Ordinary Meeting - 18 November 2021 Transcript

Start of recording ¶

00:00:00

00:00:00 Speaker 4: 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. We have an apology from Councillor Frank Wilkie and I note that everyone else is in attendance and I'd like to welcome all our guests in the gallery tonight too. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 21st of October? Thank you Councillor Finzel. Seconder? Thank you Councillor Arnston. I'd just like to remind everyone we are in the process so if we could stand up for those. Thank you. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? Speaker 3: I have a petition that I am presenting that's been on behalf of Sunshine Butterflies. It's been signed by 640 people and with it there are letters of support from tri clubs, schools, bike shops and community groups.

00:01:00 The petitioners, Lucy and Brie, are petitioning to get the bike and walking path from Tewantin to Lake Cooroibah extended approximately 1.7 kilometres to Silverwood Drive, Cooroibah. Brie Johnson and Lucy Mills are seeking an extended bike walking path. Because they want to create greater access for people of all abilities to walk or cycle from Tewantin to the Noosa hinterland town of Cooroibah. I'm just going to read a small extract from one of the letters of support supporting your application. That the extended path will greatly benefit the surrounding communities including Cooroibah and Tewantin and those that wish to cycle and or walk the area. The lack of walk and cycle access in this area is creating barriers for the community. The community at large who wish to safely access the cycle and walk pathways that link. Sunshine Butterfly supports over 150 people living with disability in the Noosa Shire.

00:02:00 It employs over 100 staff and it has a team of 30 dedicated volunteers. Multiple community groups, schools and community members also access Sunshine Butterfly's Outback Yard facility daily. As well as the neighbouring communities who would use this pathway to commute. Cyclists, locals of the area and visitors would all benefit from this project. And it will encourage the promotion of bike riding and walking networks in the area for people of all abilities in the area. The current Noosa cycling and walking strategy implementation plan does not consider this extended path a current priority. The petitioners seek that Council make this a priority so all abilities can walk, cycle or roll to their destination. I would like to now present the petition. It should be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. I'll second that Madam Chair. Speaker 4: Thank you Councillor Jurisevic.

00:03:00 All in favour? That is unanimous, thank you. Does anyone else have any petitions? Speaker 1: No I think. Speaker 4: We'll move on to item 5. 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 Committee Reports. Firstly we have the Audit and Compliance Committee Recommendations. Speaker 3: Number 1, Queensland Audit Office. Speaker 4: Number 2, 2020-21 Annual Finance Statements. Number 3, Governance Update. 4, Risk Management Update. Number 5, Noosa Council Annual Report 2020-21. Can I have a mover? And I thank Councillor Stockwell. I second. And I thank Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? That is unanimous, thank you.

00:04:00 Next we have the Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations. Item 1 and 2 were referred to the General Committee. Item 3, MCU 2020, sorry, 20 slash 0090 Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D1-2 of the General Committee. Item 4, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority September 2021. Can I have a mover for the Recommendation for Item Number 8, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. And I second. And I thank Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the Adoption of Planning and Environment Court Committee Recommendations? I move. Seconded. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. Can I ask why we dealt with Item 4 separately?

00:05:00 I believe that was a mistake, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: I do apologise. Thank you. That was what I was trying to. Thank you, Councillor. I didn't think we needed two resolutions, one for Item 4 and one separately. I think we only needed the one resolution. Speaker 4: Good. Doubly safe. Seconded for the resolution was Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell moved and Councillor Wegener was the seconder, wasn't he? And we'll take that vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. Next up are the Services and Organisation Committee Recommendations. These are on page 8 of the Agenda. Item 1. Contract Number T000053, Bus, Shelter, Supply and Installation, Tender Award. Item 2. Contract Number T000058, Maintenance and Servicing of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning, HVAC Systems, Tender Award.

00:06:00 Item 3 was referred to the General Committee. Item 4, July 2021, Rate Levy Overview. Item 5, Capital Programme Delivery Status, 30 September 21. Item 6. Operational Plan Progress Report, First Quarter 21-22. Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Thank you. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you, Kat. Now to the General Committee Recommendations on page 10 of the Agenda. Item 1 was deferred to tonight's meeting and is subject to the further report that we'll deal with later in the meeting. Items 2 and 3 were referred to further reports at the next items forum. Item 4. Further Report 132005.1133.15, Application for Minor Change for Development Approval

15 minutes in ¶

00:15:00

00:15:00 I'll read the changes. Obviously, Part A is to award the contract. Part B is subject to satisfactory performance by very fact of Traffic Propriety Limited, authorised the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of the first two-year term, for a further three terms up to 12 months each, ending in 21st November. The options to extend will be at Council's own discretion and subject to the contract's ability to meet the requirements under the contract. C. Request staff to advise the successful applicants that future decisions regarding its closing options to extend will be reliant on contractors being able to demonstrate alignment with Council's policy on keeping zero net emissions by 2026. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Rusvich. Speaker 8: I do say that the wording here is identical to what we did last year, I believe, when we awarded an extensive contract for the mowing contract, where there is mowing, and then multiple extensions. It's about getting our service delivery partners, in this case, to come on the journey with

00:16:00 us to ensure that not only the services we deliver by our own staff, but the services we deliver through contractors are all working towards the same aim of having zero net emissions by 2026. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Speaker 3: I have a question. Can I ask a question? Is this a reasonable amendment or reasonable condition to be adding at this stage of the procurement process? Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Yes, I think that it's not overly binding. It's to help us meet our requirements of 2026. So I think it's not to be the be-all and end-all. It's to encourage them to go the journey with council in terms of trying to meet those

00:17:00 targets by 2026. Speaker 4: Thank you. Any further questions or anyone who'd like to speak to this amendment? Speaker 7: Councillor Armstrong? Speaker 3: Oh, I support the amendment, and I think it's great that we're actually now looking at this and looking at our purchasing power, whether it's in our procurement, to invest in partners and contractors that help reduce emissions. I think it's important as a council that we invest in businesses that support our community and our objectives to reach our targets of zero net emissions by 2026. So I'm happy to support this, and I do want to reiterate what CEO just mentioned, that the addition of C is not binding.

00:18:00 It's just almost an advisory note that we would like them to be able to demonstrate alignment with council's policy of achieving zero net emissions by 2026. Speaker 4: Thank you. I do support this amendment, considering procurement guidelines are a big expenditure going out in our organisation. And it is a powerful tool to help us to do that. It's a powerful tool to help us reach our policy targets. I don't know at the moment in this organisation what we have about gender equity in terms of procurement, but it's been noted that each year governments spend billions of dollars on procurement, and are one of the most powerful tools that governments have to accelerate gender-inclusive economic growth. That's just been reported in the ABC. So if not this tender process, certainly moving down the track, I will need to be looking at council as well.

00:19:00 So this is a good step towards the future and where we want to head in guidelines with our policies. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finlayson. Does anyone else like to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell, I suppose I will put it to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Cath. Can I have a notice? Item 8. Item 9, free weekend bus trial. Item 10, financial performance report. October 2021. Item 11, Noosa Shire Council 2020-21 annual report. Can I have a thank you, Councillor Jurisevic, and a seconder, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. All in favour, except we're dealt by separate resolution. That is unanimous. Thank you. There is one report direct to the ordinary meeting, and that is on page 27 of our agendas. There's a further report, 51997.2283.020. Minor change to an existing approval for Moldwood dwellings at 6 slash 80 to 86 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville.

00:20:00 We have Leo Jensen, our Acting Director of Environment and Sustainable Development here for this report. Leo, could you please give us a summary of this report and welcome to the table? Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This report... This report is a minor change to an existing approval for Moldwood dwellings at unit 680-86 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville. In summary... Councillor Jurisevic: One minute for all of us here. Yes, sorry. Four more minutes, my friends. Speaker 4: Sorry, Leo. First meeting, Leo. Yeah. Speaker 5: I should send you on. Apologies. Yes, so this is... The applicant is seeking a retrospective approval. We have a motion to move to unit 6.

00:21:00 Which the changes result in an additional 15 square metres of gross boiler and additional site coverage of 12 square metres across the site. The application had been recommended for refusal due to non-compliance with the Noosa Plan. With respect to building bulk and the existing building exceeding the scale. However, as part of the discussions, the matter then went to a tribunal. The applicant then proceeded... It went to the wrong, incorrect jurisdiction and then was referred to the Planning and Environment Court. In that process, the applicant then proceeded with the extensions and then a subsequent report through the Billing Certifier has come to Council seeking its approval. So that's the application before you this evening. Speaker 4: Thank you. Have a seat. It's okay to sit down.

00:22:00 Does anyone have any questions for Leo? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: The sequence of events. So that's what changed with this report is that they were refused and then they went to the wrong case, they were brought to the court, wrong jurisdiction, came back, built it out anyway. Now we're looking for retrospective approval. Thank you. Speaker 5: That's correct. So that's correct, Councillor. So in terms of, the matter was taken to the building tribunal. Sorry, the applicant took it to the building tribunal, which was unfortunately the wrong agency or the wrong avenue to take that, take the matter. As a result, the Planning and Environment Court was the correct way to go. However, in that period, in that interim period, the applicant proceeded with the works and came back. They completed the works. And in doing that process, the building certifier has advised the client that they should have

00:23:00 gone through a planning approval. So what you see before you today is a planning approval seeking approval for the retrospectives for those building works that have been completed. Councillor Wegener: It seems, though, the applicant had plenty of notice that this was, that they needed an approval before they did the work because they had brought it to the tribunal, the wrong tribunal. So there was no use on that. There was no notice that they were doing something dodgy, in a way. Speaker 5: Well, look, that's your interpretation of the matter. At the end of the day, the applicant's now seeking to have those building works formally rectified through an approval process so that they're recognised and all brought forward, I suppose. In terms of, if they ever were wishing to unsell the unit, the unit, then they've got the necessary approvals in place. My apologies for the use of the word don't approve. Councillor Wegener: We'll do that again, but we'll get back to you when we come back to that. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Lee, for clarifying.

00:24:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 3: So, Leah, that, this is very different information that was given to us at the general meeting. Can I ask why we were given different facts at the general meeting, or? Speaker 5: Yeah, so, Councillor, so, at the time, the officers were, I suppose, their understanding was different, what was communicated at the general committee. So, we sought to rectify that through communicating to council the order of events so that you were properly informed for this evening's decision. Speaker 1: Councillor Lee. Councillor Lee. Councillor Wegener: Do you think that the confusion could have been from bad advice from the various people that were building this, doing the construction process and the application? Speaker 5: Yeah, look, yes, Councillor. Look, given the process and what's occurred, that advice, I'm not 100% sure where that advice has come.

00:25:00 It could have been from council, it could have been from their own building certifier or their own consultants that they perhaps may have been using. I suppose, in essence, given the order of events and the information that was provided at committee and what's before you this evening, which is slightly, you know, there's a change there. At the end of the day, the works aren't... are considered minor, and we're recommending that they be approved subject to the conditions. Speaker 8: Just a point of clarification. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Speaker 8: There's a point of clarification, just so we are clear. So, the start of the recommendation is still the reviews which requested the conditions of approval, is that correct? Speaker 5: That is correct, Councillor. Sorry for the confusion. Speaker 3: So, my understanding that... the applicant or the certifier was asked to pay additional fees for extra GFA, which...

00:26:00 do you have any knowledge of that? Right. Speaker 5: Councillor, I don't have the detail of it, no. Speaker 8: This, because this is a minor matter, I'm going to move the conditions of approval as provided by staff. Speaker 4: Yep. Thank you. I'll second that. Yep. Speaker 8: I do so. The substantive matter is that this was a proposal that was refused as a social appeal, and as a result, we've seen advice from both our staff's perspective and the applicant's perspective. It's there. Whether we would have come up with this same recommendation if it had come to Council originally, it's not clear. It's something we don't know, but what I do know is while there is non-compliance with one of the performance outcomes in the Planning Scheme, the current Planning Scheme, not the current Scheme enforced when the development was actually approved,

00:27:00 the original development, the over, the extent of gross floor area and side area over is minor, the, in those cases under Planning Law, what we say is, is, does the, does the change still exist? It's definitely, it's under Reviewing Act and thekeeper of the Planning Scheme is still satisfied the overarching desired outcome. And in my mind, the level of non-compliance is such that the overarching intent of the Planning Scheme isn't, I suppose, compromised. The, the only thing that'll be different, when looking from the river, is that a curved window will be changed to a straight window, adding a few extra meters, and no one will know what's happened inside the internal courtyard. So I think the level of minor modification is such that while there is elements of the planning scheme that doesn't comply with it, there's sufficient ground to approve it. And having said that, therefore my motion needs to include that.

00:28:00 But I can't do it because we've already moved to a meeting amendment. I'll ask a question now, and I know the answer. When we vary from staff recommendation, there's a legal requirement to put the grounds upon which we rely on in the motion. So I can't move any in terms of amendments because we've moved them secretly, so another council may wish to move that. Speaker 4: Anyone like to counsel this speech? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm trying to think of how to pose this now. You might be able to take advice. That's where I was going, yes. Given the point raised by Councillor Stockwell with regards to what's missing from the recommendation, could I seek advice on the wording as to what may be needed to be added to fulfil the requirements?

00:29:00 Speaker 5: I haven't done too many of these ones. So yes, the council, as part of the motion, needs to, under the Act, has to put a statement of reasons as to why you're going against the officer's recommendation. It's really just similar to what Councillor Stockwell just outlined, it's just explaining the rationale as to why. Do you want me to give you some words? Do you like it more? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I propose a council? Councillor Stockwell, with this hand, you might be spot on for some words. Speaker 8: You might be saying something like, the reason for that being contrary to the staff recommendation is that council feels that the modifications are minor and that overall the development is still consistent with the overarching outcomes required in the Planning Scheme.

30 minutes in ¶

00:30:00

00:30:00 Speaker 4: Councillor? Can I just, I'd like to speak before we move anything because there's a recommendation just for clarification. Can I just, I'd like to speak before we move anything because there's a recommendation just for clarification. And did someone ask for a statement from the staff to refuse this application? Yes. And Council Florida has put up a motion to approve? Well, I'd strongly disagree. Well so then, you send that back and you'll have your chance to speak to us. And then we can come back and you'll have that opportunity bring up there. So we're currently going to have an amendment on the table. The reason for coun究. Speaker 8: As the modifications are minor, and the development. The new development is considered to be consistent in accordance of the existing development Speaker 3: approval and not in need of approval.

00:31:00 MS. Councillor Dresbyshire, this is your amendment. Speaker 4: You need to… Councillor Jurisevic: COMMISSIONER DREByshire I sought advice. That's the advice that's come through. I sought advice from the council. And I've got Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell's experience in planning matters along those lines. Councillor Lorentson has cited something from a document that I'm not familiar with. Where did you bring up that wording from? Is that from a previous approval? Speaker 3: Yes, it is. Councillor Grisfitch. Councillor Jurisevic: If that's from a previous approval, I'll be happy with that. Oh, not from a previous approval. No, that's what I said, from a previous approval. Speaker 8: And consistent with the specific outcome? Generally meets the intent of the planning scheme. Generally meets the intent of the planning scheme. There we go. Speaker 4: Generally, yeah, get rid of that. Meets the intent of the planning scheme. Speaker 8: It's 6.3.2.2.C.

00:32:00 There you go. Councillor Jurisevic: Happy with the wording as given by staff and councillors. Speaker 4: Councillor Grisfitch. Do we have a second? I'd like to speak to this amendment. Councillor Orison, thank you. Councillor Grisfitch, would you like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Other than to follow on that in line with offering approval, that councillors do need to provide a reason for going against the staff recommendation and this will fill that obligation. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Grisfitch. Does anyone else like to speak to this, Councillor? Speaker 3: I have a question. And just for purposes of clarity. When we assist an application for minor change to development... When we assist an application for minor change to development approvals, my understanding is that we assess it against the planning act and assess it against its planning merits. We've had a lot of conversation about retrospective, commission sought before or after approvals being given, is that a relevant planning matter and is that considered when assessing applications?

00:33:00 Speaker 5: Thanks, councillor. I think in terms of being retrospective, it's not considered, but it would be considered in its merits for the planning scheme. And relevant legislation. Speaker 3: So the answer is no? Speaker 5: In terms of the staff assessing the application, whether it's retrospective or not, that wouldn't come into consideration as such. It would still be assessed... According to the planning scheme and relevant legislation. Speaker 4: According to the planning scheme and relevant legislation. Would anyone like to speak to the amendment we have before us? Well, yeah. Would you like to speak to the amendment we have before us? To the amendment. Just to the amendment. Just to the amendment. Just to the reason for a council approving is... Well, I'd just like to say I don't agree with the amendment. I think that there's a lot of administration errors along the way. Even our own staff putting the wrong reports up to council at a meeting.

00:34:00 I think none of this has been fully looked at to my... What I'd like to know further about it. I just don't agree that we should be going with this recommendation right now. There was no compliance to start with. It ended up in the wrong tribunal. This is... Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Madam Chair. Again, the councillor is talking to the motion as a whole and not the amendment that is before us. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Bidgill will have a chance to hold a motion soon. Would you like to say anything further in regard to the amendment? Speaker 3: I don't agree with the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. What... Councillor Lorentson. I'll speak to it. The proposed changes constitute a minor change to the improved development. The changes to the external appearance of the building, like I explained at the general meeting, are so minor. In fact, not even... Not very noticeable. In fact, not noticeable from the external... Or the outside of the site. In reference to a lot of conversation that has been made here tonight and at the general

00:35:00 meeting, the fact that permission was given before or after the fact is no reason to refuse an application. We have to assess it against its planning merits, and against its planning merits, the application should be supported, and I support the amendment in front of us. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Would anyone else like to speak to the amendment? Or I ask the councillor of the respect, would you like to close? Can I... Yeah. I just want to add a comment there. Question. Just with regards to what was said about... The staff has asked us to refuse the change for the following reasons. So it has been assessed against whether the work was done in the appropriate order or not. Is this the question, Councillor Ginnis? Is that correct? Speaker 5: As you outline, yes, it is, Councillor. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. We will put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart against. Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel.

00:36:00 Amendment is carried. That forms part of the substantive motion, which Councillor Stockwell, I believe, is the only person who has spoken to that. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion we have before us for approval of the following additional conditions? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I will. Thank you. With a question. Again, there is some confusion as to whether or not this went through due process. An email I have here from the head of planning suggests that there was a... There was a refusal to the first application for the works. Can someone clarify whether there was a refusal and the works then proceeded after refusal by Council? Thanks, Councillor. Speaker 5: Yes, there was a refusal, and that then resulted in the applicant taking the matter to the Tribunal, which was the wrong jurisdiction. And that wasn't on the advice of Council.

00:37:00 That would have been on the advice of the applicant's consultants, or whoever they engaged. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the suggestion, therefore, would be that if this was refused here and now, that they would go through the appropriate channels and go to the Planning and Environment Court to appeal this most likely. Speaker 5: Correct, Councillor. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. In your experience, if this did proceed to Planning and Environment Court, in your experience on like sort of cases with similar facts, would you consider this to be successful appeal, or would you consider this to be... Speaker 8: The question is asking a staff member for a legal opinion about a matter in the courts, which I don't think is a fair question. Councillor Wegener: Sorry, Councillor Wegener, there has to be a ruling on my corner. Speaker 4: Yes, no, I accept. Sorry, Councillor Arnston, it is a legal question, which is probably outside Leo's incredible experience, but just not perhaps in the legal arena.

00:38:00 Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: So to rephrase my question, can I ask the question for Jetty? It's also part of the Planning and Environment Committee this month. We have an application here. Item number five, number three, MCU20019, Planning and Environment Court Appeal in regards to an extension to Highland Storage building at Jetty at 256 Ginkgo Terrace, Noosaville. That was an application there. We are looking for a minor change. Similar, we're closing an outside area. We refuse the application. And can you explain whether or not the applicant took that to Planning and Environment Court and we agreed to settle the appeal? Can I ask why? Speaker 5: Thanks, Councillor. Yes, that is correct. That matter was appealed. And part of the negotiations of the appeal process, the applicant and the councillor

00:39:00 came to a conclusion that the proposal was minor in nature. And as a result, we settled, or sorry, as a result, the recommendation was put forward that the matter be settled. And that's a further recommendation we believe. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you, Leo. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Could the facts be summarized that there was an application, it was refused, they did it, and now they made the improvement, and now they're asking for an extension? Or approval in retrospect? Speaker 5: Cancel it. We're pretty much on it. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to the motion? Speaker 4: You can, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Well, yes. How do you, how can you approve it now after it's been refused, gone through court, they went ahead and made the improvement, and now acting retrospective approval for something that was refused in the first place? Hence, I can't support the .

00:40:00 I can't support. Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Could anyone else? Councillor Finzel, now it's your turn if you'd like to speak to this question. I just have a question. The material change of use was approved in 1998. At what point in this, like, series of event then, was there no building approval given, and no proceeding forward? Speaker 5: Thanks, Councillor. Just, just, just a point with the previous councillor. The actual matter didn't go to court. Well, yeah. Just, just to, just to clear that up, it never actually made it to court. So, in response to the councillor's question about, sorry. Speaker 4: Well, you're telling this report on page 69. Yes, the original approval. In the P&E. Yeah, the original approval for the material change of use. It was approved in 1998. So, at what point in all this confusion, through this administration, through the

00:41:00 process of making all these matters and, you know, not being approved, or not being reported to QBSA, was this building taken place? The modifications that they've done with, which is non-compliance, and it went to the building of, like, tribunal. How, I'm just trying to work out the series of events. Speaker 5: No, certainly. Speaker 4: It's so convoluted, it's very difficult to make a decision around. Speaker 5: We've got the original approval back in the 1990s, as you stated. My understanding is that the applicant sought approval to do the extensions, which are outlined in the matter tonight. As a result, that was refused. We have a timeframe on when that would have been in the last couple of years. As a result of the refusal, the applicant then took the matter to the building tribunal, which as a result was determined to be the wrong jurisdiction.

00:42:00 It's during that time between going, it's from that time, the building tribunal. The applicant has decided to make or proceed with the extensions instead of taking it to the Planning and Environment Court, which would have been the right jurisdiction. So instead of taking it to the P&E Court, they've subsequently done the construction, done the extensions, and then I think through liaison with the building certifier, the certifier has then informed them that they have to get the necessary approvals in place to have the works. That's considered by council, hence why we're here tonight. Okay, thank you. Speaker 4: So on page 27 of 29 of the ordinary meeting tonight, the recommendation from our staff is to refuse the change for the following reasons.

00:43:00 Councillor Wegener: Is that correct? Speaker 4: Do you have a copy of our agenda? Speaker 5: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, Madam Mayor. Okay. Speaker 8: So we've got a series of questions that are really masquerading debate, which I'm finding quite hard to deal with. If something's on the paper in the agenda in front of us, why ask the staff whether what you're reading is correct? Well, just to clarify, because you're drawing a matter for us. No, no, you're trying to debate, and during a point of order, you're drawing this out via a range of questions. You're asking questions about matters that are clearly stipulated on the original report, on page 6 and 7 of the Funding Environment Court, where the background is clearly identified, a series of questions about things you should have read before coming to this meeting, and you're using question time to propagate debate, and it's out of order. Speaker 4: Well, I... You're not the question, it's the Mayor's responsibility. Sorry, the Mayor? Speaker 8: No, it's the Mayor's responsibility to judge on my point of order. Speaker 4: No, look, I think it's a fair question, just for clarification, and can you just confirm, Leo, and I think we'll move on from there, that the refusal is documented on, yep, page 27, points 1 and 2.

00:44:00 Correct. Thank you. Okay, that is clear. Thank you. So I just want it noted that I don't like it when it's insinuated that I have not read the reports. I'm seeking clarification tonight. Thank you. Councillor Finchel, do you want that noted, please? In the minutes, thank you, Cath. Okay. Speaker 8: Excuse me, point of order. There is no ability understanding order to have a note like that made in the minutes. Speaker 4: Okay, we are at, any further questions for Leo, who has a tough task on his first night? Poor Larry. Any further questions before we go into the people speaking to this? We have heard from Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Joe, and Councillors Tom.

45 minutes in ¶

00:45:00

00:45:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I don't think you have any, I think you've all made the amendment. Speaker 4: I'll beg your pardon, we've made the amendment. So Councillor Stockwell is the only one that we've heard from, and Councillor Wignall. Councillor Finchel, would you like to speak to this, or Councillor Ormston? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I will speak to it, sorry, and I did seek to clarify those dates, and yes, I was just going through the original report, it was October 2022 and application was made for monetary change, was refused for changes to Unit 6 to include additional blows forward air, so that's the date that I was seeking to clarify, but in amongst all the to-ing and fro-ing, that date was lost to me, sorry. Look, I'll concur with what Councillor Stockwell said. And whilst this has gone through a retrospective process, it did go through the correct process in the first place, it should have gone to the Planning and Environment report, which if it was refused here, it would likely do, I believe the changes are sufficiently minor in nature to warrant to not necessarily take this to court, and all the rest of it, I think that would be a waste of ratepayers' funds with regard to finding something that's a significant loss to the environment, I think that would be a waste of ratepayers' funds with regard to finding something that's a significant loss to the environment

00:46:00 and a significantly minor change that has no physical change to the external vision of the property apart from a curved window changing to a square window, which is only visible from the rear, so I'm happy to support the resolution before us. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor Crisfitch. Councillor Orson, Councillor Finzel, would you like to speak to this? Councillor Finzel? Yeah, I'd just like to say that this has been a very convoluted matter, there's so much interplay with all the things that we have discussed and read and prepared before our meetings tonight, I might add.

00:47:00 So yeah, I will not be supporting the amendment tonight, I in fact will be aligning myself with the recommendation from the staff, and that's all I have to say about the matter, thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Speaker 4: I'll speak to it. I will support the recommendation before us. It doesn't change the current rule roof line, it's internally focused, which we talked about on Monday. It doesn't offend PO9. And if we look at retrospective, we can't, in alignment with what we're looking at against the planning scheme, then we can't look back and we have to look forward. And in this instance, if we don't approve this, and we potentially don't approve it, we're going to incur legal fees, that's further cost to the community. And I would not like to see our rate payer money spent on something which we will ultimately, most likely, based on past precedent, have to settle in court.

00:48:00 So I will be supporting Councillor Stockwell's recommendation for approval with conditions. Speaker 3: Councillor Lorentson? I'm just going to just add, I'm not going to just repeat anything that's already been said, but I just want to add that when we assess this, we're going to be looking at The proposed changes are considered minor and do not result in a substantially different development and only result in an additional 15 square metres of GFA and 12 metres of site cover to apply to the entire site. So against the Planning Act, assessed against the Planning Act, assessed against its own merits, it's compliant and I support the recommendation. Speaker 4: Thank you Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell. Would you like to close? Speaker 8: I will. Councillors, I do apologise, it's intent that I didn't read the, Councillor Finzel was kind of suggesting she didn't read it.

00:49:00 What I was suggesting is, when we have all the information given to us, it's our responsibility to assume, consume that information and make our decision based on it. We have had all the information, all the written information given to us is correct and clear about the background. There were some verbal responses to questions of General Committee that were a little bit off the mark and that's been rectified, which is appreciated. So I have no pleasure in approving something retrospective. I don't think it's a process that we should encourage and as I've mentioned in General Committee, I think our process should start on these cases as find first and mediate second. I think we should be much more proactive in compliance enforcement. But when it comes to receiving and reviewing a planning scheme, our statutory right is to assess the application

00:50:00 and to do it like this. Like the courts would do, which is de nova, afresh. We can't consider what's gone before, we can only consider compliance with the scheme. Staff have considered the compliance with the scheme. In their opinion, the matter of the non-compliance with performance outcome 10 is enough to refuse it. My view is that as a Councillor, I'm prepared to accept that minor level of non-compliance because I don't see, it's at the big picture, a significant non-compliance over that whole development side and having any significant impact on the surrounding community. That's what we're here for. I did cut Councillor Lorentson's question about legal likelihoods. So that's also another thing we can take into account is whether it's a wise investment of defending a refusal versus a minor modification which hasn't, of approving and is that likely to be a solution that will take the risk of spending 10 or 20% of the money.

00:51:00 That's our decision, not staff's. Staff, we want them to recommend in accordance with the planning scheme and it's perfectly legitimate for Councillor Lorentson and Finzel to have their, to share their view on it. But in my case, in looking at this particular development, the level of difference between what would meet the planning scheme and what wouldn't has negative effect on the community and therefore I'm willing to support the motion as it is put. Speaker 4: Thank you Councillor Stockwell, we'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Lorentson, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart against. Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener, motion is carried. That brings us to, there are no confidential items. We do have a couple of public questions. One is from, thank you Leo, Mr O'Brien O'Connor. Hello O'Brien and we have our Acting Director of Corporate Services Trent

00:52:00 here to respond to these questions. Mr O'Connor, would you like to come up? Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 7: My question is, can the Council confirm whether the wages, superannuation and staff costs of the Noosa Council Heritage Coordinated Position are paid from the annual rate pay and heritage levy and not from general rates as is the case with the vast bulk of Council employees? And if so, whether there are other. Are there other instances of staff wages being met from other levies such as the environmental levy and the sustainable transport levy? Speaker 4: Thank you Trent. Thank you Mr O'Connor. Speaker 6: Yes, I can confirm that a portion of the Heritage Coordinated's time, that's all their salary costs, is funded through the heritage levy for the 21-22 voters, that is estimated at

00:53:00 26% of their total cost. Now the rest of that policy is funded through general rates and that equates the time spent directly related to the Heritage Levy Activity. That approach aligns to all other Council levies and separate charges where time spent by officers directly related to levy or separate charge activity is directly costed through that levy or charge. Speaker 7: Thank you Trent. Thank you. And my second question is, would Noosa County, Cooray, Cooran, Pomona, Kin Kin, Peregian, Cooran consider paying the staff costs of the Heritage Coordinated position from general revenue, thereby allowing that person's wages, employee, employer superannuation contributions, et cetera, to be redirected to heritage preservation tasks including, but not exclusively, those performed by the Noosa Shire Museum, which is not guaranteed regular annual hypothecated funding from the Heritage Levy for the work it does?

00:54:00 Speaker 6: The first point is that changing the approach for the heritage levy results in an inconsistent approach to all the other levies currently in place in terms of that direct cost and the staff allocated time. The second point is that when we reallocate that staff time from the heritage levy or any other levy to the general revenue funding, there is also a following impact in terms of general rate implications and increased cost to general rate and the rate in charge for general rate as opposed to the heritage levy. Third point is that currently the heritage levy policy and guideline do not currently contain specific provision to support the payment of the heritage levy. This includes the implementation of ongoing regular operating contributions to community

00:55:00 organisations. However, that said, as part of the annual budget process that Council goes through each year and coming into the 2022-23 budget process, Council reviews its funding arrangements and priorities and activities following under all levies including the support of policy and guidelines. So this will include a review of the heritage levy and the budget to support its funding So those are the points that include 23 budget. Last point to note is Council's Community Grants Programme also provides for equitable funding arrangements through its Community Grants Programme on a competitive basis. And the museum currently receives community lines and has historically been successful for community focused grants. Thank you Chair. Speaker 4: We do have a second question.

00:56:00 The second application containing one question is from Brie Johnson on behalf of Sunshine Butterflies and our Director of Infrastructure Services and Acting CEO Larry Sengstock will respond. Ms Johnson, thank you. Speaker 1: Councillor Lornston has provided a response to our initial question and we are respectful of Councillor Lornston. However, we believe that letters of support involved with 640 signatures by a changed girl, 215 of those signatures are in the Noosa Shire Council area and multiple signatures collected by myself from Noosa residents shows a strong case for need to have the bike and walking path extended from Lake Cooroibah to Silverwood Road. Our question is, what more do we need to provide to further substantial at our case?

00:57:00 Speaker 4: Thank you Ms Johnson. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you Brie. Firstly, I would just like to note the petition that has been presented tonight and for consideration by Council. The proposed shared path from Lake Cooroibah to Silverwood Drive was identified within the Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Implementation Plan under Project ID 1.0. The project was assessed against the criteria aimed at getting more people riding a bike or walking and achieving value for money. The criteria and scoring system was developed in consultation with the project reference group and later reviewed by the broader community through Council's USAID community feedback. The proposed shared path from Lake Cooroibah to Silverwood Drive scored well, however, was in the slightly lower range when compared to other projects. There are a number of projects. The length of pathway required from this project is 1.673 metres long. It would come at a significant cost.

00:58:00 Could that be kilometres long? Pardon? Could that be kilometres long? I think you said metres. Sorry, metres. 1.673 kilometres. I'm thinking that. Sorry. No. Apologies. As more funds or grants become available in the future, Council will be able to reassess priorities to be able to deliver this project to the benefit of the community. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Larry. Thank you, everyone. And for our guests in the gallery. That brings us to the end of our agenda. The next meeting will be held on Thursday the 16th of December 2021, which will be our final for the year.