Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Hello and welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting of Monday 13th of September. I declare the meeting open. Begin by acknowledging our traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people. Pay our respects to the Elders past, present and emergent. We have apologies from Councillor Joe Jurisevic. May we have confirmation of the minutes, please, from the General Committee meeting held on the 16th of August. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I don't need to stand. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? We have no presentations. We have no deputations. Councillors, today we've got a big agenda ahead of us and just as we've discussed, if we can be disciplined with our questions and use them only to elicit factual answers from the staff and for use in our debate.
00:01:00 With your indulgence, we'll move item, because we have guests here, we'll move item 11 up to item 1, which is the Noosa Oyster Reef Ecosystem Legislation. An annual report for noting. We'll move that to item 1 if that's okay with everyone. Speaker 7: Councillor, we also then, we have some staff who have other commitments later in the day. I suspect this meeting may go for a while, so when we finish the oyster issue we'll be looking to deal with the Sunrise Beach Shots very quickly. I don't think it's a big item. So those staff will be able to go off to their meeting. Councillor Wilkie: So I'd like to invite to the table our environmental manager Craig Doolan and from the Nature Conservancy Dr Eddie Gain and Dr Craig Boehm. And on the line from the Nature Conservancy we also have Simon Brannigan and Alison Rowe. Welcome everybody.
00:02:00 So councillors, any questions of staff or the TNC crew about the annual report to get information to help inform debate? Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. My first question is on page 46 of the report, the Queensland State Assessment and Referral Agency asked that the submission be converted into a restoration plan. And I note that the name of this project has changed from the Noosa River Oyster Restoration Project to the Noosa River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Can I ask what does that mean? Speaker 8: It doesn't really mean anything actually. The restoration plan is really an internal document for the state to assess, formatted against what the state asks us in terms of questions for permitting.
00:03:00 So there's no real distinction in our mind. It's an ecosystem restoration, reef restoration, and in our mind we are the same thing councillor. Speaker 4: And further with regards to the naming we've been referring to the Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project for some time, at least for about 18 months. It's not saying there may not be a slip up somewhere or a typo, but that name hasn't changed in the way we've utilised it. Councillor Lorentson: In May 2021, it was announced that there was an extra $1.2 million added to the Noosa project from the federal government. Can I ask what does $1.2 million buy in terms of oyster reef restoration? Thank you. Speaker 8: I can take that. Yes, certainly councillor. We forecast that would be $1.2 million in terms of reef restoration. We should be able to double whatever we can do with the $1.2 million we have already earmarked from council and plus the $1.2 million was earmarked from the Thomas Foundation Nature Conservancy.
00:04:00 So it's to extend the build as far as the budget allows, is what the commitment is. In terms of the area restored, we'd like to think the area restored might be an extra hectare. But that's not actually the footprint of a rock. That's the ecosystem and its general functionality and the landscape in which it sits. Again, could actually explain better than me. But the extent of which is open to the cost of the pilot build, we see the actual cost for doing work and then we can calculate the contribution from that point. So it's an adaptive management approach that the Commonwealth allows us to take in Noosa because we're in the process of working. Councillor Lorentson: This is a question maybe to the CEO or Craig. Given that the project is now doubling in size potentially, does this change the risk to council and have we assessed this risk in terms of construction permits and other approvals?
00:05:00 Speaker 7: I'll probably start and then Craig can add in. I think it has changed the risk profile and probably improved it from council's perspective. I think it actually reduced the risk that we're going to get better outcomes at the end of the day with the additional investment from the federal government. Speaker 4: The only thing I would add was that it was, it was aimed for from the start to secure an extra $1.2 million funding. It wasn't deliverable within the project and the alliance and funding agreement, but it was clearly stated from TNC that they felt through the life of this project, they could attract a further $1.2 million in funding. They've been successful in doing that. They've kept their word. Councillor Lorentson: Are there other questions that are left? Sure. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions? No question. Anyone in Cantermoorthy? Councillor Finzel: I've got a question. Yes. With regards to your work sequence with your design, implementation and restoration,
00:06:00 when you're restoring the oyster beds, can you tell us a little bit about the infrastructure that's going in the sites? So there's sites, two of them in the estuary to test initial restoration methods, and designs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that infrastructure and how we, what planning goes underway to actually get the infrastructure into the river and who's involved in that process? Speaker 6: Yes. Absolutely. You mean the process for actually putting those reefs in and the steps involved? Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Because it'll be quite extensive into the water, I understand. Like how far into the river does that go? Speaker 8: Thanks, Councillor. Yes. Okay. A couple of points there. First one, the distance into the river. The maximum distance could be is 32 metres from the high tide mark. And that's actually at the Tewantin site, is 32 metres.
00:07:00 And that's still within the channel marker that is actually a little further out. That indicates there is a restructure there, which is to orient boating away from that area, which it does very successfully. The Gerd Island site, by memory, is only about 14 metres from the high tide mark. Sorry, which was the other site? Gerd Island. Councillor Finzel: Gerd Island site. Speaker 8: Yeah. What we've said in the state that we would make an undertaking not to have any sites, now or in the future, further than 30 metres from the shoreline to make sure that the works wouldn't impose on any traffic or other activities. But later, of course, Councillor, we have multiple other criteria that sits with that benchmark. So it wasn't a fixed thing. We just said we wouldn't go further than this because we don't want impact with boating or other activities. And we felt we could work comfortably within that space. We may wish to revise it in the future, but we've made that as a guideline for us selecting and to guide our engineers as well that we would go further.
00:08:00 And that's fit well with the sites where we actually have designed them to. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Given I've only seen the plans once prior to the, like at that workshop, with the structure going into the river, is that a permanent structure? Speaker 6: Yes. So the intention is that we begin the reef building process by adding these rocks. And in Noosa, they're slightly larger than we've used in some other places, just because of the flow of the river coming down. And we need to make sure we get enough habitat in amongst those rock crevices for oysters to sit. Traditionally, I guess, if you think about Noosa 150 years ago, it might have been clear enough that you could have a flat bed and there was no sediment landing on it. That's not the case now. So we need to create a structure that allows space for oysters to grow. Those oysters will both cover those rocks and start to expand out from that. That will create the reef that becomes a permanent part of the river.
00:09:00 And in fact, that would become the start of what hopefully is a larger oyster ecosystem that grows out from those reefs. And that's what we've seen happen in the US, particularly where we've restored them using exactly the same approach. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Given then, like I'm not a planner, so just bear with me, I'm not quite sure how, what process is around application to put infrastructure into the river. So how are we, how does that work? Is that to do with the state government or I don't know how the water plan works. It's both. Speaker 4: I'll attempt to provide an answer. I've asked Kerry to join us who may be able to back us up. Do you want to start Kerry? Yeah, sure. Speaker 3: So the works that's proposed is called prescribed tidal works under the planning act and our planning scheme. So it does trigger the requirement for a development application to be launched through council. The application is co-accessible, so it's not publicly notified.
00:10:00 Councillor Finzel: Not publicly notified. Speaker 3: Not publicly notified. That scheme makes it co-accessible only. The application is one we will report to council for a decision at the end of the day. But the process essentially follows a co-assessment process, including that it gets referred to SARA, which is the state agency referral for assessment. And there's three triggers around that. So the state will be assessing this application as well as council. Three triggers include, because it's a tidal area. So the state will be assessing this application as well as council. It's a fish habitat area. And it's navigable waters. So DES, Department of Environment and Science, get involved. Department of Agriculture and Forestry. And NSQ will also be undertaking an assessment against the application. So they can direct council to refuse it or direct council to impose conditions ultimately on approval.
00:11:00 Councillor Finzel: And just a question then. So the permits that we are waiting for, the permits that we are waiting for, the permits that we are waiting from in the risks and opportunities on page 108, as listed as a risk of the project furthering delays, is the permits for the project from the state government. Are these permits related to the structure going into the river? Thank you. And that is through the state assessment referral agency. And how are you planning to mitigate the risks around this? The hold up for the... Permits. Speaker 8: One of the steps we took is we took to submit a very, very advanced application. A very advanced and well developed restoration plan that had already been discussed a lot with key stakeholders who actually use the river, but also with the agencies in the formation of the drafting of that plan. And of course, this project has a technical advisory group on which MSQ, council, and
00:12:00 DAF in particular from across the state. We actually had three senior assessable agents, agency staff on that committee, and they helped us draft and advise on the formation of that plan. So when the plan was submitted, it was already very advanced in its draft form. Then we met with the state agencies along with council, and they gave us feedback on how we could actually strengthen that plan further, and they request us to do a bit of additional ecology work and to clarify some points that we've endeared. And then formally submitted that plan to them. Councillor Finzel: Okay, thank you. And this might be a question for Kerry. Is that a public purpose change of the river use? Is that part of the application? Speaker 3: I'm not quite sure. Councillor Finzel: Does the purpose of the river change through the infrastructure going into the river? Speaker 3: No. No, it doesn't. This won't be the first application. We had an application in 2017 for prescribed timing work as well.
00:13:00 So I think it was a trial at that point in time. And so it doesn't change the type of river. A complementary to the river. Mayor Stewart: Okay, thank you. I've got a couple of questions. So in the workshop, you talked about water quality, saying it was a key issue, but then not so much. It was more about the oyster restoration and getting the oysters going. So we're in a warm climate here. So most of the oysters, Coffin Bay, Sydney, Rock Bluff, Tasmania, they grow on cold climates. So how do you know? And I mean, anyone who looks at a Moreton Bay oyster, they're tiny, almost unedible. How do you know that this project is going to be successful in our warm waters? Speaker 6: Yeah, it's a great question, Catherine, Mayor. One of the reasons that we gave us a lot of confidence to even begin this process is because of the work we did at the beginning to look at oyster recruitment that happens already in the estuary, the oysters that already exist here. We know that oysters can survive here. We know that oysters, in fact, thrive. There's plenty of that hard substrate that does exist in the river is covered with oysters.
00:14:00 And we did a bunch of settlement studies, which we're putting out these little plates to see what lands on them, on different sides of them. And that's something we would do before we proposed any kind of oyster restoration project like this, because for exactly the question you asked, you have to be confident that oysters would survive. And there's lots of reasons why they might not survive, but we don't believe any of those factors currently exist in the nursery. Mayor Stewart: And how many oysters do you need to, so if water quality is, you know, that was very important to predict as well, perhaps not the critical issue, but important. How many oysters do you need to clean out? What's the ratio of the water to, say, I want a litre of water that's gone from A-minus to A-plus. How many oysters do I need? Like, what's the ratio? What have you worked it out scientifically? Speaker 6: Yeah, that's a great question, and I think, I believe Councillor Frank has a, you've got a video that you might share too. So, what we know is that individual oysters, an individual oyster can filter close
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 to a bathtub of water a day. And so, there'll be a water quality benefit, unambiguously there's a water quality benefit from every oyster you put in. We can work out how many oysters you need to filter a lot of water, but that depends on what the other, the quality you get as a result depends on what the other inputs are into the system. So, in this case, it's not just that you have, you have water that's full of sediment or full of nutrients and you need to get rid of it, that's continuing to come into the system. So, the overall point around water quality is not that the reefs won't improve water quality, it's that they're part of a package of things that you need to do to see a big change estuary-wide, and that would include the sort of works you're already undertaking taking in, the catchments to stop additional sediments coming in, the sort of standard things that the council have in place here to stop extra nutrients coming into the system. All of those things need to be in place as well as oyster reefs. Mayor Stewart: So, what's your baseline data on it?
00:16:00 You don't have any. Speaker 6: For, for... Mayor Stewart: For that, what I'm asking is how do you measure it if we don't know where it's at now? What's the baseline data? So, how do we know we're improving? When you said one oyster per bath tub, what, what, what statistics and analysis have you worked out for the, in such a big project, for the, for the river, what, what are the stats? Speaker 6: Yeah, good question. So, we've, we've got really good numbers on the filtration per oyster, and we have good numbers, you know, you, there are good state data on the, on the current state of Noosa estuary. So, I'm not worried about us being able to track the overall water quality. What I'm, don't think we'll be able to do under this project is, say, we restored these oysters and we saw a estuary-wide increase in water quality as a result of it. Mayor Stewart: But I don't know if I'm improving as a swimmer, I guess, unless I'm, know what my time is to start. So, I guess that's my question. Speaker 4: I, I think when we presented the, excuse me, through the Chair, no, but when we presented the monitoring evaluation plan to Council last year, there was quite a lot of detailing there around the way we're going to measure prior to the reefs going in at the specific
00:17:00 reef locations and measure them ongoing to see how they improve that micro-habitant. In the broader estuary, we have an excellent basis through the Environmental Health Monitoring Program. It's a very broad program, and I wouldn't expect to see the role of these oyster reefs. I certainly wouldn't be relying on them to make changes just from an A minus to an A. When this project was conceived of one of several arms to bring back the fish, other key elements of that were Keepitin Kin Kin. This project itself is not bring back the fish, it was a range of different projects to deal with broader water quality issues in the Noosa River. And the Keepitin Kin Kin project has been a very important one and continues to be probably the most important one as far as water quality goes in the Noosa River. This one has a lot of benefits because there's a lot of co-benefits from a biodiversity point of view in restoring the ecosystem that was once abundant in the river. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question regarding the total allocation to restore the shellfish reefs in Noosa stands at $3.6 million.
00:18:00 That's a lot of funding. Just a question. How do you plan to mitigate risk if the oyster might not survive as you said, and given the cost going into infrastructure that's sitting in our river at a time when we're looking at infrastructure for housing in this crisis that we're currently in, how are you mitigating this risk at this point? Speaker 7: The staff can't comment on the housing issue, that's a decision that comes about on a daily basis about whether or not the resources are going to work or not, that's pretty much Councillor Finzel: what you're asking. Yeah, and I'm asking with the cost of the infrastructure going into the river, which is quite substantial as based on page 108 of the 135 of the report. I'm just trying to, in response to your comment, how are we mitigating the risk when the volume, time and energy to put infrastructure into the river if the oysters don't survive? How is that in your risk mitigation plan?
00:19:00 Speaker 6: Absolutely, so one key piece of risk mitigation is that we're going to be adding oysters to these reefs. So we're very confident that oysters will survive, that there is no evidence to the contrary in this estuary that oysters won't survive. What is a risk and what is genuine uncertainty is how quickly oysters will completely cover that, those rock that we're putting in, and turn it into a reef structure. And there is always a risk that something, you know, put the rock in the water and something unusual happens. You get some really big storms, you get a great deal of sediment, fresh water, something coming down that stops the recruitment in the time that we would like to see it. To mitigate that risk, we're working with the Bribie Island Aquaculture Facility to actually raise oysters from Noosa, juveniles that were collected and bred from Noosa stock, put them on shells collected from the Noosa estuaries, and then we'll put those by hand into the reefs. That sort of helps supercharge the reef process, and really is a big factor in mitigating the
00:20:00 risk that natural recruitment is interrupted for some reason. Councillor Finzel: So just a quick question around that, sorry Amelia, in reference to the Bribie Island project, has it received its state permits to put reefs or? Speaker 8: They have independent permits to operate as a hapertree, they're a government owned facility already. And they have their own permits in place already. All they need from us is a contract to do the works, and they're ready to get on to do that oyster seeding for us. We've collected sufficient shell for that work, and then we're just about to have a community workshop to wash it and prepare it for the hatchery to align with the actual construction phase, which is a very standard restoration practice, followed in hundreds of sites around the world, and it's one we're using as well in Noosa, this sort of augmentation to help solidify. Because the reason the oysters aren't coming back in the river by themselves is the lack
00:21:00 of appropriate structures, and they're competing against some forces out there that perhaps in the past weren't there, and we're going to offset that by helping them with this eight English oysters. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So part of the risk assessment, and I keep going back to risk, have we considered the impact of climate change, sea rise, severe storm events? Have we considered the impact of climate change, sea rise, severe storm events? Changes in tidal, and where is that information found? Speaker 6: I hope you both have things to add. Yeah. Good question. Speaker 8: I think one great thing about the oysters themselves is that they're fairly productive fairly quickly. So they can reach maturity in just a few years, which means they're highly adaptable species. So two things they can do, they can move up and down the tidal range fairly quickly, because they turn over the generations quite quickly like a fast breeding fish or something. And so their adaptable capacity themselves is quite good when it comes to things like climate change. Not only that, we're not talking about one species of oyster.
00:22:00 We will get multiple species of oyster that we see in the estuary and other things like hairy mussels that also are part of the ecosystem. And they are responding to those changing environmental parameters all the time anyway. Things like floods, yes, some would argue would pose a threat. But if you talk to the Queensland Oyster Aquaculture Entry, which I do for example, they love a great flood. A good flood can wash through and actually is not bad for oysters. It's all about frequency, sometimes timing, but they don't consider some of those natural flooding events that we see as a problem a problem for oysters. In fact, the oysters have survived here for thousands of years under those sort of robust environmental conditions. The climate change question is really great, but the oysters are an ecosystem forming species that is actually quite robust under that scenario. Councillor Lorentson: So given that there's been no other project successfully. Completed in subtropical waters. I'm going back to my climate change question. Increasing temperatures doesn't mean that the waters are going to get warmer.
00:23:00 So again, another risk. And has that been considered? Speaker 6: Yeah, sure. Yeah. So you're right. The waters will get warmer. One of the things we've seen with pieces of shellfish reef that do exist is they're often found in sort of semi enclosed waters bays that we know get hotter than mainstream water. So we we're not anticipating that there would be climate change, climate driven changes to water temperature that would put oysters beyond the range that they can not just survive, but grow really productively. I'm certainly based on the current ones. We would expect that to be the case for a long time into the future. Councillor Lorentson: And after the last workshop, I slept with a feeling not very confident about the state permits. I want to just read this. This is about and I touched on it just early on, but is there a risk that we actually may not get a state approvals as required under Section 13 A of the Alliance and funding agreement?
00:24:00 Is that a risk? Speaker 4: Well, of course it's a risk. But I think Craig and we've all outlined critically the steps we've taken to mitigate that risk. I think that's me. That's state government. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We just got through it. Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Look, any time you apply for a permit for any purpose, there's a risk that you won't get it. What we've done, we developed a technical advisory group, which had all the relevant agencies on it. State departments are very keen to have key staff involved in that TAG, so they've been involved since day one. We had a pre-lodgement meeting some months ago, which was very positive. They identified a few gaps they needed more information on and TNC did that and provided that information. None of the feedback we've gotten from the state suggests that there'll be any issues. We've encountered no roadblocks to this point, despite ongoing and continual engagement with the state. Until we have the permits in our hand, we won't know that's the case, or another issue might not appear, but that would be the same for any process at any time.
00:25:00 It's an unusual process in the sense that this is not normal practice for the state. They're learning at the same time as everybody else, and as well as for this particular project, maybe Dr Kane might be able to talk a little bit more about the work that TNC's done with the Queensland government more broadly around this sort of stuff. Speaker 6: Yeah, and just very quickly to add on, that's been a request from the government to us, is our experience in the permitting process, how that compares to other places, what they could do to make that more streamlined. Because we know that their state is interested in supporting more shellfish reef restoration work in South East Queensland, and myself and the Director of Conservation from the Australia program met with the Premier's office a couple of weeks ago, and that was what they were asking for. How is the permitting process going? Can you give us feedback that we can make this a more streamlined effort in the future? Councillor Wilkie: Councilors, for the purpose of moving this along, I'd like to move this, you're free to move.
00:26:00 I just have one more question for the Chair. I ask questions during debate, Councillor. Just like to get this moving on, I'm going to move this motion. May I have a seconder, please? Seconder. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. The principal goal of this strategic partnership, supported by three levels of government, the Noosa community stakeholders and the world's leading environmental organisation, the Nature Conservancy, is the restoration of endangered marine habitat, the once abundant oyster reefs in the Noosa River. Oyster reefs were once prolific in the Noosa River estuary, and contribute to river health by providing habitat for countless marine creatures, increase fish abundance, and help filter and clean the water. Oyster reef ecosystems are to marine environments what forests are to terrestrial environments. Just as trees filter and clarify our air and provide habitat for land creatures, shellfish reefs filter out nutrients, clean the water, and provide habitat for marine creatures. I've provided a video here. To demonstrate that, which is from the Chesapeake Bay Shellfish Reef Oyster Restoration Project.
00:27:00 Where's that? Sorry, where's Chesapeake? Chesapeake Bay is in America, and I believe the Nature Conservancy were advisers on that project. Mayor Stewart: Whereabouts in America? Speaker 6: Central East Coast. Mayor Stewart: In cold waters? Speaker 6: Maryland. In cold waters? Yeah, not as cold as southern Australia, but colder than Noosa. Councillor Wilkie: So you have projects in southern Australia as well? Speaker 6: Yes, we have shellfish build projects. Councillor Wilkie: Well, we'll just play this. It's only 40 seconds. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The oyster has a hearty appetite. As time-lapse photography reveals, adult oysters are capable of pumping and streaming up to two gallons of water in an hour. The simple act of eating makes them the bay's most effective water filtration system. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It has been estimated that prior to the 1880s, the oyster population was capable of cleansing a volume of water equal to the 18 trillion gallons of the Chesapeake in a matter of days.
00:28:00 Today, it would take the bay's decimated oyster population over a year to accomplish the same feat. Councillor Wilkie: So, councillors, that's just to demonstrate how oysters clarify and filter the water. But that's not the main reason why we're doing that. It's also about restoring once-abundant habitat for marine creatures in the Noosa River estuary. And just as we're committed to improving our land-based environment wherever possible through rehabilitation projects like at Ural Wingtail Forest, we're also fortunate to have this opportunity involving a partnership between three levels of government, Noosa community stakeholders, and the world's leading environmental conservation agency, to start to restore the oyster reef ecosystem. This project is part of the TNC's Shellfish Restoration Project that aims to rebuild 60 ecosystems across Australia and around the world. If achieved, the project will proclaim Australia the first nation in the world to have recovered a critically endangered marine ecosystem.
00:29:00 The decline in oysters in the Noosa River were confirmed through a historical study conducted in 2015 by Dr Ruth Thurston of the University of Queensland. Findings in the report indicate that millions of oysters a year were once dredged from Noosa River. But by the 1960s, the oyster reef fishery ceased to exist. The Noosa River is among 13 restoration sites around the country where reefs are being used to improve the abundance of marine life and water quality now and for future generations. It's also significant to note that this is a strategic partnership between the Noosa Council and the world's leading environmental organisation, where parties have clear obligations to deliver, not an employer-employee arrangement. The TNC has milestones to meet. Funds are not paid until the milestones are reached. And it's encouraging that partners are working professionally together to achieve the best social, economic, environmental outcomes.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Council, does someone else wish to speak to the motion? Mayor Stewart: I can't speak to the motion. Do you? Oh, go on. No, David, you go. No, you speak. Yeah, just ask your questions. Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. Well... Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thanks. It's fine. I'll wait. Go on. No, you go. You ask your question. I just had a question regarding... But I've looked through community engagement and I'm just... I might be a little bit confused, but I'm just wondering about where does Native Title fit with regards to the river and feedback from the Kabi Kabi people. Are they... Should be a key stakeholder in this group. So, what... I didn't... I may have missed it, but I didn't see any reference to that when we're looking at putting infrastructure into the river and where is their voice in this process. Speaker 8: I can answer that. Thank you. Through the Council's connection to the Kabi Kabi traditional owners, the land claimants
00:31:00 for this river, TNC has established contact and I have continually briefed the Kabi Kabi elders and also met with one of their officers here and continue to brief them and to request and seek feedback. We have incorporated Kabi Kabi knowledge into the design of our school's projects and committed to the elders that any information regarding the Kabi Kabi, we would let them vet and screen to make sure that we're respectful to their ways. To this point, they have given us no negative feedback and the meeting I had with them, they expressed endorsement of our work and the direction of this work and even last week, they contacted me, said that they're sending students their way to engage in the project. So, at this point, Council have no reason to doubt their support for our work at all and we are working on more collaborations with the Kabi Kabi elders going forward in
00:32:00 terms of participation and I would like to see their involvement in things like naming reefs and so forth as well, which they've expressed some generic interest in. And we will just firm those things up as time goes on in a gentle and respectful way as I committed to them to do. Councillor Finzel: And does that native title on the river have anything to do with the permits from the State? Is that fitting in with that process or how is that affected? Speaker 8: I'm not aware. They haven't mentioned it to us. When we met with the State formally about the permitting process, they did not mention native title to us at all. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for coming today. Appreciate your time and being at the table. We can hear about the benefits of this project all day. We can hear you gentlemen talk about it. Frank showed the video. But the bottom line is we don't have state permits.
00:33:00 I've got a letter here, an email Craig sent from you to Kin Rawlings on the 15th of July 2020. It says please note that permits and permitting processes will be a central theme at the next Noosa TAG meeting planned for August 2020. Matters regarding the preferred applicant and efficient pathways to securing permits will be discussed at that meeting. TNC hopes to work closely with Noosa Council and the State Government to navigate through these requirements and others that may be identified in the most efficient and cost effective way. I have an annual report here that is the first annual report, July 19 to August 2020. It says here that state permits 30 December 2020 obtain necessary state permits on track. I look at the annual report that we've got here today, obtain necessary state permits 30 June 2020 delayed.
00:34:00 I disagree. There are a huge amount of roadblocks to this project. We don't have the permits. This is a broad project. We've talked about, we've listened to the fact that there is a large reef and infrastructure going into our river. There has been no broad consultation in regards to this. Sure the people have turned up at the meetings and I believe there were 28 of them were told of that. But we haven't had it on your side. I haven't seen any broad community consultation in regards to what the community thinks about that. And our Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group, one of the first things they're doing is looking at pulling down structures on the North Shore. That's one of the first things that they're highlighting. So if we're pulling down structures on one hand and putting more infrastructure on the other, that's a concern. We've got $750,000 worth of council money quarantined for this project. How long are we going to keep this project on and keep the can down the curb? At one point do we just say, we're done. We can't get the permits.
00:35:00 We're 15 months on and we still can't get the permits. So I don't think we can have any conversations until we actually can take this any further, until we get those state permits. And I might be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. I'll have a talk. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have some very healthy questions around risks. And looking at risks from a very unilateral perspective. The risk we are addressing in this project is the risk from ecosystem decline. It is a real risk, not just for our ecosystems but for our economy. The reason why we started this project was an understanding that the Noosa River, while good in terms of South East Queensland, has suffered environmental decline. And had water quality problems. And since that time we've found has biodiversity in the benthos declined.
00:36:00 Now 3.6 million might seem like a lot of money. It's about three weeks of the coastal level bloom on the main beach. That's how much we lose. So we sit back and say it's too much to restore the ecosystem. And then we wonder why the ecosystem responds to excess nutrient test sediments in ways that we don't like. It's no time to put on the brakes. It's time to accelerate. It's time to look at what faces our community in the future. And see how we can use the ecosystem services to maximum effect. To give us the most resilient estuary we can have. To achieve the world recognition that we have got as a biosphere. It is clear that we are learning with this project. It is clear that the minor risks associated with a development approval process where the state assessors have been involved in a technical advisory group and have been providing support as we have been told along the process is not one to be overly concerned about.
00:37:00 So let's look at some of those ecosystem services now. I've got a paper in front of me written by a lot of people. One of them, Chris Gillies from the TNC back in the Journal of Restoration of Equality in 2020. And it looked at the value and opportunity of Australia's lost, of restoring Australia's lost rock oyster reefs. It's really important to understand. Now let's start at the end with water quality. We've had a nice little video and we've heard about a bathtub. In the paper it talks about one single oyster filtering up to 100 litres per day. And overseas it talks about how a hectare of oyster reefs have been estimated to return a benefit of $4,050 per year.
00:38:00 So one of the things you have to understand about restoration ecology and bringing back ecosystem services. It's not a one-off benefit. Every year the benefit grows and grows and grows. So instead of the sediments and nutrients going out into the bay. Or into the estuary to feed algal blooms or whatever. Other water quality issues that might come up or cause changes to the nature of our fish population. That we have this water quality benefit. And the more we do in our estuary, the more it cumulatively impacts. Of course the most important thing for water quality is stopping the sediments at their source. And we know that the level of erosion in the Kin Kin catchment is pretty well up there. Like when I looked at the LiDAR results it was the highest I'd ever seen in 20 years of working in catchments. As far as the amount of sediments that are moving. How much is getting into the estuary we're still working on. But we know that we have to do everything we can in terms of water quality. But a really important thing is to understand that there's other ecosystem services. So we're not going in here blind.
00:39:00 We had the original set of research done. Which clearly say the fisheries and the ecosystem benefits. The diversity and abundance of fish increased around the very small reefs that we used in the research phase. And it's really important that some of the economic benefits are not market economy. It's about the economics and value associated with living beside a river that is abundant and has life. And it was talked about. In our workshop the other day about what you see from the water's edge. And you might not think that's important. But when I was doing environmental design many, many years ago. There was a study of about 500,000 people. It was a huge study in America. And the number one thing when asked what is it that you remember about your childhood. It was a very high proportion of people. It was the interface between water and land. Because that's where the ecotone is.
00:40:00 That's where the diversity is. And I know when I taught with some of the fish. It was down underneath a bridge where there was lots of rock gorges. And after we lost our bait numerous times. We spent the rest of the time feeding the moray eel that was coming out of the artificial rocks on the edge. And that is a core value for our community. Is having generations that learn to understand and enjoy our natural environment. I think it's also important to understand. That the term is restoration. Trying to typify this as putting infrastructure in the river. I'm afraid it's insulting. Trying to equate it to removing illegal structures out of the room is insulting. This is restoring ecosystems that were once abundant. So the paper talks about it. It talks about that you know. On the temperate and subtropical east coast of Australia.
00:41:00 Sydney rock oysters are ubiquitous in sheltered coastal waterways. That 200 years ago the Sydney rock oysters formed large intertidal subtidal reefs in most estuaries. In New South Wales and southern Queensland. High densities formed patches. Three dimensional reefs over a metre high. And up to 10 hectares. So that's what we're trying to restore. So I think it's really important to understand that there's multiple benefits. There's benefits to creating a resilient ecosystem in our river. And all the economic and community benefits that flow from it. There's economics from the fish productions perspective of doing this. And while one hectare won't make a huge difference. Every hectare makes a difference. And there's also the potential down the future of looking at it as shoreline protection. Of using rock oyster reefs to address the sediments coming out of the erosion on the riverbank from recreational boat use for example. So there is multiple benefits to the project.
00:42:00 And while we would have loved to have been building these reefs last summer. I look forward to the fact that it's highly likely that we will be building them this summer. With not only the approval of state government but the active involvement of those people who see this as I suppose the forerunner of more to come. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you for your persistence in following through with what you're doing. We are so lucky to have the Nature Conservancy coming to Noosa and doing this project. It brings tears to my eyes. I've been following this since day one when it came out in the newspapers in the beginning. From the powerhouse all the way through. I ran for council largely due to see this through because I have been following it. And it's so hugely important.
00:43:00 The river is an asset which we need to continually improve upon. It's our asset. Of course the fishing is just going to go. I know that fish like hard surfaces. When I was in California, you're out there in your boat. When you're looking at your fish meter, all of a sudden you're out in the middle of nowhere. Bang, you find a hard bottom. Bang, that's where the fish are because they like reef. They don't like sand as much. Sand is more deserty. You come up onto the reef and that's what we're looking at. That's what we're creating here. That's what we're reestablishing in the river. And with the persistence is the learning. We live, we're in a biosphere reserve. And part of that is the learning that goes along. And what you're doing is learning how to deal with the state. The state is the biggest, the permitting process. My God. I think that when you're done with this, you will be able to teach a course in bureaucracy of doing things nicely, doing things right. And so that's exciting. I see that as another asset, a spinoff of value from this, from what you're creating here. And I see it as a way of reconciliation with the Kabi Kabi and with the environment.
00:44:00 Because I know that from this hill here, you will one day look out and see the first reef that's going in. And you're going to see the fish coming out when the tide comes down and the river is going over it. The fish are going to come up and the birds are going to be diving. And it's just, it's going to be a hectare of life that's not there at this point. And it's going to be re-established and give us a view into what the ancient, the Kabi Kabi saw. And I want to see that again. And I'm sure they do as well. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, do you have any more questions or speak? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson No, I'll keep my reason really quite succinct. A state permit to me is simply, to me, approval to proceed. And until we obtain this approval, I just don't believe it's prudent for us to proceed.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 We can't support a recommendation that requires us to pay over $200,000 of rate pays money without this approval. So unfortunately, I won't be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Right, any other councillors wish to speak before I close? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I would just like to say thank you for your report. Thank you for your passion and your love of the nature, which we, of course, all adore in this community. And one of the reasons we moved here, and we all fundamentally want to restore and look after that for future generations. The concerns I have today, and the reason why I won't be supporting this report today, is I do believe that the permits from the state are a vital... Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, could you... Councillor Finzel: Oh, sorry. My apologies. There's no malice intended. Through the chair. Thank you.
00:46:00 Thank you. So, yes, I believe that's central in this decision-making and for the success of the project, and to put the community's mind at rest, we do need to... I need to see the... Approval of the permits, given the ongoing delays, and I just think it's prudent, as Councillor Amelia has alluded to, that I won't be supporting this today for those reasons. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Just to close, thank you for all your hard work. I think there is some misunderstanding. The motion today is noting the annual report. There are, of course, rock-solid contracts in place. We cannot today decide whether to break those contracts or not. We're not having that debate today. The debate is about noting the annual report, which is part of the reporting requirements, as part of this partnership. I am fully committed to this project.
00:47:00 I think it's a wonderful opportunity to ensure that the waters flowing out of the river into our... the Noosa World Surfing Reserve is of the highest quality. We need to take every... It's our duty as councillors to use science-backed projects wherever possible, similar to those happening around the world, to improve both our land and our marine environments. It doesn't get any better than this in terms of science-based projects. Permits are, of course, part of the process, and it's encouraging that all partners are working together, including the State, who have indicated that they want this project to succeed, to achieve the best social, economic and environmental outcomes. Dr Eddie, Dr Craig, Craig, Alison and Simon, thank you for being here today. We value your interest in this project and look forward to hearing more about it when you get the permits from the State. Speaker 9: Absolutely. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, councillor.
00:48:00 The motion is that the report be noted. All in favour? The councillors Wilkie, Stockwell and Wegener. Those against? Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. And I'll use my casting vote in favour of noting the annual report. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you, gentlemen. Councillor Wilkie: Good morning. Thank you, Alison. Thank you, Simon. Next item up is the proposed new lease for Shop 8 at Sunrise Neighbourhood Shopping Centre. Speaker 7: This is the one that was in the Services and Organisation Committee in relation to the new lease. That's what Lawrence had asked. But it might have been referred here. She wanted to have a look at some additional wording, which I think has been circulated around. Councillor Lorentson: Good morning. Good morning. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: I just wanted to add an amendment to the report that requests the CEO to look at potential options,
00:49:00 both short-term and long-term, for the ongoing future enhancement of the shopping centre site, to improve its commercial return and to make it more accessible to the general public. Councillor Wilkie: I have a seconder for that please. Seconder, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Again, I'll make this brief. My children go to Sunshine Beach State Heights, so I know the shopping centre very well and I shop there very regularly. It's my opinion that the shopping centre is due for a bit of a facelift. It's been sitting there looking tight for some time. I'm confident and actually quite excited that the IGA, the application we've got in front of us with IGA as being the potential lessor will bring increased footfall and popularity to the shopping centre. What I'm just seeking in terms of my amendment are just cost effective options that will revitalise the centre and improve our return on investment.
00:50:00 For example, cost effective things like shade, a park bench. I just think we owe it to the Sunrise Beach community to do what we can to help regenerate the shopping centre. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question for staff. Is this outside the realms of what you're doing on an ongoing basis for the Maplewood Shopping Centre? Speaker 5: Through you, no. Councillor Wilkie: Our councillors wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I thought it was a motion. I used to live down the road from Sydney. And while there's great memories about when you go to the bakery, going to the dentist wasn't so fondly reminded. But the thing that I think that Councillor Lorentson brought up on Tuesday last week's committee meeting was also a suggestion about looking at chopped off housing. And I think that's another thing we can look at is that it is well situated in the local business centre zone there and that if, you know, structurally and economically it works out, it's something that may be considered in this report.
00:51:00 But, you know, as part of that overall direction in terms of getting a mix of uses, that may be one that is a suitable option for us to consider. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillors wish to speak before Councillor Lorentson closes. Mayor Stewart: I want to thank Robyn for her hard work on this. This has been a long arduous process and thank you because I know you've been at it and you've driven this. So thank you very much Robyn. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: No, just a great outcome. I think the community has got benefits for everyone. The community, the businesses that are already inside the shopping centre. And again, I'd like to thank Robyn and Clint for their hard work in securing, at this stage, an excellent tenant. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion all in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you Robyn, thank you Clint. Now go back to item one on the agenda which is... Another change to development approvals for material change of use for two multiple housing type 2 duplexes and operational works, engineering works and landscaping to include short-term accommodation at 30 and 32, the Cockleshell, Noosaville, which is referred from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda.
00:52:00 Speaker 7: Councillor Smutty, just a quick comment. Obviously we've had a few short-term accommodation applications over the last couple of rounds of meetings and there's been some approved, some reviewed. Just to save time, on Thursday night, what I've done today is that you can do it either way. Perhaps this one you might want, if someone wants to move, a motion to refuse. And if that's unsuccessful, we have conditions here if you want to have a motion to refuse, so we don't need to go around again. Sorry, a motion to approve, so you don't need to go around again on Thursday night. We have that for all three, so just might save some time in terms of the process. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Stockwell. We have a seconder for it. Councillor Whitham. Councillor Stockwell is suspended. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. We've had this debate and I've, in previous debates, made it clear that the way I look
00:53:00 at these issues is the way I think the amendments, what we did in the List Plan 2020 were intended. And the overarching, I suppose, objective was, in any zone, to try and limit the progress of the accommodation. Thank you very much for joining us today, we're going to take a look at some of the areas that are predominantly residential in nature and that in the medium density residential zone it was made impact accessible to allow for continued short stay accommodation in localities which have for many decades been where most of the short term accommodation has been located. I've had a look at this site and I believe it is within a residential neighbourhood rather than a tourist neighbourhood. We had a recent development in Nola Street which at that stage I think is around about the border and going and having a look at this site I still think that Nola Street is the border between the tourist uses and the
00:54:00 residential uses and such. I think it is appropriate to protect existing residential neighbourhoods and therefore support the staff recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question for Mr Kerry. Kerry, it's an impact accessible area. Speaker 3: No one on this one. Mayor Stewart: Okay, so no one put up any complaints? No. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Sweeney, you have a question? Councillor Wegener: We have the walking and bicycling strategy and that's going to integrate all the areas from all the way from the junction, Noosaville, out to Hastings Street. The people that are going to be staying here, they'll be using that. That infrastructure. We're building it for the people, for the residents that live there. Is that right? Speaker 3: Well, we're building that infrastructure for several reasons. We're building it for our residents and we're also building it for our visitors. So that infrastructure is important
00:55:00 for people to use pathways to get around the place rather than use their private vehicle and it's also good recreational trails as well. Councillor Wegener: Is that one reason for the rate increase for the people? I think it's good for the people with short term accommodation there because the people that are staying in these places are using our bicycle and are going to be using that. Speaker 3: I understand the change in rating is around the impact of these sorts of facilities on our services that we provide to the community. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Do we have a councillor to speak to the motion? Questions? Councillor Lorentson: Questions, yeah. So Councillor Stockwell, I'm just going to go back to what you said, that your understanding of the overall outcome for meeting density residential is that we need to protect areas that are predominantly residential and you're saying that this place is predominantly residential. Is that correct?
00:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What I said is the way I interpret the plan is that the overarching intent was to inhibit the further progress of short stay into areas that are predominantly residential in that nature. And in this case, between the two zones, in this case, and the flip side of that was, and I've said previously that it's not overt in how the scheme was written, was that the reason we made it consistent and impact accessible was we recognised there was large areas within the medium density residential that had been predominantly or had a large content of short stay into visitor accommodation previously. What I'm saying is this area, in my opinion, as I think it is identified in the report, has not got, after you get past Nola Street, has not got a high density of short stay accommodation. Therefore it is predominantly residential in nature.
00:57:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So Kerry, I'm going to throw this question at you. I have a different interpretation of the test that determines whether or not short term accommodation is appropriate in medium density residential zone. And I'm going to make reference to the overall outcome 2A of the code, which reads, the overall outcomes sought for the medium density residential zone are as follows. Medium density residential neighbourhoods are predominantly home to permanent residents. My interpretation of that is that if the predominant nature of the area is residential, then short term accommodation is consistent. So the predominant nature of this precinct is residential. Therefore, as stated in the NISA plan, short term accommodation is consistent. And that's also consistent. Councillor Wilkie: You're making an argument here, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I know. What is your question, please? My question is, my question is, who's got it right? We don't know. Speaker 7: That's an unfair question. That's the problem.
00:58:00 It's unfair for staff to make past comment on councilor opinions. Speaker 3: Can I offer my opinion? Yeah. Speaker 7: You can ask, I think it's okay to ask the staff what their opinion is, but they can't pass judgement on whether they think a councilor's opinion is right or not. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So my question to you, Kerry, is that we've got applications before us in Hill Street, Robert Street, Nannygai, which adopts my interpretation of that test, and now we've got applications that are coming to council which adopt Councillor Stockwell's interpretation. What is your opinion on that? Speaker 7: Can I, I'll translate the question maybe to make it a bit easier for staff. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just getting completed interpretations. Speaker 7: I think the question is, why are staff making the recommendation they ought to refuse this in terms of their interpretation of the scheme? That's probably the heart of what you're asking. Speaker 3: Yeah. So I think the primary outcome that the scheme looks for is median density residential neighbourhoods. So neighbourhoods, and I underline that one, are predominantly home to permanent residents.
00:59:00 So the neighbourhood is quite broad. It's a much broader area. It includes Gympie Terrace and further afield. It's not just immediately the surrounding area. So our advice to council is that this, that that area, that neighbourhood, that zoned median density is no longer predominantly home to permanent. It's predominantly visitor accommodation. And that's why we're recommending refusal to council. So. Thank you. Thank you. So the words are, median density residential neighbourhood. Councillor Lorentson: So did the applicant receive a formal information request from council planning officers during either the application process or the assessment process, raising all these matters that are now being used for reasons for refusing? Speaker 3: Well, there was an information request issued in May and responded to in June by the applicant.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I'd have to go back and read that. I don't know if you've seen the issues raised in that information request. But can I just remind council that the purpose of an information request is actually to ask for additional information. We don't always make an information request to applicants if there's sufficient information before us. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Thank you. I went past this application. I went past this, this cobble shell on the weekend. It does feature a median density residential. I've seen no evidence to support the change because it is consistent. And according to the Noosa Town Plan, it is consistent use in this area. Directly backs onto commercial premises. Noise is not an issue. Proposal is consistent with the regional policies of South East Queensland Regional Plan. It's consistent with the State Planning Policy, the South East Regional Plan, the Planning Regulation 2017 and the Noosa Plan 2020. That the application must be assessed against each of these above mentioned instruments.
01:01:00 And it's consistent with all three. It's an impact accessible application. We've heard there's been no submissions. There's no complaints from any neighbours. So in no way is the impact going to be felt or has it been alluded to be felt by residents who are close by. Until we receive further data, until we receive the Commission Housing Assessment Needs Report, we must follow the course. We must follow the Noosa Plan which says it's consistent. And we still haven't got the definition of predominantly. I still don't know exactly what that means. So until then, until we receive that report and we see, receive baseline data, empirical research, I'm not prepared to support the staff's recommendation for refusal. Thanks, Mr Chair. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Council. Council, wait a minute. Councillor Wegener: I will speak to this. As you know, I've spoken at length, ad nauseum on the subject. So I'm just going to stick with another argument. And that is that first, Noosa has a long history and community culture of managing the built
01:02:00 environment. And we've done a magnificent job at that. And go to Kawana to see how different a place can be than Noosa with the stoplights and the severe urban feel. I've said that. I believe that with the boom of... With STAs in Noosa, we are like managing a restaurant that was popular. So we made lots more tables and cut lots of staff. And that's where we're at right now with our accommodation. We created this paradise, which was in balance a few years ago, is now going out of balance. And we need to manage it better. And the town plan does that. The town plan says there's a balance between tourism and residents. And it says here that here we're going past where we wanted to go, which is additional visitor accommodation in the area is likely to result in detrimental impact on the residents
01:03:00 and amenity of the residents. And basically, the residents are paying for the walking and bicycle strategy. They're supporting this whole where. We are... The residents are supporting... Tom. I am... Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Please. Exactly. Are supporting this. And the town plan supports the residents' choice. The town plan is a reflection of what the residents want. And it's a brilliant document. And staff is absolutely consistent and right on to refuse this application because it is inconsistent with the town plan. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. It is inconsistent with the town plan. Councillor Wegener: No. No, it is... Mayor Stewart: The median density is consistent. Mr. Chair, can I have clarification on that, please? Councillor Wilkie: Well, in council... Well, I'll ask the staff to clarify what... How... Something can be consistent but inconsistent. Speaker 3: Yeah. So... I think the question is more about the consistent.
01:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: Or inconsistent. Speaker 3: So the planning scheme identifies which uses in a zone are consistent or inconsistent by the tables of assessment. So short-term accommodation is identified as a consistent use in the median density zone. But when an application is lodged for short-term, it must be assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme. And officers have concluded that it is inconsistent with those provisions of the planning scheme. It does not meet the scheme requirements. Mayor Stewart: But it is deemed median density, which, according to the Noosa Town Plan, in its hard and fast form, without interpretation, is consistent with the planning scheme. Speaker 3: That's what I've said. The use itself is consistent. But it's not as simple as that. We've got to make an assessment and see whether it meets all of the scheme requirements. And it does not. And so it's considered inconsistent with the planning scheme. That would be a subjective assessment. Councillor Wilkie: That's the recommendation of staff, isn't it? Thank you.
01:05:00 Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lyons. Councillor Lorentson: I will. Just to follow up on just the conversation we're having around the table, I'm going to refer to Council's own short-term accommodation guide that states, where short-term accommodation is identified as consistent in the zone, it's generally considered an appropriate use, providing it can operate in a manner that does not adversely impact on its surrounding and the residential amenity enjoyed by permanent residents, e.g. car parking, waste, and noise. Things that can be managed by permanent residents. So I'm going back to... Is this a question, Councillor? No, I'm closing. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. If you can just not interrupt. The key test in determining where the short-term accommodation is appropriate in a medium-density residential zone is found in the overall outcome 2A of the quote. My interpretation of that is that if the predominant nature of the area is residential, then short-term
01:06:00 accommodation is consistent. The area is consistent. The area is mainly residential. So this application complies, and therefore it's going to be impact-assessed. And the way it's impact-assessed is that the uses are conditioned to comply with the overall outcomes of the code, which includes the establishment of management procedures and curfews on use of outdoor areas. I'd like to further add that there have been zero objections on this application. And less than 400 metres down the road, we approved a similar application in New South Wales Street less than a month ago. So using common sense, if a use is considered appropriate, if the land use is considered consistent, then it's considered appropriate and very compatible in the zone. Short-term accommodation is consistent land use in a medium-density zone.
01:07:00 Therefore, I won't support this refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors to speak before? Councillor Finchamp. Councillor Finzel: Yes please, Mr Chair. Thank you for the report. Under the recommendation in A number 5, I come back again to the point where there's no need for additional short-term accommodation in the area. Again, I would like to know how this is determined, and I believe we are waiting on the report back to Council with regards to housing in the Shire. Thank you. And I will not be supporting this recommendation today until I am satisfied that I have sufficient information back from that report to inform this decision. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finchamp. In my opinion, we cannot be publicly lamenting the shortage of permanent housing availability as a crisis, and then keep approving the conversion of permanent housing into short-term accommodation.
01:08:00 To my mind, that's saying one thing and doing another thing. It's also very easy to minimise negative impacts from short-term accommodation as something that can be managed by the local law. That's minimising the issue, in my opinion. What we are actually doing is introducing to the neighbourhood another short-term accommodation business, where noise and disruption from guests in holiday mode is a potential disruption to that neighbourhood that will have to be managed by a local law, to the detriment of that neighbourhood. It's also very easy to minimise negative impacts from short-term accommodation as something that is meant to be predominantly for permanent residents. And the approval, more STA here, is contrary to this. Yes, STA in a medium density residential zone is deemed consistent use, but impact-accessible. But as we've heard from the expert planning staff, there are other aspects of the planning scheme that the application has to be measured against and found, in this case, to be inconsistent
01:09:00 with the Noosa planning scheme. So therefore, I'll be supporting the staff. Recommendation for refusal in this case. I'll put the motion to... Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Yes. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Kerry, Council Wilkie mentioned that the application's going to increase short-term accommodation in the precinct. Can I just get clarification? The applicant's sought to make a change to the approval to include short-term accommodation. Does that mean he's just asking for flexibility to use the unit both for accommodation and as permanent and short-term accommodation? Speaker 3: Yes. They're looking for interchangeable rights between permanent and short-term. So at any point in time, they could use all the units for short-term, or there might be a mix of short-term and permanents, or even all-permanent. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stocker, who's to close? Speaker 3: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Lorentson brought up a really relevant point, and that is my judgement on
01:10:00 all these is actually coming from putting different weights on different elements of the planning scheme to staff. So staff have placed a significant weight on the terms in terms of being predominantly residential in a neighbourhood. In previous applications, what I've placed weight on is the terms of the residential accommodation, the Coastal Communities Codes, which talks about visitor accommodation is not to be located in areas which are predominantly permanent residential dwellings. And so to me, that was an attempt to say, well, there's some areas within a neighbourhood that are more suitable to visit, and some that are more suitable to permanent. Now, the Coastal Communities Code doesn't apply to this, and there's nothing as easy for me to hang my hat on why I would not support it. I think the other key thing is perhaps we should be, to use two different words, a consistent
01:11:00 use can be in conflict with certain provisions of a planning scheme. And that's where we're having our debates, is what elements of the planning scheme you're putting on weight. And it's not unusual that you can be in conflict with certain elements of a planning scheme, and you say, well, it's more important to do this. And that's, you know, some people in the community have been arguing that, you know, any approval is, you know, it's about looking at the various objectives. So I've tried to be consistent in my approach. And in the medium density residence, in the Noosaville Locality Code, it talks about development ensures permanent residents of Noosaville enjoy high levels of residential amenity and accessibility to urban services and recreational opportunities. Driving down this street, there is a clear change in the nature of development in the south of Nile Street, clear change. The development that we're currently looking at is high quality, commended the developer
01:12:00 on the quality and the design, and it's currently, I don't know how many, but some at least are on the market and will be a great place to live. It would, if it got converted to a, you know, purely short stay accommodation for, would I believe change the nature of that area. In a way that I don't think it was intended, and I know, I'm saying, I think I know it's intended because that's how I've always seen what we're aiming to do in the planning scheme. And that is that we were trying to say, yes, it's consistent and impact accessible in areas where tourist accommodation was traditionally quite a large part of that little local area. And hence why I agree with the refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion to those in favour. Councillor Stockwell, Wegener. Aye. Councillor Whatcom, No 6, Zeddon, and Wilkie. Those against. Councillor Finzel, Stewart, and Lorentson, and that as Chair, I use my casting vote in favour of the motion before us.
01:13:00 Thank you, everyone. Now we move on to item four on the agenda, which is representation to development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation, Ferguson Street, Sunshine. Speaker 7: Chair, did you miss some, Tingira. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, I beg your pardon. Wow. Development application, material change of use, short term accommodation, 51 Tingira present. And that's coming from the Planning and Environment Committee, page 43. Speaker 7: Similar thing, councillor. We have both a recommendation from staff to refuse, but we also have conditions to approve if you wish to go down that path. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move the approval once. Mayor Stewart: Yay. Councillor Wilkie: Right, so you're moving the approval. Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: For exactly the reasons that I just outlined. This is an area that is traditionally high levels of tourist accommodation. In fact, in the Planning and Environment Agenda, there was a superseded planning scheme approval for a short stay in Low Density Residential Zone, or under, I'm assuming it's Low Density Residential Zone, quite close.
01:14:00 It is an area where, as the maps point out, that in this part of the neighbourhood, that there has always been, that there is now, and obviously, yes, a decade's been a high level of short stay and visitor accommodation, and hence, I think it's an appropriate place to have it. Speaker 7: Councillor, I'll just clarify, those conditions of approval are a standard that we apply to all of these types of issues, and they'll obviously be in the general, sorry, in the agenda for the ordinary meeting as well, if this motion is successful. Councillor Wilkie: New Councillor will speak to the motion. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Well, actually, I didn't quite finish off my last one, so I'll carry on. With, you look at page 51, and when we look at how much, how many STAs there are, we wonder why there is a, why it's so hard to get employees, why there's a crisis of workers in this town.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 And one of the strongest arguments that I was given months ago. is that they create jobs, but when you look here, obviously, the people that are living in those areas are not going to be doing those jobs, and they've, and as STAs just keep moving inland and taking out places where residents can live and do these jobs, and they're good jobs as well, they're, you know, landscaping and all that, you run into a dead end, where all of a sudden, again, there's not enough staff, there's too many tables, there's too many people, there's too many people, there's too many people, there's Where is our community? And so the argument of employment for supporting STAs has actually hit a dead end at this point. And that is one thing, one way of looking at the planning scheme, as the planning scheme was brilliantly written to say, yes, it's consistent in medium density, so long as all these other conditions and the conditions are more important and actually have more weight to the medium density zone.
01:16:00 So it's a brilliant trade-off. The planning scheme addresses this brilliantly. And so therefore, I will support, I will not support the approval. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I might just clarify what I think, Councillor Wegener, about the employment. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument that I put forward about employment, am I allowed to address this? Councillor Wilkie: You can use your right to speak. Mayor Stewart: The argument was that if we don't have people visiting, we don't have anyone getting an ice cream, visiting our shops, visiting our restaurants. So therefore, we don't have any businesses that are trading. It's not that the workers would necessarily be in this, because as we know, this is an affordable accommodation. But if we have tourists and visitors to these towns, they would spend in our community, and they would enable jobs, because I'm an owner of an ice cream shop and I employ three staff, because I have the right to have an ice cream shop.
01:17:00 And I've got more staff, because I've got more people coming to it. So that was the argument for the employment, not necessarily housing our workers, because as we all know, this is an affordable accommodation, and it doesn't in any way address that issue. My concern was if it's not STA, it's closed up, like in London, Belgravia, Chelsea, and no one's there and it's a ghost town. And that's nothing on our community. That doesn't provide community. That just provides sad ghost towns. So that was the argument there. I think it's fair, it's medium density, but it's been consistent and it's staying the course. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to just say something. I've got two kids at home that were working in hospitality, and over the last three, four weeks are sitting at home waiting for work.
01:18:00 So I think that a lot of the small businesses would actually want to be in that dilemma at the moment and want to look staff. There's plenty of staff out there that haven't got work. So Councillor Stockwell, I commend you on moving the motion, and I support you on your part. Mayor Stewart: I think you said it before. It's really interesting. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I won't be supporting it. But the proposal is contrary to the planning scheme, which seeks to prioritise the preservation of medium density residential neighbourhoods for predominantly permanent residential dwellings. And again, we have made quite a case as a Council in publicly lamenting the crisis of permanent housing availability, and then we keep approving short-term accommodation in residential neighbourhoods.
01:19:00 And I think we do that at the risk of grossly underestimating the depth of feeling about this in our own community. And again, I hear arguments about any negative impacts being managed by the local law. But what we're actually doing is creating another potential source of disruption for those residential neighbourhoods by approving this as short-term accommodation. We have heard, yes, it's a consistent use, but inconsistent when assessed against various other aspects. Thank you. I think it's important to highlight just the aspect of the planning scheme. It's a four bedroom unit. We have been picking up on Councillor Wegener's argument. We've also heard the difficulty that workers, essential service workers have in finding accommodation in Noosa. And these are not just hospitality workers. I'm talking about teachers, paramedics, police and emergency services workers. And with a four bedroom house, there's nothing to say it couldn't be four people sharing the cost of that.
01:20:00 Which would make it more affordable. Councillors, I cannot personally keep approving the conversion of permanent residences into short-term accommodation, knowing what we know. I won't be supporting this application. Anyone else wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I would just like to say I support the conditions for approval. Again, I think we need to, previously it's been stated we're only at 20%, 23%. And I think we need to be fully informed. In my opinion, I'm happy to wait for the report back from the staff about the housing needs assessment. Rather than giving my opinion, I'd rather wait for the report. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you should close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I do. And both arguments.
01:21:00 And wait. There's no doubt about it. In terms of the wording of the scheme, I don't share Councillor Wegener's enthusiasm. And I recall that staff have also advised they thought the wording could be tightened up somewhat. And I do believe there is a policy decision that may come as early as next month in terms of, to me, the way to approach this issue. And I think it's important to, if we are to prioritise permanent residence over tourism, is to identify those areas which we want for tourist accommodation and put them in that zone. This is one area that I think may or may not, we're looking at the dots on the map and it looks like we're well over 50% of this area already in tourist accommodation. To the east, there's a David Lowe way in an area where people go to the beach a lot. And there may be other areas where we say, in meeting this residential zone, we make,
01:22:00 shall stay inconsistent. And therefore, once that policy decision's made, we've identified both the areas where we think it shouldn't be in the future and the areas where we don't want any more, that we have enough. And therefore, we'd start the process of actually creating two different markets so that price can reflect in residential markets. And therefore, that price can reflect the fact that the highest and best use is for permanent residence. But in this case, I believe to be consistent with how I've interpreted the scheme all along and how I believe it was intended, I think it is the right thing to do for this applicant is to approve it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Stewart and Lorentson. Against? That's Councillors Wegener and Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Representation to Development Permit for Material Change Reviews for Short Term Accommodation at 75 Williams Road, Kin Kin, which was from page 80 of the Planning and Environment Agenda.
01:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question to Patrick. I think in the representations to the conditions, the applicant suggested it was a 45 degree slope. I'm just checking. Did you go outside and walk the slope to check it was right? Speaker 5: I went out to the site. I did not walk the slope, but I observed that it's a very steep slope and I've validated that on the mapping as well. I'm not sure what your investigations have determined. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Looking on our own, by contour, it's 50% coming straight down.
01:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: So to clarify, that's quite steep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's, for every metre you go, every two metres you go up, you're going one metre in. 45 degree angle, quite very steep. Councillor Wilkie: Very steep. Look, I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Finzel: Seconder. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Stewart. Look, yes, Councillors, when we imposed this condition, we always knew it was a bit of a, it was an uncertainty whether or not the applicant would go for that. There are situations on the ground out there that make it very, very difficult and onerous for the applicant to abide by those conditions. And in short, I think it's an equitable outcome that the applicant is not held to that condition. That's why I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to support the recommendation, but not to the grounds in the report. I think the principle we tried to set was that any use that changes from just permanent residential should contribute to the overall management of the fires here.
01:25:00 But in this case, having a look at the contours on all the angles, it is quite difficult to access. I've zoomed much closer into the image, and I think the representations did say that there are mature rainforests. I'm not looking at those opinions. That's the case. And the other aspect I looked at is obviously one of the reasons why we have these conditions in the scheme is to have gradual improvement in the aquatic ecology of the creeks and waterways. Obviously, there's the terrestrial biodiversity outcome, but there's also the fact that that creates the water quality in the ecosystem within the waterway. And I had a look at it immediately downstream from this site is a dam. So the chances of increasing connectivity for those. So the ecological perspective is also quite small. So in this case, some reluctantly, I always want to put these conditions on.
01:26:00 I will agree with the condition. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: If councillors wish to speak to the motion before I close, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Speaker 7: Next item now at Ferguson Street. Councillor Wilkie: So representation to development permit. Thank you. That's a material change of use for short-term accommodation, 29 Ferguson Street, Sunshine Beach. And that's from page 91 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Councillor Stockwell, you have a motion if you'd like to attest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. I have a change to what the recommendation is. I will read out the change. The change is agreed to in B, which is agreed to have been in condition three to read as follows. The building must be set back. A minimum of six metres from the front boundary to Ferguson Street, except the roof which may be set back four metres or the same as the roof of the existing building as validated
01:27:00 by survey by a registered surveyor, whichever is the greater. A copy of the survey plan identifying the setback of the existing building roof must be provided to council prior to implementing construction. And then I also think since we are varying from staff recommendation, it needs to have supporting grounds. And the council supports this relaxation of front setback based on the following grounds. The setback will be no worse than that which currently exists. The design is consistent with a strategic outcome 331F in that the development is designed to suit the subtropical climate incorporating materials that are recycled or have low levels of embodied energy and to be energy, water and waste efficient. The proposal is consistent with the built form and character of the street that has features of range or built form within the front six metre setback. Speaker 7: Can I just clarify that you've read out the proposal is consistent and the wording on the board is it's not inconsistent.
01:28:00 Which one do you want? It doesn't matter. No, I'll leave it as up there. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just a question. Has this been run by the staff? Yes. We have a seconder for this, please. Councillor Lorentson: I will for the seconder. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So in this case, staff recommended a one metre relaxation. Having a look at the site, the existing eaves, if you scale it off council's mapping system, are only 3.5 metres off the front setback. Staff suggest that they think that that may relate to the width of the eaves, that the front wall might be about 4.3. To me, I always reward good design and having a look at the two adjoining properties and the the seat. I do believe that a broader eave coming out in that location will achieve better solar
01:29:00 insuration. I'd stop the sun coming into the building except for reducing air conditioning costs, et cetera, et cetera. And it's a couple of reasons. I also believe that it won't have any impact on the neighbouring properties if at worst the roof comes out no further than the existing roof. But I think the applicant's only requested four metres, so in case the existing roof comes out close to four metres, I've worded it like that. Other than that, as I said, I think this design does do a good job of reflecting the subtropical nature. It's actually not one of these ones where they're trying to squeeze up to the front boundary because they're making a very large building trying to maximise footprint. They've actually created something that is quite airy, and hence I believe that the relaxation in this particular case will not adversely affect the amenity locality
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 because it's a nice little street with lots of built structures in and around the place. Councillor Wilkie: So it's the eaves itself which will be four metres from the front boundary? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So the building will be six, it's just the roof overhang that comes out like that. Councillor Wilkie: The eaves are staggered. How will that affect the... they both can be four. The design is staggered, if I've read it correctly. One is further forward and one is back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This just sets the map so we can go forward. Councillor Wilkie: That's the same thing. Staff, why did you settle on five metres and one metre in rather than two metres in? Speaker 5: So you might be aware, Councillor, that this matter came before Council previously and at that time it was determined that there should be a six metre setback for the roof.
01:31:00 So I went out to the site and had a look in Ferguson Street and I noted, and the report reflects it, there are a number of structures that are within the front setback and they're primarily carports and sort of garages, which I think are historical. Because they're quite old housing stock in that area. And generally, so they were single storey and they didn't really equate to the whole of the frontage. So it was my opinion that a four metre setback would be quite intrusive because of the height of it. And I considered the fact that there were setback variations in the street, noting that the existing house was also set back closer than the six metres. But there is no development, existing development rights. You don't get to maintain your setback by the planning scheme. You need to abide by the planning scheme. And I just thought a five metre setback would allow for some distance from the front boundary and be generally consistent with the development in the area. Councillor Wilkie: And most of the other intrusions into the front setback, you say, are carports and garages. That's correct. Are they usually approved by building certifiers?
01:32:00 Speaker 5: Some of them are quite old. So I've had a look and I don't... So some of them I can't find approvals on the system. I think there might have been roughly six or seven properties. I think there was one that was done as a setback variation by a building department. But I couldn't, because of the age of them, I couldn't find anything on it. Councillor Wilkie: And under the existing building, is that the front facade is four metres back or is it... Speaker 5: I know that Councillor Stockwell's referred to it being set back 3.5 metres from the aerials. I've got a different measurement. I've got a measurement that was greater from the roof to the front boundary. But there could be errors in our system to fully determine where that front boundary is. What's the setback current in the existing building from the facade to the front boundary? I don't have those exact details. The applicant advised that the setback of the development existing was approximately four metres.
01:33:00 I would presume that would be to the eaves. So four and a half metres or something like that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Questions of staff? Yeah. Any councillors want to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: But actually, could staff just sum up the difference between Brian's and the staff recommendation? The difference between the two? Yeah. Speaker 5: Well, I've recommended a setback of five metres from the front boundary for the roof. And Brian's recommending that it match the existing setback or be four metres, whichever is the greater. So Brian's recommending it come further to the front boundary. Mayor Stewart: And the applicant is supportive, Brian's position is supportive of what the applicant would like at the four metres. That's what they've applied for. That's good. That's what the representations are about. Yes, they're representations. Yep. I'm going to support Councillor Stockwell. I think four metres is fair.
01:34:00 When I look at this, historical or not, when I look at this, this is a beautiful looking building. I think it will add a lot to the amenity of the area and the locality. When I look at, on page 93, the setbacks, I mean, they're anywhere from, I saw a 1.7, I believe. It's a 2.1, 2.6, 3.7, 3.2, 2.2. Maybe it's not a 1.7, maybe I start spelling. But they're all far closer to the street than this is. This is a lovely build. This is a home that a lot of thought has gone into. There has been a lot of thought in regard to neighbourhood amenity and the impact upon neighbours with underground garages and with trying to reduce noise. Actually, the addition of the... The extra two metre eave, which complies with what Councillor Stockwell said of the four metre setback, will actually help with sound and it will help with privacy. And I believe there's two front bedrooms at where those eaves cover.
01:35:00 And so it will assist with the privacy of sound and noise in the area in regard to the larger eaves. So I know that this is an applicant who has spent a lot of time and a lot of money trying to get this right, to adhere to the Noosa design principles. It's a relatively small house with a small GFA. It's not imposing. And as I said, there's $60,000 to $80,000, I believe, being spent or more on landscaping. I think it will really add to the street. And I think the design as it is, as the applicant has with the two metre eaves, is great. And I'm happy to support Councillor Stockwell in this amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Question. You note in the report that there are a number of setback variations attributed to carports and garages, so ground level intrusions. However, there is only one example of an upper level setback intrusion, which is minor. So what we're talking about here is an upper level setback intrusion? Speaker 5: Well, that's correct.
01:36:00 So the one that I noted that was minor was a box to a window to provide some privacy. So it was a small element of the frontage. To an upper level window. This is obviously to the highest point of the dwelling, being to the peak of the roof and as it comes down the pitch along the eaves. Councillor Wilkie: So in that case, it would be an anomaly in that being an upper level intrusion, whereas the others are ground level? Speaker 5: I consider that to be the case, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'm going to put a counter view. For the reasons just stated, there are historical intrusions, garages, carports. On ground level, we're talking about here about an upper level intrusion, which has the potential to be more imposing on the streetscape. One of the main features of building design in Noosa has been that buildings do not give the sense of crowding the street.
01:37:00 That's why the setbacks are very important. I acknowledge that the staff have recognised that traditionally there's been a 600 millimetre setback committed for eaves. And that given that there is some form of variation could be reasonable, that they will allow to extend that 40, sorry, 400 millimetres to make that a one metre intrusion. Rather than the two metres intrusion which is proposed here. I'm not comfortable with the argument that because something has happened before historically, perhaps when a town plan wasn't in operation, that given the opportunity that comes before us that we should perpetuate what may be considered poor planning decisions that have gone before. There's no questioning that the applicant has engaged a very skilled designer.
01:38:00 The designer is aesthetically very pleasing. But it's unlikely to be adversely effective by having, allowing a one metre intrusion into the setback rather than a two metre intrusion. And I think when it comes to building design and its impact on the street, I will always err on the side of what we traditionally consider good building design that doesn't crowd out the street. So I won't be supporting this particular motion. Councillor Lorentson: I will be. Thank you again, Councillor Stockwell, for putting the recommendation forward. I believe the form of the roof contributes to the style of the house. It's consistent with the preferred tropical feel sought by our planning scheme. The building would not be out of character with the surrounding area. And we also afforded some latitude for design reasons.
01:39:00 In previous applications in council, and I'm making reference to the Natanya refurbishment and also over in Cooroy. It's therefore reasonable and fair, I think, to afford the same sort of flexibility to this application and respect the integrity of the design and functionality. I am going to be supporting this recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Do we have any councillors who wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? Yes, please. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Yes, I'll support the recommendation. Thank you, Brian. I think moving forward, to remove the roof would impact other areas of the design. It has been, I believe, put there for protection for the sun. And hopefully this will reduce, you know, use of air conditioning and things like that, given we're looking at chaff and climate change. Given that there's so many different various setbacks in the street.
01:40:00 I walk along that street rather regularly. And it is with the landscaping and the buildings. It is a street that is, you know, it's, it is leafy and green and it's very hard to identify, you know, where these eaves are set back and from. I'm going to support the amendment today. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Yeah, the Councillor Finzel. And I will say, as we speak before Councillor Stockwell closes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Yeah, the, the arguments both for and against Vassalla and I think it is the particular location which Councillor Finzel just brought up. The existing vegetation does mean that this street has more of a laneway feel about it. It's more of an urban than a suburban context. And when you look at, say the, you know, the fact that, yes, okay, I, I'm a city, I'm a I perfectly accept that at a second story it may have a slightly larger impact than at a single story, but if you look across the road, the bulk and scale of the units across the road, this would not be out of context in that respect.
01:41:00 I also, I suppose, historically I've always found it amusing how the need to shade cars warranted a front rear setback relaxation where the need to shade people didn't quite get the same level. And in this case, as I said, as far as an overall design outcome, I think it probably adds rather than detracts from that street scale. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion to those in favour. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Stewart, Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. We now go on to item five, and that is application. For another change to a development permit for material change of use, short-term accommodation and operational works at 14 Anne Street, Noosaville.
01:42:00 And that is from page 106 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Speaker 7: There's a similar thing here, and I suspect there'll be different views again, but given the take on the one with Cocker Shield, it might be similar to move a motion to refuse, see how that goes, and if that's unsuccessful. We do have the conditions available for approval, if you want to, as well. It would make sense to me to do it that way. It would make sense to me to do it that way. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Who would like to move a motion? Councillor Wegener: I'll move to refuse the application. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wegener? I'll look, I'll second that. Okay. Speaker 8: Councillor Wegener, you're the floor. Councillor Wegener: Yep. When I moved to Noosa, I rented a place on Hill Street, and then before that, we were closer to the beach, and we need people to live in these places.
01:43:00 Anne Street is a perfect example of a residential neighbourhood that, as the planning scheme says, does not need temporary accommodation. That's it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, Andy, do. I'd like to enunciate that I believe this is the similar context to Copperfield. If you look at the nature of development, say, from Elizabeth Street towards the river, if you have an area that's traditionally largely tourist in nature, like Councillor Wegener, I used to live in Hill Street, but I also used to live in James Street, where I had management rights for a resort, which is now all residential by the rules of it. And... But when you get to Anne Street, you feel like you're in a residential area, and it's a significant change to the amenity and context closer to the river,
01:44:00 and for that reason, I believe this would represent an intrusion of tourism into a traditional residential area. Therefore, I support the refusal market. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask a question, sir? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, please. Mayor Stewart: I'm just asking if that's assessable. Speaker 3: Any submissions, Kerry? No. No. Five. So, the front page of the report always details the number of the submissions, so five submissions. And... Speaker 7: Page 106. Speaker 3: 106. And the issues raised in those submissions are set out on page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Page 116. Mayor Stewart: I think it's, when we look at consistency of decision making and we look at what we have approved and haven't approved in the past, I think, as I said, and I'll keep coming back to it, until we have that housing assessment needs, until we have accurate data, until it's not just we think this should be, until we have empirical research, accurate data, we should not be changing the course of what the Noosa plan says overridingly that medium density is consistent in this area.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 So I will not be supporting this staff recommendation. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel? Yeah, for the same reasons I've mentioned before, I'm a great believer in process. I think the process around this whole decision making needs to be adhered to. We put the request forward for the housing needs assessment. And again, I'll be waiting back for that report to inform any policy. Decisions moving down the track and the planning scheme in the Shire.
01:46:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to state that we keep changing our minds. Short-term accommodation is not appropriate when in medium density, when that area has too many permanent residents. And in some other cases, short-term accommodation is appropriate in areas where there's more residents. My question is, which one is it? I think essentially until we get that data, we need to stick to the plan. And the plan is the Noosa plan. The test in determining whether short-term accommodation is appropriate in the medium density residential zone. Again, I refer to the overall outcome 2A of the code, which reads, the overall outcomes sought for the medium density residential zones are as follows. A. Medium density residential zones are predominantly home to permanent residents.
01:47:00 This area is home to predominantly permanent residents. Therefore, it's consistent and meets with that overall outcome. The Noosa plan also says that when it is consistent, then it's conditioned. And the conditions address or mitigates the impacts by including management procedures, curfews on outdoor areas. So once again, let's stick to the plan, the Noosa plan, and this is consistent. So I won't be supporting or refusing. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I think we know where we're all going here. I'm going to give greater weight to the expert advice of staff over opinion. I think we need to stick to a more complete assessment of the Noosa plan as provided by the Noosa planning staff,
01:48:00 rather than stick to an incomplete understanding of the planning scheme, which focuses only on short-term accommodation being a consistent use in the medium density residential neighbourhoods. We know the planning scheme is more complicated than that. And I think we know what a hot issue this is. In the community, and that we know we have a, we've stated ourselves, we have a crisis of availability of permanent residential accommodation. And to keep taking more from that stock, I think is contrary to our stated claim that there is a crisis in permanent availability of permanent residential accommodation. So I'll support the recommendation. Councillor Whelan, just to close. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Staff says to refuse this application because it is eroding the amenity.
01:49:00 And so at one point, you can look at amenity in different ways. And one of them is saying, well, the new local laws are going to fix this, the erosion of amenity. But, you know, according to process, well, they're not here yet, are they? We don't actually have local laws that we are enforcing. So it's utterly speculative in a way that they will be effectively effective. Hopefully they will be. We're counting on it, they will be, but they're still not here yet. For example, and going back to the oyster reef as a comparison, that was, the laws aren't there yet, the permits aren't finished yet, so they wanted to pull back. No, you keep going forward. Here we have, these laws are not enacted yet. We don't know if they're going to be effective, but there's an assumption here that they will be effective, that they won't. But on another way of looking at it, amenity. Amenity is when these people bought these properties, they did not expect short-term rentals to be surrounding them.
01:50:00 Their amenity, and we hear it over and over again, has been eroded by short-term accommodation all around them. And that, where was, and so that's a problem. And where was the process? So here we are, we're waiting for another process to find out whether the amenity is actually being eroded, and this study that's coming out, where was the process when this digital disruption started? When all of a sudden it became possible to go online, find short-term accommodation, all of a sudden these houses, there was no process there. And so we're suffering from that, and the residents have been suffering for years from that. And the planning scheme, fortunately, brilliantly, put into that, they're above the rules, the rules for media density, above it, saying we will just not erode amenity in these neighbourhoods, and that's what the planning scheme is protecting. So therefore I will be supporting the refusal for application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, put the motion.
01:51:00 Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stewart, and Lorentson. And again, I'll use my casting vote, in favour? Councillors, would you like a break? I think this is a good time. Yeah, go on. Speaker 8: Go ahead. Five minutes break. Councillor Wilkie: Ten minutes.
120 minutes in ¶
02:04:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 7: . . . Councillor Wilkie: . . . . . . . Speaker 7: . . . . All of the recommendation referred simply to the Noosa Ferry and the suggestion was we would expand that to include East Hurley, Bikes and so on so we can move to that. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson would you like to move something? Councillor Lorentson: I have two amendments. I'll move the first amendment which is to approve.
02:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: What are you going to move? You can move it as a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to make it simple? I'll move the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we have a seconder for the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'll second. I'm going to stay in debate. Now I have to talk. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I think it's a good idea if you can keep on doing it. There we go. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move a motion to approve the promotion of alternative transport options including the Noosa Ferry, bike, e-bike, scooter and e-scooter providers in Go Noosa Marketing as good alternative modes of travel. I'll second it. Self explanatory just as I mentioned at the services and organisation committee.
02:06:00 It's just we have a strong bike industry in Noosa and I think that should be supported. And we also need to broaden our promotion of alternative options to using cars. Noosa Ferry has always been included in our promotions. It's great now to be able to include bikes and scooters, e-bikes and e-scooters. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Mayor Stewart: Any councillors wish to speak to the amended motion? Councillor Stewart. I support Councillor Lorentson's motion. Alternative transport options including the e-scooter, e-bike and bike providers. We're looking at a zero emissions by 2026 which is aggressive and this is a good way forward and it's a good way to support and put our money where our mouth is and show that if we're serious about that and we're serious about alternative means of travel then we should acknowledge that and this is what that amendment does.
02:07:00 So I'll be supporting it. Thank you Councillor Lockwood. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Good question. Councillor Wenner. Was there any reason that staff didn't put e-bikes and e-scooters in the original report? Speaker 2: No, we do promote biking but it hasn't been a recommendation so I guess this is just something we've already been doing but this confirms it in a recommendation. The only thing would be a Noosa Parade upgrade so that there'll be some construction so that will probably impact people during the Easter break. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To bonus up the question, does our Go Noosa app include any, where the bike facilities are etc like that or where you can fire it or is that something we can look at as part of the evolution of the process? Yes. Speaker 2: So we're currently reviewing the app. We haven't put it in the report because we're looking at some other apps as well.
02:08:00 So yes, that can be in there. Councillor Lorentson: And our Go Noosa mapping, I note that it's got Noosa Ferry. Will that also include all the e-bike and bike providers? Speaker 2: We probably won't detail providers in case we miss someone or a new player comes on board so we'll probably just say, refer to the e-bike and bike providers in case we need to refer to local bike hire companies and e-bike hire companies. Speaker 7: Does someone have them in individual motels or, you know, different places like that or the accommodation providers? So it's really going to depend on how you promote the idea of it and where they might be available from rather than getting down to the specific site. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes? Okay. You wish to close? I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's unanimous. That becomes part of the motion now. You'll have to move another one. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move another amendment.
02:09:00 And, okay, so amendment that item K be added as follows. Prove the implementation of a bus and e-bike priority lane pilot called the local loop for the Go Noosa. This is for the Easter holiday period in 2022, subject to business association approvals and other relevant stakeholder approvals. The local loop will turn Noosa Drive and Noosa Parade into a one-way road with two lanes, one a dedicated e-bike and bus priority lane, the other for cars only. Starting at the roundabout outside Noosa Reef Hotel and ending at the BP petrol station in Noosaville. The purpose is to increase bus usage and frequency and to bring locals back into Hastings streets during peak times by giving them easy access.
02:10:00 Councillor Wilkie: We need a seconder for the purpose of debate. I'll take that. Councillor, yes, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: Cathy, can you put the diagrams up on the screen, please? Okay. Alfred Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Unless we start doing something different, councillors, we're never going to get a different result. And that's what I'm asking today for your support, to support a two-week bus priority lane pilot that will turn Noosa Drive into a one-way road. Starting at the roundabout outside Noosa Reef Hotel and ending at the BP petrol station in Noosaville. If I could go to the other map, Cathy.
02:11:00 So here we are at Noosa Blue. So the two lanes, one at the moment normal traffic. You've got one going one way, the other going the other way. I'm saying that the entry, the entry point to Hastings Street starts at Noosa Blue. And those two lanes become one way, one cars only, one bus lane and e-bike only. And the idea is that we just move buses very fast through the Hastings Street precinct. I want to just run through some quick notes. First, there's things that don't actually change. The cars going into Hastings Street. We're not going to change that. At the moment there's only one lane of cars that go into Hastings Street. That stays. Parking. Parking's also not affected. What does change is that Noosa Drive and Noosa Parade become one way with two lanes.
02:12:00 Again, one exclusively for bus lanes and e-bike and the other one for cars only. How hard is this? It's not hard at all. We need to treat this like an event, like a Noosa Tri. And not over-complicate it. And understand it's a trial and it might actually even fail. What we need are barricades that block all the entry points at the roundabouts. And we've already got traffic controllers. So that's going to be their job. Directing and educating visitors and residents. And we may need a publicity campaign. Why we should support the Noosa Parade. We've got this because we keep saying that we are serious about moving people, not cars. We keep saying that we're serious about climate change and reducing emissions and reducing pollution. We say we are serious about protecting amenity of residents, which includes easy access
02:13:00 into Hastings Street. And we say that we're serious about managing traffic congestion and traffic over the Easter and Christmas school holiday period. The costs? Negligible. We're not asking a lot of money. We're not asking for extra buses. This is about just management and education. A publicity campaign. No extra buses. And we use the existing traffic controllers. And the opportunity. There's opportunities. We've just talked about our e-bike providers. We could have e-bike high stations supplied at the ride and park drop-off points. Okay. I'm going to ask you some questions. What's the point in having free buses? Unless they have their own lane? What's the point in jumping on a bus if you're stuck behind cars in traffic? What's the point in jumping on a free bus that could take up to 60 minutes to get into Hastings Street? And what's the point in getting on a bus when a car takes half the time?
02:14:00 That's what we're doing at the moment. Now I'm going to ask you another question. If you could get into Hastings Street by bus in 10 minutes from the junction in an hour, at an express lane, at no cost, during the busiest time of the day, what would you do? Take your car? Or a bus? It's a no-brainer. The bus. All the time. And that's simply what this pilot is aiming to achieve. An incentive. A real incentive for residents and visitors to choose bus over car all the time. Okay. This pilot's a win. A win for the environment. A win for the community. A win for tourism and the economy. And a win for Hastings Street. This is how we protect our visitor experience. And this is how we lead. So today, Councillors, I'm asking you to be bold and brave.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Words we often throw at this table. I'm asking you to have the courage to trial something that's never been done before. A local loop. A bus priority. A lane pilot. Two weeks. That is good for the environment. It's good for our residents. And it's good for our visitors. Anyone have questions? Councillor Wilkie: I have a question for staff. Has this idea been considered before? And what is involved with this sort of proposal? I'll read off with that one. Speaker 7: Probably no surprise. I've given Councillor Amelia advice before the meeting that I think this would create major issues in terms of implementation. That in theory the idea, sorry, our strategy actually says we do want to prioritise buses and bikes over cars. So there's no issue around that. But trying to implement something like this would be incredibly difficult given the way it's come forward. I've given it Councillor Amelia advice that bringing an amendment to the General Committee
02:16:00 is not the proper process to implement such a major change. The proper process would be to bring it through our Transport Reference Working Group. We look at all the options. We have all the stakeholders around the table. And we can understand what I call the systems impact of what that change might do. For example, at that period we're looking at here in the motion is when we're going to be doing works on Prince of Prey. That's when we start in February to do the full refurb of that. And all the design is not geared up for that one-way approach. The issues of safety where we've got bikes and buses on the one lane as well haven't been examined. So that's a piece of work to look at whether we can make this work. That's before we look at what I call the system implications of the traffic knock-on effects. One of the things, if you do change traffic arrangements in a particular intersection area, it does have knock-on effect to other areas. So this would be the biggest change that we have seen in our major traffic flows in Noosa. And we don't understand what those knock-on effects would be. That analysis would need to be undertaken.
02:17:00 So the advice I've given Councillor Amelia prior to this meeting is great to bring ideas forward. It probably should come through the Transport Reference Working Group to have a look at those options. But in terms of, I'm not entirely sure that Council staff will be able to implement this if this doesn't go fast. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm looking at an email in July 2016 entitled, with not all answers to traffic congestion in Noosa. And then that went to the engineers and as the CEO's outlined they said it would cause chaos in terms of designing but yours is not just about one way it's about a priority lane and I can't find my original one but I answered that one this is similar and complementary to the
02:18:00 concept that I floated about having one lane exclusively for the use of sustainable transport options so we actually have trialled it we actually had when we developed the transport strategy implementation we actually had a whole group working on the priority lane concept and so there are recommendations there it was trialled two Christmases ago and unfortunately some horses didn't want to enforce the parking because if you're going to do it in a different way without the one way it has implications for car parking. It says you want to prioritise sustainable options therefore you reduce it. I had talked to staff recently about when we do the add-on to cast power bridge of the wide if we can actually make the last hundred or so metres leading up to that where the congestion turf normally is for e-transport to come there there may be some so yes it
02:19:00 in terms of alternate transport options and priority lanes I do think we have to head that direction and I do think we've progressively tightened up on access to private motor vehicles but to do it as we say in this way we could be sure that you wouldn't have your 10 minute bus ride from the junction because you'd take two hours to get there because the knock-on effects of restricting access to Hastings streets one way and one lane would be significant. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question Joe currently when the loop bus is operating it runs every 15 minutes does that mean that it goes from the AFL ground on the loop drops passengers off at Hastings Street and is back at the AFL grounds every 15 minutes? Yes it goes in that clockwise direction and we've basically got the contract that we want that 15 minute frequency so they just put on more buses if that is not being more.
02:20:00 Speaker 2: So that is meeting the frequency at the moment. What is the time for a bus from Noosa Junction to Hastings Street now at the averages? And how the averages have changed please? When we didn't have traffic control it would take about 14 minutes this last 3rd of January it took six minutes that's with the use of the traffic control so that's from the junction to Hastings Street. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah and has there been discussions about the one way that you've been involved in and the logistics of implementing that? Yeah I think it's something that has come up over time yeah. Councillor Wegener: It was about three design engineers ago I think. Okay any other councillors wish to speak? Yes Tom. Well I'm very appreciative of your gumption in this and I have a favourite quote that says whatever you can do or dream you can begin it boldness has a genius
02:21:00 power and magic in it. So it is a bold maneuver I will not support the motion because I think that all the all the reasons here however it's not over this is the beginning if it if this if this is a good idea and we've thought about it we've all thought about that it just kind of went yes I think it's we're probably gonna end up there I think I think but I would I don't want to tell micromanaged staff with what they're doing. Thank you Tom. Can I just, I'm not using a lot of the time. You have your own Mayor Stewart: the councillors speak to the motion. I really commend Councillor Lorentson and this is big and bold and thinking outside the box and I think it's it's something that we need to look at seriously I believe that statement you know do what we've always done and get what we've always got. We know we've got congestion problems and traffic issues especially during peak times. I would be fully supportive of this going to a workshop and having our traffic engineers investigate it further because I think it's something that we need to look at seriously I believe that statement you know do what we've always done and get what we
02:22:00 think there is merit to it. I'm hesitant to approve it now at a table where we don't know what those repercussions and implementations are but I'm certainly very supportive of the idea and I would be very supportive as I said of taking this further outside of this table and into workshops and talking to our traffic engineers and managers. Thank you Councillor Stewart. I'd like to commend you Amelia. I think that is bold and audacious and I think it's fabulous. I think it's a good idea and I think it's a good idea and I think it's a good idea and I think it Councillor Finzel: We've got to project visions forward, you know, 20 years. You know, we have a short amount of time to do that. It's good to start laying this foundation around go transport. You know, it's been ongoing for a long time. I think it's great to explore further options. It's great to hear that it's been trialled in the past but didn't get the outcomes required. I can't support it today because of the process around it
02:23:00 that's required to get the feedback. But what I'd like to say is, I don't know, can we change, put an amendment forward where we send back to staff to go through these workshops and these process? I think it's a great idea because we do need to start exploring greater options around the congestion and, you know, meeting the needs of the climate change and our targets in our goal to reduce emissions and get people, you know, onto their bikes and the foot traffic. So I commend you, Amelia. I think it's fantastic. And perhaps we could all be doing an amendment when we close this one on how we get workshops back to the staff. And to the Go Transport reference group to really drive this forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. I think it's exactly the sort of courageous thinking that we're going to need when we look at further implementation of the transport strategy, integrated transport strategy
02:24:00 and other aspects of that. This one has been considered before. There was a lot of work put into it. It was set aside for various reasons. I would probably see, I see value in the work that's been done previously on that, perhaps being fed back to councillors for, so they know what's gone before, rather than having staff go out and do another body of work. Because as we know, staff are already heavily overloaded on projects and initiatives that have come through the budget process. But, and again, I think Councillor Finzel and Mayor Stewart said, well, this is not the place to initiate major projects like this. And as importantly, the timeframe that's suggested here is exactly when the works for the upgrade of Noosa Parade will be commencing, and it's not set up for this sort of configuration.
02:25:00 It would require a major rework of the design. But there is, I commend Councillor Eliasson for her courageous thinking, and we're going to need that going forward. So, for that reason, I can't support the amendment. Councillor Eliasson, go ahead. Councillor Lorentson: For someone who never takes no for an answer, I'm going to give it one more pitch. Keep going, go on. Okay, guys, we're sounding like bureaucrats, we're not. Okay, as Karen, the Councillor Finzel said, we're here possibly for a short time. We might only have a couple of years here. So let's stand for something, let's stand for courage and bravery. Let's not go the bureaucratic process. I'm asking us to consider a two week trial, it's a trial.
02:26:00 It's not that difficult. We're now in September. I'm asking, we've got eight months. We've got eight months before Easter. I'm sure the Noosav tribe, let's get the Ironmen to coordinate this. I think we're making this bigger than Ben Hur, and there is no downside. What we're experiencing at the moment is a mess. If we do nothing, it's still going to be a mess. If we do something, we may actually find a solution. So the amendment reads that none of this will go ahead unless we actually have stakeholder approval. And that includes the associations, Hastings Street, Noosa Junction, Noosaville. So unless they come on board, because they're going to be impacted directly. Unless they come on board, this won't go ahead. So no, dare, guys. Dare to challenge, dare to dream. This is our time.
02:27:00 Let's do it. Let's be brilliant. It's two weeks at no cost for a pilot. You stand with me or you join the ranks of bureaucracy. Quoting Councillor Stockwell, actually. I'm hoping, I'm hoping, and I'm going to leave you with this quote, Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity is not insanity. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Let's start doing something different, councillors. And who knows? We may actually get a different result. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Stewart, Wegener and Wilkie. The amendment is lost. Councillor Finzel: Can I move an amendment?
02:28:00 Can I move an amendment now? Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Karen. Speaker 7: Do you want some assistance with the wording? I think you've got a pretty good idea what you're saying. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, please. Speaker 7: Something along these lines. That the, so the new paragraph F is that the concept of a one-way loop for Noosa Drive and Noosa Parade. Councillor Lorentson: Can we call that the local loop, please? Yes. Speaker 7: The concept of a one-way, I'll just come back and do the wording. Be referred to, and I'll come back and just check with you in a minute. Yeah. I think this is my advice to councillors. It should be referred to the Transport Reference Working Group. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 7: Because that's what we've set up to look at all these options with all the stakeholders. To increase bus usage and frequency. Okay. And then we'll come back as councillor, Lauren, and suggest a concept of a one-way local
02:29:00 loop. Local loop. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. And I'd like to widen that out from just increased bus usage, because we want to engage, you know, people on bikes, foot traffic. And can we also add into that a reference for, you know, people on bikes, foot traffic, zero emission group? I know they do have a seat at the table on that reference group. But I think widening it out to include that group also feeds back into council through our climate response program, which I think they're integrating. Speaker 7: So, what are you proposing? So, as it reads at the moment, the concept of a one-way local loop for Noosa Drive to Noosa Paid. Be referred to the Transport Reference Working Group. Yeah. Transport Steering Group. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: And also the... What's Vivian's group called? Zero Emissions Group. Zero Emissions Group. They're on that group. I know.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 But I just think to make it more specific, if it moves towards a project, I think they should include... Speaker 7: My advice to councillors who are going to be on your call is not to nominate individual groups on the steering group. Okay. Because we also have all the business groups on there that will be effectively interested in that. Sure. All of the groups we want are actually on that. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Sure. Could I add to that, to increase bus usage and frequency, and to bring locals back into Haston Street during peak times by giving them... This is Karen. Yes. Councillor Finzel: This is mine. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Oh. Councillor Finzel: You can amend my amendment. Okay. How does that read? Speaker 7: So the concept of a one-way local loop, Noosa Drive or Noosa Parade, we refer to the transport steering group. Is that what they're called? Speaker 2: Transport steering group. Speaker 7: Yeah, that's it. To increase bus usage and frequency. Speaker 2: Can I just say something? We can't determine the frequency of the bus. That's a TransLink thing. So we can encourage bus usage, but in terms of frequency, we won't be able to change that
02:31:00 Speaker 7: frequency. Speaker 2: Well, can we put to just get out of vehicles? Councillor Lorentson: Can I just add, Jo? So what I meant by frequency, it's not always the least number of buses. The fact that you're going to have a priority lane means there will be high frequency. So the buses will be able to move faster. So instead of waiting, transporting a bus full of people every 15 minutes... Speaker 7: We're probably getting into debates. Yeah. We've been advised by council, so... Yeah. Okay. Mayor Stewart: And it was, was it? Amelia's been... Councillor Wilkie: I beg your pardon? I know. She was. I see. Speaker 7: Brian and Karen. You seconded the original motion, but Councillor Stockwell moved it. Mayor Stewart: So I can do that amendment, then, if they'll let me do it? Speaker 7: Councillor Stewart... Can you tell me that I don't have to say to move amendments? Why? Councillor Stewart moved it. I moved it.
02:32:00 Councillor Finzel: I don't think we need to limit to just encourage bus usage. I think it's a wide out concept. Councillor Wilkie: All right, so Councillor Stewart used to speak to it. Mayor Stewart: Oh no, I'm just following on because of process and procedure that the other councillors can't. This is really the information they've put forward, so I'm just happy to ensure I think it's a good idea. I think we do need to look at the concept of a local loop. As I said, it's encouraging that it's being put forward to the table, and we do need to look at... We need to think outside the square and outside the box. So I think this is... Is there anything else to add to that? Nothing else in that original loop that we've missed?
02:33:00 The one lane? Councillor Wilkie: Priority lane? We've already started the debate on this. We can amend further. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, we can amend. To include a priority lane, perhaps, like a loop. Speaker 7: If we don't need to design by resolution, the idea is... Do you want to have one lane? Or not? Let's get the concept put into the steering group and be able to make it quiet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So my talking to it is, there may be a risk of embarrassment to councillors if we go down this step as a first step, that a lot of people in the transport steering group haven't been involved for a long time, and they were involved in some of the quite detailed analysis of priorities to implement the transport strategy. I would have thought the next step... Actually, one thing that hasn't happened is that staff briefed this lot of councillors on the outcomes of that quite deliberative, very detailed analysis of how we got to priorities.
02:34:00 And so there was one group, you know, they all included engineers and designers and consultant traffic planners, et cetera, or transport planners in some cases. So there was a broad group that came down and looked at the key things in the transport strategy and said, what was the priority? So there were priorities for priority lane, for example. So I would have thought before we make recommendations for the transport steering group, that we should get within us collectively an understanding of where the last council got to and what the transport steering group has been, I suppose, it's their role to push that forward and see if we want to influence those priorities further once we've understood how they were set. Because, as I said, I was very passionate about the concept of priority lanes and was slightly less passionate by the end of the process because of the various constraints.
02:35:00 So that's, to me, just the logical step is let's convince ourselves that, you know, other than just saying, throwing off an idea, let's get to the point where we understand what the priorities are, how they were set, and whether we want to change them before we refer something to a different group. Councillor Finzel: So, Brian, to recap then, do you think it's better that we ask for, like, a workshop to inform the new councillors where we're at with that? Speaker 7: Yep. That's a good idea. Yeah, councillors, we can do that without a resolution. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Okay. Councillor Finzel: No, I think we should put the resolution in there to show the history of how we've arrived at that point. Councillor Wilkie: Anyway, so Councillor Stockwell is suggesting a different course of action, so he's spoken against that particular amendment. I'm going to support what Councillor Stockwell has said rather than put this on to the Transport Steering Group, who will assume that, they will assume that councillors have been brought up to speed about what's gone before.
02:36:00 I think it is prudent that we do have that workshop beforehand. Okay. So we have an opportunity to understand why that is not, the design of Noosa Parade is, doesn't reflect that option, the very good reasons and the constraints and the implication and the unintended consequences. We don't know what we don't know, but you need to have every opportunity to ask every question and understand why the design of Noosa Parade reflects two-way rather than one-way. There was a lot of work done around that. So I think it's fair that we have that workshop. First, then if there is still a strong desire to put it to the Transport Steering Group over there to see whether they like it, whether they're thinking to shift it or not, I think that would be the way to go. So for that reason, I won't support this particular amendment, but I will support councillors' orders being refreshed and brought up to speed about the work done on the one-way loop.
02:37:00 Councillor Finzel: What about a discussion around, like, the loop? Yeah. Where was the discussion going forward to say the loop could potentially even be from the transit centre back to, you know, the old BP back in front of the showgrounds, a loop back and not even go along Noosa Parade? That and the workshop would be the place for staff to ask those questions. Is that where we raised that, at the workshop? Mm-hmm. Councillor Wegener: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Sorry, Tom, you want to speak? Oh, just, yeah, really the job is, you know, it's Amelia's idea, we're all taking it on board. Yes, it seems obvious to us that it's a good idea, but as Brian stated, there's been lots of work done on this. Our first job is to educate ourselves first before we lump it on to, you know, the steering committee, because that's just, yeah. So let's just, let's look at it ourselves and figure, because I'm all for it. I mean, if it works, and maybe it didn't work, you know, years ago, but we're looking at a different drive situation in the, you know, the three times the population of Noosa coming into Caloundras and down there, so, you know, maybe it is time to re-evaluate that, but let's, let's figure out where we've been first.
02:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: My question, I've got a question, is there any way, or is this breaking the process, so please, if I'm stepping out of line, but is there any way we can put options out to the community and ask whether or not they want us to pursue these options? I, again, I'm trying to get out of bureaucracy, I'm trying to, because what will happen when we start going back to the, to the committee is that we're going to find all the reasons why it's not going to work, you know, it's already, it sounds like, you know, it's not, there'll be a lot of reasons saying this won't work. Can we have it, have your say, or can we put it out to the community? And get some feedback from the community as to whether they would embrace, sort of, this sort of option? Speaker 7: I think the answer to that is yes, but council would have to know what options it wants to put out there and what the implications of those options are.
02:39:00 So you couldn't put options out unless you know that they were able to be implemented or there was a way of taking them full, and you'd have to agree amongst yourselves about what those options should be. And again, through sounding a bit bureaucratic, there's a bit of work to be done around that to work out what those options should be. The starting point from the conversation with the councillors is that if you want to do some more work before you take it any further, if this amendment is lost, then the next logical amendment would be an amendment that almost identical wording, but would refer to a councillor workshop. Speaker 3: I'm happy with that. Me too. Councillor Wilkie: Any other wishes to speak before? Clare closes on as well. Mayor Stewart: No, no, I agree with Councillor Stockwell. I commend Councillor Lorentson for bringing this to the table. I think it's a good idea and it's one that needs to be taken further.
02:40:00 I do think a workshop is the way to go. I agree that we've got to follow a process and it's probably the best way to obtain information and feasibility while speaking to the experts. So I think if it's got... It's a big project. It's a big project and we just need to do, I think, step by step, but I think it's achievable if we do those steps. So I think it's certainly worth... Let's start it. Let's start the process. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Those in favour of the amendment? Those against? That's unanimous, lost. Can I make a suggestion before we move things forward? Speaker 7: Yes, Mr CEO. So amendment number four would read that the concept of a one-way local loop from Noosa Drive to Noosa Parade be referred to a councillor workshop. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Okay. Would you like to move that one, Amelia? I'll move that one. Yes. Do you have a seconder for that? I'll second it. I actually can't. Oh, sorry. I did the... Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: It looks so far enough.
02:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak before Amelia closes? Those in favour? That's unanimous. Now we're back to the original motion and... I'm sorry. Speaker 7: Sorry. I can't hear you. Councillor Wilkie: I want to thank Joe and your team for the work done over many years for the transport peak period traffic management range of initiatives. It's been a process of implementation of new initiatives, monitoring, refining over time and adding more and more and more.
02:42:00 And there's no doubt we've seen the statistics that more people are accessing these peak, these very attractive areas, these peak hotspots by means other than the car, the private vehicle at record numbers. And that's a testament to the effectiveness of this. And also the reduction in times in which people sit in buses in traffic now, reduced from about 14 minutes down to six minutes on average from the junction. We've got people who get on a bus, on the loop bus, and it can be in Hastings Street basically within usually less than 15 minutes. So there are very viable alternatives and people are taking them up in record numbers and so I commend the staff. You're the ones that are at the coalface implementing these things and doing all the hard work and we're grateful to you.
02:43:00 You know that councillor should speak before Councillor Stockwell closes. Brian would you like to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I would. It was, um, it's always good when someone throws in a wobbler, I never do that myself. And, and it's good to reignite the innovation discussion, because while what we've been doing is good, if you think councillors, we were originally asked to top rank our top five priorities for the next year or so. And one of the key things that more than three, you know, quite a few people put was including the transport strategy, so I do agree that it is time to look at what is the next bold step, um, what, you know, previously we've hit up the federal government for quite a large, um, eNUSA type transport option, um, which was sort of going to the next level, you know, my, my view is this is working, let's keep on doing it, but we, at some stage, we do have to think what the, the, the real implantation, you know, is going to be, is going to be, is going to be, is going to be
02:44:00 of moving people, like cars, means, for this precinct, um, uh, we will be doing the, the Noosa Parade upgrade, and councillors will know that I, I argued with the designers for that for a long time that it should have a, less car parking and, and a priority lane, you know, in my vision, it's probably less than five years away that we'll have an automated electric bus going between the, the Yachting and Sailing Club in, in Noosaville to the, the, the Surf Club in Noosahead. And we have to work out what steps to get there. Um, we have to move out of the dominant paradigm that was, you know, really only came into the 60s and 70s when the private motor vehicle became more dominant, back to a, a position where mobility is on a smaller scale, less, less emissions, um, more use of public infrastructure and less use of the private motor vehicle, and that may be something we want to make a critical decision about.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Because there's never a better time than right in the middle of a, of a, a, uh, term to do something bold in case it doesn't work. Councillor Lorentson: . Councillor Wilkie: With the motion, those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Joe. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now we go to a report direct to the General Committee on page six of the General Committee Agenda, which is a request to apply a superseded planning scheme, commercial business type one, office type two, medical and retail business type four, showroom number 2018 Creek Road, Noosaville on lot two. Welcome back Patrick and Kerry. Speaker 7: I just want to make a suggestion here. We, we've got this report and as you know on the agenda, the next one is also lot 22. Yeah. They are interrelated. It might be worthwhile just getting a bit of an overview about why the staff have taken a different approach on the individual ones. And maybe before we get to that, either Patrick or Kerry, just a quick overview of the superseded
02:46:00 planning scheme application, just how that works again. So people can make a superseded planning scheme application within 12 months of the new scheme starting. Yep. And then if they have that approved, then they can make an application under the old scheme. That's right. If it's refused, they need to make an application that then gets refused before that triggered the compensation plan. Is that right? I thought I was right. I wasn't sure. But maybe just outline if you could the difference between the two applications here because there are bookings if you like. Yeah. That we're suggesting one is approved and one is refused. Just outline the reasons why your rationale sits around that, both on the planning scheme issue and also the compensation issue. Speaker 5: Okay. Cathy, do you think it might be possible to go to page 15 of the agenda? Of the agenda? The general committee? Speaker 3: The general committee. Speaker 5: The general committee. Page 15 and 16 might, just when we're talking about both sides.
02:47:00 I'm not sure if councillors have opened it already, but the second figure, figure nine on page 15 was the, what was called the precinct map. The precinct map. The precinct map is under the superseded planning scheme and both the sites are located within precinct B3. Just jump up. So the lot two is situated here and lot 22 is at the other end without the existing. BCF and all those. Oh BCF in between. And when I talk about lot two and lot 22 that relates to the existing system. This relates to the recent reconfiguration approval that was issued, which is in the process of having operational works completed, the infrastructure completed, and there'll be a plan sealed down the track to formalise those two lots.
02:48:00 So under the superseded planning scheme, they were within precinct B3, and there was a range of uses which were suitable, considered to be suitable in that precinct. And they included showroom, office, and business-type uses. And they've put forward a proposal that on lot 22, there'd be, and this is where I get a bit confused myself, sorry, on lot 2, which is the larger lot, that there'd be the development of office, medical, and showroom, and then on the smaller lot, that there'd be office and medical. Now, we've now got a new scheme, and if you go to page 16, and the second figure there, so the precinct has obviously changed with the new scheme, and both the sites are no longer in the same precinct.
02:49:00 Lot 2 is in precinct 5A, which is a business park precinct, and lot 22 is in precinct 5B, which is a showroom precinct. And I'm not sure if there's further questions that you'd have in relation to that sort of background, or I'm curious if there's anything else you'd like to add. Speaker 7: Maybe I'll catch the heart. Yes, of course. I had to get my head around it. I had to get my head around it as well. So, for, which one were we at first, lot 2? Lot 2. Lot 2. So, if I understand that lot 2, if the new scheme hadn't come around, and they'd made this application under the previous scheme, it probably wouldn't have been recommended for approval. Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 7: And it also doesn't give right to compensation based on the valuation.
02:50:00 Yeah. Whereas the other one, the lot 22, if they'd applied under the old scheme, they probably would have got recommended for approval, and there is probably a compensation issue alive, if there's, that's why the different outcomes are quite important. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Pinscher. Just a follow-on question in terms of lot 2, is that the argument there is, from us, that they wouldn't have got approval because they've already got approvals for the maximum amount of showroom. Now, their contra-argument was that some of that area has been assigned to other uses, therefore they've got a bit of freeway, and you're suggesting that, no, there's still existing use rights that maintain, is that a, is that a debatable point, in terms of, or is that something fairly well-established? Speaker 3: Well, I think it's pretty well-established, and something that came up in the court case for Spotlight, and I think we established it pretty well, in that the 2006 scheme sought, whilst both those lots showroom were consistent, it set a maximum floor area limit of 7,000 square metres.
02:51:00 The original approval for Noosa Civic, and the existing development we see there today, has approval for 7,000 square metres. And some of those showrooms that were approved of, some of those tenancies that were approved of showroom have sought subsequent approvals for a gym and the like, so the applicant suggests that because they're not being used for showroom, we shouldn't be able to support the showroom, but the issue remains the same, the approval is still current, and it allows them to be converted back at any point in time to the showroom, so they've got approval for 7,000 square metres. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? Can I ask you a question about, when you're making an assessment about whether a lot deserves or merits being assessed under the superseded planning scheme, as opposed to the current planning scheme, you're making an assessment as to whether there's a loss of value, if it's developed to its highest and best use, or not. Can you expand on that, please?
02:52:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, that's correct. So, essentially, a superseded scheme, we're doing a comparison between the two schemes. So, we're not trying to see in a planning sense what the difference is, but because one of the primary considerations with superseded scheme requests is around compensation, we're all considering whether there's a loss of value because of the change in the planning scheme. Now, the applicant has put forward a valuation, which suggests for lot two, there's the valuation essentially is the same, except they're not being used for showrooms. So, they value it less because it impacts, so they value it the same, but then they reduce it by half a million dollars because there's an impact process under the new scheme.
02:53:00 Our valuer has suggested that the new scheme actually represents an increased value for lot two, so he doesn't agree with the valuation given by the applicant. Speaker 7: So, in that case, the original application probably wouldn't have been supported under the old scheme, anyway. So, in that case, the original application probably wouldn't have been supported under the old scheme, anyway. Councillor Wilkie: So for Lot 2, the assessment is that if it's developed to the highest and best use, there's no loss of value if it's assessed under the new planning scheme, and also it would likely be not approved under the old planning scheme. So that's what we've recommended for refusing. For the other lot, there is an argument that if it's developed to its highest and best use, there is greater yield under the new planning scheme, and it's likely to be approved. Speaker 3: Greater yield under the 2006 scheme.
02:54:00 Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, greater yield under the 2006 scheme. And it would have been approved. It would have been approved under the 2006 scheme, and it would have been disadvantaged if it had to be approved under the 2020 scheme. Speaker 3: Yeah, so if you like, the planning for both of the planning and the valuation. The valuation for both lots is aligning. So for Lot 22, refusal on the planning grounds, refusal, sorry, approval. Approval for 22. Refusal for 2. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: I just thought I would help the council. You did. It takes a bit to get it rounded out for the application component and the compensation component, but they actually line up in both of these. Mayor Stewart: It's quite a substantial compensation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask a specific one there? Although we're, you're recommending refusal, isn't it, Phil? I agree. On page 9, there's an architectural rendering, and it shows these wonderful views of a clean area after the waterway drive.
02:55:00 Can I just, if you, that's the bottom one there, but on page 10, it shows the yellows, covenant areas where vegetation has to be. The next one, thanks, Cathy, just down below. So that architectural rendering actually, it's inaccurate and portrays what needs to occur. There's no ability to build car parks in that yellow buffered area, is there? Speaker 5: The covenant area is to the rear of the building, primarily. So when you go to the render, it's actually behind it. It does curl around the building as well. Speaker 3: Just go back to page 9. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So page 9, it appears to put car parking into that yellow. Speaker 3: No, the car park is to the front, to the internal driveway. So the covenant is shown behind and treed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But on page 10, you can go there and see how it wraps around into the entranceway there. Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, to the side there. Yeah, yeah, you're right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it appears to, the design appears to not be respectful of that either.
02:56:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, so pre-lodgement meetings have been held for both these sites with the owner, and some of these design issues have been raised with them. Speaker 7: And the fundamental question is whether we're going to accept the invitation to get to that detail. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's right, yeah, I know. Just in other words, I had a look at that and said I wouldn't approve it anyway. Councillor Wilkie: Someone care to move the motion? Sorry, yes, Amelia and Karen. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, just a question, Kerry. On page 11, there's a reference to, hold on, page 11, okay, I'll find it in a minute, but there's a reference in the report to Location IQ report. So I went looking for it and I found it in the report.
02:57:00 I couldn't find it, so I went onto the Location IQ website and it said that Noosa Council engaged Location IQ to assist in preparing a new 20-year planning scheme. It assisted Noosa Council in allocation of retail through the assessment of ongoing demand for traditional and large format retail and entertainment uses over a period up to 2041. The key recommendations were provided in relation to the location and type of future retail forces. That could be supported within the Shire over the next 20 years, and we've outlined risk and opportunities. Page 17, that's the page, okay. So on page 17, it said that the report was not adopted nor endorsed by Noosa Council. So we went to some serious expense to get an economic and social impact study, which I would like to read. But it wasn't adopted or endorsed. Can I ask why?
02:58:00 Speaker 3: I think that's probably best answered by strategic planning. But when you're preparing a planning scheme, economic is only one part of the story. So as a council, we have to balance out everything. We have to balance out housing supply, traffic, social needs. So part of the consideration was rather than take the full recommendation by that report, which recommended increased retail in the Shire Business Centre, we did increase it in our new scheme, but we didn't increase it to the extent that the recommendation was because we wanted to provide more housing in the Shire Business Centre, which we've done. There's a number of precincts that are now identified for housing in the precinct. So we took the recommendations in part to increase the amount of retail, but not to the extent that a location IQ suggested, because we increased the extent of housing in the Shire. But also the concern, the real concern, that retail is the highest traffic generator. Yeah. And that would potentially impact on our network adversely.
02:59:00 Councillor Lorentson: So can that report be used at all? I mean, we've got an application coming within the next 20 minutes about a gemella. So how important is that information? I don't know. I'm just thinking there's a report that could help inform our housing needs and housing supply, can also help us inform our zoning. I mean, we're looking at amendments to the new sub-plan. Is that report, is that, have we just put it away or can we resurface it? Speaker 7: Yeah, the report you talked about, that's one of the inputs into the new planning scheme. So we did a lot of reports where there was biodiversity, economic retail, all those sort of things. And they fed into what then became the new planning scheme. So there was an input into that. There's nothing secret about it, but it's an input into what then adopted, and then the planning scheme reflected in the outcome of those reports. Councillor Lorentson: That answers.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Karen, you had a question? Councillor Finzel: No, I'm fine now. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right, we have a mover, please. Councillor Stockwell, seconder. Councillor Wegener, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The report is cogent and is worth supporting. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the council's respect to the motion. No. Put the motion to those in favour. That's unanimous. In queue. We now move to the next report. Block 22. Block 22. Page 42. Thank you. Same agenda. Page 42. Two. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this is an area where we said some of that increase in showroom was assigned to this location, but they're seeking approval for medical aid and food outlets from memory.
03:01:00 Speaker 3: Approved for medical and office. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And office, that's right, yeah. Does that affect the balance of 5, Precinct 5B in terms of our current, and then what, the balance of 5B, would that allow more showrooms on that site if this was allocated to something other than showrooms as a superseded planning application? I'm talking about, if you referred to it before, it's a spotlight site. Speaker 3: Yeah, so this site under the new scheme supports showroom. So if council agree to the superseded scheme request, and then they go ahead with the application under the superseded scheme, there's approval in place, whether they end up actually building it or rethinking their whole strategy, because we've said yes to one and no to the other, I don't know what the applicant will do.
03:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So they'd still be open to knowing. So we don't have to, what I'm thinking is, do we have to think about the implications more broadly across the whole Precinct and we don't? Speaker 3: I don't think we do, I think it's too early. We don't know whether they will actually proceed with it. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: And so the assessment this time was, if this application being assessed under the, the 2020 planning scheme, there would be a loss of value. That's why you've accepted the argument to be assessed under the superseded planning scheme. And if they put that application in, it's likely to be approved under the superseded scheme. Speaker 3: Yeah, there's some design issues with their proposal again. Yeah. But the use itself is consistent, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mover? Move, Councillor Stewart. Seconder? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: No. No, look, nothing further. I think the report's very self-explanatory and detailed. Thank you very much, Karen and Patrick, for that. I think it's a, it's, you'd have to bear in mind what we've read and implications,
03:03:00 repercussions, so happy to support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. I think that's it for those two reports. Speaker 5: Yeah, that's very good. That was excellent. And those tables with the, it's excellent. And it's always good fun reading evaluation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. It was good that you actually did the cut and paste of all those things, because we didn't have to read twice. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. And now we've got item 10. Application for material change of use, multiple dwelling units, 19 multiple dwelling units, food and drink outlet, about English Sport and Recreation Healthcare Service Office and an operational works for stormwater management, access partner, earthworks and transworks, 3032 Doonella Street, Tewantin, page 78 of the General Committee agenda. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Finally an easy one. Speaker 3: Yeah, I know. Speaker 7: Okay, Councillor, would it assist if I get the staff just to give an overview about how we got to this point and where we would have liked to have got to? Would that be okay?
03:04:00 Speaker 3: The application's been a long time coming. There was considerable sort of pre-discussions with the applicant around this site where a number of different proposals were put forward to staff, which we provided comment on. The application was then lodged, you know, and some of those proposals varied from three storeys to residential and some commercial. And now we're back to a proposal of two storeys, residential and commercial, so it's varied over time. So this application came in in February 2021. During the application process, Council actually resolved to look at some scheme amendments, which included this site. And those scheme amendments would look to see the site made available or supported for social housing on the site.
03:05:00 So we have before us a planning scheme that seeks a commercial outcome on the site. But we have some scheme amendments which have been flagged that would look to support all residential on the site, providing there's a social housing outcome. So through the application process, there's been some discussions with the applicant. And we got to the end where officers were recommending refusal of the application because there was no, you know, no certainty that the applicant, that the units would be made available for social housing or disabled housing. So it was discussed with the applicant whether they would look to enter into a legal agreement with Council to provide that certainty because officers thought at the end of the day, that would be a good outcome for the site, it would be consistent with our scheme amendments.
03:06:00 But we're looking for certainty around the site to be made available. But we're looking for certainty around the site to be maintained for social housing. The legal advice around that is because our scheme amendments are not progressed substantially, that it should be through a legal agreement to secure that outcome. Unfortunately, it couldn't be done to an infrastructure agreement, which is recognised by the planning legislation, by the Planning Act. So our solicitors suggested that it go through a deed of agreement, which is essentially a legal agreement. That's not something that's enforced through the Planning and Environment Court. That deed of agreement contained a range of measures to provide that certainty, that those units would be maintained for disability housing or social housing at the end of the day. The solicitors also recommended that Council should, if we were to approve it, impose a number of conditions on the approval to provide certainty. But they did warn officers that even if the applicant was agreeable to enter into that deed of agreement,
03:07:00 there would still be quite a risk to Council that they would not necessarily be maintained for disability or social housing. It would be difficult to prevent those units being put on the open market. There was some time spent with the applicant talking about the provisions of the deed of agreement. There was about ten measures proposed or ten items that the applicant raised of concern to them. Some of those were just about clarity. Some required amendment to be made. Two of those matters were around maintaining the four units on a single title. The second item was about putting up a bond to secure meeting the deed of agreement. The bond initially that was recommended by Council solicitors was for $500,000 to be held over that ten year period.
03:08:00 The second item was about putting up a bond to secure meeting the deed of agreement. As applicant officers indicated, because it was substantial financial impost, that we would look to support an agreement to reduce that to $100,000 for a five-year period only, rather than the initial $500,000. But the applicant came back to us and indicated that they did not agree to that. So officers are recommending refusal, because we have not been able to get to a position where we can ensure those units will not be put on the open market, and they will be maintained for disability housing or social housing. Mayor Stewart: We're pretty close. As you see, Kerry, this has been an ongoing discussion. And there's a couple of areas of disagreement. What can we do, or what is available to council, I guess, to get this agreement satisfactory to both parties?
03:09:00 What are the couple of areas that we need to close off? Speaker 3: Well, there's two areas of disagreement, and that relates to the titling and the bond. So they're the two areas of disagreement. The applicant went away, and I understand that it's the consortium that's looking to develop the site, and they couldn't agree as a group on the measures in the deed. They did not, when they came back and responded, they didn't give us the exact reasons why they couldn't agree on those two grounds. But in discussions, their concerns were the titling. They were concerned financially. That wasn't likely to be supported by their bank, so finance issues.
03:10:00 But they also wanted the flexibility to title the units because they felt participants may want to buy those units in the end. Now, we have checked with the disability group in Coaster Bay, and they've indicated to us that participants don't buy the units. So I guess, therefore, it remains a financial consideration. Speaker 7: Sorry. Could I just add one more thing? I guess the other thing with the agreement is that it's a package of issues. We've put forward a try and get security. They're just two issues that haven't been resolved. But we've got to look at the total package in terms of what you get, that security, to make sure we get that outcome. The other thing I'd mention, as the Council's before, is that when we assess an application like this, we're assessing the application, not the applicant. This applicant's been good to deal with and working well. The fact that we sold one, we've got another owner. So you've got to actually find a way to find future owners as well.
03:11:00 It's got to be watertight, no matter how good the current applicant is. So that's what the Council's got to find, is how do we get that security that we get the outcome we want, and it's going to be there in five or ten years' time. Sorry. Can I just get Anthony to add his two bucks worth in and then come back to the Council. Anthony's been involved in the process. Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'd like to acknowledge Chris, who's sitting in the audience today. All our negotiations, conversations have been in good faith. It's been a really good process and something that it's disappointing we're just a little bit, obviously, we couldn't quite reach agreement on those two issues. We've clearly stated that it is about a package and a balance. On balance, obviously, we're saying that we're trying to, I guess, to protect the outcome, which is the social outcome. We've kind of moved past a lot of the planning challenges and the mix, and the planning scheme amendments plan will address those as well. But obviously, what we're trying to do is give that a surety through probably a ten-year timeframe that the social outcomes, whether it's disability housing or social housing, is delivered.
03:12:00 And even with the best will, we've got to, I guess, tie that up in a legal agreement. And after a number of options that we've considered, the deed is the agreement, the mechanism, and it does come back to that one title or before, which was a sticking point. But I think maybe less so, the actual bond. So I think that's the challenge we still have. And that's obviously, at this point, we don't believe that we've solved it to our satisfaction. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, a quick question for you, Kerry. There are a lot of inconsistencies, a lot of conflicts with the planning scheme. But we're prepared to overlook them if there are social and affordable disability housing outcomes, which we're not going to be able to achieve. Speaker 3: Yeah. So typically, I wouldn't recommend to Council that we give a lot of weight to proposed scheme amendments until they had a real advanced stage.
03:13:00 We've gone through public notification. We tested it with the community. But I think this was a bit different for me. We've been talking about a housing crisis. And this has the potential to bring real benefits. So we were very supportive of the proposal. If we can be sure that it achieves the social housing benefit that our scheme amendments are seeking. And I think the applicant is very genuine in their approach of what they want to achieve. And by all accounts, Costa Bay indicates the same. But the problem is, and in my experience, whilst they can be very genuine today, equally, something can change down the track. And they will genuinely make a different decision. So to ensure the outcomes that our scheme amendments are looking for, we do need an appropriate agreement in place that ensures these units will be maintained for social housing and not just put on the open market.
03:14:00 Mayor Stewart: Someone said these units. We're talking about four. Yes, four units. Speaker 3: Four out of the 19. Mayor Stewart: So SDA and four social. Because they're SDA and social. Speaker 3: Yeah. So to begin with, the applicant was looking at disability housing. Yeah. But when, through discussions with the agreement, they wanted to broaden that scope to allow for social housing as well. So not necessarily. Mayor Stewart: So SDA and or. Social. Social housing. Just four out of the 19. Speaker 3: Yes. Just for four out of the 19. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Sorry. You had your hand up before. Councillor Lorentson: Just in regards to the covenant and the requirement that the developer enter into an agreement with the specialist disability social accommodation provider. That's part of the deed of agreement. And the applicant was agreeable in those terms. How much more security do we need? The covenants for the purpose of ensuring the four units are used exclusively for social
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 housing participants for the 10-year period. Is that not enough? Speaker 3: Well, as the CEO indicated, it was a package that our solicitors put in place to ensure security. So even with the complete package, including the titling and the bond and the covenant, the solicitors were still indicating to officers that there was a risk. So I wouldn't be suggesting, council, that we reduce that package, because that's the best advice we've received to maintain these units for social housing. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Something you said originally in your statement. Is the agreement was spurred because we haven't got the scheme in place that puts forward the requirements. So my thinking was, have we talked to other councils that have had inclusionary zoning type principles?
03:16:00 But that would still be... Like, does having it in the scheme give us extra weight to enforce conditions? Is that what we're sort of thinking? If it's not in the scheme, then it's only a condition that can be challenged? It's only an agreement? Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. And look, we're going to have to look at... Yes, the answer's yes. But I'm not sure, when we look to do the scheme amendments, what sort of requirements we actually write into the planning scheme to provide that certainty under a new scheme in any event. This was just the package that our solicitors recommended. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My only thinking is, have we done the things here? Other councils have done it in the past to see if there is other mechanisms that our solicitors haven't considered. Speaker 3: Yeah. I think the difference here, potentially, is the fact that it's not in the scheme. Not in the scheme. Speaker 7: Yeah. It doesn't have to be a unique solution. Yeah. The solicitor's giving advice, and this is very experienced in this field team work. We're using a lot of other planning matters at the moment. So that's what it is. Councillor Lorentson: Can I move a motion, Chair?
03:17:00 Yeah. Of course. Okay. I'd like to move a motion that defers the matter to the next council meeting, subject to the applicant extending the decision period to allow the deed of agreement to be revised to exclude the following two requirements. One, maintenance of all units 1215 on one title, and two, payment of bond to secure compliance with the deed agreement. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Question of staff. What does that actually mean? Yeah. For you. And in terms of the outcome we're seeking on that side. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I take it from the proposed amendment that the council is looking to want to approve it, and remove the two requirements that the applicant is objecting to in the deed of agreement, and the council enter into a deed of agreement to remove the two requirements that the applicant
03:18:00 The first part of the amendment is also critical too. This is a code-accessible application, so the decision period finishes on Thursday night, the ordinary meeting, so we must make a decision, otherwise it goes deemed approved, unless the applicant extends the decision period. So that's a critical part of the equation as well. Councillor Wilkie: So is there a risk with this wording that, if we prove this, that we won't get the social housing outcomes we want on the site? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 7: That's the advice of our legal team, is that you need a full package to maximise the risk. Speaker 3: The advice of our solicitor is there a risk, even with the deed that they have drafted, but with the full package, it minimises the risk. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. Is anyone willing to second this motion? Speaker 3: I'll second it.
03:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lime. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, I've written some notes, so I'm just going to run with it. I'm baffled and I'm confused and I'm dismayed. I just don't understand why we're refusing this development application. Why is, and this is my summation of the issue, why is 564 square metres, of, in my opinion, unwanted commercial space, more important than housing? We've got an application in front of us that addresses and provides a solution to our housing supply and needs. We've got a genuine applicant offering genuine housing options for specialist disability accommodation and social housing. We are in a housing emergency and it just seems like that no one's listening or no one seems to care. Councillors, I don't want to wait till these potential planning scheme amendments are made because as Councillor Wilkie has been saying all morning, the crisis is now.
03:20:00 I'm going to refer to item two of the services and organisation report that's in front of us this month. Page 14, use of social strategy. Quote, work with government agencies and organisations to make sure that we are providing the services and organisations that we need. Not for profit organisations, business sectors to explore innovative ways of tackling housing affordability. I'm going to refer to the July 2021 ordinary meeting in which a resolution was carried unanimously that council acknowledges the current housing crisis as a priority issue for council. And I can go on, the mayoral minute. The applicant is basically seeking approval for 19 small units that range between the size of the building and the size of the house. The applicant is basically seeking approval for 19 small units that range between the size of the building and the size of the house. The applicant is asking for 74 and 98 square metres and he's also asking for 198 square metres of commercial space that equals four commercial tenancies.
03:21:00 Four of the 19 units are proposed as special disability accommodation, SDA compliant units. And this is what we need. We need smaller units, we need more social housing and we need small commercial tenancies that would cater for healthcare officers. So you're asking, what's the problem? The problem is, according to the report, that the applicants reduced the commercial space by 564 square metres from 762 square metres. So only 198 square metres have been allocated to commercial space. Council believes that this proposal therefore does not comply with the plan and they rely on words such as, the activities have to be ancillary to and support the predominant business function of the zone.
03:22:00 It's my belief that Council's got it wrong on this. The fact is that this proposal is in fact ancillary and supports the predominant function of the zone. When I went through the tracking report, I note that the applicant has done some numbers on the Tewantin zone. So I'm going to rely on those, unless told otherwise. But over 90% of Tewantin zone is used for business and commercial purposes. So I'm baffled to understand why we need more commercial, why we need another 564 square metres. 90% is already dedicated for business and commercial purposes. Further, we just sat on a discussion about new specific Stage 3 development with all this extra commercial and office space and retail space. Residential councillors is needed. Not commercial. It also seems conflicting that on page 88 of the report, we actually make reference again to what we've just discussed,
03:23:00 which is potential amendments to the Noosa plan. We're looking at, and Council acknowledges, that it's looking at planning, this is a quote, planning scheme amendments that may look at changing this site to community facility zone. So in our own words, we're actually also saying we don't need more commercial space. So again, the question, why is so much weight being given to the proportion of commercial floor space within this development? It makes no sense. There's no need for more commercial space in Tewantin. There's a need for smaller dwellings and there is a need for social housing and disability housing. In regards to the deed agreement. This was a really expensive negotiation. That came down to two sticky terms. Sticky points. Two terms that were questionable and in my opinion, un-commercial. And that's why I've asked for the exclusion of those in the amendment.
03:24:00 The applicant, so I'm going to go to those two terms. The first was that the four units are maintained on a single title. And the second one was the payment of $100,000 security bond given to Council. Which is secure compliance of the deed for five years. In regards to the four units on one title. In my opinion, that's just not reasonable. The ownership of this property is not up to Council. Especially when there's a covenant registered on the title and a 10-year service agreement entered into with a housing provider. In regards to the $100,000 security bond. I keep asking the question, how did Council go from $500,000 bond for a 10-year period to $100,000 for five years? To me, the answer, and I might be simplistic and I might be wrong.
03:25:00 But it couldn't have been too important a term for us to go from $500,000 to $100,000, 10 years to five years. It just seemed like something we just threw in. Again, I cannot fathom how you can negotiate down that much. And again, I ask the question, not ask the question, I make the statement. There's a covenant and a deed, a covenant registered on the title and a 10-year service agreement entered into with the housing provider as terms of this deed of agreement. So, what more do we need? Council, this is a syndicate of investors with genuine intention to live on the promise. These are expensive, were expensive negotiations that came down to two sticky points that the syndicate of investors and myself believe to be too onerous, uncommercial and unreasonable.
03:26:00 Seems like we've been wasting applicant's time. This application started in 2019. And the applicants, again, it's been discussed at the table, in good faith, have been trying to work with Council to deliver a project that provides small dwellings and addresses the chronic shortage of housing in the Noosa region. They have a proposal and we're just saying no. Because we think that 564 square metres of unwanted commercial space is more important than housing. To say that I'm disappointed today. Is another understatement. And that's why I'm moving this amendment that requests the staff to prepare a report which includes, it's the same as what is in front of us, minus those two sticky points. I hope you give consideration to what I've just said and support this application.
03:27:00 I support this motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Right. Just a couple of questions. Councillor Lorentson referred to a covenant. I presume that relates to the statement in the draft deed which said the requirement that a developer enter into agreements with a specialist disability social accommodation provider and provide proof of such to Council prior to commencing any construction. Is it intended that is a covenant on title or would just be a reference in the agreement? Speaker 3: Two separate things. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Two separate things. Speaker 3: So one is an agreement with a social housing provider. Yeah. That they need to look at entering into that agreement before construction commences. Two, the other is a covenant which gets registered on title. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So that wasn't in the list I was looking at. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that covenant would just be in place for the 10 year period and could be removed at the end.
03:28:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So that's similar to any covenant. It's an agreement between two parties. It's an agreement between two parties. Supported and didn't want to own it. It's debatable. It's enforceable by legislation. Yeah. So. By legal action. Speaker 1: Anthony, you want to say something? Yeah. I guess clarifying where I believe we've got to and Kerry can correct me here. We're actually in agreement on, we've moved from the commercial mix and we're now, we're supportive. Sorry. Point of order. I'm in the middle of questioning and you'll bring back to a debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was open. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. I thought he was that guy. Yeah. Are you going to answer Brian's question or? No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Go ahead, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So then the other part of the motion was in relation to the bond security now in my early planning days. That used to be a fairly low cost option where you'd get a bank guarantee. What's the current normal arrangements for development bonds?
03:29:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. It's normally through a bank guarantee. I can call the bank to find out the cost, but my understanding it's low cost. The applicants suggested it's a bit higher than my understanding, but I haven't actually checked with the bank to know. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the. The concept in terms of keeping all the units in one title was obviously to make it harder to sell. The flip side is it's going to affect your market capitalization, what you can do in terms of borrowing. Is that what? Where? So that. Where the two different sides are coming from. If we don't have those as separate titles, our bank are going to be able to lend us less money. Is that the sort of. Yeah. The debate we're having or the. Speaker 3: The applicant didn't really expand on that, but it certainly raised financial issues as a reason for not letting, like in the titling.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to ask a clarifying question. Is the reason why we're going to community facilities on this site, if it's a planning scheme amendment, we're wanting social housing and affordable housing outcomes on that site? Speaker 3: That was the. Chair. That was the outcome sought by the scheme amendment. Okay. Is to achieve social housing. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Well, I'm going to speak to the proposed motion. I cannot support this. The reason why we're moving to a planning scheme amendment for community facilities on the site. It's not because we don't devalue commercial. It's because we value social housing and affordable housing as a more critical outcome on this site. We agree to this. This development could go ahead and we don't get any of that. And we're doing a disservice to the people in our community who need this sort of housing most. We're seduced into an easy outcome. And I, I think it's, it has the veneer of social housing, has the veneer of affordable housing. But it's, there's no guarantee at all that that will happen. We, we have a planning scheme amendment that we're going to, I, I would suggest we're all
03:31:00 going to be in favour of. That will guarantee, give us, or help us guarantee to a greater extent those sort of outcomes on, on this site. There is no guarantee that this will deliver social housing outcomes, affordable disability housing outcomes. It's, it will be a wasted opportunity. And I, I would personally find it hard to look anyone in the face who's seeking social housing or affordable housing in the face from this site if we allow this to go ahead in its current form. I can't, I cannot in all conscience support this. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Just, so the SDA housing. So, the SDA housing. So, is the applicant looking at partnering, because you need to, with the Summer Housing, with the Summer Foundation, with the Wesley Mission. These are the people who provide the care for SDA housing. And to build SDA housing, you need to have, be in a partnership with someone. Is that on title? Is that, is that something they have agreed to?
03:32:00 That that is a condition? Speaker 3: Yeah. No, the applicant has proposed that, that these four units would be available for disability housing. And that they would go to a provider. What, what the recommendation is, is that to secure that and ensure that they're not put on the open market is that we enter into a deed of agreement with the applicant. And our solicitors have provided a, a, a package of measures to ensure, best ensure that happens to minimise the risk it's not put on the open market. Mayor Stewart: So, I, I noticed an important, there's various levels of, you can build SDA housing, you can build low care, medium care, high care. And high care is probably the one. And there's, you know, models. You can do a three one. You can do a, you know, a three is to one. So, one care of three people. You can do a single only. You can do a whole range of things. So, I noticed that, has it stipulated what level of care, because there's different yields and returns percent, depending upon what level you build at, because obviously high care gets higher return in SDA.
03:33:00 So, is that being stipulated in this? Speaker 3: Yeah. The, the applicant has indicated that they would provide the first level, which is improved liveability. So, it's not necessarily the high care. Yeah. Low care. Yeah. But it's improved liveability. Yeah. And the applicants indicate they're willing to accept that requirement in the deed of agreement. Mayor Stewart: So, it's not just the bathrooms. It's not, say, hoists and press button doors. I mean, because it is, I mean, SDA housing is so diverse. Yeah. Speaker 3: So, it's, look, I'm not well experienced in this area. Happy to admit that on page 89, there's, I guess, a description of what improved liveability means. So, it says, by incorporating a reasonable level of physical access and enhanced provision for people with sensory, intellectual or cognitive impairment.
03:34:00 Mayor Stewart: And these, these four units, are they two-bedroom or one-bedroom? Speaker 3: They're two-bedroom. Mayor Stewart: So, it could potentially be a one-on-one, a carer with a resident, or potentially, I'm just... Yeah. Speaker 3: Or, or the applicant also, through the discussions with the deed of agreement, also suggested, let's open it up to social housing. So, it might even be for, you know, single women over 55, or it could be for a range of different people in our community who need social housing. Mayor Stewart: So, the return on SDA is incredibly lucrative. That's why some people are doing it. The return on social housing is, will be minimal if it's, if it's social housing. So, so, how is that being correlated or worked out through the agreement? I mean, how, how do you go from maybe SDA to maybe affordable? Because the yields are, I mean, you're looking at 10, 15% for an SDA. I know that. Because of the work going involved from the charity. How do you then, with affordable housing, how do you then correlate low returns and
03:35:00 how do you then choose if it's this or that? Is there any stipulation? Speaker 3: No, we've left that open to the applicant in terms of the deed of agreement. So, what officers are basing it on is the proposed scheme amendments, which talks about social housing, which also includes SDA units. It doesn't distinguish in any way. It's up to the other. It's up to the. It's up to the applicant. Yeah. As to which way they go. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. The council will speak before Amelia closes. Hold on. At all? Councillor Wegener: Could I, could I make an amendment to this? Councillor Finzel: No, we've got to do this. Yes. You can amend it. Councillor Wilkie: This is the original motion. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Well, I just, you know, we're all talking about high aspirations here. What's the amendment? The amendment is no short-term accommodation. Speaker 7: So, at the moment, the way that the motion is structured, I don't think it really allows
03:36:00 for that because what, you're not down into conditions or anything like that. All you're dealing with is a motion to defer the matter. Okay. And come back. So, if you're looking to do the short-term accommodation, if we got to the stage that there was a recommendation to approve and they had conditions, then you could look at that as a condition at that stage. Right. But I don't think it would be appropriate at that stage. Speaker 3: Okay. And if I can add to this, this application is under the Noosa Plan 2021. So, they would need to make a separate application for short-term accommodation. So, it will only be permitted for permanence. Oh, okay. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, what are the, if we don't approve this, if we approve it, then we get 19 units that, and for, in good faith, that will be used for SDA or affordable housing. And they're small units. So, you would assume that they're, may not be social housing, but they may be somewhat
03:37:00 affordable based on their square meter. Yeah. If we don't approve it, what happens? Speaker 3: Well, if we don't approve it today, the applicant has the option to appeal the decision, or they may choose to come back and re-launch an application. So, obviously, potentially for an appeal against a refusal opens the door for further discussions with the applicant. But that will be, that will be the applicant's choice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to speak to the motion. I'm going to disagree with both the mover and the Councillor Wilkie's position. In terms of this site, there's an existing approval in 2017 for 10 units, gross for age 16 plus a range of commercial. It was under the superseded scheme. And so if we look at this devolved of zoning, we can say that the nature of development proposed is more consistent with what we hope to achieve from housing choice in this plan 2020.
03:38:00 Had it been, for example, in a medium density residential zone, it would have got car parking bonuses, et cetera, because what they've done is made a whole lot of smaller units. So in terms of the nature of the change from the existing approval, in terms of the residential component, we're moving closer to what the scheme desires, in that they're smaller, and hence, by definition, they will be more affordable. The sticking point, however, is on the mechanism by which we reduce the risk of achieving the next outcome, which is a social or community housing. The, and I suppose how each individual vote's going to be based on risk appetite.
03:39:00 I've got no problem in saying that the proposed amendment to the scheme is a more desirable outcome for the site than the existing zone. And what I'm saying is we probably didn't get it right. And the scheme review, in terms of what the best use of this site is, and so in terms of decisions around how much commercial, to me, that is not a large consideration in that the Tewantin business precinct will survive with less commercial and having small, locally faced commercial at the ground floor level to me is a reasonable outcome. That's not a huge consideration. So to me, it all boils down to risk appetite.
03:40:00 But we have got expert advice about a package. Um, my, my gut tells me that the, um, which one of these is going to be the most likely to be effective if we say the consortium is going to be the most effective. Um, can't get finance or whatever the, you know, if the land, uh, land ownership changes hands, what's going to be the, the biggest, um, it's, uh, uh, I suppose it's a restraint on a fair, fair open market, and it's probably number one, but I can also see it's probably the easiest to give up, that is the maintenance all units 12 to 15 on one title. I can see why in a commercial world, why that has implications for, for finance. We can't. Normally under a planning scheme, consider the financial aspects, but in this case, we're considering the flow on to provision of a social outcome.
03:41:00 I don't support number two. I think that, uh, pretty low cost option that's fairly conventional wisdom in planning approvals to achieve an outcome. Um, that might not be. Um, that might not be. Um, otherwise easily annoyed. Uh, I'm not supporting this particular motion, but I'm also not necessarily supporting a refusal motion. Um, that might not be. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mr. Stockwell. Council. Wednesday. Councillor Wegener: It has been sarcastic. I want this. I want this to be airtight. And I'm just going to say that they're not going to be doing it right so that we know that it's going to achieve the goals that we've set about.
03:42:00 And my sarcastic self sees this as 19 short-term stays in Tewantin and just completely going against what we actually wanted. The people may have the best intentions now, as you say. They can't get financed. They sell the project with disapproval. If it's not here today, we will end up with what we don't want. And so I can't support this. Mayor Stewart: Question for staff. They're not allowed to, even if it's on sold, short-term accommodation isn't allowed in this area. Speaker 3: I'd have to come back and make an application to council. Mayor Stewart: So we would have to approve short-term accommodation. So it's not part of this? Speaker 3: No, that would be a separate application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be inconsistent? Speaker 3: I think so, but I can check for staff. Councillor Wilkie: The councillors speak before Councillor Lorentson closes. Councillor Finzel: Yes. I'd just like to make, I'm just trying to sort it out because while I'm supportive definitely of, you know,
03:43:00 social and affordable housing, I guess the conflict comes when there is not the assurity that some of these units can be secured for those purposes. Right now, I don't want to support this amendment, but I think if we put this forward to the next meeting for further consideration or, you know, if someone put that forward, then we can move it forward without this. Councillor Wilkie: It'll be debated again on Thursday. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question of staff. Obviously, you have had a lot of discussions. Is it onerous to request what would be conditions of approval for Thursday's meeting? Including the recommended level of conditions within a Deed of Agreement?
03:44:00 Speaker 7: I might care, Sherry, also to talk about the requirement for a signed agreement before you have the approval. So, I'll just talk about the timing of that issue. Okay, yeah. Can you include that in your answer? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's probably the main point. Okay. Yeah, it's, it's, it is critical that the Deed of Agreement be signed by the applicant before we issue the approval. Otherwise, there's, there's, there's nothing to, for the applicant really to enter into that Deed. Speaker 7: And, Councillor, that's the same process when we enter into an infrastructure agreement before we have a Deed of Approval, I'm sorry, an approval with an infrastructure agreement attached to it. Speaker 3: The Planning Act actually prohibits a condition requiring applicants to enter into an infrastructure agreement. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Can you roll then? Speaker 3: In terms of conditions, I could provide the conditions that the solicitor suggested it, so it wouldn't be a full package of conditions, but it could be the sort of conditions the solicitor recommended that we include. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But there won't be any good with that, is there? Can I move the amendment?
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, I have to. Oh, same. Councillor Wilkie: Um, yes, go on, you can. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, but, ah, no, sorry, you'll have to keep it all there. Well, I just have to type in the name. Okay. Um, it, the further matter to next Council meeting subject to the Council applicant extending decision period, to allow, to, that'll do, oh, well, um, to allow further negotiations on the Deed of Agreement. I don't know whether that's enough to get through to Thursday. Mayor Stewart: We're leaving all of that. Yep. Oh, we've got that. Speaker 7: That'd be the easiest way to copy and paste the first part of that, the other part, and then just add the extra words. So go down to Deed of Agreement, extend the decision period, to allow, just copy and paste that down the bottom.
03:46:00 Speaker 3: I've got a word to say that to Deed of Agreement. Councillor Lorentson: It's not really a paragraph thing, one motion to be amended. Speaker 7: Actually, I can do it easier than that. Just go back to the wording at the top. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 7: Um, by. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Take out everything after agreement, and then, yeah, take all that out, and to allow further negotiations on the Deed of Agreement. No, I'm sorry, before, before the. Speaker 7: So we've got allowed in the second last line there, at the end on the right. Yep. Further negotiations on.
03:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: You happy with that, Councillor Stockwell? I'll second that for the purposes of debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Uh, councillors, I'm not sure. But I think it would be. Advantageous for staff before Thursday, in terms of whether it's before Thursday, it probably won't be. We, we don't make decisions and we can't have a, a position, but it may be worthwhile understanding what the majority of councillors, um, would be prepared to accept in terms of a Deed of Agreement, uh, for them to go back and negotiate with the applicant. How we get there, I, I can't think on the run, but I just think that, that might be, um, help make that decision of whether to go down a approval pathway or refusal pathway. If, if the majority of councillors say, no, we definitely want everything the solicitor, um, has requested, then staff can go in that direction, and maybe by Thursday, the CEO can come up with some way that we can do that.
03:48:00 Um, whether it's in a, a confidential session or whatever, um, or alternatively, if, if there is some majority support for moving one of all of the suggested, um, terms of the agreement, we can get there by Thursday, it might then make it more clear which way is the right way to go. Speaker 7: Well, there's a couple of scenarios that arise out of that. The first is whether or not the applicant will wish to extend beyond Thursday, or not, I think it's. No extension beyond Thursday, then the councillor's going to have to make a decision on Thursday, which is either approve or refuse, if you need to make that decision. Um, the second is that the staff position is pretty clear at the moment, we have legal advice that we need to put together a package, and that's what's being negotiated. If the staff are going to do anything different, we need to counsel a decision about it.
03:49:00 Yeah. We just have to think how we're going to do it. Councillor Wilkie: So, question for staff, are you able to brief councillors on this tomorrow? Speaker 7: Um, so, sorry, I don't think that's appropriate to have briefings about development applications in a lively tour council. What you've got is, the council needs to make a call about whether or not, what it will or won't accept, um, and then the staff can, can move on that, it's not. So we need to see the solicitor's conditions. Well, effectively what the solicitor's advice is, you put together a package, and that includes those two, two issues that are in dispute. That's, that's what our legal advice has given us, the question is whether or not we want to support that or not. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question of staff, um, if at the, um, point of putting the application in, no, um, conversation around four of the units being set aside for social housing, or anything like that, where would we be on this recommendation?
03:50:00 Speaker 7: Is that, how is the, how is, yeah. I understand what your question is, so, in other words, and Kerry can ask it this way, is, if the proposal didn't include social housing or development, sorry, disability units, would it have been, would we have had recommendations for approval, or how would that have changed the nature of what was being accepted? Speaker 3: Yeah, well, if it, um, if the proposal didn't include SDA units or social housing, um, it would have been recommended for refusal, um, because our scheme amendments are looking for social housing on the site. So it, it would mean then that the application is not consistent with our current scheme, or our proposed amendments either, so there's no grounds to support the proposal. Councillor Finzel: Okay, so you would say then, obviously, a pivotal consideration. Is this, um, the agreement then to, for a surety, to make sure that that percentage of the development remains as social housing?
03:51:00 Speaker 3: Absolutely, I, I don't think the, the size, the small dwelling units of 100 square metres is really achieving the social housing that, that the community needs. You know, the prices, we've had a couple that are built, and the prices that they're being advertised and sold for is not meeting the needs of community for social housing. Right, right. So it's more than that. Councillor Lorentson: So, Kerry, can I ask you, the report says that the proposal seeks approval for 19 small multiple units, 198 square metres of commercial space. So we're talking about the deed of agreement here. That deed collapsed because of its two points. Um, my understanding is the applicant still believes he's got a strong case that his application is still compliant with the agreement. He's appealed against the Noosa plan, and he's seeking approval on 19 small multiple dwellings with the exclusion of the four SDA houses, is that right?
03:52:00 Is that how, am I, am I reading that right? Speaker 3: Well, I'm not sure, I think the applicant suggests that the proposal is either compliant, or there's grounds to approve the application under the new scheme, putting aside the social housing. Yeah, and the report, which is why we have set out quite clearly the assessment against the 2020 scheme, in that this is a, a commercial zone, and it seeks for commercial uses on site, predominantly. Councillor Lorentson: So that's assuming we have the correct interpretation of the zone and the plan. Well, we've sought strategic... And it can be challenged, so, so for them to be coming back to us, knowing that that deed of agreement is failing, it seems to be... Oh, okay, I'm just wondering, like, okay, I'll keep it for later. Speaker 3: Yeah, so I just, just to comment on that, or respond, um, you know, officers, there's, through the report, there's comment from our strategic planning section, who wrote the planning scheme. So we've sought advice around what were we trying to achieve, what was the intent, um, and so, you know, that's, that's clearly in the report for, for councillors to consider.
03:53:00 Mayor Stewart: But all that aside, Kerri, I mean, you, if that's all been, I guess, negotiated, and what it comes down to is those two points, that for, and, and the deed, and, and the monetary amount being put up bond, it's all the issues... Is this a question, Kerri? Yeah, I'm, I'm confirming, yeah, it's correct. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That's right. If there could have been agreement around the deed of agreement, and it was signed by the applicant, we would have recommended approval to councillors. Speaker 7: Yeah. And that really comes back to getting that security and full certainty in terms of the future use. Speaker 1: Anthony Dowell, through you, Chair. I think I can answer a question on this one. Yeah. Yeah, it's Robin. Um, so, yeah, actually, um, that is the two points, and I think Councillor Stockwell summed it up very well in that it is a, it's a question of, um, risk appetite. And we've obviously got very, um, you know, um, sound advice, legal advice on what we should include, and that's obviously where we, we started. And we actually have come back from that to, to the, to the question around we, we've, we've come from the half a million to the hundred and the ten years to the five years as a matter of good faith negotiation.
03:54:00 Um, thinking that, that maybe gets us across the line. So, the two, the two, um, the two areas are still the outstanding matters, and it's a, and it is a question of risk appetite, and that's where we, I think we're, we're faced with. Councillor Wilkie: I mean, you've got, I'll speak to the, the amendment. Um, I will support it. Look, we want this to work in the way it's intended to work. That is with social housing outcomes on the site. Um, the application as it stands is not compliant with the current planning scheme, nor is it complying with the intent of the planning scheme amendment that seeks social housing outcomes on the site because that cannot be guaranteed. If there is any chance that we can make that work and through further negotiations on the deed of agreement that will ensure social housing outcomes on that site, I'm willing to give it a shot. That's why I'm prepared to support this amendment.
03:55:00 Councillor Lorentson: I just want to just throw this in, guys. This is an opportunity. First of all, I'm going to support this application because if that gets us to an approval, I'm happy to do so. But I just want to throw this at you. This is an opportunity. We've got an opportunity to accept a negotiated position, which will be a win-win for the applicant and for the community. If we refuse this application, the applicant is still challenging our interpretation to the Noosa plan. He's saying that his proposal is compliant. And the fact that he's... What the report to council, without the deed of agreement, supports that, which means that we possibly may have this legally challenged. If, and these are the what ifs, what if he succeeds and in the Planning and Environment Court they say that this proposal is compliant,
03:56:00 19 small multiple dwellings and 198 square metres of commercial space is going to be approved without that deed of agreement. Without that security, that four units are going to be designated for social or SDA-compliant units. So, please, let's give some serious consideration to what we're actually talking about at this table. So, yes, I'm going to support further negotiations and I'm hoping that the applicant... I'm hoping that we come to an agreed position because, in front of us, we're going to have to agree on a number of things. First of all, I think that there's a need for a proposal. A genuine proposal to address housing availability issues within the Sheungat. I really don't want us to miss out on this opportunity. Councillor Wilkie: Questions for staff. Question.
03:57:00 What has been... Sorry, sorry. Go ahead. What has been the Council's record of success when an application has been inconsistent with the current planning scheme and proposed amendments? What has been Council's record in... Speaker 7: Planning and Environment Court. Councillor Wilkie: So, generally, pretty high. Speaker 3: Pretty high. Pretty high. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Council Whitman. Councillor Wegener: Well, my reading was that staff was not all that excited about the actual development. For example, the four spaces, the four commercial spaces on Doonella Drive, which is preferably not where you want them to be. It's not a walking thoroughfare. Is that right? That you would... Speaker 3: Sorry? Councillor Wegener: That Doonella, that staff was lukewarm at best on having the commercial sites on Doonella Street. Speaker 3: Okay. So, the scheme zones are commercial. Yeah. It's zoned commercial. So, it's intended for business uses. Yeah. It does then support small dwelling units on top of that.
03:58:00 And there's some requirements in the scheme for this site, for Doonella, because, one, this is our through link from Cooroy to Dunedin. So, we need to be careful about the type of commercial that we put on the site to ensure it doesn't impact on that link. So, putting retail on the site is not supported by the scheme for that reason, because of the traffic impacts, but also because of potential impacts on residential opposite. Okay. So, that's the point I wanted to make. Yeah. But the scheme does support offices and medical, which doesn't generate the same sorts of traffic movements as retail. Councillor Wegener: That's what I was getting at. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Before Councillor Stockwell closes on this procedural motion, is there any other councillors wish to speak to it? Councillor Wegener: To the... One last question. And then with... For the community, we have the planning scheme, which went through all the hoops and so forth.
03:59:00 And the community spoke, and the planning scheme said this is large... Not residential. It's supposed to be business. Mix. A solid mix. And you're... And it says in the report that you feel there's not enough business. It's far too much residential. Is that right? In the... Speaker 3: So, what the scheme seeks to do is commercial, is owned. And that doesn't... Planning is long term. Our planning scheme goes out to 2040. So, we have to think long term. So, whilst there may not be a need for any commercial on the site, when the scheme was developed, it was thinking about long term and whether there may be a need in the future for additional sites to be able to cater for business uses. So, that's why it was owned for business, is my understanding, by the new scheme. Councillor Wegener: So, to me, to approve this is going against the planning scheme in that way.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 Right? Yep. And we're making a decision to override Tewantin's interest in this place, because Tewantin must have given feedback to the new planning scheme that we want this to be commercial, this area is to be commercial. And to approve this is to just wash away that and say, no, no, no, we're going to do this now because this is popular at this moment. But are we really thinking 40 years down the track? Speaker 3: Yeah. And that's what council needs to decide. For me, and I've said it before, I wouldn't normally recommend to council that we go and support an application based on proposed scheme amendments, until those scheme amendments had been substantially progressed and gone through public notification. Councillor Wegener: So, we don't need to rush this? Speaker 3: Don't need to rush it, no. Councillor Wegener: Let's get it to big deal. Councillor Wilkie: Anyway, a question. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, how relevant is the... the new specific development site to Tewantin District...
04:01:00 to the Tewantin District Centre? Does the fact that there is going to be so much office space and retail five minutes down the road, is that relevant when considering whether or not commercial space is required in precincts like Tewantin? Speaker 7: I can answer that, because I've had this debate a few times. One of the reasons council's actually been so strict in terms of what amount of retail will allow in Noosa City is to protect areas like Tewantin as a viable village in its own right, and also Noosa Junction. So, it's actually one of the reasons we fought the case with QIC a couple of years ago, was to try and protect the ability to have more nodes or more villages having things happening in their own area, rather than sucking it up into one place and centralising too much. The short answer is yes. Speaker 3: They do serve different functions too. You know, obviously the Shire Businesses Centre is an all of Shire Centre. Tewantin is intended to serve Tewantin and the surrounding area, so more local in nature.
04:02:00 You know, the applicant's suggesting because of what's happening in Noosa Civic, putting more commercial on the site at the moment is not viable, and therefore we should support residential. Councillor Lorentson: So, can we have some data or some information? What is the actual break-up of business commercial versus residential in the area of Tewantin? What do you know about that break-up? Speaker 3: I can have a look at what strategic planning has. Yeah, I'll come back to the point though. Remember, planning is long term. So, there may not be a need for commercial in Tewantin right now, but we need to think a little bit long term. And we know that Tewantin is still growing. There's still quite a lot of sites that are zoned for residential development, for unit development. They're not there yet. Councillor Lorentson: So, I made reference in the previous application, Stockwell application, to the Location IQ report. Is that something we can reference to find out what the future's going to look like?
04:03:00 Speaker 3: Well, it was, I guess, a best advice by Location IQ at the time it was prepared. I don't know whether it had anything particular about this site. We can certainly have a look at it for you. I'm happy to send it to councillors to review. Yeah, but I think that's more big picture. This is quite specific to one particular site. We'll have to have a look. I'll speak to the motion. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, Councillor Stewart. Sorry, yeah. I really want this development to work. I think it's much needed. I think as Councillor Stockwell said and Anthony said, it comes back down to risk appetite. I think by definition, 74 square metres to 89 square metres will lend itself to more affordable, whether or not it's social and whether or not those four, you know, it's been a in good faith disclaimer that four units will be used for social and or SDA.
04:04:00 I'm taking that out in space value. But I would like to see that, I guess, formalised. I would like to see that, I guess, formalised. So I support Councillor Stockwell's amendment to allow further negotiations in the deed of agreement because I really want to see this work. I commend staff, Kerry and Anthony, for working with the applicant. I know it's been a long, arduous process on both sides. And I think it's so important that we get that residential accommodation up in this area. We've heard all morning how important that is to our community. But I want to make sure that those four units are protected. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I have very little appetite for risk. That's it. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Yeah. I would really love to see this work and move forward as well, given the housing situation
04:05:00 across the Shire. I think it's important that we get that done. Some assurity around the agreement for those four units is, yeah, I just need some further, I guess, assuring around opportunities to try and really make this work with outcomes for everyone. So thank you. I will support the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Can I just stop by just to close? Yeah, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just on the amendment. There's only three potential trajectories. There's only three potential trajectories. The first is the applicant's now got a feeling for what councillors individually and perhaps collectively feel about the application. So one option is that they consider what this committee resolves, signs an agreement
04:06:00 by Thursday, and the development can be approved if there's a majority support for it. But we can't approve it without a signed agreement. I'm guessing that there's a majority support for it. That's going to be the case. The next is that it goes to Thursday, and we refuse it, and it goes through the costly process of going to an appeal to try and argue points of planning interpretation, and it has to be balanced up events. The other option, which is to do as this is, agree to defer it. And see if there is some further flexibility between... And the difficulty there is how this council, rather than staff, gets to a position of what we will agree to if there is any reduction from what is currently on the table in terms of a deed of agreement. But as far as amendment today, I think that's what's in front of us is the best we can do.
04:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can I put the amendment as in favour? It's councillor Finzel. Can I put the amendment as in favour? Councillor Stewart, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie against, Councillor Wegener. So the amendment is carried, that becomes the motion and everyone's spoken to the original motion and Councillor Lorentson, do you have a final say? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy with where we're at, which is a position of opportunity. Opportunity for council and opportunity also for the applicant. We have to make this work because now we need accommodation. We are in crisis mode now. So let's just wait and see what happens over the next few days.
04:08:00 Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the motion of those in favour. That's Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Stewart, Lorentson and Wilkie. Next, Councillor Wegener. Now, councillors, I'd like to call another five minute break, please.
255 minutes in ¶
04:18:00 Speaker 7: First thing, I'll let you know once the video's started, councillors. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You know, we're all good. Speaker 9: Okay, welcome back everybody. Budget review one, carryovers of leftover expenditure and unspent funds from last financial year. At this stage, we're on track in most areas. Councillor Wilkie: When do we actually get our audited financial statements for the last financial year? Speaker 9: The Queensland Audit Office are on site with us at the moment, actually. So, they should be three weeks on site for the final audit, so they should be finished end of this week, and then we should have sign-off in the next month, and then the council meeting in November with the annual report.
04:19:00 Speaker 7: Right. And that goes from the Audit Committee. Have a look at those before we get through to the council. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So, following on the Mayor's question, any areas of concern, any red flags at all? Not at all at the status council. What about the rates and arrears figures? We've got below target. Speaker 7: They're actually very low. Speaker 9: We obviously issue reminder notices this month, so what you're seeing is at the low point of the cycle, as Brett was alluding to, but obviously coming out of work that the branch has done in revenue services with payment plans and working on arrears, it is lower than it has been, as Brett was saying, compared to previous cycles, which is good. Hard work of the team, I think, working on getting those members of the community that have arrears on the payment plans and working through that with them. Speaker 7: It was one of the areas we were concerned about with COVID, about whether people would have enough money to pay to do it. It's a cash flow issue for us, but as I see it, it's a little bit surprising that our payments are ahead of where they've been pre-COVID.
04:20:00 Councillor Wegener: Isn't that interesting? Tom? Yeah. That is your final measurement, isn't it? I mean, that's a really secure measurement to how we're floating, how we're working through COVID right now is your rates and how many people pay them on time and so forth. It's very positive. Speaker 7: The graph on the bottom of page 116 is the one that shows that. It really tells you what it is compared to the previous six months. We're currently at 4.6% arrears. If you go back and look at the low point just before we issued in February, it was at 5%. Last month it was 5.2%. If you go back six months, it was 5.7%. It's about half a percent under instead of the more people paying. It's a pretty good rate of arrears for both sides of the money. Councillor Wilkie: But that might change. Speaker 7: There's more lockdowns. You never know. You'll get it. Speaker 8: Yeah.
04:21:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anybody care to move the report? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stewart, anything to say? Mayor Stewart: No. Thank you, Trent, for your hard work and all the team. Appreciate it. It's good to see we're on track and long may it continue. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I did notice that you've included for the first time on page 112 a payment to Tourism Noosa of 2.52 million. This is one of the ways we're making transparent that funding agreed to through the funding agreement with Tourism Noosa. Speaker 9: Correct, Councillor. So yes, 2.52 is the annual allocation. First payment went through this month, in the month of August. So you'll see that 1.26 has gone through this month. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The councillors will speak before Mayor Clare closes.
04:22:00 No. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Trent. Thank you, Dan. Thanks, Trent. Joining the Council of Mayors, item 13. Speaker 7: Councillor, just before we take a move or a second on this one, just a quick update since I've written the report. I've been in conversation with the CEO of the Council of Mayors just about the process. So we, as the recommendation is, we will make an application and they'd have to consider whether they would have it. And I certainly hope they do what one of Mark's brothers said, that they'd never join a club that would have me as a member. Quite a great quote. And I've got in the report that they've given me an informal estimate about the annual membership fee. It'll be around about $35,000. However, the CEO has just flagged with me and it's subject to a decision. They haven't made any decision about this. If we do apply, they may consider whether or not, in addition to the membership fee, whether they would ask Council to contribute to some of the costs they have incurred already
04:23:00 in terms of the work they've done on the Olympics fee. And they haven't made any decision. So we would make an application and then they'd work out whether or not they'd be looking for a pro rata contribution towards that. Then that would come back either yes or no. And I'd bring that back to Council for a yes for you to consider. Any idea? It's somewhere around $45,000 to $50,000 is a one-off. Again, subject to them. They might not make that decision. They might say annual fee and away you go. Or we do want you to make a contribution. That's up to them. We don't have control over that. But if they do go down that path, I'll come back to Council. Councillor Wegener: Could we bargain with them and say, we want a skateboard. We want a skateboard. We want a tripod. Speaker 7: In my conversations with the CLP, it basically said, look, there's two elements. There is that the reason we're applying is to be part of something bigger. It's probably triggered by the Olympics issue and you want to be inside that tent and go
04:24:00 forward. But it's also part of being a region. That's important. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify Brett, even today we're not agreeing to pay $35,000. We're agreeing to apply. Correct. And then see what comes back and then we'll make a decision when we go $35,000 or potentially another $45,000, $80,000. Speaker 7: Yeah. And if it was $35,000, it'd be $35,000 every year. It's on a pro-rider basis. We're one of the smaller councils. So Brisbane will pay a couple of million or whatever it might be. But yeah, we'll come back to council and give you that price. Speaker 8: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Clare, would you care to move this one? Mayor Stewart: Sure. I'll move this. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, seconder? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Look, thank you to the CEO. We've got Anthony here and the directors and all the directors being supportive of this. I think it's prudent now with the Olympics coming up that we look at being involved. South East Queensland Council of the Mayors, right now their focus is on the Olympics and
04:25:00 it will be a major focus, but there are others too. It's an opportunity for us to join with other mayors of those member councils to work together and to advocate to other levels of government on the South East Queensland Council needs. I was really surprised to read that it's a very effective lobbying group, but what I was surprised to read about was that it represents one in seven Australians. Oh, wow. Which is incredible. Yeah. So I think it's, as you said, Mr. CEO, it's something, it's an opportunity even bigger than ourselves. Think outside the square and all that 32, 2032 will bring, and we talk about our legacy item. Will it bring an event? Will it bring better infrastructure? Will it bring better facilities and upgrade facilities? We need to have a voice and to have a voice we need to sit at the table. So I think the opportunities now, and especially leading into 2032 when that all will be on the table. So yeah, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I just think this is, you know, we've waited for this with enthusiasm and anticipation.
04:26:00 I think it's just a fabulous opportunity to support Clare, to give her opportunity to move amongst her peers and colleagues at that higher level and be a part of the wider, bigger picture across the region. And then we all benefit by Clare's experience in that space of gaining knowledge and information to bring back to our decision making table. So I'm really excited about that. And to hear that the one in seven Australians are represented by this is, I think that's a really good reach. So yeah. Thank you everyone for supporting this today. And thank you Clare for stepping up to the plate. Councillor Lorentson: I think this is a no brainer, joining the Council of Mayors. I think it's also beyond just the Olympics. It's a strategic, it's an opportunity to strategically collaborate with other councils in South East Queensland on lots of issues.
04:27:00 Issues of waste, infrastructure, environment. We can build on a share of knowledge. We can build on a share of knowledge. We can build on shared experience. And we can build on shared expertise. So certainly exciting in terms of the Olympics. It's an opportunity for us to bring forward investments in infrastructure to our region. So this has my full support. Councillor Wilkie: I'll just say, you'll certainly shine in that company. Clare, you'll be one of the brightest stars. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We were talking before the meeting about the the risk of groupthink and while I support this I think it's really important to understanding is both what we can bring to the group and what the group can bring to us. I think it's also important to say that perhaps there's a reason why we didn't rush in and that's
04:28:00 what we like to consider ourselves as our key points of difference for the rest of South East Queensland. We don't want to lose that and I suppose as I was sitting here I was thinking about a recent federal politician who visited and made an important comment about you know they were going to have a megalopolis from Noosa to the border. That's not what we're doing. We're not joining them to be part of a big city. I look at some of the councils around the table which we share our peri-urban and while you know in recent history our coastal strip has had a lot of linkage to Sunshine Coast both culturally, historically and anthropologically we've got more in common with the Mary Valley Gympie. You know we are Gympie sport that's how we were started. So when we look at what the opportunities are you know one of them we can see what they we don't just want to be seen on riding on their coattails because they did a good job getting the Olympics.
04:29:00 We want to be saying that as a region we have outcomes in the long term that are more sensibly achieved by collaboration and so for me you know part of the Olympic story is about how it's going to be the first region to be carbon neutral and how do we you know other councils with large inland areas contribute to that in a way that's different to what the more urbanised councils can do. So to me that's a thing. We're not saying we're wanting to become a small part of a large city. We're saying we are part of a region that's aiming to achieve a sustainable outcome and we think there are shared issues that our joint collaboration, our joint advocacy can have a bigger impact on state government and federal government. Tom. Well congratulations everyone.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 Councillor Wegener: I think that, excuse me, that it comes with challenges as well and you know you're going to be a smaller entity in that room. You're going to box well and truly above your weight and I think like there are these big issues will come like drought and the fact that our water goes that way you know and the issues like that that you know you'll be faced with and I know that you're going to have the courage to stand up for New South. Mayor Stewart: Thanks Tom. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Stewart is closed. Mayor Stewart: No I'm closed. Thank you. I think what everyone said around the table. I really appreciate the positive endorsement and very kind words. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. I think this is an opportunity for all of us certainly being present there we can bring back knowledge and as Amelia you talked about shared information and shared knowledge and that's something that we as a council would potentially set up focus groups and have an internal groups of people's interest based on information.
04:31:00 We receive and it's about information gathering but you know Councillor Stockwell you're right you know it is about you know what we bring to the table just as much as what you know we need to really advocate for our Shire and our region and but I think you know being there and being part of something even ourselves is a powerful thing and I think opportunity will present itself as we go along. So thank you very much for the endorsement. I appreciate it. Councillor Wilkie: Motion goes in favour. That's unanimous. Our last item. Your Ringtail Conservation Project, the Greenfleet and Kabi Kabi Inclusion. Very exciting development. Speaker 7: Would you like a bit of a summary Mr Caesar? Yeah sometimes we talk in different projects about win-win. This is a very rare situation. This is win-win-win-win. There's actually four members there and council is one of them.
04:32:00 So is Kabi Kabi, Environment, State and so on. So it's a pretty good result. The report does four things. One is just to give you an update about where we're up to and we're about 12 months ahead of schedule which is good. That's been largely down to great work by the privately owned harvest company, HQ Plantation. So we've been really good corporate citizens. And also some work by the ADAPT, Department of Forestry, who got on board OJCRAFT's initial presentation a couple of years ago and we're very supportive. The second is that, just giving you an update, I last reported to council that negotiations are going on between the State Government Greenfleet and Kabi Kabi. That will result in some really good outcomes for the environment and particularly for the Kabi Kabi. The Greenfleet coming in to spend a lot of money with the State Government offsetting their carbon rights for that. That's been finalised. So the Kabi Kabi Indigenous Land Use Agreement has been signed and it's been registered between Greenfleet and Kabi Kabi. That provides them with a revenue stream, potential jobs or actual jobs and also some other work in terms of cultural heritage and so on.
04:33:00 So the report basically says all that's done. We just need to make some minor amendments to the agreements to bring in the Kabi Kabi and the Greenfleet into the transition committee. And then the final part of the report deals with the ongoing role of the transition committee. We've probably got about maybe 12 to 15 months of actual work to go. And I've made an offer with them riding off to the sunset if the council can put up with me for a bit longer is to continue to act as the volunteer chairperson so that committee gets to see this one through. So that's what the report covers. Councillor Wilkie: Brett, could you clarify what it means in saying when the State assigns their carbon abatement rights in the land to Greenfleet, what transaction actually is occurring there? Speaker 7: So what that means is the State Government says we have some carbon rights. If we do planting and do some work on that land, we will assign those rights to Greenfleet.
04:34:00 That's what Greenfleet does. They're not the proper organisation that does this around the country. They say that you will take our carbon abatement rights, you'll have the right to do those in exchange for you undertaking certain things. Primarily spending a lot of money to do replanting and to have an indigenous land use agreement with the Kabi Kabi. Greenfleet then go away and sell their carbon rights. So they'll say to corporations in Melbourne or wherever it might be, and they've got places like Europecar and all the Telstra's and those, and they say, if you want to buy carbon credits, we'll sell it to you for X. So normally carbon credits sell for about $15, $16 a tonne. They'll sell them at $20 a tonne because it's got both the carbon credit, it's got the Noosa names, a bit of a brand powerful, but it's also got some revenue going towards Kabi Kabi. So it creates a really, those corporations looking to enhance their corporate citizenship status. They'll prepare to pay a premium. Greenfleet then pass on some of that premium through to Kabi Kabi, which gives them the revenue stream as well.
04:35:00 And then the state guarantees that those carbon rights will be in place for forever and a day. And it's quite tricky because it's changing tenure from state forest to national park. If the state hasn't done this before, it's going to be a template for what they do across the state. Councillor Wilkie: That's good. Speaker 7: Sorry, Council wins because the money we're going to have to spend on rehabilitation we're going to have to spend now because we've got Greenfleet to do it for us. And there's going to be more. Councillor Wegener: So obviously we've got a pool of money sitting there to buy more land with, which is great. Councillor Lorentson: $625,000. Yeah, that's great. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to have a seconder? Councillor Finzel? Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, this is both innovative and what is the equivalent of a game-changing environmental agreement. And it's something that's built on the success. You know, we've had state and national awards for the program and this just builds on that.
04:36:00 The tenacity of our student too. If you're department CEO in negotiating this through, it must be acknowledged. Thanks to a Facebook reminder, I know that it's four years and one week. Oh, wow. Since by chance, I ran into the operations manager of Greenfleet at the Coastal Conference in Airlie Beach at the time. We just started talking about the potential to have an agreement on Euro. And I said, we might have a deal for you. I like that sort of thing where I can have an idea, then other people go away and do four years of hard work. But the outcome is even better than what I expected. Because we've got a modern economy developed based on putting a value on pollution.
04:37:00 So what we're saying to the Kabi Kabi people in essence is, we haven't been looking after this planet as well as we should have. So we've now developed an economic system where your ownership of this place and your management of it will be facilitated by others who appreciate the ability of the land to actually treat our waste. Because that's what we're doing. We're saying we value the role of this ecosystem to make life on our planet more liveable in the future. And that's really important. Because if we have the cultural recognition, the economic recognition, and we've got the environmental outcome. So it really is game-changing in the nature of how we look at how to adapt to the world we currently live in. So I think, as I said, the tenacity to negotiate this to end through.
04:38:00 Many people, I'd be one of them, would have given up at the first hurdle. Some people love hurdles and keep on trying to jump it. And so well done. Thank you, Brian. Councils? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to just thank Brett too for the work that I know you've done and that has been discussed before. So I just think that's a great outcome for, at so many levels, for this Shire and the future. So thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, you go, Maria. I just want to add, it's wonderful to end on a high note. This is, as already discussed, it's just a win-win-win. A win for the Kabi Kabi, a win for the environment, and a win for Council. And I also want to note, it's also an important asset to tourism. You talk game-changing project, landmark project. It is. I did some Googling and I actually didn't know it was 2,400 hectares of new national park we're going to get.
04:39:00 That's fantastic. That's for Noosa and also for our Koala populations. I also want to congratulate all those involved and, in particular, to our CEO, Brett de Chastel, for brokering the deal. This is a lasting legacy and a gift that you will be leaving the community. And we thank you, Brett. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'd like to reiterate everything that's been said. Congratulations, Brett. This is a great project and certainly a win-win on so many levels and something you should be, as Councillor Lorentson has said, it's a legacy project and something you should be very proud of. So the report was so positive and it is nice to end on a high note after a long meeting. So congratulations and well done on securing all those negotiations. It looks easy, but certainly there was a huge amount of hard work, effort and knowledge going into all those negotiations.
04:40:00 So, thank you. Councillor Wegener: Brett, is there any way that you could boil down what you've learned and your ability to do this and pass that knowledge on to the rest of us because you have a limited amount of time to do that. Speaker 7: I can't answer that right now. One of the things I did early on was to have a bet with the director of environmental sustainable development for a $2 scratchy that I couldn't get this across the line. None of that just happened. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, unless you want to close, Brian, I'll put a motion. I'll only be repeating what everyone else has said. It's been eight years of hard work for the CEO. It's wonderful to see him go out on a high and following through on this project to see it through to its completion.
04:41:00 And that's the least we can enable you to do, even if it is in a voluntary capacity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to end with the Indigenous component in this National Park for this convention to have traditional names for areas. I was thinking during debate that one of the options for this area is to have part of the new Biosphere Trail go through it. And there are some parts of... of mountain bike trails where it's a steep drop and, you know, people fall off and it's a bit risky. And so I thought it might be appropriate if we actually had a memorial, the De Chastel drop. And I think... That would be fitting, you know. A memorial? Councillor Lorentson: I'm not dead yet. Isn't that one of the criteria?
04:42:00 Speaker 8: Well, the motion does in favour. That's unanimous. That's the last item on the agenda, I believe. Thank you.