Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Chair, when you are. Thank you. Welcome everybody to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. We begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or Gavi Gavi people. Pay our respects to the elders past, present and emerging. We have full attendance and no apologies. We have someone to confirm the minutes of the general committee meeting on the 13th of September please. Thank you Councillor Finzel, Secretary of Council. There are no presentations. We have no deputations. First item is the climate change response plan community reference group expressions. I'd like to just move that Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie. I'd like to move that Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie.
00:01:00 Councillor Lorentson: The Eastern Beaches Protection Association have nominated a representative to be a member of the climate change response plan community reference group. I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision without voting regarding this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Oh, yes. Can we have you stand up? Councillor Wilkie: No, I can't. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. As on 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,600.
00:02:00 I am a member of the Climate Change Response Plan Community Reference Group. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Butt and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the complete interest. Therefore, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 7: Councillor, maybe just before you consider these, I would just like you to know that both councillors asked for advice on this one. I think that as a matter of caution, it would be wise for them to make that declaration to be consistent with having declared previously that this is a different scale of matter in terms of the chat and simply looking at the membership of the Community Reference Group. Councillor Wilkie: I have a couple of motions before us, councillors. Anyone care to move one? I'm actually going to move the same as the chat.
00:03:00 Speaker 7: Can I just clarify that because the chat excluded reference to issues regarding the private estate and that's not a matter before the councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, sorry. Yeah, the councillor noted a fair rule in the colleague's mention. Mayor Stewart: Hang on, just wait one minute. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just regarding the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. Sorry, not vote on issues regarding... So if you get to the third line, regarding the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, you get the word, private estate. That's fine, just take it off.
00:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: You're happy with that word? Yeah, councillor Stockwell, we have a second of the purpose of the debate, councillor Jurisevic. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do that, I will foreshadow that I intend to, as a subsequent to, if there is a motion, an amendment in relation, in specific relation to the representation of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, where I think the conflict would be perceived as a real one in the minds of the ordinary person. And I think that in that case, it's appropriate. Councillor Lorentson: Can I respond to that?
00:05:00 No, you can't. I will. Councillor Wilkie: I appreciate councillor Stockwell's concerns, but we are not, I don't think the same level of scrutiny applies for involvement in a broad-based group, which is to... Prioritise the actions coming out of the climate change response plan, the PPBA representative is one member of a much broader group, I, it is not a decision-making body, and I think it's important that we have a representative from that group at the table to have input on behalf of the owners at that end of the debate. Of course, the, from what I gathered from the chapter round table process, the representative that we're talking about from the PPBA.
00:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. You're talking about the foreshadowed motion, not the matter in front of us, which is about whether a conflict of interest that had been declared is the basis, is valid to the basis of that motion. It's not about the merits or otherwise. Obviously. It's about the use of each, each association in the reference group. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, I was, I was going to say that they have a lot in common with the rest of the group, so I'll, I won't be supporting this, this motion, because I feel that there's value to be had by having councillor Lorentson at the table, and that the involvement of the EPBA in the reference group is, is useful.
00:07:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm, yeah, so a little context here, we, considering the discussions on the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, which had, yeah, a level of understanding reached when we had some preclusion regarding the, the private van holdings and the involvement of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, or some of the associations, close associations with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, I don't know if that's the right word, but I think it's, I don't know if that's the right word, but I think it's, I don't know if that's the right word, but Let's see where Councillor Stockwell's coming on this one. And it really boils down to the purposes of the Climate Change Response Panel Community Reference Group and whether this is an opportunity there to speak about private land holdings and all the rest
00:08:00 and whether they will be engaged and whether any of the outcomes evolve into that area of discussion. So in the interest of being consistent with where we've been so far on the chat, I'm going to support the resolution as it stands. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. I won't support it either on the basis that the eastern beaches, it is a one of 13. There's 13 people nominated. There's, in fact, a person nominated. It is a community reference group. It's not a decision-making forum. And I do understand Councillor Stockwell's concerns, but I do think they're a bit overly cautious in this respect. So I think it's important that we have the councillors at this table. As I said, there's no decision-making, and their input is warranted and valued by the community. I think it's important that they all sit at the table. And I think it's important for all matters and discussions in this regard.
00:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can I just ask the CEO, what's your advice on this matter? Speaker 7: Yeah, the advice I gave and the advice I'm going to give is for both Councillor Lorentson and Finzel is that to be consistent, they need to make the declaration because they made a declaration on the eastern beaches. These are two very fundamentally different issues that are being considered by council. The first related to a plan that related to particular passes and properties that were affected, they were different to the rest of the Shire. And I think in that case, that's why the council made a resolution to the effect that there were limitations on the ability of those two councils to participate and vote on that element of the chat. This is different. What we're doing here is setting up a consultative group, if you want to put it in there, which is not a decision-making group. It's simply to provide advice to council on a range of issues. And it's a much different beast, if you like, to what the council considered when it was looking at the conflict of interest provisions in relation to the chat,
00:10:00 two different things. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell spoke and Mayor Stewart spoke and I have. And Joe, Tom, did you wish to speak to this? Do you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll do so. I don't take away that it's good for, the two councils who have declared an interest. I just believe that, and foreshadow that, that when we come to a time where I'll, where these specific matters relating to the Eastern Beach Protection Association and their suitability to be represented on such a group come up, I think the conflict will be one that plays out in the public mind as the two councils involved would have a conflict. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion to vote. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Sturlicite. Those against? Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie. The motion is lost.
00:11:00 We have someone who can move another motion. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: That I believe it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this separate one. This, it'll be either, is it easy to stay or to leave? To stay. To stay. Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because councillors at Councillor Lorentson can make a fair and impartial decision and her and the interests of the community are best served by her being at the table. And. Speaker 3: And. Yeah, that's fine. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, we can make a fair and impartial decision and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: So we'll call, I'll second that.
00:12:00 Mayor Stewart: I won't speak to it, I think we've, we've already had these discussions, I think it is in the public interest, this is, as we've already said, this is a community reference group, a committee, it is not a decision making process and councillors are important voices for the council. They should be at the table, so, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener was to speak to the motion. Councillor Stewart was to close? No. Put it to the vote, those in favour? Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wegman. Those against? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Jurisevic. The motion's carried. We have another motion. We need another motion for Councillor Finzel, please.
00:13:00 Mayor Stewart: That it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel participates in votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Finzel can make a fair and impartial decision and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Mayor Stewart: No, I mean, I think for all the reasons discussed, it's important to have their voices at the table and nothing further away. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? We should close, Councillor Stewart? No. Motion, those in favour? Councillor Stewart, Wilkie, and Wegman. Those against? Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Stockwell. The motion's carried. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to move that Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie be appointed to the climate change response committee with these appointments to be reviewed after six months.
00:14:00 Speaker 7: Are they for the top one? It's the top one. Yeah. So it's Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie. And after the CRG, to be reviewed after six months. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll question the grammatical correctness of the second sentence. Councillor Wilkie: You've got an opportunity to raise those questions now, Councillor. . Councillor Jurisevic: . The idea would be with the appointments, with the appointments we're reviewing now. Yeah, yeah, it's six-monthly, not a six-monthly basis. Speaker 5: I'd make a suggestion that afterwards CRG, with those appointments, CRG.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Top line after CRG. Speaker 7: With those appointments. That's it. That's one of the councillors also, and the motion being moved, one of the nominees has been appointed to a council role, and so it would be inappropriate to have them as a person on the committee, because they'll be a staff member, and it's the second one on the list there. Speaker 1: Yes, that's Cheyenne Baynard. Speaker 7: So they've just been appointed to a grant sole role. Oh, right. My suggestion is we take that out, take that person out, because they can't be a member. Oh, okay. The committee while they're out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Was it Council of Weapons' intention to move Part B at the time, because he hadn't gone there? Was your intention to move Part B as part of your motion,
00:16:00 because you only actually decided to move Part A? No, I didn't consider that. Councillor Wilkie: So maybe you do. Did that staff member take it out? Yeah, at the time. At the time of the motion? Yeah. Speaker 3: Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have known his name. Deleted. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Stir it around. See you. Councillor Lorentson: Do we need to put the reason for it in the resolution? I wouldn't expect the reason. Councillor Wilkie: Should be, should be. Do you need to even do that? Can you just delete it without it? You didn't delete it. Just delete it from the box. Yeah, just put it, put it. Councillor Jurisevic: So as it's a motion given before us, it's appropriate to make the amendments before we approve, approve the motion. Speaker 3: You've got to just do one more. Just delete that. Councillor Lorentson: So you don't want to have a reason why she was deleted? No.
00:17:00 Councillor Wilkie: I believe it's actually a he. It's not a he, it's a he. Councillor Lorentson: So no one else can read it, so it's going to be just deleting that totally out. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Share. Share. Speaker 3: I'd say that's all there is. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wegener, would you speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, as we discussed before this, Councillor Finzel would love to be there. I think she'd be a great representation on this group, and of course, Councillor Wilkie as well. And we, all of us actually want to be on the group in different ways, so we want to look at it after six months. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy for it to be, there to be a rotation after six months. I know other councillors are wanting to be involved as well.
00:18:00 It's a, it is a very topical issue. It's perhaps one of our major issues, and there's a lot of interest in the community, and I think it's healthy that there's a lot of interest from many councillors who are wanting to learn from being involved. So it's appropriate that the position be rotated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do I add an item C, which reads that Council accept Mr Pat Jorovic's nomination based on his individual skill and experience, but advise that Council does not seek representation of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association on this committee. We have a seconder for the purpose of the plate. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder for the purpose of the plate. Seconder for Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Council, this is a very important map. This is a group set up to implement our climate response plan.
00:19:00 Under the action, move Council from business as usual operations to adopting deep systemic change and being a powerful influencer and example of climate action. And it wants this group to meet periodically and inform and advise Council on climate issues required actions, barriers and success in ongoing program development. In the selection criteria that was put out, it talks about... The selection can be based on the following criteria, individual knowledge and experience and management issues associated with climate change and its impact across the Shire, ability to represent the community interest and communicate to others in identified community sectors. I'm quite happy for Mr Rogers to satisfy those selection criteria. It then, in the terms of reference, which was put out by staff, said that the community groups could be represented and this is where I have significant problems. I can't, in good conscience, put a group that has, over recent months, waged a misinformation campaign in regards to the chat.
00:20:00 I can't, in good conscience, give a group that represents a very, very small number of people in our Shire, if at all, because I believe it's not a community group, I believe it's a lobby group. I think it's important... Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, Chair. I believe that... Is expressing an opinion, not a fact, and I'd like him to make that clear. Councillor Wilkie: I have a rule, Councillor Amelia Lawrence, and the purpose of the debate is for councillors to express opinion. You'll have your opportunity to express your opinion when you have your turn to speak. So can we allow the councillors to speak under the driver's seat? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, it was perfectly, in my opinion, perfectly appropriate for the Eastern Beach Protection Association to be involved in the chat round table. Because they were an interest group on that specific part of climate response that had a fairly large, I suppose, they're a key target or key stakeholder within that.
00:21:00 However, we went to a great deal of lengths in that round table to provide factual information, expert information, and yet still the group publicly is on their webpage saying that Noosa Shire Council's proposed coastal hazard adaptation plan is not a good idea. Noosa Shire Council's proposed coastal hazard adaptation plan abandons the public beaches and creeks that it is trustee for, and doesn't invest in appropriate erosion calls. It proposes restrictions on residents by immediately stopping maintenance or improvements on their properties, even though that will ultimately have a negative impact on the beaches. In my opinion, that is false and misleading. It goes on in its campaign to have an e-petition, which says, stop Noosa Council directing stormwater, and allow trips to the beaches. It's a group that has treated sewerage from our eroding beaches. Now, Council hasn't had sewerage responsibility for decades.
00:22:00 And it then goes on to quote a staff member out of context to say that when we're dealing with coastal hazards from climate change, that treating stormwater and sewerage is not a priority. And obviously, in a climate change, the works of Unity Water is not a priority. It's a group that the ABC has identified as a lobbyist at some stage. It also represented the Adani Mines, one of the largest threats to appropriate climate action in this state. I think, as a group, to earn representation on a reference group across the whole of the Shire, you must earn the respect and the right by being a respected voice in the community for your interests. Not by prosecuting a lobbying campaign, which, in my opinion, is throwing red herrings and providing misinformation, which is derogatory of Council in an ill-informed way.
00:23:00 And as such, that group, in my opinion, has not earned the right to be represented on a group whose responsibility is to guide the whole Shire on their response. Within the climate plan, it's not about debating policies, it's about maximising and prioritising the action under our climate response plan. And as such, I couldn't support that. I don't support Eastern Beaches being represented. However, having read and having talked with a lot of people, Mr Pat Rogers has got valuable experience in risk management and, as a member of the community, would be a valuable contributor. And that he is, obviously, can report back to the sectoral interests of the Eastern Beaches. I just don't think the group has a broad enough base or a sufficiently authentic history within representing the broad interests of the community. To warrant their inclusion on that committee.
00:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: And, Councillor Stoppa, another Councillor wants to speak to the amendment. Councillor Wegener: Maybe to the CEO. There's a difference, obviously, between the person and the group, the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. Was this person signed up for this as an individual or as a representative of the Eastern Beaches? Speaker 7: With all the other ones you see in the agenda, sorry, in the recommendation, what we did when we called out nominations was people to nominate. And they could then tick a box about what sector they represented. So they might identify that young people, natural environment, business or whatever it might be. And they also could put on their form whether or not they were being put forward by a community organisation. And you'll see that in the right-hand column there, a lot of the nominees identify that they were being put forward by a community organisation. And was Mr Pat Rogers put forward by a community organisation? Well, that's correct. And you'll see that that's why it's listed in the recommendation.
00:25:00 And staff identified which organisations were put forward, members, to be involved in the consultant group. I'll speak to the motion, the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: What Councillor Stockwell says is true. It's quoted from the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. It's quoted from the Eastern Beaches Protection Association's website. And the information on there is misleading. But this is intended to be an educated process. And in my opinion, including a representative from the association without the association itself is a matter of, has a symbolic value. But what we do hope is that the representative will feed back and help inform the members of that association through their involvement in the committee.
00:26:00 That individual and that association is one of 13 participants in this roundtable. We do hope it's to be a collaborative effort. And it just goes against the principle of inclusivity. To exclude a community group who have formed because, at the heart of it, they had very well-founded fears that their properties will be rendered worthless through a planning process that identifies risks brought about by climate change between now and 2100. There's a real and genuine fear there. And I can fully understand why that group formed and that they're playing a hard game. There's no doubt about that. But I think we need to take a warts and all approach to this. You wouldn't go into local government and not expect a hard game to be played at times, especially when there is perceived to be a lot of state.
00:27:00 So I think there's more value in having acknowledged the Eastern Beaches Protection Association as part of this roundtable as we move forward collectively as a community. Whether individual council is likely or not, they are. Part of the landscape, the community landscape at the moment. And I think there's far more value by having their input at the table and being recognised as being at the table than excluding them. So for those reasons, with full respect to Councillor Stockwell, I will not be supporting this amendment. Councillor Wegener: Can I ask you a question? Can I ask a question? Within the charter of this or the terms of reference, there's quite a bit of language about these individuals on the committee acting in accordance with the goal of the committee. Not intentionally derailing it, not intentionally moving against it, not intentionally putting out false information.
00:28:00 So there's safeguards within the document itself to make sure that these people play fair and do not try to destroy what they're feeling. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Amy, can I ask a question? Did you have any knowledge of the Eastern Protection Group before you went to the assessment? Speaker 1: Yes, we certainly had. You know, some of the assessors that were in that team that looked at all the applications had actually been involved in some of the CHAP initiatives that had occurred. So yes, we were quite aware. Councillor Lorentson: So you were fully aware of that? Yes. So knowing who this group was, you then assessed to them on merit and assessed that they would make significant contributions to the implementation of the climate change response plan and provide a valuable balance across the sectors, geographical areas, and climate change issues.
00:29:00 Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 7: Just to add to that, I think that's particularly the case that the individual concerned as well. It was very good to contribute through the round table. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I look just quickly I do not want to see this this process get bogged down in in this discussion the Eastern Beaches whatever representation they have through Pat Robert Robert Rogers is debatable and it's but definitely deluded by the fact that they're one of 12 or 13 other individuals on this so I would rather see this project get going and started implementing our climate change response plan rather than potentially stopping this and putting it back for a few months and going to another vote Councillor Finzel: simply so I will vote against this motion just back to the process around the appointment I
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 notice in the report that there was actually 10 community members asked to join and then there was consideration is that right that you were happy with all 13 applications that's correct Speaker 1: yes we're 12 yeah we initially had you know approximately 10 or around 10 when we went out for the expressions of interest and because we had those at the time there were 13 that came back within the the cut-off time for the applications we decided to recommend all of those 13 for inclusion yes absolutely yes we looked at each individual what they brought to the to the community group what their skills were their experience in climate change etc and we had significant discussion about you know whether we should actually include you know who should we
00:31:00 should include and we came up with yes we should include all of the ones that we have recommended Councillor Finzel: in the report and at that time was the things that Councillor Stockwell raised today some of these issues were they part of that discussion the discussion was around the inclusion of the Speaker 1: eastern beaches and some of the work that they had actually participated in the chat and then that was it was discussed that our recommendation was that they actually be included because they actually have a different or a view but this whole community response group for the for the climate response plan is much broader it's a much more whole of Shire it's not looking specifically at individual property and it's looking at both mitigation of emissions to achieve our net zero reduction target sorry net zero emissions target by 2026 as well as looking at adaptations so the issues that with this group will be looking at are a lot broader than that
00:32:00 specific private property considerations of what the chap was looking at so that's why Councillor Finzel: we're very useful as well yeah yeah okay so um I think that um to engage and promote a broad voice across our community and in the interest of diversity and inclusivity and value of different life experience and skill sets I won't support this amendment because I believe that um the greater the diversity at the table will actually give us better outcomes Mayor Stewart: I won't be supporting this amendment either I like the word and you've used this whole whole of
00:33:00 community response and with that we have a very broad church and we need to um as Councillor Finzel said we need to have a diversity of opinions and we need to be inclusive this was this amendment came about by a team of three senior professionals work through the selection process based on criteria an assessment considered representative sectors the applicants experience their potential contribution to the group so there are risk management conditions built in there's a Charter um and there's a lot of hard work going into this and a lot of thought so um I I support the staff's recommendation and I won't be supporting this amendment Councillor Jurisevic: look I uh appreciate where Councillor Stockwell's coming from uh in his uh opinion on this one um there are some challenges some of the information being um being put out there but uh I agree the other councillors I think uh the level of diversity um uh is needed upon this
00:34:00 uh having a range of opinions is not uh something that is harmful to a uh to a reference group in fact it's probably uh uh beneficial to have uh um elements challenged and uh and uh the reference group to uh make their you know formulate their opinions based on the information that's uh that's provided and to uh to do some research and to hear a difference of opinions there are many different differences of opinions out there with regard to uh to climate change response in uh in not only academic but across uh across uh the entirety of Australia or if not the world and we hear them hear them quite uh uh an element of diversity upon this uh this reference group does not uh does not concern me in the least and I found Mr Rogers to be uh a particularly good uh and knowledgeable uh representative on the uh on the chat at the chat round table thank you I'll speak um I'm challenged
00:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: and somewhat offended by the comments that have been made by Councillor Stockwell um our job as councillors is to bring people together not bring community apart um I want to talk about process and I want to talk about what is suggested is risking the trust and Integrity that we should be placing in Council staff they have gone through a robust and rigor assessment process and we need to respect that process um so I will under no circumstance um support this amendment um and again um would like to put on record that um I believe the comments that have been made today um were totally inappropriate Councillor Wilkie: thank you Councillor Stockwell are you used to closing I think you do um
00:36:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: firstly that I agree that a diversity of voices around the table is important that's why I didn't suggest any reduction in the number of people sitting around the table secondly I was probably challenged that this group is an educated process this group is about priority setting of a plan and actions and based on skills and knowledge and as everyone has pointed out Mr Rogers has got good skills and knowledge and and contributed positively around the chap around table what this amendment does is based on my observation of the chaparine table if it it was an educated process and at the end of that educated process we saw from the Eastern Beaches Protection Association a press release at the end of it which continued to put misinformation into the public so in my opinion when you have a group that has a record of acting not in good faith in consultation you review
00:37:00 whether they are suitable the next time they put their hand up I totally agree that they had a specific interest in their own democracy, it's great to have lobbying and whether you call them red herrings or fake news, that's part of the milieu that we as politicians put up with, but it's equally important as politicians that we reflect the concerns in the community and a broad section of the community are concerned about misinformation and a broad section of the community are concerned that small interest groups will influence broader programs. So I have no problems with the recommendations of staff and I don't expect staff to take into their consideration political matters, that's our role, that's here and now and I believe it is really important that we make every decision based on being
00:38:00 open, honest and calling out, when necessary, behaviours or statements about this council and what we've done that are blatantly incorrect. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the amendment to the vote, are those in favour? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Credit me. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, those against? Councillor Stewart, sorry Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Lorentson. So the amendment is lost, we go back to the original motion to which I think Councillor Wegener and myself have spoken to. Any other councillors wish to speak to the original motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to. I do think it's an excellent spread of people through the community, with some people with some very good local knowledge,
00:39:00 but some with some excellent specialist knowledge and I took the opportunity to read them all, all the nominations. People like Sharon Campbell, who's only been here a year, so not heavily involved with the community, this is her opportunity, but she has a PhD in climate change and health, specialising in the impact of extreme events on healthcare systems and communities and works remotely as a post-doctoral research physician in the Menzies Institute of Medical Research in the University of Tasmania. And a senior policy adviser to the Tasmanian Department of Health. People like that sitting in our community putting their hand up. We have another one there that's at the bottom. We have people like Aaron Jenkins. So Aaron is a current general manager sitting on the senior management team of EcoAdvantage, a carbon reduction company who has successfully abated over five million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
00:40:00 Prior to this I was a director of my own business with 30 staff who specialised in energy efficiency, solar batteries and building automation. We've got the likes of Brian Hooper. And he's had a history in long-term interest in climate change and environmental issues, has taught at school and university level, published educational materials for school, university and community use in areas where there is complete sustainability, ethical consumption, history of environmentalism, etc. And then you have the people who are the likes of Anne Kennedy, who's representing Z Inc, but who was responsible for setting up the cleantech network of the industries on the Sunshine Coast. And you have the others like Matt Harold, who's involved in the industry and been a member of Z Inc. And Carina Anderson, who's another, who did the research with Z Inc, with the University of Central Queensland,
00:41:00 looking at the uptake of e-bicycle riding. We've got two from the rural area. Nikki Brandon, who's going to come from a very land-focused space, who's going to be heavily involved in the horse industry and permaculture. And we also have Anne Gardner, who's a key part of the Clean Earth rights, who's got to know one of the earliest people, communities that sort of really led the challenge. And I believe Cooran is still at the top of the pops in terms of the level of solar uptake in any of our little towns and villages. So I think I've covered everyone, I hope. Oh, and Nick, and Nick from the North Shore. So obviously a really key sector in our community is those around the flood plains of the Noosa River. And Nick has demonstrated, has a very strong corporate history, but a really excellent ability to analyse and to get to the heart of problems and spends a lot of time in community advocacy, where his logic can actually join a new life on our problems.
00:42:00 So I think it is... Councillor Lorentson: I've forgotten Pat Rogers. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I started with Pat. Nice one. And so, as I said, in my last debate for the SAIC conclusion, Pat has been, previously been, worked at a high level of management in risk assessment and has developed policies including climate change. So, councillors, I support the recommendations as is. I won't re-prosecute the debate we just had, and will happily put my hand up for this one. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: The councillors wish to speak to the motion. Joe? Yeah, as I said, I'll support the sentiments of Councillor Stockwell. I think the range of experience and level of diversity and the representation of community groups on this is well balanced. I commend staff for recommending all the applicants to us,
00:43:00 even to the point of one of the applicants being worthy to become a staff member from here on in. So that just shows the quality of the people that have put their hand up to represent our community on this community reference group. So I look forward to hearing more of the discussion, the debate that goes around that table and the recommendations from that group forward coming to council. Speaker 6: Thank you, John. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I just have to say this. I'm disappointed that what started, what should have been a celebration of a climate response plan, became an attack against an association. I want to... Order, order. Councillor Wilkie: What's your point of order? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's talking about a previous amendment. There was nothing in this motion or anything that has been said currently in the debate that relates to an attack on the community group.
00:44:00 I believe it's not debating the motion in front of us. Councillor Wilkie: Technically, you are correct, Councillor Stockwell, that I think in this case it's fair comment. Councillor Lorentson: So just to thank Annie for all her hard work. On a personal level, Annie and I worked together with the, with an approach with the youth, the Noosa Youth Advocacy Group. I've put an amendment in the climate response plan that we have a youth advisory group. And through discussions with both Dahlia and Annie, a great alternative to that was we're going to have picnic conversations in specific areas around Noosa, from national parks to beach locations with umbrellas and pillows and actually interacting with children, with teens at their level. So I'm quite excited.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And I really sincerely thank you for all your hard work. Your commitment and passion in this area needs to be recognised. Thank you, Annie. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Councillor Stewart, you wish to speak to the motion. Mayor Stewart: No, just to thank Annie, to reiterate thanks to Annie. It's a huge amount of work going into this and it's a great group. In fact, I know we've, before we've looked at, you know, ensuring that we had the balance of men and women in the group. I believe it was the 13 were made up of eight women and five men. Now that will be four men. So I think the balance is, you know, we've certainly gone well and truly, you know, we've got that right. If anyone's going to talk about that, it's a great diverse range of people. And as I said, thank you, Annie, for going through all those applications, making all those suggestions and bringing us this report. Thank you. Thank you. Catherine, first of all, you should speak to the motion. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'll just reiterate what everyone else has said.
00:46:00 My thanks back to Annie and your team, the work that you've done. And I'd also like to thank the community that have put forward the applications. They themselves have done a lot of work. And I just think it's exciting that we can, you know, take those steps towards where we want to be and achieving our goals. So thank you. Councillor Wegener: Yes, I'd like to reiterate what everybody else has said. Annie, great work. For the councillors, moving through this, and all of us having our chance on, in this committee, I think it's a great idea. I know that when I'm in the same room with Ann Kennedy and many of these other people, I just feel my IQ is going up. Councillor Jurisevic: So, Councillor Wegener: yeah, so I'm looking forward to, you know, putting my time on, you know, this group. And it's just very, very exciting. And we're really going to move forward. And with the, the brilliance of the, the people that have put their hand up to be on this, on this committee is phenomenal.
00:47:00 Noosa is going to lead the world in climate change adaptation. This is going to be the home of where we respond and adapt to climate change. And congratulations. Let's just rock this. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Let's rock it. All those in favour? I'll vote for it. That's unanimous. Thanks very much Annie. Thank you. Next item, councillors, is the proposed Global Law amendment, short-stay living and home hosted accommodation, public consultation results and adoption from the Environment Planning Committee. Page 8. Speaker 7: You just asked me to give a quick overview. We did this at the Planning Environment Committee. Not all councillors were there the other day. So it might be good to, this is the biggest item on the agenda today. Councillor Jurisevic: We need to be clear, do you have conflicts of interest first? Yep.
00:48:00 Councillor Lorentson: I, councillor Lawrenson, informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my husband and I own a townhouse at 22 stroke 17 Noosa Parade that is being used as short-term accommodation. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest in this item, I believe that the proposed short-term accommodation local laws has significant Shire-wide implications including significant amenity impacts for residents of permanent housing and it is therefore in the community's best interest that I remain in the room. In council's own cost benefit assessment report for proposed local law amendment, STA and home hosted accommodation, it states quote, potential beneficiaries within the Noosa Shire from the proposed local law include 10,610 residential properties consisting of an estimated 26,525 persons and as such represents a significant portion of the local community. The benefits of the proposed local law on resident health and amenity
00:49:00 are estimated at 9.65 million per annum. Further, I am concerned that if I voluntarily remove myself from this process it will mean a loss of representation for a range of ratepayers who deserve to have their voices heard by my representation. I believe that I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest and therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in this decision under whatever conditions my fellow councillors may choose. Mayor Stewart: I'll move that Councillor Arnston that it is in the public interest that Councillor Arnston participates and votes in this matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Arnston can consider the matter impartially and therefore a significant number of short term accommodation properties across the Shire affected by the proposed local and therefore a reasonable person to trust.
00:50:00 We might reword that. I believe that Councillor Arnston can consider the matter impartially and a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. I'll second that. Seconded, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I think it's been said in Councillor Arnston's introduction this is a very important and significant piece of law for our community. It affects thousands of people and property Shire wide and I think it is certainly Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know this is one that there has been interest in the community on the way I look at this is if this was a local law for animal control would we expect people with dogs to stay in the room because there's three and a half well I think three thousand six hundred short stay outside
00:51:00 the tourism accommodation zone there's a large number of tourists so it's not a special interest you know the reverse might be true because cats aren't controlled in any way much under the animal law if you have a cat would you be more conflicted I think the question is is is there a special interest that isn't the same as many many people in the community and my belief is just owning a short stay accommodation isn't a special interest that would affect Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie: be impartial in this matter and both in the public interest I'm going to speak to the motion I have a different view to Councillor Stockwell because I believe when we're talking about figures like an estimated benefit of nine point six five million to the community for introducing a local law like this which alternatively means a loss of nine
00:52:00 point six million in amenity losses if it's not introduced I think there's more at stake with an item dealing with the introduction of local law which afflicts which affects so many businesses as opposed to pet ownership is an entirely different realm in my opinion Councillor Lorentson has done the right thing declaring this conflict of interest she is a property owner the only question I have that's been declared here is that there are probably many short-term accommodation property owners who would like to see this item delayed a pretext for it to be bogged down in process and that question may be raised if there's an attempt to do that here today but it's all declared it's all above board and it's up to the public to make up their own minds about the motivations for that but I'll support the idea of Councillor Lorentson remaining in the room because it is
00:53:00 Councillor Jurisevic: healthier in my view to have a diversity of views around the table yeah I'll agree with those sentiments whilst I can see that Councillor Lorentson has included that she has an SDA property it's one of many in the Shire which so she's representative of a number of other SDA owners that are around it creates a diversity of views around the table I'll have Councillor Lorentson to remain in the room and debate the matter Councillor Wegener: I'll be the devil's advocate on the other side so there's 4,500 STAs in Noosa Shire and according to the report 14% of them are owned by local residents so that'd be 14% of 45 of 4,500 which terrible at math but it's about
00:54:00 so there's 600 people that are in this in this is that will would you think that being one of 600 people representing the Shire of 55,000 is there a balance here I'm not quite sure because I'm not that worried about what the community is going to think when they say well Councillor Speaker 7: The short answer is under the legislation, one of the exemptions where a councillor can stay in the room, so to speak, is where you don't have any, you know, suffer a benefit or loss greater than a significant proportion of persons.
00:55:00 Now, one of the challenges is there hasn't been any cases about this because all this stuff's fairly new. I would have no difficulty in this particular case looking at these numbers to suggest that the Council of Clarence then wouldn't suffer anything greater or worse than a significant proportion of other residents. It's clearly in terms of numbers. That's a very different thing if the council was looking at a local law or a planning scheme amendment that affected two properties or one property or whatever it might be. That's a pretty black and white sort of scenario. When you're into these sort of numbers, I would have thought that there wouldn't have been any particular difference, but a significant proportion of other residents, so that would be my advice to council on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisdict, can I answer your question? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, for all the issues that we've just discussed,
00:56:00 Councillor Finzel: I think the first personal benefit back to Councillor Lorentson with regards to that matter is what, in reference to what the CEO said, does she gain anything greater than another person in the same situation across the Shire? I think I'm safe to support this to the point that she can, Councillor Lorentson can remain impartial when the final decision comes to the table in the best of public interest. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Ms Stewart, do you have any comments? Mayor Stewart: No, just to reiterate what's been said. I believe Councillor Lorentson can remain impartial in the decision making process. It is in the public's interest to have her in the room, and she gains no greater benefit than thousands upon thousands of other people in our Shire. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Motion those in favour? That's carried. Finzel, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Jurisdict, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wilkie against. Councillor Wegener, that's carried. Thank you. Thank you.
00:57:00 Now, Anita. Well done. Thank you. Hello, Tracey. Hello, Anthony. Councillor Jurisevic: Well done. Councillor Wilkie: Would you like to give us a bit of an overview? Councillor Jurisevic: Sure. Speaker 4: The purpose of the report being submitted to Council today is to submit a final version of the proposed Local Laws to introduce a new prescribed activity for short stay letting and home hosted accommodation for adoption. It's also, we're also submitting a package of supporting actions and a request for new resources to support local laws. It's also, we're also submitting a package of supporting actions and a request for local residents to support its implementation. The proposed Local Laws seek to regulate the ongoing operation of short stay letting and home hosted accommodation and manage the impacts on permanent residents and guest safety. The proposed Local Laws have undergone extensive legal review and public stakeholder and state government consultation over a two-year period. The proposed Local Laws have undergone extensive legal review and public stakeholder and state government consultation over a two-year period.
00:58:00 We have previously responded to legal issues and the local law as it stands is legally sound. The proposed local law was made available for public consultation purposes from the 9th of April until the 28th of May for an extended period of seven weeks. This was the second round of consultation with the first drafts consulted on in 2019. Under our policy we only generally need to consult for three weeks so that was extensively more. 615 written submissions were received during the consultation period and we had extensive number of inquiries and engagement through the Your Say page and social media. A particular note, 300 submissions were made by residents, six by community groups, 66 home hosted operators, 163 shareholders. We included one lengthy legal submission on behalf of 54 owners, 23 letting agents, 8
00:59:00 on site managers, 1 industry group and 2 on site platforms and other site specific submissions. Overwhelmingly most of the significant issues were around complaints management and around complainant interaction with the contact person in relation to potential privacy issues, In response to the submissions, a number of minor amendments are proposed to the subordinate local law as well as a range of other actions that sit outside of the local law to do with procedural matters and other procedures of council. In particular, it is proposed that we establish a 24-7 complaints hotline and complaints register
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 that's managed externally but on behalf of council as an intermediary between the complainant and the contact person. This has a number of benefits to both the contact person and complainant and removing those potential conflicts of privacy and conflict between the two. We're also proposing to use security services to observe and record activity at properties where required, initially for a 12-month trial basis, not dissimilar to the way the Mornington Peninsula operate. In terms of the local law, proposing to make a number of minor amendments, they're not considered significant enough to warrant further public consultation because they are quite minor and they directly respond to submissions. These changes involve removing the exemption from Park Ridge because there are permanent residents who reside and have the ability that the approval allows for permanent residents
01:01:00 to reside there. We're requiring additional information on the site plan to include adjoining windows and door openings of surrounding residents and to also show outdoor entertainment areas and vehicle parking. Also proposing to amend the contact person location to be within a 20 kilometre radius as opposed to a 20 minute timeframe, which is more measurable and is an easier level of assessment and deals with more remote locations like Tiwara and Boreen Point. Also allowing for security firms to be a contact person option, and this is particularly relevant for after hours. And the notice that we're proposing to have, the approval notice on properties, will no longer be a contact person notice but will be a complaints hotline notice and will include
01:02:00 the complaints hotline and the approval number to demonstrate that the property has an approval under the local law. In terms of vehicle management on site and off site, we're also including vehicles in a broader sense, which includes boats, trailers, jets, and other vehicles. And just in terms of references to amenity impacts, we're specifically referencing adjoining dwellings and not just dwellings within the vicinity of the property. We're also requesting confirmation that the structure itself where the activity occurs is lawfully constructed and classified for its purpose under the Building Act. We'll include a two-year time frame for keeping of registers and we'll clarify that waste management where there's no kerbside collection such as in Teewah exists. We've included some provisions around the disposal of that waste to a council waste facility and there's some other minor editorial for clarification purposes.
01:03:00 Sitting outside of the local law, we're also proposing to prepare a good management guide. To assist operators in terms of how they can meet the requirements and manage guest behaviour to be consistent with the local law. So that might be ways that they can implement measures on their property to address noise and light spill and other issues which may impact on adjoining owners. We're also looking at developing a dedicated council webpage which has the information including an approvals register. So it's clear what properties have an approval, the complaints procedure, the hotline number, the relevant application forms, fact sheets and the good management guide. We're also proposing to undertake some education with the short stay let industry around the local law and we'll continue to advocate with the LGAQ and the REIQ around short stay letting and having training through those organisations as well.
01:04:00 And the establishment of a multi-interest stakeholder group within the community with representation from operators as well as residents and other industry sectors. A cost benefit analysis of the proposed local law has been prepared by AEC to inform the public interest test report. The benefits of the provisions in the local law are demonstrated to outweigh the costs. New dedicated internal and external resources will be required. To implement and administer the proposed local law including a new dedicated short stay local laws team and external 24-7 complaints hotline and trial security services. Two permanent positions are already funded with an additional two temporary positions required for the initial three year period where we expect an influx of applications.
01:05:00 Currently the two positions are funded and the additional positions can be funded within the existing three year period. The existing budget until the end of the 2022 financial year. Final versions of the proposed local law and the subordinate local laws are now presented to Council for adoption with the proposed commencement date of the 1st of February 2022 to allow us to make preparations and engage relevant staff and set up external systems and internal systems and processes. So also submitted with the local law is the consolidated version of the local laws which is the amendments included into Council's local laws which is also presented for adoption. Speaker 7: The only thing I'd add is that just a reminder that the planning scheme deals with where short term accommodation can be in a locational sense but the local law is about how they operate and the amenity on the neighbourhood.
01:06:00 They're two slightly different things and I know when we get submissions sometimes we get a bit of confusion around that issue. But what today is about the local law and not the planning scheme alone. But yeah, just sort of a reminder about that. Probably the only other one to remind is that obviously in terms of questions it's really about finding out something you don't know the answer to so you can make your decisions. But otherwise in terms of making points I'll try and do that through the debate if you don't mind. Mayor Stewart: I'll move the staff's recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move Councillor Stewart. I'll second it. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. The local laws and the ones that are put up today and before us are imperative to good practice and good behaviours for our STA to ensure residential amenity is maintained. Our local laws have had, as Anita said, substantial scrutiny through significant public consultation. They are made available for consultation from the 9th of April to the 28th of May this year for an extended seven week period. This is the second round of public consultation, the first occurring in 2019.
01:07:00 In fact a detailed analysis of consultation as well as a media campaign undertaken for awareness and feedback is outlined on page 26 of our P&E agenda and it is very significant and detailed. Council received, as Anita said, 615 written submissions during this time from residents, leading agents and community groups and online platforms. It would be fair to say that the whole breadth of the Shire in regard to stakeholder groups was supported. This is certainly undertaken and consulted with. There are a number of minor amendments proposed in regard to these submissions. As Anita said, this was the establishment of a 24-7 council complaints hotline and register acting as an intermediary between the complainant and the contact person and use of security services to record activity at properties where required. This is undertaken on a 12 month trial basis. We've had strong legal assistance and advice in drafting these local laws. Noosa Council will become the first council in Queensland to enact a local law.
01:08:00 That's correct. To regulate short stay letting and home hosted accommodation. The fundamental purposes of this law is as discussed to manage the negative impacts on residential amenity and guest safety. We recognise that a local law is imperative and are leading the way among all other councils in Queensland. With the Queensland Government abandoning a statewide framework for local laws as is the case for New South Wales local government, we've had to pick up as a council the pieces, dip into our own pockets and make the rules which we think are right and just and fair for our community. The local law outlines much but when the rubber hits the road and enforcement needs to be undertaken, it can be through the issuing of fines, show cause and compliance notices and suspension or cancellation of STA operating approval. The requirement for annual approval gives council the ability to do just that, to watch, to gather evidence and to receive feedback from any properties which are serial offenders and to, if necessary, cancel their registration or approval. This is a powerful thing. It should give comfort to the community that council can and will act, if necessary,
01:09:00 and because of these local laws we have the necessary legal instrument behind us to ensure residential amenity can be protected and is maintained. First question people will ask when they have an STA property in regard to these local laws is what does this mean for me? What do I need to do? What do I need to register for? How do I go about ensuring I comply? I thank Anita for following up on a simple and easy to follow document which should be potentially made available on our website for people. It's very easy to follow and understand. So thank you very much, Anita, for going through that extra work too. The majority of the feedback wanted the compliance to be taken out of the complainant's hands. So both for the resident and also for the industry, this has happened. With council acting as a conduit between the complainant and the contact person through our hotline process, this gives the resident comfort that they can take immediate action but also protects the privacy of the contact person and mitigates vexatious complaints. It's a win-win on both fronts. I want to thank Anita and all the staff for your very long, it's been a long journey, an often arduous process.
01:10:00 A lot of time, effort and community consultation, workshops with councillors has gone into these local laws. And as I said, I think it gives comfort to the community that these laws will go a long way to protecting residential amenity. But Anita, so much of the heavy lifting has fallen on your shoulders. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Can I ask some questions? Hi, Anita. Hi. I emailed to you quite a lot of questions, so I'm not going to go over those. What I'll do, just to highlight a couple of just issues that are still sort of sitting uncomfortably in my head. The first is legal advice. The adoption of the local law is a legal process and there's lots of mention of extensive legal advice. Where is that legal advice? Has that actually been given to councillors and community? Can we get a copy of it?
01:11:00 Speaker 7: Councillors can get a copy of the legal advice. But we don't generally release legal advice to the community if it's incompetent or confidential. So there's no issues with any councillor asking to see a copy of that if they wish to see it. Councillor Lorentson: So that advice has not been provided to all the councillors. I've just missed a couple of workshops and just wanted to know whether that information is made available to the councillors. Speaker 4: I might just say that in the report in March 2021 this year, when we were presenting the draft for public consultation, there was a section there on legal advice that we'd received in redrafting the local law. And in that is listed, in summary, all of the key points of the advice that we'd received. Councillor Lorentson: But not the complete version of the advice? Okay. I asked a question about the ministerial condition. That when council adopted its planning scheme, the state imposed a condition.
01:12:00 To the effect that we look at economic impacts of the STO provisions, that they should be monitored over a two-year period and appropriate studies undertaken. I asked whether that information was relevant to these local laws. The response was that it wasn't. And Brett has sort of said the same thing. That the local law and the planning scheme are two separate issues. I still don't understand. I understand how they're not relevant. How a report that considers economic impact on provisions of STA is not relevant to what's in front of us. Excuse me, Frank, can I just finish, please? We need a question, councillor. The question is coming. Thank you. Okay. So my question is, how is that not relevant when we're considering local laws? And my understanding is that it's a government requirement that we actually understand the economic impact of all the rules that come before us.
01:13:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, the government requirement relates to the planning scheme, not the local law. So the ministerial condition only relates to the adoption of the planning scheme. It doesn't relate to the adoption of the local law. And as mentioned before, the adoption of the planning scheme related to the geographic location of where they can be and whether they're going to be approved or not approved. And that then drives how many there are, how many numbers there are. That's a very different issue to what the local law does. It doesn't create more short-term accommodation. What it does is regulate those that are existing or have approval to exist in terms of how they operate. They're two different things. Councillor Lorentson: So how about in terms of anti-competitive provisions, doesn't some consideration then need to be made to the economic impact of these local laws? So what's the question? So my question is, I get that, but economic impact still needs to be analysed and properly assessed. If we get challenged on the basis that the proposed local laws are potentially anti-competitive,
01:14:00 isn't there a duty of care for us to have provided some undertaking as to economic impact? Speaker 7: I need to answer that. They're really required to have a look at any competitive part of their local law process and that report is attached as well. So just outline that process that's being done. Speaker 4: Yep. So attachment seven to the report is the public interest test report, which does an assessment of the provisions, the anti-competitive provisions in the local law and looks at alternatives to that. To support that, we undertook, we got AEC to do a cost benefit analysis of the provisions from an economic perspective and that fed into the report. So that's the requirement. So that is only relevant to the local law provisions. Not the planning scheme. So it's only about the provisions within the local law and what that means in terms of the economic impact on that. So the economic impact on operators as well as council, the community.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 And that assessment is in the AEC report and fed into the public interest test report. There's no requirement for us under the Local Government Act to look at the planning scheme. It's not relevant in this instance. The local, the planning scheme is not relevant in this instance. The planning scheme is in existence and sits outside of it. Speaker 7: And it's the planning scheme that has that requirement for the Minister to have a look at that, that land use impact. The local law is about the, the amenity impact for one of their properties. Councillor Lorentson: So the cost benefit analysis is what sort of impacts some of these. And on the page nine, for example, it says impacts to some of these. It is not anticipated that the supply of nor the demand for short stay accommodation in Noosashire will be impacted by the proposed local law on the basis of assessed financial
01:16:00 impacts on property owners. What if it does? So what if the financial burden of these regulations plus all the other layers of restrictions we've imposed in the area of STAs. What if they do result in a loss of property? What if they do result in, you know, stock being removed from the market? Has that been considered? Speaker 4: Well, that statement is the consideration of that question. And that's the conclusion in the report. That AEC believe in their assessment there is no, there will be no reduction in the overall supply as a result of these new provisions coming in place. That the impact of these new provisions aren't going to say to a provider, I'm not going to continue with my STA anymore because of these provisions. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillor speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. You mentioned the multi-interest stakeholder group around regulation.
01:17:00 Is that already set up? Speaker 4: No. Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. So moving forward, part of that is I'm just wondering, will it be taken into consideration? I know we're talking about regulation, but I'm really interested, as well as the economic impacts, the social impact. The social impacts around STA and how we can, while we regulate, have, you know, the big stick coming down. To balance that out, how are we going to, and this may be, I'm not sure, would this be the place to discuss building, you know, friendly neighbourhoods and resilient communities through building connectivity? For example, like the Sunshine Coast Council is doing with their friendly neighbourhood policies. Will that be coming into consideration? Speaker 4: No. The purpose of the stakeholder group? No. The purpose of the stakeholder group is really to examine the, how the local law is going once it's implemented and providing a roundtable feedback, if you like, about how the local
01:18:00 law is doing. So the local law specifically. Anything to do... Councillor Finzel: How are you measuring social impact around that? Because there'll be a social impact around regulation. Speaker 4: So I guess the purpose of the meeting... Sorry. Of the group is to determine whether the local law is achieving what it's set out to do, which is to manage residential amenity and ensure guest safety principally. And whether it's operating and whether there's any concerns with the provisions in the local law that may need to be changed. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Paterson? Speaker 8: Yeah, through you, Chair. Yeah, I think that that group will obviously look at social impacts because, you know, one of the main purposes of... Speaker 4: A resident will be. Speaker 8: A resident amenity. So the resident amenities would be a success factor. I guess we're all looking at impacting that. So that will be assessed as part of that multi-stakeholder group. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, so it will be. Yeah.
01:19:00 Yeah. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. That item J.B. added to read J. requests the CEO in conjunction with a review panel comprising of council representative, resident representation and industry representation to undertake a review of the operation of short-term accommodation local law after 12 months to determine if any changes are needed to enhance its operation and that a report be provided to council for consideration following the report. I believe that the proposed local laws have shortcomings in fact it's my opinion that I believe they've gone too far. I feel that the proposed local laws will be however supported by the majority of this council and for this
01:20:00 reason I've included this amendment. I think it's prudent and I think it's also critical that these laws be reviewed after its first year to assess suitability and performance. As it stands I don't believe that the local laws will have full community support and it's for this reason that I've also included in the amendment a review panel that comprises council reps resident representation and industry representation. The industry and residents should have an ongoing meaningful input into this process if Councillor Jurisevic: it's ever going to work. Question from staff with regard to the local laws has there been any consideration of a review after implementation? Well the report Speaker 4: does recommend that we set up a multi-interest group stakeholder group to look at the implementation of the local law and how it's travelling. Is
01:21:00 Councillor Jurisevic: that in line with what the councillors amendment here is requesting? Somewhat Speaker 4: yes mostly. I would suggest that we it would be in consultation yeah maybe some Speaker 7: word changes but yes generally speaking that would be consistent with. Pretty consistent and the only thing different here is it has a time frame of 12 months which I think would be appropriate to have a sense of what's working and what needs managing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question for the CEO. Is there any other examples where we've got a multi-industry group in relation to a local law as opposed to a policy or direction or planning scheme consultation? I can't recall one off the top of my head.
01:22:00 Speaker 7: I certainly don't have any issues with this in terms of seeing how because it's more than local law it's how the whole process and complaints and so on are managed. From my perspective that's what that group would be looking at to see whatever changes are needed in terms of the cooperation. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Look happy to support this amendment given that after implementing something that has gone through such a long and arduous process as the short term accommodation local law has with stakeholder input and all the rest of it I think it's prudent that we undertake a review as per the staff recommendation giving it a 12 month time frame I think is an adequate time frame to see the impact and assess. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Whittier. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Whittier. Question. Is 12 months enough time before you can actually really see if this is working or not? It seems very, very rushed, and it looks like we're bringing in ... Well, that's my question.
01:23:00 Is 12 months too short of a period of time? I think you'd have a good sense at the end of 12 months about what process is working Speaker 7: and what aren't, and if there's major issues, so the idea of that fine-tuning, I think after 12 months you'd have a pretty good idea of what's going on. It'd probably take a few months after that to actually prepare a report to Council. In reality, it's going to be 12 to 15 months before Council sees a report. Mr. C. Anthony, you had something you wanted to say on that? Speaker 8: Can I just clarify that it's from February, so from implementation? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Just 12 months from now. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, John. Yeah. Mr. C, our idea is saying there'd also be an element of if staff were handling that element, we'd find out through a staff review if the impact was greater than was first expected as well. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Tom, Anthony, would you feel this is micromanagement? Because you already have your standard process in line of review. And Tom, I think that's a bit of an unfair question. Okay.
01:24:00 You could ask the CEO that question. Councillor Wilkie: I'd be happy to take that question as the CEO. Speaker 7: Yeah. Certainly, I think given the nature of this particular topic and the high level of community interest, I think a review will monitor how it's going in that first 12 months, because we've got a conflict case. That would make sense. Thank you. Speaker 8: Can I answer that? Yes. I think for me, if we're going to have a multi-interest stakeholder group, it needs to align with a review panel, maybe one of the same. So I think getting that right, I think, is really healthy to monitor. To the point about micromanagement, I think it's more about how we do it and that doesn't probably go to the nitty-gritty of things. It's more success. Is it doing what we expected it to do after a period of time? Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian. I was going to speak against the motion. There's a distinct difference in the multi-interest stakeholder group and a specific review panel.
01:25:00 That multi-industry stakeholder group may have one of its roles as conducting a review. And I'm not... I'm not necessarily opposed to what's written up there. What I'm opposed to is the narrowness of the definition of the interest group. So I, again, resist the temptation to try and work up what will be an appropriate terms of reference for a multi-industry stakeholder group. But that might be something that I could start and I can maybe think by Thursday. I just think this is too narrow a terms of reference for a multi-industry group on short stay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll ask questions. Councillor Jurisevic: Just on that question. I'll ask questions. If I may, following on from that. Because that preclude anybody else... The way that amendment is worded, does that preclude anybody else from being included in a review panel? Apart from the groups mentioned? Speaker 7: If the Council passes this and the review panel consists of Council representatives,
01:26:00 resident representation and industry representation. Does that mean it's... Does that mean it's devoid of anybody else? Councillor Jurisevic: Are any of those entities the way it's worded? I don't know what else you have in mind. Councillor Wilkie: I'll ask a question of Anita. What would you like to say on this, Anita? Can you answer that question? Speaker 4: I think it probably is a little narrow because there were about seven or eight different interest groups identified that I grouped issues by. Some are industry, but there are community groups as well in that. There's operators. Industry may refer to maybe industry bodies. I mean, the terminology might sound a little narrow, so I think multi-interest would be more wider encompassing of all interests. Councillor Jurisevic: Changes the word comprising to including? Yeah. Okay. Does the member want to change that? Speaker 3: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: No. Councillor Wilkie: No. No. No.
01:27:00 The motion is好了, any other councilor's wish to speak to this motion, now Amelia, Joe and Brian have spoken to it. I'll speak to it, look I'm in favour and principle of this what Council Lawrence is trying to do here, this report already does talk about a stakeholder reference group, They talk about reviewing aspects of this local law after 12 months. I think it's in the spirit of what's intended already. And if we pass this amendment, or if it fails, we can try another amendment to refine it further, either today or on Thursday. Now, the council is supposed to speak to the amendments. Councilor Stewart, you're supposed to speak. No.
01:28:00 Speaker 7: It's the amendment of the council law, I think. Councillor Wilkie: That's right. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, Councilor Stewart, I haven't spoken. Tom, did you wish to speak? Councilor Finzel, did you wish to speak? Councillor Finzel: Look, I'm happy to support it. I think it's already aligned with where the staff is heading anyway. So, I think we'll just move forward. And, as always, engaging with community is a really important part of any process the council moves forward on. So, I'm happy to support it. I do agree that we probably changed the wording to make it a bit broader. But, we'll address that further on as you suggested, so. Councillor Lorentson: Councilor Lawrence, you're used to close. Yeah, I'm happy with the conversation at this table, happy with some adjustments with the wording. Again, I reiterate, the purpose of me adding the amendment is that we need to be quite specific about the timeframe, 12 months. So, that was not included in the report, and that's the part that I really wanted to highlight.
01:29:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment those in favour. Councilor Lauritsen, Councilor Finzel, Councilor Jurisevic, Councilor Stewart, Councilor Wilkie. Against? Councilor Wegener, Councilor Stockwell. The amendment's carried. Now becomes part of the motion. Does anyone care who... Do you want me to have a go? I'll ask a question of Anita. What sort of terms or groups would you hope to have included in there? Speaker 4: I would possibly not specify any particular group and just keep it as multi-interest. And then we can determine... And other interest groups may come out of the woodwork, I guess, possibly as well, during that 12-month timeframe. So, maybe keep it broader rather than more specific. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I... Councilor Stockwell? I'll try it. And that council establish a multi-industry... Can I... Councillor Lorentson: Oh, so you're going to...
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Multi-industry. Speaker 7: You're not going to change? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's going in front of that. Speaker 7: Same here? Councillor Jurisevic: And request the CEO. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That council establish a multi-industry stakeholder group. I'm just looking at your words. Councillor Finzel: It's like interest. Like multi-interest or industry? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Multi-interest, sorry. Interest. Interest. Not interest. Not interest. Yeah, yeah. That's why... Councillor Finzel: We're setting up another regulator today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Multi-interest stakeholder group. Councillor Jurisevic: Relevance. Councillor Wilkie: No, I'm just... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: For ongoing... What? Consultation in regard to short-term accommodation, the management of short-term accommodation in the Shire. Councillor Wilkie: Two. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. Is that too many? Is that too many? Yeah. There. Wait a minute.
01:31:00 And I'll do what I think's right. Including... Speaker 11: Don't worry about it. I'll spell it. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Including A... Oops. I don't know. Yeah. Go back. Go back. And delete. Yeah. A. And then delete up to the word undertake. Oh. Speaker 3: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Or... So, if you just... If you just take that... All that intro up to the word undertake. Undertaking a review of the operation of the short-term local law up 12 months to determine if any changes are needed to enhance its operations are required. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
01:32:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I suggest that Councillor Stockwell read that out in entirety? Okay. That Council establish a multi-interest stakeholder group for ongoing consultation regarding the management of short-term accommodation in the Shire, including undertaking a review of the operation of the short-term accommodation local law after 12 months to determine if any changes are needed to enhance its operations. Councillor Wilkie: And report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that take-out are required. And that a report be provided to Council for consideration following the review. Speaker 4: Sorry, Brian, just for clarity, it's the short-stay letting.
01:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, my words are intentional. Speaker 4: Oh, okay. The local law. I mean, reference to the local law. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Short-term letting, local law, Shire. Speaker 4: Short-stay letting and home-hosted accommodation local law, to be specific. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you would put the correct word for local law. Speaker 7: Sorry, I thought you were talking about the top. Councillor Lorentson: So just go back, just start. Speaker 7: Why it's difficult when you're doing this. I've heard that wording in the original. I'll do it once. Where we go to, short, what is the right word there? Speaker 4: Short-stay letting or home-hosted accommodation. Speaker 7: So take out the word term. Speaker 4: Local law. I mean, yeah. There is a legal name, but I think that does sort of do it, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Speaker 7: So if you can, can I suggest you re-add that in its entirety, please stop there.
01:34:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But Council established a multi-industry stakeholder group for ongoing use of the land. So it's an ongoing consultation in regard to the management of short-term accommodation in the Shire, including, is it one or eight, undertaking a review of the operation of the short-stay letting or home-hosted accommodation local law after 12 months determined for any changes that are needed to enhance its operations. And two, that a report will be provided to Council for consideration following that review. Councillor Wilkie: Could we have a seconder for that, please, for the purpose of the debate? Seconder, Councillor Lorentson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. There is a bit of a change in my thinking, is that we were also going to do a review of the planning scheme we had in the short-stay, and it would appear to me silly to not have the ability of this group to be consulted as part of that. That's why I've started it broadly, is I think if we're going to get this sort of a group together, it should be looking at all the issues, you know, if we're going to find you in everything, not just the local law, and then the second bit there is just what the intent of Councillor Lorentson's original amendment was proposing.
01:35:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question of Councillor Stockwell, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yes, of course. The time. The time associated with establishing that multi-interest stakeholder group, in conjunction with the 12-month review, or do you want to establish that from now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would have thought we would, just like the climate response plan, with a lot of expressions of interest, and it would be, you know, you do it and engage, not just before the 12 months, I think you'd do it straight up, wouldn't you? Question for staff, I suppose. Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff, what was your intention for stakeholder group? Speaker 4: Yes, I think it would be useful to set it up after maybe a couple-month period initially.
01:36:00 I also think, consistent with what you've written there, having that group to be the same group that is consulted during our ministerial conditions requirement review about short-term would also be useful to have that information. So, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Can I just have a question there? Put that together with the review back to the state government with regards to the report back. I'm just interested in how we're going to measure the social impact around this to include back into the report. I think it's relevant that we somehow in that measure the social impact around the amenity, not just like from a regulatory point of view. Councillor Wilkie: The question is how are we measuring the social impact?
01:37:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, especially if you're saying you've got to put it back to the former part, that would put it back to the state. Speaker 4: I probably shouldn't have married the two then. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, now that you've married them, there's certain data there that I would consider. Speaker 4: Yes, that's right. That'll be valuable information to figure out. I don't have the feedback on whether there's been a negative or positive social impact of the introduction of the local law. So I guess that there would be some kind of qualitative information out of the group on that, the residents or the people who were impacted. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Do you think that would encompass that? Is that going to be inclusive of that? Speaker 4: I think they could be key people to inform that, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that it's a multi... Yeah. Interest stakeholder group. Yeah. An element of social cohesion could be within that interest group, yeah. That's right. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Anita, just on this, if we establish this, and we do it almost immediately as the councillor's
01:38:00 talk was suggesting, the multi-interest stakeholder group, how does that then fall in with our housing needs assessment report that is coming to us in the next few months? Is it prudent to wait until after that period? Or is it... Are they aligned or...? Speaker 4: Well, the local law aspects would only be relevant to the local law's implementation. Some general information about short-term accommodation. We have a lot of information already from submissions to the planning scheme to the local law, which provides a lot of information about the land use impacts, which is more the planning scheme. I guess it's always useful to consult residents in terms of how that, from a planning scheme perspective, how they see the impacts of short-term accommodation on their social residential amenity and those impacts as well.
01:39:00 So it could be useful. But it's... Councillor Lorentson: Maybe. Just a quick question. Yeah. I'm a little bit confused. This amendment sort of acknowledges the relevance of the ministerial condition as it applies to the local laws. Yet, we've had a conversation, Anita and I, through email, that the two are separate matters. Again, I need some clarity over that. It is or isn't relevant? Or maybe the question... Well, I guess... I'll throw it with Brian Stockwell. Speaker 7: It's a question better directed to Councillor Stockwell and staff. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell. We're just undertaking a big conversation saying the two are separate matters. One's a planning issue, one's a local law. Yet, this doesn't acknowledge that separation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't disagree. Councillor Lorentson: I don't disagree with this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're going to consult the community on a matter of shared interest. It doesn't make sense to divide the community into silos.
01:40:00 I don't disagree with that. But from an impact assessment process, you can't blur the edges. I agree. So, what we were looking at is a social-economic impact of a local law is different to the social-economic impact of a planning scheme provision. And that's what those two... One affects behaviour, the other affects land use. Yeah. And so, you can't... You couldn't mix them. It doesn't mean that the same people are impacted or affected because it's the same group that's effectively... It's the same group. It's two different policy instruments to manage a land use that is creating problems in our community. Councillor Finzel: Can I then just go back to the timeframe, because my understanding of previous times when I've raised as CEO, that for a ministerial condition, it's normally requires, I've been told, two years to get enough data and input. So, if we're today bringing in this, meeting some conditions of that ministerial condition,
01:41:00 is the 12 months long enough? Or do we have to now broaden that out to the two years? Speaker 7: The two years actually relates back to the ministerial commission itself. Yes. So, it was the commission that... Yeah. And that was in July 2020. Yeah. So, that runs through to July 2022. Yeah. So, this would be from February... But we won't give enough data. So, this would give... So, this 12 months would apply with this resolution today as part of the local law that it meets on the 1st of February 2022. Yeah. And so, that review would have to be finalised by February 2023. So, the timeframe's not going to hold up the ministerial condition. Information will be gathered out. In fact, it will help inform this process as well. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. But I guess my question is, if it's only this data collected in this 12 months, will we need... Do we need two years of that data around this particular issue to read that? Speaker 7: No. This data would only be collected in the 12 months about the local law.
01:42:00 The ministerial condition has to go back to July 2020. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify, Mr. CEO, with what you just said there, the way I read this is that it will take 12 months for the local law to be in place before a review is implemented, not as at 12 months. So, that means the review starts in 12 months, not completed in 12 months. Yeah. Speaker 7: I mean, the multi-interest group will be going and they'll be working out the information they need to gather. Yeah. But the actual assessment of how things are going will be out in 12 months. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask advice from Anita? What's your opinion on this amendment? Is it now too broad? Are we trying to do too much in that? Speaker 4: If I understand, the purpose of the recommendation was that this group can assist in informing us on two matters. One is the local law and how it's being implemented, and separately we can gather information about
01:43:00 land use matters to assist in giving us information in terms of reporting on the ministerial conditions. Is that how I understand it? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 4: So, I know it's married, the two, but I guess they're the same interest group. We may as well use them for two matters. Is that how I understand it? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I'll speak to the amendment. Yes, Chair. Can I support the intent here? I can see where Councillor Stockwell has taken Councillor Orr's initial clarification, trying to get a timeframe of 12 months and managed to implement it for a broader scale interest stakeholder group. That can advise us on two elements of the one facet of short-term accommodation, and it comes between planning and local laws implementation. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to speak to it.
01:44:00 I see this as confusing. I see this as committing us to a political maelstrom. Before giving the laws a chance to work, we're going to put in a lot of effort. We're going to politicise this again, put it back in the pressure cooker, and all of a sudden, within a year after starting it, we're already going to be arguing and fighting each other as to whether it's working or whether it's not working, not giving it time, just actually potentially taking it off course or definitely confusing the issue within one year. We've got to give it a year to start with. I think we already have a plan which has been in place by Anita and her team. Why are we jumping in here and saying we've got to pull it forward or putting timeframes on it when that's not going to make it run smoother? It's only going to complicate the issue. I'll be not supporting this. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Higgins. Councillor Higgins. Councillor Higgins. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Higgins. Councillor Higgins. Councillor Lorentson: Can you speak to that?
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Councillor Higgins. I'll speak to it. To answer Tom's question, the why, it's because we're talking about a $1 billion tourism industry that may be impacted by these laws. So I support this recommendation. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell, are you ready to close? No. I'll put the motion to those in favour. Any amendments? Councillor Stockwell, Jurisevic, Lorentson, Stewart, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Wegener. The amendment's carried now because it's part of the motion, the original motion. The only person who's spoken to the original motion has been Mayor Stewart. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I understand that they haven't added your name to the clause there. Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 3: Can't forget the chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can't we forget the chair?
01:46:00 We're giving the new girl a workout, aren't we? Councillor Wilkie: All right. Okay. Councillors, do you have a motion for us? More complete now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll talk. Thank you. In the previous, was it questions from the council, Wagner, you mentioned the figure of $9.6 million. It's really important to understand, that's a very large figure. But what is that cost? And so when you look into the cost-benefit analysis, the large part of that cost is modelled based on the adverse effects of environment from noise from the establishments. So they've used a World Health Organisation study which showed that, and it just looked more generally, about residential student impacting. And what are some of the impacts?
01:47:00 Adverse health impacts. Cardiovascular disease, there is a concern that the impact of environmental noise on public health, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of hypertension. Sleep disturbances, noise disturbances, significantly impact on the capacity of individuals to effectively relax and achieve desired length impact of sleep. Cognitive impairment, as a consequence of impacted sleep, affected individuals may have concentration of duct productivity issues and untaken work and other activities. We know there's a local anaesthetist who's been heavily impacted by these sort of activities. Annoyance, anxiety, the combined effect of the ongoing turnover of neighbours, different noise disturbance experience and the lack of capacity to ensure appropriate behaviour from visitors. So there's some of the things. And then the people who did the public impact statement went to another study by Jensen and they, while not looking at short stay, they identified that in their study of high density residential
01:48:00 about noise, is that 24.5% of very bothered residents, and we know we have a lot of very bothered residents, suffering from sleep problems or insomnia, 16.4% suffering from melancholy, depression or unhappiness and 16.4% from anxiety, nervousness, restlessness or apprehension. And even if you're not right next door, you haven't got a really, you know, you're not very bothered, you're only slightly disturbed, these things still can occur in a small percentage. So it's really important to understand what this local law is about. This local law is about discharging our duty as a council to look after the health and wellbeing of our community. It's really important to understand that it is a balance between getting the potential economic benefits flowing from increased beds, and we've seen that there's quite many thousands
01:49:00 of beds, compared to the reduced amenity of our, the people who live here. And so I think the local law will hopefully be effective in allowing people to continue to trade, but as the cost benefit said, for those who don't have the cost benefit, it's The vast majority of people who live outside the Shire who are running SGA's and have a less invested interest in, you know, as compared to the people who are home hosted, in maintaining the immediate neighbourhood, that it is the regulatory framework that makes them become responsible members of the tourist industry. Councillor Sackwell? Councillor Finzel: You. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Sackwell, you go ahead. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I was just going to say, moving on from that, I think it's important when we consider being able to economically trade and at the same time being like the Quarry, for example, where we encourage people to be good corporate citizens and contribute to the amenity and good health of our residents.
01:50:00 I think the regulatory framework is required to keep that balance and where we can have the balance of trade that runs in a fair and equitable manner. And in response to the wider community in the Shire that is entitled to amenity and remit points. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener? Can you speak? I am so proud of Anita and we'll reiterate what the mayor said in your speech, absolutely everything. But furthermore, we as a council sometimes consider what our legacy will be. And this morning is such a huge morning because we just, you know, going towards the climate change response, we just talked about the fact that we've got a lot of news, we've got a lot But even more so, this will be a legacy of this council of properly regulating short-term accommodation and I'm sure that the other states and many other councils around Australia, if not the world, are watching what we're doing here and I am so proud to be a part of this as a legacy for this council. So thank you. Thank you, Nina.
01:51:00 Councillor Lorentson: For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to start by firstly saying that I support regulation of the short-term accommodation industry and I welcome a sensible code of conduct that achieves positive amenity outcomes. I also want to acknowledge the enormous amount of work done by staff that has been undertaken to get to this point. I'm now going to just... Cut to the chase. Councillors, I believe we've gone too far and I believe we need to pull these local laws back. Party houses are the problem. Unregulated short-term accommodation are the problem. Noise, bad behaviour and responsible management.
01:52:00 These are the three issues that we should be seeking to manage. So I'm confused and I ask you, how on earth did we get to this? Site plans, floor plans, statutory declarations, pool safety certification, electrical safety certification, $10 million public liability requirements, approvals, renewal fees, how did we get to fines for no approval notice, fines for keeping records, fines for clapping and cheering or singing? This was not the brief, councillors, the brief was to manage noise and bad behaviour, not control or limit short-term accommodation. And that's not what's before us, what's in front of us is yet another layer of restrictions and controls on short-term accommodation, simply more regulation. We've already got in place a number of significant restrictions and controls in the area of short-term accommodation through our Noosa plan and recently the new transitory accommodation rating.
01:53:00 And now we're adding one more layer to this. It's simply too much. And more importantly, it is not enough. We're not whole of community approved. The proposed local laws are not approved by our mum and dads who home host. They're not approved by our small businesses who manage holiday weddings. They're not approved by residents who live next door to permanent residents and renters who party all night at all hours of the night. And they're not approved by our investors who contribute enormously to our economy. We just can't support local laws as they are. They're, in my opinion, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory. I believe we can do better, or at least have a more inclusive and agreed position that considers and represents the interests of the whole of the Shire. A position that does not make us look like the grand nanny council of the nanny state of Queensland.
01:54:00 A position that will not divide us as a community. A position that does not make us look like the grand nanny council of the nanny state of Queensland. We just simply need to understand the message we are about to send out to the rest of the world. And what this means to our billion dollar tourism industry. In a town where most of us depend directly or indirectly from tourism, we are potentially biting the hand that feeds us. Let's just finish by just adding a few of my many key concerns. One. What worries me is that the added cost on property owners from the transitory rates and the restricted application and operating requirements of these proposed laws will end up, will see property owners locking up their homes or just simply removing the stock in the market. In an industry that's worth $100 million, if we reduce the stock by 10%, we're removing $100 million from our economy.
01:55:00 Councillors, how do we get that $100 million back into our economy, and what does that mean to a small business who manages holiday livings? What worries me is that it's fine for any of us councillors sitting at this table to have a party on our balcony until all hours in the night, but if a visitor does the same thing, they're going to be met with a security guard outside their home. Councillors, noise is noise. Regardless of whether you're residing permanently in the resident or not, amenity standards should apply uniformly to accommodation, whether it's temporary or permanent. To do otherwise is simply not fair, not reasonable, and discriminatory. And finally, what worries me is that if council goes ahead with these local laws, they may be subject to challenge, legal challenge, on the basis of any competitive process.
01:56:00 Local laws going beyond power, and local laws being discriminatory. Further, there's a risk that these proposed local laws and other STA restrictions and controls imposed by council may be challenged by industry participants, such as real estate agents, restaurant owners and retailers, who have all made significant investments on the basis that this council supports an ongoing tourism industry. Simply, how can we support tourism on one hand, and then on the other hand destroy tourism opportunities by potentially removing or reducing the number of holiday-led properties? Councillors, we all talk a lot about the importance of informed decision making. And I'm going to close my argument by asking you all, are you properly informed? Have you read the legal advice provided to council regarding the local law?
01:57:00 Do you understand what the economic impact that these proposed local laws, coupled with our new transitory accommodation rates and restrictions on land use in our use of plan, will have on our tourism industry and on our community? What data and information was provided for you to make that decision? If you answered no to any of the above, then I would arguably say that you are not properly informed. And in my opinion, you should not be informed. I'm not saying that we should be supporting this decision. Councillors, I'm not saying that we don't regulate short-term accommodation. All I'm asking is that we simply get it right and manage the problem. Unregulated short-term accommodations, noise and party house. Local laws should improve a sense of community. They should build and strengthen community, not divide community. And as they stand, they will divide this community.
01:58:00 I will not be still forwarding this recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Lyons. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Just a question. There's a number of potential legal risks outlined by Councillor Lorentson and the CEO. Have we received legal advice that the local law, as drafted, is consistent with requirements of local law in Queensland? Speaker 7: Yes, that's the case. And I think Anita also mentioned before that the summary of that advice was included in the March report. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Would we be able to get the whole advice, please? Speaker 7: So, councillors are able to inspect documents under the Act. If you want to have a look at a particular document, you can come back through me and arrange that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd say, and a question further than that, are they in keeping with the laws they persist to Queensland police regulation, i.e., with regard to the Queensland Police having
01:59:00 to regulate noise requirements? Speaker 6: Very good. I'm sorry, Judge. I don't understand the question. I'll send it over. I'll send it over. Councillor Jurisevic: The law, as it stands, has some regulation around noise and noise impacts on residents that the police are required to attend to. Do our local laws, in keeping with what the police are required to do? Speaker 4: It's consistent with the Queensland State Noise Policy. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That's along the lines of what I was heading to. Councillor Wilkie: Could you explain why the local law contains references to adequate pool fencing? For example, it was an issue raised. Speaker 4: To ensure the safety of guests. So, currently, there is no requirement or regulation to demonstrate that a property being used for short-term accommodation or home-hosted accommodation is fire-safe, has safe pool fencing, even though, if it's a fire-safe, it's safe pool fencing, it's safe pool fencing is a requirement of council, and public liability insurance. So, those things were about ensuring guest safety and that the property itself is sound
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 and is safe to guests. So, that's the key purpose. It's about guest safety. Councillor Lorentson: So, the existing local laws, Anita, already address issues such as noise and safety hazards. For example, the Local Law Number 3, Community Environmental Management 2015, Waste Management Act 2018. Why are we duplicating these local laws and are they necessary? Speaker 4: So, I did provide a response to those questions and outlined that they don't duplicate any matters within Local Law 3 or Local Law 7, which you mentioned. And I can provide, that is the legal advice extract that I've provided in that response to you. When I sought advice from our lawyers.
02:01:00 There is no conflict. They deal with different matters. Councillor Lorentson: So, we've already got an existing local laws on noise, waste, and safety hazards. And we've layered it a little bit with our... Speaker 4: They deal more broadly with issues. They don't require a particular prescribed activity to actually have certain requirements on that particular site for that particular issue. So, community environmental management, is that the one you're referring to? So, its purpose is the protection of the environment and public health, safety, and amenity as a broad brush across the whole Shire. It's not confined to a particular category of premises. That is the premises at which the short stay letting or home host is undertaken. And the advice is that it's appropriate to deal with the specific amenity issues by the imposition of conditions. So, there are no conditions within that local law, which would be placed on the operation
02:02:00 of short stay letting or home hosted accommodation. So, local law three does not contemplate that an approval would be granted in respect to undertaking any particular activity, rather it's a broad brush approach to prescribing compliance of standards. So, given that a broad range of premises may be used for the undertaking of activities, a particular prescribed activity, the most appropriate way to deal with the undertaking of it at the premises is by way of the introduction of an approval regime, which is what the proposed local law does. So, through the approval process, we can place conditions of approval and then require adherence to those approvals. Councillor Lorentson: So, the existing local laws apply to permanent and temporary residents? Across the whole Shire. And the local law applies to temporary residents. The local law is specific about the undertaking of a particular prescribed activity or land
02:03:00 Speaker 4: use activity and requires approval and specific conditions to be met. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't agree with everything that Councillor Lorentson has said. I think she's drawn it a long way to some degree. Code of conduct is great. It's great to see that many of the short stay operators within our Shire came back to us and said, we already have a code of conduct. We already do this. And that's great. That they do manage their properties well and do manage them properly and that they take their responsibility as business owners, because it is a business activity, responsibly and that they do consider the welfare of those around them. But not all do. And unfortunately, like most laws, the laws apply to the minority, not the majority, that continue to stretch or break the laws as they stand. So, implementing, I'm in favour of implementing. I have no problem with regulating what is a business activity in a residential area.
02:04:00 And they should have a level of management to meet the expectation of the community on residential amenity in that area. The expansion of SDAs has only exacerbated the frustration of local residents over recent years. And it's been further exacerbated by new levels of online facilitation of SDAs. So, and what I'm trying to say is, I don't think it's a good thing. And whilst they also have advisers that they have means of dealing with those issues, the one-offs won't be the problem. It'll be the regulation of ongoing problem houses where the owner does not take responsibility for those that he's written out there. And that's what this is meant to address. It's also, I quite like where we've got to with the changes here. I think we've listened to the community. I think we've gone out and sought a greater understanding of how other communities are doing. I think we've also listened to the community that's dealing with the issue and the one in Victoria, sorry.
02:05:00 Mornington. Mornington. Example was a great example to have before us to show that there are other ways of looking at this and of Council taking a lot of responsibility. And I think that's what's being provided here. I think that's what we've listened to with the community that have brought this forward. That Council, if you want to do this, we shouldn't be relying on the police to knock on doors at three o'clock in the morning or two o'clock in the morning and say that. But there should be some ways and means of taking that responsibility. When it's a permanent resident or a long-term rental, that person is there to actually deal with and continue to deal with that long ago. But in the short stay, that person is often here tonight, gone tomorrow, and no process by which they have to adhere to. So I'm in favour of the changes that have been made here. I'm also very supportive and thank you, Anita, for hearing the concerns of all elements of the community with regard to this and the changes that have been made to the initial
02:06:00 proposed local law with regard to having Council as the intermediary, as opposed to putting that onus on the property owner. Also in having security as a means of monitoring so that we don't get ongoing complaints. We can actually monitor whether the complaints are vexatious or the complaints have had merit and justification in dealing with the problems. I also appreciate the fact that we've got a 12-month review of this to see how the laws are going and to review them on that basis. So I very much support what is here before us today. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Drissett. Councillor Jurisevic: It's been, sorry, I'll just finish off with, it's been a very, and I do appreciate that, it has been a very, very long road and I appreciate the length of time and effort that staff and all our community have gone through in getting us to this point. Councillor Wilkie: Look, it's not surprising that there'll be some short-term accommodation property owners,
02:07:00 no matter where they reside, will fight this to the death and use every means at their disposal to resist it. But I'm supporting it because it is a way that we do build and strengthen our community. Our community has been crying out for something to be done to the disruptive elements of this disruptive industry that has disturbed neighbourhoods. And that's principally what this local law seeks to do. What this local law is requiring of short-term accommodation business owners to do is nothing more than it's required by existing resort and accommodation owners. To make their properties safe for their guests and also not to disturb the amenity of neighbours and also other visitors. And one of the outcomes of this local law intentions is to make sure that our visitors have a more pleasant, relaxing experience when they come to Noosa.
02:08:00 So it may actually increase visitation to Noosa because people, visitors will no longer be leaving, reporting that they've left. They've had a very disruptive time, a very disturbed time here. The local law is all about balancing the economic benefits of short-term accommodation and the impacts they have on the right for residents to enjoy their homes in a peaceful manner, to relax and sleep with minimal disturbances. Under the local law, short-term accommodation owners, 86 of which are located outside Noosa Shire, 51% of which are located outside of Queensland, will continue to receive commercial benefits but without negatively impacting on the residents of the neighbourhood. Potential beneficiaries within Noosa Shire from the local law include 10,610 residential properties consisting of an estimated 26,525 persons. That's a significant portion of the community. And the benefits of the proposed local law on health and amenity have been estimated in this report as 9.56 million.
02:09:00 As stated in the report, many premises are managed from a distance, and that's the problem, with no local presence, management structure or regulation to ensure appropriate guest use and behaviour. There's no consistent code of conduct for guest behaviour, nor for resolving resident complaints in a timely manner, and that's what this local law seeks to do, seeks to remedy. Further, Queensland Police Service are not able to consistently manage complaints of this nature at an address, and that's unreasonable for them to consider. To do so, the local government has had to step up in this instance. The requirement under the local law to have a local contact person to respond to and resolve complaints is expected to increase demand for these services within the Shire and generate more employment in that field. Look, there, as other councillors have said around the table, this is about a balance.
02:10:00 It's not an extreme. It's about a balance. Balancing competing interests, and that's always the difficult, it's always a difficult and challenging task. But after two rounds of extensive community consultation, literally thousands of submissions in one form or another, I think this is a body of work that is a very, very good start towards addressing the issues and balancing the competing interests that we're facing. Thank you. I commend the staff for working patiently and diligently through all the issues, taking on board all the legal advice of King & Co, who advise local governments across Queensland, sifting through all the legal matters raised, but most of which I understand were ambit claims.
02:11:00 And I can understand short term accommodation property owners and their legal representatives seeking to fight this the entire way. New South Council brings in policies and laws all the time and it's almost a rhetorical statement to say that they may be subject to challenge, anything is subject to challenge. But I'm confident, as said earlier today, that we have to have some confidence in the staff process and trust the process, that faith in the process, that have dotted their I's and crossed their T's on this, that it is done correctly and the legal advice is quite sound and clear in this regard. It's a great start. We don't want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. That's why I support the review after 12 months to see if there's any fine tuning that needs to be done. And I'm sure if there are any shortcomings that crop up before then, that we will work
02:12:00 on them and we will all be ready, willing and able to remedy them. Thank you, Anita. I'd like to thank you personally for all the work you've done on this, as the other councillors have said. And Anthony, for the suffering as you have. And the oversight of this process. Anita's done all the work. Thank you. I'll be supporting the motion. Councillor Stewart, do you wish to close? Sorry. Mayor Stewart: I will. Look. We've all been involved in the workshops over the last many months about these local laws. We've heard the feedback. We've sought the feedback. It's been an ongoing process. I think it's something that these local laws, the community have been crying out for them to be enacted. This is the day. I take on board what Councillor Lorentson says, and I appreciate her sentiments. I greatly acknowledge how important the tourism industry and businesses are. Thank you.
02:13:00 And I've been very vocal in regard to this, and I think we all appreciate how important our small businesses are and our tourism are to our $1 billion economy that tourism brings in. But these laws are something that need to be enacted. We've all been privy to emails from the community and community members about their concerns around neighbourhood and residential losing amenity because of the lack of access to the resources they're having. These laws are the first Queensland Council to enact them. They won't be perfect. But they're, as you said, Councillor, they're a good start. I will reiterate that it is very disappointing that we as a Council have had to enact these on our own. We've had to dig into our own pocket. There should be a statewide framework. I'll go on record saying that this is the state government should have a framework that looks at this and is in charge of this and regulates it. It doesn't. It's very disappointing.
02:14:00 I think we've taken on board what the community wanted, the complaints hotline, taking responsibilities at Council for the 24-7 hotline, being the conduit, the intermediary. All those things are what the community or what the interest groups fed back to us. We have the ability now, with the renewal application, to cancel registrations if necessary of serial offenders. We're not a toothless tiger. And this, we can and will act if required. And that should give the community some comfort. These laws are broad. They're consistent. They may not be perfect. But they're a good start. And I actually really welcome the review in 12 months, too. I think it's very important. We have consulted with a wide range of people. And we will continue to do so. And this amendment ensures that. And ensures that we continue on with that. And we get the feedback to see how they're going. So they're flexible.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 They're balanced. And I think they're an approach that's needed. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Put the motion out in favour. Councillor Jurisevic, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Stockwell, Stewart. Against? Councillor Lauritsen. Motion's carried. Thank you, Anita. Thank you. Councillor Stewart, one sixth of the way through the agenda. We'll be back in two and a bit hours. If you would like to have a short break, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Speaker 2: Ooh, that's what I want to do. Fabulous. Okay ready when you I. Okay. Now welcome back, this is the first meeting up again. Done that. I've done three, four days like. Stop, stop please. Councillor Wilkie: We're up to item three which is for another change to develop an approval for multiple dwelling units at 30 Haston Street, hates. That was referred to the significance of the issue. Councillors, do you have any questions that Kerry, do you want some Kerry? I do. Jo? Afternoon. Councillor Jurisevic: If that happens across the entire development, we've changed what was initially approved. Have we not? Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is why the application has been lodged as an impact accessible application. It's not a minor change. There is some significant changes proposed. It's not a minor change. There is some significant changes proposed. There's two units involved with this application. There's been two other units involved with this application. There's been two other units that have been struck. One is built, and one has approval. It will read quite differently. It's going to change the development as it presents today, but what is proposed today
02:31:00 is not so different to the rest of Pasting Street. It's not so different to the rest of Pasting Street. And the development is consistent with the scheme requirements. Councillor Jurisevic: So the other units in this development are establishing on the same footprint, are they not? Speaker 2: Yeah, the other two that's been approved for redevelopment. Yeah, the other. The other two that have been approved for redevelopment are two lots being, I guess, amalgamated and redeveloped into, I guess, amalgamated and redeveloped from two buildings to one building. But it's still certainly of a scale in keeping with the rest of Hastings Street. Councillor Lorentson: Hastings Street, so you considered the looking feel of Hastings Street. You considered what was presented in the objections and I made a question whether Hastings was a precinct.
02:32:00 There's a question whether Hastings judging the precinct wasn't a complex. To be judging bulk. The complex. Their issue was that the building was disproportionately. Their issue was that the building was disproportionately. Their issue was that the building was disproportionately. Speaker 2: Well, this site, as it's told, this site, as it's told, it is part of sort of a Hastings Street precinct, it is part of sort of a Hastings Street precinct, scheme requirements, it is subject to the same scheme requirements as the rest of Hastings Street, and when you consider things about whether it's in keeping with that area, and when you consider things about whether it's in keeping with the area, not just within the development, so in keeping with the area, the rest of Hastings Street and Noosa Drive, not just about whether it's in keeping with the other units within this development.
02:33:00 Councillor Lorentson: What considerations were given back to Hastings Street? And you're saying that it's not Hastings Street? You're saying that it's not Hastings Street? Speaker 2: Yeah, there's no different requirements that apply to the back end. Yeah, there's no different requirements that apply to the back end. Yeah, so if you look at the, if you look at Figure 1, on page 86, So if you look at the figure one on page 86, some of those do back onto Noosa Parade, this is not the only development that does it, and there's just really no Pacific Hastings, or different requirements that apply to the Hastings.
02:34:00 Councillor Wilkie: Council, is there any other questions? Council, is there any other questions? Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair, just, because I've had a few emails regarding the development, given it's a Gabriel Poole development that was done back in the 80s, and people do really like the story and the narrative that goes with that. My question is about the ratio. The model, the forward site. The model. The development on the ratio of kitchen development on the percentages around common land, in terms of white space, percentages around common land, over space and that sort of thing. Speaker 2: Well, when council and officers look at this post-development, we have to consider the development as a whole, and it's part of the number of units, the development as a whole, and it's part of the number of units, I think 29 are the units in the complex, and 29 are the units in the complex, and so when we're making an assessment against the whole of the development,
02:35:00 And we're assessing the whole of the development So that's how the scheme requirements apply, and in terms of . in terms of . and if we look on the table. Speaker 3: And that detail satisfaction. Speaker 2: And if we look in table on page 92, against the scheme requirements, that details, that assessment and then you'll see within there, that it's well within, and you'll see within there The site cover and the maximum site cover requirements for the whole of the development is well within the Gorseville area requirements for the whole of the development. In fact, there is sufficient GFA for each of the other units in this complex to make the same extension as proposed to make the same extension. Speaker 3: Site cover may be a limiting factor in there. It may limit some other units in terms of the extent of site cover to remain in compliance with the whole of the development.
02:36:00 But how that is allocated is not attractive to me. The allocation of that is really for the individual unit owners and the body corporate if they wish to manage. Through a community management standard. They will have a community management standard in place for the complex. That can be amended if they wish to adhere to the requirements. And one thing they may wish to consider is allocation of that remaining GFA as part of that. Now that's especially for them to investigate and explore. The council requirements apply to the whole of the development, not the individual block in that environment. Councillor Finzel: Okay. With regards, you mentioned a community management standard. Does that come about through, like, the process of body corporate? Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: So the residents themselves that are against this application will take that to body corporate for them to decide that?
02:37:00 Speaker 3: That's right. And they can be opposed on that in their first decision. And they can then look in terms of to that community management plan. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, you had a question? I've got a couple more to follow on from. So as far as the body corporate's concerned, do they have any input on this sort of a change of footprint within their own development? Speaker 3: I'm not familiar with their current community management standard. But in order to lodge the application in council, they do not require the body's footprint consent to lodge. Because the changes are fully within the lot boundary. There's no industrial change of use occurring to the common property. So under the funding legislation, when they lodge an application to council, they're not required to submit the body corporate consent. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Aren't they combining two lots into one? Isn't that a change of configuration?
02:38:00 Speaker 3: It is. But amalgamation is what is exempt from application under the funding legislation. Oh, yeah. Nobody is required to make applications into an amalgamate lot. That's not part of the funding legislation. Councillor Jurisevic: And there's nothing here within the original approval for any redevelopment to maintain style or maintain a consistent style across each of those developments up to each of the individual lot owners as to the style by which they approach? Speaker 3: If the unit owners feel that it's important to them, that's something they can do through their body corporate. But our scheme does not set particular requirements for this site. The requirement applies to all of Hastings Street and the SBA consistently. Councillor Jurisevic: But the difference between a development like this and anywhere else in Hastings Street is usually it's the entire lot in Hastings Street that gets redeveloped. Here, do we not run the risk of having a hotchpotch of 25 different shapes and styles?
02:39:00 It is a little bit of a product of how the site's been titled in the past. Speaker 2: And so it is a little bit unique to the rest of Hastings Street, and so it is a little bit unique to the rest of Hastings Street, but we do have each of those complexes down there are titled. We do have individual titles, but yes, I do recognise it is different to the rest of Hastings Street. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A key difference, I believe, in this case is in the land type, and given the land and the buildings on the lot, where most of the other tourist resorts would have been a strata type, or where the property corporate actually owns. This is a group public development, so the land is... Yeah, just looking at the legal description of properties. Speaker 2: Yeah, just looking at the... Speaker 3: So that legal description of properties. The legal description of property, it is GTP, so that says group title, plan, yeah.
02:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then another technical clarification, this is 1993 Gabriel Poole, probably the first sort of example of the lightweight Noosa sub-property design, and the objectives have highlighted the change in that time. But looking at the tourist accommodation zone, the only time that's been said to that particular... Speaker 2: Or require in the Hastings Street. Yeah, no, the new system has been made and found to be consistent, so it does ask for some building design treatment in Hastings Street, but officers consider that it's consistent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only the change in the lightweight design is a key change, but there's no requirement under our scheme. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, so back to site coverage. Okay, so back to site coverage in the site. Okay.
02:41:00 Speaker 2: No, that's not correct. As the table on page 92 suggests, site coverage is measured for the whole of the development, not the individual lot that's all part of the development, and the total site cover required is 45%, and the total site cover proposed with this addition will be 36.5%. So I understand residents have been wanting Council to measure it individually for lots, but I think the better way to measure it is for the total development across lots, so how it's developed. And it's 45% is the allowable. And then... And they're still well below that 45%. Councillor Lorentson: So there are dual embeds in this slide.
02:42:00 So there are increasing embeds of passing current properties and are these passing current properties at 0.68%. There are the additional increase in 0.68%, additional increase in the footprint, only to further develop all the properties, only to the one that's selected last. Their properties, that's the general one that's selected last. Speaker 2: Well, if you... And I did do the math quickly. If you factor in 0.68 thereabout for the remaining units still to develop, remember there's two already approved, one's built, one's got an approval, not all units would be able to afford that increase in site cover. It would limit them. So the last ones to develop, in theory, would not achieve the same increased site cover as this development would. Councillor Lorentson: So should that be in consideration then in limit? Yes. Thank you.
02:43:00 Speaker 2: Well, there's no real way that council can do that, because the requirements apply to the whole of the development site. So to apportion that in amongst individual unit owners, I consider that's really for the body corporate to have a look at and investigate whether they can do that through their community partners. Speaker 3: It's probably the best analogy to do that through their community partners. Speaker 7: It's probably the best analogy to call, last year, or like earlier this year, we had a similar issue with the units that had a jetty, and the facility, how many jetties fell on there, and who was going to be served from the application, and it's really a matter of, again, the owners and the body corporate to look at that. Yes. It's probably the best analogy. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd argue that's a subtle difference. What we've got here is, I'm alluding to it, is a capacity for one owner to take 1 24th or 25th of an expansion, which doesn't apply to anybody else.
02:44:00 Do we, I mean, if we applied 0.68 across all 24 units, we'd get something like 16 to 18%, would we approve a 16% increase in site cover? Yes. Speaker 3: Well, the maximum site cover is 45, and if this development's approved, it would be a total of site cover of 36.51. Councillor Jurisevic: So we would... Speaker 3: There's still some capacity, remembering this is two units going to one. Councillor Jurisevic: So we would continue to approve them up until such point as the maximum site cover was reached, and then no more could... That's right. Speaker 3: It's first in best interest. It is first in best interest, and that means I agree. A little bit unfair, but it is the way the legislation works. It doesn't ask for council to split, be allowed to increase the amount of unit owners.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 It doesn't require body corporate consent to be given on original... Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but one would expect if there's a current footprint and a current site cover per unit that that, in a multi-unit complex, that that site cover would be... I suppose if they're allowed to go to 45, they're allowed to go to 45. That site cover would be the maximum that each unit would be allowed to retain, as opposed to expand. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, they're not all the same size in this development. They're all the same size and shape. Councillor Jurisevic: Are the units themselves, each of the units, different shapes and sizes, or are they all the same? Speaker 3: No, they're different. Councillor Lorentson: They're pretty much all the same. Speaker 3: Can I clarify? Councillor Lorentson: They're not units. They're individual townhouses and they're quite significant. And the way Gable Pools actually designed it, they actually respect privacy and noise issues really well.
02:46:00 So one's set back, one's forward. So there's a real sense of privacy when you're actually in the complex. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: We have a motion to force councillors in. Councillor Finzel: Can I just have a question? Can I just ask another question? Of course. Yeah. So just to clarify, if we look at the whole of the ratio of the entire block from Hastings through to the other end, and we continue to approve these, and like you said, first in best dressed, how do we protect the ... What's the percentage on the site that has to be open space or common area? Yeah. Okay. How do we ensure we keep that ... Yeah. To the requirements of the plan? Speaker 3: Yeah. So there are a few provisions there. Sky colour is one. But there's also a requirement for a minimum range of open space. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 3: So that's going to also contribute that there's still open space there amongst the units, because they're going to continue to have to meet that minimum open space across the whole of the development.
02:47:00 Now for Hastings Street, that's not a lot. You can see other developments in Hastings Street. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. The residents argued that that space is going to be compromised. I don't know what percentage they drew. Yeah, it was. Speaker 3: Is there anything in the report that would say that that space isn't compromised? Councillor Lorentson: Or is, again, that not a relevant plan criteria? Speaker 3: What do you mean by compromised? Councillor Lorentson: They say that it would contribute to a reduction in that open or green space. Speaker 3: It will. It will. It will change. And as the remaining units redevelop, it will change things. So they will continue to have to comply with the scheme requirements.
02:48:00 And all the requirements to be applied today is how the community want to have different requirements that apply to this lot compared to the rest of Hastings Street. And we need to amend the scheme. But it's simply not different requirements to this lot. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there a loss of vegetation in this coming in? Yeah. The I'm imagining you can't build within, you can't construct within the footprint without having to get cranes in or the like and some form of removal of vegetation to facilitate the development. Speaker 3: Yeah. Somewhere in the report, I can't quite remember where, it actually detailed what vegetation is being removed. Councillor Jurisevic: And the equivalent is being replaced? Speaker 3: There's certainly requirements for additional planting. To be undertaken when it's finished.
02:49:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I can't remember if it was this report or another report that spoke about the the leakage. I've got too many too many properties in my head. It does say 45 litre pot size. I knew there was a pot size, a 100 litre pot size. I knew there was one that had it. Speaker 3: Some of the planting types and people will need to be able to grow to a metre pot size. There's a lot of very mature large vegetation in there that's sort of their actual flat type. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, it was this one there, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry Akerby. How do you deal with some specific impacts that some of the residents asked whether it could be conditioned in the application?
02:50:00 How do you deal with when we brought to those emails that I sent you? And I think there's, you know, I've got a list of things like screen needs to be permanently fixed with the maximum 25% opening. Windows broken should be offset 35, revision of sun shadow, etc. How does that process work? Is the request meant to be reasonable or is it something we can condition to address impacts and significant impacts? Speaker 3: Right. Part of the consideration for some of the issues that residents have right now is often often spent quite a bit of time looking at. And I'll just take you to page 87 of the report, number 2. The right hand. And it's got sort of a lot of numbers if you like. Any of them? I think there's a lot of numbers there.
02:51:00 Which is not happening. And you see the subject site marks. The job has been 7 and 8 and on to the northern side and on the southern side 11 and 12. So 7 and 11 is owned by the same owner and the opposite. So they're owned by the same owner. So the concerns with the fee to be from owners of 8, 12 and then the two opposite owners. Yes. 21 and what are the glasses? 21 and 20. So I guess they're the people most affected in terms of privacy and the immediate impact on them. And if I just take you to some of the photographs in the report just to explain what we're looking at. So we go to page 96. Okay. So we go 12.
02:52:00 Now this is looking towards Noosa Drive and on the right hand side is the unit, one of the units that's being redeveloped. So you'll see at the moment there's a balcony there that actually overhangs the driveway outside the lot. And then on the opposite side I think we've got, it'll be number 20. And you'll notice there's about 5 and a half meter distance between the two of them. Okay. So that's the context of where we're looking at. If we then go to page, the next page, 97. We go 13. So lot 8. Remember lot 8 was on the northern side of this proposal. So you see there's some windows there on the second level. And then the subject site being the one on the service to the left. There's two subject site notices and one service to the left.
02:53:00 Okay. So there's some windows on that northern side there. Councillor Jurisevic: That's currently. Speaker 3: Currently. Yeah. That's what it is today. Just going down, I'll talk to you in a minute about how we'd reconcile this. Figure 14. So that's the number 12. That's on the southern side. And then figure 15 are lots 20 and 21. So the ones opposite. Okay. Number 15. They've got very high. Small windows. Speaker 6: Yep. Speaker 3: Now if we just have a look at the proposal plans themselves. So going back to page 89. You'll see what is the southern down here.
02:54:00 So it's back onto what? 12. 12. They have very small slit windows there, so it's nice and screeny. They're all thick screens on that side. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, was it correct that they had to have glazing and timber screens? Is that one of the requirements? Is it glazing as well, though? Speaker 3: Yeah, you can go to... I can take you to some of the conditions. Councillor Jurisevic: It's very hard to ascertain what are windows and what vision will be out of the unit from the images that are provided by it. Speaker 3: I think the big thing to take from this is that the units off it, they generally face away from the internal driveway. Their living areas are out the other side. They've got very small windows to the driveway side. And this development will have the existing units that face the driveway does have openings and balconies already,
02:55:00 and the new unit will have to do that. The windows and balconies. But some of the conditions that I recommend to Council on page 85 are about five inches screen, being of a minimum height, but also to fix some of those screens, particularly on level two and the roof terrace, to more view. Because it's more than more than five, the one that they've been talking about. Not eight, but potentially the most impacted. Because it's the most open. The living area is going to come out that way. And for those with us, it's six feet. Councillor Jurisevic: And is there additional height here in regards to the other units? Speaker 3: Yes. So the proposal is for a fourth floor, fourth level. So at the moment, we're in three levels. We've seen another fourth floor in. Councillor Jurisevic: But the fourth level is not a living unit as such? Speaker 3: Our fourth level is sort of an open roof terrace.
02:56:00 Yep. And is that prepared to have a pool in it? Yeah, that's all. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So the request by one of the residents that the screen needs to be permanently fixed with a maximum 25% opening capacity, is that something we can consider to include in the conditions here? Speaker 3: Well, we're already asking for the screen to be fixed. And they will do that on site, looking at where the windows are. And we're sure they will. So that's what we'll have to do on site and measure. And that's best done as they're constructing the development. And it's like a new one stacked at the end of the development. Councillor Lorentson: So that's in five. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that's their northern side. So they'll be willing to open up for sunlight and access the breathing, which I think is reasonable. We've got quite a setback from that boundary. And the upper level's also a setback from the building edge.
02:57:00 So we are asking for some fixed screens to be in place to deal with any potential privacy issues. Councillor Lorentson: Is there an opportunity maybe to add under privacy as a condition that 42 and 43 are met with approval by the residents? Just so that there's some assurance that the privacy issues are properly addressed? Or is that unreasonable? Speaker 3: I think that's unreasonable. Yeah. Speaker 7: I don't know that we have any conditions that require the agreement of a council. It's not the agreement of a council and we might consult with everybody. I don't think we ever have it. It's a general condition requiring a submitter or third party outside the council to agree to some kind of settlement. Councillor Lorentson: So it would therefore be more prudent then to actually specify the opening capacity. Speaker 3: Well, I think the important thing here is about placement of those trees, which is best examined as the site's being developed.
02:58:00 I don't think it's necessary to screen all of the northern side, nor do we want to have that open to the north. That's the most favourable signs of use and some of our assets. But it's important about that placement and that more of it depends on where we go from here. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I'm just thinking of that. Okay. Would we be able to maybe, between now and the first dose meeting, maybe connect with the architect or the outback applicant and just get a little bit more detail on what's exactly envisaged? Because I think it's important. So I've got a list of specific impacts that have been sent through to me. I think for peace of mind, for them to actually understand what you just conveyed to me, that their privacy will be assured. So I'm just thinking of a way that we can do that. Is it more detailed? Speaker 3: Do you want to try and determine
02:59:00 the correct placement between them? Councillor Lorentson: I just think that we would need to be, pretty much, every owner in that complex, every owner submitted an objection to the project. Every owner complained about significant impacts. And it seems not fair that real rights and concerns as property owners are not, they are considered, absolutely, because it's impact accessible. But I'd love to go back to them and just let them know that what's designed is actually addressing some of their issues. That's not communicated that I've been clear enough in the conclusions. Of course, Chairman, there's been a lot of discussion recently, back to my original question, is there any merit, do you think, in getting a little bit more detail in what's envisaged under condition 42 and 43? Speaker 3: Well, both conditions, of course, are involved with this.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 But I think our discussion with the office needs to be about that. I think the conditions will serve us well and affect the privacy, for me, because it's very often that offices are short in size, that having more offices than the shareholders is very constructive. But I think we still have that discussion with the office. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, can I just get some clarity about the images on Figure 4 as well? It says the floor plan, ground floor, bottom left, and fourth floor, bottom right. That suggests that the hot tub is on the third floor, which I don't think is correct. The top right is the upper story with the hot tub, is it not? And the bottom right is the third level, because it's the one that's got the protrusion, which, if I look at Figure 5, appears to be on Level 3 and out to the right-hand side from the elevation from the internal driveway. Speaker 6: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Which means that all the images that we're seeing in Figure 4,
03:01:00 the internal driveway is on the right-hand side looking that way. Speaker 3: That's correct. That's the internal driveway, yes. And Level 3 is essentially the return of the hot tub, or key, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Level 4, you mean? Speaker 3: Level 3. They've marked it as Level 3, floor plan. Speaker 5: Kerry, Councillor Jurisevic: but what it says there at the end there, it says, the protrusion, as I said, is the third level. If you look at, if you look at Figure 5 and the left-hand image, the protrusion out to the right-hand side is what you see on the bottom right there. Speaker 3: Yeah, I see the confusion there. Yeah, the way that Figure 4 is labeled, that's not quite correct. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I didn't, I didn't think it was correct. So, the actual fourth floor or the top story Top level. is the top right. Speaker 3: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: And the third story is the bottom right. Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, you're correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I was confused
03:02:00 when I looked at that and read that and went, that doesn't, that's not right. Excuse me, Kerry, Councillor Wilkie: how are the planning, planning's going to have to be changed to respect the, the wishes of the majority of the residents there? What would, and is it possible through an amendment process? Speaker 3: I think there's a, a range of needs essentially within the curriculum. One, they're wanting to ensure everyone gets their portion of the remaining development if they wish to redevelop. So, I think there's other needs that we should to actually keep this in place. And, so, we, there are particular sites not there in the Shire for the architectural grounds and that they can't redevelop. That would be one option. And, I would like to say some additional words to this thing about the development of the site
03:03:00 Councillor Lorentson: and the environment meeting that submitters have an opportunity to appeal the decision made by Council. Can you explain that further, Chair? Speaker 3: Yeah. So, it is an impact accessible application. So, that means council makes this decision, the applicant has the right of approval within council's position. So, those just lodged in the funding environment court within the funding environment court. And, to make an application to the court, which is a court, there is an application to the court that needs to be paid. And, council is likely to join the appeal. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Kerry, in your opinion, if this was refused and if the applicant exercised their right to take Speaker 3: an application to the council, would it be appropriate for the council to Speaker 5: approve it? Yeah.
03:04:00 Speaker 3: So, the council will try and find an independent consultant to support council's initiative. But, I suspect it is not appropriate. Well, Councillor Wilkie: councillors, Brian Stockwell. Yeah, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Move, Councillor Stockwell. We have a seconder, please. I'm taking it. Seconder, Councillor Wegener. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do say, and I completely appreciate the views of the in that it's perhaps something I heard about months ago that there was this internal conflict about those within the resort that felt that it was a great example of modern Noosa architecture, that lightweight subtropical that, you know, as I said, that 1983, I'm guessing this is probably the first large exponent of it by Gabriel Quill. It was, that was when there was a number of key architects in town that took a style that went around Australia. So, I fully appreciate it. And it's, you know, it's a bit of a coincidence that we've got Gabriel Quill's
03:05:00 exhibition downstairs in the art gallery because it is part of what Noosa is renowned for. And, but that would have been something we would have had to think about if we were going to do character and heritage precincts or increasing character and heritage precincts and make a specific decision within the planning scheme. We haven't got that. We are limited when we do development control to assess against the scheme as much as we may, you know, agree or disagree with the position in terms of the merits of retaining this as an example of architecture that emerged in the 80s. The compliance with the planning scheme and with the conditions around privacy are dealt with and the nature of the architecture if it was on any other site would probably be talked about in glowing terms in terms of the level of open space. It's not, it's quite high but it's,
03:06:00 you know, the range of voids, et cetera, make it a very interesting design that does, is suitable in Hofty Creek. There's no doubt about that. It's just the inherent conflict between what's there and where this lot owner wishes to go and I presume there will be continuing applications as, you know, 30 year old lightweight development, 40 year old lightweight development goes through the decision about whether to continue to maintain those or to redevelop. It is obviously not our, our, our business to interfere within whatever the, the community title or the, the, the body corporate statement has within it. It's our job to assess against the planning scheme and staff have said in their professional opinion it complies and therefore I support their recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell.
03:07:00 Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Well, some words were said that there's people that want to keep it the way it is. I'm sorry that it wasn't put into their corporate plan, you know, that their, their, what do we call it? The community management plan. That, to maintain it forever the way it is but it's not and it's not Council's place to step in and fix something and we've lost it. We would, there's a lot of other big battles that we want to fight in Council and this is not one of them. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. If we had the character and heritage precinct overlay maps up, you know, that were more comprehensive across the Shire, would this change
03:08:00 this in any way? Speaker 3: It would depend what it says and what it asks to achieve. But if it asks for retention of existing buildings, it will change I guess if you want me. Yeah. Speaker 7: Can I just? I was just thinking about if this thing was that identified with single properties like if this is a group property or across the whole of that precinct and what that would be like. Yeah. Other individual properties like individual properties you know, putting out a property down there would be an activity. Speaker 3: Yeah. There's one in Sunshine Beach that's an individual property that's actually selected for a park section. Right. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Just given the whole site was a gable or pearl like concept across the entire site. I was just wondering would that be considered if the heritage and precinct overlay took, it could take that
03:09:00 into consideration? Councillor Lorentson: Just as another correction Councillor Redner mentioned that the residents didn't want the buildings changed. They actually do. They're not anti-development. Oh, okay. So this will be my closing. So the residents are actually quite reasonable. They're not anti-development. They're just very concerned at the significant impacts this development may have on their individual property and on the site as a whole. To reiterate what Councillor Stockwell said our job is simply to assess the application whether it complies or not to the relevant provisions in the planning scheme. It does. And for that reason I will support the recommendation. And again to reiterate what Councillor Stockwell
03:10:00 said we have a duty to ensure that decisions are made with consideration that we're actually playing with rat payers funds and unnecessary protracted extensive legal costs. And for that reason I will support this application. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Very reluctantly. I reckon this is one that slipped through the cracks in the planning scheme to be perfectly honest. And I don't see that being able to gain advantage by winning the first in over a group allotment is something that we should necessarily agree with. So unfortunately the planning scheme allows it. I mean, what's to stop an owner turning around and owning four or six of these and suddenly deciding they want a block of units in there, you know, that isn't in keeping
03:11:00 and is installed but fits within the planning scheme and fits within the footprint. I've got to say beauty's in the eye of the beholder and I don't find this very appealing at all. I mean, Speaker 6: you know, Councillor Jurisevic: leaving behind screens and things to, but I do say once you're inside it'll be sensational and living it'll be fantastic. But it, I mean, style is, style is an individual choice. But is this in keeping with the rest of the incident if the individual residents appreciate that. Combining of lots is something I wouldn't have expected. So that one's, that's what's, that's what's thrown me on this one. I would've expected the individual lots would've been allowed. And combining these would be something similar to subdividing of a lot or conjoining lots in other areas. But as they're individual titles the planning scheme allows it. So reluctantly, I'll accept the staff recommendation, but I don't necessarily approve of the development.
03:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Joyce here. Councillor Swish to speak. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I went out to the site. I've received emails and corresponded with the residents living in there. Yeah, I think the planning scheme has let us down, and I've raised it in the past around character and heritage precincts overlays that unfortunately at times have not met the community's expectations of what should be valued and protected as part of our history and our narrative in the shire. I mean, we're sitting here with a Gabriel Pearl in our art gallery promoting this architectural brilliance that medals have been awarded to and everything. So it's just a shame that unfortunately we haven't matched the community's expectation
03:13:00 through the planning scheme to meet, you know, the protection of these heritage precincts. Yeah, also I think the first in best dress approach is, you know, brings up the question of equity. And then, you know, this final person that chooses to develop, you know, how are they compensated for their loss in that overall development of that site? I appreciate and value the contact that was made to me via the other owners because I think this is quite distressing. It is unfortunate that we don't know what the community management statement or plan involves, and it does sit outside of our remit as council to make... or support recommendations that could feed into this decision.
03:14:00 Yeah, as much as I would like to support the community and retain the history and the heritage, the plan doesn't support it. We're assessing this against today against the planning scheme. It does comply to the relevant plan assessment. So with regards to that, unfortunately, I guess to comply with the staff recommendation, I will have to support the report back to council. But, you know, it's really disappointing that the planning scheme has, in my opinion, not considered the community's expectations from some sector of community to protect relevant narrative and history. That identifies connection to place and ultimately community.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart, do you have anything to say? Mayor Stewart: I think it's all been said. This is a development. The planning scheme allows for it. It's a development that complies. In fact, it's consistent with all schemes. And I'll be supporting the staff's recommendation on that basis. Yeah, I will too. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Stockwell used to close. Put the motion in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. Next item is item four, which is application for another change to a development approval for multiple housing, type two duplex and operational works to include short term accommodation at 1 and 2, 10 Hill Street, Sunshine Beach. Speaker 7: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: . Speaker 7: . . Speaker 3: So this application is for another change, it was approved for a duplex, it was a permissive change because we were wanting to allow for each of the units to be used for short term accommodation or permanent accommodation, it went through an impact assessment process, and it was approved for a duplex.
03:16:00 It was publicly advertised, and we received five properly made and five not properly made submissions to the proposal. The application, each of the units will have eight people per unit if proposed, there's not a unit. It is a two bedroom, there are two bedroom units, but there is a large study sitting in it, but there's no capacity of being used as a bedroom. And I suggest that's why they're looking at traditional units. We only see six people in each of the sized units, but they are looking at eight people per unit. The application is recommended for approval because it does not comply with the scheme requirements.
03:17:00 And particularly one of the scheme requirements is to maintain the residential median density zone, or predominantly in that neighbourhood. It's already tipped the scale, and it is not the proposal which is contributing the digital short term accommodation. It's in an area that's not needed. It was recommended for refusal along the line, similarly to others being recommended to Council, but with an additional reason. The primary reason there is car parking. Each of the units opposed eight people, there's only two parking spaces per unit on site. The scheme requires five parking spaces in total, for two units. And whilst the applicant suggests that there is parking in the driveway, and they can achieve five spaces, that would mean the car would be required to reverse out onto Poole Street, which is part of our major road network.
03:18:00 I'm a planning team, and to set this up on the major road network, I'm required to have on-site swimming. And we've got up and achieved that. But relative to safety issues, there is also a minor privacy issue raised, which is that the back space of this motorway may be in some of these four-story buildings. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, if we had, if we changed it to say about six people, does that greatly alter the car parking requirements? Say six people per dwelling instead of eight. Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's something we talked about at planning committee. And so let's have a look at it with councillors. I think it's implicit, but I don't think it resolves it. The scheme does require the five parking spaces. And I think it does for a particular reason. You do need six people at least two car spaces, just so you get two cars.
03:19:00 But then essentially people don't need to come as three couples or a group of friends. They may have visitors come to even while they're on holiday. It's, you know, community-wide. So, you know, the additional space is required to accommodate both potential arrangements. Councillor Wilkie: How many car spaces would be required if it was for permanent accommodation? Speaker 3: For permanent accommodation, it's the four spaces that are at least close to the site or provide the site. So it's two parts of your field, and it has two parking spaces for each. Councillor Wilkie: And that's adequate if it was permanent? Speaker 3: That's considered adequate by the scheme. The average three-bedroom units accommodate about six to four people. So generally, that would be sufficient. Councillor Jurisevic: So the two car parking spaces are consistent with two bedrooms and the number of people that will be allocated to two bedrooms. Speaker 3: Yeah, this was actually approved taking into consideration that the study run for three and could be used as a third bedroom.
03:20:00 Councillor Jurisevic: As... No, in the approval as a... Speaker 3: As a duplex. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah, so the two parking spaces are fine for each bedroom. Councillor Jurisevic: Because that could be... That could accommodate an additional bed or additional... The point four, would you like? Speaker 8: That's right, four. Councillor Wilkie: Councilors, I think we've been here before. I'll move the motion. I'll second it. Okay. Speaker 6: This is a motion to refuse. Councillor Wilkie: This is a motion to refuse. Yeah, I'm seconding it. Councilors, the proposal does not have sufficient parking on site and is likely to create parking and traffic problems. It does not meet the rules of Shire's plans. Strategic intent now comes to the... Shire's increased visitor accommodation is not sorely needed for this area. The Council recently declared we had crisis in the availability of permanent accommodation. We're putting resources into addressing the shortage of permanent accommodation. And while I respect different views on this, I cannot on one hand acknowledge and commit resources to addressing a crisis of permanent accommodation,
03:21:00 then vote against our planning scheme and add to the crisis by removing another dwelling from the pool available for permanent occupation or rental. The proposal does not meet the new planning scheme's purpose and overall outcome, the immediate density residential code zone, as there are already a number of sites advertised as being available for visitor accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood and zone median density residential. The proposal conflicts with the planning scheme's purpose and overall outcomes of the coastal community's local plan code because... visitor accommodation has started to erode the available supply of permanent housing in the local area and more visitor accommodation in the area is likely to result in detrimental impacts on the residential neighbourhood and the memory of permanent residents. The proposal does not comply with the scheme's provisions intended to protect the privacy of its neighbours as this design has the potential to overlook the private open space of neighbouring properties from the rear balcony and unreasonably impact on the memory of those residents. The proposal does not comply with the planning scheme's requirements that sufficient parking be provided on site
03:22:00 and if we don't relate to parking or traffic issues in the area, we cannot approve it. Our respective variety of views are on the table on this issue. Council stop there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just quickly, I have a slightly different way of looking at these things. It's clear that car parking is an area that is known to create significant community concern with the overflow of car parking into the streets and onto the footpaths. The fact that this can't meet the basic requirement is a fundamental thing in any impact assessment. I'm happy with the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Anything else? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll have a crack. Joe? Two dwelling units to be available for short-term accommodation and or permanent accommodation.
03:23:00 The existing duplex has two bedrooms and a large study sitting area and the applicant proposes to accommodate eight people per unit. I can't reasonably see that that does. The parking is an issue. It's on busy hill streets. I support the staff recommendation on this. I don't think the applicant has addressed any of the issues that staff approached. Councillors? Mayor Stewart: I have always voted to support short-term accommodation in medium density because it has been consistent with our planning. But in this case, there is car parking issues. I take on board that Hill Street is busy and that reversing would be potentially dangerous. And I also take on board eight adults for a two bedroom. Seems really too much.
03:24:00 And even if we did take that down to six, we've still got the necessary car parking requirements that they don't comply with. So on the basis only of the car parking requirements and not complying, I will support the staff's recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I clarify that? So if the occupancy numbers were reduced to six, the requirement for parking is not met. Is that right? Can I clarify that? Councillor Wilkie: All those in favour, that's unanimous, it's carried. The next item is item 5, application for another change to a development approval for multiple housing type 2 duplex to include short-term accommodation and operational works at 238
03:25:00 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach, page 139, Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. Speaker 7: I'd just suggest that Patrick, you know, to come and say, you know, what's your reason? Yeah, yeah. Speaker 10: So, Geri's really, very similar application to the one that Geri's just spoken about. The points of difference are that this was a duplex that was approved. They're only seeking to use one of those two volumes for the purpose of both permanent and short-term accommodation. They had originally proposed for six persons to be accommodated on site since the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. The applicant has proposed that they reduce to four. And in this instance, the other point of difference is that there's only one car space available to this building unit. There's one of two. There's only one car space available. And, yeah, and it's a three-bedroom, three-bedroom unit.
03:26:00 If one car space is considered inadequate, it implies that one of the reasons for refusal of the application, three car spaces are required. So, one is considered inadequate. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Patrick, just to clarify, it's a two-bedroom unit with a... Speaker 10: Three-bedroom, yeah. It's a two-bedroom unit. Councillor Jurisevic: No, it's a two-bedroom unit with a rumpus room. A rumpus room, certainly. Capable of being used as a bedroom. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So, it's the rumpus room is an open-style room as opposed to a, with its own door and able to be closed off like a bedroom can? Speaker 10: No, it can be, it has a sliding door to it. Okay. It can be used. Mayor Stewart: They're only seeking four people to use the two-bedroom. Well, they're now reducing it to four. Speaker 10: Yeah, so they've reduced, it was originally six and they've now gone down to four with one car space. Mayor Stewart: And if it was, because it's and or, isn't it, short-term accommodation or permanent, if it was permanent, what's the car parking requirements for it? Speaker 10: Well, for a duplex, it's two permanent and one additional, two car spaces and one additional sort of door thingy, so that they'll retain what their existing use is.
03:27:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, so... So, today, the duplex will be required to provide more than what it is at the moment. The code has been changed and we need to find more parking spaces and so on. Councillor Jurisevic: So, just out of curiosity, when was this place constructed? Speaker 10: This application was approved originally in 2017. It was completed, I mean, I don't know the exact date. Councillor Jurisevic: And the parking spaces were adequate for two bedrooms in 2017, or one parking space for two bedrooms. Mayor Stewart: Sorry, so it's a duplex and one is, forget one, but that's, so there's only two car spaces for both duplexes. Speaker 10: In this currently constructed, there's three. There's two being allocated to one of the units and this has got one car space available. Mayor Stewart: Okay, so they have three car spaces for the whole thing. Speaker 10: There's no common property. Yeah, all right. So, well, no car parking on common property.
03:28:00 Yeah. Car spaces are allocated to the... Dwellings, so one, the dwelling that we're talking about has one space allocated to it and the other dwelling has two, so the users of this dwelling can't use those other spaces. Councillor Jurisevic: So, normally, it'd be one each and one for a visitor car park or something like that in more typical circumstances. Councillor Lorentson: I think I threw this question at you, Kerry. My understanding that if a dwelling is considered small, less than 100 square metres, the car parking space requirement is only one. Yeah. Yeah. So, this duplex does not fall in that category. This is quite a substantial... Yes, it's a three-storey development. Speaker 10: It's quite a... Yeah, it's more than 100 square metres. It's more than 100, yeah. And so, that's why I actually clarified the definition, small dwelling unit is up to 100 square metres, and this would exceed that. It would exceed that, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: There's a lift here as well, isn't there, in the duplex? Speaker 3: Yeah, there is.
03:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, up to 100 square metres. Speaker 3: And just, with the applicant proposing a change to the application from six persons to four persons, even though the, I guess, the car parking requirements in the scheme suggest that three parking spaces require, even though they've narrowed it down to only four, there's probably a reason for the council to accept two spaces for the use, but not one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Council, I'll move the recommendation. I'll second it. I'll second it, Councillor Jurisdict. Council, there's similar reasons as for the last application. Parking is a key impact. It needs to be managed on site for all development. This current, the application that's current form doesn't meet that, and it's only going to cause issues if we don't address that with adequate car parking. Well, I support the staff recommendation.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The recommendation is logical option. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion prior close? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, like, it's, for consistency in the past, I have been, you know, agreeing against the staff recommendation based on the medium density residential, and waiting for the report back from staff, but I guess, given the parking issues raised in this application, I don't think it's going to be a good idea, I think it's going to be, I don't think it's going to be a good idea, I don't think it's going to be a good idea, I don't think it's going to be a good idea, I don't think it's going to be
03:31:00 an application. I guess I have to take them into careful consideration. Given that the parking definitely doesn't comply. I will have to, in this case, accept the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Can councils speak to the motion prior close? All right, I'd like to close. All in favour? That's unanimous, thank you councillors. Item 6, application to reconfigure a lot at 9a Jirrima Krupa Cooroibah, referred from page 154, Planning and Environment Committee Agenda, and maybe a bit of a summary. Speaker 10: This is a lot of approximately 4.4 hectares in the area at 9a Jirrima Krupa Cooroibah.
03:32:00 It's in the rural settlement zone under the previous planning scheme, the 2006 planning scheme. The applicants are seeking to subdivide the land into two lots. The primary issue here is that there's a significant area of riparian buffer. Through the site and the application proposes an access track through that riparian buffer. The access track requires some earthworks and also requires some clearing adjacent to the access track to facilitate compliance with the state planning policy requirements for bushfire. Allowance for emergency vehicles to move along that track, but also to stop and for occupants of the vehicle to be able to work through that. As such, it requires removal of a significant amount of vegetation within the riparian buffer.
03:33:00 Also, the earthworks have issues with water flow, and according to the application, it's not supported. Councillor Wilkie: So make some comments about minimum lot size too, because . Speaker 10: Yeah, so under the previous planning scheme, the 2006 planning scheme, which is being considered, the minimum lot size requirement is 2 hectares, under lots is 1.85 hectares. So it's slightly under. Under the new planning scheme, the current planning scheme, the minimum lot size requirement is 1.5 hectares. So it doesn't apply to the old scheme, but it does apply to the next one. Speaker 6: Question from the start. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. Patrick, a proposed driveway also. I mean, how often do we see a proposed driveway going through the middle of one property to access another property as opposed to down the boundary or something along those lines? Is that something we commonly see? Speaker 10: The alignment of the driveway, I would presume, is related to the riparian siding of the building envelope to get to the direct path there.
03:34:00 It may be associated with the quality of the site. But irrespective of the path they would take, it would still result in similar issues, certainly in terms of the bushfire requirements. If they have that clean access around it and subsequent removal of vegetation. In terms of the earthworks, I couldn't quantify what the change would be. But suffice to say, there would be still some earthworks required for the track to be realigned. Councillor Lorentson: So, Patrick, I've got an email from North Coast Environmental. And they have given sort of an explanation about... The issue about the driveway requirement between metres wide access for bushfire to accommodate firefighting appliances.
03:35:00 So, my reading of the email is that there's heaps of opportunity for QFES to operate along the driveway. And there's not even a need to clean any vegetation. I've got it in front of me. And it says... Okay. Given... And this is from North Coast Environmental. So, I'm assuming that if they make this statement, they're liable. Not us. So, they write, given the existing trees with the riparian zone are at low density, there's ample opportunity for QFES to effectively operate along the driveway. And not be impacted by a tree with respect to having a three metre cleared zone either side of the driveway for fire, vehicle doors driving, etc. As long as future regrowth is managed and sown, there is no real need to clear isolated or scattered individual trees within the three metre wide working area either side of the driveway.
03:36:00 So, I'm reading out of that that it's not densely... The trees aren't located next to each other. They're quite scattered. And there's heaps of room. Is that...? Speaker 10: Well, there are... The trees are scattered. Notwithstanding, it is a state planning policy requirement that there is three metres of cleared area adjacent to the access track to ensure compliance. But it's also somewhat presumptive because it would be hard to say if you were in there fighting a fire as to when you would need to pull over and get out of the vehicle and undertake operations. So, you may not be in a position to say, well, this is where we want to stop. There's no tree here. But we can't simply because there's no tree here. My understanding is that you'd require the whole of the access track to be cleared to ensure that those people that are buying fire are safe in any part of that access track. Councillor Jurisevic: That's my understanding as well. That would be a safety requirement for the health and wellbeing of anybody coming into
03:37:00 that. That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: So, given that, why would an environmental report, a bushmeyer report, state up to say otherwise? I'm not sure why they would make a statement saying it's fine. And that's what essentially I'm reading out of this, that they're saying it's fine. So, it is or it isn't. Speaker 7: I think sometimes when you get to an expert opinion, you end up with two different things. It's just a way of doing it. Yeah. It's a way of doing it. Yeah. Speaker 3: That's a good idea. In fact, the last one was just refused, a consultant said that one parking space was very hard to get people. Not only cars, but people, I think, that we might be able to do that very much. Speaker 10: You're saying it's a state requirement there to determine the requirements. It doesn't say pay policy there, the requirements. There's actually detail, I believe, in the report, in the paper in there, which actually demonstrates what those requirements are.
03:38:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And again, to clarify, the minimum lot size is 1.85, isn't it? No, 825. It's under the minimum two. Speaker 10: One of the lots is under the two hectare requirement, but just to point out, it would comply with the current scheme requirement, which is now reduced to 1.51. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, it was reduced to 1.51, yes. The council can have a motion for us. Anyone care to move it? Yeah, Rob. Councillor Jurisevic: No, Tom's got it. Tom's got it. Council Wegener. Council Jurisevic. Council Wegener. Councillor Wilkie: Can I speak to the motion? No. Okay. Council Jurisevic. Oh, sorry. Anybody else? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I support the staff recommendation on this. I can see the challenges that they've addressed here, and I think there's some way to go to meet compliance there, so I'm happy to support the staff recommendation.
03:39:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And the council will speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask another question, please? Environmental covenants, we sort of touched on this at different applications, still in the same precinct. In the report, the applicant said that they were willing to enter into an environmental covenant that would give council pretty much some legal mechanism to ensure that, you know, we're doing it, but we've missed this part. Areas protected in perpetuity. Was that discussed as an option with the applicant or is it relevant in this case? Speaker 10: Forgive me, I sort of inherited the application so I'm not too sure and the officers who were dealing with it have since left council. If there were discussions, and I would say there were discussions around the covenant, there's still issues associated with the works that are required to comply with the access requirements
03:40:00 and also to create the access that would cause conflict with the planning scheme and that wouldn't be able to be mitigated by having a five month covenant. Speaker 3: So if we take the covenants, do we go over the area? That you're saying there's no clearing committed and we're allowed to touch that area. So the issue with this one is they've got clearing that's required along the access lane to the house site and there's a space for people. So they don't have to be outside the area. Councillor Wilkie: You mentioned clearing of koala habitat in here. How significant is that as a reason for refusing? Speaker 3: So the applicant under the state laws now for koala habitat haven't demonstrated a need for exemption for koala habitat
03:41:00 otherwise they're not even allowed to make an application. So they have met with state exemptions but this requirement will still result in clearing habitat from the boundaries. The officers say that they're not subject to exemption, they're being asked for retention of koala habitat. So you'll see I think on the page if you don't mind. Councillor Jurisevic: And a thought from the koala mapping. The house site. It wasn't actually in the koala. It's not. Speaker 3: No. So you see on page 157. The top. Yes. That one. That diagram. They show the extent of clearing of identified koala habitat that may occur because of the lot boundaries. So it's fairly minor. But it's . Councillor Jurisevic: It's the five way of exempt vegetation. Speaker 3: Yes. So if we approve a lot boundary there, then there's exemption to clear the .
03:42:00 Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I will talk on this one. It's interesting. We've got, we had a recent subdivision application down the road where I disagreed with the recommendation for refusal. And that was based on the fact that the water feature going through that particular development had been dammed and that the only access was across the dam wall. Whereas this is actually a different creek waterway here. It's got a more natural condition and status. And the rear of the lot has got remnant vegetation. The conflict in terms of putting an access easement is about the full extent of the riparian corridor needing to be cleared, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the riparian corridor. And that's because the rear remnant vegetation is high bushfire hazard. The access to this site is in a bushfire buffer area where there's no access. And that's the impact buffer where you need to be able to exit.
03:43:00 So I'm quite happy with the recommendation of staff that, you know, in the previous application, I advocated that the rears of these lots are the ones that are more important to keep for conservation purposes rather than the front where the house side was on that one. So for all those reasons, I think the staff recommendation is worthy of support. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. The Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener it closes. Councillor Wegener you wish to close? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I do agree with the Councillor Stockwell there that this is a much more clear case than before the last two-minute case. So yeah, I'll close it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Patrick. And thank you, Karen. Thank you. Thank you. I'm 7 Fridgham Digital Hub. For your report. Councillor Jurisevic: In the planning committee too, wasn't it?
03:44:00 Councillor Wilkie: Mr Boden, welcome. And Anthony, what Jo, you want this one referred? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. In terms of the significance of what's before us. Also wondering why it was in the planning committee. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The right spot. Councillor Jurisevic: OK. Prayer Johan from the 7 Fridgham Digital Hub. I'll question that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Questions for Chris? Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: I just thought it was... Certainly there was some comments, but I haven't got any questions off the top of my head. I'll have a quick look through here. So can you forward anything out? Any councillors wish to move the recommendation? Councillor Wilkie: We'll move Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Councillor Jurisic? Councillor Stewart? I'll start one. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Chris. I think it's worth noting that the Peregian Digital Hub has created 41.5 jobs, valued at
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 $3,735,000, and of this, $1.867 million directly attributed to the Digital Hub. The development of new digital products and services, valued at $7.81 million, direct attribution of $1.562 million to the Digital Hub. Intended private capital investment to stimulate businesses. Promote products valued at a minimum of $180,000. The total social return on investment, inclusive to the Hub and other benefits, is calculated to be $4.8 million for 2021. Leading the way in fire tech through our fire tech network and our fire tech living lab. You've partnered with fantastic businesses and companies. So huge congratulations, those numbers and that data speaks for itself. So it's terrific and well done, Chris, because you're a great leader down the road. And you've just driven this and done so much of the heavy lifting for us. So thank you. And Anthony, thank you.
03:46:00 This is a great area. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: I just have a question, please. Could you expand on the digital cadetship programs which you've initiated down there? That sounds very exciting. Speaker 9: Sure. To the Chair. The digital cadetship programs are for senior students at, I don't know, five, six, seven, eight high schools in the region that have a particular interest in one or two areas that we've focused on at this point. One is artificial intelligence. And that program has been set up and designed for students that have a sort of mathematical aptitude or interest in technology and who would benefit from extension opportunities beyond what their schools can offer them in terms of this particular technology. Similarly, we have a cadetship for students in that same grade 10, 11 range to extend
03:47:00 beyond what their schools offer them on the digital design side. The cadetship basically consists of a weekly program based out of a digital hub over three terms where we develop their skills. That is done through a two-hour, three-hour, three-hour, three-hour, three-hour, three-hour session every Tuesday or Wednesday depending on the cadetship where we draw on mentors and experts to come and deliver lessons, lectures, workshops. And then that's teamed with excursions when we're able to do them. That might be to local or business-based companies of relevance. And then work experience opportunities. So most of the cadetship programs are for students that have a particular interest in technology. Most of the cadets in these programs will come to us and ask us to help them find their grade 10 or grade 11 work experience placement.
03:48:00 And we'll try to place them upon other companies in the hub network. Or we'll accommodate them ourselves if we're unable to do that. And then finally, when they get to grade 12, where we recognise they're all extremely busy and coming once a week to the hub for the program is not really an option when they've got that much on their plate. We continue to try to support them through grade 12 with connections into potential part-time jobs, recommendations from university entrants, and so that we've got the back of their participation in the cadetship. Thank you, Chris. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Yeah, Chris, one of the things I was always keen to see and we spoke about at the beginning was the engagement of local schools and the opportunities that are presented now. I see we have the Young Inventors Club. We have Hub Holiday Programme Workshop. We have Creative in Residence Programme. My understanding is that it's been embraced by leaders within our student cohort that
03:49:00 are actually mentoring and presenting to the other students some of their learnings and their experiences. Can you elaborate a bit more on the involvement of students at that mentorship or training level of other students? Speaker 9: Sure. Well, with that amount of activity going on in terms of holiday workshops and after-school things and so forth, to staff that up with full-time or part-time staff would be a significant cost to Council and, indeed, it would be hard to find the resources to be able to do that. So we've created a system where, as we mentor students and they move through, they, in turn, then teach others younger than them the skills they need. And that way we sort of create something that's a bit more self-sustaining and self-competing. And as part of that, they get a taste of entrepreneurship because the arrangement is that students
03:50:00 that teach holiday programmes, for example, can charge a small fee to parents to enrol their kids in a particular workshop and we allow the students to keep all of that revenue to themselves. We help them and teach them about marketing and how to promote it and customer service and all those sorts of things. So they sort of get a little bit of a flavour for the entrepreneur life. Councillor Jurisevic: Also getting experience with teaching? Speaker 9: Yes, and getting experience teaching. You know, they say if you're really on another subject, you've got to teach it. So it's a great way for them to make sure that they know their stuff when they're trying to teach others. But most importantly, I think what's created is, it's just created capacity. You know, if it was just myself and my colleague doing everything, we're very limited in terms of the amount of bandwidth we have. So we sort of see these students as a force multiplier and can help us do that much more and create a sustainable way of doing this.
03:51:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm imagining the language you mean to use is also a language that the kids in law are afraid with rather than a technical language. They speak at a language level. It's more readily understood. Speaker 9: Yeah, that's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Have we had any progression from those leaders to further their opportunities at this early stage? Speaker 9: Yeah, I think over the last three and a bit years, we've seen some go on to some really exciting next phases. You know, multiple of them have gone on to get scholarships at, you know, the University down in Brisbane and work in mechatronics or computer science or other related fields. And a lot of that is captured in the social return on investment analytics when you look through. And there's a lot of survey information and so forth. And you can sort of get a sense of how the students and the parents appreciate that.
03:52:00 And then, you know, encouragingly, a few of them have been placed with some of our exciting local startup businesses or scale-up businesses. And that, I'd say, is a prototype for what we'd like to do more of in the years to come. You know, at the moment, that would be a handful. But, you know, it would be great to multiply that by 10, by 50. Councillor Jurisevic: So we are starting to self-perpetuate skills, you know, in a young cohort that can be used at the higher level by some of the tenants that are within and as they grow and expand and even move on to . Speaker 9: That's right. And we're starting to see that there is a potential for talent retention. You know, that's always something we've discussed, the brain-brain problem. And, you know, although, you know, there's something to be said for spending some time away from the talent that you've grown up in and getting exposure to exciting things happening elsewhere, I think the thing that's been lacking often is the option to remain
03:53:00 in the talent with high-value employment. So I think that's something that we're trying to do. And so I think that's what we're just starting to see some exciting options developed there. And hopefully in the future there will be more of that. So if somebody wants to return the option of staying here, they at least have access to high-quality opportunities. Councillor Jurisevic: Because I see elsewhere that we're talking about having lost two tenants and one of our key anchor tenants in that mail. But there are new entities approaching the hub, wanting to come into the space as a result of the opportunity. Speaker 9: Yeah. And I think we'll cover that in the tenancy report. But, you know, pleasingly, there is really healthy demand at the membership level. I think we, you know, we'll talk a little bit later about just how, you know, the blindingly obvious has impacted the work environment and the way people think about office space and how they organise their workforces. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. It's amazing with the impact of COVID that we're not losing more, in fact, than, you
03:54:00 Speaker 9: know, in the past. But, yeah, you know, part and parcel, I think, of the hub is to try to, it's not necessary to have long-term tenants that are there forever, but to help companies grow and develop. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Dare, you want to say something? Speaker 8: Two quick points. We talked about social impact, and obviously the report today tries to capture that. I think there's a lot of hidden stories that Chris will probably never tell you, but, you know, he, Chris is someone that picks up an individual and, you know, will speak to them for two, three, four hours, and then the parent, and then the mentor, the young kid who's not just technology, but through life. So, there's a lot of stories that we'll never hear, but I know that it's happening, and I think we're very lucky to know that. But the second point is around the leverage that we get from the hub now. And it's interesting, and probably about a year ago, some changes, a colleague there
03:55:00 at the Southern Coast Council, and we had this discussion always that I do pay for a lot in an economic development program sense, and we've now, you know, created the leverage. So, between 30 and 50% of what we do at the hub is actually part of the region, as Sunshine Coast Regional Council, I guess, the area. So, obviously, if you just drive a kilometre or two south, and the Caribbean Springs and This report doesn't capture the leverage that we're now having, and we've got a really good working relationship with Sunny Coast Council and colleagues, but we've now got more leverage and value to go, yes, you've got cable, you've got an airport, but we've got the park, and there is that acknowledgement, but I think this report, we haven't shared it yet, but I think it obviously is public, so it would be good to share the talks about the Sunshine Coast region in that. So I think it's an important point for other things that we need to move forward. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, one more question. Our social enterprise, with regard to baking coffee and handling the kitchen facilitation, is that still ongoing?
03:56:00 Councillor Wilkie: It is, yeah. Excellent. I'll move this thing along. Chris, thanks for coming back up again today. The better bit is that you've got full council here, and we're quite confident that they want to thank you for everything you've created down there. You've merged it with these networks. Yes, we've merged it with these networks, as this social value, social return investment evaluation report suggests that the Digital Hub has directly and indirectly had a part in generating $7.8 million worth of new digital products and services, $1.5 million of which can be attributed directly to the Digital Hub, the jobs that have been created there. We recently had the visit by Shane Stone, who is the coordinator general of the National Resilience and Recovery Agency. He was very interested to learn about the work that firetakers are doing down there, and said that the work of the monitors that have been orchestrated in the Digital Hub is not happening anywhere else, and I believe he's sending up a team to do a story on that or learn more.
03:57:00 He was full of praise for the work that's going on at the Hub, and please accept my thanks and praise for everything that you've accomplished there and are nurturing and growing there. Thank you. Very important. Thank you. What's especially exciting is a lot of the benefits we will not see, but they'll be these young people who are going on to university, going to create their own companies, jobs, put them down the track, and that's great in itself, it's a ripple effect out into the region and country, and internationally perhaps, they'll remember what they learned at the Digital Hub. Yes, they will remember. If you remember good teachers, I think they will remember what they received at the Digital Hub. And who knows what benefit that's going to have.
03:58:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to ask a question, Chris. So you are clearly the most valuable asset of the Digital Hub. Is there any succession planning in case you leave? I'm thinking what risks are in front of us? Look, I think... It's not in his thought process at the moment, thank goodness. I'm just thinking the success of the Digital Hub is a direct link from success to hit. And I worry about it. I've attended lots of your forums and blown away with what you've done. And I wonder, I think about these things, what happens if you leave?
03:59:00 Thanks for the... No, no, no. Speaker 9: It's all right. It's certainly made me quite a profile in mortality. Sorry. Don't get run over by a bus, Chris. But I think from a leadership perspective, I'm a great believer in not creating so much key man risk or key person risk that, you know, all of a sudden, you know, it's not going to happen. All of the work you do can come to a driving halt or evaporate, or you can be taken out of the scene. So I think, you know, what we're really trying to do is create a sustainable program of activity, people who are empowered to continue things. A lot of, you know, human automation in the sense that there's sort of created institutions, groups, things that continue without, you know, one person having to be there the whole time. And I think it'll be a mark of the success if you're able to remove a key person from that and have it continue to sustain.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 And it's a very good question, and it's one we should continue to ask. Not so much about the irreplaceability of an individual, but the sustainability of the ecosystem. So very much in my thoughts, because it's how I would measure my own effectiveness, is not to create a sort of centralised single point of failure, but rather to sort of, you know, create something that has multiple redundancies. And if someone... I'd like to take a holiday next year. I'd like to know that, you know, there are others around that can pick that up and I would like that. You know, so it's very much part of the thinking. And I'd like to say that, you know, things would very much continue pretty well if I disappeared for a while. Because there's great people around. There's super supportive council. We're increasingly collaborating with colleagues. And, you know, it's... But it's a good provocation. We need to keep working on it. Speaker 5: Heather, do you want to say something? Speaker 9: Just quickly. Speaker 8: I mean, obviously, I hope I've been flat in on that.
04:01:00 Chris, myself, and Brett and Kim have worked... I need to do more work in this area over the next few years. It certainly needs to be a sustainable model. And obviously preparing for that, you know, life without Chris type thing when he moves on to something else. But I would say that, you know, council has been bold and brave so far. And there's no doubt that to maintain what we're doing, I would call on all of us to be bold and brave going forward. Because if we want to maintain and attract people like Chris and give them the space to do what they do well, you can't... You know, you can't... You know, we can't be risk averse. It's as simple as that. Brilliant. So, today, I think we've managed the risk well. We've had a pretty good appetite for risk. And we've got to move in the next phase. So, we'll do that together. Part of the... We've got the new economic strategy. We've got diversification. We'll work through that. Part of that is what's the future of the hub and biotech, et cetera.
04:02:00 So, I think it's upon us all to ensure that we have a Chris plan and a hub plan that's going to operate without this bit of great skill to Chris. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Oh, sorry. Anyone else have a question? No. If someone wants to speak to the motion, you can go first. Go on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? Yeah. Thanks for the report. We had a lot of talk about the use component, and focus for me is on the mission that was in the social impact. And the mission of the digital hub is to foster a digital ecosystem which attracts entrepreneurs, talent, and clientele from around the world and provides meaningful employment for thousands of residents. So, the aim is a fairly significant large scale transformation of the nursery economy coming out of the digital hub. And, you know, in the old days, we'd call them business incubators, and the term incubators comes from poultry farms where you get a whole lot of small eggs that have got potential and you put a constant lot of heat and light, and you've got a high success that you'll
04:03:00 have a chicken come out of that egg. We've had lots of great examples. Who would have thought that we would have accelerated algae growing to make medicines in the industrial estate? Speaker 7: You know? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not me. But that's one of the impacts of having that ecosystem there for start-ups to become scale-ups. Who would have thought that we would have had groundbreaking astrophysicists working on fire tech coming in and taking up office space? You know, fireball, its growth so rapid they've moved out. So, now I want to put my landlord's hat on. Can we turn the heat down on the incubator a little bit? No, because we have another report, obviously, that they grow so quick that it became too big. And that is actually from an economic development perspective, exactly what we want to happen. But the whole thing here is that it's about creating a highly connected and interdependent
04:04:00 system that fosters the technology to address the challenges of a very challenging world. And, you know, some of the examples that are coming out of this quite small establishment are truly worldly. So, it's great work for all involved. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I said I'll follow on and say the rest. I mean, this report, in a relatively short time that the hub has been up and operating, is a credit to the faith that Council had in attracting finances and putting our faith in a building like the Bridgerton Digital Hub. Having someone like yourself, Chris, in there has been a key part of that. And we acknowledge that. And thank you very much for the effort that you put in each and every day. Anthony, you and your team as well, and the faith that you have in Chris and the enterprises that we're establishing and focusing on here, as well as the mentorship programs and the
04:05:00 student programs here. I think this reads very proudly for me, as someone that was involved in this Council, in having the faith to get behind the Bridgerton Digital Hub. And I think the successes here are sensational for such a short span of time. And I look forward to more in the future, particularly with the next stage of the hub to come. And I look forward to hearing your plans and your aspirations for that as we get that out of the ground once the community, the new community building down there has been completed and we can move into that space. So, thank you again. That's it. Well done. Well done. Thank you. All those people are going to go on the great successes and the great work that you do and continue to attract those type of people. I'm hoping you won't be the only person that you will attract to that space and that position over time, Chris, that others will see the sort of vision that you've had and will take that opportunity to rest on those coattails and follow it through. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Gantley. Councillor Gantley. Two quick questions. Since the borders have been closed, there haven't been people coming from overseas.
04:06:00 Speaker 9: All sorts of interesting people across, let's just call them sort of future focused industries And I think we're going to see a hell of a lot more in the years to come. I think it's going to be the single biggest driver of change in this community over the next 10 years. And how we manage that, both as an opportunity and as something that potentially has some downside challenges, I think is going to be one of the massive parts of the job of the people sitting on this table over the next 5-10 years.
04:07:00 But there is massive opportunity. And at the end of the day, the Digital Homes and Economic Development Initiative, the objective was how do we diversify our local economy from one that's highly reliant on a couple of sectors that tend to be seasonal, tend to, you know, sometimes have highly interruptive or disruptive changes thrust upon them. And, you know, we'll find that. We'll find ourselves in a really interesting position where your ticket to a good job in Noosa isn't necessarily the arrival of a business to set up shop here and create 50 jobs, but it'll be do you have the skills to participate in a job where the employer could be on the other side of the world, the other side of the country, etc. And I think our job as a Digital Homes and Economic Development Team is going to be to think about how do we tap into that.
04:08:00 Which is a generational change in how the community works and how the world works, to make sure more and more, the greater and greater percentage of our community can benefit from the opportunities that they now have access to, that they didn't have access to just 24-36 months ago. So that is largely about skills, you know, the skills to participate in these jobs, to learn to find jobs remotely, interview remotely, collaborate remotely. And, you know, I think that's going to be one of the biggest challenges that we're going to face in the future. And all of that hard skill that you need to participate in those jobs. And I think that's a massive opportunity for us. We could have a very prosperous community if we navigate that intelligently over the years to come. Very well. Speaker 7: I'm glad that you're moving out of the planning environment and going back into economic development. Speaker 8: Here we work it out for you. Do you have a quote on your comment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Economic development is already part of a sustainable planning journey. Speaker 8: Thank you. I think it's actually good balance, you know, an important time.
04:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just to move along, councillors, are there any other councillors who wish to speak before Mayor Stewart closes? Councillor Finzel: Oh, just quickly, I just want to say thank you guys for the great work. It's really exciting to, you know, project forward to our future. We're using language like force multiplier, you know, talent retention, a social return on investment and leverage for the region. I think it's really fantastic to be projecting forward and planning for that to, you know, diversify our economy and that retention of, you know, especially young people here to feel that they do have the option to stay if they so choose and there's opportunities. So, I'm really looking forward to, you know, seeing where we go in the next, you know, two years, five years, ten. So, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: No need to close. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Those in favour, those unanimous, councillors, we'd like to move to item 10, page 42 of the general committee, which is the proposed lease tenancy for the digital hub, while we've got Anthony and Chris here, please.
04:10:00 Councillor Jurisevic: If it was an incubator, would that make Chris the chief? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'm happy to move the recommendation. I'll see you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's great to see that, A, one business has been successful and we've attracted two more. We hope that the tenancy and obviously the connectivity between them and all the other people who operate in and around the hub will lead to similar success. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah. I just read Collier's letter on page 42. They state all eight tenants with reasonable interest in client on the 45 square metre space with no organisations expressing interest in the large 120 square metre space.
04:11:00 So it seems like the smaller spaces are more desirable for our tenants. Are we taking that into account when we, I guess, expand into the new Peregian community house and we use the old one? Are we taking that sort of those considerations and I guess the needs and the wants of... ...of our businesses into account? Speaker 9: It's a great question and we absolutely are. In fact, the hub-based facilities have no office space in them whatsoever. They're all about capabilities that are going to allow for collaboration and content creation and so forth rather than office space. What that space does is it frees up the event space that we have in hub phase one. I don't know if you've been to that. We've been to that many times for our various events down there and that will become some additional office space that we can let. So all of the sort of permanent accommodation for members and tenants will be in hub phase one and all the sort of shared-use facilities will be in the new facilities.
04:12:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 9: Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Just a general question. Chris, what does Anson Mackay and Saturide do? What's their name? Yeah, that's my question. Yes, please. Speaker 9: Saturide is a home-grown Noosa-based digital creative agency who have a very impressive portfolio of creative digital web and other work that they've done for clients such as Apple and other major YouTube companies. And Anson Mackay started life... They started life as a... A technology recruitment business and have evolved into a technology services provider where because of the shortage of tech talent, whereas it was once quite lucrative to place talent in roles and then sort of have nothing to do with them, the consulting model is to basically take that talent, keep them on your books, and embed them in organizations.
04:13:00 So embedding a team of technologists and others in organizations to help them with digital transformation. So that's their business. Councillor Jurisevic: So have we got any connectivity to any previous tenants or talent that's gone through the hub in these entities? Speaker 9: Both, I guess, have, in particular, in the case of Saturide, have had connections through our Reboot digital marketing group. I should just mention, just to draw on Mayor Stewart's points about the larger space. Yeah. Yeah. There are 120-odd square meters or just over 100 square meters, let's say. The number of technology companies on the Sunshine Coast that can justify a full-time office space of that size were a good handful before COVID, post-COVID almost zero.
04:14:00 So we've had to rethink that. And what we'll be doing is dividing that space into two, two spaces. So for the moment, we have two tenants that we're approving today. Speaker 10: So we've had to rethink that. Speaker 9: There's a third space there that we have an ongoing process for. And at some point, we'll come to the PCG to talk about a subdivision. Councillor Jurisevic: But hopefully, as you've said, there's, through COVID, there'll be opportunity. Yes. And southern migration that might come and make opportunity. Yeah. Speaker 5: Excellent. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll just quickly speak to it. I said just one door closes, another door opens. As we can see here, it hasn't taken long to fill some of these spaces. And I'm sure the next space will be filled a lot quicker, which is good to see. And that's sort of all for the reputation of the Peregian Digital Hub and the desire of people to come and be a part of it as opposed to some of the other commercial spaces that
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 we've had available for lease over a period of time that Council has been involved in. Well done. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We go back to item 8 now, councillors Tewantin bypass stage 1, section upgrade, tender award page 5, the general committee. Agenda. Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to do, um, introduce Andre, Andre that hasn't been here all day, project manager in the victim's road project, and Amy has been assisting Andre with this project. Speaker 6: Great. Quick interview. Um, I'm sorry, in terms of where we're at in the process and timeframe, well this is probably the final step until major construction.
04:16:00 So today we've had, um, early works construction, the clearing. Uh, we're currently, um, almost completely front of water mode. And, uh, now this is the, the actual . Councillor Jurisevic: I notice that Energex have, uh, have relocated most of the, uh, the panels. Is there any, anything more from any, apart from water and electricity? Is there any telephone, any other services that need to be? Speaker 6: Yeah, there's, it's also relocated. It's currently, it falls under the sections of the contract, so. Um, however, we've just recently, um, were able to do, um, do some investigations and realised that some of the scopes where it best can be done now before the work starts. And that would, um, help enable, I suppose, a key component of the work, which is to get on site with the early earthworks done, um, without any hindrance from any of the other operations. So, um, that's one relocation in Telstra. There's another one in Telstra under, um, Cooran Newsom Road, which has to be done as part of the actual upgrade. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that the one that was recently done? The, uh, the, uh, cutting of the road and actually that, that, that? Speaker 6: No, the cutting, the cutting road is in front of Watermane.
04:17:00 There's a, a part of the front of Watermane contract, but not far from it is actually. Councillor Jurisevic: The one near the caravan park there? Speaker 6: Um, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 6: Yeah, just, just as you turn, in Becman's turn, turning right. Um, not far from that is actually Telstra line as well. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I see. That's, I thought it was the Telstra line, not the, not the truck Watermane. I didn't realise that Watermane was going through there as well. So, as far as timeframes go, are we on time? Speaker 6: Yes, on time. Councillor Jurisevic: We're sticking to on target? Speaker 6: Yeah, absolutely. So, um, at the moment, um, yeah, um, to, yeah, present this meeting, this forum, um, we're on target for the, at the end of October to look at the contract and why don't we get, and get it, yeah, tendered. Councillor Jurisevic: So, when will, when will the pavement hit the road? Speaker 6: Uh, they'll, they'll start in, um, early November. They'll start mobilising and earthworks probably the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th activity. Councillor Jurisevic: And all complete by Christmas? Speaker 6: Um, one component of earthworks will be there. Um, at this stage it's going to, uh, probably about mid-July.
04:18:00 Mid-July. And that incorporates about 36 days of earthworks. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So, there'll be, there'll be an element of, um, down tools during the busy holiday period or? Speaker 6: Yeah, there will be, yeah. So, around the, um, holiday times, um, those peak times, um, there are, there are certain constraints that might be. Councillor Wilkie: Do I care to move the motion? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Jurisevic: For all the reasons that were alluded to, it's the necessary part of the contract, a major expenditure of the funds provided by TMR to undertake this project. And I look forward to the project continuing to move forward in perfect timing as it's been going so far. Well done. Councillor Lorentson: In regards to contingency planning, I note on page 10 of the report that you've backed it in 24% for contingency. Is that standard? And does that take into account escalating costs of materials and labour?
04:19:00 Speaker 6: It's not really all that standard. It's far and more so the fact that TMR has provided a funding of $9.8 billion. And it's pretty much based on, you know, what's left in the bucket and such. So you see there's two contingency plans. One's actually, you know, we set a construction budget. We're under that budget. And then on top of that there's the TMR contingency of another $1.5 billion. So I wouldn't say 24% is a standard. It's a healthy, easy consumer. That's very clear. But it's probably based on the fact that TMR's funding. They've given us 100% of the funds and they just, that's the slip. Speaker 5: I think we've probably realised some efficiencies through defining the new house. And I mean, I suppose our standards. So you've created efficiencies as well. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, that's cool. Speaker 6: Yeah, so part of the, I mean, yeah, just the Volker for example.
04:20:00 Reusing through things like that. Get us some savings coming from that. I mentioned we called it Seltzer Allocation. We've got some savings coming from that as well, so. Councillor Lorentson: So what happens if we come under budget? Do we bank the excess or we just use it? Speaker 5: We provide it out of the shopping list. And out of that shopping list, our priorities decide that. Oh, excellent. Oh, great. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, if we can deliver a value add to the project, if we can get under budget, so. Mayor Stewart: And the contractor SGQ. SGQ. SGQ did both the Hinterland Bridges, or is doing them, and the Orealla Crescent Bridge, didn't they? And they came in under budget for the Orealla, didn't they? Councillor Wilkie: The overall project did. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure it was that contract. But overall with the project, we came in under budget. I might have a look at it. Councillor Jurisevic: Mindra, how long have you been with us? Speaker 6: Since April, Mindra. Councillor Jurisevic: No wonder you've got such a good hand on the project. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, we've contracted on a day similar to Mr. Parade's.
04:21:00 Just a question. With the leftover funds that they put towards cycling paths, will that be associated with this project, or will it? Yes. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah, so there'll be future stages on the bypass, which is what we've been sort of pushing TMR towards from the beginning. And at the start of the project, we said, hang on, we've got a good amount of time to build. Keep it under budget. And now we can go back somewhere in that position where when the risk dies off that we're going to have a good, good variation, we can put forward a new project. Speaker 6: So the key to time is trying to get this done before the end of the year. So we need to look at a bit of a risk timeline. And so obviously when you get certain milestones, the contract finish risk can drop off, and then you can say, right, there's a lot of money here that can go to the pathways that we can start building. Councillor Jurisevic: And clearly on time and on budget adds confidence for TMR for the funding of the next stages.
04:22:00 Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak before Joe closes? Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's great to see stage one of the bypass is under budget and on time for the project. It's wonderful that TMR and the Queensland Government have funded. And it's only 10 years late. 10? The interesting part about this one is the breadth of the prices. There's a significant $2 million difference. But because we've used both this, the successful and one other contract that scored highly on all other criteria as well. So we're confident that they'll get the job done. And for the future, we're looking forward to that. But it is probably also from a political perspective time, now that we've got this one under the road, just straightforward, build the road, put some bitumen down, off we go, that we start to once again ramp up the political advocacy for stage two, because the roundabout at the other end of Beckmans Road is horrible.
04:23:00 And once again, there from there, bypassing the existing local road system to get, for the school traffic isn't competing with regional traffic is a high priority for this Shire. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Also enable us to actually seal Bickman's Road in time. Jody, would you close? Yeah, just to reiterate those points of fine raise there. Clearly some of the tenderers probably got a bit more work on their plate with regard to the prices being thrown in there to throw in a couple of extra million dollars and indicative of the market out there at the moment. So that just shows that some managed to time it quite well in that regard. Onward and upward, it would be good to see the completion of this one by the end of the financial year. Well done, guys. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion in those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Andre. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Thanks, guys. Item 9 is the Planning Environment Court Appeal.
04:24:00 Mark the present Sunrise Beach. Speaker 7: I think I'll just carry a quick summary of this one. Yep. What the issues were and then how did it get settled? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm vying to remember this one. Speaker 3: So this application was originally decided by delegation. It was refused for a number of reasons, which are listed in the courts of council, but it didn't comply with a number of key development plans. So upon... On account of the application being refused, the applicant did launch an appeal in the Planning Environment Court. And so we've been going through a process of a period of amended plans to the applicant to try and adapt the scheme in the form. We're now at the point where it does comply with the plan scheme. So it's going to comply with the application as we were saying,
04:25:00 like cover, height, whatever it is. So it's going to go with primary areas. So it's going to comply. The main issue that I have with this site still is the extent of fill to the boundaries. And this one's got 1.4 metres high fill to one boundary, which I find not the best outcome for a development proposal. But going and having a look at the navy to assess whether it's going to have a significant impact on the navy. I can't say that it will, the way the development of the store is designed. But the northern boundaries are most concernable, and the fill is up to 1.4 metres. So we've got to get that down to almost zero at the limit and then we can just get that down to five. So that is why I'm recommending filling it up these months. And it will make it more comfortable. Councillor Wilkie: You can have a mover please. Speaker 3: I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia, you have a point I think.
04:26:00 Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson wants to speak to it. Councillor Lorentson: No, just that I'm encouraged and happy that a negotiated position was the plan scheme. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much for your work. It's always worth refusing applications that are non-compliant because it does start this process where a good outcome can be achieved and it's now site cover plot ratio building height for the main ones. Big consideration now for the compliance for the new complaints. Councillor Jurisevic: Good to see we're able to negotiate an outcome and not have to go to court to settle it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much.
04:28:00 They're very responsible. They're very low. It helps keep abreast of rising costs and gives them certainty that people want to do important things. Thank you. I'm not a supporter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I had a question and sorry, I was going to send a few advice. You haven't been here in previous years when this has been done, but every year I look at Boring Point and say this should be the lowest cost option because a lot of our local families, this is their holiday location. I note that we're going up between 4.4% and 5.9% at Boring Point compared to 1.7% and 2.8% elsewhere. Is there a real operational increase in the cost of delivery that's resulted in that or is it another motivator that suggests we should be going up more than CPI at Caravan Park? Speaker 11: There's a couple of factors there. We do like to increase in the life of our people.
04:29:00 So most of our families were in the Boring Point by July, which puts us in line with CPI. Boring Point is in 3.8 years. The interesting thing to note though is that obviously the percentage increase is greater with the Boring Point pipeline. But we also have done some benchmarking across about 11 campgrounds in South East Queensland to make sure that they're meeting our competitive and neutrality requirements. And within that benchmarking, the price increase on Boring Point does look to be well down within the 3.7%. So it will mark the bottom three in terms of the price point. So it's still very competitive at a lower point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So consideration of competitive neutrality, a similar $1 increase would put us at the lowest end I would then suggest. Is that right? Or would it take us saying that we actually could be considered to be anti-competitive? Is that the concern?
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 Speaker 11: Yes. And we kind of asked that also. We have invested in Boring Point campgrounds recently. We've done an earnings upgrade. We're going to use this as our account for our return on capital. Which maintains a certain amount of value in terms of the balance of the capital. Councillor Jurisevic: But are we not also, as I said, I would have argued the same thing that Brian argued. I would have said a $1 increase would have been closer to a 2% and 2.5% increase and closer to the other. The other campgrounds are more consistent than the $2 increase, which makes it closer to 5% and 6%. Speaker 11: Comparatively, though, there are very different theories on that. So Newton-Walsh is a much higher price point because they have a different theory on that. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, an unpowered site is $36 compared to $37. I mean, there's not a lot of difference between them now in the off-peak. So I'd argue that... Question, Joe, or are you arguing with the staff? I'd argue that. But the question I have is that are those increases due to the fact that we're now tracking water in
04:31:00 and no longer using a bore out there and the like? Speaker 11: They're not a response to the design of the Boring Point. Councillor Jurisevic: So what are the ongoing costs of tracking water in at Boring Point? Speaker 11: Over a year, we switched to that approach in April. So we're still getting a measure on what that costs over a year, particularly considering that at the moment there's a high degree of variability with occupancy levels. So, you know, with the COVID environment, where usually we have high occupancy, like we see over the holiday period. But we don't know whether that will continue. But at this stage, our bottom line is that we're currently reviewing the cost of doing so. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, at some stage, I'd like to see the cost comparison of where we're at and what the systems that we've implemented are costing us. That'll be appreciated. Thank you.
04:32:00 There was some fair deal of comment from the Boring Point community with regard to that activity at the campground of tracking water. Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Still can close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Still done. Councillor Jurisevic: Go on, do it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to, because I have historically argued that way, I'm going to move an amendment. And that is that the increase at the Boring Point ground be $1 above current in each of the categories listed here. And the other areas remain as recommended. Speaker 7: If you go through that, what they're really saying is that you are proposing a change to Paragraph B.
04:33:00 At the end of Paragraph B, you would put, except for... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Except for the amount in Table 1, the amendment... The amendment steps that the proposed fees are increased by $1 above current for each of the categories listed. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, I... This is one that I...
04:34:00 Speaker 7: You can read out the one you said earlier. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The one that I had in my head yesterday. Councillor Jurisevic: If you didn't, I was going to answer. The data in the report, except for... Speaker 6: Table 1, Boring Point campground. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The amounts in Table 1 for the Boring Point campground be altered to be $1 above the current fees for each of the four categories. Speaker 3: $1. $1. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The current... The current fees... For each of the four countries. And...
04:35:00 Speaker 7: And... And... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And... And... And... And... And... And... And... And... And... And... Um that we can keep low-cost holiday options as I said uh it is a a campground that is heavily used by our own residents and it's one that I believe for those families whose recreation features camping by the lake it's important to keep it so it is as Councillor Wilkie: And what would be the impact of this reduction in fees over the course of the year, estimated?
04:36:00 Yeah, I'm sorry, it wasn't what I expected. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's all right, thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Craig? Speaker 5: Hi, it's Caren. I'm the head of the council. It's important to note that of the three holiday parks that we have, that are starting baseline, we've had two that are achieving their full-close buy-in target, and one that is essentially growing at deficit. So, if you've got a loss to either one facility, that will continue to be gained at some point, and you might need to get rid of the disruptor. Councillor Wilkie: So, Boring Point is the only one running at a loss? Speaker 3: Even though we're at capacity? Councillor Jurisevic: We're not at capacity. Oh, we're not running at capacity at Boring Point? Boring Point rarely reaches through capacity. Speaker 7: Oh, OK. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, in dollar terms, Brian, maybe throw a question to you.
04:37:00 So, current's 45, proposed is 47, you're asking for that to be reduced to 46 instead of 47, so a dollar off what's being proposed. Unpowered sites, current 39, proposed 41, you want to meet halfway at 40, is that right? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, yeah, all the current proposals is the $2 increase, I'm saying $1 increase, to be consistent with the $1 increase in the other campgrounds. Speaker 7: OK. So, I'm saying, Councillor, I was referring to four categories, but the number is just the same, if you go to the left-hand side, the plan will be for off with the recent 40 and 41, so it's $1 increase. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to it. I support Councillor Stockwell on this, given that we haven't had a lot of financial explanation, apart from the fees and charges coming before us. I think keeping Boring Point as the most economical campground, to stay at, is something I would support.
04:38:00 The facilities are quite a bit different to the two others, and I see an unpowered site at $36 compared to the off-peak of the North Shore campground at $37, being inequitable, given the nature of the two campgrounds. So, I'm quite happy to see it increase far more steadily at $1, as opposed to $2 in this period. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak against it. This is the most economical campground. It is the lowest price of all three. It's running at a deficit. It's had an increase in investment in terms of the amenities upgrade. The staff have done some modelling and found that it is the lower end of all caravan parks and camping grounds of that sort. It is still highly competitive, and it needs to pay its way. I don't think cutting it back $1, it's symbolic,
04:39:00 but there are other considerations here. The staff have done modelling on this. There is a ratepayer investment that we need to consider, and I guess that's whatever that translates to, and money that will not be recouped will be a cost for, you know, it will have to come out of some other area of council. And it is a pity that this amendment was not circulated sooner so we could make a decision based on the full cost implications of that. Councils are perfectly within their right to do it, but at this hour of the day, with no notice, I think it's bad decision making. For that reason, on principle, I can't support it. Councillor Jurisevic: I agree with you on that one.
04:40:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll speak against it as well. As Councillor Wilkie said, this is a ratepayer investment. Staff have done a lot of work. They just haven't picked these numbers up. There's modelling, there's data, there's research on the back of all of this. And it is the most economical park by far. And it's, again, to change this at this late hour of the day, I don't think it's prudent to do that either. So I won't be supporting that amendment. Councillor Lorentson: I'll quickly speak to it. One dollar to someone who's camping at Boring Point, I don't think is significant. But one dollar multiplied by X amount of people that are camping to a council that's playing with rate-based money is significant. And so for that reason, I won't be supporting it. Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes.
04:41:00 Councillor Finzel: I would just like to say that, yeah, for the same reasons, Brian. I think, you know, at the heart of it, it's nice to offer that dollar discount. But I think to just bring it on us at this late in the stage, with the cost... I can't speak, I haven't had lunch. I'm hungry. You need some sugar in your body. So with the cost implications, given we've put an investment in infrastructure there with ratepayers' money, we've got no figures to, like, draw on, and the work that the staff's provided with terms of working out those figures, which I have not seen, you know, a cost analysis if we reduce this money. Yeah, I can't support it. This is, like, on the hop. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell wish to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll close. Yeah, I acknowledge I didn't see the disparities until late this afternoon. I did mean to do an email and I admitted to do so. So I accept that as not good practice.
04:42:00 However, it's not just the extra dollar this year. It's where that starts the base for the following year and the following year. So, as I said, the staff members probably haven't been exposed to previous debates on this issue. It was a policy item I went to the public with in 2016 when there was some significant changes in campground fees at one stage proposed. I do think every dollar does count when you're looking at budget accommodation for families in their holidays. And it's about whether we have a policy of moving up. As we were told, it still will be competitive at this point. So, I think that the lower end of the market is just something for me that I have a policy position that it should be kept as low as possible in the Boreham Point area for our residents because it's commonly used for a very low cost holiday. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Put the amendment those in favour.
04:43:00 Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Stockwell, those against. Councillor Wegener, Clarence and Finzel, Stewart and Wilkie. The amendment is lost. We go back to the original motion to which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I'll put the motion in those in favour. Councillor Wegener, Lorentson, Finzel, Stewart, Jurisevic. That's unanimous. You moved too quick for me for a second. Councillor Jurisevic: I missed it. Councillor Wilkie: OK. Thank you, Robert. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I wasn't paying attention. I was drifted off. Congratulations. Thank you. That's amazing. Robin ran 100 kilometres on the weekend. Fantastic. Mayor Stewart: That's amazing. That's impressive. 20 hours. Councillor Jurisevic: Were you being chased by something? That's amazing. Speaker 3: Thank you, Robert.
04:44:00 Thanks, Robert. Speaker 11: You've got to finish in 24 hours. Oh, wow. Well done. Thank you very much. OK. Councillor Wilkie: Item 12, financial performance report. Welcome Pauline Coles to the team. And Trent. Speaker 5: Pauline will be for introduction. Pauline will be acting in my role for the next few months as I'm covering direct positions. So you will see Pauline here each month for financial support. Welcome. Yay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Have you prepared a financial report? I'm going to put you through it. Speaker 5: No, that's our culture. Councillor Finzel: We don't accept our ... Speaker 5: I invited the first day, which is the longest agenda for a while. No. In a nutshell, first quarter should apply to you. We are acting quite well. Thanks to all the conservative revenue forecasts and timing of some of the expenditure programs
285 minutes in ¶
04:45:00 and ... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I think we will see what you think. Quiet sound just every part of the year. And that's all. How it works. As you've seen with previous ... Councillor Jurisevic: So Pauline, have you started losing sleep over the figures? Trent used to be a dark ... You have dark hair. He was ... Speaker 3: No, you're actually pretty good at the planning thing that you're in. That's good. Speaker 7: There are some things we get at work, though, in the sort of attention to the development system, planning, building applications. They're all just running ramps at the moment. It's really hard work for us to know where we're going to be at least at the potty market so far. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: Some of that's also from the business side. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it's like you're paying for something to do.
04:46:00 Speaker 7: But, you know, we haven't got down to this detail, but I imagine the same thing would be in the lake area where you've got property purchase. Mm-hmm. We're at that at the moment. I'd say at the moment we've got a lot of that coming to the table. Councillor Jurisevic: We'll also have an impact of those southerners moving north and taking the opportunity to spend on their new properties. Mm-hmm. Or newly acquired properties. Mayor Stewart: Really, what... Just page 55, community facilities, it says $136,000 above year-to-date budget, but then it says offset by higher operating costs. Speaker 11: Can you just... So, in terms of, I think, the budget for the regional revenues were to take into account the impact of the campaign for COVID, and obviously that hasn't happened. So, obviously, they've ramped up what they were going to show us on that cost of money. Got it. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Okay, that's it. Speaker 11: So, that was the position for the night. Mayor Stewart: Okay. All right, thank you.
04:47:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And yet I'll point out the holiday parks are $148,000 above year-to-date budget. So, obviously, we're doing really, really well, even though we're trying to implement fee increases as well. Councillor Lorentson: So... Pauline, you'll get used to my recurring question. You know, there's a financial report, leaders, and legal censors. Mm-hmm. Can I put some... Just detail around that, Tewa? I think we're already... Sorry, I'm on page 66, and I can't... Sixty-six. Oh, it's just me. Yeah. Yeah, that's what it's going on. Mayor Stewart: Actual... Actual... Actual $363,000. I'll prepare you. No, no, it's not. We're up by $71,000. Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah. Because that... What we've been reported was the spotlight appeal. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Speaker 7: The appeal... Was to... Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 7: We've had the trade management work in the recent... We haven't had the result of that come through yet.
04:48:00 No, the spotlight... No. It's probably another four, five, six months before that discussion comes down. But a couple of the other big potential appeals, like the Houghton one, have been withdrawn. A lot of the smaller ones, like the one we just had previously, have sold over, but a couple more of those come through. So there's currently only one or two of the larger cases that are in the pipeline that was probably over a year. Councillor Lorentson: Is there an opportunity to do a deep dive into our wins? I know that we did this, I don't know how long ago, a couple of years ago, two years Speaker 3: ago. Councillor Lorentson: So we do feel another update. So we use a lot of... Yes, we do. I think we use a lot of the two things. Speaker 7: We have a lot of big cases come through. Maybe after we get the spotlight on that.
04:49:00 Speaker 5: It's a great... Councillor Finzel: It's your blood sugar levels. I see. Speaker 5: That's organisational-wide legal expenditure. So... Oh, okay. It's not just in terms of development here. It feels it can be a legal expenditure to support the inquiry, and also any procurement will include sort of independent legal advice to help people or paraprofessionals, so it's not just the element of... I think at the moment we've got $1.1 million of the annual budget, which is just development rules. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Great to have a deep dive in that area, and where are we up to with in-house councils? That's something... We've been discussing over the last nine months. Speaker 7: Yeah, you might recall, this is when we had the last audit review, this is when we tendered the... There were four separate elements to review of governance in the last month. One is about the current compliance, which came back with a big kick. We've seen the morality and how we can make that governance area work better, which we've been working through.
04:50:00 Yeah, the third and fourth report flung us around the legal one. We've got a draft report on that at the moment. I haven't seen it yet, but I know it's just coming along quickly, so that's part of that consult we worked on the governance review. That's it. Councillor Finzel: Just a question with the Kin Kin Quarry, the costs around that, which budget will that be coming out of? This financial year or the next one? Speaker 5: This year. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. What was the value on that again? Speaker 3: I don't know. Speaker 7: We've also got, in that particular case as well, we're allocating a staff member, Ian Williams, for that, so they're not strictly legal at the moment, it's part of that, of course, project progress, but we have spent a lot of money in the last month or so, and we're gearing up for that, and we'll probably be able to handle that in the next month or so.
04:51:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian. Yeah, I note the slight caution in your comments in regard to interest received, saying that cash investors will need ongoing monitoring given the low interest rates and impacts on term deposit cash fund rate return. Our strategy of going with Queensland Treasury Corporation is still the best bet option in terms of the current market, and we're really a price taker anyway, aren't we? There's nothing, no other strategies we can, is there any other strategy? We can be looking at. Speaker 3: So, we think if we have historically been the higher, and there's a lot of interest rates, we might just help actually going out to the market, so we sort of get a better benchmark on what's actually happening, and then maybe we might be able to get a better and higher rate than we currently get, so that is something that I would think. Speaker 5: We've seen a slight change in the market over the last few months, but our interest rates have started to pipe up a bit, so we've managed to get a bit of a review over there.
04:52:00 Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. On page 61, you've got rates and arrears, and it looks like there's a spike, but you're saying September's when they're due, so can you tell me how you account for the figures in the lead up to September from, say, July, August, how do you arrive at that percentage, and why is that percentage so low? Speaker 5: So, you will have these over the year when the rates are due, or become relative, and payable is the month that you will see the big spike, so that's Tuesday. That'll be March. That'll be March. That'll be March, I think, the rate for that every six months. Speaker 11: So, in terms of the arrears, that's when the spike will happen, when it's going to be there. Speaker 5: So, what you tend to find is the spike will be, the amount of arrears will essentially go from the bottom of the trough to a double, nearly, once it's due, and then the first month once we issue a reminder notice, which we'll probably get a second kind of plan to come through, so you can see, for example, March to April, they went from 9.5% to 7.4%, and we'll see something similar happen next month.
04:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: I was curious about how you got the 4.6% just before it went up to 10.2%, but it's actually, that's progression from 9.5, the previous cycle, yeah, I understand. Speaker 5: And if anything, that, the end of the cycle is the best indicator to understand what our payment terms are like, and how successful the revenue services payment have been, why we can get those great payers, because that was kind of our answer, why we can get that payment cycle running on. Mm. But obviously, we need to repeat, like last month, all of the sometimes paid, did they, customers, paid the rate payers, and missed the payment, and what we draw, they forget about, and we've got higher and higher, and stuff like that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Does someone want to move the motion? Councillor Finzel: I'd like to move. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Finzel, seconded Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Finzel, you were supposed to speak to me. Councillor Finzel: Oh, yeah, just a thank you again to the staff, and welcome aboard, that's, it's great to see you in the space, and stepping up to that role.
04:54:00 Yeah, the report is sound as always, and yeah, we look forward to the next lot of reporting, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, the councillors wish to speak to the motion, if the motion does in favour, that's unanimous. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that is the end of the meeting.