's already an MOU with the university. We might be able to link in with that. Sure. Speaker 7: That would happen. We'll tell you that at the moment. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors who wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Tom. This is on Amelia's motion. Then we go back and we can speak to the previous motion. No, no. This is the motion. Just within a minute. There's a chance, Tom. Right. Okay. Well, first of all, Amelia's amendment is spectacular. That's just great. Thank you for that, for thinking of that. My son, this last week, actually had basically a day of just meltdown. He was looking at his future and saying, my God, where am I going? What am I going to do? And he's a smart dude. He reads Xenophon on the weekends and stuff. And by thinking ahead, he just can't actually quite imagine what will be the future because it is so far out there. What possibilities are there and what possibilities are likely?
02:57:00 So I've prepared a quick speech. Climate change response plan is the most important report we will vote on this term. Climate change is overtaking us. The science is clear and we must respond. The COVID pandemic crisis, though minute in comparison to the climate change, has taught us that government action is essential in responding to these disasters. When it comes to climate change, local government is well-placed to take meaningful action. This plan gives a handful of significant and relatively easily implementable strategies. As you know, I'm interested in locally produced food. And the plan strategy number six reflects that. Noosa is blessed with extensive rainfall and land zoned for agriculture. I believe supporting local farming is an act of resiliency. I believe seeing farming here, visiting farms, and even getting your hands dirty brings a sense of empowerment. It builds community and this is extremely important in the incredible crisis that we are facing.
02:58:00 I'm supporting Noosa Agriculture Hub, which will facilitate new farmers on the land. And Karen and I have been talking about this for a year. Climate change response plan puts fuel in the tank for this project, or I should say, charges the battery. I look forward to implementing the climate change response plan. And again, this plan is the most important bit of work we will do this term. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Can I just have one more question? I'm just interested, speaking to this, is there any directives from the state government, like there was around the Noosa plan? Is there any directors from state informing you of any of this work, or outcomes that they want to see achieved through our implementation of the climate? Speaker 11: We haven't really been discussing it with any particular directors at the state. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 11: Thank you. There's lots of avenues where we can pursue that. But I guess through, probably through the LGAQ is where we've mostly talked about
02:59:00 being a conduit through to the state, through the grants programs, like the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 11: And Department of Environment and Science. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was right of the Mayor to highlight the local government principles. And I hadn't prepared a speech, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of what I just did. So, and highlighting that one of the principles is that we have to be mindful of sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure and delivery of effective services. So, sustainable development is a key term. The Brundtland Report in 1987 had the most widely accepted definition of what sustainable development entails, and it defined it as, development that meets the need of the present
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. So, Councillors, the first climate motion in this Council was in 1990, when I moved it. The first target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions was in 1990, and it said that we should reduce greenhouse emissions by 20% by the year 2005. Guess what? We ignored the advice. We didn't meet it. In fact, since 2005, if you take out the effect of tree clearing rules, we've increased our emissions by 7%. So, we're already one generation down the road that we've compromised their future. There is no doubt that inaction at every level of government has not followed the
03:01:00 principles of sustainable development and management. Now, we can go down practical lines. So, what does it mean to prioritise climate change when it comes to infrastructure? Well, let's look at the millions of dollars we spend on stormwater drainage. We're doing stormwater drainage along our river, and if we don't follow the recommendations as part of this plan, which talks about adaptation to the change, that stormwater will stop, on majority occasions, bringing water from the street to the river, and start every high tide bringing the water from the river into the storm. It's not the future. It's what we have to do now every time we make a decision. It's not just intergenerational equity. Another one of the principles is about ethical behaviour of councils. And can I say that mitigating, adapting to climate change and its causes is going to go down in history as the ethical question of our age.
03:02:00 It's not going to be something that's going to go down in history as the ethical question of 100 years' time. It's not something that, if we still have history in 1,000 years' time, that people forget. In fact, it's likely that history books will show last week as a seminal point, or at least I hope, for the good. Because last week, the United Nations Secretary-General highlighted what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a few simple words. He said, it's code red. It's code green. And this is not fear tactics. This is the reality that since 1990, we've had a business-as-usual projection, which means that the amount of emissions that we're having is equal to what we now call a worst-case scenario. There's many scenarios in the future, but it all pins on every government taking action
03:03:00 as proposed in this plan. It's underpinned if we take seriously what we're doing. It's underpinned if we take seriously what we're doing. It's our responsibility to be leaders to ensure that future generations of Noosa have the opportunity that we've had over our generation that we need to consider this. So let's just look at one example of what's happened since 2010. The first time we had a climate action plan being prepared, the first workshop was done by the old Wiser Association in September 2010. And all the emergency services people and the community health got together and they said, look, the number one priority that's going to be in the future is going to be the loss of life and the fact that we're going to have more emergencies and under-resourced emergency services was their second one. The third one was that the change in fire and climate will result, the change in vegetation and climate will result to extreme fires. That was what they took in 2010.
03:04:00 In 2012, Ross Garnaut did a report and said, by 2020, Australia will be the number one country in the world that will have more extreme fire risk as a result of climate change. And we all know as a community what that meant. It meant that both the 2010 workshop had reasonable forecasts and that Ross Garnaut was right. Because we were the first council in Australia in the black summer of fires in 2019-20 that was evacuating whole suburbs in the face of fires that this community was facing. And that was the first time in the context, early spring, on the first day in South East Queensland history where there was catastrophic fire conditions. And that is the sort of future that we have to plan for. Unless Australia and the world as a community takes plans like this seriously.
03:05:00 Now I believe Grant said one time that the stats about the fires was that they had a one in 500,000 chance of occurring. And that's not true. But there's more to this, we've already mentioned about the mental health, but we as ethical councillors have to take in the health of our community and it's probably important to recognise that under the powers of local government, number nine, number one says a local government has to be able to do anything that is necessary or convenient for the good rule and local government of its local government area. There's nothing more important than trying to look after the health and welfare. So the change to dry springs and large storm events may mean that we have things, not just the intense heat that is the most risk to our elderly people, but also greater vector borne diseases because we have these different conditions. So our health and well-being is also at risk.
03:06:00 So I don't want to end on the doom and gloom. Because if we do nothing, it is a doom and gloom scenario. They don't take it away. If we continue on our current trajectory worldwide, our children and their children will have a very different world to ourselves. So I'd like to bring up a photo. And that photo is the last panel went on that system on Friday. I've sold my unit there so I can talk about this project, which I've had some involvement in for two years. It's a huge solar array in a commercial entity in Noosa, almost doubling the size and that's not all that there's more off to the left, almost doubling the size of the last one. It's probably the largest solar system on Australia title resort in Australia.
03:07:00 And that actually doesn't make that resort net zero emissions. It makes it carbon positive. It's actually generating 125% of the tech electricity needs. And why is that exciting? Yeah. Why is it exciting is that it's making the body corporate money. It's a no brainer for other resorts in Noosa and Australia to do the same sort of thing. It actually, the cost benefit of solar for businesses is out of the roof. Sorry. It's very good in the majority cases and it's for the landlords, not for the people, whether it's in a resort or whether it's in an industrial area. So I have great hope that we will see a change in the current scenario, but we do need to plan. We do need to invest wisely. We do need to celebrate our success and we do need to lead.
03:08:00 The world needs to have good news stories. And we want Noosa to be the good news story about how a local community became zero emissions in eight years after they declared that it would do so. We need to get there. All the scientists tell us that the next 10 years are the most important to get things down such that we avoid trying to go over two degrees. And for that reason, I think this is, as Councillor Wegener said, this is a good time. It's probably the most important policy we will adopt. But it's more important that we prioritise our investment to ensure it happens and that we achieve the targets within it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel: Can I just? Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Just a segue into that grand opening there, Councillor Stockwell, regarding good rural health and welfare of our community.
03:09:00 In a line with theme seven about resilient and adaptability. And around the built environment and waterways. Nowhere in this document do I see a reference to the Kabi Kabi people. I see no reference to action moving forward to challenge systemic change in organisations. And no mention of a step towards the reconciliation plan being implemented across this organisation to be included in a document such as this. Unless you can correct me, where is the Indigenous Kabi Kabi representation when we're addressing water and land and climate change? Please. Speaker 11: Yeah, thanks, Councillor. We have an action in the action plan at the back that talks about partnering with Kabi Kabi to build our understanding of Indigenous land practices and fire management practices.
03:10:00 Engaging with them more broadly as well is important for a range of issues. Priorities across the plan. So we have, we did take note of that as part of the submissions that we needed to make reference of that partnership approach. That's already underway, but it's important that it's highlighted in a document such as this. So yeah, it is embedded within the plan. Councillor Finzel: And is there any step towards the systemic change in organisations that don't support a reconciliation action plan in their organisation? Speaker 7: I think you might answer that. I think the reconciliation action plan will be a different issue to a climate change policy. They are two different things. There's bigger policy in front of Council today is how do we respond in terms of climate change. Reconciliation action plan is about the relationship between Council or any organisation and the Kabi Kabi group. That covers more than just the climate change issues.
03:11:00 It covers the full relationship. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I understand that. But I'm just wondering, how will that inform the document? Or how's the Kabi Kabi narrative encapsulated through this document, through this organisation to make sure it's not just one small element, but it's across its entirety? Speaker 11: I think it's a bit of a work in progress. I understand that Sunshine Coast Council has a reconciliation action plan. And we've had some early conversations with Sunshine Coast, given that Kabi Kabi lands cross boundaries. But understanding how we can, as a region, work better together in improving processes and conversations with Kabi Kabi. So that will be a next step towards that relationship building that's already underway. I've got a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. It's a possibility to follow on from that. Is there an option within the Community Reference Forum to have representatives of our local indigenous populations?
03:12:00 Yeah, that would be great. I wouldn't expect that to be part of that. If it isn't clear and concise there, that is an expectation. Councillor Finzel: That's a good point. Yeah. Is there any chance on that Amendment D we can include youth, and specifically to mention youth also, from the Kabi Kabi? Councillor Wilkie: You want to move to an amendment, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Can we add that? Can I add that into D? Or does it have to be? It would have to be another amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It would be an amendment. Councillor Finzel: Just request the CEO to investigate options for the formation of a youth reference group or the like to participate in Council's climate change response and contribute to practical solutions to include indigenous youth.
03:13:00 Do we need to put specific? Yeah. Speaker 7: Do you just after indigenous youth or indigenous generally? If so, if it's more about the involvement of the indigenous community, let's say, you're probably better off in E, request the CEO to develop the ... Oh, sorry. C. C. Request the CEO to establish a community reference group that's pretty much specific for the implementation plan, and in particular, request that that community reference group include indigenous representation. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. But what about the youth specifically? Speaker 7: I was just going to ask you whether you just wanted the youth or you wanted all of the indigents. Councillor Lorentson: Well I think, when I talk youth it's inclusive, so I would envisage that you encapsulate all youth, not, so yeah, so indigents would be encapsulated. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I just want to make sure it's captured in the wording. Councillor Jurisevic: I think Kylie's got the, did item D be amended to add the words to include indigents as youth?
03:14:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second that. Oh, before you, be like. Councillor Jurisevic: You happy with that? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, it's good. Councillor Jurisevic: Right until Kylie finishes. Frank's trapped in the second it before it's been completely written. Councillor Finzel: And then what do you want to do? Councillor Jurisevic: If you approve that, you've moved it, you've put it in second it, then you can talk to her. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Yeah, well I think the wording's fine. I think that, I just think we need to have it written into the item to make sure that it is clear that I understand it's inclusive, but I think it's good to put the wording in there. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll support that. Under the action plans, under strong leadership and governance, one of the most prominent things here under theme 1.1 is incorporating indigenous knowledge systems, particularly
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 for land management, ecosystem resilience. Involve and consider the needs of traditional owners. And the metrics are projects involving traditional owners and incorporating First Nations knowledge. But this is, there's no harm and there's actual value in putting that up front in a motion. So for that reason, I support the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support the amendment too, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. I think that there is the risk that they might be excluded and given, you know, I think, wrong to assume sometimes that we have to embrace inclusivity and I commend that you did better. Speaker 11: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, would you speak to the amendment? Yeah, I do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Firstly, the context is we're dealing with a plan that sits under the environment strategy. And it's really important to recognise that the environment strategy does have one of its principles
03:16:00 as to where it's going to go. And that is to preserve indigenous cultural heritage as part of their environment and engage with traditional owners about matters affecting the environment. So the intent of this is really clearly an implementation of that. I have got some concerns or a suggestion which might lead to a future amendment is if we're asking for representation, I believe it's a protocol to ask for native title or traditional owner rather than just broad indigenous. And certainly, when you're dealing with reconciliation, you're asking for broad indigenous. But when you're talking about plans that relate to country, I think it's appropriate to be First Nations representation or traditional owner representation or mentioned Kabi Kabi, Gabi Gabi. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, good point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: CEO, all the staff may wish to comment on that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. And is there, in the group, in the, what do they call it again? The native title group, do they have any of their own, like, do they have a use case
03:17:00 with representation under that? Or is this a good opportunity to explore that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, well, I suppose the obvious one is that the Landcare have been giving Kabi Kabi traineeships. They just had the last three finished. So that might be a good place to start and, you know, to ask whether that could be part of the traineeship they're going to develop. But there'll be new ones, obviously, starting. Councillor Lorentson: This is a question to Councillor Finzel and maybe to CEO Annie or Rebecca, anyway. So now you're making me start to think about inclusive and public participation. Is the correct representation vulnerable communities? And that captures people with disabilities and low-represented migrant groups and Indigenous. That's just a suggestion. Should we, and in particular, request that we do that?
03:18:00 I think it's important that groups include our vulnerable communities. The, even homeless people need to be represented, given that they are going to be more directly impacted. So I'm happy to change that wording or move another motion that's a little bit broader to include, to capture all those groups. And that's the question for you guys, whether it's necessary or not. Speaker 11: I think I like that your amendment here is quite specific and that it's directing a particular action, which is inclusive. Which is important to engage with the youth. And that for those range of other people that we'd want to have represented on the group, to allow us time to think about how we can be inclusive around that, rather than trying to capture it here. Councillor Lorentson: So the investigate options will, then you will come back to us with which groups should be represented in that youth group. You know? Speaker 11: I'm happy to do that. If you would like us to come back to you with the proposed membership, that would
03:19:00 be great. Speaker 7: That will slow down the process to get the detailed action plans together. Speaker 11: We can do it out of session. Speaker 7: Putting aside the comments that Councillor Stockwell raised, I think you don't want to get too specific and try and make it a potential group. We've identified youth, all the cohort. You've heard of Isaac Kabi Kabi. We'll maybe talk about the wording separately. But I think that's something you probably need to go on stage without getting bogged down into everything. Councillor Jurisevic: As a result of that, is that something to come back to Thursday's meeting as to the specific wording in that amendment? Speaker 7: I think you'd be able to do this today. As I said, I think you can probably improve that wording in CMD. But you've got a motion we've brought you at the moment, and you need to deal with that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Council should speak to this particular amendment. Councillor Wegener: Tom. Well, to the CEO of CMD, to include indigenous youth. And that goes to D. And my question is, what happens if it doesn't include indigenous
03:20:00 youth? Does that nullify the . Speaker 7: No, it doesn't. What it means is that staff would need to invite, to find time, a civil representative. If someone doesn't turn up or doesn't engage, that would not nullify the process. Councillor Wegener: When you said it might slow down the process, though, at this point, because I am concerned that . Councillor Finzel: No, that's different. Speaker 7: What I'm getting at is that the comment before was, if you want to have staff go away to work up who should or shouldn't be on the group, and then bring that back to council. That would be at least next month, if not later. That means that group couldn't start working on the detailed action plan. I think that would delay the action plan. I think you're better off getting that going with a broad group. And the staff have got the feedback today in relation to, we want to see some youth Councillor Jurisevic: as I do with the other .
03:21:00 They try to be inclusive. I think that's, for me, it's implicit in a community reference group that we do go out and seek a broad representation of people that would be impacted by any of our plans or policies to have a say in it. But I'm quite happy to see the specifics mentioned here. In fact, it's good for getting the idea of what councillors would like to see in regard to staff. But I think that's, I think the most important thing is to have an idea of who the members of the reference group are and what representation on that reference group might be relevant to their thinking. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor. Councillor Finzel: Just a question on item D with the wording based on what Councillor Stockwell said. Do you think we need to make reference in that to the native title group with the invitation through that or just keep it broad? Speaker 7: Councillor, if you can make a suggestion, and you're going to have to deal with this If there are some concerns about the wording, my suggested wording is that there's a second amendment, but that perhaps might read, I would see, and in particular request that the group include representatives from the Kabi Kabi representation, but item D I would think could stay the same because if this motion is actually lost, then I think that would be an appropriate wording if you wanted to have a second amendment.
03:22:00 Speaker 12: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: If this motion was, this amendment was carried, it could still be amended. Yeah. Speaker 7: It could go either way. Councillor Wilkie: Any of the councillors wish to speak for this before we vote on it and perhaps entertain further amendments? Councillor Fincel, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: It's fine. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Put the motion, the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: That's carried unanimously. That amendment becomes part of the motion. Does anyone like to propose a further amendment? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This won't come out of the blue, but I'll just amend it as was outlined by the CA just before.
03:23:00 Just on C? Just on C, yeah. I believe that the Indigenous youth is fine in the youth storming. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Moved Councillor Stockwell, seconded Councillor Wilkie. You should speak to it. Any of the councillors wish to speak to it, you're happy with that wording, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yep, that's fine, yep. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion, those in favour? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Tom. The amendment. The amendment. Speaker 7: The amendment in red. The amendment in red. Can I just suggest that we, just to make it clear, the Kabi Kabi First Nations people. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we're just saying, in terms of formal representation about speaking for country, we're asking the Kabi Kabi. In terms of the youth, we're saying we want to try and get some Indigenous representation. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Speaker 8: Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Are you comfortable with that, Tom? Yeah, thank you.
03:24:00 Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. That becomes part of the original motion. Kylie is now put before us. And, um, sorry, so, so far, all, the only councillors that have spoken to the original motion are Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wegener, and Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stewart, Councillor Finzel, you wish to speak to this motion? Mayor Stewart: No, I just have a quick question, coming back to it. Yeah, sure. Um, just on page 45. ACT is the only state in Australia who have declared a climate emergency, and Noosa Shire is the only shire in Queensland to have declared one, according to, um, my research that I could be wrong on that. Yeah, that's right. Um, actions on page 45 to develop collaborations with other local governments to achieve this, um, how, and I know it's also up there, Annie, what's the first step if, if we have declared, has the Sunshine Coast declared one?
03:25:00 Speaker 2: No, not as yet. Mayor Stewart: Right, okay, so, what is the collaboration methods with those guys when we've declared one, does it make any difference, and no, no one else has? Speaker 2: Is there any, no, no, I mean, certainly in terms of, we've got, you know, a good working relationship with the Sunshine Coast Council, particularly on those two grants that, um, we've been recently awarded with, um, certainly the, uh, the work that we're doing is very consistent, and, um, we're all moving towards net zero emissions, so the fact of an ACT specific declaration does not hinder any of that working relationship at all. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And the pursue opportunities for private and public partnerships, who are those private, um, companies that you're pursuing that with? Speaker 2: It will, that will come out in the actual specific action plan as to what projects we actually want to work with, I mean, there's a plethora of, um, public-private partnerships that we could potentially work with, particularly as we go down some of the new technology that we're looking at.
03:26:00 Thank you. Yeah, yeah, five, things like that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, five technologies, thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Wilkie, did you say I spoke to this? You spoke to the original motion, yes. Councillor Lorentson: So, there you go. Councillor Jurisevic: So just one last question. Councillor Lorentson: I thought I asked a question. In regards to ETH, we awarded $310,000 in state government grant funding, so it's not important whether or not a local council has made that declaration, that's not a precondition to that funding. No, no. Councillor Wilkie: No, no. I think I spoke to the amendment, the amendments, I don't think I actually spoke to the, to Noosaville, and I think I asked a question, I've confused your question, you haven't spoken, you're free to speak.
03:27:00 Councillor Finzel: God, I don't believe that. Councillor Wilkie: It's optional, speaking's optional. Thanks, Brian. Speaking's optional. Okay, so, Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Yes, I will. Any other questions? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I will speak to it, I will speak to it if I may, before we get to closing. Look, I commend this as a document for the future direction of Council. I think there are elements in there that we have embraced, and embraced well already. There's some elements there, like the transition to 100% renewal, Angie. We've been certainly looking at all the iron hanging fruit. We've got to look at other opportunities there. I think there are real opportunities there, driving local emissions industries, and I think that we're trying to support, accelerate transition to sustainable transport. We're certainly advocating to the agencies that had influence there, and our advocacy role is vital in this, in continuing to try and get state government and federal government support to be leads in some of these areas.
03:28:00 Our own, the zero waste circular economy. Certainly one where we can target. I noticed that staff have particularly talked about opportunities for the landfill, greenhouse gas capture, but also food waste. That's a significant one, and obviously the waste strategy coming forward will be the significant driver of that. There are real opportunities there. We talk about, trying to go backwards and forwards here. We talk about the elements there with regard to what we're looking at. We've got to do food, manufacture local food processing and the like. Of course, getting, improving soils and the like with good quality compost, and getting it through local manufacturers is one easy way to turn around and create a circular economy. We've seen local examples of it from Wasabi, that within their own restaurant, it can work. It can work very successfully. For me, ensuring that our landfill never reaches capacity.
03:29:00 When diversifying, we've got to do that. We've got to get as much waste out of it. Capturing the methane that we've got there, and actually being able to generate power out of it are huge drivers that we can implement without too much more work. But again, I look forward to the waste strategy, particularly working on those. The opportunities for circular economy. Clearly, things that haven't been explored well in Queensland. They have been explored well in southern states, and I've given examples of what in particular was regarded as an opportunity for circular economy. I've given examples of the use of recycled materials and councils in New South Wales, in Sydney in particular, combining their resources and their forces to actually bring about not only the change, the repurpose of material that would otherwise be considered a waste material into the process, but also in saving, in producing savings. And there's a lot of discussion about it at the Queensland level, but not a lot of driving
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 on the long implementation. So there's a lot that can be done in this space, particularly when the state government is taking a waste levy and looking at furthering that waste levy. That waste levy is being utilised by southern states to drive change and implement new methodology and new procedures for councils to our south. And Queensland is a long way behind. I look forward to the opportunities that implementing this and the work that we're doing and the future direction of council in implementing better circular economy strategy. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll just make a few quick comments. Addressing climate change goes to the heart of a local government's role in asset management. It was great that that was mentioned, and the climate change response plan addresses that. While we're responsibly addressing our own CO2 emissions, as through the actions in this plan, it does also present exciting opportunities for new industries and practices and economic
03:31:00 stimulus. The dollars that are going to be currently going out of the Shire to power suppliers can stay in a rich local households and the business economy. And the end goal of this is a cleaner, more prosperous and more resilient Noosa, which is great for our children and our children's children. And the submissions were all in favour of this strategy, which shows that we're well and truly in step with our community on this. I commend the staff for the work on this. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to acknowledge and congratulate council staff on the climate change response plan and in particular the commitment to public participation. The success of the plan and its implementation demands that the plan is relevant and meets a range of community goals if it's to be successful. The public submissions that we received during the community consultation process has allowed us to understand board community goals, perspectives and interests.
03:32:00 It's also reminded us that community, businesses and other stakeholders and including and in particular our kids are key in finding solutions and are well placed to contribute to climate actions. It's our children's future and we have the responsibility and the challenge now. To protect their human rights to a sustainable and liveable future. Again, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you Rebecca. Thank you Annie. Next item is item 4 on the 12 item agenda. Is the Noosa Trail master plan update as referred due to significance of the issue. That's on page 96 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting agenda. There were some questions during the Planning and Environment Committee meeting last week. Have you had your questions answered? Are you comfortable with that?
03:33:00 Speaker 7: I can probably just give a quick update if you like. Councillor Finzel asked a question just about the mapping and how that might cause concerns with some of the sections. I think she had spoken to Peter and got some clarity about that mapping. It might save some time to look for that. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. Would you like to outline the changes in the mapping that you've made? Speaker 5: Yeah, sure. Yeah, did raise some comment from the horse rider fraternity. I think if I put a picture of a horse on the front of the report, I would have been okay. But if you look at that map there where I've got, that's actually a change to the, see where it says, length or circuit trail, user group types or user group rooms. Yeah, so originally I didn't have any of those little pictures next to the little icons. Reason being because the brown trails, they're all different. Some are actually single use, some are dual use, some are multi use. And someone might have read it that maybe those trails don't have a use type anymore because it was blank. But that wasn't the case.
03:34:00 Right. The reality was it was just I couldn't actually put like, you know, 20 trails on the page. Yeah. All with their little, you know, little icons. So I think that's where the confusion was. And I spoke to some of the horse rider groups about it. And I think that's really clarified the situation. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Yeah. And then walking, cycling and horse riding are the three symbols that are appearing there. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, you'd have to have like a table of all the different trails to say what the use is. You know, if you're climbing up, you know. I've never seen this canoe pedal for the canoe trail. There's a canoe trail on there. Councillor Jurisevic: Don't be worried. They're awesome. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to see a mountain bike go down Coorooa. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Would you like to read out the change to proposed motion, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Sure. So change to the item B is that we adopt the Noosa Biosphere Trail Concept Map as a basis for the development of a Shire wide trail implementation plan with an amendment to the map legend to provide greater clarity regarding the type of users that use the trail.
03:35:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Yeah. I'd just like to thank Peter for the work that you've done. I understand that you've spoken with and responded to all the emails that were raised. Yeah. And thank you for your work around that. And it's really important that every group that's participated in the consultation process feels that their voice has been heard. And I think after Peter working on that last week, I think we've addressed those issues. And the invitation is always open for the horse rider group or any groups that feel that their voice hasn't been heard or there's a misunderstanding that, again, council is approachable, that we're all about excellence and engendering trust and community. This is a really big project that everyone's working on. Everyone's excited about. So we just want to make sure that if any bumps come along, we smooth them out in the initial
03:36:00 stages and move forward and bring everyone with us in a fair and equitable manner. And I think council staff's worked really hard this week to address those concerns. So thank you to everyone involved. And I'm happy to proceed forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Can the councillors just speak to the motion? Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you for all the work that's been put in on this plan. After meeting with the Boring Point community, after council met with the Boring Point community a few weeks back, I'm sure the Boring Point community loved to see the fact that they've been included in connectivity to the Boring Point region with links with tracks and trails not only back to Tewantin, but also through Kin Kin, better recognition and the potential for upgrading those facilities for those people. Also the concerns addressed by the Cooran and Pomona communities trying to get better linkage out there. I see here that throughout we have an interconnectivity that we probably haven't, we may have had in an informal capacity to formalise it and to have more greater clarity around what we're
03:37:00 trying to achieve, I think is a great outcome for the community. I think better access, facilitating better access, but also opening up the areas that people don't necessarily appreciate. That's what we're trying to do. I don't think it's necessarily come to Noosa to understand and appreciate the beauty and the views and the scenery that you can access not only to that community with nature and getting out there in such a wonderful fashion. I look forward to when we have all these routes upgraded and in action. Councillor Stockwell loves to take his bike out there. I like to get my feet on the ground and walk out there and they are great trails. So I look forward to better linkages and facilitating in the Noosa Trail marketplace. Thank you, Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Right. And Carly, I might get that map back up again. I thought the best way to talk about this was to talk about my ride yesterday.
03:38:00 Some of the things we like, this is the next iteration of the Noosa Trail Network. This is the first time that we've shown the potential of the Noosa Trail network. This is the first time that we've shown the potential for both residents and visitors to perhaps go on a day ride from Wundum National Park, say number six or seven, and end up down in Peregian. This is what the market is moving to is these more day long and potentially if you're walking or on a horse, there's probably two or three days you can spend just on those major loops. So that's the big change is that we've got these Shire wide networks and we've got trying to get new connectivity. And interesting, yesterday going out there, you can identify things that minor improvements like around 10 there. It's a very steep downhill and it has a little right angle bend to get on onto the next trail, which old people might have had to do a skid yesterday just to avoid a sign. But there's things like that to make it safer.
03:39:00 But the interesting thing is I came back by Trail 4 and ran into a couple from Melbourne. They were obviously very nomads because they had come up here from Melbourne with their caravan and they decided it was much better to stay here and do mountain biking rather than go back into lockdown. And they'd been through, they were telling me where they'd been. I sort of escorted back to show another way back to Wundum. And they said, oh, I said, we went on one the other day and we got to Tim Beale and We're looking for those experiences and identifying where they think there can be good links and yeah, that's the interesting part about this process is that you see all sorts, whether it's the horse riders, whether it's the visitors who may be retired or whether it's the keen young enthusiasts who tend to go past you at a rate of knots.
03:40:00 So I think it does provide one of the great benefits of living in a shire like Noosa where we're aiming to have 50% of our whole shire in protected area that when you're riding along the places, you're enjoying nature in a way that few other places can for extended periods of time. Councillor Finzel: I just have one more question just to Peter through the chair. Just for clarification, because the issue was raised at another meeting I was at the other day with artists and creatives around the trails they're doing as part of the wider attraction to bring tourists for the area through arts, culture and heritage. With regards to the recommendation of renaming the Noosa Trail Network to the Noosa Biosphere Trail, just a question to Peter to just clarify how that came about through your stakeholder. Was that through the stakeholder groups? Sure. Speaker 5: Yeah, that's how it happened. I think it came up in discussion, we were looking at different attractions and experiences
03:41:00 within the biosphere. And we're looking at all the different, that's what the numbers are on the map. And I think that came up through discussion. So I put it to the stakeholder group, look, do you want to keep it as the Noosa Trail Network, which is very much has a history of just the hinterland focus, or do you want to go a lot broader and we look at renaming it completely? And having had those biosphere discussions previously, I suggest, well, why don't we just call it the Biosphere Trail? That's what some of the stakeholders have mentioned previously. So put that to the group and everyone in the stakeholder group was really supportive of that approach. It does have some advantages that naming because the biosphere obviously is an international designation. And one of the recommendations in the master plan is to put it on the international stage, basically. So it does that.
03:42:00 The other advantage is we already have it. We have a promotion running at the moment through Tourism Noosa. They have entered the biosphere. So it kind of made sense to look at that recommendation number 13 talks about the whole refreshing and rebranding of the Noosa Trail Network. So it's kind of like a number of things that sort of lined up to say, you know, it probably makes sense to go that way. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it's closer to the one that comes up the hill from Boring Point.
03:43:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You just have to go back about a hundred metres down that corridor. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd ask that we just check the location. This is the new map. Speaker 5: Is it this one here? Yeah. I'll have to look at the old map. Just clarify the location. When I looked at that, I looked at that locality. How much is it in lane? Speaker 7: It's 1.4 kilometres uphill. It's double. It's all there. It's administered. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. To my point, it just sort of threw me. Then I went, hang on, what's not? Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right. I'll speak to the motion. Peter, I just want to congratulate you on the work being done on this. Key to this is it's the opportunities it creates for events in the hinterland and recreational events in the hinterland. The main attraction and dispersal of visitors to the hinterland to enjoy what's out there. I've been lucky to be part of a running group that's over the last 10 years have run a lot of these trails. On the weekend, I ran with an event organiser over the proposed 25 kilometre course from
03:44:00 Twin Hill Views down through Trail 7 to Tewantin. While we were doing that, we encountered a lot of different users. There were mountain bikers, obviously. There were walkers. But one of the observations was that the trail abuts a lot of clearing that's going on out there. Now, as we know, we're doing a lot of clearing. That forest will be rehabilitated and eventually restored to National Park. And I wondered, prior to events being held out there, because the scene is one of, it contrasts quite differently to the experience of a nature-based experience. When you see that wide scale clearing and logs piled up. If there's an opportunity for more signage that just explains what's actually going on and that the land's going to be rehabilitated and then preserved as part of a national park in the long term future.
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 Is there an opportunity for more? Yes, sure. Even temporary signage during events so that people, when they see that, they say, this is the Biosphere Trail. What's going on? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's probably no need for signage until we open those trails up to the public. Councillor Wilkie: Well, this was trail seven, I think. Yeah, seven. Yeah, most definitely. Speaker 5: It's not pretty where they've gone through and harvested the timber. So we can certainly, definitely look at that. We get those signs. It doesn't matter where they are. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Otherwise, congratulations on the work. It was a very enjoyable experience. And I'm sure that others will, if the event gets off the ground, will be the start of something we're hoping to encourage a lot more into the future. Any other speakers to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Can I just add one thing? So this is just a follow up from the climate response plan that we just adopted. I think we're talking about all the tourist benefits.
03:46:00 We've seen our tourism out to the hinterland, but the opportunities also here as part of our COVID planning and our response to climate change that not everyone can surf, not everyone can ride a bike, but everyone can actually walk. And I think this incredible, the options that we're offering our community and our visitors can't be underestimated. That's been, you know, increasing physical activity equals, you know, alleviating stresses that climate change response and COVID, it's great for mental, mental illnesses and stuff. So, so I just think it's wonderful and I hope and encourage everyone to get out and walk. We can all do it. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I think it's all been said. Just reiterate it's a great opportunity and I think we're working towards a good outcome for visitors to the region and residents alike. So thank you.
03:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you Peter. Next item is the item Fire, Frying Pan, Public Foreshore Infrastructure. Referred for further consideration. That's on page 109 of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. Speaker 7: Just one of the reasons that was referred. There were some queries about whether or not the recommendation stands to the way we're making it fit the Council for further future expenditure. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Are you going to conflict? Councillor Wegener: I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter and a personal friend of mine, Yeska Mask, owns property near the Frying Pan and regularly ties her boat up to one of the decking structures mentioned in the report.
03:48:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Wegener. Speaker 7: dishonest I'll just explain. Your question was whether or not the Board at this instance at the moment would commit Council to any particular action or expenditure. And I'll just have that clarify it so they know what the report does and say we prepare a plan. That plan then comes back to Council to have a look at before we go into the clarification. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've established a nursery river advisory group. They've identified this as a priority area to take action on. I think it's appropriate that we follow on from that priority and start to bring forward that plan so we can start the process of cleaning up the river.
03:49:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, question for Craig. Craig, within this, we talked about the fact that there are both side upper moored and all the rest of it. Is there potential here to, as one of the ways of cleaning this up, to look at some sort of one structure that everybody could tie up to, some sort of a public jetty facilitation? Speaker 9: It's possible. Firstly, I'll just note that unfortunately Sean Walsh hadn't had an appointment this afternoon. He wasn't able to move, so unfortunately he wasn't able to attend the meeting. I'll answer the questions the best I can. As noted in the report, there could well be an expectation from members of the community that a public jetty or something similar could be provided. That would be unlikely under Council's current planning regime. That's why it was highlighted in the report, so Council understood that.
03:50:00 But again, it would be a decision that would come back to Council eventually. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just wondering if that's what's been traditionally there for many, many years. We're trying to implement change, whether that's... Speaker 9: I think one of the challenges, Councillor Joe, is that a lot of it hasn't been there for very long and certainly the images in the report probably don't do justice to actually how much it's changed over just the past couple of years. But we wanted to acknowledge in the report that there may be some desires for something like that there, but under the current planning framework, it would be unlikely to be approved. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And then, Councillor Swish to speak for the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: No. All good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm good. I want to agree with the person who spoke. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: We'll move on to the next one before realising there was one more out of the planning committee. Thank you, Craig. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Craig. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
03:51:00 Thanks. You too. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is the North Shore ferry update and proposed lease extension. And that's from page four on the services and organisation committee agenda referred due to the significance. Councillor Jurisevic: Have we got staff coming up on the issue? Yeah. They're coming. Speaker 7: What do you think the staff is? We're trying to guess the timing of when they're going to be ready. First I want to wait for two hours and then some of the others run through in two or three minutes. So a lot of them watch online and they'll pop up as soon as they can. Can I get a coffee? Councillor Finzel: Oh, can I get a tea? Can we have a five-minute break? He's here now. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Speaker 7: All right. Councillor Wilkie: Look, we're going four hours. We need a break. We'll take a five-minute break so councillors can refresh their coffee time. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: He's good about writing. Councillor Lorentson: Easy, easy. Councillor Jurisevic: All good? Okay, when you're ready. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. Welcome back, everybody. We're at item six on the general committee agenda, which is the Noosa North Shore ferry update, and proposed lease extension, which is a report on page four of the services and And the Services and Organisations Committee agenda, with Michael Shade, Clint Irwin here, councillors. Questions for staff? Mayor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: Clint, just on page 5, can you explain the legal advice given about the current ferry operations on the Services and Organisations Committee agenda please?
04:01:00 Just legal advice, what you obtained and what they said. Speaker 6: Okay, certainly, through the Chair. Councillor, one of the key parts of this advice was around our ability to be able to enforce, if you like, digital payment options onto the current operator. Now, one of the key tenets of the advice is that if it's not included in the current agreement, then there are no mechanisms to allow you to introduce digital technology. into the current operations, and essentially it would require a new lease to be able to adopt new payment methods. So in other words, you can't do it under the current arrangement. Now, the other part of the advice, Councillor, was around the potential to use the ferry to control visitors to the North Shore,
04:02:00 whether it's a booking platform or through a verification system. Now, the advice from that is that this agreement does not go into seeking to limit visitation onto the beach by, or onto that area, by a booking program or seeking to limit use of the road, so to limit a custom over there. Now, the advice is to do so and to, in other words, restrict capacity. by the road or introduce a booking platform, of which we have no right to do, would derogate from the grant of rights provided to the operator. And so, in other words, you can't give on one hand and then take away from the other. So, in essence, there are some limitations on what we can actually do around digital payment, restricting the road and using the booking platform to actually restrict access.
04:03:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And we don't have that opportunity under the option to renew the lease to introduce some extra conditions? Speaker 6: Through the Chair, Councillor, it has to be a new lease. It has to introduce those things which are quite different in essence as to what the current arrangement is. They're a new lease. That would have to be a new lease and that's a new negotiation. Councillor Lorentson: Jo? Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, you got another question? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, this is just for the community. Community benefit or anyone that's listening. Can you talk through the timeline and the actions that will be undertaken in preparation of this new lease that's going to be commencing in 2024? And just explain when will we expect to see a public tender going out to the community? Speaker 6: Yeah, sure. Through the Chair. Councillor, so in order for us to look at the business model here,
04:04:00 there's obviously quite a bit of interest so far politically to have a look at different models into the future and what options there are. We've engaged AEC to do an analysis on the different models and you'll see there under Section 5, we've mentioned a full outsource model, our hybrid model and an in-house model. Now, there may be other variations to those three models, but AEC is tasked with looking at all of the different operating models, all of the different models that are out there to inform the upcoming tender process. Now, we would expect to have that information back in late 2021. In early 2022, I would propose then that a further report is brought to Council to consider that information from AEC, the contractual arrangements and information to inform the upcoming tender process. Obviously, it's important to get that information right before we go out, so I would bring that forward in the report
04:05:00 to look at options to inform future processes. In 2022, then we would develop the tender to go out to the market. We would expect to appoint an operator probably in the third quarter of 2022 and then that would leave approximately 12 to 18 months then for that new operator, if it is a new operator, but for the new business to commission ferries, which does require quite a lead in time. Now, if we decide to do different models or whatever Council decides, we need to factor in time to actually implement whatever's in place too. So overall, we need approximately two years to be able to get the information, inform our processes here, complete the processes to install a new operator,
04:06:00 and then that operator sourcing or commissioning new ferries also needs between 12 to 18 months. Councillor Lorentson: There was a suggestion that an expression of interest process may potentially fast track that process. Is that correct, Clint? Speaker 6: No, I don't believe it would. Because this information is essential to us. And as I said in the Services and Organisation Committee, I'm not opposed to doing consultation to inform. And we had talked about and we have had consultations with the Noosa North Shore associations. I've had three, about three meetings with them and we'll do more of that in the future. But an EOI process, really, will not help us here. We need the information from a qualified consultant
04:07:00 to cut to the chase here, get that information, and I'll be happy to kind of do the consultation off the back of that rather than casting a net really wide initially, which I think could use a lot of time before I've got the options in front of me. Speaker 8: And the AEC study is going to be a comprehensive study. It's not a two-week job. It's months. It's going to take us months for them to do that work. They're looking at a number of things. Benchmarking now, and just to touch on Clint's point, AEC will be doing some market sounding in terms of potential opportunities out there, understanding what's out there in terms of potential service providers, consultation with stakeholders. So they will be doing some consultation on our behalf as well. And that will then lead into detailed analysis and recommendations for operating models, looking at cost benefit analysis of different levels of service
04:08:00 and hours of operation. So it's not a small piece of work they're doing. It's going to be very thorough and it will take time. So that's probably another reason this is going to go into the two-year timeframe rather than 12 months. Councillor Lorentson: Do we have an idea of the cost of that report? The detail? Do we have an idea of $20,000, $30,000? What's the cost of something like that? It's a bit smaller than that. That's what I'm asking. Speaker 8: Yeah, it is. Yep. So you're looking at $50,000 plus for a detailed study such as that? Yeah. Okay. Joe, you had a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look. When this was reviewed three years ago, one of the principal things that Council wanted to see was the introduction of, and I think the community as well wanted to see the introduction of digital methods of payment. It hasn't occurred. We received an email recently with regard to why is it taking Council so long
04:09:00 to make a decision to leave until the end of the three-year period before deciding to extend the contract rather than having dealt with the issues and not being able to achieve digital technology opportunities in the previous three years. Can you allude to what some of the challenges may have been and what the issues the pandemic created for delaying that process as opposed to an opportunity to actually enhance the plan? Speaker 6: Well, there's quite a number of factors, but the two main factors are, and through the Chair, that you've touched on there, Councillor. Obviously, COVID was a huge spanner in the works for the whole organisation when it went into what I'd call COVID mode, which was quite different. We went to, in our area particularly, into a whole lot of different scenarios for leases and different assistance packages and whatever else. So that was one of them, caravan parks and whatever. So it was quite common. Councillor Jurisevic: That was as much our capacity as anything else.
04:10:00 Speaker 6: Well, it needed a comprehensive response and it needed resources to do that, and that's what we committed to, our team. The second part of it, Councillor, is that the... Legal advice... We've been working with the operator with regards to digital payment options and that work is ongoing. But the point I've made earlier, and it's an important point here, is that there is no obligation in the contract for the operator to include digital payment options. It's purely a contractual issue. It is just purely... It is just not included in there. So we are left with working with and we've got a good relationship with that operator. But essentially it comes down to the contractual mechanism that's in place and it is just not in there. So that's one of the major constraints for us. We all recognise that it's required in a contemporary service
04:11:00 and it will be in there in the next arrangement along with the business model, the model that we need to go with as a result of the market sounding and everything else that needs to happen. I think we all acknowledge it needs to be there. But going down to the contract, which is the governing tool here, it is just not in there and it requires a new lease. And to go into that negotiation counsellor and negotiate around over here when there is a lot of work required on the future. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to look at what the obstacles were to actually being able to implement it. The next question in that regard is is there an opportunity within the new lease to look at management of the queuing of vehicles? I mean, what component is responsible, the ferry operator responsible for and what element is council responsible for queuing of the vehicles that are waiting for the ferry all the way out for Inglis Road?
04:12:00 Speaker 6: Through the Chair. Well, look, the current arrangement has service provisions in there that require the second ferry to be operated and whatever else too. When the queue hits a certain number. So yes, there will be provision for managing queues. But to a large extent, the area is popular and people are coming there to go across the North Shore. So the ferry operator is only responsible and will only ever be responsible to a certain extent. Now, unless you are able to increase capacity there or you can manage it from the other way to stop. So in other words, if you add more ferries or you restrict capacity the other way coming on, they are the only two ways that at this point that I can see that how it would be managed. Speaker 8: The AEC study will also look at other repayment technologies and opportunities,
04:13:00 you know, to basically remove the need for purchase transactions on the ferry. Because that's obviously, it's all about the time you spend getting someone on. As part of the delay process. So if there's obviously ETAG type systems which will investigate that prepayment solutions so that you can limit the amount of transactional processing on the ferry, that's also going to assist. But I think the peak demand issue is, you know, we're all familiar with that on a number of fronts. It's not just the ferry, it's everywhere else. And it's about how do you manage that. And so it's acceptable at an acceptable level, isn't it? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, apart from people whose driveways get blocked because they can't get in and out of their driveways along the street. Speaker 8: Well, I live down there and, you know, it's not every week. I know it's disruptive for those residents and it's, you know, that's stuff we're looking at to try and minimise, you know, the amount of that disruption for residents in terms of that peak demand issue.
04:14:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, you had a question? Councillor Wegener: Could we perhaps turn this into a positive and turn it into a tourist attraction saying that these old guys here are the last people on the planet to not travel? And that once this is the last place, this is it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's to go with the silent movies in the Majestic, yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And the federal government might do away Councillor Wilkie: with cash reporting. Yeah. Can someone move the motion? Yeah, I'll move the motion. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded, Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think I moved the motion in 2019, so it's hard not to be disappointed that two years down the track we're not much further. I understand that the COVID pandemic has really shifted our priorities away from the more strategic endeavours like looking at the digital options, taking on Councillor Wegener's idea of accentuating the positive. I think the delay will have a silver line
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 in that the next tender will be able to base on the latest technology. And so since 2019, we now know in 2021 that number plate recognition is commonly used in local governments around Australia. The technology is not exorbitant. I think the first time we looked at it, we looked at it using the same as a toll system, which was quite expensive. But now we know places like Byron Bay are moving to number plate recognition. We know that it's quite simple to do online booking, mobile phone apps. We know that by getting people to schedule their trip over the river during peak times will reduce the need to have long queues. So we are... The motion to move the motion to number plate recognition in 2019 was trying to address the problems on the Newton North Shore. And we found that legally, we've got no real strong argument to be able to do that through the ferry lease. It will...
04:16:00 We have got unsustainable utilisation of a natural area that causes significant amenity impacts to our residents. And this is North Shore Driving and Camping in the SDS of Tewantin. It is the thing where the tourist interests are overriding the locals' interests. And it has to stop as soon as possible. I was tempted to add a C here to get staff to bring back a further report to identify what road marking and road safety options are there to stop people queuing beyond George Street. Whether it's, you know, clear way signs or markings in front of every driveway that people can't stop their car there. But I know that we've got very busy staff and just asking for another report for something that perhaps can be looked at in an informal way quicker. I won't do that. So I think it's also been mentioned that it is really... We do need to respect the service that the existing tenderer
04:17:00 has been provided for a valuable service for a long time. And it's based on a simple but largely effective operating system. But it really is important that this council lets them know and anyone else who's thinking of tendering. Our next tender will be based on providing a 21st century customer experience. It will be that we know how many people we want on the beach and that we know how to turn it off and on if the impacts of visitation is creating unacceptable amenity and road safety issues. It will be that it should be easier to get on as a scanner identifies your number plate and realises that you paid by your phone 15 minutes ago. It will be that we can... Hopefully that we can engage with the QPWS system on Cooler Recreation Area that if you've had a car that's been fined on the North Shore that your ticket is not given and you can't get on the ferry. We need to be using our service
04:18:00 as part of an integrated model of destination management to ensure that we have the right number of people going to experience the North Shore for its wilderness values, not to have a drunken party and do burnout to kill people on the beach. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, Chair? Yeah, of course. Thank you. Maybe a little bit off topic, but is there an opportunity to provide households in the North Shore with more than two permits? I get asked this quite a lot and I've had kids who... His parents own properties on the North Shore that have been required to pay the full amount each way because the permit holder is their mum and dad. Is there an opportunity or is there any way to issue family permits or... Because it's not equitable. Speaker 6: Through the Chair, look, there is an existing policy
04:19:00 on who has permits and who hasn't. In terms of amending that policy and whatever else, I will take that on notice and I will have to come back to you on that. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: And my other question is, when did silver not become money? So the operator won't take silver coins. Again, that's a question I get asked quite a lot. Is it legal tender and do they have the right to not accept silver? Speaker 6: Through the Chair, yes, they do. They do have the right. They do have the right. Councillor Lorentson: On what basis do you know, Clint, it's just not acceptable? Speaker 6: Well, as long as they've given appropriate notice and it depends on the amount of silver that's been... Look, there are some parameters around that and again, we did receive some separate advice on that and to do your question justice,
04:20:00 I probably would need to consult that advice and come back to you with a more formal answer. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? No, I think Brian's having a little... Yeah. Wish to close, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once again, I agree with every speaker. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion to those in favour? We're rearing. It's unanimous. Thanks, Clint. Thanks, Brian. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're more than half way through the agenda now. Yay! Item 7. Application for Material Change of Use to Educational Establishment, 115 Eumundi Noosa, Noosa Road, Noosaville. Speaker 11: What page? Councillor Jurisevic: Page 5. The first item of the General Committee. Page 5.
04:21:00 Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, this approval involves a deed of agreement which allows the applicant 18 months' grace to not start to work, so they have provided a report that demonstrates that they won't need the internal one-way. Okay. Speaker 10: There's two aspects of the works, but generally speaking what you're saying is correct. However, there's two aspects of the work. One is the upgrade to the set-down area to facilitate better movement in that area and sort of stop congestion down onto the Goodchap Street roundabout. The second aspect is the facilitation of a one-way internal link through the premise. They're both seeking... They're seeking that both be delayed for a period of 18 months, but the further report
04:22:00 would potentially not require the one-way link. So the set-down is not in question, they're seeking that will be undertaken, but the internal one-way link may be not required if it can be... Councillor Wilkie: So in the short term, will the set-down area improve traffic in that area or not make it worse? Or does it have the potential to make it worse? Speaker 3: So this application is... This application is the two dormer buildings. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 3: They say it will not increase student numbers. Okay. But what it does do is take some parking away that currently uses the Goodchap Street roundabout intersection. So because it's not increasing student numbers, even though it's changing the situation slightly, we think that, one, it is... It's reasonable to delay those works, but in the long term, that area needs to be improved. Mayor Stewart: And I can categorically say the set-down has significantly improved traffic because they do not let you stay there.
04:23:00 They move you on. So it's constantly rotating. So it's certainly, from what it was, where you were banked up, it certainly has... I mean, I'm there quite... It certainly has improved it. It's annoying because you have to move on and your kid's not in the car. Yeah. It has improved it. Okay. You've got to keep... Speaker 3: The school is better managing the situation, the set-down area, but the design itself could also... It needs some improvement. Mayor Stewart: So, Kerry, so just on that, is the... So they're looking to build two demountable buildings in the car park near the pool, which is currently used as part of the teacher's car park, but then they'd build a new car park on the corner. Speaker 3: Yes. But remember that car park in the corner is only intended for teachers. Yes. It's not permitted for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've read the report a few times and all the figures. Can we get your preferred diagram to show us where the demountables are going and which car parks are being lost? Mayor Stewart: Do you know the campus?
04:24:00 Yeah, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just couldn't find anyone that really clearly... Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I struggled a bit with it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's nothing that said... Here's the demountables. Well, keep going with it. Sorry. You might... Mayor Stewart: Have you got it? I think I know where they're going. Speaker 10: There's a couple. Page 21. Councillor Jurisevic: They did seem to be several iterations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Page 21 figure. Councillor Jurisevic: This is a couple of months. Yeah. Page number. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Page number. Page number. Page 21. Yeah. Of the... Yeah. Come on. Page nine. Yeah. Of 92. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 10: So they're relocating the administration building from the northern part there. You can see with the round... The red... That's one being relocated. Yeah. That's been relocated. And then... Councillor Jurisevic: That's the facilitator performing arts building for the future, actually.
04:25:00 Speaker 10: That's right. And then the demountables are those in front of it, where you can see... What does it say? Councillor Jurisevic: Classroom one. Speaker 10: Classroom two. Councillor Jurisevic: Breakout one, two. Speaker 7: Yeah. That comes up against the existing bus drop-off. Yeah. Bus drop-off area. Yeah. Okay. That's the bottom of the pool. Speaker 3: You can see where Walter can drive it. Yeah. The bottom here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. I know where it is now. I just... And that's still... Every time I looked at the map, I thought, oh... Because I thought, yeah, that's it. Then I saw another one. I thought, no, that's it. I just wasn't sure. Councillor Jurisevic: And so that still shows the existing car park in Euston now. Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 10: And we're not losing... That's why I'm just clarifying it. Mayor Stewart: And is the reason why there's been a cap on page six of the number of children who can attend, because of the parking issues and the transport drop-off and pick-up, is
04:26:00 that... Because you've got the number of students must not exceed 1,105. Speaker 3: Yeah. So they're presenting this proposal that it will not increase student numbers. Okay. So we've asked them, well, what's your current student numbers? Because if they are increasing student numbers, then it's a different assessment. And we need to have a consideration. So not just car parking, but it'd be traffic and access and entry points. Mayor Stewart: But they're not. Speaker 3: They're not. Yeah, it is. Councillor Jurisevic: And so this master plan is presented as figure two on page nine. That's the master plan we've been trying to finalise with the school for the future of the school. And we're happy that that delivers. Speaker 3: No, they're still not seeking for council to approve that master plan. Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: And it's still conceptual. That's right. Okay. So they're not finalised. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So I guess the main question...
04:27:00 Go back again. Sorry if I've missed your answer. But the main thing the community are looking for, I guess, is whether any changes on the site are going to add to congestion around that already congested area. And we've heard about the impact of this sit down and drop off area. What about other aspects of that? Speaker 10: Well, there's no increase in the number of students that are going to the site. So it's anticipated that that'll continue to function as it currently is. Councillor Jurisevic: The bulk of students, they wouldn't be driving if the parents are dropping off and picking up, as well as the teachers, which would be the bulk of... That's correct. Speaker 3: And there's still queuing from what we can see down on, in the afternoons, not in the mornings, but in Malta Hay. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the difference, I'm not seeing it in the mornings.
04:28:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, mornings you see it at the Goodchap Street roundabout, in the afternoons you see it down on Malta Hay, as they're exiting the site. Councillor Lorentson: I would say that's not unfamiliar with any school precinct, Kerry. I know at Sunshine State High, drop off and pick off, there's queues from here forever. Speaker 3: One of the concerns that officers and our traffic engineer have raised is the primary access has always been Goodchap Street roundabout, and that's how traffic planning's gone. The school is moving, wanting to move, towards having it all come off Malta Hay, and that's our concern, it's not the primary access. So that 18 months is going to help review the impact of the car park on the corner and how that's functioning, and see whether we can shift to where the school wants to, or whether we still need to make changes. That's the internal link, which is what our traffic engineer thinks is needed. Councillor Jurisevic: So in essence, we'll have the traffic engineers turn around and do the assessments, see whether they can make a move. Councillor Wilkie: That's a pivotal point, so obviously there's value in this internal runway link, currently.
04:29:00 And they think it's no longer needed? Speaker 3: Ideally, the school would like to not have any internal car park, because they feel the internal car park conflicts with the safety for their students. So, you know, I can see from their perspective it's better to have car parking away from student areas. But our concern is the primary access should be Goodchap Street. So if they continue to move it all away and have it off Malta Hay, we're concerned about the traffic network and how it will function. So the 18 months is going to allow for that review, now that the car park on the corner has been built and operational. It'll allow us to review how that's going to work. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the case. It could be design of where those buildings are placed to put them closer in so the car park is on the external boundary rather than internal. So building placement, building location could eliminate the need for the car park to be internal. Speaker 3: Well, that's ultimately what the school's master plan is, is to remove that internal car park.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 That's what they would like to do. The whole 94 of them? Sorry? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The whole 94? Speaker 3: Yeah. That's ultimately what the school would like to do. But as I said, that then changes it and makes the primary access to come from Malta Hay Drive. And our concern is the impact that it will have on the network. Because at the moment, if you're having access off Malta Hay and access off Goodchap Street, you're splitting the traffic. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, one would think flow through traffic, entering at Goodchap and leaving at Malta Hay. Speaker 3: That's what we're suggesting. We think it needs to be maintained. Councillor Jurisevic: That clearly makes sense. Speaker 3: But we're willing to review it after 18 months to see what's happening. Mayor Stewart: And are they getting a traffic engineer and all that to monitor all that sort of stuff? Speaker 3: Yeah, they have a traffic engineer. And we'll do that work before the 18 months is up.
04:31:00 And we will have a traffic engineer review their findings. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry if I've missed it. There's a comment made that vegetation screening is going to help offset the bulk of the buildings. Is there a condition in here requiring this vegetation screening? Speaker 10: Sorry, the report's stating that the existing vegetation that is situated in that area will help. The existing vegetation? Yes. Councillor Wilkie: OK. Thank you. We have a... Tom? Councillor Wegener: Just a comment. If you ever want to lose faith in humanity, watch the fear and trouble on the ground. Councillor Wilkie: We have a move from Councillor Jurisevic, we have a seconder, Councillor Finzel, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, it's clear that the school have got proposals here and it's good that we can look at the traffic management and give 18 months to ensure that we get a workable solution for the future growth, future modifications and improvements and upgrades at the school
04:32:00 of performance. Speaker 3: Yeah, so just if I may give the councillors a heads up, the applicant's not very pleased with the limit on student numbers, because they do have plans to increase it down the track, but if they were increasing student numbers they would really have to upgrade that set down pick-up area now. Absolutely. So just letting the councillors know. Councillor Wegener: Well, I think working with the cycling and walking strategy to try to disperse, as you said, Amelia. You know, you want to disperse these pupils and the kids to come in. Mayor Stewart: Just on that, Kerry, how do we correlate if they want to increase the size of the school? We know that there are literally, our schools are at capacity. We've got more and more people moving here. I heard a statistic that 100 people had enrolled in Sunshine Beach State High School in the last 12 months.
04:33:00 How do we, I guess, not allow them to increase, like, how do we justify? How do we justify that when we know there's such an influx of families coming to this area? Speaker 3: Well, this application they put to us that there's no increase going to result. So that's what these conditions are doing. If they want to increase it down the track, we can have a look at it in terms of what impact does that have on the intersections, and do we need to make some changes to make them work better? So that's really, and also we'll look at car parking numbers, you know, how car parking is working on site, can it cater? But they haven't put that to us. That's something we'll have to try and look at. Councillor Lorentson: So back to that, if a school does accept 100 extra kids, does council then have to impose extra infrastructure, not contributions, but... Yeah. Yeah. Are they expected to add extra parking?
04:34:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. A number of the schools in the Shire have a ministerial exemption from the planning scheme requirements. So when they go through changes to the school, they aren't required to come in for a development application. So a lot of the state schools have an exemption. The private schools, though, don't have that ministerial exemption and are required to undergo a development application. So they're required to undergo a development application and review by council. Mayor Stewart: And those numbers were hearsay. I can't confirm that, that increase in numbers, but I've heard that. But there's been a substantial, if I know our school's fault, yeah. Speaker 7: I think the end of that live thing, I'm curious, but it used to be intensified. You know, more teachers, they need to park somewhere, more parents dropping off, wanting to look at the drop-off facility. So if there is a change in the numbers, then that's why you've got to go back and have a look at these issues. Yeah. Speaker 3: And there's all sorts of strategies that schools can look at. I mean, there's a number of schools on the Sunshine Coast that have staggered start
04:35:00 notice times. I was going to say, do they implement staggered start times? There's other things that we can look at in discussion for the schools. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? Brian? I'm going to talk. And it might be something I look at on Thursday night, because I can't get my head around it right now. Now I know how much the CEO loves amendments on the run. Speaker 7: Congratulations on your restraint. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener brought up a really good point. I think we should be using the 18 months for the school to also quantify the increase in number of students who don't go to school. It may be good to put into either the deed of agreement or condition an incentive so that they can show that, in fact, we've gone from 5% to 20% walking, cycling, or we've got increased bus numbers, and that may be a justification.
04:36:00 I was there recently with the Environmental Ed Hub and talked to, I think they were Grade 9s, the first group of three classes I asked who rode their bike and walked, and guess how many? One? Councillor Wegener: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh my God, really? Okay, we did have one who came in a Tesla, which was a good day. The next group of two, we had a fair few more, but still quite low numbers. So that's probably something we could use as a political push. Hey, one of the solutions to your problem is actually tell Mum and Dad, let the kids walk, ride a bike, let them arrange different things like our other school programs, try and get those number of cars down. And maybe we can look at this. I don't think there's an option before Thursday on that. But otherwise, I agree with the concept as is. We're doing a temporary arrangement to allow redevelopment in other ones without any great increase in our pressure from car packing.
04:37:00 So I'm happy to go along with the proposal as is. Councillor Wilkie: And the speakers? Put the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll just close in one minute. Close, yeah. Just to concur with what Brian said there. I mean, I think it's a good idea. And the other option there, of course, is greater increase in bus usage. So to facilitate greater uptake of public transport options is another way to shape and form. Perhaps, yeah, that is a good, if the school is thinking about expansion, that we look at those opportunities, or even to reduce their traffic issues. If there's any way that can be implemented, that would be a good option. So I agree with my fellow councillor there. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion there as a favour. Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Kerry. Item 8, operational plan progress report for quarter. Page 27, councillor. Page 27 of the general committee agenda. Speaker 7: Do you want me to give a quick overview?
04:38:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr CA. That would be good, Mr CA. Speaker 7: Yeah, this is the quarterly report CA gives about how we're tracking with the operational plan. And, of course, this is the one for 30 June. You'll see there we've highlighted that, not unexpectedly, we've got most of the items complete. There are quite a few multi-year ones. And some of them are on behind. Maybe just in the report, on page 28, 29, I've highlighted the ones that are behind. Some of those are not unexpected. The two down at Peregian Beach Beach, they were both delayed in relation to previous tendering going into liquidation. We've got a lot else on. And as a result of COVID, some of the other projects have been pushed back a bit, put a little bit behind where we like. But placemaking is a good example of that. And at some stage, we'll want to have a look at the response to our COVID pandemic, have a look at some lessons learned. But it's still going. So it's a little bit early.
04:39:00 They're not done by February. Look out. We've got a report coming in the next month. We'll get the full annual report from them. And I think the economic stimulus projects, we've got almost all of those across the line. There's one project out at Tewantin Sports down there that's a little bit behind. And it was the Council's decision to put off the corporate plan until the new COs are on board. They're the major issues in terms of the operational plan. We've got a number of them. They're probably the lowest we've had in the last couple of years. But I think that's probably masked a little bit some of the pressures some of the different areas are under at the moment. Building, plumbing, DA areas, they've got a record number of applications. They're under pump. Our capital works guys are the same. Even the HOs are in high demand at the moment.
04:40:00 Strat plan and some other areas. So there's a fair bit on the The only other thing to mention, at one of the earlier meetings, Councillor Drew said we'd ask to include an extra provision in these regular reports about whether there's any notice that had been confidential but made public. We've now included that in item 4, which is on page 31, which is a link to the website. There were no such changes. And just above that, you'll see that we've taken the opportunity to fine-tune the operational plan that was adopted as part of the budget. It's gone through, as it always does, have a look at the details and make sure it's all right. And we've come up with some additional, better wording, made some suggestions for three relatively minor changes to some of the wording to better reflect what we're trying to do. That's probably a summary of what's in the report. Councillor Wilkie: Brett, you've mentioned that the number of customer requests has continued to increase.
04:41:00 And is at an all-time high. Does that mean it's even higher than when the Council came out of amalgamation and was re-establishing itself? Speaker 7: Well, I haven't gone back and looked at those stats from 2014. They were very high back then. We've only looked back over the last couple of years. And my recollection is that what we're seeing now, and you'll see it up on the screen at the top of the page, 40. They are higher than the last couple of years. And a lot of those... They're a bit of a mixture. We always get some standard ones, you know, dogs, barking, missed bings, things like that, trees, those types of things. But there's a bit of a... The green one at the bottom is all others. And it's a bit of a grab bag at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll stop putting your stats in soles. Yeah. Speaker 7: So the good news is that what I call the frontline team on the phones, I looked at... There's another report on here. They answered over 70,000 calls.
04:42:00 And most of those have dealt with on the spot, so to speak. And they're probably the strongest team we've had there for a while at the moment, I would say. Councillor Wilkie: So that's 70,000 calls a year? A year. A year. So just a follow-on question. The graph that's next to our customers there, the request completed within target date and month. Previous years, the completion was a lot higher, and we're well below that. Is that the sheer volume of requests that we're getting? Speaker 7: That's enormous. So, for example, it might be a dog barking. So we would have a service level that says, if someone puts a request in for a barking dog, we would need to deal with that within, I can't remember the exact date, but it might be 48 hours or something like that. So we might not get to that within 48 hours. We're getting so many different requests on that particular type of thing. So we probably might get to it in 72 hours, for example. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that mean I'm not able to identify why we're getting, is it because people are at home?
04:43:00 Speaker 7: There's a lot of speculation about it. I don't know the answer, Joe. I can speculate, but I don't know. One of the speculations is, yes, the people are at home, they've got more time on their hands. Walking, walking paths more often, walking, they're on their feet around the suburbs and all the rest of it, so. More anxious about things too? I don't know about that. I spoke to two other CEOs just recently, and they're saying similar types of things. They're higher, so, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: More people at home and restricted, so they've got more to look at. Speaker 7: Well, you don't actually see that on a month-to-month basis. Some of those are when people weren't in lockdown. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was trying to add there. Speaker 12: Yeah, sorry, I was just going to contribute. When we first started this new council, the number of requests we were getting was around the $320, $320, $320 a week. Over a couple of... Councillor Wilkie: In 2014? Speaker 12: Yes, yeah. In the early days of start-up, we were getting very high numbers. They dropped a little after that, in the, say, one or two years after that, and then they've been increasing again.
04:44:00 So, just from memory, I remember those sorts of stats. Councillor Wilkie: So, how many a week are you getting now? Speaker 12: Well, if you look at that, that's a monthly figure, so just dividing. Councillor Wilkie: $40,000 a year, yeah. $70,000 a year, isn't it? Well, if June is $2,000, that means divide by four, $500 a year. Speaker 7: Request in by letter or by email or by snap send, so they come in in different ways, so... Speaker 12: Different ways, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So, you were talking about calls? Speaker 12: I was mainly talking calls, not actual requests. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question this year. We've got significant challenges in certain departments, Brett, specifically in planning when we're down short-staffed. How are those challenges being addressed? Speaker 7: Yeah, we've got the areas that are... So, before, the areas that are underpublished a lot in terms of numbers.
285 minutes in ¶
04:45:00 So, we, through the budget, decided to put on extra staff in some of those areas. So, building and planning was one, development assessment was another, where we added extra resources. So, that was proven to be number one in those areas. In the development assessment area in particular, the... I call it peak STA, because we have a number of applications coming through coinciding with the end of the 12-month period under the Planning Scheme, where we've got superseded Planning Scheme applications. So, probably in another two to four weeks, they should be over that bubble. The other areas were the Capital Works area. So, again, a record Capital Works program coming up. Agreed to look at resourcing there, going through, have a look at, and Larry's going through that at the moment, to have a look at whether there's any additional resource needs to be able to deliver that, and doing a, call it secreting, in terms of what projects are coming up. So, each of those areas have been looked at in terms of resourcing.
04:46:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Having a manager out in Mike's, having directors change hands, having a director out. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 7: All the way back to the new way to start it today, too, which is good. Got it. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Speaker 3: I've got a question. Councillor Finzel: So, for the CEO, through the Chair, given the increase of the numbers of calls, has there been a review for customer service staff, and how are they managing it? Speaker 12: A review of customer service was done about probably two years ago now, where we looked at calls. We're constantly monitoring them. Our casual staff give us an opportunity to be able to boost for peak times, which is great, because the span of day goes beyond it normally. It's a normal work day for a person. So, casual staff allow us to do that. But we're monitoring it, and the review was done about two years ago, when we put in some additional resources into that area to be able to deal with the increase in requests and calls.
04:47:00 Speaker 7: And the good thing in that area is that there are staff we can put up who are casual, so that if we see spikes coming up, we might be coming into dog registration period, you know, you can get a little application. Right, you know, this is what all the staff want, and Jason's very good at managing that. Councillor Wilkie: And just looking at those number of planning applications decided within statutory timeframes, that looks like a, despite the pressures, that looks like a positive picture. It is, yeah. This is a testament to their work. Speaker 7: Yeah, but there's a lot of pressure in that area. If you look at building and plumbing and development assessment, they're the areas that have got the record number of applications at the moment, because the building stimulus stuff that's going on. And building and plumbing is the same. It's got huge numbers of applications coming through at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Can we read the recommendation? Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Seconder, Councillor Lorentson.
04:48:00 John. Councillor Jurisevic: Stabilising amount of work ongoing in crime circumstances with COVID. Impacting on all levels of council business, but also a new planning scheme, and record capital works programme and all the rest of it. It's a credit to you and the team that manage it all as well as we are in the city area. And so I commend you and staff on their dedication and devotion to the community to keep it up. Councillor Wilkie: The team's on. Mr. CEO, it's appropriate that you move an amendment that formally, the council, the council will formally thank the organisers. How would that be done? Speaker 7: I'm not suggesting you do that in 9 and 10, which is about the annual review report. That might be better than just the quarterly operational one. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. I just second Joe's comments. It's a great testament to the work ethic and the resilience
04:49:00 and the capacity of the organisation to... to manage their workload under extremely trying and stressful circumstances. We in the community are in their debt, and I'd just like to express my gratitude to them. Councillor Lorentson: The only thing I'd like to add to that, Councillor Wilkie, is that having been an operations manager in my past life, I understand firsthand that your staff are your number one, and I commend council in their endeavours to protect staff from COVID fatigue, and their commitment also in developing staff in training and improving their negotiation skills, and helping us achieve excellence as a council.
04:50:00 And probably the only other thing I want to add is that we need to continue to work with the local government, and check on their well-being. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'd just like to reiterate what the Chair said and Councillor Lorentson did. I thank our CEO and all our senior staff, our exec team. They make our job easy in so many respects, and there's a lot of hard work behind the scene, and it's greatly valued and appreciated. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The councillors wish to speak to the motion. Do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I think everything's been covered. I commend you on your thoughts about the real point of reading item 10. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, I've got the motion as a favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Deb. Next item is the budget review for the BR1 for 2021-2022 financial year of age 44. Speaker 3: I feel like I've been having a look at James.
04:51:00 I feel like I've been having a look at James. Councillor Wilkie: So in a nutshell, the office bottom line is looking worse, but it's really... It's a cost-neutral change because we're moving a lot of grant-funded projects from the previous year forward to this financial year. Correct. Is that in a nutshell? Yep. Speaker 8: Yeah, we'll spend cash, but the cash is for a specific purpose, and it won't impact our bottom line in future budgets. Speaker 9: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I think most of our questions were raised and addressed in the workshop quite adequately, so thanks, guys, for a good job. Mayor Stewart: I might just get you to explain, Trent, just for the purpose of those listening at home, the budget review decreasing council's operating position by $1 million,
04:52:00 reducing from $309 surplus to $692 deficit. Sure. Yeah, just for the people at home. Speaker 4: Sure. So we adopted an original budget of $309,000 surplus. Now, obviously, BR1 is carryovers, so it's any unspent committed projects. You'll find in that is over $1 million worth of grants funded projects. So we actually received the money last money to a year, so that $1 million is already in the bank. So whilst we are adopting a deficit, it's cash neutral over the two years. It's just timing. It's money in one year, money out the next. So as Michael just alluded to before, long-term, it doesn't make any impact. So from a financial sustainability perspective, it all gets out. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thanks. Just a question. We've been extremely successful in just attaining state and federal grant funding,
04:53:00 and I understood from our workshop that that trend's been, it's been happening for the last three years. Why weren't we as successful prior to three years ago in attracting state and federal funding? I've got a question to the CEO or Michael. Well, I'll answer that. Speaker 8: We were a start-up-made council, and we were trying to get the organisation up and running, and then we had started our strategic thinking around particularly our infrastructure program, moving forward, opportunities, so on and so forth. And we, we targeted, we made a specific decision, strategic decision to start targeting the grant programs, which we did, and we've, we've done very well. Councillor Jurisevic: There's a grant program we were privy to as well, that we now, we now have back to us too, that. Speaker 7: Probably the other additional comment is that, given the last two years, the amount of money flying out of the state and Commonwealth has been, it's been initially, because of the
04:54:00 stimulus packages and things like that, so there's more money around as well. Councillor Wilkie: I guess three years ago, the fire recovery and the COVID recovery grants weren't available, weren't offered. Speaker 8: No, but there were, there were, there's repairing, particularly federal and state programs, there's the building, the bridges renewal program, that's been around for years, and that, that will keep going. So we've, we've targeted that heavily, and we've been very successful, probably eight or nine bridges, you know, and that's a lot of money. Building Better Regions, another, you know, it's a great federal program, and, and, you know, we've done quite well out of that. It's Griffith Street, as an example. State government, local grants subsidies program, you know, comes out every two years, we, again, targeted that. And Playground. So we got funding for Playground, and so on, so it's, you know, it's being strategic about what programs we target, make sure that we, you know, those, to put the projects within our forward plan, and it's part of our strategic objectives, and as Brett mentioned, just the
04:55:00 last couple of years, the stimulus has kicked in, and we've had to adjust to that as well, so that's great, great to have all the money, but as you know, we, we still have to deliver those projects. Speaker 7: Probably the other thing, question for us, strategically, is how long that gravy train is going to keep going in the short term. Probably, I reckon, one of them, one, maybe, probably two years before the state starts to pull back, and they've got to pay the, the bank at some stage, so, yeah, I think we're in a golden period there. The question is how much can we deliver, and how much do we focus on that over the next couple of years before they pull back, some of that stimulus stuff, right? Councillor Jurisevic: And again, just the, that, that one, obviously, for regional councils that we weren't previously before, that we now are able to access opportunities at the state. Speaker 7: Well, the only thing that would qualify that, the only exception might be that we are in south east Queensland, there might be some more stimulus money for firing in terms of the Olympic positions.
04:56:00 I think so, sir. The only thing that might be different in coming years. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Any further questions? Anyone care to move the motion? Not one. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to thank staff again for their diligence and their, their financial management of Council Law. Finances always leave us in a, a good position, and I know we've also found a, an opportunity for some additional funding that we probably weren't even aware of. So, it's good to see. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now, again, thank you for the excellent reporting. You always keep us up to speed with the financial reporting. It helps give us a, you make it simplistic, easy to understand. It has the potential to be very complicated, financial reporting, but your advice is always clear and helpful, and so has the way it's presented. So, it's, it's appreciated. Thank you.
04:57:00 Any councillors to speak? Joe, you wish to close? No. So, the motion goes in favour. That's carried. And it's agreed with all the previous psychic? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Financial performance report, item 10. Speaker 7: Early days. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'll start with the question. One moment. On page 67, all funds have been invested in accordance with the investment policy and in consideration with the policy. The principles of ethical investment. Does Council have power to direct where money's been placed and whether it's been placed, I don't know, whether it's been placed in sustainable companies or things that make the planet better? Do we have that power? And what's meant by responsible investment or ethical investment?
04:58:00 Speaker 8: If it's in our investment policy, we have the power, and it is. Council adopted that policy as part of the budget. And look, this was introduced a few years ago in terms of the Council looking at its sustainability practices and how Noosa generally operates. And basically in our investment policy, what we do is when we look at alternative investment options or return deposits. We do a bit of work where if we can identify as part, and Trent does this as part of his, you know, when he goes, gets quotes from banks and so on, he looks at, okay, well, those banks that ethically invest, so they don't invest in effectively fossil fuel projects and so on. We provide a 10 basis point bonus so that, okay, there might be, say, 2.1%. But if everyone else was, say, 2%.
04:59:00 0.05%, the 0.1 basis point, or the 10 basis point benefit would then, you know, we would apply that and they would actually be the cheapest or give us the best return under our policy. So that's how we apply that condition as part of our policy decisions around where we invest. Councillor Lorentson: That's a good news story. That should be told in the community. You know, we've just adopted the climate response plan. And that's just, you know, walking the talk. Speaker 8: Yeah. But again, we think, you know, it's part of BAU for us now. So if the council wants to promote that, I'm more than happy. Thank you, sir. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Trent, right at the beginning, there's probably one figure there that stands out. People might sort of say, is that correct or is that a typo to see a 597.5% variance in capital revenue? We do not have that at the end of the financial year, but then people might question what we're doing.
300 minutes in ¶
05:00:00 But can you explain why we have such a significant variance in the first month of the year? Speaker 4: Sure, Councillor. At this point in time, very early days, we didn't anticipate too much revenue for capital grants coming in through the door at this point in time. We weren't at any milestones for any of the major projects, but we did receive 50% funding from the community stimulus package grant, which was 4.5%. $1 million, which we only were advised was successful on late in the budget process. So in BR1, the budget review, the previous agenda item, you would see that come through. So that'll leave it out next month. But it's purely timing, $2 million of grants. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, that was anticipated. It's just a matter of timing of when it came in compared to when we had budgeted for it, which month it came in. Yep. Thank you. Speaker 7: Councillor, the other thing I want to point out also, and do this each time, is the rate of the years graph on page 70. The way it's worth keeping an eye on that, just to set a sense of whether there's any issues out there. At this stage, it's a similar profile, but you can see what happens in the coming months.
05:01:00 Mayor Stewart: That was going to be my question. With the rate payments, how are we tracking? And Trent, do you have any, Michael, any concerns or anything keeping you awake or standing out in the garage for financial matters? I know things are looking good, but is there anything in particular you're keeping an eye on? Speaker 8: Yeah, look, we know that things are a bit tense out there in terms of the Delta variant, what that means for our operations and also local business, Clare. So, you know, I think it's a watching brief. But potentially, if there's further lockdowns that may eventuate, then that's going to potentially affect our revenue for our facilities, like it did last year. Holiday Parks, Aquatic Centre and DJ and so on. But also potential support that we trigger for the local businesses in terms of potential relief. So I think we're watching that, keeping an eye on the cash flows.
05:02:00 However, we're mindful that we've got capacity there if needed to. So we, you know, we can ride that out, provided, you know, that we make good, responsible decisions and intervene where we need to. So it's probably the main one for me, the ongoing lockdown risk. Yeah, certainly. Councillor Wilkie: Just a follow on question about that. On page 64, you've got the rates and levies summary and the rates and levies are issued in July. And you've budgeted. You'd expect to get about 50% of the annual rates about. Roughly, yeah. About now. Yep, yep. Because you're levying again in January. Correct. So you've got 52%. So that's more money coming in than anticipated at this stage. Speaker 4: There's probably two factors in there. So one is timing of when people pay their rates.
05:03:00 Yep. Takes into account when we've recognised the discount. So we get a better picture for how close we are to budget by month two, because that's when the payments start to come through and we start recognising those discounts. But that said, as you'll see in the report, waste charges are slightly up from budget. So we've got some upside there that hopefully we see flow through for the second half of the next year. Speaker 8: And it's a little bit, just probably slightly misleading as well, because we don't apply the discount until August, in terms of our system. So once the discounts apply, you'll see that 53 drop back to pretty much 50 with a little bit of waste. As Trent mentioned, the waste charges are up a bit because there's still businesses out there that are readjusting their service levels, which they dropped off eight, 12 months ago with the first lockdown.
05:04:00 So they're still recalibrating, bringing them back online. So that's where we've been conservative with that modelling around our waste charges. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, thanks. Good night. I'm sorry, Geoff. Thank you. Page 72, under capital funding. Catherine, you don't often see a negative percentage in the figures, but we can clearly see there's a budget of 22. Mel, but we've got a negative 9% there. Speaker 4: Can you explain why we've got a negative value? Sure. So that's in the capital funding side of the statement of capital income expenditure. So it shows the mix of where we're getting the cash from, essentially, New Capital Works. And that's the crossover of that other element? That's right. So if we get, in this case, if we get more grants than what we anticipated, we'll put the money back into the bank. And that's why it occurs there. Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Speaker 4: It's just balancing it off. So that was the other balance of the other question I asked. That's right. So the money goes in the bank. Let it sit there and we'll draw it back out of reserve as we need it. No drama.
05:05:00 Chris. Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: On page 66, the tourism and economic development investment. Council resolved to report on a monthly basis investment details for tourism and economic development. We're honouring that promise. Can you just explain to us the break-up and what was collected and who got what? Speaker 4: Sure. So obviously there's a summary on page 66 there. Yep. The investment in tourism and economic development is really in two areas, which is our contributions to Tourism Noosa and funding for operational programs under economic development to progress the local economic plan. So year to date, the first payment to Tourism Noosa will occur next month. Okay. So you won't see that in the GI figures. This is the largest component of it. It's at $2.5 million. And economic development is moving along with its annual program now that it's had funding
05:06:00 approval. Councillor Lorentson: So the transitory rate category, the new category we've introduced. Correct. That rate absorbs the tourism and economic levy. Is that correct, Trent? Correct. And how is that detailed or in the reporting? Well, that's a good question. It's in the reporting. Where do we find that information? Speaker 4: That new category, along with obviously all other rating categories, is embedded in the general rate. So when we look at our general rate revenue, where we are just over 52% of revenue earned, it's embedded in that revenue, which should be as part of, I think the report on page 64, the $38.7 million of rates that we've generated so far this year. So what does that say? Speaker 8: Kelly will bring a report to next month's meeting on the rates breakdown, the rates
05:07:00 of GI rate, and that will include all of those transitory categories and what we've collected. Speaker 7: She does that every six months. So that report will come up as part of the process, and you'll be able to look at how that broader, bigger rate is broken up. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And just to clarify, the tourism deficit will be paid next month? That's September? Speaker 8: 50%. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. No, this month. Next week? This, in August. And it will appear in next month's financial report, which reflects on August. This is? Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: You know, last year, when you put the budget together, there was a lot of contingency. And obviously, you must be looking at this next year, looking at the Delta variant and so forth, saying, my gosh, you know, is this year a good year? And then you sort of rehash it next year, or last year, with looking at a very uncertain future. Do you feel more confident in the future here? Speaker 8: I think, let me get to Christmas, and I think I feel a little bit more comfortable with
05:08:00 answering that question, then. Councillor Jurisevic: Let's see where it goes. I think we've got capacity, we've got, you know, we've got a lot of capacity. Speaker 8: We've got a strong financial position, good cash reserves. We've got capacity, if needed, to absorb some shock. We've got disaster management reserve in place, two and a half million of restricted cash that we can draw upon, if needed. So, I'm comfortable that our sustainability won't be compromised in at least the next six months. Councillor Jurisevic: We're not going to go and pay off any loans any time soon? No, we're not. No. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just sort of, still a follow-up on the transitory rate category. So, the tourism and economic work is absorbed in that rating. So, should that money be going towards economic development and tourism, and should it be,
05:09:00 again, in this chart? I'm just wondering why it's not encompassed. I'll answer that. Yeah. So, I just want to understand where that money's going. Speaker 8: The purpose of the resolution, at the special meeting, is that it's not going to be to report monthly on Council's investment in tourism and economic development. The fear out there was that Council was somehow going to change up what we're doing, what we're investing in tourism, and put it elsewhere. We're investing three and a half million a year in economic development and tourism. That's what we're going to report on. How it's collected is why it's now in the general rate. So, it's part of a mix of transitory, commercial. That funds everything. It doesn't just fund tourism. It funds maintenance. It funds libraries. It funds everything in the Shire. So, I don't think it's correct to keep referring back to a levy that's no longer in existence and trying to report on that.
05:10:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, back to you, Michael. So, can we then say that what it does do is, it's a user pay, and rather than us increasing our rates for all tourism, it's a user pay. The way we have moved up our rate is by losing all of our residents, has it actually helped us to reduce our rate increase to 1.9%. Speaker 8: Is that effectively correct? We recalibrated our rating structure to redistribute the rating effort across transitory, normal residents of business, so that we minimise the increase of residents to 1.5%. And we can do that. And you can see it in our operating position, it was $309,000, we're now in a deficit, so we haven't, there's no wing fall, it was just used prudently by Council as part of the budget decision making to, as part of that broader distribution of how we collect money.
05:11:00 However, we're still investing $3.5 million in tourism and economic development, this financial year. Speaker 7: Fantastic, thank you. I think it'll be clearer when we see the report from Kelly, but how that whole structure of our rate is made up, that'll be probably a better time. Councillor Jurisevic: Good to see that clearly articulated there in the way, I appreciate the new format that you've put in there, thank you Mike. Councillor Lorentson: I'll pass it on to Tewas and Noosa. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone care to move the report? Councillor Finzel, seconder Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yep, I think we're tracking on. It's a good report, I'm looking forward to the rates report back to us, and then we can just clarify the issues raised, but I think given the COVID and where we're heading, you've done a good job and the report's up to speed, so thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Karen. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to add just something very quick, we're in really good hands, and that's acknowledged and appreciated by not just councillors, but people in the community, thank you.
05:12:00 I've got a poster boys. Councillor Jurisevic: Didn't we mention something earlier, so this would be the appropriate place to add that. No, it's 12. Item 12. Item 12. Sorry, item 12. Councillor Wilkie: Item 12. And there is a voted thanks in the recommendation. Oh, there's another one after this one. Sorry, I thought it was the last one. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, no. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks. Mayor Stewart: Thanks Michael. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We appreciate it. Thank you. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. You'd be worried if we didn't approve this. Okay, item 11. Update on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. The chat. Page 11. Sorry, page 76 of the General Committee meeting agenda. That's an update report on where we're at, the chat. Councillor Laurenson. Oh, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Laurenson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cherisani owns a property at Beaches Estate, Sunrise
05:13:00 Beach, which is one of the properties identified as at risk under the draft CHAP. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest and I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest, I believe that some members of the public may still have a perception of bias and it's for that reason that I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I do I stand up? Councillor Wilkie: You don't have to. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,660.66 to the Council for the Advancement of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Peoples to my 2020 election campaign, where
05:14:00 I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Butt and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Councillor Finzel. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to advise the meeting that I have previously declared a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to this matter, as I own the property at Noosa Lake Resort that was identified in the draft cap as having the potential to be impacted by inundation, which I have previously declared a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to this matter, as resulting from sea level rise. I have now sold that property and therefore no longer have a conflict of interest in relation
315 minutes in ¶
05:15:00 to any matters associated with the check. Speaker 11: Thank you. Speaker 7: Are there any other conflicts of interest that need to be declared? Councillor Wilkie: I will ask a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Finzel, can you reiterate your relationship with Mr Butt? Councillor Finzel: I have no personal relationship with Mr Peter Butt. I have no personal relationship with Mr Peter Butt. Councillor Jurisevic: The donation was given to the future Noosa group, and it was only the fact that you were one of a member of that group that you received the donation as a result of that. Councillor Finzel: I believe so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I presume with 166.66, that's a third of the total donation? Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 7: Maybe I'll just explain that to you. The legislation provides that if a donation is provided to a group of candidates, then for the purpose of calculating the amount that I talked about this morning, then it's divided by the number of candidates with an allocation record for one of their appraisals.
05:16:00 Councillor Wilkie: I don't know who got the odd thing. I'm happy to move that Councillor Finzel participates and votes on this matter, because Councillor Finzel does not have a close personal relationship. I'm happy to move that Councillor Finzel participates and votes on this matter, because Councillor Finzel does not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Butt, would be able to consider the matter impartially, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made by the public interest. I'll second that. I'll second that, Councillor Stewart. I do that because the important thing is that the declaration is made, and Councillor Finzel has done that. I believe that on a matter like the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, it's better to have more people around the table. The diversity of views. I think it's healthier. And also that Councillor Finzel does not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Butt, and I believe it's better to have Councillor Finzel in the room, and the important thing is that the declaration has been made.
05:17:00 Any other councillors which would speak to the motion? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I will. I support Councillor Wilkie, and I support Councillor Finzel staying in the room. This is an entity that received a donation. It was declarable between the $500 and $2,000 mark. Thank you, Councillor Finzel, for being, like Councillor Wilkie was this morning, for being so upfront and declaring it. There's no personal association or relationship. This is an entity that no longer exists. And it's a... I think, you know, what was said this morning... That whenever there's been a request for a declarable conflict of interest, this table has been very supportive of, unless there was a major reason not to, of a council staying in the room.
05:18:00 So I think with consistency on that and all the other reasons mentioned, I think that, you know, you should be in the room. It's a very important decision. I would like Councillor Lorentson to be in the room. I think it's too big an issue for our community to not have a full table, to have every voice heard. So in that reason, I support you staying in the room. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I've just got another question along those lines. There were three members of the Future News Group. Do you know if any of those others had a personal relationship with Mr. Vance? The three donating, whether it was on a personal level or specifically... Is that relevant? I'm just trying to work out who or why donation was given to the group as a whole. Mayor Stewart: Maybe he just wanted to intimate change. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm trying to understand with my question, whether it was on a personal relationship Councillor Wilkie: or whether it was... That's a question for Councillor Finzel.
05:19:00 That was it, Jo. Councillor Finzel: Well, I can't speak on the behalf of the other members of Future News Group. Councillor Jurisevic: So you're not aware of any other relationship with Mr. Vance but with the other members of that group? Councillor Finzel: I'm not aware. No. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Tom. Councillor Wegener: First, I think that I really would like Councillor Finzel in the room. I think that her contribution is substantial. I... And I will support you, but I do... The elephant in the corner is, you know, there is a more direct relation, you know, the pub test, as Amelia would say. You know, this guy... I don't know. Mr. Butt donated directly to your campaign through these other three, two people, you know, the three. But it seems that it's a slightly closer nexus. So I think that the pub test... I support you, but I do raise the public perception might not be as favourable, that
05:20:00 they might not know... Mayor Stewart: Mr. CEO, how does it differ from this morning when Councillor Wegener spoke so strongly to Councillor Vance? And I think the other one was about a donation then too. Speaker 7: Is that a question to me or to somebody who can't find it? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, that's a question for you. Yeah, it's a 20 year relationship. Because that's a 20 year relationship and this is someone she barely knows. And they're both given money too on a campaign. Councillor Wegener: Because with the donator, with Wilkie, what didn't own the property? Mr Butt actually donated money to this, to the Finzel's campaign, and he directly owns the property. Where with Frank, the donator doesn't own the property. Another person owns the property, but the person made an objection. But the person making the objection doesn't own the property. So there's three people involved here where there's two people involved with Finzel. Mayor Stewart: But there's no close personal relationship indeed.
05:21:00 She barely knows Mr Butt. Councillor Wegener: No, I agree. I agree. But I'm just finding that the... Yeah. The pub test. Because it played out. But I will support you. I absolutely support Councillor Finzel staying in the room. Councillor Finzel: Well, what else does anyone else think about that? Because if there's a public perception out there, I'll lose protection of this vote if there's perception that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think from my perspective... Councillor Stockwell. Had this been a development application on Mr Butt's property, I probably would not have agreed to staying in the room. But Mr Butt is one of many affected by the chat. And in that regard, I think it is a declarable interest that once it's out, as Councillor Wilkie said, once it's out in the open, you'll be judged on the merits of your argument, not whether Mr Butt has given you donations. And as long as people are aware, they can make their own decisions on the merits of
05:22:00 your argument rather than... Yeah. I don't think anyone would think that. And that's a total of $1666.66. The donation is sufficient to change a person's view on a substantial matter like a chapter. Councillor Wilkie: Joe, have you spoken to the motioner? Councillor Jurisevic: I haven't spoken to him. I'm happy with what's been put around the table. I'm happy to support. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I think enough said. I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Speaker 12: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Right, now we've got the matter before us, which is the update on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. Speaker 7: Yeah, Council, again, maybe just a quick summary of the report. This hasn't been before Council for a while, so I'll probably give the Council a quick update, but it will also provide an opportunity to, if you like, deal with conflict of interest issues before we get to the standard issues for the track.
05:23:00 We're up to, we've been through the first round of consultation. We've got a lot of consultation, we've got a lot of submissions back, we've got a roundtable underway which has had four meetings with another one this Friday. Ultimately, once we get through that process, we'll be report back to Council, get the workshop already scheduled in, report coming to Council, probably a special Council meeting towards the end of next month. Looking at what changes are desirable based on the feedback and input from the community and also feedback to unpack some of those issues through the roundtable. That will go to Council for consideration on the draft. From there, I think staff will probably be recommending that we go round for another round of community consultation. Because there's probably going to be changes. But we'll work through that through October. And then if Council is aware, we will work through that. We're working towards trying to finalise the document to send back to the State Government in accordance with the timetable which is currently for 30 November.
05:24:00 So that's the intent to just give the Council a quick update on that. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to move the motion. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ryan? No need to talk. No. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? No. I'll do the update. Okay. I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's carried. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And Mr Chair? Aye. I foolishly thought the meeting would be finished by three. And I've had some people waiting downstairs for me. So I'm going to pass the meeting at this point. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Item 12, which is the Year in Review. Welcome back to Councillor Lorentson. We're up to item 12, which is page 79 of the Bill. Item 13, which is the General Committee Meeting Agenda, which is a reflection on an enormous
05:25:00 year in review. I don't know where to begin, Mr CEO. Is there some points you'd like to pull out? General overview. Speaker 7: That's a good one. Can I probably start by saying I reckon I missed stuff as well? Yeah. There's so much on. I was trying to think. Well, the first draft I put together I left out the schoolies. I forgot about that. They didn't appear at a council report or anything like that. It's something we did in the background. But there has been a lot on. And, you know, again, not being around the bush has been a pretty tough year with COVID trying to deliver a lot of services while that's been on. And I flag that this is, in terms of staff thinking, this is an appropriate time because it has been an incredible 12 months. You know, again, it's a bit subjective, but the top 10 issue is just on their own. But I've identified a report of some really interesting and diverse projects in there.
05:26:00 From the, you know, starting on the Hinterland Park and the Hinterland Adventure Playground at Cooroy through, which I'm sure since a long time ago for council, but adopting the town planning scheme back in July last year, which was in that financial year. You know, the Pritchin Hub going from strength to strength and attracting money for the fire tech, which is pretty good, to refinancing our debt to save rate payers a lot of money and take advantage of low interest rates. So it's a really broad scale. But if I looked at the one thing that characterised this last 12 months, it was actually COVID. The amount of time that staff have spent on that, having to deal with the issues, the lockdowns, the start-ups, the working from home, the uncertainty that provides. It's been a pretty big thing. But then you look towards the end of the report and, you know, still lay out 300 and whatever thousand, 500 people, how many people went through the aquatic centre and things like that. So it's been a pretty incredible 12 months. Are you proud of your organisation?
05:27:00 Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And if you look, you know, as I said, this is the time. I think the councillor here was talking before about thank you to the staff. This is clearly the time. Councillor Wilkie: Well, I note that in the recommendation, it mentions, and thank council staff for their efforts in the last 12 months. There were so many projects and projects to our community. What form will that thanks take as a CRM? Can it move beyond just a recommendation, a motion? Speaker 7: Yeah, we've got a couple of things. Well, one is the last couple of weeks, I've done a few things. Anyway, I had a special newsletter just after the last lockdown to all the staff, thanking them, particularly the people who were trying to do homeschooling and work at the same time. So I did that. And on an online session, I do a broadcast to staff, similar thing. And we've got, the mayor has come up with a great idea to have a couple of functions in the next couple of weeks to thank staff. And later in the year, we've also got our annual staff recognition event, where we have our annual awards and staff awards. So there are a few opportunities to come up. But I can also pass on to staff in the next Pelican newsletter, which will be coming out
05:28:00 soon, our internal staff newsletter of this decision. I'm going to highlight that too. Councillor Wilkie: And personal thanks from all of us. Absolutely. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I note on the top ten highlights, you've said our Peregian Digital Hub. That's fantastic. Speaker 7: That wasn't delivered. Councillor Wegener: Any questions? Sorry. No, no. You go, Tom. Oh, I just, you know, plenty of things to point out. On page 84, on the second dot, point down, the Cooroy was also resurfaced. The Cooroy Road. That downtown Cooroy. Yep. Speaker 3: Thank you. I do have ten. Thanks for that. Mayor Stewart: Just, Brett, just on the, I was just interested to read the specific operational plan priorities. The working group to guide the revenue diversification project, that sounds great. Speaker 7: Yeah, we, Michael and Anthony were doing some work on that. They started that probably 80 months, two years ago, and they came up with some really good ideas, but we just had to park it.
05:29:00 That's doing things like, you know, demand management on pricing, things like that, and looking at different ways to take pressure, find revenue streams, to take pressure off the rates. But as I said, in terms of the priorities, unfortunately, COVID means we've got to deal with other things. So that'll, we'll come back to that. Councillor Jurisevic: That is one where I actually had to go back, and I actually thought we'd implemented the officer for that through the budget process, but I had to go back and do a double check and go, what did, and I thought we'd started that initiation, but we still haven't got there yet, have we? Speaker 7: Just by way. For example, you know, like at the moment, we might charge someone, you know, $100 to do a property search, and they do it in advance. Now, often some lists will ring up at the last minute, so I need this done today, and our staff will do that for $100. But you might say, well, if you want that service turned around in four hours, then we'll charge you $200. So in other words, plan ahead, or we just want to pay it free. Brilliant. So that type of thing where you can look at the demand management.
330 minutes in ¶
05:30:00 Anthony's got a good background in it. That's where he came in. Yeah, that was great. Councillor Finzel: Terrific. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'd like to also make comment on the introduction of the new online portal, Open Council, with the view to, you know, engender trust and community and promote transparency. I think that's a great step towards, you know, building on those attributes and those themes that we want to take forward into community. So I really. Speaker 7: Thank Polly for that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, Polly did a great job on that. So it's given us a great platform to work on and move forward and build on that trust and transparency. So thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So, you know, you mentioned the continued support of like part four of community organisation. It's that change to Sunshine Coast Airport flight. Yeah. Which impact on the list of community? Have we got any? Where is that currently at? Speaker 7: They're going through what they call a post-inventation review phase, which is looking at testing whether what they said would happen with the flight path actually has.
05:31:00 So that involves having both noise modelling being undertaken and also noise monitoring being undertaken. And there's a process on at the moment where Councillor Wilkie and myself were on an online meeting two weeks ago, with the air services and all the community group getting updated on that. Later this year, there's an opportunity for the community to put forth what they call alternative flight paths. And you might recall Council has contributed $5,000 towards the local community group to undertake some research on that. So later this year, that will be an opportunity for alternative flight paths to be taken forward and then compared against the current flight paths. So that post-implementation review process. This will be probably finished in early to mid-2022. We continue to liaise pretty closely with the flight path forum group on that.
05:32:00 Councillor Jurisevic: One on page 86 that I only just noticed. The economic grant program was impacted by the uncertain COVID restrictions and lockdown. Council did provide $10,000 for a range of projects to support the local economy. 2021 recipients include the Hastings Street Association, Coroy Chamber of Commerce and Woman by Abbey Rose. Speaker 7: I need to take that on notice. Councillor Lorentson: I can fill it in. Women by Abbey Rose is set up by two wonderful young ladies, Lucy and Abbey, both around 21, 22 entrepreneurs, and they provide a platform for young women to speak. And they support this incredible entrepreneur. I think it's the first time I've actually heard of that one or read that one.
05:33:00 I'll just add one thing. Yeah. That's why I'm so tired. I'm kidding. It's really interesting. When I read the report, I keep thinking, are we a business? Are we a service provider? But we just do so much. We protect our staff. We support and encourage businesses. We look for opportunities for women. We look for our residents. We nurture. We protect the homeless, the people in need. And I'm humbled and overwhelmed by what this organization does. And I feel privileged that I play a small part in this. But yeah, it's a great council. Councillor Wilkie: It's gratifying to hear. I'll say that. Councillor Jurisevic: If there's nothing further, I'll move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: I'll send it just to prove I was here. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Go, Joe.
05:34:00 Look, outstanding work. Serious. By the team. The thanks, the wording of thanks in there can't go enough in the recommendation to support the work of staff and the CEO and the executive team. Of course, Kylie and Cathy as well as part of our support network and the work they do for not only councillors, but for the community as a whole. So thank you. It's a credit to the organization for an entity so small that we're able to achieve so much. And it's only through the hard work and dedication of the staff that we have that we are able to do that. We certainly, I believe, kick well above our weight when it comes to the achievements and the services that we're able to deliver. So my congratulations to the whole thing. And what I've been incredibly proud of is that we've been able to do this. We've had some incredibly fine circumstances this year with lockdowns and working from
05:35:00 home and back and forth a couple of times and all the rest of it. It's impressive to see the financial results that we've been able to achieve, even under those circumstances. So a credit to your team, Mr. CEO. And I hope we can continue to deliver going forward. Thank you, Joe. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I'll jump in there. If anyone asks, what does this mean to you? This is exactly the report you need to refer them to and this isn't all of it, this is most of it, it's a community service provider running on financially responsible principles and providing strategic leadership in conjunction and cooperation with our community, it's an amazing organisation, I'm proud to play a small part in it and I'm gratified to hear that the CEO is proud of his organisation, I hope the staff feel proud to be part of his organisation as well because they're doing us proud and I know a lot of people in the community are also grateful for the service they provide but we're always striving to do better under difficult circumstances.
05:36:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll lend my voice to the litany of thanks, Brett thank you very much for your hard work to the exec team, to all the staff, they do all the heavy lifting and as I said they make our job look so easy, so I'm so incredibly grateful for all that you do and all the staff do, so please pass on our collective voice of thanks. Councillor Wegener: In the words of the great Brian Stockwell, I agree with what everybody else has said, but it is actually overwhelming how much of an organisation that is, you just can't believe there's a universe unto itself, so thank you very much. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, thank you, thank you. I better have a say since everyone else has had a say.
05:37:00 Last night I was walking into the local IGA, I was having a chat to one of the locals and said how was it going, what was I up to, reiterated how busy we all were and I was told to get a real job so. So here I am having a, you know, a go at this, but it's great to be part of the bigger vision, it's fabulous to be, you know, despite the ups and downs and the challenges that everyone faces daily at a personal level and at a collective level in the organisation and out in the community. I just think it's great to work with people that really, our greater goal is to have excellence as council and I see everyone working really hard at what I see is a real job across the councillors and the staff and the executive. And it's really exciting to see us heading forward to, you know, where we'll be in five years, 10 years, 20 years and I think it's fabulous that we can all have an active say in that.
05:38:00 And represent our community. So thank you everyone. And thank you to CEO for your contribution and leading the 450 strong staff to excellence and greater things. So thank you. Cheers. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak? Just to close, Joe. I'll close. Councillor Jurisevic: Amelia alluded to being exhausted. Speaker 5: I was just reading this. Councillor Jurisevic: Just reading it. I can't imagine what it was like writing it. I was just reading it. Thank you. Thank you to you and the team for all your hard work and continued achievements for the year to come. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion in favour. That's unanimous. There's no confidential sessions. And that's.