Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance and we have Michael Shave here as our acting CEO tonight. Good evening Michael. Can I have a mover for the confirmation? Thank you. And a seconder? Thank you. Councillor Wilkie moved, Councillor Finzel seconded. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Kat. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to present a petition from the residents in and around Shields Street, Tewantin, who would like to volunteer to assist with a petition council to set up a bush care group in the area. They'd like to volunteer to assist with bush care group to weed and revegetate the eastern end of Shields Street, Tewantin Nature Conservation Area as shown below. And there are 52 signatures on that. Very keen to assist.
00:01:00 I'd like to be involved and see that area rehabilitated. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll second that. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: The motion is? Thank you. Yes, the motion is that the petition signed by the 52 people table requesting the council establish a local bush care group to undertake weed removal and revegetation of the Tewantin Nature Conservation Area located at the eastern end of Shields Street, Tewantin, be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Jurisdiction. Councillor Jurisevic: And the second petition is a petition signed by 145 people requesting for council to provide a walkway linking Shields Street to Doonella Street, Tewantin, along the existing unity water infrastructure along Lake Doonella. The motion being that the petition signed by 145 people tabled by myself requesting the council provide a walkway linking Shields Street to Doonella Street, Tewantin, along the existing unity water infrastructure along Lake Doonella Street. The motion by sobie should be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second that.
00:02:00 Councillor Jurisevic: If I may talk to it just for a moment, this community group, Councilor Lawrence and I met briefly with them, or actually, quite a long time with them, in the end, and were overwhelmed by the response. Over 30 people from the community turning up wanting to establish a bush care group, revegetate, rehabilitate the environmental reserve that is along the foreshore there Mayor of Lake Doonella and also see that Council look at the low-cost project eight 1.35 metre path Doonella link named in the cycling and walking strategy and they'd like to see that now have immediate action to provide that walkway, seeing as it's mentioned in the cycling and walking strategy, and see a synergy between both the environmental protection work being undertaken as well as the pathway being delivered. I'll hand that to the acting CEO. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. Carried unanimously. Thank you. There are no notified motions. There are no presentations. There are no deputations.
00:03:00 That brings us to item eight on page four of the agenda, which is the consideration of the committee reports. Firstly, the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. Item one. MCU17-0530. Request reimbursement of 50% of the cost of decommissioning tanks in road reserve at 34 Maple Street, Cooroy. Item two. MCU17-0025.01 and OPW17-0095.01. Application for extension to currency period for development permit for material change of use of premises. Industrial business. Type one. Warehouse and operational works approval. Advertising devices at 62 to 66 Rennie Street, Noosaville. Item three. MCU21-0071. Application for a material change of use, food and drink outlet and shop at 1-10 Thomas Street, Noosaville.
00:04:00 Item four was referred to the General Committee. Item five was referred to the General Committee. Item six. Update to infrastructure charges resolution. Item seven was referred to the General Committee. Item eight was referred to the General Committee. Item nine was referred to the General Committee. Item 10. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. June 2021. Item 11. Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee update. Item 12. Environment Sustainable Development Department update fourth quarter 2021, 2020-21. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll move the motion. I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Thank you. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Karen. Next up is the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations on page nine. Item one was referred to the General Committee. Item two. 2021-22 Fees and Charges Amendments.
00:05:00 Item three. Noosa Holiday Parks update report to 30 June 2021. Item four. Corporate Services Department update. Fourth quarter 2021-22. Item five. Capital Budget. Capital Program Delivery Status. 30 June 2021. Item six. Infrastructure Services Department update. Fourth quarter 2020-21. Item seven. Community Services Department update. Fourth quarter 2020-21. Item eight. Executive Services update. Fourth quarter 2020-21. Thank you, Councillor Winch. I'll move the motion. Second. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Aye. Unanimous. Thanks, Kath. Now we move to the General Committee recommendations on page 11 of the agenda. Item one. MCU 21-0054. Development Application for a Material Change of Use. Short Term Accommodation at 30 Kingfisher Drive, Peritchian Beach.
00:06:00 This item is the subject of a further report that we will deal with later in this meeting. Item two. MCU 21-0079. Development Application for a Material Change of Use. Short Term Accommodation at 4 Teal Street, Peritchian Beach. This item is also the subject of a further report that we will deal with later in this meeting. Item three. Climate Change Response Plan and Community Consultation Submissions. Item four. Noosa Trail Master Plan Update. Item five. Frying Pan Public Foreshore Infrastructure. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. Yes. Hi, Councillor Wegener. I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as a personal friend of mine, Yeska Mask, owns a property near the Frying Pan and regularly ties her boat up to one of the jetty structures mentioned in the report. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wegener.
00:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommended motion. I'll second it, Madam Chair. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Moved, Councillor Walkie. All in favour? Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Item six. Thanks. Thanks, Michael. Item six. Noosa North Shore Ferry Update and Proposed Police Extension. Item six. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move the motion with an additional item being an advisory note and the advisory note to be a D at the end of the conditions which include the following advisory note.
00:08:00 Walking and cycling play an important role in Noosa for transport, recreation and health reasons and the school is encouraged to establish and promote a walk and ride program for staff and students as a preferred mode of transport where safe connecting pathways exist. Council may consider the increase in active transport and school bus usage when evaluating the need for car parking within the agreed 18 month period. Mayor Stewart: I move it. Second it. Second it. Thank you, Council. Welcome to Council Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. I've discussed, I've raised this as an option in Monday's General Committee. We are looking at a period where we've agreed to look at how the school operates in terms of bus school set down times. We agreed that there is, you know, the differences between their transport advisor and ours at the moment. One thing that cried out to me was that the best way to justify the reduction of the need for reduced car parking is reduce the number of cars.
00:09:00 And it's part of our overall program. And we do run a schools program where we've got staff who could assist the school in this. And if we do get meaningful uptake, that may, they may be able to generate within 18. months, a reduced number of cars that require parking. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for that, Mr. Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to this one? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, look, I support the idea. I would just like to point out that the council will probably have to do a bit more work around that area in terms of making safer the access points via for cyclists and walkers. But it does put pressure on the council as well to to step up around that particular school, which is in a very busy area. But of course, if more students are walking or riding to school, logic says there's fewer vehicles maybe there and that they may not need to have the the turnaround area as suggested. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, councillor. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Stockwell, would you like to close? No, thank you. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour?
00:10:00 Unanimous. Thank you, Kat. Item 8. Operational Plan Progress Report for Porto. 2020-21. Item 9. Budget Review. BR1 for the 2021-22 financial year. Item 10. Financial Performance Report. July 2021. Item 11. Update on Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan. CHAP. I believe we have some declarations for this item. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the Navy that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother Gabriel Cherisani owns a property at Beaches Estate, Sunrise Beach, which is one of the properties identified as at risk under the draft CHAP. My brother owns a beachfront property. The property is directly affected by the draft CHAP and directly covered by mapping looking at future erosion risk based on future models. My brother has also made a submission on the CHAP
00:11:00 and is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. During my election campaign, my brother helped me with my campaign, handed out voting cards, and chilled my election signs were outside his property on David Lowe Way. In Monday's general meeting, I declared my conflict of interest and asked to leave the room, as I have in the past, because although 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. Because of the significance of the CHAP and its shy white implications, and because I've received legal advice from Council's lawyers to state that I have a declarable and not prescribed conflict of interest, I would like to exercise my right to due process under section 150 ES3 of the Local Government Act 2009 and ask that the councillors present at this meeting room be my judge and decide whether I must leave the room
00:12:00 or if I can stay and participate in the meeting including voting on the matter. The legal advice received a few days states that my personal interest in matters concerning the CHAP in fact form the basis of a declarable conflict of interest and not a prescribed interest. When, quote, when matters being considered by Council is not an application, rather the draft CHAP. We consider that the personal interest is not called by section 150 EI and is not capable of forming the basis of a prescribed conflict of interest in matters concerning the CHAP. It is on record that on a number of occasions I've indicated to the CEO that I would strongly prefer to be engaged in the CHAP process on the basis that this issue is a significant one for the whole community and the whole Shire deserves the representation of all its elected representatives. In fact, the CHAP has political, legal and financial implications for the whole Shire of Council, not just Sunrise Beach
00:13:00 and not just the narrow area that affects my province. My brother. Many of these implications are unrelated to the perceived interest of one property on the eastern beaches. Everyone in this room and every rate payer will be impacted by the CHAP and not just my brother. Council assets, our beaches, the environment and all rate payers. This is evident on page 3 of the draft CHAP where the CHAP's core objectives are listed to include identifying what actions are required to avoid, reduce or adapt to these risks to people, property, assets and environment, providing mapping and visual products and deliverables that are useful for a range of purposes across Council departments and functions and within the community, planning scheme, asset management, community awareness, disaster management and financial planning and to provide direction for a coordinated approach for Council and the community
00:14:00 to adapt to climate change and coastal hazards. The CHAP also covers open coast areas from Peregian Beach to Sunshine Beach, Noosa Heads and Noosa North Shore. It includes area along the Lower Noosa River, Noosa Heads, Tewantin and in particular Noosa Milk and again Noosa North Shore that will be increasingly at risk of inundation associated with rising sea levels. Inundation and rising sea levels will pose the greatest risk to Council infrastructure, such as stormwater networks, open space and roads and some private property, as well as indirect consequences on adjacent retail and commercial activities. In open coast areas impacts will be experienced not just to private properties but also to Council infrastructure such as roads and recreational areas, including our beaches. It's understood that the CHAP in its final form, together with the Climate Change Adaptation Plan, the Zero Emissions Strategy and the Climate Change Policy will form Council's response to climate change.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Further, the CHAP is intended to guide decision making across key areas of Council, including corporate and operational planning and financial planning, land use planning and development assessment, infrastructure planning, design and management including roads, stormwater and foreshores, management of non-infrastructure assets including conservation and recreational areas, community resilience planning and emergency management. These are significant wide implications that will impact more than just the one property that my brother owns at Sunrise Beach. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest and I believe that I could consider this matter impartially and in your public interest, I believe that some members of the public may still have a perception of bias and it's for that reason that... No, that's an old one. Oh, that's an old one, yeah.
00:16:00 Mayor Stewart: We had so many. Sorry. I just requested so many. Councillor Lorentson: So, these are significant Shire-wide implications that will impact more than just the one property that my brother owns at Sunrise Beach. It is therefore in the best interest of the wider community that I am requesting that I remain in the room. It is not, in my opinion, democratic nor reasonable to exclude me from what is, in my opinion, an important Shire-wide issue. And on a document that is, in my opinion, a policy and not a planning instrument. Mayor Stewart: I'm going to move that Councillor Laurencet and thank you for that very... We've just got another... Speaker 2: Declaration. Councillor Finzel: Oh, sorry. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Laurencet. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting. I have a declarable conflict of interest. In this matter, on 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern
00:17:00 Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of the 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. 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 decision. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I will move that Councillor Laurencet and thank you for that. It is in the public interest that Councillor Laurencet participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Laurencet would be able to consider this matter
00:18:00 impartially and further that Councillor Laurencet's participation, along with all the participation of all Councillors, would improve decision making and the public interest on such a significant matter. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Madam Chair. Just before I second that or anybody else seconds that, Cathy, will there be an opportunity to add the additional words that weren't on the agenda? I will add the additional words that were on the screen that were in Councillor Laurencet's report, or rotation to the Council in the minutes. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. There was more. Councillor Jurisevic: She said more than you have on the screen. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone second? I'll just second it. Speaker 4: You can't. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, I can't. Sorry. Mayor Stewart: I can't hear you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Before I speak to it, does anyone have any questions of Councillor Laurencet?
00:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Madam Mayor, the motion has a seconder, so you have the floor. Mayor Stewart: All right. I'll take the floor first. Look, I do so because of those words. Where are they? It is in the public interest that Councillor Laurencet will be able to stay in the room. It is in the public interest because of those words. It is in the public interest because Councillor Laurencet was one of seven people who received votes from this community. She is a voice of this table and this community put her here as that voice. I also believe that Councillor Laurencet can, I know her as someone of very high upstanding morals, she can consider this matter impartially and that her participation here would improve decision-making in the public interest. There's no doubt about that and I think we all would agree with that. Councillor Lorentson has made a declaration and I thank her for that. As I said, it's fair, it's just and it's equitable that Councillor Lorentson stay in the room. As was said by Councillor Wilkie on Monday's meeting when he asked the question to the CEO, has anyone, any councillor ever not been able to stay in this room if they have a declarable? Now, legal advice has said it's declarable. It's not prescribed, it's declarable.
00:20:00 Has any councillor ever asked to stay in the room when it's declarable and we have thrown them out? And Councillor Wilkie used that in support of his argument to stay in the room and we supported him. So I think we should show Councillor Lorentson the same reciprocal right and we should support her in staying in this room. As I said, Councillor Lorentson represents a good portion of this community. She has the integrity to make an impartial decision. But what I want to bring, and I only thought about this recently, as we've been constantly told by staff and the CHAP is not a planning instrument. It's not a planning document. It's a coastal hazard adaptation plan.
00:21:00 Not one person in this community, if we adopt that CHAP, is affected by what is in that CHAP. It is only if we potentially use that CHAP as a guide for a pathway that may... They then create a planning change. As it stands, and with the document in front of us, the CHAP, not one single person across this Shire is affected. That's what we hear in every round table we sit in. This is not a planning instrument. This cannot affect planning changes as in its current form. What Councillor Lorentson is asking to stay in the room for is a document that 77 councils across Queensland have had to adopt. It is a coastal hazard adaptation plan. A plan. There is a process that if we adopt that, as I said, it may or may not be used to potentially impact or change planning schemes or planning amendments.
00:22:00 As it stands, Councillor Lorentson's brother, like every single person in this community, derives no benefit or no negativity from the document in its current form. We must look at the document in its current form. If we are going to be completely impartial and reasonable in this matter. And in its current form, as I said, it absolutely carries no weight to any changes to any planning schemes. Therefore, not one person across the Shire is impacted. Therefore, she should stay in the room because her brother receives or gains no further benefit than other people. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, question for Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson, in the past you have only raised the declarable conflict of interest in this matter and chosen to leave the room, is that correct? Councillor Lorentson: No, in the past I've been advised by the CEO that my conflict in fact is prescribed
00:23:00 and for that reason I've always left any matters relating to the chat, including workshops. Councillor Jurisevic: But in the agenda, does that include this month's meeting? Because in the agenda before us I'm reading that there was a declarable conflict of interest in the matter from the previous meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, at Monday's ordinary meeting on advice from, we received legal advice the day before and the legal advice stated that I had a declarable not prescribed a conflict of interest and said that I may, there may be a perception of bias and I may not pass the reasonable man test. I would like to, like I said in my declaration, I'd actually like the opportunity to follow due process
00:24:00 and ask councillors seated at the table to make that decision and be judge and jury, not advice or opinion from councillor. Okay, so that's the challenge. Councillor Wilkie: So, sorry, just to clarify, Councillor Morrison, on Monday's meeting you declared a declarable conflict of interest and chose to leave the room. Councillor Lorentson: I did, and I just again stated that given the significance of this matter, I have asked to, you know, exercise my, my, my rights to ask people seated at this table to, to give me, to make that decision. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I, can I ask Kerry Coyle questions on this? I'd like to ask if, is the Mayor's comments accurate?
00:25:00 Councillor Wegener: Or the one represent, is it accurate that... Councillor Wilkie: I think it would be an unfair question. Mayor Stewart: I'll, I'll ask Kerry the questions then. Can Kerry correct, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to ask a reasonable question. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, the document, the CHAP, has no plan, as in its form, if we ratify it, or if we choose to amend it or whatever, has no current planning instrument involved in it, or implications? Point of order, Mayor. Councillor Wilkie: That's the statement. Mayor Stewart: I'm asking, I'm asking if that's a question. It's not a question. Is that, is that correct? Speaker 3: Um, it, it's not a statutory instrument that's recognised by the Planning Act. So that, that is correct. It, um, could well be referenced in an appeal situation. Um, but, uh, it's, it is a Shire-wide document and there's no specific provisions in there
00:26:00 about what we're intending to do with the planning scheme. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Is it true that potential outcomes from the CHAP could have implications for the planning scheme in terms of land use planning for these limited number of oceanside properties between, on the eastern beaches? Speaker 3: Um, just to clarify, I haven't been involved in the CHAP process, ideally. This one, more or less. Thank you. Um, so it may be best coming from Anthony, but, um, I guess, yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: It's for you, Chair. Thank you. Yeah. Um, I'm gonna take this one. Uh, so the CHAP, uh, like a number of documents and, and research and information, it will inform planning scheme and planning scheme amendments, um, but it has no regulatory, uh, I guess, basis. It's not, it, as, as Kerry said, um, so it's, it's actually, when it's, it, the draft, as
00:27:00 we, we will have in front of us and then we'll, if adopted, not adopted yet, um, still will not have a regulatory, so it's a rent plan scheme. That is a separate process. Mayor Stewart: So it would be fair to say, Anthony, that that's probably a process that's a fair way down the track. Or could, once we adopt this, there is a number of things. This is, this is a document that may be used, may not be used, but it may be used, am I correct, in, in further down the track, changes in that, to the planning scheme. Speaker 1: So current status is, um, by November, the timeline is to report back to the state. And it's part of the Q Coast program. Um, past that, we have no, um, locked in timelines. Um, so that's really November, back to the state. The CHAP is the, that's the current plan. Councillor Wilkie: So depending on the way the councillors vote in determining the final form of the, of the
00:28:00 CHAP that goes to the state government, there could be some ad, advu, adverse land use planning outcomes recommended in the CHAP, which will inform the planning scheme. Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. Yes, thank you. Uh, we're still dealing with a CHAP that is in consultation. Um, and then we're, at this stage, planning to go back to consultation. So I think it would be, um, I guess, unfair to, uh, assume, and, and, uh, what the final version would be. No. In ref, in reference to planning scheme amendments. Councillor Wilkie: No. I'm just saying, it is a potential, depending on the way this council votes on the final version of the CHAP, after public consultation, the land use. Mayor Stewart: Is there lots of questions for a council? Councillor Wilkie: The question is that depending on the way this council votes on the final version of the CHAP, there may be some land use planning implications for those properties on the eastern beaches. Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. I, I think the potential is there. The current CHAP, draft CHAP certainly refers to, um, um, the connection to the planning
00:29:00 scheme. Um, but obviously we've been working with the round table and the, the, the draft is, is not finalised. Mm. So there's the potential, um, but obviously there's a number of steps we're still going through to finalise the draft CHAP to then go to the final version to, to November. So I think it's, uh, you know, the potential's yes, um, but the, we're still dealing with a draft. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm. Mm. Thank you. So last night I went through the guidance from the integrity commissioner and the department and I'm just going to pose the questions and give you what I think is my response to questions they said the council should ask in these situations. Now I'm going to start with the statement which they end with and their statement at the end, and this goes to some of what the mayor's arguments were, was remember the test is not whether the councillor is an honest and impartial person, but whether a reasonable
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 and fair-minded person in the community could lose trust that the decision was made in their best interest. And so one of the things that the mayor alluded to is about consistency, and that's one of the questions we have to ask. Is your decision consistent with other similar matters considered previously for other councillors? And this one is probably not one where you can rely on previous declarations in other contexts. This one you have to really compare it to previous declarations on. It's a very high level policy that should set very significant strategic directions. The next question it poses is, is there potential benefit, and I take it risk or cost, to the related party? Is it certain? Or is it just a remote possibility? It's neither. But there is a real potential if you look at the draft chat of adverse effect on the
00:31:00 related person. Next question, is the interest unique to the council or related party, or widely shared by others in the community? And as we can see, there's lots in the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan that is widely shared, particularly amongst the coastal community. It's not the whole Shire necessarily, because it's only about coastal hazard. But here we have to think, it's not just about an individual property, because we have within the declaration an existing property. It's an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. So in this declaration and our consideration, we have to think about the interest of the whole organisation, because they're an executive member. And we know that the policy issue, which that group is most concerned about, and which they're highly critical of the current draft on, is perhaps one of the most significant elements of this policy. That, to me, is the key consideration.
00:32:00 Is the interest unique? Is the interest of the related party widely shared or unique? That interest is highly specific about a particular element of the plan. Will the decision have a big impact on the councillor or the related party? And this is where we're going to have to assess in our own minds what that impact is. It's setting the future policy direction. So while we don't know what the final outcome is going to be, we do know that the policy being set is going to recommend a direction for the planning scheme amendment. So it does, in my opinion, have the potential to have an impact of some scale. How close is the council's relationship? We know it's your brother. So it's very close. As I jokingly said, if it was my sister, I'd walk out of the room. It's my brother. I'd love to pick on him. Councillor Wegener: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it is a close relationship. There's no doubt about that.
00:33:00 And then the final question, which is the first one that the guideline talks about, is, will the council's involvement negatively affect the community's trust in the decision? And to me, that is a key consideration. So I won't be supporting this motion as put. I, however, do support the argument that it's better to have Councillor Lorentson in the room. But I think that that needs to be conditional on certain things. And if this, and to me, that is conditional about voting on or involvement in any decision which seeks to influence the outcome on those eastern beaches properties which are specifically related to her interest. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't know if I can speak this motion. You go ahead. No, you go for it. You go for it. I'm still thinking about it. Councillor Wegener: Well, I find this very troubling.
00:34:00 So I try to make things simple. And on the back door of our room here, it has the managing conflicts of interest. And the key thing is interests where a reasonable person might think you could be biased. So that's a declarable conflict of interest where you've stepped up. And then it says, will the councillor's involvement negatively affect the community's trust in the decision? And I think Brian has pointed out how public this has become and the position of Amelia's brother is unique. Will the decision have a big impact on the councillor or the related party? Well, it very may well. Is the interest unique to the councillor or related party or widely shared by others in the community as well? Not really. It's not that wide in the community. It's a very specific person, a very specific situation.
Public question: BRIAN O’CONNOR ¶
00:35:00 Is there a way the councillor could influence the decision or gain benefits? Yes. Is the potential benefit for the councillor or related party certain or is it just a remote possibility, as Brian said? And so it boils down, I think that this is going to be such a contentious issue. And it says right here that we have to really, really, really consider. The democratic, the belief in the system, in our democratic system, and that's what these conflicts of interest that have come up. And it's on the back door. We look at it every day. So I can't support the motion for Amelia to stay on the bill. Speaker 3: Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I can see the argument that the mayor has tried to throw out there. And I can see Councillor Lorentson's frustration in a Shire-wide policy and not being able to be involved.
00:36:00 But I too see, and I'm actually doing this in a manner to protect your integrity, Councillor Lorentson, in not supporting this. Because I believe that if a vote goes any particular way and you're involved in it, the perception of bias will come back to you. And whether rightly, wrongly, or otherwise, I don't feel that if you're in the room and a vote goes any particular way, that people may not be able to see that disparity. So in that regard, I'm not going to support the motion as it stands because of the close relationship of your brother and the eastern beaches. Councillor. In the process that we're going through with the draft at this point in time.
00:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: This declaration is very extensive and I thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing it. We're finding ourselves in new territory negotiating declarable conflicts of interest. I do agree with the Mayor, it would be better if we could have Councillor Lorentson's very informed opinions in the room. Contributing to the final shape of the CHAT. I do agree with the Mayor that the CHAT has a Shire-wide focus. But as Councillor Lorentson has pointed out, there are some mitigating circumstances here that work against having Councillor Lorentson in the room. I believe she made the right call on Monday. It's clear that the relationship, the impacted person is her brother, it's a close relationship.
00:38:00 I agree with the Mayor that the CHAT in its current form, draft form, hasn't even mentioned land use planning outcomes. We haven't got there yet. But it has the very real potential to have land use planning outcomes that could materially impact on the property. And the material interests of Amelia's brother. Amelia's brother is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. They're all very smart people. And they see there's a very real potential in the CHAT to affect their homes where they live. And it's totally understandable that they are lobbying hard for a particular outcome in the CHAT that will protect their interests. And. Amelia, through her relationship with her brother, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association.
00:39:00 That interest is clear there. And as Amelia said in her clear declaration, her brother's property is subject to the coastal erosion mapping. And it's an area identified as being at risk from coastal erosion. And from that, there will be implications about what sort of mitigating, measures are going to be taken, which could have real potential to materially affect Amelia's brother. The question also is, how does the inclusion of the councillor in a decision like this affect the public trust in the end decision? And because there is a there is a real perception of bias involving the material interests of a family member. That acts against having Amelia in the room.
00:40:00 I would like the advice and the input of as many councillors around the table that if there was a way of separating out the Eastern Beaches discussions from the rest of the Shire, that could have been a solution. But with this motion as it stands, I can't support it. Mayor Stewart: Not conditional. Tom, you used the words belief in our systems. We've heard about a system and a process. So if we're true to the process, and this council is nothing if not about process, this is a document that has no effect on anyone in the in the Shire. It's a document we've heard from our planner. We've heard from our acting director. This document in itself may or may not be used as a guide for a planning instrument that may or may not occur next week, next year, in 10 years.
00:41:00 We don't know. We're not asked to judge on a planning instrument. We're asked to judge on the CHAP, the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, which in its form has no impact currently, draft or otherwise. Even if we adopt it. No impact on one person in this Shire. Now, you talked about the negative effect of the community trust in the decision making if we include. What about if we exclude Councillor Lorentson? What's the negative impact in the community trust then? They've said, we voted her in. She's a voice at the table. She's my voice. She might have been the only councillor that some person voted in. She's their voice. What about the negative impact about excluding her? How will the community think about that? And how will they take that? Councillor Wilkie has the very real possibility. Well, I'm sorry. If we were in a court of law, it's beyond reasonable doubt.
00:42:00 Has the very real possibility of affecting, what does that mean? That means may or may not. How can we exclude a councillor on a possibility, right? Yes, they're all valid points of what everyone has raised. I'm coming back to a document that has absolutely no impact in its form on anyone in this Shire. And I'm coming back to the words of including her might have a negative impact on the community, on our decision making process. As I said, excluding her may have exactly the same impact. Exactly the same impact. She was voted in like everyone else at this table. And she deserves to have a voice at this table. I think it is fair and it is reasonable. And I keep coming back to the document that we are discussing. The only document we have before us. The only one we can vote on. And nothing in that document says anything about a planning instrument or changes to a planning scheme.
00:43:00 Yes, it may or may not have potential implications down the track. We can't be sure. And at the present time, and until that time comes, if it comes, Councillor Lorentson should be allowed to stay in the room. Thanks. I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour of Councillor Lorentson staying in the room? All against? Councillor Jurisevic, Wegener, Wilkie and Stockwell. No, we have to do it with you. Councillor Finzel: Can you make that now? That's because I have a conflict. But I can't vote. It says that there. Oh, okay. Speaker 2: Are we going to have a vote to leave? No. No one has voted on anything. We haven't. Councillor Lorentson: There's no motion. That was lost. So someone needs to move another motion. Yes. You can move for her to leave or stay with conditions.
00:44:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, because that's what I have. Okay, we've got to get back to you. I'm sorry. Yes, okay. I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm not waiting for Councillor Finzel to get a correction. Mayor Stewart: I'll move the motion that Councillor Lorentson stay with conditions, debate, but not vote. That it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room for this item on the condition that she participates in the debate, but not the vote. Because Council believes that Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input into the discussion on such a significant matter. And therefore, a reasonable person would trust in the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wegener: I'll second that. Thanks. Mayor Stewart: I mean, Councillor Lorentson, this is a weak second, in my opinion. She should be allowed to have a vote. What's the point in having a voice if you can't use it? And I'll happily support Councillor Lorentson, but I still come back to the fact that on all
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 the evidence before us, that she should have been allowed to stay in the room. But I will support this motion because I think her contribution is very important. Councillor Wegener: Well, I agree. I think Councillor Lorentson is one of the smartest people I've ever met. Councillor Wegener: And I think she, and I think she will add tremendously to this, to this debate. And I look forward to, to all of her input. Absolutely. But, yeah. So, I support the motion. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else? Councillor Wilkie: . . . . . . . . . . .
00:46:00 I move to try an amendment that Council note the declarable conflict of interest of Councillor Lorentson and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room for this item on the condition that she does not. Councillor Jurisevic: I haven't finished yet Jack. Councillor Wilkie: She does not participate in the debate regarding the eastern beaches provisions. Regarding the eastern beaches. Regarding the eastern beaches. I move. Participate in the debate nor vote on issues regarding the eastern beaches.
00:47:00 She does not participate in the debate nor vote on issues regarding the eastern beaches because Councillor, yeah, and then get rid of, participate in the debate but not the vote because Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input into the discussion on such a significant matter, a significant Shire-wide matter. Significant Shire-wide matter. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Councillor Wilkie, before that second, I might ask a question. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not sure if the CEO or the acting director or the planning, within the CHAP, do we have an opportunity to segregate the eastern beaches from matters that are being discussed, firstly, and secondly, vote on them. Speaker 1: To you, Chair.
00:48:00 I know as part of the process, the draft stage, we did consider separation, whether, you know, we could actually separate river from foreshore, et cetera, of beaches. But at this stage, I can't really give that answer on the floor. I think we'd have to think about that. I don't think it's an easy thing to separate the issues. And I don't know if, through you, Chair, whether, I can't see whether you've got any comment on that. Councillor Wilkie: Could I ask a question? I'll ask you a question. Does the CHAP have separate mapping for the eastern beaches as opposed to the eastern beaches as opposed to the rest of the Shire? Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. Yes. I mean, there is separate mapping. So on a mapping sense, we can certainly separate. Councillor Wilkie: Does the CHAP contain potential mitigating options for the eastern beaches as opposed
00:49:00 to the rest of the Shire? Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. Yes. So we've separated a number of localities into different responses and different impacts and different maps. I can't recall. I'd have to have the team members here really around whether the eastern beaches are separated or actually it's a coastline, where it stops and starts, I guess, in our current draft CHAP on what's the locale separations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions, is there? I haven't seconded it yet. Would, Councillor Rook, would you be open to including the words before? I will vote on issues regarding the private estate or private land on the eastern beaches, which would leave the option open for councillors to be involved in the public infrastructure. Councillor Wilkie: I would certainly consider that. Can we amend the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Before the word, regarding the private estate along the eastern beaches.
00:50:00 Speaker 4: Councillor, if I could just make a comment. Probably just keep in mind what we're... The amendment tonight relates to the specific item on the report, which is an update report, so the relevance of some of the changes made are actually applied. And there may be future reports on the chat that come before council where this type of declaration is made. So it's, you know, in effect, it's, you know, the eastern beaches isn't relevant in terms of considering the update report that's on the agenda. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To clarify, what you're saying is today, if this was a successful motion, the councillor, Lawrence, could stay in the room, participate in the debate and vote on it.
00:51:00 If that's... We're being asked to set conditions upon which Councillor Lorentson, and so to me it's perfectly reasonable to set those conditions. Is that your understanding of the act that we should, if we're going to set conditions, we should be explicit? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, I think it's the purpose of the debate tonight, particularly the declaration, I think, was the broader input of Councillor Lorentson in the chat debate going forward, which will play out over a number of months. I think to keep in mind any, particularly this type of resolution tonight, will apply to any future workshop or meeting relating to the chat. So there's very specific wording in this resolution will apply to the debate.
00:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll second the amendment. Thank you. Look, I think this is better than having Councillor Lorentson out of the room. There's going to be more work done on this. It's a Shire-wide document, as the Mayor and Councillor Lorentson had said. Councillor Lorentson's specific conflict of interest relates to her private property on the Eastern Beaches, one of which is owned by her brother, who was an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. I think Councillor Lorentson can provide valuable input. There's a lot of, as you saw in her declaration, there are a lot of other aspects to the chat. But this one, where there's a specific interest involving her brother, who could be materially affected by a potential outcome of the chat, it just puts her integrity beyond doubt and the whole process beyond doubt. And we do have the benefit of Councillor Lorentson being in the room. I think it's better than her being excluded from all future discussions on the chat.
00:53:00 I take the Mayor's point. It is the second best option from her perspective, but from my perspective, it's better than not having her in the room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I support Councillor Wilkie's amendment because of the reasons he's outlined. And when we talk about, you know, this report will establish a precedent whereby we can use it to guide future work. But also, the important thing raised by our acting CEO is it will affect how Councillor Lorentson can participate in the workshops, et cetera, leading up to the next time it comes to work. So, I support the proposal of a council report. While at some point it might be cumbersome to separate motions in a formal council meeting, it will be certainly easy for Councillor Lorentson and to be actively involved in discussions and about how we move forward with the draft. And then we, at one point in the meeting, say, we're going to discuss this item now, which is, is there a conflict, and we go out of the room.
00:54:00 Now, this is something we used to do under the old conflict of interest. We just go out of the room for the relevant part of a discussion. And I also support it because, you know, up until recently when I owned a unit that was affected by flood, I thought it was unreasonable to be excluded on the discussions on the eastern beaches. And I would have thought that this would be something that I would be able to live with if I still had that interest as well. I think it's reasonable. I do think it is important that, A, that we do maintain that interest. That clarity about what the interest is and making sure that everyone sees that Council's operating in the best interest of the whole community. I do have a significant difference in opinion to the Mayor. We wouldn't have spent the several hundred thousand dollars of ratepayers' money and state government money on developing the plan and the modelling if it wasn't going to have a significant impact. This policy will have a significant impact.
00:55:00 There will be modelling that will be relied on in a statutory sense. What it doesn't do is make specific points about future decisions in a planning development control context. But it certainly sets the broad, it will set the broad planning agenda for how we may. Well, basically, part of it is done as a condition of the Minister to review our campaign once the chapter is adopted. There can be no clearer link to planning than the fact that we are required by the Minister of the State to use it to inform a review of the planning scheme within a certain timeframe. So for that reason, I think it is the right balance. I think it does clearly tell the community that we want as many people around the table to get the different perspectives, but we want to make sure that it's very clear where the conflict arises. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Can I put on notice?
00:56:00 I don't think you can speak at night. Can I speak at night? Councillor Jurisevic: You can ask a question. Councillor Lorentson: I believe you can ask a question. Can I ask a question? I have just realised that I have a, sorry, I have a, may have another potential conflict of interest, Noosa North Shore. Not a personal friend, but Mark Bates. I believe may have a property on the Noosa North Shore. So I would like to declare that on notice and find out the next meeting. So I'm not sure what the process is. I've just. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure what to do. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. It's noted. Councillor Lorentson: If you know my gosh, I think you might have a property. Yeah. I know he has a property on the Noosa North Shore on the river, but I'm not sure if it's impacted by the chap or not. So can I possibly add the Noosa North Shore to that?
00:57:00 Or just put that on notice. Put that on notice. Sorry. Mayor Stewart: We might take a five minute, ten minute adjournment just to, yeah. We've been going an hour. It's been pretty intense. We might take ten minutes. It's not on that side. Councillor Wilkie: Take a break.
60 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
75 minutes in ¶
01:20:00 Speaker 2: You ready? Yep, we're ready. Mayor Stewart: We currently have a motion before us, an amendment to the motion, moved by Councillor Wilkie and seconded by Councillor Stockwell. The motion is that the council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting
01:21:00 room for this item on the condition that she does not participate in the debate nor vote on issues regarding the private estate on the eastern beaches. Because council believes that Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input into the discussion on such a significant Shire-wide matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that final decision is made in the public interest. The reason we turned off the cameras was because some information came to light and we just needed further clarification on where the property in question actually was. So currently we have an amendment moved by Councillor Wilkie, as I said, seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Both Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell have spoken to this amendment. I'll put it out to the table on whether or not anyone else would like to speak to this amendment. Councillor Wegener, would you like to speak to this? No, no. Would you like to close, Councillor Wilkie?
01:22:00 No, thank you, ma'am. Okay, we'll put it to a vote. All in favour? That is Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell. And Councillor Stewart against? Councillor Jurisevic. Okay. That motion was, the amendment was carried. Thank you, Kat. Councillor Wilkie: Amendment comes with motion. Declaration. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter because I have a close personal relationship with Mark Bain and the Bain family, owner of 1 Noosa River Road, which is at risk of poverty under the draft chat. They are family friends that have attended the meeting. And we have attended social events together. And our children both attended school together and served together as part of the Noosa Board Riders Club. During my election, I had election signs at Wiki Terrace petrol station with the approval of the business owner, and Mark Bain was the landlord of that property. Mr Bain also appeared in one of my videos circulated during the election campaign.
01:23:00 I'm requesting... I'm requesting to participate in discussion, but have no voting in any matters relating to the North Shore. And eastern beaches, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Loreson. This is a continuation on the direction we were heading previously. We agree that it's better to have as many Councillors in the room as possible, but with their particular interests recognised and mitigated against.
01:24:00 This motion says that Council note the additional declaration of conflict of interest by Councillor Loreson. Determine this in the public interest that Councillor Loreson remain in the meeting room for this item, on the condition that she does not participate in the debate or vote on issues regarding the private estate on the eastern beaches and there's a North Shore. Because Council believes Councillor Loreson could provide valuable input into the discussion on such a significant Shire-wide matter, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. This... This... The chat also covers future decisions... Has implications for future decisions around public infrastructure as well. ...to you. Councillor Wegener: Is that right? Councillor Finzel: In with the future news. Councillor Wegener: In with the future news. Okay. Was there a manager of future news or just the three of a conglomerate? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just... You said a point of order. A point of order in terms of relevance. I think there might be a request for information that is not necessarily of... Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I think there's Amelia and Amelia's brother and there's Councillor Finzel and this other
01:25:00 person. And there seems to be a very different relationship between the two. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, did you have any relationship with Mr. Butt before he gave you the money? No, I did not. Have you had any interaction with him in the sense of has he come to your house? Have you been to his house? Has there been any interaction like that ever, ever? Councillor Finzel: No, there hasn't. Mayor Stewart: So, would you be... Would it be fair to say that he perhaps donated to you, not on a personal basis, but rather on a group basis and for an ideology that he wanted perhaps change? Councillor Finzel: In my opinion, he gave the money to the group based on the ideology of perhaps... I can't say for certain. I don't know. Mayor Stewart: So, the money wasn't given to you because he was your mate and he said he, Karen, had $1,600? That's correct. Okay. And is it correct that we only became aware of Mr. Peter Butt being on the executive is
01:26:00 because his name has been on an email that says executive? Councillor Lorentson: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: And are you aware of anyone else on that list who says they're on the executive but may have since pulled out? No, I'm not aware. Okay. I'd like to make a statement. I am aware of someone who was on that executive who was subsequently pulled out. Okay. Speaker 2: Do you have a question? Councillor Wilkie: Question? Do you consider an email with someone's name on it that states they're a member of an executive, an organisation, as evidence that they may actually be a member of that executive? Councillor Finzel: Is that a question, really? Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Yes, I'd imagine it is. Is that what it is on the current sentence? So, I guess my question is, Councillor Finzel, this is a question that you really can't So am I able to direct this question to Councillor Wilkie, who is able to answer this question? Because I know the answer to it, but I don't think I can ask myself.
01:27:00 Or maybe can I ask it? Mr Dow, Anthony, can I ask? Has Mr Peter Butt ever attended any roundtables? Speaker 1: To you, Chair, I'm not aware of. Mr Butt being at roundtables, I've missed one, so categorically I can't say that. You need to look at the minutes. Councillor Wilkie: I can say one of the first representations that we attended from the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, the committee room, I believe Mr Butt was in attendance. Mayor Stewart: That wasn't the roundtable though, Councillor Wilkie, that was merely an introduction to the Eastern Beaches group. It wasn't the roundtable per se. Speaker 2: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else have any questions for the Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to go. Tom, off you go. No, no, no, go ahead. Councillor Wegener: I was just going to speak to the motion. You speak to those? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might start because there's a range of statements and questions that suggest there's a confusion amongst councillors that the conflict arises as a result of a close relationship.
01:28:00 There is a number of triggers for declarable conflicts, as I understand it. One is having a close association. The other trigger, regardless of your level of association, is donations or gifts. Excuse me, Councillor, is this a question? Yeah, just to start. Donations or gifts or loans. Between $500,000 and $2,000, is there a staff member who can clarify if that is two different triggers and therefore the closeness of the relationship in terms of the trigger does not really have any impact? Speaker 4: Probably through the Chair. I'd probably just bring it back to in my short time in the Chair tonight. Probably we've had detailed legal advice on these conflicts of interest and the legal advice we've received in respect to Councillor Finzel was that it was a declarable conflict and I think that's, I think, what we should be focusing on in terms of the declaration tonight.
01:29:00 Mayor Stewart: Isn't it between $500,000 and anywhere over $2,000 is the prescribed conflict of interest and therefore you are out of the room? Speaker 4: Yeah. I guess it would be. Mayor Stewart: So this $1,600 falls under the category of declarable and again it comes back to, is this correct, us to make that decision on behalf of Councillor Finzel? Speaker 4: Again, through the Chair, I think we, in terms of good process and governance tonight, I think it's a good process. I think we would respect the declaration of Councillor Finzel and deal with it accordingly. I think that's the appropriate way to do that. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel, on Monday, did you state that, I was quite sure you were, but others may not have heard it,
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 did you state that Mr Peter Butt was an executive at that time on the Eastern Beaches? Councillor Finzel: I'll have to recheck the wording before I answer that question. Speaker 2: Yeah, I just missed it. Councillor Jurisevic: See, the answer was you did. Speaker 2: I did. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, she did, okay, there you go. Mayor Stewart: And at that time, were you fully supported by all councillors in your wish to stay in the room? I believe I was, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Was it discussed on Monday that the donor had a beachside property affected by the CHAP, directly affected by the CHAP, and could stay in the room? Councillor Finzel: I can't remember if that question was asked at that meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll speak to the motion before us at the moment, and then in the interest of consistency with how we voted on the previous councillor,
01:31:00 and irrespective of how we voted in the previous, it's the matter of Mr Butt being a contributor, and also on the executive, which I probably didn't absorb at that point in time. I will vote in favour of the motion as it stands. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'm just going to the conflict of interest handout from the LTA. It's here on the back door, and it says, will this decision, will deciding on the CHAP have a big impact on the councillor or related party? No. Is the interest unique to the councillor or related party, or is it widely shared by others in the community as well? Well, actually, that's how it goes.
01:32:00 Is there a way the councillor could influence the decision or gain a benefit? Well, you're not going to gain a benefit either way. Either way. Okay, I think that the key thing to look at is whether the reasonable person might think you're biased. And underneath, by looking at the back door, I don't think the reasonable person would think you're biased. Mayor Stewart: I agree with Councillor Wegener. There's no way a reasonable person could think you're biased. You received funds from someone you didn't know. You've had nothing to do with since. You had nothing to do with prior. Simply because the guy wanted to maybe have some change. And he also gave that money to a group, an entity, which is no longer here. Now, everyone at this table has relationships with people in the community. And people have relationships with people at this table and on the round table that are substantial. So this is someone who has no relationship with someone who's declaring a conflict of interest.
01:33:00 So, yes, because she received a monetary amount. But it comes back to reasonable bias. And what would the reasonable person think? I think I agree with Councillor Wegener. There is no one in this community who could think that Councillor Finzel has a close personal relationship with someone. She doesn't socialise with him. She barely knows him. They don't go to each other's houses. His name merely, if he wasn't on an email that said executive, and I've seen no other besides the time we first met them. He has not attended a round table. He has not been on the Zoom for a round table. I've seen no other correspondence besides his name mentioned on an email. So, yes, in name he might be on the executive. And he is obviously clearly on the executive. But he hasn't been actively involved in this round table as others have. And it keeps coming back to there's not a close personal connection. There never has been and there never was. And into the future, I mean, there's not likely to be. So I think that Councillor Finzel should be in the room.
01:34:00 And to be able to vote on this matter across the whole of the chat. Again, it comes back to what's in the best interest of this community. And would excluding Councillor Finzel have a negative impact on the perception of the decisions made? And I think it would. So I think we need to include her on that basis. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I appreciate this one is a little bit more difficult. Yeah. I said it in the question, but I'll reiterate. There are different triggers for conflicts. One trigger is a close personal relationship. Another trigger is a donation to a campaign. And I asked councillors to think about why we had such a huge increase in the requirements under conflicts of interest. It was because councillors were doing the wrong thing in return for political donations.
01:35:00 It's at the core, the heart of the legislation. It's to make sure that the council can be seen not to be influenced by outside influences. Now, I, not for one minute, think that Councillor Finzel would be from a donation of $1,666. However, for me, the principle is that there would be others in the community that would say that that is a potential linkage in terms of influence. When it was just the interest of his own property, it was, to me, you know, the trigger about is it unique or is it widely shared. One property out of the whole of the Eastern Beaches is perhaps not that widely, you know, shared. But when we are, we have to, by law, as an executive of that association, consider his interest to be the whole of the Eastern Beaches.
01:36:00 That's what the legislation really does. That's what it takes us to do. It takes it from being a personal interest to a broader interest which has a significant impact by this policy. Whether it's positive or negative or otherwise, it's up to your own personal interpretation. So we have a declarable conflict for a political donation and we have a significant and fairly, you know, it's not held by everyone in the Shire. It's held by a specific interest. And for me, that was enough to trigger that the similar provisions to Councillor Lorentson should apply. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else? That's it. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Finzel: Put it to a vote. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell against. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stewart. Motion carried.
01:37:00 Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: All right. So, moving on, Michael. We move to... Speaker 3: We've just got to do the resolution of the resolution. Speaker 4: We move to... Council don't have a report. No, no, no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've got to do the resolution. It's item 11 recommendation. I'll move to the council. I'll second. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Anyone speak to this motion? Councillor Stockwell. Okay. All in favour? Unanimous. Okay. Item 12. Just by way... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we need to hold that vote again, because I don't see that there was any triggers in that motion that would exclude either Councillor Lorentson or Councillor... Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that was the question I asked previously. If we vote on the whole, because it includes those elements... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But this is just a procedural motion. It's got nothing to do with policy. No, no. My view is that Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel should have the opportunity to vote
01:38:00 on that item. Speaker 2: Okay. Mayor Stewart: All right. Well, we'll put it to a vote again. No, it's not. It's just procedural. It's just not in the report. Councillor Jurisevic: There's nothing in the report. That's right. There's nothing on the project. State, all those things. It's just a matter of that progress. So that's fair enough. Mayor Stewart: Item 12, Year in Review, 2020-21. Can I have a mover and a seconder? I'll move it. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconder? I'll second it, yes. Okay. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Item 9 on page 17 of the agenda, reports directly to the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. I have a conflict of interest. I do not believe one of the 21 objectors to this application, Susan Francis, donated
01:39:00 $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 does not stand to gain any material benefit from this decision and is not the applicant. Her property is not affected in any way by this decision and she is only one of 21 objectors whose views on this application align with the staff recommendation. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting or whether I can remain and participate in your decision. Speaker 3: Councillor Stoke-Wilkie. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll declare. Can I add those nice words that Councillor Wilkie had? I, Councillor Stoke-Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on the 7th of January, 2020, one of the 21 objectors of this application, Susan Francis, donated $500 to my 2020 election campaign.
01:40:00 Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Ms. Francis does not stand to gain any material benefit from this decision and is not the applicant. Her property is not affected in any way by this decision and she is only one of 21 objectors whose views on this application align with the staff recommendation. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'll move the motion that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wilkie and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Wilkie participates in both of these matters as Council believes that it, as Mrs Francis is one of only 21 objectors to the application which aligns with the staff recommendation, Councillor Wilkie would be able to consider the matter impartially and therefore Reesville-Herson would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wegener: I'll second that. Mayor Stewart: I've just got a question for Councillor Stockwell.
01:41:00 Councillor Stockwell, can you just tell me when you spoke so emotively about Councillor Finzel and the fact that one of your big reasons, your consideration was that she received a political donation and that's why she shouldn't actually be able to vote on the fact. Can you tell me how this would differ to that? Because it's the same thing, it's a political donation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the words are that because there's no material personal interest in this matter, she doesn't stand to gain or lose as a result of it. Her submission is based on the broader public interest, there's no, there's no potential benefit or no potential loss to her individually. Mayor Stewart: Do we know if Mrs Francis lives, I mean I don't know where she lives, does she live close by to an STA, does, is, she's clearly, I guess, involved enough to make an application, does anyone have the answer to that? Councillor Wilkie: I can, Madam Mayor, I can tell you, Miss Francis lives about a mile from here. A kilometre from the, um, this property at 30 Kingfisher Drive.
01:42:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That's an estimated kilometre, could be 800 metres. I'll speak to the motion if I may, Madam Chair. I do believe that the reasons outlined, that Miss Francis does not stand to gain any material benefit from the decision, and is not the applicant, that her property is not affected in any way by the decision, and she's not one of 21 objectors whose views on the application of local staff recommendation are sufficient grounds to, ah, to acknowledge that whilst there has been a donation to the campaign of Councillor Wilkie in this instance, that, ah, there is no, ah, no correlation between the, ah, ah, the donation and, ah, and the decision in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
01:43:00 Thank you. You put the motion to a vote, all in favour of Councillor Wilkie staying in Beauron, Jurisevic, Wegner, Finzel, So moved. Laurenston, Steward, against. You didn't vote? Sorry Brian. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Was it not? Mayor Stewart: It was unanimous. All five abstey aren't suspended. All five. Okay, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Chair, I'll move the resolution that Councillor Nathan declare a conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest of Councillor Stockwell to participate in the process of the strategy because Councillor believes that, as Ms Francis is only one of 29 objectives to the application, which aligns with the staff recommendation, Councillor Stockwell could be able to consider the matter impartially and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, I'll second that motion. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: No need to speak. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, we'll put the resolution to a vote. All in favour?
01:44:00 That's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. There's further report requested at Monday's General Committee meeting. Kerry Coyle is here for the report. Oh, hi Kerry. Does anyone have any questions for Kerry? No. Okay, I'll move the requested motion for approval as noted in the body of the report on page 18 of the agenda. Speaker 3: I'll second the motion. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We went round and round with this on Monday. This has been thoroughly debated, so I don't think it needs further attention. Thank you, Kerry, for putting together those conditions for approval and I think it's all self-explanatory. Thank you.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 We'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour of the approval with terms and conditions. That is Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stewart against, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie. That motion is carried. Item 2. Further report, MCU21-0079, development application for a material change of use, short-term accommodation at 4 Teal Street, Peregian Beach. This is also a further report requested at the General Committee. Does anyone have any questions for Kerry? Would anyone like to move the motion? I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: Is this the requested motion that's on? Mayor Stewart: The requested motion. This is the requested motion for approval. Councillor Lorentson: Or is this the recommendation? Mayor Stewart: This is the requested motion for approval. No, requested motion for approval. Nobody said that.
01:46:00 Sorry. Requested motion. Oh! Speaker 2: I was watching. Mayor Stewart: To clarify, Councillor Lorentson has moved a requested motion for approval as shown in the body of the report on page 23 of the agenda. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just for reasons already debated at Monday's general meeting, I won't need to recap. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this requested motion for approval? Councillor Jurisevic. No. Councillor Wegener: No. No. Mayor Stewart: We'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic. Finzel. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stewart. Against? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie. Motion is carried. Thanks Kerry. There are no confidential items. We have one submission to public question time for Mr. Brian O'Connor. Mr. Brian O'Connor is not in attendance tonight, so Acting CEO Michael Shea will read out
01:47:00 the submission and then the Director of Environment and Sustainable Development, Anthony Dowell, will respond to these. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Speaker 4: So, question one. Thanks, Brian, for your questions tonight. Question one to Anthony. The Noosa Plan 2020 contains a Pomona framework and character plan, indicating streetscape and connectivity elements such as landscaping, walkways, cycleways, as well as beautification and landscaping. Also, possible locations for so-called entrance statements, and so I ask, what is the status of this plan in terms of Council's commitment to it and implementation of planning to bring it to fruition? Speaker 1: Through you, Chair. The Noosa Plan 2020 sets out Council's intention for future development in the Shire and has been prepared with a 20-year horizon. The framework and character plans included in the Noosa Plan 2020 are the following.
01:48:00 The Noosa Plan 2020 are strategic concept plans which provide guidance for developments to enhance and improve key character features within villages and the town centres. Should any development be proposed on a site subject to a character and framework plan, it would be required to incorporate and be generally consistent with these plans and deliver the character outcomes required. Should Council plan any future streetscape or landscape planted in these areas subject to resource in the horizon of the planning scheme, then these plans provide guidance to Council in terms of character and outcomes for the locality. They are indicative and provide guidance to any future development or any planned Council works, but are not a commitment to as such. Council reviews its capital commitments each year as part of the budget process.
01:49:00 Speaker 4: Question 2 from Brian, Anthony. Has any work been done beyond the initial concept render by way of construction timelines, public consultation on what's depicted and projected budget costs? Speaker 1: Through you Chair, there has been no work done beyond the initial concept rendering at this stage by way of construction timelines or public consultation. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. That brings to the end question time and the end of our agenda. So the next meeting will be held on Thursday 16th September 2021. I declare the meeting closed at 6.57pm.