Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we're meeting on traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I claim my respects to the elders past, present and emoji. Note that everyone is in attendance. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held? Thank you Councillor Wilkie. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Unanimous. Thanks. Can I have a move for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting? Thank you Councillor Wilkie. Can I have a seconder please? All in favour? Unanimous. Thanks. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? I have one. I have a petition signed by 242 people from the Crown Memorial School of Arts to restore the wall of the School of Arts building to the way it was before Councillor removed the fibrous cement sheeting in October 2020. The work must be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine approval. Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. There are no notified motions. No presentations and no deputations.
00:01:00 That brings us to item 8 on page 4 of the agenda, which is the consideration of the committee reports. Firstly, we have the Audit and Risk Committee. Number 1, Queensland Audit and Risk Briefing Note. Number 2, Queensland Audit Office Interim Managed Report. Item 3, Internal Audit. Item 4, 2020-21 Draft Financial Statements and End of Financial Year Update. Item 5, Governance Review Update. Item 6, Risk Management Insurance Corruption Update. Item 7, Strategic Risk Deep Dive Transport Strategy. Item 8, CEO Update. Item 9, Annual Rolling Board Claim and Standing Agenda Items. We're going to have a mover and a seconder. Thank you, Councillor Leinster. Thank you, Councillor Leinster. Jurisevic, all in favour? Thank you, Carried to Pass.
00:02:00 Councillor Finzel: Jurisevic, all in favour? Thank you, Carried to Pass. Mayor Stewart: Next are the Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations, page 6. Item 1, DBW 21-0-112, Application for Building Works Accessible Against the Planning Scheme, Works within 4.5 metres of the revetment wall, glass-pilled fence, at 12 Topsar's Place, Noosaville. Item 2 was referred to the General Committee. Item 3 was referred to the General Committee. Item 4, Pre-Response Request to Change Conditions of a P&E Court Order. 3226-2000 for Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Multiple Dwellings, 4 Units, 269 Giffie Terrace, Noosaville. Item 5, MCU 21-0109. Development Application for Material Change of Use for Office at 4-216 David Loway, Peregian Beach.
00:03:00 Item 6 was referred to the General Committee. Item 7 was referred to the General Committee. Item 8 was referred to the General Committee. Item 9, SPS 21-0288, Request to Apply Superceded Planning Scheme, Material Change of Use for Community Use, Wellbeing Type 2, Social and Ancillary Dwelling Unit, Caretakers Residence, at 7 Woodland Drive, Peregian Beach. Item 10, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, July 2021. I'd like to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a close personal relationship with Anthony Francis Bell and Eileen McColl Bell. This is in the report at item 93, application number SPS 21-0112 and Robin A. Yates, which is in the report at item 21-0122. This is in the report at item 227, application ID SPS 21-0150.
00:04:00 Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person to have a perception of bias. She has either left Council's consideration of these applications and not to approve or reject them. They are only denoting that the decision has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in this meeting. Councillor Wegener: I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrew St. Baker, listed in the report item 111, application number SPS 21-0134.
00:05:00 I am a surfboard manufacturer and Mr. St. Baker is the owner of Thomas Surfboards and the Thomas Factory. I believe Mr. St. Baker has had a fantastic influence on manufacturing in Noosa. In Council, I have often congratulated the Thomas Factory. I have discussed the emerging enterprise business zone, which Mr. St. Baker supports. During the campaign, Mr. St. Baker allowed me to put an election corp at the Thomas Surfboard Factory. I occasionally meet Mr. St. Baker in the surf and had two discussions at the Noosa Biosphere, the history of Noosa and the Bring Back the Beach campaign at his house, which is right above the surf break. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. St. Baker. And Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it, only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in person to take it into consideration.
00:06:00 Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a close personal relationship with Mr. St. Baker. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe councillors' consideration of these applications and not to approve or reject them, they are only the 19th that a decision has already been made by staff. Speaker 5: Well, councillors, we have some resolutions before us. Who would care to move one regarding councillor Stewart's declared interest? Councillor Finzel and seconded by councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, what, why have we? What is your decision? What are you moving?
00:07:00 Councillor Finzel: That the, the remaining will move. And votes on the matter? And votes on the matter. Speaker 5: Yes. Okay, all in favour? It's carried. We have one for councillor Wegener now. Does someone care to move and second it? Move councillor Finzel. Seconded. Councillor Jurisevic. I'll stand appropriately. Stay in the room. Stay in the room. All in favour? And the final one for councillor Lorentson. Move councillor Finzel. We are standing. Seconded. Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded. Councillor Jurisevic. Are councillors willing to speak? Is that for staying? Staying, yep. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Can I have a mover and the second to the campaign. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Councillor Wegener.
00:08:00 Councillor Wegener. Speaker 4: We just need to deal with that particular item. That item in relation to the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The recommendation Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Report number 10 on page 9 of the agenda. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Next one. The second one? Yes. Next up is the Services and Organisations Committee Recommendations. These are on page 10 of the agenda. Item 1 is referred to the General Committee. Item 2, Changing New Centenia, part of lot 69, RP41223, and part of lot 2, RP839623.
00:09:00 Item 3 was referred to the General Committee. Item 4, Nostra Aquatic Centre NAC, full year report to 30 June 2021. Item 5, Noosa Community Support NCS, full year report to 30 June 2021. Item 6, Noosa Leisure Centre NLC, full year report to 30 June 2021. Item 7, the J, full year report to June 30, 2021. Item 8, Bicentennial Community Centre, full year report to 30 June 2021. Speaker 5: Madam Chair, I would like to inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I am the Secretary of the Noosa Gymnastics Club, which is the principal tenant of the Noosa Bicentennial Centre, and as a result of this declared prescribed conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting with you. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
00:10:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that Council note the report by the J, Bicentennial Community Centre, Coordinated to the Services and Organisation Committee meeting, dated 7th of September 2021, providing an update of the activity. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I'll move the resolution of the report of the Services and Organisation Committee dated 7th of September 2021 be received, and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate residents. I'll second that. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Council will be all in favour. Thank you now, Mr. Chair. Now to the general committee recommendations on page 12 of the agenda. MCU 17 slash 0563.0217 slash 0597.02. Other change for development approval for material change of use for two times multiple housing type 2 duplexes and operational works.
00:11:00 Engineering works and landscaping to include a short term accommodation at 30 and 32 Comfort Shelf, Noosaville. I'd like to move this application on the screen. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Is everyone live? Yes. Thank you. I was doing this a second ago. We've been around this area around already in general. But this is one of the items that is a short term application in medium density. We've approved others in a similar density in a similar vicinity. This bags onto commercial premises. There have been no complaints. It's impact accessible. We've had no submissions to suggest that anyone would be against this in the neighborhood. There have been no submissions.
00:12:00 We don't approve it, what will it be used for? We don't know. We can't say this is going to be used. As again, we just don't know it's going to be used for full time accommodation. It's certainly not affordable accommodation. We know where it is. We know what it looks like. We know the vicinity it's in. This is not affordable accommodation. I know families who regularly use this area to stay in during school holidays. Families. Not party houses. Families that spend in our region. They get an ice cream for their kids in our region. They go to the shops in our region. They go out to dinner in our region. Buy some clothes. They inject much needed funds into this economy. Currently our vacancy rates are about 15% occupancy. So we're at 15%. So that means our tourism providers are hurting. 75%, 85% of the businesses are all there or accommodating. So this accommodation is vacant. What does that mean? What does that mean for our economy? What does that mean for our businesses? What does that mean for the life and blood of our area?
00:13:00 As I said, this is median density. It complies. It's consistent. Again, I'll keep coming back to until we have further data, further research, cold hard facts, we can't sway. We must stay in the course. This accommodation, as I said, isn't affordable. We all know that. Approving this will have little or no impact on our housing prices. I can assure you of that. If we don't approve it, it comes back to what happens? It stays closed up. I've talked about those towns. I'll talk about it again. What does that do for our economy? We must stay in the course. There's been a lot of debate about this. We've got to follow the Noosa Town Plan, where it is deemed median density. It is deemed consistent. Now, this is a plan that was wax lyrical by many councillors at this table only 12 months ago. I'd suggest that we follow the course and we continue on that path, and we approve this as the Town Plan allows us to do. Councillor Wegener: Did I ask a question to the Mayor?
00:14:00 Or is this a vote? Speaker 5: Yes, the answer is yes. Councillor Wegener: Do you have a question? So, you're saying that if 15 per cent fall... Mayor Stewart: I'm talking about... Councillor Wegener, I'm talking about our tourism operators. That's the fact I'm receiving. So, our CalGol appoints our tourism, not our SDAs, our tourism, our accommodation providers. So, we were at 60 per cent fall when before... Sorry, we were at 90 per cent before Sydney lockdown. We're at 60 per cent when Brisbane... When it was Brisbane... Sydney lockdown. No, no, no. When Brisbane locked down, we were at 60 per cent, and then when we all got locked down, we were at 10 per cent. So, we're now, apparently, according to some operators, we're at about 15 per cent. That will improve, hopefully, over the September school holidays and the Christmas school holidays, but our day in, day out is a very low occupancy... I'm led to believe is at low occupancy rates.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 This is for the people coming to stay here. Because we don't have any Victorians, we don't have any Sydney-siders, we don't have anyone from New Zealand. So, our accommodation providers, many of them, in those tourist accommodation areas, have a lot of space available. So, my point is, what is that doing to our climate? And our business. Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to the motion? Yeah, sure. Well, there's a housing crisis. There's not a visitor accommodation crisis. With this housing crisis, consistent with this, Council has refused these short-term accommodation applications. They are not needed and will deteriorate the amenity of these residential communities. We all agree that there's a housing crisis, but taking these four units out of the rental market will do nothing but exacerbate this crisis. We may argue that some STA applications are for holiday houses, and that would see it
00:16:00 empty most of the year if they weren't filled with short-term accommodation. However, these are not holiday houses. This is a block of four units. These are investment properties. I think we should listen to our staff. I think we should follow our town plan. And I will urge that we refuse this application. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, may I ask a question? I'll start. The diagram on page 26 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda seems to indicate that a number of short-stay accommodation facilitations are in and around the area in the street in question, but within the Cockleshell itself, there doesn't appear to be any. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That's correct. Cockleshell. Cockleshell is further removed from Gympie Terrace, and there seems to be less properties
00:17:00 being used for short-term accommodation. It is, though, part of a greater neighbourhood, where officers are saying the area is predominantly visitor accommodation, and that's why we're recommending refusal of the application. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, for the purposes of accuracy, the Cockleshell starts at Gympie Terrace, or the location of the Cockleshell is after Noola Street. Is that correct? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes, you're correct. Yes. It does run through to Gympie Terrace. That's correct. Sorry. I guess I am just referring to one section of Cockleshell. Councillor Jurisevic: It's not well indicated on the diagram. No. I did forget that street. Thank you for reminding me, Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 5: Madam Chair, I'll speak. I'm thinking Robert Street. Look, on Monday, the numbers refused this application, consistent with the staff advice. There is a visitor accommodation precinct very nearby this, which provides some adequate
00:18:00 numbers of visitor accommodation. We've also just had introduced to the argument another reason why it should be approved at the existing occupancy rates for visitor accommodation. Why did they change the current accommodation as very remote, 15 per cent. Why would we introduce more visitor accommodation to compete with the visitor accommodation owners who are already struggling and hurting to fill the existing available accommodation? It's clearly shows that there's more than enough visitor accommodation in this area. It's meant, it's right next to a visitor accommodation precinct. It's meant to be predominantly for residential. The assessment is that there's more than enough visitor accommodation in the area. There, as Councillor Wegener said, the crisis we're addressing is not a shortage of visiting accommodation, it's a shortage of availability of permanent residential accommodation.
00:19:00 Units, lots more, shared, who's to say that the demand being so strong for permanent accommodation, permanent rental, that they couldn't be afforded by someone. If they're not available, pushed for permanent accommodation or permanent rental, then it's certainly not going to happen. Look, I support the staff advice on this. We know that even before the Noosa planning scheme was introduced, there was a myriad of reports based on the trends occurring all around the world about the impact of short-term accommodation on neighbourhoods. The reports clearly stated, based on their assessments of what was happening in other communities, that because of displacement of permanent residents, loss of key workers, declines in the quality of life for permanent residents, loss of privacy and amenity for permanent residents, increased noise, traffic, on-street parking, and conflict of uses, we are going to have to go to the expense of introducing a local ward to deal with the excesses of behaviour that comes from some of these properties.
00:20:00 And by converting permanent residents into a place where visitor accommodation can occur, we are also increasing the potential for another site where this disruption can occur in a residential neighbourhood. I'll be supporting the staff advice to refuse this particular application for short-term accommodation. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, that's a good answer. Each planning application that comes before us must be assessed on its own planning merits and assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme at the time of the application. This application was lodged in April 29, 2021. At that time, STAs were supported by Council and weren't even considered controversial.
00:21:00 I refer in particular to the approvals that we as a Council recommended and were supported. The majority of Councils recommended and supported by staff in Hill Street, Sunshine Beach, that was approved on 22 September 2020. Robert Street, Noosaville, approved 18 February 2021, and Namagai Street, Noosaville, that was approved March 18, 2021. Council officers stated in those approvals that short-term accommodation meets the strategic outcomes of the planning scheme. They also stated compliance with the strategic outcomes of the planning scheme. The same codes that we are now stating, STAs don't comply with. Planners and their applicants were guided by these planning decisions and this information. I also want to refer to the ordinary meeting held on 15 July 2021, where a resolution was carried by the Mayor, Council Jurisevic, Stockwell, myself, and Council Finzel, to approve an application for a short-term accommodation.
00:22:00 This is an application to allow short-term accommodation use at No. 2 Nollar Street in Noosaville. Nollar Street is situated less than 200 metres from 3032 Cobble Shire. It's located within the same zone, which is Meadham Den City residential, and it was approved. In that application, Council concluded that No. 2 Nollar Street sufficiently met the planning scheme, that it would not result in detrimental impacts to the surrounding area, and it would ensure that Meadham Den City residential neighbourhoods are predominantly home to permanent residents. I always advise that the applicant in Cobble Shire was in the early stages of this application process.
00:23:00 When he lodged and prepared the application, and he relied on this decision. So, STA short-term accommodation, whether we need it or not, that's not what we're deciding here. At the heart of this decision today is consistency in decision making and application to the planning scheme, whether it's consistent or not. We should not be refusing this application for short-term accommodation. In my opinion, when it is consistent use, and considering the recent past STA approvals, and again, in particular, an approval for a like development, 156 metres, I said 200 metres, actually 156 metres down the road. Last month, and I repeat what the Mayor said, last month we resolved to work on data and empirical research to inform any policy changes. This is the body of work that we need to do to substantiate that.
00:24:00 The fact that Noosa is facing a challenge in regards to housing affordability and availability should not be the reason why we've changed our approach to the planning scheme and retained individual applications. We should not be influenced by other matters that sit outside the performance outcomes and assessment framework that exists within the Noosa Plan. The application before us complies with the Noosa Plan 2020. It's supported by previous short-term approvals given by Council during the same period, and it's supported by an almost like approval that we gave in Noola Street, Noosaville. For this reason, I will support the Mayor's motion to approve the application for short-term accommodation. Councillor Jurisevic: If no one else is going, I'll step up.
00:25:00 I won't be supporting the Mayor's motion, and I refute the arguments that the Mayor put forward. In fact, I think the Mayor contradicted herself in the economic viability of adding another short stay. Tourism providers are hurting. Speaker 5: All the accommodation areas that we have now are hurting. Councillor Jurisevic: And yet, we want to add another short stay to the provision. So, I refute that argument, Mayor. And I also refute that argument, Mayor. I refute the argument that it isn't affordable. What evidence do you have as to what the long-term rental viability of a property here might be? And that availability providing an opportunity for another family to take up, or several families to take up residence here, that might be in accommodation that might not suit them elsewhere. The arguments are subjective and not based on fact. The difference between Nola Street, and that I see to the area here, is that section of the Cockle Shell and that section of Sylvia Street are butting Gibson Road,
00:26:00 are clearly all residential properties, and no short stays within. Sure, there might be commercial properties on Thomas Street are butting them, Speaker 4: but they're not accommodation providers. Councillor Jurisevic: They are nine-to-five business-type operations that residences won't be impacted by at night and all the rest of it. So, I see quite a difference between Nola Street, where there was short stay accommodation across the road, and the area of the Cockle Shell, Sylvia Street, and bounded by Gibson Road in here. And I support the staff's recommendation to refuse this, because it would introduce short stays into an area where short stays currently don't exist. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just briefly, they are always 50-50 decisions. The strategic outcome for housing choice talks about neighbourhoods and permanent housing are protected from short-term visitor accommodation that will impact on the amenity enjoyed by residents.
00:27:00 And at the General Committee, I highlighted that the Noosaville Local Plan Code, unlike the one for the coastal areas, doesn't have the next step down, which is Performance Outcome 15 in the coastal communities, but it talks about areas. And that's the key. The difference between this one and Nola Street is, in my view, there is clear differentiation in the nature of the neighbourhood in this part of Cockle Shell. This is a part of the Cockle Shell, which I believe is essentially a permanent housing area, as opposed to Nola Street, which was in the middle of an area that was essentially a holiday accommodation zone. And that's the consistent approach I've taken from the time the scheme was adopted and will continue to take. Councillor Finzel: I will be supporting the Mayor today.
00:28:00 The subject site accommodation has been identified as a consistent use with the applicable zone. I'm not going to drill down to the details around that. I am not a planner. I'm here and I've been voted here by my constituents that put me here to look at the whole plan. I'm here to look at the whole picture and make good decisions. When I came into Council, I ratified the plan, based on the fact that we could make amendments to the plan along the way. May I cast your mind back, when we came into Council, we were in COVID. This Council had to make decisions without any solid facts beneath our feet, and together we have made good decisions, I believe, in my opinion, for this community. We moved along, we've made decisions, and business, as usual, has gone forward. A housing crisis has resulted, not just in the Noosa Shire, but globally.
00:29:00 The matter before us here today is about these planning applications. But I would like to raise my awareness to the higher vision and expectation of where we're going to be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. I'm debating tonight around the issue of the fact that we are waiting for the State, who I may remind you is their role to be dealing with the issues of affordable housing, social housing, housing for our most disadvantaged. That is the State's job. We are having to do heavy lifting right here, right now, to step into a space where we need to look after the people on the ground. We are the servants to the State and the Federal Government. We are the servants to the State and the Federal Government. In all tiers of government, we're the closest to the ground to hear the heartbeat of our people, to see the struggles, to feel the pain, and respond as best we can with what lies before us. I'm supporting the Mayor today, and do you know why? Because she is the Mayor.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 She stands in that place where she looks across the land and she goes, what is best right now, in this time, in this place? I believe that we need to support the Mayor and the staff to move forward, put the recommendations to the State, and look at how that's going to come together, and wait for the evidence and the data to inform the plan, to get the best outcome that we can get for this community, now and into the future. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: That's a hard act to follow, Councillor Finzel. I feel like cheering, but I don't know. Very grousing, thank you. You're welcome. Tom, I talked about the town plan, it is consistent, it really is. And Frank and Jo and Blakey talked about and brought up, you're right, you're right. At the moment, that's a problem. We're not forward thinking. We're making decisions now that will have implications, not just for the next 12 months, not when we have those high vacancy rates, for the next 5, 10, 15 years. What we decide on this property stays with that property.
00:31:00 So when everyone comes back and COVID's over, and let's hope it's sooner rather than later, this town will be full again, and we will be crying out. So that's short term thinking. You've got to think long term. So thank you for drawing that to my attention. And you're right, at the moment. But we can't think about planning, and we can't make these decisions at the moment. We have to be forward thinking, and we have to think about 10, 20 years down the track. Now, the numbers weren't actually for this in the general meeting. It was a three all and a casting vote was used. Hence the reason I brought it forward tonight, because we have all councillors at the table, so that it's fair and prudent. We have no idea what the market will do if we don't make this, if we don't ratify this. As I said, we can't control that. We don't own this property. The developer does. You might just close up. But as I've said, I've talked about it. I want to say it again. We can't control what will happen to this property. All we can look at is what is before us. What it complies with. And it complies.
00:32:00 Now, as Councillor Lorentson said, at the time this was lodged, we had approved short term accommodation and media density for the majority of people at this table. That's called fair play. That's called being consistent. And that's what we must act on tonight. This is impact accessible. Councillor Grismitch talked about the amenity. There is no, in that area behind that, there is a street full of commercial properties. I know so because my husband works in one of them. Backs onto a car park. No amendment is affected. No one's affected. In the interests of fairness, of consistency, of balance, and of fair play, and of being consistent in our decision making, and of looking long term, we must approve this with conditions. I'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour?
00:33:00 Councillors Lorentson, Finzel, Stewart against. Councillor Jurisevic, Wilkie, Stockwell, Wegener. Motion moved. Thanks. Okay. So, item two. Speaker 4: So the suggestion would be, the motion is in relation to adaptation. We need motion. Speaker 5: I'll move the motion to refuse, as in the general committee report, please. I'll second the motion. Thank you, councillors. Look, we've pretty well had the debate about this, the reasons why some of us have been plagued with approving, and some of us have been plagued of refusing. I think that long term, when the situation changes, this community will not be crying out for more visitor accommodation, and if we do more of the same, we'll be crying out for permanent accommodation. That's what we're crying out for now, and that's what is only going to be exacerbated
00:34:00 going forward, especially if we continue to approve more short term accommodation. There's large numbers of short term accommodation approved under delegated approval of authority, also existing use rights. We've seen the numbers, close to 5,000 across the Shire, used for purposes other than permanent residential. The game has changed, councillors, since the planning scheme was introduced, and the staff are applying a more complete understanding of the planning scheme than we have, and that makes this use inconsistent against many measures contained within the planning scheme. Yes, it was called a consistent use, impact assessable. When those impacts are assessed, all other elements of the planning scheme are taken into account. This sort of use is deemed inconsistent under the current use of planning scheme.
00:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: I won't speak and repeat what I've already said. I do want to just make a correction to Councillor Wilkie. I think I raised the same issue at the general meeting. The applicant seeks to make a change to the approval to include short term accommodation. That is, he's providing both permanent and short term accommodation. That's why it's been sought for approval. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you for that, Councillor Ernston. And that's the applicant's right. He owns the property, or she owns the property. So they may use it, permanent accommodation. They may use it to rent out to four families. They may not. They're right, they paid for it, they built it.
00:36:00 We don't have a clear understanding at the moment. That's why we've organised and begged for and are receiving a housing assessment report because we don't have a clear understanding. We didn't even know that 49%. There was a big discrepancy in what 49% means. Well, it took us three meetings to find out that that meant from 0.7 to 1%. So there is misunderstanding across the board about what the facts and figures are because we haven't yet received that data. It's in the process of being done. And until we receive that housing report, which all of us have recommended and requested, we can't make a decision with clear understanding. We can only make a decision on what we have before us. And this is a consistent use. This is what we have, in the past, agreed to, approved. This is an impact-accessible application with no submissions against it.
00:37:00 No. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, we'll go to the matter here. There is a clear difference in the neighbourhood where this property is situated. It is, as Councillor Stockwell alluded, predominantly residential. And a residential hell-trap there. The difference between the properties and, as the councillors have said, we view these on their merits. We view each application individually. And here is the difference between the properties. This is an application that, in my opinion, is different from the ones that we've approved in the past. And for that reason, I support the staff recommendation to refuse this for short stays. There is a clear difference from the ones that we have dealt with in the past. And there will be a clear difference between the ones that we're going to deal with tonight. There will be discrepancy between the level of approval that we have
00:38:00 and the ones that we do and don't approve. And here is one that I believe the staff have got right in refusing. So I'm going to support the staff recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Item 2. Development application for material change of use for short-term accommodation at Tewantin, Cooroy, Pozen, Sunrise Beach. Item 3. MCU20-0155 Representation for development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation at 75 Williams Road, Kin Kin. Item 4. MCU20-0149 Representation for development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation
00:39:00 at 29 Ferguson Street, Sunshine Beach. Item 5. MCU17-002.02 and OPW17-0035.02 Application for another change for development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just trying to find it again from the original report. Mayor Stewart: I'm going to say to everyone in pain, I've done three of the same items. So this, if all the reasons mentioned earlier, I move that, and I know this is just behind in an area that does have, seems to be an excuse, has bounced just behind it, it's the closing shots. I don't, actually I have a question, staff, was there any submissions in regards to this?
00:40:00 Speaker 3: Yes, there were five submissions. Mayor Stewart: That's right, thank you, thank you, thank you. For all reasons mentioned, for the position, but more for the point that it is in light and fair play of the judge's decision. It is thus equitable and consistent if we approve it until we have cold card evidence and that assessment report in our popular hands. Council of Lawrence and Finzel Stewart, all against. Council of Jurisevic, Wilkie, Stockwell and Wegener. Anyone like to? Speaker 5: We'll come, Madam Mayor, I'll move the refusal motion, pair by staff.
00:41:00 And following the Mayor's lead, I'll make my point, the reasons for refusal are all laid out there. My reasons are, the main seller, to refusing to go to the other application, I'll leave it at that for the time being. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to just state my position or interpretation of overall outcome 2A that's been referenced quite a bit. We, tonight, have this meeting about what the overall outcome saw from the meeting density residential studies. Quote, meeting density residential label was a predominantly high-natured permanent residence. My position or interpretation of that is, that if the predominant nature of the area is residential, then short-term accommodation is consistent, which is contrary to some of the positions that have been explained today.
00:42:00 So, I just wanted to add that. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Council of Lawrence and Finzel. Anyone else? Council of Willis. Council of Wilkie, would you like to comment? I'd like to comment. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to vote for a staff recommendation. Council Drislevich, CLWKY, Stockwell, Wegener, all against? Council of Lawrence and Finzel, Stuart. Item 6, go and visit fifth period traffic management at Christmas 2021-2022 and Easter 2022. Item 7, proposing lease on shop 8 Sunrise, Maple Ridge shopping centre. Thank you, Council Drislevich. Councillor Jurisevic: Chair, I'd like to move the staff recommendation. Sorry, the general recommendation. Sorry, the general committee recommendation with a clause F, and that is to request that the CEO provide a report to a future council meeting on the pros and cons of council retaining ownership of the shopping centre, but note that such a report would not be undertaken until the commercial lease of Shop 8 has commenced.
00:43:00 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. The reason being that this, in my mind, this isn't a space that council necessarily needs to be in. The challenges of being the owners of the Sunrise Beach Shopping Centre have been many and varied over time, and having a long-term usage and a lease that we haven't been able to fulfil, many of the community have argued that council shouldn't be in this space. Council got into this space because nobody would build a shopping centre over 20 years. There was a neighbourhood shopping centre that was required. It's great that council got into that space, but council isn't a landlord for commercial purposes, or shouldn't be, as far as I'm concerned. And look, I just wanted to say that the opportunity here is for us to actually review whether council should be in this space.
00:44:00 There are pros and cons to council retaining ownership of this shopping centre, but there are also opportunities that the sale of the shopping centre could, realise to council without having a report before us, and an understanding of what the pros and cons may be. I believe there's an opportunity here to at least request that report to come to council, and so that we can review the further future ownership by council of the shopping centre. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I've got a question. Thanks, Michael. Michael, what's our return? Speaker 2: R.O.I. for this period of time? Currently, eight per cent. Mayor Stewart: And if we put that money in the bank, what would we, what percentage return would we have? Speaker 2: Point three, sorry, point three per cent, currently. Mayor Stewart: So currently we're getting eight per cent, and with the injection of IGA and the new tenant, we see there'll be some teeming, what will be the potential return then?
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Speaker 2: You'd be looking at over ten per cent. Once the 12-month rent-free period ends and $150,000 a year comes through as rent from the IGAs. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. What does the income fund, in terms of council services, does it have an impact on rates paid by ratepayers? Speaker 2: Yep, through the Chair, the currently, the current budget, excluding any shop aid income, because we didn't have that lease, $150,000 net bottom line, benefit to the budget. So obviously assuming the marginal, you know, there are some costs of a new lease, so once they're factored in and the new shop aid lease takes effect in 12 months, obviously will be around the $300,000, 0.6 per cent, equivalent of a 0.6 per cent general rate increase.
00:46:00 Probably one comment I'd like to make in terms of the proposed amendment is that the report included some rationale behind why council would invest $600,000 to $700,000 in increasing the footprint for this lease. The numbers or the financial modelling basically said, look, you're looking at a six to seven year payback. So me being a financial adviser would say, look, you're looking at a six to seven year payback. So me being a financial adviser would say, look, you wouldn't touch, if you're going to invest $600,000 to $700,000 now, you don't start looking at options to divest this asset. You wait at least until you get to your six year period. Possibly I'd recommend 10 years because it's an NPV, positive NPV over 10 years. You're not getting a positive NPV over five years because, as you know, with cash flows, the benefit are in the outer years because your upfront investment is being paid back as the longer you get a return on that asset.
00:47:00 So my recommendation would be that you either do your review now, divest, do not invest. However, then you're jeopardising the potential tenant who will get here and an IGA for the shop. Councillor Lorentson: Michael, can you clarify and just give your opinion? The report is a recommendation for a potential lessee. That's not been secured. So we've agreed that we would love IGA to be our lessee, but those negotiations haven't taken place. My concern, and I'll ask if it's something I should be concerned about, is that including this amendment, will it raise some uncertainty or some concerns to the potential lessee, the IGA store?
00:48:00 Do we risk maybe losing him is what I'm asking? And is it worth the risk? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, I probably don't like to give an opinion, but it's potentially, you know, obviously it would create potential uncertainty for the management. In terms of the negotiations. Speaker 5: I'll speak to that. Thanks. You can ask it after the time is up. Look, I think Councillor Lorentson's question goes to the heart of it. We are in, the staff have been negotiating with IGA. We've been trying to secure a tenant there for a long time. These are very uncertain times. The Council's about to invest $650,000 to $700,000 to expand the facility, to accommodate the new tenant. And in the same motion, we're also looking at investigating whether we divest ourselves of this. I think it sends mixed messages. It's already a very uncertain climate. I will not support the motion with item F because of the mixed messages it sends and
00:49:00 the instability it may create in the mind of the potential lessee. Councillor Finzel: Thanks. Michael, I just have a question. Correct me if I'm wrong. Was it $340,000? Was it $340,000 without a tenant in that space? Speaker 2: Yep. Through the Chair, that's approximately correct. Yes. Councillor Finzel: And during that time, what was the economic losses to Council because that tenancy was empty? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, looking at, obviously, market rentals have changed over the last few years, but potentially up to half a million dollars over that period. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I won't be supporting this. I don't want to jeopardise this amendment. I think we want a surety in the marketplace. We would prefer to see this space filled. I think we've got a good opportunity on the table. And a lot of hard work by staff and the applicant has been undertaken.
00:50:00 And I would not want to jeopardise that at this point in time with the request for a review. So I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, I'd like to move an amendment if I could. That would be the motion as it reads in the ordinary meeting agenda. So delete I and F. And move the motion. So the amendment which reflects the motion in the ordinary meeting agenda. Moved and seconded. Councillor Jurisevic: The point of order Madam Chair, I'll ask the CEO here. The fact that we haven't voted on this or given this matter consideration, is it appropriate to move an amendment to remove an item that hasn't been budgeted on? Speaker 4: The good answer is yes. What you can't do with an amendment is to directly negate or change the overall substance. My advice to councillors is removing the item F doesn't change the overall substance of what this report and issue is about, which is about relief.
00:51:00 Speaker 5: Look, to speak to the amendment, I don't think it would have been what I said before, but I do appreciate Councillor Jurisevic's thinking on this. He's always looking at options. The best, getting the best return for rate payers. Is it right that council remains in this space? Could there be a better return to council if it divests themselves of that asset or continue on with it and continue to have the rates offset by the amount of income that council receives? It's a valid question. I just think it's the wrong place and time to be including that in this particular motion. We're trying to secure this lease in this, this property at this,
00:52:00 at this time. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to the amendment. The reason that the clause is in there is because of all of the reasons, the questions that were raised to our finance staff alluded to. The amendment wasn't to raise the concern of anybody. It was to look at the pros and cons of rotating ownership and when or if it would be feasible at any stage in the future to look at if it would be prudent to own or not own this shopping centre. It doesn't mean it has to be. It might happen next year. It might happen six years down the track when we've done our due diligence and we've invested and all the rest of it. That's what the report would indicate and that's what the report would bring forward. Not the sort of speculation that councillors are alluding to here, but a full report would indicate when it may be prudent to consider that sort of thing.
00:53:00 That's the sort of thing I was suggesting. I said I have a personal view on council's ownership of this space. That's part of the reason for bringing it forward. And I believe that there are other opportunities to be done with the funds that are there that may come out of a commercial sale sometime in the future. And that's why I thought the value of a report alluding to the pros and cons of council rotating ownership of the shopping centre would be a prudent time to request that once the shop had been leased. And to look at what the returns and all of those commercial questions that the councillors have all been putting to finance staff could be addressed and could be considered. So I appreciate that councillors see this as some sort of potential for warding off a potential new tenant. But I don't see it as that. I just see it as prudent investment strategy going forward to see whether or not council should ultimately,
00:54:00 the pros and cons of retaining ownership of the shopping centre. Councillor Wegener: Question for Joe. Wouldn't you be more interested in selling the shops if the lease didn't go through? Councillor Jurisevic: I don't know, Tom. I don't have a report on the pros and cons before me. I don't have the data. We've been talking about, you know, council's been talking about data and print. I just want some data in front of me to consider about the pros and cons before me. Maybe for the future, I should pop this up. Councillor Wegener: The reason I bring that up is because it wouldn't be undertaken until the commercial lease, you know, has been signed. And I agree with you. Council is out of its space owning this shopping centre when it becomes a profitable thing. We step in in situations where the private market, private business will not touch something
00:55:00 like this. But if we can sell it, we can sell it. We can sell it. Whether it's at least or not least. Well, I think that's always on the cards. Because if somebody wants to buy it, we can cash out and put money into another project in the space that we belong. I agree. Speaker 4: Well, I'll turn to Nicky. Mayor Stewart: I'll switch this. A prudent investment strategy is not divesting an asset worth 8% to 10% return for 0.3% return. That's a prudent investment strategy. Disagree wholeheartedly with what Councillor Wheaton just said, where we step in with the private market, theirs not touch. What does that mean? Private market won't touch it. So therefore we come in and we spend rate payer money on something that doesn't make any money, that costs our rate payer. If anything else, then we need to be more prudent in the private investment. So we didn't go to the tape. We need to be more prudent. Because we're not playing with our money. We're playing with rate payer money. So if the private market won't touch it, then we sure as hell shouldn't.
00:56:00 That's non-negotiable. We have to be so prudent because this is not our money. And we need to be fiscally responsible. And a prudent investment strategy, as I said, is not divesting of an asset making you 8% or 10% return. So potentially to do what with it? To get 0.3% of the bank. Councillor Finzel: We have to think long term. Mayor Stewart: And we have to think how we can be financially sustainable. And divesting this asset certainly doesn't do that. Councillor Wilkie, I agree with your amendment. I think we need to be supportive. We're at a very precarious time in negotiations. And we need to be very careful going forward. So I support the amendment by Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to just remind councillors of the amendment that I moved at the general meeting, which was E. And it probably goes to the heart of where Joe's going to, which
00:57:00 I asked the CEO to look at potential options, short term and long term options for the ongoing future enhancement of the shopping centre site to improve its commercial return and its role in the Sunrise Beach area. Purpose of adding that. Was to that we have a responsibility. We own the asset. And rather than it sitting there derelict, let's look at opportunities, low cost options and other options to improve our return on investment. I also included that because as landlord and as, you know, the community bank, we also have a responsibility to the tenants, the other tenants, other than the potential IGA tenant. So that amendment was added. It was added also for their benefit. I would love to see them have a return on their investment by us improving, giving the place a facelift, adding some shade, adding a park bench. And then long term, you know, again, if we're not getting a good return on money, if our
00:58:00 money can make, is best left in a bank, then we consider other options. But I, but this is a great investment. And for that reason, I won't support the amendment and I will support, support Councillor Wilkie's amendment number one. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Question to Michael. Michael Shane. When we invested in the NAC, the New South Water Centre, or the Leisure Centre, Leisure Centre, we weren't looking at that as a commercial return. That was a for profit enterprise. That was, we were looking at that as a service to the community. Speaker 2: Through the Chair. Is that a question? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Speaker 2: The, they're considered community assets, of course, which are, I think, fundamentally
00:59:00 different to things like the shops, which are more of a commercial, commercial business of Council, which are obviously, they have different purposes, different investments. Yeah. Different types where community assets, you know, Council does fund those activities from general rate, where, where they don't make a return. So that's, I think they're fundamentally, fundamentally different infrastructure here that we're talking about. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Do any other local councils own shopping centres? I know it's quite a trend actually over in places like England, where councils are stepping in, you know, shopping centres. Where private sector isn't to revitalise and regenerate communities, actually. Does the Sunshine Coast or Bimby Council, do they own shopping centres? Speaker 4: Short answer to that, there's a range of councils across Australia who have different sort of commercial arms. Gullan the Shire Council is one of the biggest ones, where they own multiple shopping centres.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 But you also have councils out west who might own a pub or a butcher shop or whatever it might be. So airports. So it really depends on the nature of the service or the need to be in those places. A lot of councils use those commercial activities to get a return to offset rates and things like that. But there is a real range of that sort of commercial activity across the country. Caravan Park, you know, there's a lot of that type of quality commercial to try and create more revenue. Thank you. Speaker 5: Councillor Stockwell. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This debate's got a little bit interesting. There's two aspects to what this amendment does. It removes Councillor Jurisevic's suggestion that we look at the principle of council reducing the impost on rate payers by having a commercial asset that is returning. And the suggestion that we, as councillors, need a report that weighs up the benefits
01:01:00 of sale and return. Can I say, looking at those two people, they've done that assessment and they've come to the conclusion that the benefits to the rate payer as an alternative source of revenue is in leasing. So there's that. But then there's the broader principle, which is the one that is quite rightly debated, is about the role of council in different forms of economic development or different assets. You know, if we do give that $3 million, could we invest that $3 million? Can we invest it in another football field? No. I shouldn't say that to you. But the issue there is that we have limited ability to reduce the impost of the works and the capital works we need to do on the rate payers. And one of them is taking maximum advantage of the land we already have.
01:02:00 And so this is one asset we already have. We've got a smother of land. We've got a smother of land. The context is, probably from the 70s to the 90s, Council developed a lot of Noosa Heads. Council owned the land between Noosa Dry and Kew Yall Street. Now imagine if we didn't sell that now. Imagine if we were getting $800 to $1000 a week off every house in there. We'd probably be rate free. We'd probably be able to fund all we need to do by being commercial landlords. And to me there is, you know, part of this decision in this amendment is about saying, do we want to continue to have alternate revenue streams by making wise investments with what we own? The answer is yes. Speaker 5: Question. Is Council Stockwell suggesting Council invest in short term accommodation properties?
01:03:00 Councillor Jurisevic: He got you there. Speaker 5: It was a silly question, wasn't it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm currently responding. A good point that we'd have to consider that from an ethical perspective. Mayor Stewart: Does anyone else like to speak? Does the member of the full council want to be closest? No, thank you. Okay, we'll put the amendment for vote. All in favour? Councils Lawrence and Finzel, Wilkie, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart against. Speaker 4: 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1. Mayor Stewart: That forms the original motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a nice little practical question that's come through from a rate payer. In your report you're talking about increasing the footprint of Shop 8 from 305 to 500 metres squared. I presume at this stage of the lease negotiations there's no detailed plan. But is there an indication of where that expansion is going to be?
01:04:00 Is it, say, to the north, to the behind the shops? Or is it? And have we done the original scan? I think 500 square metres is the maximum in that zone. But just I suppose that the query from local residents is we're not going to go into any ? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, yeah. I think it's the preliminary work is that it's not going to go into implementation. It's going to be the impact on environmental areas. It'll be, I think, from memory potentially to the north. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would think that that area would be probably a 10-metre extension. Yes. ? Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Now, the only people who are exposed to this original are us as Joe, Frank and Alan. So you have the original motion. Joe. Speaker 4: Frank. And Karen. Mayor Stewart: Yes. So would anyone else like to speak to the original?
01:05:00 Could I put it to a vote? Or in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: Write a reply. I'm sorry. Mayor Stewart: Beg your pardon. Sorry, Councillor Sledge. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I appreciate where your staff are at with this. And I think this is a great move forward. I agree to enter into terms for the long-term leasing of this Shop 8. It's long overdue. And I look forward to seeing full occupancy of the Sunrise Beach Shopping Centre sooner rather than later. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. The motion resolution is all in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you, Karen. Thank you, Mark. Item 8, SPS 21-0290, requested by the Superceded Planning Spinning, Commercial Business Start 1 Office Cut to Medical and Retail Business Start 4 showroom in 28 Union Creek Road, Noosaville, Lot 2. Item 9, SPS 21-0291, requested by the Superceded Planning Spinning, Commercial Business Start
01:06:00 1 Office and Type 2 Medical at 28 Union Creek Road, Noosaville, Lot 22. Item 10, NCU 21-0013 and OPW 21-0031, application for material change of use, multiple dwelling unit times 19. Food and drink outlet, indoor sport and recreation. Health care service, office and operational works for stormwater management, access, parking, earthworks and frontage works. . Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, I, Councillor Jurisevic, declare that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as the matter is a planning application for a Doonella Street property that is at least in part owned by Chris Wright, as I understand it. My family and I have had a close relationship with Chris Wright and his family over the years that we have lived in Tewantin. The nature of the relationship stems from my wife having worked for Chris's wife, Kelly, and in the same office where Chris's business is currently located. Kelly was also the Treasurer at Sunshine Beach State High School P&C during my term as P&C
01:07:00 President. My wife and I have attended Chris and Kelly's wedding, as well as several social gatherings at each other's houses over the years as our children were close friends and attended the same playgroup in schools growing up. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and vote advised. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Gristich. Speaker 5: Madam Chair, I'm happy to make a staff recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Seconded by Councillor Patten, Councillor Wainwright. Yes. Speaker 5: Look, legal advice is that the deed of agreement about the two key conditions here is insufficient to guarantee any social housing on the site and won't prevent these units from being placed on the site. Without that guarantee, we're looking at just another proposal for speculative inappropriate development in the long place, contrary to the planning scheme or intended amendments. The Council is prepared to negotiate to gain social housing on the site and is looking at amending the planning scheme to address this real need. Staff advised a lot before planning has gone into identifying the site as well suited to
01:08:00 including a social housing component, being close to transport, shops and services. To approve this in its current form, I would ask that the City Council make a motion to Thank you to all of you who have contributed to the development of this site, to provide for the most vulnerable in our community, and add real value to the housing leaks in the area. The ever-present push for development of all costs has been something this community has successfully managed for decades, and the reason why Noosa looks and feels different to cities and other heavily developed coastal towns. Refusing this application sends a clear message for future negotiation that Council is serious about gaining equitable social housing outcomes on the site. We can't say we're looking at innovative ways to provide social housing through a range of means, including negotiation, and then go and lose this opportunity the first chance we get, whether that be through a lack of understanding or the issue of a hard-wired commitment to development of all costs. Do our words match our deeds? Refusing this would show that they do.
01:09:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Will the other question start? How close did we get in negotiations with the applicants? Speaker 3: I think we got pretty close. There was a lot of work put in by staff and the applicant in trying to reach agreement around a deed of agreement that would ensure these units are used on an ongoing basis for social housing. There was only two matters where we were apart, and unfortunately we couldn't meet. I think perhaps if we had a little bit more time, that might have assisted, but the applicant doesn't feel that way. They have indicated they're not agreeable to extend the decision period. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 4: Can I maybe just add to that, Mayor? The other thing, obviously, is if this resolution is successful in terms of a refusal and the applicant hasn't appealed right, the issues that really are at stake here aren't necessarily planning issues, they're legal issues about how you get security in terms of that certainty.
01:10:00 If there is an appeal, I'd imagine that that process would probably facilitate the finalisation of a successful negotiation. That would be my hope, you know. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, yeah, it is a catch-22 situation we're in. We have a developer who has, I believe, genuinely tried to respond to where we think we're heading with the scheme amendment in the future, which is to identify this site as being suitable for social housing. We have a development which is, I suppose our staff have said it doesn't meet the current zoning.
01:11:00 And we, you know, it's the, while there's some difference of opinion, the refusal conditions, I suppose, are valid. But it doesn't also distract from the fact that we are really keen to get more housing, and at the moment, housing in this location is probably a good outcome if we can get a social housing report. That is why we're looking at the scheme amendment. It is a site that could be used in a variety of fashions under the current scheme. I think what the CEO points out is a critical thing. It is really hard to do last-minute legal negotiations. Negotiations on matters when we're within a development control deadline. And so it's unfortunate we can't get to a position where we agree and we can be confident that we'll get the outcome
01:12:00 that would warrant the discretion necessary to approve it under the current zoning. But it is, obviously, that was the choice of the applicant for us to get to a decision point today. And for me, I can't disregard the legal advice that we have been given. That it is, the risk is, without, was going to a deed without the two conditions that are in dispute, are sufficient that I'm willing, not willing to take that support any further. Mayor Stewart: Yes. I agree with the staff's recommendation to a busy application. It's really difficult to say that because I think what is proposed here,
01:13:00 19 multiple dwelling units is something this community really needs. But as Councillor Walton said, we can't just approve development for development's sake. If we're genuine in our need for affordable housing, for social housing and potentially for SBA housing, special disability accommodation, then we must have some security and some safety blankets around those words and those intentions. And to do that, we need a deed. And until we have a signed deed, we don't have that security and that safety. And it really pains me that we haven't been able to reach an agreement. But I do want to thank staff because I know they worked really hard. And the applicant is genuine in his intentions. And I'm still somewhat hopeful that after this meeting, we can reach a workable solution. But like Councillor Stockwell and Wilkie, I can't approve this without having that genuine intention or knowledge that we will at least receive four apartments for the specific purposes
01:14:00 of affordable SBA housing. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to speak to this. I think everyone's got the gist from the general meeting that I would love to see this application proceed. We've got in front of us a recommendation for a refusal because it's the position of Council and also the position of our solicitors that a signed deed of agreement is required to provide the certainty that the four units proposed are to be used for special disability accommodation. I'm challenged by this position and I believe that the application should go ahead without a deed of agreement. And I would like to present my reasons for your consideration. First, the deed of agreement is not, in my opinion, necessary when you've got a special disability accommodation scheme that provides a ton of financial incentive for the applicant
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 to deliver the product. Other reason is the social and economic benefits delivered by this proposal, in my opinion, outweigh the risk of four units not being delivered for social and SBA accommodation. We've been working with this applicant, a local of 20 years, in good faith since 2019 to help him deliver this project and get it over the line. The applicant didn't agree to further negotiations because he simply lost trust. He didn't have the confidence and faith in the negotiations. For this reason, he requested that this project, which promises to deliver for SBA apartments and maybe more, be assessed on its own planning merits without the deed of agreement. He's presented an assessable application that, in my opinion, meets community needs and adheres to the Noosa Town Plan. Council, in the report, raised some concerns, in particular, with regards to the proportion
01:16:00 of commercial floor space with this proposal. I want to raise some points that I don't think were raised at the general meeting, but two years ago, this site was 100% residential. There was an approval that was given by Council for 16 residential units only. That approval only lapsed last year, in 2020. The proposal that we've got in front of us adds 198 square metres of commercial land sheet to Tewantin. That's a lot of land. That's a lot of land, which is for new businesses. That means that Tewantin would have a higher percentage of business use of land than it did when the site was previously approved for with only 100% residential. Councillor Stockwell, you talked about the amendments to the Noosa plan, which staff have already started to prepare. It looks at resigning the land from district centre zone to community facility zone.
01:17:00 I interpret that as meaning Council does not believe that this site has a significant role to play in the future of the business function of the Noosa district. I interpret that as meaning we need more residential. I did some research, and I went back to our Briggs and Morda report. That's our current endorsed policy on housing needs. It's currently being updated, and I hope we get an updated version in October. That actually identifies small multiple dwellings as targeted development priorities to address the Shire's housing needs. It's a key recommended action for Council, and it's stated in that report, our current endorsed policy on housing needs. We talked a bit about affordability, and I want to just make a couple of comments in regards to affordability. 19 small units. Size 74 square metres, 98 square metres, will be more affordable to buy and will be
01:18:00 more affordable to rent than the median unit prices in the Tewantin and Noosa area. I go back again to the Morda and Briggs report, and it talks about affordable living options. I want to remind Councillors that location, and I'm quoting straight from the report, location is a key criteria and is considered to be as or more important than the dwelling. A lack of affordable housing can mean that people have to move to outer areas of the Shire, often meaning a loss of social supports and poor access to services. Affordable accommodation must be near transport and services. Apartments in town centres would be appropriate for some, including older people. It's not just affordable housing that is the issue. It's also affordable living. So yes, 19 small units in the middle of town provides affordable living housing options
01:19:00 to young people professionals who work long hours and even socialise outside their home. It provides affordable living housing options to elderly or single person households who need support services around them. As to the issue of precedence, concerns being raised that by approving this development application, we could be seeing the precedence that would seed the predominant function of the zone as a whole as being eroded over time. This was raised and discussed at the general meeting. My answer to that is, if that's the case, why don't we adopt the same approach we're taking at the moment with short term accommodation. Based on data and empirical research, and in the event that the bulk of that zone becomes residential, we draw the line of the sign in the sand and say enough is enough. And we then tell industry and community what is enough. 60% business, 40% residential.
01:20:00 I'm going to now talk about risk. We all keep talking about what's our appetite for risk. There's a concern that without this signed deed of agreement, we've got no guarantee that we're going to get these four SDA compliant units. Question I ask councillors today. Do the social and economic benefits delivered by this proposal outweigh the risk of four units not being delivered for social and SD accommodation? Let's do a what if. What if the four social housing units proposed are not delivered? What are we left with? We're left with 19 small units located near transport and support services and four new businesses in Tewantin. Question. Will 19 small units and four new businesses address or help the chronic shortage of housing in the Noosa region? Will this project improve the pathway for people with housing insecurity? Does this project tackle housing affordability, affordable living?
01:21:00 Will this project generate employment? And the most important question is, can we wait? So, councillors, worst case scenario. We're left with 19 small units and four new businesses in Tewantin. That's 19 units we don't currently have and four new businesses that provide jobs to our local economy. So, is this a risk that I'm prepared to take? I categorically say yes, because in my opinion, this is what I believe we are required to do amidst the housing crisis. And that is take urgent action and accept a calculated level of risk. The proposed mixed use development will add to the supply of smaller affordable residential units within the Tewantin town centre providing affordable living and is consistent with the
01:22:00 intent of the zone and should be approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. I ask you councillors to reconsider your position and vote no. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Laurenceton. A lot of the points you raised, we all agree are things we want to see. When we talk about appetite for risk, the risk for me lies in the fact that we don't have the assurity of the deed agreement with regards to the two conditions that will speak back to the state when we're trying to make the amendments on the very issues that the state originally refused. From my understanding is that what with the Coles site development with the 10%? Yeah, so we really need the deed of agreement to speak into the amendments moving forward. I think again, it's bigger, it's
01:23:00 vision thinking. I really wanted this to work. I really wanted to support this to move forward. But I think without the conditions being met, and a deed agreement being reached, that is my risk that I'm not prepared to take. And I do hope that the applicant can come back and can move forward with further considerations to provide that assurity. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Loughlin, you've been done. Speaker 5: Thank you. Look, Councillor Lorentson asked a very good question. What are we left with if this was approved? And what we're left with is a missed opportunity to get the outcomes that we're wanting on the site to get a social housing component. Affordable housing was talked about, as if if these years are put on the market, they will be purchased, so therefore they're affordable. But you can apply that same argument
01:24:00 to the whole of Noosa Shire. I think because properties in Noosa Shire to come on, as soon as they come, they're buying, being bought sight unseen. So they're affordable by somebody, but that's not the affordable housing that we're seeking in this context. There's a comment made about the approval being for 100% residential. It says in the previously two years ago, in the report, it says that in 2017, Council approved 10 units, the gross floor area of 816,000. square metres, but also commercial of 762 square metres. So there was a commercial component there as well. What, look, it's very easy to advocate for more and more development wherever the opportunity applies, and it's always going to serve a need, it's always going to be purchased. The demand for property in Noosa is so high that you can never slate that demand. So that's why I need to be strategic about what outcomes
01:25:00 we're wanting. And the staff have done a lot of work in identifying this site as being appropriate to be designed towards commercial facilities, not because they don't, sorry, community facilities, not because they don't think commercial is a viable outcome, but because a social housing outcome is seen as being even more desirable on this site. What are we missing? If we approve this, we're missing the opportunity to deliver these outcomes that we truly desire. Look, we all want, everyone around this site, at this table, wants this to work. There's no disputing that. But if we're genuine about gaining a component of social housing on the site, refusal is the only way to go at this stage of the process. Mayor Stewart: I'll give a motion to the vote. All in favour? Councillor Spinn is all for, if you'd stop for a while. Wait, no, Stuart, yes.
01:26:00 Thank you. Thank you, Kerri. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Item 11, Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Programme and Report Number 2. I'd like to deal with this item separately. So would I. Would someone like to move this item? I'd like to move the recommendation on page 20, Councillor Spinn. Councillor Jurisevic: That was a recommendation out of the... Oh, yes. Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam Mayor, I'll move it. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Okay.
01:27:00 Councillor Wilkie, would you like to talk to this? Speaker 5: Oh, look, this is a report from Open, the annual report. The benefits of the project are well known. This is a project that has even attracted the attention of the Federal Government with a very much appreciated investment of $1.2 million to also supplement the contribution upon... The philanthropic contribution from the Promise Foundation of $1.2 million to complement the Council's investment from the environmental levy, which is monies that can only be used for the purpose of improving the environment. I'm not the only councillor around this table who has come to understand that a project like this is the equivalent of a terrestrial rehabilitation project where we plant trees.
01:28:00 So just as trees in the forest clean and filter air and provide habitat for land-based creatures, so too do oyster reef ecosystems under the water. Clean and filter the water and also provide habitat for marine creatures and help improve the overall health of the river. I'll make a contribution to that. It is not a very big project. It is just a start on a journey towards more projects that are considered as a whole and with other projects like the Kin Kin and Kin Kin work being done up in the Kin Kin catchment where rehabilitation work has been done on the land to stop sediment flying into the Noosa River. So too will this project help with that. We're very lucky to have this opportunity. We're going to learn a lot from it. There are about 60 of these projects being done around the world, is my understanding,
01:29:00 by the Nature Conservancy. 13 around Australia. As custodians of the Noosa biosphere environment, I feel it's incumbent on us to take every opportunity to use science-based, fact-based, well-researched projects involving reputable organisations to not only maintain but also improve our inherited environment or even in a better situation for our children and our children's children. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to ask a question, Madam Chair, if I may. I listened to the debate that was had in Council as I wasn't in attendance on Monday. So from that, I derived some questions. So the first question, I'll ask it through the CEO, because I know the manager of the
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 environment section isn't with us today. So whether you can answer the question. My understanding, this is just the annual report for noting and that there is interest in it. Is there any funding milestone achieved by the presentation of the annual report? Speaker 4: So there's two parts to that question. The first is that, if not noting per se, what we're doing is approving the report as being the funding requirements. In other words, they require a report, and that is part of that process. The second is that there are no milestone payments triggered by this from Council as a result of this adoption. That will not occur until there's future milestone payments. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my next question. So what is the next funding milestone, and what has to be achieved to reach that point? Again, I'm not going to go into the details. Speaker 4: I don't have the report in front of me. Without going back, the Ontario Environmental Service will be able to answer that.
01:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Defer to the director, if I may, or the acting director, if I may. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is your turn, Mr Chair. I know you received an email from Greg. Just to clarify, yeah, tonight is obviously just to adopt the second annual report. There is no payment. The next payment is on the approval of the stakeholders' permits are received. No payment is due until that point. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you for clarifying. I will now. Now, I'm supportive of receiving and acknowledging the annual report number two. I think the achievements that have been reached to date, and this is meeting the requirements of the alliance and funding agreement of having to present the report and the outcomes that have been undertaken at this point. Councillor Wilkie well alluded to the benefits of the Noosa River Ecosystem Restoration Project and the potential for the future.
01:32:00 One of the things without green infrastructure being considered the same as other types of infrastructure is that we won't get the benefit of opportunities like this to look at this. We don't hesitate to restore environment such as trees. We've got the Ural and Ringtail Forest Project before us, which Council has jointly funded with other organisations to enhance trees for koalas. So that's trees for trees for habitat and retaining more parks and natural parks for the future of our children and future generations. This is exactly the same sort of a type of project rehabilitating an element that has been removed from the river. Turbulent time with, when storms and an inundation of air,
01:33:00 the river is turbid, and the turbidity is highlight. We know from the reports about the benthic lands suffering under sediment over time, the restoration of the oysters is a project that needs to be supported, and here is a wonderful annual report that tells us we're progressing. Yes, look, we've hit some challenges, but there's no funding associated with this until the state provide the permits. So I've got no hesitation in accepting the annual report before us, because I think it's a thorough and comprehensive understanding of where the project is today. Councillor Finzel: I'll just be brief, because we have covered a lot of this. Look, I agree with everything that's been said. The report, you know, provides some of the information we need to form our decision.
01:34:00 My challenge is around the wording with the resolution. It says it meets the requirements. If we haven't got the state permit, can someone tell me how it's reached the requirements of the funding agreement? Speaker 5: Will that be the provision of the annual report as part of the agreement on the requirements of the annual rights and funding agreement? Speaker 1: To you, through you, Chair, I'll do my best to answer. I understand the provision in the agreement is to table the annual report, or the second annual report in this case. And that it's actually just the actual table of that report is what you're actually approving today. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for the answer. But the wording says meeting the requirements. Isn't the state permit part of the requirements? That is part of the key milestones. And I know this conversation isn't around giving money today.
01:35:00 It says meeting the requirements. Speaker 4: So the requirement is that they need to provide an annual report, but the requirements aren't met. It's not about individual milestones. Speaker 5: If you have a look on the page, I'm just going to get the document up. Speaker 4: On the General Committee agenda on page 108, it talks about the second payment is due upon demonstrated achievement of measurable outcomes. And it lets those out. So this report isn't saying that they've been met. That would be where the next report is going to be. That's where the next funding issue is dealt with. What this recommendation is saying is that they have provided their annual report, which they're required to do so under the environmental funding plan. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So to clarify, the measurable outcomes have not been met, but today we're accepting the requirements of reporting as acceptable and reasonable. Speaker 4: Yeah, there are two different things. One is they're required to provide annual report, which is what they've done.
01:36:00 And the second is we don't need to provide annual reports. We don't need to make another payment until I've achieved those milestones, and they're the ones listed out on the page 108 there. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. No, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this? OK. I'm going to crack a joke. We can debate this until it's dead in the water. And I also notice it's been pre-emptive. We go down there. But look. This isn't actually what it is. This isn't like trees. Because you don't need state permits for that. Or perhaps you do when they obtain them. But you need state permits. And we can debate all day. And we can hear all day about the benefits of this and the benefits of that river. But the bottom line is there's no state permits. It's been ongoing now for two years. I've asked for this on numerous occasions as I alluded to in the general committee. Over 12 months ago, I sent an email. I read out the contents of that email stating that it would be effective and it would be
01:37:00 efficient. And those state permits would be a priority. The KPIs have changed. They've changed from July 2020 to December 2020. And here we are in September 2021 with still no state permits. That's crucial. Can't do anything unless we've got the state permits. They're the leaders in this space. We have $750,000 worth of rate pay money quarantined. On the hope that we will get state permits. Now, we know Moreton Bay haven't received state permits and other areas haven't received state permits. But yet we're being told that they're on their way. They're coming. We've been told that for 15 months. This is a project that's been on the go for over two years. Until we get state permits, we can't proceed. We've got money quarantined and we're at a standstill. They're the facts. And they have been smooth. Councillor Jurisevic: CEO, question please. Where did the funding for the oyster project come from that is, as the Mayor alluded to,
01:38:00 quarantined? Is it from general rate or is it from an environment levy? It's from the environment levy. So from the environment levy, there are only certain parameters for which that funding can be utilised for, as I understand. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Yes, the environment levy is different to general rate funding. It's going to be used for the purpose for which the environment levy sets out that purpose, which is a general range of environmental issues. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Mr CEO, $750,000 of the environmental levy, irrespective of you coming from there, being put aside for this project? Speaker 4: Yes, we'd have that in our books that we allocate that are now reserved, if you like, for the environment levy. That would be quarantined, if you like. Mayor Stewart: So that is exactly the word they use, quarantined. Thank you, Councillor. Does anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to ask one question, please.
01:39:00 On page 49 of the report, there's just a summary of total project expenditure. Where can we find more detail? Online items? Or is this it? Speaker 4: On page 49 of the report, there's just a summary of total project expenditure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to come from a completely different direction. Getting development approval 15 months was a long time 30 years ago. Getting development approval for a type of construction that is unusual while undesirable is understandable. I think what's really important to understand is it is ecological restoration, but from an ethical point of view it's also part of reconciliation.
01:40:00 And I'm going to read. Something from the 1800s and I'll change a few of the words to be more appropriate today's terminology. And it talks about a visit to the Noosa region the following year recorded. This is talking about 1876. Recorded that he came across large mounds of oyster shells within the Tewantin area of such significance they formed one of the lions or the ombuds of Tewantin. Other settlements worthy of mention, this is another report 1879, worthy of mention are Tewantin. A government owned, government township on Noosa Harbour, chiefly remarkable for the numerous aboriginal shell mints that are found in the vicinity. Evidence traces of former very dense populations. The face of one of these mounds, I may here parenthetically remark, forms a natural wall of considerable extent and is such used by a small steamer that flies weekly to and from Brisbane. And then in 1882.
01:41:00 Oysters are very petable for the environment. They can be found on the banks of the river at Tewantin for a depth of 12 or 13 feet, are entirely composed of oyster shells, which have no doubt been accumulated by the First Nations people. Charcoal and stone tomahawk having been found six feet below the surface. And then another comment. The extent of the resource used is further highlighted by reports that a navigable channel had been formed at Tewantin due to oysters being quickly thrown up from the riverbed. Later it talks about, and the one I'm looking for, has annual corroborees where indigenous people came from a far afield as Mirraburra to Tewantin because of the plentiful oysters. So even if you don't agree with the concept of ecological restoration, returning some
01:42:00 of what was. I'm not going to go into too much detail. But I think that's a key cultural resource and the site here being one of the proposals is worth waiting an extra few months for a development agreement. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Loughlin. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Loughlin. Councillors, in my opinion, we cannot profess with fine words to care for nurses' environment. We cannot make a decision. We cannot profess that we want to praise the groups who work tirelessly to improve the environment. We can't profess to be backing science-backed, fact-based initiatives, and wanting more and more reports of that nature and then oppose a project like this which so clearly offers the potential for environmental benefits, environmental
01:43:00 enhancement that has involved a lot of our communities. These are all community groups and they're working very hard on a voluntary basis as part of the host of work that's being done around this. We can't profess to want to support local businesses such as the ones that are providing the oysters or currently doing the contracting work and then oppose an opportunity like this to enhance the environment, provide the economic development, the local jobs that's involved and the educational opportunities and engagement that the local environment groups are helping us to deliver on this. It is, again, a situation of, to raise the question, do our fine words match our deeds? By supporting this, we can demonstrate that they do. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, I'm going to put the motion to vote on the data. Councillor Sturridge, Lord Peay, Stockwell.
01:44:00 I guess, Councillor Lorentson, Mr Finzel and Stewart, thank you everyone. Item 12, financial report, August 2021. Item 13, thank you Anthony, joining the Council of Mayors, SMQ. Item 14, Euro retail conservation programme, green flea and Kabi Kabi Inclusion. Speaker 5: I'll move the recommendation then, yeah? Mayor Stewart: Seconded. Thank you. There are no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. There are no confidential reports. I don't know, we have no submissions about the question time. Thank you everyone, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Week's meeting is held on Thursday the 21st of October 2021. Item 13 being closed at 6. 35 seconds.