Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance. Can I have a move for the second? Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. And a seconder? We have a seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. That is for the Ordinary Minutes on the 16th of September. Thank you, Melinda. Can I have a move for the Confirmation of Minutes and Special Meeting? Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. And a second? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. I'd like to move a Mayoral Minute that I have circulated to councillors earlier. It is shown on the screen. I hereby give notice of my intention to move the following motion of the Ordinary Meeting on Thursday the 21st of October 2021.
00:01:00 Retirement of Chief Executive Officer. That Council acknowledge the contribution made by outgoing Chief Executive Officer Brett de Chastel through his dedicated service in local government for over 32 years. recognise his leadership of Noosa Council as Chief Executive Officer since 2014 and wish him all the very best as he embarks on a well-deserved retirement. On Tuesday the 2nd of November 2021, Noosa Council Chief Executive Officer Brett de Chastel will retire, bringing to an end a distinguished 32-year career in local government. Following an early career as a lawyer, Mr de Chastel commenced with Ipswich City Council, as their in-house lawyer. He was appointed to Noosa Council in 2001 as a Director of Corporate Services and brought a strong focus on sustainable financial management and sound processes to deliver good decision making. He was the lead in Council's response
00:02:00 to the size, shape and sustainability process that was sought to provide greater efficiencies in local government. He was able to demonstrate Noosa Council's long-term sustainability and close connection to community values. Following amalgamation, he spent five years providing advice and support to Queensland local governments as a consultant. He then supported the de-amalgamation campaign to help demonstrate to the State Government that a de-amalgamated Council could be successful. In 2014, Mr de Chastel was appointed to the position of the first Chief Executive Officer of the newly formed Noosa Council, following Council's de-amalgamation from Sunshine Coast Regional Council. In eight years in the CEO role, Mr de Chastel has overseen the creation of the new Noosa Council, from its infancy in developing foundation systems and services to now a highly capable local government,
00:03:00 offering services and policies that are in keeping with community values and that they can be proud of. Under his stewardship, the Council has strengthened its financial foundation and maintained a focus on good governance. Developed a full suite of policies and plans, most notably the new Noosa Plan 2020, social strategy, environment strategy and local economic plan. Planned and delivered a large annual capital works program with key infrastructure delivered, including the award-winning Gorichian Digital Hub and Park Road Boardwalk. Implemented strategic initiatives to respond to needs, along to contemporary challenges, such as the Go Noosa Transport Strategy and Zero Emissions Noosa. Capably handled a range of community challenges, including John's Landing, the 2019 bushfires and COVID-19, and championed legacy projects, with a standout being the Euro Ringtail Forest Land Transfer, which will protect 2,400 hectares of forest.
00:04:00 Mr de Chastel has also put back into the local government sector through his membership of the Board of the Local Government Managers Association, most recently as the current LGMA State President. He has a passion for mentoring up-and-coming leaders and in supporting Indigenous councils. Known for his calm manner and integrity, Mr de Chastel has capably guided three mayors and groups of councillors, the executive and over 450 staff through the challenges and opportunities found in leading a local government. He has a great care for people and making a positive difference through public service. He has been committed to the importance of local government as the level of government closest to the community, to listening to the community, and working hand-in-hand with them to deliver the best outcomes for now and into the future. Following 20 years with Noosa Council, Mr de Chastel is now retiring to pursue his volunteer work and enjoy time with family. We wish him all the very best,
00:05:00 and I personally would like to thank him for his support and his very valued advice over the past 18 months, and I wish him and Sue, who is here this evening, and your two beautiful boys, all the very best in the coming years. Speaker 1: I'm wondering whether I should declare a conflict of interest and leave the room. Speaker 2: Before, before the election. Councillor Wegener: Well, could I get an amendment back? I'm thinking, could we possibly deify the man tonight here on the spot? Deify? Oh, whether you transfer him from a mere mortal into a deity. Mayor Stewart: I'll have to speak to the big man upstairs about that. I've got a direct line but I'm not sure. I'm not sure how far it'll go.
00:06:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, thank you, Mayor Clare. You've summed up Brett's contributions extremely well there. Just on a personal note, I'd like to thank Brett for always being there for the councillors. He says he has an open door policy. He doesn't just say he has an open door policy. Whenever a councillor has gone to his door, it's been open. He's stopped immediately what he's doing. And he's given us all the time in the world and given us all the time. A listening ear, his time, and when needed, his advice. I will miss that. I've deeply appreciated that. And I know my colleagues have appreciated that about you as well, Brett. The other thing about you which I deeply admire is you don't always, you spend a minimal amount of time talking about values. What you do every day is you demonstrate them through your actions and your deeds. And that's what counts. And the staff know it. We know it. Thank you for what you've done for us. You'll be missed.
00:07:00 Councillor Jurisevic: We're all having a crack at this. Brett, I'll reiterate everything Frank said. I won't go over it again. You've been a great friend. Open door policy. You've certainly given us great advice. And you've always been there when we've had challenges to deal with in council. I said your mentorship and your advice has always been greatly appreciated and greatly welcomed. And I hope that the relationship over time isn't lost and we can still have a coffee and catch up. And I really look forward to cleaning up the streets with you in the future as well. Again, thank you. Thank you. Well, Brett's one of those people that does turn around and pick up a bag and we'll go out and do that on the streets, let alone cycle around and all the rest of it. I hope you enjoy your time in retirement. I hope you get to spend some quality time with your family and you get to undertake all the things that retirement brings.
00:08:00 Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'd just like to thank you, Brett. I've never known a better mentor. I've never known a better man. So I just appreciate the time that I've spent with you. I'm sure that we all appreciate the time, especially as new councillors on the short run. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak. I want to thank you for your leadership, mentorship and friendship. You taught me to be a better counsellor and of all the lessons that I've learnt in the 18 months under your leadership, the most important one is that I don't have to sacrifice being nice to get a job done. Work in progress, but I want to thank you and congratulate you on everything you've achieved and I bless you.
00:09:00 Thanks, Amanda. Councillor Finzel: I'd like to take this opportunity to firstly reiterate everything that's been said. Brett, thank you for what you've provided, a great example as leadership, especially as we came in as new councillors off the back of COVID. I think you did a fabulous job in leading us through that and providing mentorship. And I'd like to say that you'll be remembered for your acts of service, a good quote, and a well-worded amendment on the run. So thank you, Brett, for your contribution. Speaker 2: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A well-worded amendment on the run, something no one's ever accused me of. And it was some lovely words and I must have misread the brief.
00:10:00 Oh, here we go. It's probably not much of a surprise to you that Brett and I are out of competitive play. It's probably therefore fitting for this tribute to have a sporting theme. And in fact, you might not know that it was sport that actually introduced Brett to the world of local government. So I may gild the lily a bit since it's a while since I've heard the story, but as a young legal graduate, Brett was a keen footballer. And he'd suffered a nasty fracture of the leg in pursuit of a goal. So when a job ad came up for a legal position with the Ipswich City Council that highlighted its equal opportunity credentials to encourage those with a disability or a physical disability, that caught his eye. Now, the rest, as we say, is history. It was some years later that Brett joined the Noosa team in a financial management role and as director, serving under the guidance of long-term CEO Bruce Davison.
00:11:00 After some behind-the-scenes roles in the Free Noosa campaign, Brett took the reins after de-amalgamation. Having to reboot a multifaceted organisation, with a billion dollars worth of assets, was a massive task in the first term of council. Since then, we've had bachelors, fires and pandemics, each representing significant challenges for both the team and the capital. Now, I have noted in this that while Bruce Davison sailed through his 18 years at the top working with just two mayors, Brett's on his third in six years. I'm not suggesting a causal link, so I appreciate the sincere thanks provided by the Mayor in this minute, and I thought it might be good to hear from our last one as to his reflections, and I might have asked for an anecdote. So, from Tony Wellington, when asked, he said, Watching Brett's trajectory during my time on Noosa Council was effectively symbolised by his challenges in cycling apparatus,
00:12:00 often captioned as screensavers on his desktop. What started out as a top-end road bike, over time morphed into mountain bikes, and culminated in a power-assisted electric bike, more often seen under the posteriors of old farts like... He said, sorry Brian, me. Over time, Brett has painfully, ruefully been forced to admit to his limitations, whilst never failing to be completely enthusiastically committed to each new bicycle. As in cycling, with his professional role, Brett has always striven for excellence. However, cycling has taken its toll on Brett, particularly on the occasional swirl which has left him limping and sore. There was even a time when, whilst riding in Tewantin National Park, a snake landed its way around his spokes, putting in a brief frenzy of daredevil riding with his feet splayed outwards and his heart racing. Also true. Like I say, cycling and politics have their parallels.
00:13:00 In the end, despite the thrill of purchasing each new bicycle, and his inability to part with old ones, it is the rider that really matters, not the equipment. For my money, Brett consistently pedalled harder and faster than any of us had a right to expect of him. He has earned the battery assistance. Thanks mate, from Tony. And so for my end, I'd like to say, Brett, going forward, may your batteries be recharged, may your bike jump smoothly over any obstacles on the course ahead, and remember when you're putting the hard year slide going up, and navigating the hills ahead, that there's always a downhill ride that follows. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that mean you'll be riding off into the sunset? Mayor Stewart: There's only one thing that we haven't done tonight, and I think I'm going to do it now, is, as we know, Councillor Finzel has alluded to it, Brett has a love of quotes, so I've got two to end on tonight. The first one is quite funny, the second one a bit more poignant. You've fulfilled all your professional ambitions.
00:14:00 Now is the time to achieve your personal aspirations. Retirement is the start of life's golden phase. Give your childhood dreams one final chase. And secondly, Theodore Roosevelt said, Far and away, the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing. Brett, you have certainly worked hard at work worth doing. Congratulations. Thank you very much. All in favour? Speaker 1: If he says no, does that mean he can't go? Thank you, councillors. Mayor Stewart: We'll move on now. Petitions, item four, Councillor Lorentson. No petitions? All right, you do. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. There's so much on both of us.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 We have a petition in front of me for Reap Street, Noosaville Traffic Calming. The petition is undersigned. The petition is signed by 56 people requesting that Traffic Calming and Reap Street, Noosaville be received and referred to the CEO officer to determine appropriate action. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? Carriage and answer. Thank you. There are no notified motions, no presentations, no deputations. That brings us to item 8 on page 4 of the agenda, which is the consideration of the committee report. Firstly, we have the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations. Items 1, 2 and 3 will be referred to General Committee.
00:16:00 Item 4, minor change to development approval for material change of use, multiple housing type 3, retirement and special needs at 186 Cooroy Noosa Road and 4 Carramar Street, Tewantin. Item 5, 6 and 7 will be referred to the General Committee. Item 8, planning application is decided by delegated authority August 2021. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a close personal relationship with Craig Anthony Tindale and Michelle Tindale listed in the report at item 99, application number SPS21 slash 0247 and Sean Patrick Hunt and Kirsten Renee Schaft listed in the report at item 109, application ID SPS21 slash 0262. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe Council's consideration of these applications
00:17:00 are not to approve or reject them, they are only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 1: Councillor, it's given that the Mayor has declared a conflict of interest, it would be appropriate for the Deputy Mayor to assume the role of Chairperson and to call whether there's any other conflicts. Councillor Wilkie: Any other conflicts of interest please? Oh, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I have described a conflict of interest in this matter in regard to item one, application ID, with all those numbers, by Natani Design, Pty Ltd. In April 2021, I engaged Natani Design, Pty Ltd. to design my private residence at 4E Ponce for an amount of $4,510. This arrangement is currently active. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to say that I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable
00:18:00 conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrews James St. Baker, listed in the report at item 110, application number SP21-0263. I am a surfboard manufacturer and Mr. St. Baker is the owner of Thomas Surfboards and the Thomas Factory. I believe Mr. St. Baker has had a fantastic influence on manufacturing and uses. In Council, I have often congratulated the Thomas Factory and I have discussed the emerging enterprise business zone which Mr. St. Baker supports. During the campaign, Mr. St. Baker allowed me to put an election core flute at the Thomas Surfboard Factory. I occasionally meet Mr. St. Baker in the surf and have had two discussions of the Noosa Biosphere, the history of Noosa, and the Bring Back the Fish campaign at his house, which is right above the surf break. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship
00:19:00 with Mr. St. Baker and Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in and participate in the decision. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a close personal relationship with Andrew St. Baker and Catherine St. Baker listed in the report at item 110, application number SPS210263. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe Council's consideration of these applications are not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in and participate
00:20:00 in the decision. Is there any other switch? Speaker 1: Councillor, maybe just for the benefit of the meeting. So, obviously, any councillors who have declared a conflict can't participate in the consideration of whether someone should stay or leave the room. So, only those councillors who will remain and under the Local Government Act, regardless of whether or not there is a quorum, those remaining councillors can determine who stays as you work through those matters. So, Councillor Wilkie, Finzel and Jurisevic will be the decision makers on this. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart determined that it's in the public interest. Councillor Stewart stays in the room because these applications before us, they're not to approve or reject, but only for noting decisions already have been made by staff. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Can I have a seconder, please? Speaker 3: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I don't feel the need to speak to this. Any other councillors wish to speak to this?
00:21:00 No. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. I'll also move that we note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wegener, but again, these items agreed by delegated authority have all really been determined, and a reasonable person will not trust that the final decision is made in the public interest and that Councillor Wegener has no unreasonable or impartial sway over this decision. I'll have a seconder, please. I'll second. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson: I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded. Councillor Wegener. I'll second. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Seconded. Councillor Currie. Seconded. Councillor Currie. All in favour? Carried unanimously. And for Councillor Lorentson, I also move that we note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson that determines in the public interest that she remain in the For the same reasons, given that these reports are only for noting, the decision has already been made by staff and a reasonable person who trusts the final decision has made in the public interest. May I have a seconder, please? Councillor Finzel. Any councillors wish to speak to it? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously.
00:22:00 Mayor Stewart: Can I have a mover and a recommendation for item number eight? I don't speak. A mover? Yep, I'm moved. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconder, Councillor Wegener. This is shown on page seven of the agenda. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Sorry, who moved that one? Can we just move the mover and seconder? Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Wegener seconded. Thank you. We're up to item nine, Development Assessment Fees and Charges, Variations for 1st of January to 30 June 2021.
00:23:00 Item 10 was referred to the General Committee. Can I have a thank you, Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. That's for the adoption of Planning and Environmental Community Recommendations, except we're dealt with by separate resolution. All in favour? Thank you. Carried unanimously. Next up is the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations. These are on page 8 of the agenda. Item 1, Noosa FM lease at the J. Item 2, contract number T000047, pavement marking services, tender award. Item 3, contract number T000048, traffic control services, tender award. Mr. CEO, I believe there was a request from staff to refer to something. Speaker 1: Yeah, perhaps I'll just explain this one. It's a little bit unusual. What I want, every time you think you've seen everything in Lebanon, something new comes up. So after 30 years, it's the first time I've seen this, where since the tender has been assessed by staff
00:24:00 and the recommendation made to council to adopt that tender, which went to committee last week, the company that we were going to award it to has actually sold that part of the business. We need to defer the decision on this tender to go back to determine what that means for the tender process, check all the probing on the issues and bring a further report probably to the November round of meetings just to clarify what that means in terms of the tender process. So the recommendation the staff are suggesting is that we defer decision on the awarding of the tender to determine that probing question about how we deal with this and provide a further report to a future meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy for June Dillard to be able to take it and I'll move the motion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Second. Councillor Stockwell, thank you. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Item four. Council meeting schedule 2022. Item five. Noosa Shire Council sold and specialised supply list. We have some declarations.
00:25:00 Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my husband is the general manager of Page Furnishes for 5G Limited, listed as number 20 on the specialised supplies list. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest and I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, I will leave the room for the meeting for the debate and discussion on this matter. Speaker 2: Thanks, Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Firstly, just a quick comment. A point to note that previously I have declared an interest in terms of the Mayor Evacuation Committee. Since the last time I declared the legislation has changed and that the consulting work I did for a small amount was done prior to the election in 2016 therefore that no longer triggers a conflict of interest and as I'm now the current council appointed delegate to that group, I believe there's no conflicts of interest worth divulging at this stage.
00:26:00 However, I do have a longstanding business relationship with Page Furnishes for 5G. I have a longstanding business relationship with Healthy Land and Water Pty Ltd who are noted in the specialised supplier list at number 43. I subcontract this organisation as part of my sole trader consultancy, Trading as Watershed Australia. Healthy Land and Water provide me with geographical information system support and mapping services. This business arrangement has commenced in 2017 with invoice for work currently totalling a value of $50,000 or whatever it changes. Currently totalling a value of adding $57,703 plus $10,541 which is $68,000, $69,000 and that much. Speaker 1: Can I suggest that we're currently totalling a value of over $67,000. Is everyone okay? So you're over? Yes.
00:27:00 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have no current contracts, but as a result of this interest, I will leave the room while the matter is considered and voted on. Speaker 1: Can I also suggest in that wording, are you making a prescribed or prescribed? Prescribed. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: I think we'll get down to the last line there. As a result, we might prescribe comprehensive interest. Speaker 2: Thanks, Councillor Stockwell. Mayor Stewart: Can I have a move? I'll move it, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you.
00:28:00 Speaker 1: I'll get the others back in. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're at item six on page nine of our agendas. Waste management, six-monthly report, January to June 2021. Moved. Seconded. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. This now brings us to the General Committee recommendations on page ten of our agendas. Item one, Climate Change Response Plan, Community Reference Group, Expression of Interest Outcome. And we have some declarations again. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my brother Gabriel Cherissani is a member of it. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. During my election campaign, my brother helped me with my campaign, handed out voting cards,
00:29:00 and two of my election signs were outside his property on David Lowe Way. 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. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I move that it is in the public... Speaker 2: I think we probably need to check with any other... Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, if you'll pardon. Oh, you're welcome. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as on 5 March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign,
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 where I was one of three candidates that ran as the group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. The Eastern Beaches Protection Association have nominated a representative to be 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 public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: I move that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes in this matter because Council believes that Councillor Lorentson can make a fair and impartial decision, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision
00:31:00 is made in the public interest. I have a seconder for that, please. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. This was, we went, discussed this in detail on Monday. This is consistent with our decision on Monday where we, this was in length discussed and debated, and I believe it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the room. Speaker 2: Anyone else like to speak to this? Mayor Stewart: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Linda. I move that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel participates and votes
00:32:00 on this matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Finzel can make a fair and impartial decision and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Again, for exactly the same reasons already noted in regard to Councillor Lorentson, we discussed this in length on Monday, it's fair, it's consistent and I believe it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel remain in the room. Thank you. We'll put that matter to a vote. Would anyone else like to speak to this? No? Put it to a vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Stockwell. Also a weak number. Councillor Drusevich, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson did not vote. Thank you. All right. Can I have a move for the recommendation for this report? I'll move it, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? The Councillor carried unanimously. Thank you. Item two, proposed local law amendment, this is on page 11, short stay letting and home
00:33:00 host accommodation. Public consultation results and adoption. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. It's my husband and I own a townhouse at 217 Noosaville that has been used as short-term accommodation. Although I have a declarable interest in this item, I believe that the proposed STA local laws has significant Shire-wide implications, including significant amenity impacts for residents of permanent housing and non-permanent housing. 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, short-term accommodation and home hosted accommodation, it states, 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, represent a significant portion of the local
00:34:00 community. The benefits of the proposed local law and resident health and amenity are estimated at 9.65 million per annum. Further, I am concerned that if I voluntarily remove myself on 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 the decision under whatever conditions my fellow councillors may choose. Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor Alston. Would anyone like to move? Councillor Wilkie: I'll move it, Madam Mayor. I'll second it. Speaker 1: Just to clarify, that's the motion that the President made. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to read what you read? I'm moving that Council note that the Council note that the Council note that the Council raised was a clear conflict of interests by Councillor Laurens, even though Councillor
00:35:00 Laurens is a property owner as she will represent the views of the STO property owners to the public. Actually part of the discussion, I believe it's in the public interest of Councillor Laurens to participate and vote on this matter because Council believes that Council Wales can consider the matter impartially, and at a reasonable person who trusts that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: I don't wish to speak to it, no. Speaker 2: Okay, would anyone wish to speak to this? We'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stewart. Against? Councillor Wigdon. And Councillor Osborne.
00:36:00 Mayor Stewart: So we're at item 2. I'll move the item 2 on page 11. Proposed Local Law amendment, short stay letting and home hosted accommodation, public consultation results and adoption. Thank you, Councillor Griswitch. I think this was well and truly hashed out on Monday. I think we said all we needed to say there. We have had, well I have received and no doubt other councillors have had a fair bit of feedback in regard to home hosted. Residents in our community have a home host and the fees and charges that are potentially applicable to that. But this is something that council can address in their budget review next year. The two tier system of fees is something that we can look at through our budget review. There are no fees currently proposed until 30 June 2022. And it would make sense for home hosted accommodation providers to have a lower fee structure.
00:37:00 And I think all councillors recognise that people who home host don't earn the income that short stay accommodation does in other sectors. So I think we would all be open to looking at that fee structure. And that's something we can certainly consider and will consider in the upcoming budget. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment. That item J be amended to read that council establish a multi interest stakeholder group for ongoing consultation in regard to the management of short term accommodation in the Shire. Including undertaking a review of the operation of the short stay living or home hosted 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 that review.
00:38:00 And further request that the multi interest stakeholder group to consider the alternative option presented in the submission base by P and E lawyer as part of that process. P and E lawyer. Or P and E law. Or P and E law as part of that process. Speaker 2: Thank you councillor. Would anyone like a seconder's motion? Councillor Jurisevic: No Madam Chair. But I'd be happy to ask a question. Is that something that can be readily surmised by staff to advise what the alternative option presented by P and E law constituted? And how it differs from the alternative option presented by P and E law? Speaker 3: The alternative that they presented was that our existing local laws are sufficient to manage the issues around short stay letting. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
00:39:00 So in summary does that mean that the submission by P and E law was that we don't need a new local law? That's correct. Suggesting that we not have this local law? Speaker 3: That's correct. That the alternative option presented by P and E law was that we don't need a new local law? That the alternative is that we utilise the existing local laws around waste, parking, community and that they were sufficient. Councillor Wilkie: Were these, was this submission considered carefully by council's lawyers, LGAQ's lawyers as part of the process to come up with this local law? Speaker 3: Yes it was. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 1: Do you need a seconder's motion? I'll second it. If you have a second could you move to the original motion? I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: I've added an amendment to include as part of the review panel that they consider the alternative motion that was presented by expert planning and environmental lawyer Mr Lester Manning.
00:40:00 I'm going to start by making it really clear that I do not approve of party houses, homes that accommodate large number of guests, homes that are remotely managed and those that are poorly managed without a local person for the action of guests or managing properties. I support the regulation of the short-term accommodation industry and a sensible code of conduct that achieves positive amenity outcomes. The alternative option that was presented by expert P&E lawyer Mr Lester Manning does just that. It addresses the issues of noise and party houses, it's balanced and it's a reasonable approach and it's non-discriminatory and has teeth. It also has a real chance at bringing this community together and I think the community is entitled to actually have a look at that alternative option and also consider the cost compared to the current costs that are proposed by these local laws.
00:41:00 At Monday's general meeting, I explained why I thought the proposed laws went too far and was not whole of community approved. In particular, I was disappointed that our 150 home-hosted residents were included as part of these proposed laws. I was also concerned that we have already put in a number of significant restrictions and controls in the area of short-term accommodation through our NUSA plan and recently the new transitory accommodation rating. And now we were just adding another layer of controls and restrictions. I've questioned the economic impact these restrictions and laws may have on our tourism industry and our reputation as a tourist-friendly town. And I voted against it stating that I believed we could do better or at least have a more inclusive and agreed position that considers and represents the interest of the whole of the Shire or the majority of NUSA people. An approach which is less regulatory and quite restrictive.
00:42:00 Achieves a fair balance between the person's right to live in a premise and the rights of others in a neighbourhood to enjoy being there. A position that will not divide us as a community. Today I want to present that better alternative position for your consideration. And I ask that you allow the community the same consideration by supporting this amendment. We're going to start by just raising the issue of cost. On page 20 of the planning report, there's forecasted operating cost. Point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're debating an amendment, the amendment in relation to specifically about an alternative submission being added to the grounds of consideration of the multi-industry take-holder group. It's got nothing to do with the cost of implementation of the local law.
00:43:00 Councillor Lorentson: It actually does. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. The member should be sitting down as I raise the point of order and shouldn't be speaking. No, you should be sitting down whilst being judged. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell, the cost would be considered if we're looking at an alternative. So therefore I'll allow Councillor Lorentson to continue on that line of talking. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. What concerns me the most is that ratepayers will, over a period of five years, be potentially putting $2.536 million to fix the problem of noise in party houses. And my concern is that the proposed local laws will not fix that problem because the local laws proposed today will still allow permanent residents and renters to party at all hours of the night. The alternative motion presented to council by way of submission by planning and environment
00:44:00 lawyer, Mr. Lester Manning, fixes this problem. It does not discriminate and applies equally to all members of the community and it has T. What's important also to note is that Mr. Lester Manning presented this alternative option at a meeting that I attended at Sunshine Beach Serv Club, which was also attended by residents against short-term accommodation, by accommodation Noosa, by home-hosted residents, by barristers, lawyers, Airbnb groups, nomads, holiday homes Noosa, and it was supported by everyone. I'm going to put on the screen Lester Manning's alternative motion. I'm not going to go to the details, but what I will do is highlight what it does and what's different between it and the proposed law.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 What it doesn't change is that the 24-7 hotline still remains. Security guard still remains. Penalties still remain. In fact, substantive penalties, 50 penalty points. And the penalties imposed on the owner, not the guest, because the alternative option actually recognises that the only way you're going to change your behaviour is not by punishing the guest, it's by punishing the owner. It also addresses vexatious complaints. So a vexatious complaint pays for the call-out fee. The cost of the security guard, it's paid by the owner. There is clear definition of acceptable residential amenity included. And I'll read that later. And there's clear definition of unacceptable residential amenity.
00:46:00 I'll actually highlight that one. Unacceptable residential means. Unacceptable will involve the consideration of impacts from nuisance, noise, light, intrusion, and overlooking. Where noise levels exceed those that are set out in the security guard. In table XYZ, they will be deemed to cause unacceptable residential amenity. Lighting exceeding the LUXF boundary, that's when it's deemed to cause unacceptable residential amenity. A series of nuisance, noise, lighting, or overlooking events that individually will not be unacceptable but because of their frequency or duration are unacceptable. Under the compliance provisions of Lester Manning's alternative option, Council can require the owner to construct acoustic barriers, install light control switches that turn off at a
00:47:00 particular time, remove a deck, enclose a deck, plant and maintain screening vegetation. What's different about it is that it removes the approval regime, including registration and the specific obligations imposed on each of the approval holders. What it adds is that amenity standards should apply uniformly to accommodation, whether it's temporary or permanent. So what it does effectively, it's removing layers and layers of red tape and cost. Registration cost, approval cost, administration cost. And finally, I've said it a million times and I'm going to say it again. Our job is to bring community together. And this alternative option has a real shot at doing this. It's balanced, it's fair, and it has teeth. It also addresses the real issues of noise and party houses, because it understands
00:48:00 that this problem is not specific to STAs. And the alternative option will also not cost rate payers 2.536 million in admin costs and payers 2.536 million in admin costs. It will also address the potential legal challenges. Councillors, I ask that you support this amendment, because the community is entitled to have an alternative option. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question, Anita. With Lester Manning's, what was highlighted up there was that he suggested 24-7 hotline and security guard. And then the council could construct or force the owner to construct acoustic screening as the noise controller. And then the council could construct or force the owner to construct acoustic screening as the noise controller. So, would that be? That's currently not what we have. That would be an addition. Speaker 3: So, that's ... Oh, sorry. So, those changes are within our existing Local Law framework. So, it's not suggesting a specific Local Law for short stay letting and home hosted
00:49:00 accommodation. It's a broad brush across the whole community that these would apply within our existing Local Law framework. Yeah. From what I understand. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a further question regarding clarification. Between the first and the second version of the local law, we made a number of refinements which extracted anything that can be said as a matter more appropriately handled under the planning scheme, whereas some of the things we took out were things about being able to control decks and physical infrastructure. Would those examples be things that actually would be things more likely to be controlled under the planning scheme? Speaker 3: Yes, the use of outdoor areas and the use of those areas, and I'm guessing requirements to actually remove that deck because of noise emanating from the use of that would be a planning matter.
00:50:00 Councillor Wilkie: Obviously, one of many 600 submissions received. Why was this item, this submission, not implemented? What was the perceived shortcoming of it? Why haven't we acted on it? Speaker 3: In consultation with our lawyers, it was determined that the key point of the proposed local law is to have a local management framework and a complaints process and complaints being dealt with to deal with residential amenity. I don't believe that this deals with that. Mayor Stewart: I think it's a good question. Councillor Finzel: Just a quick question. Just prior to the implementation of the new plan, how is it determined that the home-hosted accommodation was approved or not approved?
00:51:00 Was it impact accessible prior to the new plan, or how did that process work? Speaker 3: Yes, under the former Noosa plan 2006, home-hosted accommodation was an impact accessible. It was an impact accessible plan but the actual planning application was required. It also required public notification and a fee of over $3,647. It was assessed against the whole plan to consider its impacts on the residential neighbourhood and conditions were then applied to the approval. Speaker 1: My design explain what happened with the $2,000? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. The new Noosa Plan 2020, it was no longer deemed a residential use, it became a business use, a home-based business use, and it became self-assessable, accepted development subject to requirements.
00:52:00 So the planning applications was no longer required, so no further approval required, providing you meet the requirements of Noosa Plan. So that reduced significant red tape, with no planning approval required and cost. Speaker 1: My suggestion would be that at this stage what we have before us is an amendment, and it relates to the change to item J, which was what we talked through at the General Committee on Monday. So really what's before you at the moment is to determine whether to include that amendment or not. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd just like to say that, A, I can't vote on anything I don't know about, and presenting an alternative motion that looks at a very large legal submission at a few moments before the meeting started is not something that I could support.
00:53:00 On a principal position, the report I've identified is we have a total of $630,000. 15 written submissions, 300 resident submissions, 2 resident petitions, 6 resident community group submissions, 66 home-hosted accommodation operator submissions, 163 short-stay let operation submissions, including 1 legal submission for 54 properties and owners, which I presume is this one. 23 leading agents, 8 onsite managed submissions, 1 short-stay letting industry, 2 online booking platforms, 37 site area specific submissions, and 7 other submissions. We've got expert staff. And we've sought expert legal advice. And we've come up with a recommendation to highlight the interests of one submission over the 550 other ones, well, 614. To me, it's just inappropriate. If we're going to review, we'll review from all the community's interests, whether that then triggers an analysis of other options at that period, albeit, so be it, but for me, it would be an insult to the months and months of work going into analysing those submissions and coming up with what is a local law that meets our needs and complies with legislation.
00:54:00 Speaker 2: Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I won't be supporting the amendment either. That's one of the reasons that Councillor Stockwell alluded to. But also, I'm not sure that the multi-interest stakeholder group is the appropriate group to consider the alternative option presenting the submission when the options have been assessed by staff, legal representatives, and then brought to council for consideration. So I don't think it's the appropriate forum necessarily for consideration of this. As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, I don't think it's the appropriate forum necessarily to consider the alternative option presenting the submission when the options have been assessed by staff, legal representatives, and then brought to council for consideration.
00:55:00 If there are issues with the way the local laws are operating after this period of review, there should be a process by which other alternatives could be presented. Councillor Wegener: Oh, come on. Let's give the local laws a chance. Seriously. We are already fracturing the team by second-guessing our staff. I mean... What are we doing with this amendment? Will it take time of staff? Yes, it will. Will it cost money to do it? Yes, it will. Is it duplicating the effort of what was already being done? Whenever new local laws come in, they're already being looked at in the standard procedure. Here, we are putting another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of expenses on top of the standard procedure. But really, what we're doing is we're just inviting the politicizing of this amendment. We're putting the politicizing of the entire short-term stay situation back into the mix early.
00:56:00 As a matter of fact, we haven't even voted on this. And we're politicizing it. We're second-guessing it. We're tearing it apart. And it hasn't even been voted on. This is going to be the Eastern Beaches Protection Association on steroids. The Airbnb stays, STA crew, throw Lester Manning on top of that. It's going to be a mess. And what is the next CEO going to say? They're going to say, he or she is going to say, thanks a lot for this. You're just giving me this, I've got to do this review of the short-term stays and do all. It's going to be so confusing. It's going to be politicized. The mud throwing is going to start right after February when it starts. We're not going to give it a chance. I believe this is an unnecessary, costly duplication of effort that will distract and impede the effective rollout of the new regulations. And as a matter of fact, if this amendment doesn't get up, I would like to make a motion to delete J altogether. Speaker 2: Thank you.
00:57:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I appreciate what Councillor Lorentson is trying to do but this was one submission of over 600 and as a matter of equity I don't feel that at this 11th hour it would be fair to require and request that this multi-interest stakeholder group which I support is directed to assess one submission over another. There are many other submissions which are equally as valuable and weighty and part of the mix. It has been, the items considered in this submission by P&L Law have already been assessed. Perhaps the best parts of it have been taken out already and acted upon.
00:58:00 There's nothing, if this amendment isn't carried, there's nothing preventing the stakeholder reference group for discussing some of the items that are contained in it rather than it in its entirety. I just think at this late hour there are so many other submissions that were assessed and to direct a stakeholder group to consider this particular one. I think it's just a bit of inside running which is inequitable but I do support the multi-interest stakeholder group for the 12-month review to review and improve because what we're trying to do is have the fair balance between an owner's right to do what they like with their property and the community's right to a peaceful night's sleep and also visitors' right to a peaceful night's enjoyment.
00:59:00 Thank you. So, I'll be supporting Jay but not in the amended form. Mayor Stewart: I want to thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing this to the table. I understand and appreciate her concerns. Tourism is incredibly important, small business is incredibly important and I do appreciate where she's coming from and I want to thank her for being that voice and bringing that to this table. My concerns with Lester Mannings are that it seemed that he was marrying the planning with the local laws which created some confusion. I do believe we need a management and a complaints process. I believe we need to not be that toothless tiger. We need to be able to enact. It's a large legal submission. It's hard to decipher at the last hour. I'm not so concerned about inside running because this may have been the only legal submission we got. We would have had a lot of submissions and this is certainly someone who has that legal
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 expertise who's taken a lot of time. So, I think that should be valued and appreciated too that he's gone to this effort. I think that Jay, as it stands, a multi-interest stakeholder group, I'd certainly be supportive of Lester potentially being involved in that and perhaps the best of those laws and the most relevant in 12 months' time when we understand where we're at, what needs to be done, if anything needs to be done, if things need to be brought back, they need to be brought forward. Then is the time that we can certainly, and I think it's a valuable piece of work and we can look to it, and that multi-interest stakeholder group is a really valuable resource and that is something that they can take into consideration then with a lot of time on their hands rather than us looking at that now with limited amounts of time and resources at our disposal. So, again, I won't be supporting this, but I absolutely understand and appreciate Councillor
01:01:00 Lawrence's decision. And I do think we need to appreciate how valuable tourism and the economy is to our Shire and what the tourist dollar brings, and that is something that we need to be following closely over the next 12 months when we look at these local laws and how they're shaping up. As I said, I certainly support Jay, but I won't be supporting this amendment tonight. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Amelia and Lawrence, for bringing that to our attention and giving voice to parts of the community that feel that they may have been overlooked at this stage. In terms of equity, I can't support the amendment this evening. I think the process around the... The community engagement and consultation was run through accordingly. I just think at this stage, to bring this to the table is not fair to the wider and
01:02:00 other members of our community. I'm happy to see them, this part of this PE law, come and have a say in 12 months' time. We invite them to the table as part of that consideration in the broader process to assess what's going on in our community. I think it's important to highlight the effectiveness of the local laws going forward. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 2: Councillor Lyons. Councillor Lorentson: Firstly, last hour's submission, not correct. The submission was sent to every councillor at this table. In fact, I personally invited every councillor at this table to meet with Lester Manning. Only two turned up. Secondly, this is not just about the money. This is about tourism. This is about noise and party houses. The local laws we have in front of us will not stop noise and party houses because the
01:03:00 laws proposed today will still allow permanent residents and renters to party at all hours of the month. So 12 months down the track, $680,000 later, we are still going to have noise and party houses. The alternative motion I'm asking councillors to consider gives us a real chance at uniting community. I'm disappointed that it's clearly not going to be supported. Speaker 2: Can you put the amendment to a vote? All in favour? Speaker 1: All in favour? Mayor Stewart: All in favour? Speaker 1: All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? Mayor Stewart: All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? Speaker 2: All in favour? Mayor Stewart: All in favour? All in favour?
01:04:00 All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic: All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? All in favour? There are some, I mean, there is an opportunity here for, and the fee structure hasn't been determined as yet, there's an opportunity here to look at how that's managed and how we present that to the various operators with the tiered structure. But one of the other is as to whether home hosted should be included, and it was clear that from the submissions that we received that a number of home hosted operators are actually operating outside of Noosa Plain, by using secondary dwellings or other self-contained areas within a dwelling house reserved for permanent residents as part of their issue, which raises compliance issues.
01:05:00 There's also, in addition to that, the local law will ensure basic minimum safety standards are met for alarms, full safety, and the operator has public liability insurance. It is, after all, a business activity. It is, after all, a business activity being undertaken in the home. All other businesses have to submit to those sort of compliances. A permanent, sorry, a long-term rental also has to have smoke alarm compliance, pool alarm compliance to adhere. So we're not applying anything that doesn't apply to other residential properties that are required to have home hosted or residential properties. We are also looking at the number of home hosted operators in the home versus rental properties operating in the residential areas. So, Paap and I look forward to the laws being implemented, the opportunity there for that period of grace until the 1st of July before fees are implemented. Give people a chance to come on at a fee-free level in the introduction of the laws.
01:06:00 And a 12-month period of review to determine if there is any fine-tuning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will, it was proposed in the last debate that this would create fracturing of the community. I would actually posit exactly the opposite. I would say that this local law will address the primary cause of social unrest in the Noosa community over the last three years. The primary cause of large angst in our neighbourhoods as the incursion of businesses that aren't
01:07:00 well managed into our residential streets. There will be opportunities to stop party houses because party houses as defined are prohibited in the Shire. They will have chances to stop Airbnbs that may have regular guests. That create excessive noise outside what is acceptable behaviour because if the owner is getting continued fines and then potentially having to justify why their permit should not be renewed, it will change behaviour. There's no doubt about that. It is a very necessary step to ensure that our residential streets are as far as possible kept for residential purposes. And, tourist uses that are consistent with those.
01:08:00 Councillor Finzel: I think this has been a long and arduous process for everyone that's been engaged. The impacts on residents with conditions being placed on approval and with the, in conjunction with the local laws, in my opinion, supports amenity through regulation. I do, I've voiced all the way along, I do believe that we need to promote friendly and inclusive neighbourhoods. But with the loss of the family home as such and local residents, the family home becoming a commodity. And a business that operates from that and people are free to choose that. The local law provides us with a mechanism and a tool to help regulate the behaviours
01:09:00 in the suburbs where people who arrive here may not have that connection to place. So, I believe it's part of the balance to strike up between regulation and amenity to work towards an outcome that is balanced and fair to visitors and residents alike in our region. It has been challenging. It is being, will be challenging moving forward as we work through and review this process. But I'd like to thank everyone for participating. And I think that the process by which we have engaged the community has been equitable. We will assess that and we can review that. As time moves forward. But we hope to work towards excellence and balance. We have been fundamentally changed through COVID. And it's only coming together and bringing everyone together at the table.
01:10:00 And work towards a new future that has been impacted in so many ways that we can get outcomes that are beneficial to all. Thank you. Speaker 2: Councillor, have you just got the amendment that you have spoken to this? Would you like to speak to this? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. When this passes, I will breathe a breath of relief and say hallelujah. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'll close. I'd like to, we said it on Monday, but I'll reiterate it. Thank you to the staff for your hard work on this. This has been a very long process. Look, I think we've got a law. And Councillor Wilkie, you so eloquently put it. Don't let perfection get in the way of the good. So I think this is a good first start. And I think Jay, the addition of Jay that was moved by Councillor Lorentson on Monday is a great addition. And I think if we need those further implementation, we need further amendments to our laws in
01:11:00 regard to looking at our residents and their noise and the complaints around them, that's something that we can do in 12 months. And I think that is really important. So what this says to me is it's balanced and it's flexible. And we're willing to look and we're willing to change. But I think it's a good start. I think it's a necessary start. And let's get the shell on the road. Thank you. Speaker 2: All right. Mayor Stewart: All in favour. Councillors Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic, Finzel, Wilkie, Stewart, against. Councillor Lorentson too. Item three. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Item three. That was a bad one. On page 15. Other change to a development approval for multiple dwelling units for 25 x 25 and 8 shops at Fetty Hastings Street, Noosa heads.
01:12:00 Item four. MCU 18-0006.03 and OPW 18-0012.03. We received advice that the applicant has withdrawn this item, so I move that Council note the report to the Development and Planning Environmental Committee meeting dated 12 October 2021 regarding application number MCU. and OPW18-006.03 and OPW18-0012.03 for another change to development permit for material change of use, multiple housing, type 2 duplex and operational works, stormwater, earthworks, car parking, landscaping to include short-term accommodation situated at 102-10 Hill Street, Sunshine Beach.
01:13:00 And note that the applicant has withdrawn the application due to section 52 of the Planning Act 2016. I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Carried. That's unanimous. Thank you, Elinda. Item 5, MCU17-0046.03, application for another change to a development approval for multiple house, housing type 2 duplex to include short-term accommodation, operational works at 2-38 Park Presence, Sunshine Beach. Item 6, RAL20-0013. Application to reconfigure a lot, 1 into 2 lots at 9A Jura Mira, President Clover. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd just like to point out that I think there was a typographical correction at the General Committee that happened to be reflected in 1B.
01:14:00 I think that sentence is meant to finish after the word vegetation. I thought we did make a change. Speaker 2: Well, it's correct. Oh, thanks. What was that? What was that? What was that? We didn't actually make it. We had to wait to this meeting to do it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I need to change then move that? Yes. Okay. Well, I'll move the recommendation with the change in 1B to remove the last two words. Mayor Stewart: I'll second it. Thank you all in favour. That's unanimous. Speaker 2: Thank you, Lord Speaker and Councillor Stockwell. Item 7. Mayor Stewart: Item 7. Pritchett Digital Hub, 4-year report, 2-3 June 2021. Item 8T-000054, Tewantin Bypass, Stage 1, Intersection Upgrade Tender Award. Item 9, MCU-2020-0037, Planning and Environment Court Appeal No. BD-1074-2021,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Refusal of an Application for Multiple Housing Type 2 Duplex at 11 Margaret Present, Sunrise Beach. Item 10. Proposed lease tenancy for Pritchett Digital Hub. Item 11. Noosa Holiday Park Fees and Charges. Item 12. Financial Performance Report, September 2021. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move the group recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? Announce. Thank you, Elinda. There are no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. There are no confidential items. We have no submissions to public question time. Thank you, everyone. That brings us to the end of our agenda. Again, Brett, warmest congratulations. Do you know how many meetings this one is? How many you sat through? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The council meetings over the years, I've lost count. I've just got one question that a conflict has impacted. Mayor Stewart: So the next meeting will be held on a Thursday the 20...
01:16:00 No, that's today. The next meeting will be held on November 18, 2021.