Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good morning and welcome to the last Planning Environment Committee meeting for 2021 and in doing so we acknowledge that the decisions we make today are matters of significance to our traditional owners, the Kabi Kabi people and we do pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging and seek to manage this landscape for the benefit of all. So we move on to our agenda and the first item is attendance and equality. So I note that all are in attendance plus observers we have Councillor Joe and Councillor Amelia. Confirmation of minutes,
00:01:00 would I have a mover for that move? Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Wegener. We don't have any discussion I presume. All in favour? That's unanimous. There's no presentations and no deputations. We then move on to item one which is MCU's development application for material change of use, home-based business, small scale meat processing at 82 Patterson Drive in VLA. This is a matter where there's, councillors have all received a range of submissions as well as staff report and we've read them and understand some of the concerns but if staff would like to give us an overview of this application before we proceed. Speaker 2: As the title suggests, so it's a forward development permit for material change of use, home-based business. This is an application for small scale meat processing facility. The site's located at 82 Patterson Drive in VLA. The meat processing activity would be undertaken wholly within an existing shed. There is a site plan, figure one, possibly not the best, rather figure
00:02:00 two site plan. The shed's located in the northwestern corner of the site. The shed was established as part of the original dwelling. The owner-operator proposes to harvest deer off-site, and then transports the carcasses, five deer per week, and then transports the carcasses back to that facility. The facility, this is a retrospective application, the facility has been fit out for the processing of meat. He heads off-site, harvests five deer per week, transports the carcasses to the site. They are unloaded and then processed in the facility. The operator is the owner of the property.
00:03:00 There's no on-site sales proposed, there's no staff proposed, and no commercial deliveries proposed. The applicant suggests that it would not generate an unreasonable level of noise or odour, and there's no on-site sales. So all the product is processed and then transported and sold at farmers markets off-site. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So do we have any questions for start? Speaker 3: This is a retrospective approval. How is this going to get built? I guess it depends. I'm looking at questions that have come in from the neighbours who are very concerned, as we all know. How did this facility ever get built without council approval? And has the farmer approved a grease trap and drainage for effluent without council approval? I mean, how did this get through? That's my question. And why are we looking at a retrospective approval? Speaker 2: The applicant approached us because he needed confirmation from planning that before he can get his food safety certificate,
00:04:00 that no planning approval is needed. He was under the impression at the time of interpreting the scheme himself and the acceptable outcomes, that no planning approval is required, and that he had met all the acceptable outcomes. We received the inquiry. I went through the planning scheme and then advised him differently. So he, in short, I suppose, he thought that he didn't need planning approval, and then constructed the facility, and then realised afterwards that he does. Speaker 3: So just to clarify, the building has a building approval? The Shire has a building approval? Yes. And they do have a building approval? And they do have a building approval? Okay. So the deer comes from 30 kilometres away. Is that correct? Speaker 2: The applicant says he's got contracts to hunt within the Shire. I'm not sure on the proximity, but then also outside the Shire.
00:05:00 Speaker 3: So I guess this is the question. Kerry, under one of the criteria for assessment, so storage, processing, packaging of goods, is limited to locally grown produce or goods made from locally grown products. Would that then be the aesthetic one that then would be considered local? Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Speaker 3: So that particular provision applies to rural industries? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Speaker 3: So it's not applicable to each application? Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Speaker 3: So that's one question is answered. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a few more, but . Speaker 3: Sure. I've just got a question regarding the, based on some emails sent to us, about, you know, there's a perception out there that communities feel that their voice hasn't been heard. So one of the questions raised has been around the koala habitat, the riparian buffer, and those requirements with the environmental impacts.
00:06:00 How is the application assessed against those things, given there's the perception from the community that this has not been, you know, addressed effectively? Speaker 2: It has not been assessed against riparian buffers. That's not something for the site. There's no riparian buffer on the site. It triggers assessment against the provisions for koala habitat if you're clearing or interfering with koala vegetation, which they're not doing. They're just proposing to put out the existing shed and operate wholly within the existing building. Speaker 3: Okay. So there's been no clearing on the block? Speaker 2: No clearing. Not as part of this application. No clearing proposed. Speaker 3: Well, I've got a question. Just, I see there's certain, you know, nature incentive approved use on page six. Facility is not permitted to process more than five carcasses a week. Approval must be conducted by a permanent resident or residents. No employees are permitted. How will that be policed? I mean, we're not there in the middle of the night and we've got practically ten carcasses.
00:07:00 Or we're not there to know if it's informing someone. I mean, how is this actually going to be enforced and policed when a lot of this is done in the middle of the night? Dragan is what that was. Yeah. Or he's out hunting. And the approved use must not be as a van that's bigger than a courier van. I think in one of the pictures there was, seemed to be a truck that was bigger than that. Again, how do we police that? Well, my intention is to come back to the Kin Kin quarry. How do we police it? How do we manage it? Speaker 2: His vehicle is actually a Hilux. So it's not bigger than a courier. I've seen and inspected the site. I saw his vehicle that he used. The other question we're learning to... Just no more than five carcasses? Carcasses, well, I'm not sure how we list that. The facility has been built to only handle a maximum of five carcasses.
00:08:00 I think really just given the size of the facility and its cooling capacity, that's a technical parameter which won't allow them to do more than five carcasses. Speaker 3: I think the issue is that the applicant's own approach, five carcasses, whether he's in fifth or whether he's on the business floor too long. It's about making sure that the business remains the small scale and does not impact the whole business community. But like all compliance values, some are difficult too. Yeah. But we do have the tools to handle that specifically. Those words impact on people's amenity. I mean, I've got, as we all have, a heap of emails from here saying that children have seen or been privy to seeing dead carcasses. They've been seeing blood being washed off the driveway. It's not as simple as there's actually no... Move straight into the processing plant when no one sees anything. There's a lot of transfer and a lot of... I mean, the neighbours are saying they see directly into it. They can hear the soaring.
00:09:00 They can... I mean, it's a butchery, really. Like, they can hear. And they're saying they're very close to it and their children are privy to it. I mean, how does that not affect or impact the amenity of the neighbourhood? Speaker 2: From the street, you can't see the facility. Speaker 3: But they're saying... Well, the emails that we've received are saying that children have seen the dead carcasses. They see them in the truck. It's pretty much an open truck. Is that the highlights? Like, they're concerned about... I guess, they don't just turn up in the facility. They actually get transported there. And they're talking about seeing blood and things being rushed off... Hosed off the driveway. All those kinds of things that... The transportation of the carcasses. I mean, they're big animals. And there's five of them at a time. If what he says is correct. And the noise. And it's the actual... What the children are seeing. Speaker 2: I question some of those statements. But I'd say that in terms of blood and waste and some of the other remarks and the submissions,
00:10:00 I hunted the deer myself. And it's not as messy as what it's perceived to be. It does feel just a little bit messy. He does the carcasses. He does wrap them in sanitary cloth for transportation. He does load them up as well. So it's not... Again, I question the validity of some of those statements whereby he's not transporting raw meat on a truck with blood and guts in the streets. But it's going to be a lot. Speaker 3: Yeah. The practice is your way. He goes up into the night. And he finds you. And he creates the deer. And he puts them in the back of the truck. So they're not visible. They're highly visible to people. He's coming back in the middle of the night. And he's sure that he's got the way out for him. He's here in the shed. He's in the shed. It's a fully self-contained facility. Officers have been out there to...
00:11:00 Open to the potential noise and stuff. And they've been out there for a long time. So they're not really going to touch the noise and stuff. And the machinery has got all of it running at the same time. It's going to eject all of it outside. And as you move further away. Then shut down the driveway. To all of the rest. It's not going to do. So it's our assessment that it's not going to have an adverse impact on what we're going to do. It is both self-contained and it is not going to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a supplementary on that from the site inspection, from where he pulls up with the cart, it's about a one or two metre walk between the back of his youth and the first stage of his refrigeration process, and that's completely obscured from any nose, is that correct? Speaker 2: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions? Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just going to raise a question regarding the conflict of interest, because one of the emails that I've received has raised that issue, and I know it mentions in the report around the Facebook photo, and that's been addressed in the report, how the applicant
00:12:00 perceives it to be a conflict of interest, because they actually say you're good friends with the applicant, and they perceive that as a conflict of interest. How do you respond to that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I, point of order, I don't believe that's a council's role in the public to talk about conflict of interest. It's a staff member's conflict of interest that's dealt with by the CEO. I'm not prepared to accept that as a question. It's in the report, and staff have advised on it. So I don't think the personal life of our staff, subject to scrutiny at a conference meeting, is something you may wish to ask and take up with the CEO, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask staff members about their personal roles. Thanks. Speaker 3: Well, through the chair of the CEO. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. As I've said, I've ruled, on a point of order, that I don't think it's appropriate for a councillor to ask about a staff member's private life in a public meeting.
00:13:00 There is statements in the report that are on record that say that staff have assessed this issue and said it's... Councillor Arnton. Councillor Lorentson: Through the chair, how is the conflict managed? Can you talk me through just council process, how they manage employee conflicts of interest? Yeah. Speaker 3: The conflict of interest, it really is, there is, there's only perceived conflict of interest. It's not an actual conflict of interest. The officer is not a friend or a mate of the applicant. The first contact with this person is when the applicant was first inquired about this proposal. So it's not known. Has some kind of interest in the country. But the matter has been dealt with throughout government area. We looked at a number of strategies. We looked at the deal with that perceived conflict of interest. And that includes myself as the government adjustment manager reviewing the report, as well as our acting director.
00:14:00 Also, environmental health officers have undertaken a review of the protocol and made recommendations around the potential amenity issues in that form that's added to the report. But ultimately, officers are not deciding this application. This matter is being decided by council. So it is taken action. And we have the minister and the council of the minister of the city. Speaker 4: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Jurisevic. Speaker 6: Just to clarify, beyond that, assessment is not undertaken by one officer alone. Assessment is undertaken by more than one officer, as I understand. Is that correct? And can you explain the process beyond the individual officer and what other assessment is undertaken along the lines of what it's referred to? Speaker 3: I'm not sure how much more I can add, but to say that, you know, throughout the process, we've looked at the application together. I certainly reviewed his draft report and made some edits to that. We looked at the submissions together. We had a look at what residents were raising and how, whether those matters warranted inclusion
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 or warranted conditions for expense on the recommendation for approval. Similarly, our director, our acting director, has undertaken taking that review. Environmental health officers have also taken that review. And the council itself, as I said, has undertaken their own review of the application around the legacy issue. And a number of their comments and conditions have been part of its report. And I thought that was a good point. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just add on to that? Sure. Sorry. Just for the council's information, as part of the review process, I've also, as Kerry mentioned, went through the report, hence my little notation there in the executive summary. Having, I suppose, an allegation of a perceived or a real conflict of interest is quite critical in the assessment of the report. So I met with Kerry. I also met with Will. Went through a number of issues. Speaker 5: I'm satisfied that there is no real conflict of interest.
00:16:00 Hence my comments in the report. And hence the report's come forward. Councillor Lowtham. Councillor Lorentson: It's my understanding that when you assess whether a person has a federal disability, whether it's a federal conflict of interest, the test is not only objective, but it goes further and states that a fair-minded person, briefed with the facts, need only apprehend that the assessing officer's judgement may be influencing making a decision on this matter. In council, you know, when we declare a conflict of interest, we refer to this as the hub test. The information hit the front page of the usage of aid. And I think it's important to note that that's not the case. Would it pass the PUP test? Does that rule of assessment apply when assessing conflict of interest within council? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, Councillor Lorentson, but I'll take that question. You started off with the first words, when the officer's making a decision, they're not.
00:17:00 So we'll move on. I think we've had enough. We're making the decision. So I'll take that question. I think we've established where the decision is on that. I don't think we need to interrogate that any further. It's a procedural matter which has been dealt with in the appropriate way. Okay, so back to the matter of substance. Councillor Wegener: In one of the letters we received, the resident said, this is not a business slash industrial area and should not be treated as such. Can you answer that and explain that this is a rural residential property and actually this is a home-based business, which is perfectly acceptable in that area? Speaker 3: Yeah, so the property is going to be a rural residential. So at this time, it's not a residential. So ultimately, the government is protecting it as a resident.
00:18:00 But our scheme does work. So we've got home-based businesses on rural residential, rural or even residential sites. So it's about allowing people to have small start-up businesses from home, where they can be of a scale and of a type that can successfully operate without having to do anything. So the idea is that small-scale businesses are like start-ups, unless they are potentially growing to a stand, they would then be able to be industrial or commercial, like 10 million or something like that. So I think, obviously, if it's protectability, we've done support for small-scale businesses, we've actually demonstrated that there are no adverse impacts. So Kerry, the no adverse impacts, I mean, how would you then, if the whole goal is no adverse impacts, these are all emails saying there are adverse impacts. Councillor Lorentson: How do we justify that?
00:19:00 Speaker 3: Well, we've gone through the issues that were raised, the last issue, and for each individual issue, as to whether, you know, there's substance in that, and there's potentially an impact. You know, some of them may be saying that it's an emergency, or we've experienced it out there, and we definitely know if it's counterintuitive or not. You know, we've just addressed some of the other issues around, you know, the potential for children to feel the consequences on the union, and what they're going to feel about that. And that's just been addressed. So each of the issues that are raised can be addressed through the conditions of the approval, or, you know, we're looking to further interpret those issues as well as looking at the application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. Do you have another one? Councillor Lorentson: How many meat processing facilities have been approved by the Council as a home business? Speaker 3: Well, not that I can recall in the 20-plus years I've been here.
00:20:00 Councillor Lorentson: So when would a meat processing facility be normally located? We've got orchards around the Shire. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, like all home-based businesses, you know, we've got home-based businesses for a solicitor, or home-based business for a town planner, or... Or even not for food. They all constitute a business, and typically, if they're on scale, they should be operating in a commercial or industrial area. But as I've said, where something's in small scale, and the potential impact can be managed, they can operate from home. So that's it. And that allows our start-ups and businesses to have a go. Councillor Lorentson: So if the decision of Council, not staff through the Chair, if the decision is to approve this meat processing facility, it will in fact be the first, first home business of this type in a low-density rural residential zoning. And if that's the case,
00:21:00 will these applications set a precedent for future development applications with your home-based businesses? That is, will residents in low-density rural residential zoning expect to see more meat processing facilities next door to them? Speaker 3: Yeah. When I said that I haven't seen an application, that's true. I haven't seen an application in the 25 years I've been here. The 2016 scheme was a little bit more flexible when it came to home-based businesses. And so there may be businesses in the Shire that we're able to establish on the new 2016 through effective development funding, but we don't know what. The 2020 scheme came out, and where a business is potentially constituted an industry, there are particular provisions written into the plan since which means there's only been improvements in cases. This is something new we're seeing. Precedence, it's really each matter suddenly looks out on its own merits. You know, it may be that on a site in Willis Mountain
00:22:00 that this proposal is not appropriate. Which one suddenly looks out on you? Because your merits, how it's being operated and the scale of the proposal determine whether it's adequate. Councillor Lorentson: In reference to small scale in nature, when you're looking at the level of assessment, my understanding is that this lead processing facility falls under a medium impact industry threshold. Is that correct? Speaker 3: It could be defined as light or medium impact because it involves food processing. It's probably more akin to medium under the threshold. There are particular provisions around food processing. But I would suggest forward jam, I think. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good point. So to give an example of, and I know the reason why we did make medium impact industries impact accessible as a result of a controversial approval under 2016 which was the manufacture of trailers
00:23:00 from a similar rural residential area where we had metal fabrication and presses and banging and scraping that caused concern to the neighbours. Now, it was of a scale and intensity that we thought probably should be impact accessible. But it doesn't set a precedent in that regard that we know that in some areas there has been larger scale medium impact industries that are established and operating with some of those businesses. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Wegener: Question. What triggered this to become impact accessible? Speaker 3: The fact that food processing is considered an industry under our planning scheme. And we've seen particular requirements about home-based businesses that have been industrialised. That would otherwise be defined as an industrial activity. So as I said, any type of food processing will trigger an impact assessment, which is a bit unfortunate because it can require people wanting to do spice business from home or produce spices and packaging from local communities.
00:24:00 Or as I said, jam manufacturing, which is really processing food, will certainly trigger the mainstream of the food industry. Councillor Wegener: Can we look at this for that, what do you make of this to the planning scheme? Speaker 3: It's something that offices have already started in strategic planning. We've seen it going a step too far. Or the intent to capture those. The intent was to capture that business that was manufacturing transit, not necessarily the food processing. Councillor Wegener: Yes. I would like to look at that for coming up. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So councillors, this item has been requested to be referred to the general meeting because of the significance of the matter. Is there any other questions or further information that people would like for Monday's meeting? Okay. So would someone like to move that the matter be referred to the meeting? Move. Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Let's carry. So we move back to item two. And item two is a... Thank you.
00:25:00 The material change in use for other changes of approval for multiple housing to include short-term accommodation situated at 13 and 15 Park Street and Sunshine Beach. This one is also, I believe, been requested. It's been noted that Councillor Lorentson is believing a meeting in the minutes. Please. No, you have to note it. She's got a conflict that's not in the room. We note what you see, so we note what you see. We write it. Okay. Just a note, patient, not the women. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, do we have any questions regarding this matter? Speaker 3: I have a few questions. Would you like to ask your presentation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yes, sorry. Speaker 3: It'll be short. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Keep on reminding me if I forget. Okay. Speaker 3: Round this roundabout again. Okay. So, this side has approval for multiple dwelling to be constructed.
00:26:00 Each of the units are in the same bedroom. Quite sizable. The applicant proposes or seeks approval for all four to be used for short-term accommodation without to seek debt in each dwelling unit of 24 people on site. The application is recommended by the government as refusal for reasons that are similarly put to council. Essentially, while short-term accommodation is a consistent use in the scheme, the scheme also thinks that the area remains predominant as permanent. Now, I've been back in the report that suggested this area is not being maintained predominantly as permanent, and we know that 28% of all dwellings In Sunshine Beach are being used for short-term accommodation, and at least at the time of the review in April 2020, the application is recommended for a few more people, for reasons not specifically specific to the campaign.
00:27:00 I've got a few questions. Kerry, it's already been approved, it hasn't been built yet. Speaker 5: That's right. Speaker 3: So irrespective of whether or not it's used for short-term accommodation, or it's used for permanent accommodation, or it's used for permanent rental, or whatever it is, it's still the same amount of people that would be in it. And irrespective of whether or not it's used for short-term accommodation, or whether or not it's used, again, for permanent rental, or it's just used for a family, the privacy issues, as I noticed that was mentioned, they don't really come into play because they're the same. Whether or not you're living in it permanently, you're still overlooking your neighbour, or if you're short-term living, you're still overlooking your neighbour. Councillor Lorentson: So it's the same on both sides. Speaker 3: Well, that may be the condition. But it's obviously the condition that it's not the same. That when you're getting a change of people constantly, that it does raise any potential privacy and mobility issues. But it's a little bit different to what a neighbour's little experience is that a family rent is. You tend to get to know your neighbours. You don't get to know people the same as the real family.
00:28:00 So it does raise some differences, albeit, still a fair number of people out there. What privacy issues would be different, Kerry? Well, I think I've described that. I think there is a difference between people who go next door to you and people who continually change over, who have new families coming and going. I think there's actually quite a few concerns there, I believe. Speaker 4: Okay. Are there any other questions about this one? Speaker 3: I'll do another one. Have we, part present, have we, has another girl in part present come before us? We had one, I think it was last round, where it was a duplex in straights that was shorter than half of the centre. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wegener: That's a good, long question. Were you not impressed with the, in just the design of the building? Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think we did assess the glowing front of the building, what's the glowing
00:29:00 environment somehow. But it's certainly a different sort of design. And it's not often. It's not often in any way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a lot of articulation. It's the opposite of the pot. Speaker 3: So, yeah. So, if you're impressed with the building, I think it's a good question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, would someone like to move that one be referred to the general meeting as a result that's an English medal? That was moved. Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? And that's unanimous.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 I'm going to pass the chair over to the Chief Executive Officer so we can do the procedural matters first. I've got a conflict on item 3, so I'll hand over to the Chief Executive Officer to appoint the standing chairperson. Speaker 7: Okay. We have a nomination for... Councillor Wegener: I nominate Clare. Speaker 3: All right. Seconder? She said, not you, Tom. Oh. Clare. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All in favour? Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Thank you, CEO. Thank you, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I'd like to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. 1-113 Gimby Terrace, Noosaville, as I have been involved with the Noosa Sea Scouts for 15 years in various roles.
00:31:00 Noosa Sea Scouts is a neighbour to the subject site. In a previous role, I was a group leader, which is equivalent to an executive position in an incorporated association. In that role, I had cause to deal with complaints from campers and caretakers in regard to the unruly and late-night behaviour of short-term accommodation in another neighbouring property which was being used for short-term accommodation. The secretary of the Noosa Sea Scouts has made a submission opposing this development approval based on potential impact on the campground as has been experienced from the neighbouring property. 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 no longer hold an executive position with the group and have no direct involvement in the campground management. The substantive issues of the group relate to matters more directly to the local law. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room.
00:32:00 However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Does anyone have any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: What's the cost of making a change to the development approval to include short-term accommodation? Speaker 3: This is a question for Councillor Stockwell in regard to his declared conflict of interest. Thank you. Do you think you can make an impartial decision? Yes. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Do you need to move? Yes. I'll move that. I move that Council note that the curve of conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell determine that it is in the best public interest that Stockwell participates and votes on this
00:33:00 matter because Council believes that he who does not stand to receive a personal benefit will not receive a personal benefit. The loss in relationship to this matter. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. I'll second that. Do you want to speak to it? No, I'm good. Okay. We'll vote on that. All in favour? Councillor Finzel, Wegener, Stewart. It's unanimous. Thanks, Celinda. Councillor Stockwell, resume the chair. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move the motion five, five, two, duplex and operational works to include short-term accommodation at 1113 Giffey Terrace Newstall. Do we have any questions? Do we have a synopsis of the application, please? Speaker 3: Yes. Just a quick overview. This is the proposal to use one unit within an existing unit like Sculley for a short-term
00:34:00 accommodation. The site is located off the West Coast road. I suppose the list recommended for refusal was for reasons that could not account for shrewdness while youth was convicted. Youth in the zone was considered non-compliant and was required to maintain the area for predominantly permanent residence. There has been mapping in the report which identifies that short-term accommodation available or offered in April 2020. So 27% of residential dwellings in the Noosaville area were being used at that time for short-term accommodation. Essentially that means, in all likelihood, that all of those properties found it was the youth's right to operate short-term accommodation. So while they may cease at some point, they can also rely on the existing rates to revert back to the short-term accommodation.
00:35:00 So it's not that they're not maintaining the area for predominantly permanent. It's the application for continuing to roam that. And there's no need for this short-term accommodation. There's actually a need for more permanent shrewdness housing in the Shire. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so questions there? Speaker 3: Yeah, I just have a question. With the, I think you said 27%, with the shrewd accommodation. That's right. Inevitable. Yeah. Does that include the ones, the previously used rights? Councillor Lorentson: Or would that increase the percentage? Speaker 3: That is based on the overview that was done in April 2020. That was looking at all the properties at that time that were being offered for short-term accommodation. So that will include houses and units. What it won't include is properties that have an approval issued under the, prior to the 2016, that allow people to revert between either or.
00:36:00 So if they weren't used in 2020, but they have an approval given before 2006, they will have that ability to revert in the future to short-term accommodation. Okay, so that amount, just to clarify, is not in the 27%? Councillor Lorentson: No, so it's only higher than 27%. Speaker 3: So are we able to get the total number Of what? Of how that percentage could increase from 27% to potentially those with pre-existing use rights or to activate their rights for short-term accommodation? There's just no way to search and I'm just going to have to look at all the approvals that were issued prior to 2006. They were committed to an incredible amount of work. It's not something that has raised the general order. Speaker 4: Can I follow on to you? You had a question earlier? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Just out of curiosity. So what's the cost of making this application?
00:37:00 So the applicant, in order to include short-term accommodation as a housing option, we've made a change to a development approval. Can I get an idea of what that cost is? Speaker 3: Yeah. So council fees and charges apply every year. Every June by budget. And there is a fee for short-term accommodation. So it's a fee for short-term accommodation. That's from a per-unit basis. And it's around $2,000, $2,300 per unit. But I don't confirm the actual amount for the . Councillor Lorentson: And just another question. We have issues with our in-car parking requirements. When was the applicant given the opportunity to respond to this issue? I know it's on page, I think, four million. On the page? Yeah. Page 48, sorry, 48, 49. We make reference that the applicant did respond to the issue of car parking.
00:38:00 I couldn't find it in the information request. So I just wanted to know what point of the application were they given notice of that? Speaker 3: Yeah. I will just check in with the officers exactly when. But you can see that our information request there on page 43 didn't raise the issue of car parking. Councillor Lorentson: No, I couldn't find it. Speaker 3: So I would expect it was raised more recently in the decision period. Yes. But I can just check for you and confirm. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Are the two units owned by the same person? The same or are they different people owning the different units? Speaker 3: We'll have to come back to you on that one. I'm not sure. But they are separately tied up. They may be owned by different people. I'll just check for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Okay. That's all I have for you. Councillor Lorentson: Just one last question.
00:39:00 I just wanted to know whether council has undertaken any economic study or have any understanding on this matter of being encompassed in our housing needs. This is not reported just in the Country Council. But do we understand how removing or reducing the amount of car parking in our housing needs affects the accommodation stock from the tourism industry? What's the impact that has on community that relies on tourist accommodation? Speaker 3: That's probably not a question for an individual application. More a question for I guess the housing study and future amendments that may occur to the same thing. But you know, we've got, as we've suggested here, 28% of residential accommodation being used for offshore housing. That's a significant number. That's, you know, substantially higher than what we're seeing in some of our other culture areas.
00:40:00 Speaker 5: Just one clarification. I think you said 27%. Speaker 3: Oh, sorry. 27% for Nookville, 28% for Sunshine Beach. Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 3: Any other questions? Has this been referred to? No. Okay. I'll refer it to General. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So the matter's referred to General. Moved, Councillor Stewart. Do we have a seconder? Seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? And is that due to the significance of the matter? Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Speaker 3: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So while that's happening, we move on to item four, which is a reconfiguration of a lot, otherwise known as a subdivision. Develop an application for reconfiguring a lot assessed under the superseded plan scheme at 111 Lakewater Drive, Noosaville. And we have a declaration. So is there a declaration there for Councillor Stewart to read?
00:41:00 Speaker 3: Oh, sorry. There we go. Okay. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a described conflict of interest in the SNATA in relation to the SNATA as Kirstie Noor, the ex-wife. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a described conflict of interest Director of Link and Link Surveys, donated $5,000 from the 20th to the 2nd of 2020, $5,000 on the 6th of the 3rd of 2020, $1,900 on the 27th of the 2nd of 2020, $1,900 on the 22nd of the 2nd of 2020 to my 2020 election campaign. To resolve my conflict of interest, I will now leave meeting room unless matter is considered and vote shown.
00:42:00 Speaker 4: This development application relates to the reconfiguration of the site at 111 Lake Wyver Drive in Noosaville, a site approximately 2 hectares in area. It has split zoning. Part of the site is zoned detached housing and part of it is zoned open space conservation. I should add that this application is assessed under the superseded planning scheme that is the Plan 2006, and the zoning that I've mentioned relates to that scheme. The site is subject to risk from both flooding and bushfires. To mitigate the risks of bushfires, the applicant is proposing to site building envelopes outside of asset protection zones. And it's relying on a cleared area off the site within the national park to provide a buffer to the development and also provides a 20 metre wide fire break trail to the west of Lot 9 as well, within the larger Lot 12. There has been a bushfire hazard assessment provided by the applicant, which was reviewed by an external consultant.
00:43:00 He raises a number of issues with the methodology used by the applicant, notably the reliance upon the cleared area within the national park. QPWS have also provided a response in relation to that and have advised that the applicant should undertake all mitigation measures within their property. The siting of the fire break within Lot 12 also is problematic in that it relies on one owner to provide bushfire mitigation measures. For a number of lots, the flood hazard applies to the entire site and the surrounding area, the applicant proposes to fill the site to mitigate the risk of flood. There is some issues in terms of like why the drive becoming flooded and the duration of that flooding and therefore that people might be required to seek refuge in their property. The applicant proposes that all levels above the PMF, but there is an issue in terms of the future residents not being able to evacuate the site should they need to.
00:44:00 Also, the extent of fill resulting in poor visual outcome associated with the potential future height of the lengths in the retained walls. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll start off. So I understand we've received some recent legal advice in that regard. In terms of the matter of being able to refer to the 2020 scheme as a conditional refusal on a superseded planning scheme, is that the case? Speaker 4: Thank you, Brian, yes. If councillors were willing to accept the recommendation, it would need to be modified to delete ground refusable number 7. We've received some advice, legal advice, that a superseded planning scheme request cannot consider the new planning scheme in its assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Interesting. Would the court still, if it were to appear, would the court still consider the potty principle?
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Speaker 3: Well, they, yeah, they are equipped to have to follow the potty match rules, but I do have great experience with it, but I'm not sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It hasn't been referred to generally, but generally the case is if we change the recommendation that it does. Do we have any other questions first and then we'll work out the process after that. Councillor Wegener: To you, Councillor Stockwell, you've talked about flooding and raiding the land, infilling and how that disrupts the actual natural water flow, do you have any comments about this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh yes, there is a comment in there about the consultant advising it won't have any impact.
00:46:00 I think that statement could be refined to say that an individual filling of the floodplain to this extent won't have any significant impact based on the scale of the catchment itself in the floodplain. But any filling in a floodplain does have an impact. It's a cumulative effect of that. And so that's probably one of the reasons why this plan 2020 did close what is a loophole in the 2016 that we learnt in a previous application further down the road. But yes, so from an aquaticologist perspective any filling of the floodplain is undesirable and the cumulative impact is what we have to consider. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just given the information that was just tabled that we find legal advice where we
00:47:00 can't consider them as the plan 2020, which my understanding doesn't support these additional lots, my question is given that information and given that this has made potentially a big challenge, given that under a specific planning scheme there's actually actually a high risk for a compensation claim, has Council considered maybe conditioning the application so that it complies? Or is that something that's been done through mediation? I'm just wanting to know how relevant this recent information is to me just sitting here. I think that changes possibly some of the information in front of us. Speaker 3: Just to clarify, there is no compensation risk here. There's no compensation risk. So the applicant made enough requests to have their application considered under the
00:48:00 specific planning scheme. That was agreed to by officers given the appeal that had just gone on the road for a similar proposition. So this application was assessed under the specific scheme. The report, they were fully based on the specific scheme. It was a full assessment. And the issues were raised around flooding and bushfire will result in significant changes to the layout that cannot be commissioned. And so it was minor changes to the layout, as was recommended by the council, but they are significant changes to the layout. In order to achieve the fire buffing internal to the site, it requires substantial modification. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Dewsley? Speaker 6: Yeah, I might have missed it in the summary. Given that it's December and the new planning scheme has been in for over 12 months, why are we assessing this under the previous planning scheme?
00:49:00 Speaker 4: Because the application to assess it was received within the 12 months period. And was assessed and we accepted to receive it. That's right. Speaker 6: Just confirming that was the case. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So now, councillors on the committee, are you happy to make this decision? With the change of the leading nine from seven? That we would be, or do you think it would be wisely to get the whole council? Speaker 3: I think given it's just derived at the table, we should push it forward to the next meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Do you want to move that way? Speaker 3: Sure. Councillor Lorentson: I prefer the consideration. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I prefer the consideration. So I'm happy to second that. Moved it. Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by myself. All in favour? And you can invite Councillor Stewart back into the meeting.
00:50:00 Yes, today. Okay. So we're on to item five, which is a fuel change unit for a food and drink outlet at 652 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. And otherwise known as Cafe Le Monde. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. It does relate to the building that's currently occupied. Cafe Le Monde, which is seeking to undertake improvements to the existing food and drink outlet. It's considered that the works provide a rejuvenation of the street carnage, incorporating design elements that provide the street activation,
00:51:00 emphasising a casual outdoor lifestyle, and contributing to the vibrancy of Hastings Street. Just by way of a bit of history, the application, the development was originally approved in 1990. There were some changes. There were some extensions undertaken in 1995 to allow for, which included an outdoor dining area. A subsequent change application in 2008 saw some built form in that dining area. What's on site today is a bit different to what was approved. There's been maybe having some premises in that area, some sort of awnings and whatnot that sort of push forward. But this development now seeks to ensure that all the works will be within the property. And providing setbacks and significant landscaping as well. Questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to read the recommendation. I think it's interesting that it was pointed out to me that this will be the only place on Hastings Street where you have a landscape frontage to add to a dom.
00:52:00 I think that looking at the renderings of the approach, it looks like it'll add to the street space and fit in nicely to the natural look and feel. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Would you say it has an atrium feel to it? Because it looks like it. It looks like a glass house, really. Speaker 4: I mean, I find it quite lightweight, quite open. So whether it's an atrium or it has that sort of tropical feel, I think there's a merit to the design and the landscaping. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Probably no competition or the weight of there up until March 1988. It'd be much nicer in wet weather to be in the cover. The cover. Speaker 3: I'll second what you said. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so I've moved it. Councillor Stewart seconded. Do we have any further discussion? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously.
00:53:00 Speaker 3: Thanks, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We move on to item six, which is Environment Grants Program. Once again, I have a conflict to be cleared, so I hand over to the CEO. Speaker 7: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I can't deal with the matter at all. Thank you, staff, for your suggestion. Speaker 7: So we've got a big licence from yourself, Councillor Stewart. Yes. And from Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Yep. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a... Oh, we have to do the chair thing. Right, oh, sorry. Speaker 7: We have two members who can't vote on the chair. Speaker 3: I'll appoint Councillor Finzel as the chair.
00:54:00 Speaker 7: Here we go. Speaker 3: And I'll vote on that. Speaker 7: You want to go over? Speaker 3: That's it. Speaker 7: Councillor Finzel, please take the chair. Speaker 3: Who's second? Speaker 7: Councillor Finzel. Speaker 3: Councillor Finzel, yeah. Speaker 7: Well, if you can't... There's no one else in here. There's no one else in here. Okay. Speaker 3: So, the matter we have before us is the conflict of interest being declared by Councillor Wegener. So, thank you, Councillor Wegener. Do you want to read it? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Hi, Councillor Wegener. I inform the meeting that I have a considerable conflict of interest in this matter as I am the president of Permaculture Noosa, which has applied for funding under the climate change response grant category of the 2021-2022 environmental grants program round two. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered .
00:55:00 Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener has left the room. And we invite Councillor Stockwell to inform the meeting of this conflict. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have two separate incredible conflicts. Firstly, I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest regarding the climate response grant application submitted by Zero Emissions Noosa Group, which is for the proposed use of a consultant to enhance the adoption of solar in strata tidal development. The application lists the consultant as Mr Ian Wright. Mr Wright was on the Noosa Lakes Resort Body Corporate Committee on and off for the last three years while I was chairman of that group. I have worked closely with Mr Wright and have had occasional dinners as part of the committee network and recently at the completion of the large solar installation on that site. I am no longer a member of the Body Corporate Committee and have not socialised with Mr Wright outside that context. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias
00:56:00 because I believe the close association with Mr Wright as defined by the Act has ceased, and further, he is not the direct recipient of the grant. However, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will expect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. And then the second conflict. I also inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by the Noosa District Landcare due to my long-standing connection with the organisation as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias due to the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will expect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. So, the week before us, we have debate. Any questions? Oh, any questions?
00:57:00 Do we have any questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. And to Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell, have you provided any financial benefits as a result of the associations with Cr Frank Wilkie? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not under the Act. Under the Act, any business association, or 2016? I did do a small workshop for them prior to 2015. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any further questions? Can we just go down to Mr Wright, please? Just the declaration. He is the consultant. I'll move that Councillor Stockwell stay in the room. That it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participate in votes on this matter, because Councillor believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter,
00:58:00 and he does not have a close personal relationship with either Mr Wright or Landcare, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision of Councillor Stockwell is made in the public interest. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 3: And I'm prepared to second that motion. All in favour? Thank you. Thank you. So that's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell, you may stay in the room. That's what we're supposed to be called. Let's go to the other one. Oh, what's the other one? Speaker 5: We'll go to the Landcare. Speaker 3: Oh, I didn't vote together. Oh, did you? Speaker 5: I didn't vote together. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so I'll take back the pick. Yes, thank you. I should have looked some more closer. So if we can invite... Oh, we've got one. Speaker 3: Good morning. Good morning. We have Anne Norland here. Welcome. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like to give us a synopsis of the Environment Grant? Speaker 1: Yes.
00:59:00 Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Yes. There was a new grants category that commenced in the Environment Grant, which was the Climate Change Response Grant, and that was open to the public, along with the community and the Environment Grants, on the 25th of August, and it closed in October 21. So we had a number of ways of promoting those grants, through advertisements, online grants information sessions, and an e-newsletter, and we also published those on the website. We had five applications under the Climate Change Response Grant category and one application for the Environment Grant category. So we checked those for eligibility, and we have made recommendations that four of the five applications received under the Climate Change Response category are recommended for full funding, and that the one was not recommended for funding. And there was a... One category,
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 one grant application under the Environment category was recommended for full funding. So we have got a list of the recommendations. If you want me to go through all of them, or do you want me to go through them? One, no. One, no. Okay. However, just... So we've got a total of 43,278 that's recommended to be funded under the Climate Change Response category, and the 11,300 under the Environment Grant category. Just in relation to the Climate Change Response Grants category, there are a number of, I guess, confusions about whether the grants were actually applicable to the community infrastructure or to the environment. There are also confusions about the infrastructure for solar and other sustainability initiatives. So as a recommendation of this report, we will actually go back and review those guidelines and make sure that they are clear for further grant balance going forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, I have asked for this matter to go to General because I have a bit further consideration on the matter
01:01:00 because I have a different view in terms of the recommendation. But I'm happy for people who have any questions or further questions. I'll move that motion. It's kind of like the second... It's referred to the General Committee for further consideration. There being no further discussion, are all those in favour? Second. Oh, did I get a second? Yeah. And that was carried unanimously. There we go. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thanks, Andy. Thanks, Andy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There we have the Lake Doonella foreshore management plan. And we'll have the Acting Manager of Environment Services come to the table.
01:02:00 Sean, would you like to give us a brief overview, please, of the report? Speaker 5: My councillors. Recently, councillors have approached me. Speaker 3: Oh, hang on. That's me. My Councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on March 5, 2020 Mr Peter Butt, who is an Executive Member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer
01:03:00 an industry. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do believe a reasonable person could have a perception bias because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Buck, and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will expect a decision in the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just for clarification purposes, the reason this declaration has been made is that while the matter in question has nothing to do with the Eastern Beaches Construction Association, within the recommendation of staff is a suggestion that it may impact on the Eastern Beaches Coastal Foreshore Management Plan delivery. Do we have any questions? Speaker 3: I'll move it. Second? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Any further debate? All those in favour? We continue.
01:04:00 Speaker 5: Now, if you'd like to give us your summary, please. In recent months, Council has been approached by two different fields of community groups seeking clarity about access to the lake and water portion, in particular from the Shire Street and the Elm Street. It's raised a whole series of concerns about the lack of clarity about access to the lake and also Council's planning intent in terms of whether it's access, ecological or recreation or what. The issue's compounded because Council's working cycling strategy indicates a secondary network path to that location, and some of the community members have taken that to assume that they should have access to the lake and started to a certain extent. But the other end of the question is a number of residents who are concerned that there's a lack of privacy and also ecological damage to that area. As a result of the lack of clarity about planning intentions to that area, the report recommends
01:05:00 that Council initiate a foreshore management plan that looks at the resolution of those issues of tenure, access to ecological, and in consultation with the community, come up with recommended findings. It's proposed that the process replicate that that would initiate with the Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan. The initial stages of consultation with the community at the moment. So the report makes it clear that if Council wishes to go down that path, it will delay the completion or likely to delay the completion of the Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan due to the competing resources for the families to manage the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So this one, I've also asked to go to the Tenants' Meeting, but once again, I have a tenant view in terms of the staff recommendation. But do we have any questions? Any questions in regards to the matter or information that you should bring to the general committee on that? Speaker 3: I have a question. Sure. I think it's important.
01:06:00 There's a huge amount of community interest and angst about this. My concern is, I guess point B, it may delay completion of the Eastern Beaches. What would it take for us as a Council to ensure that you can do both? Do you need more funding? Do you need more resources? What can we do to help you enable both projects at the same time? Speaker 5: I would need to appoint a resource recognition consultant to do that. But I do want to highlight at the moment that I'm currently the acting Environment Services Manager. And the Principal Environment Officer, who is going to be managing this kind of thing. So, and that position is going to be in this project. So already we've got, you know, unfulfilled, you know, staff resources. Stretched, as it is, to deliver funding to this kind of project. So I've been reluctant to commit to actually trying to coordinate both by the end of my
01:07:00 next year. We've already got, you know, significant resource constraints delivering upon existing programs. And, you know, the improvement process for the Principal Environment Officer with the strategy engagement has commenced. But we're not getting any applications at this time. Speaker 3: Okay. It's not so much about reasons in the financial sense. It's more about resources. And it gets from HR. But, you know, we've been able to get the people here. Speaker 5: We get the people here. We get them mobilised. And I suppose it also concerns you that we're almost ready for this. We'd like to know, of course, your planning process by drafting this report and, you know, looking at the circumstances. So we're already, even by doing this report and trying to respond to community concerns and by direction, we've already initiated action that's taken us away from the customer management process as well. I'm just being realistic in terms of my time and resources. I just had a question. Speaker 3: Yeah. In your opinion, would data or information in the foreshore for the eastern beaches process,
01:08:00 would that be a benefit to the foreshore around Mellon Lake management plan? Speaker 5: I don't think so. I think data, but in terms of methodology... Yeah. ...is probably... And if we're looking at a perfect world, you know, we would advance on the eastern beaches to some extent and really understand the methodology that we're using. Because we are essentially dealing with the same issues, which is tenure, ecological condition, access, use, things and energy. And ideally, you know, in a perfect world, we'd roll out the eastern beaches, you know, and get the methodology tight. Because these are quite important planning processes for our community. And then apply it to other areas. I think council is in a bit of a difficult position because of the release of the cycling and walking strategy, you know, which is a fairly recent document, which has clearly indicated public access to that area. And that's elevated or, you know, re-prioritised the need to resolve an issue that's creating
01:09:00 a suitable anchor in that area. Yeah. I think, again, you know, I'm on a recent appointment with council and, you know, and I can't say, you know, if I didn't agree with the cycling and walking strategy, but with that link that's shown from Sheilas Street through to Downer Street, at best, the cycling and walking strategy should have just said, under investigation. Because there are significantly larger government issues in that area that require further resolution. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just for clarification, because I think it's important to understand that the cycling and walking strategy had a link showing as low cost. The information we now have on Kenya said it is impossible to create a low cost walking or cycling path in that location. We only build sustainable paths. We don't build paths in lakes. And therefore, the only option is a boardwalk, which is not that hot. So that would be, otherwise, it's not prioritised between zero and 400 of the other paths that
01:10:00 we have. So it actually hasn't got priority other than the thought that there may be a low cost walking there. Speaker 5: Just in my opinion, councillor, I haven't made that conclusion as of yet. We haven't started an investigation. In my mind, I have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's impossible if people have boundaries that end up in the high watermark to create a path in a lake. And that's an important one. If you want to be sustainable, you don't put concrete in an inside lake. It's impossible. So that's really quick. Perhaps that's a good point for me, because I think there are further complications that should maybe need more information or deliberation by staff before Monday. If we can bring up those PDF maps, and this is just to... Speaker 3: All of them? Private? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, just one at a time. So, yep. Speaker 3: While we're just doing that, can I just ask you a question, Anne? And you may not know. I'll take it on notice. In terms of prioritisation of the walking and cycling strategy, where does that sit
01:11:00 in the prioritisation at the moment with no further information? Speaker 5: So, my reading of the implementation strategy that I really want to take on is from the structure director. It doesn't appear in the forecast. So it wasn't made as a low, as a high priority. But you have to read into the implementation part of the walking and cycling strategy that you need to apply. So it's all on the map, that's the main thing that's required to find it. Whereas it's on the map, it's been shown as a, you know, that's a new connection. So, in terms of the maps, it's not just going to show you the road road, the road road, it's just shown on the... Right. Speaker 7: Can I add to that? Yes, please. In terms of the walking and cycling strategy, you try to encompass the whole of the region, So we've put in areas, lines, and things that were subject to further investigation, but really trying to capture just a whole range of things. This was one of those that was captured.
01:12:00 It doesn't sit in our 10-year financial plan, so it's not included in that. It was positioned as low cost, but again, it wasn't part of the investigation. It was really just one of those where it's a line on the map to show that that's something So I think there's potential to be considered in the future, but it certainly doesn't sit within our community financial plan. Thank you. Speaker 5: If I could add to the discussion that those same maps also indicate networks around the South Western Shores line. So it's not just the connection from Shield Street to Malus Creek. It actually indicates a pathway connection all around that shore of the lake. So I think the idea of the foreshore management plan would undertake that investigation and determine whether it is feasible, whether they're short or long-term, via land inflates, and make a final decision on whether access around the shore of the lake is desirable or not. So the foreshore management plan would need to resolve that on the proper course of a bit of clean-up and restoration of the community.
01:13:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I think, to me, there's no question about part A of the recommendation. It's an excellent opportunity to try and resolve multiple issues around the lake by doing a foreshore management plan. To understand, however, the durability of pushing back the eastern beaches is to understand the complexity of doing or resolving a local dispute as part of this process. So I've taken the liberty to go on to the Queensland Government site here. You see the striations across the lake say it's a fish habitat. You see the surrounds are... It's an area of biodiversity significance and matter-of-state environmental significance. If you go to another one of the maps, please. This is from our own overlay, which shows that there is areas there that are subject to acid sulfate soils or five metres AHD or below.
01:14:00 The next one. This one shows that the site's within a coastal management district. And the next one. This one shows the habitat. If you scroll down so I can see the legend, that would be good. This one shows that the red striations show it's wildlife habitat of endangered or vulnerable species. If you scroll back up, you can see that's most of the area around the south and west of the lake. And the last one there. There is... It shows that the lake and its surroundings... Well, the lake in particular is shown as a wetland biodiversity value, and that's shown as having high ecological value. My question is actually to the Manager of Development and Development. We can take it now or on notice. If my firm opinion that any construction of a pathway within a lake around between Wurrum
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Street and the area around the lake is in the best interest of the community, then I would ask that the City of Doonella Street would require a structure boardwalk. What are the likely development approvals or statutory approvals required for that process considering the coastal management district, the fish habitat area is a high ecological value wetland. It's got species or habitat of endangered or vulnerable species. And it's in topsoil. Speaker 3: It would need consent to launch the application. Given the number of pallet maps of the management, which have the pallets, and the fish habitat there. And it would require authority of the site. It's part of the application. It's an application for operational work. It's a building. It would be effective if... Not that we are paying for it, but instead it would be effective if we were paying for
01:16:00 Those main steps are very high bar steps between which habitat they are, rather than putting them on first three and then some of their conditions are convinced, which I'm likely to agree with, that's clear from the state, and the other one specifically is that they're really low. Councillor Wegener: So then I'm taking into consideration when we're thinking about priority. Is there any other questions? Just to sum up what you're saying, that this is a much bigger project to put that walkway through the lake than we may realise. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's a very, very complex step street, as well as the neighbourhood issues that are there. I think it's not something we're aware of. I think it's okay to look for the gravel path through there. The Noosa Council doesn't build pathways through lakes. I think it's up to those with the higher ecological conditions and conservation conditions.
01:17:00 Councillor Wegener: I was going to ask, there's several communities involved in this, and how do you see them working in with what's going forward? Speaker 5: Well, I think, you know, when you start a planning process, it's on first principles, you know, where you actually just share information. So the information you share is the quality of the environment. I think you'd also need to share, you know, instances where there's already been access gained. You know, there are residents around there who have desires, who want to access the lake energy. And there are unresolved areas of park or unwanted land, which that's certainly a really clear appearance. There are, you know, areas of interest that we've been using a lot. So, but there's still, you know, those sort of data that actually should be presented to the community. I dare say we then present options, you know, for consideration.
01:18:00 An option, you know, which would be very problematic and expensive, you know, as well as possibly ecological damage and would be true access, you know, down the lake. But you try and explain that to the community. But it's a non-counter resource and they're likely to get approval, so they understand that. Another option to get access is access to a municipal property thoroughfare. It could actually be viewing points or, you know, access to the lake edge of national jewellery properties. And often you can build those into areas that are degraded. So, you know, there's many other instances where you've got public jetties or public boardwalks, you know, that don't necessarily provide viewpoints for the thoroughfare, but provide viewpoints that people can actually, you know, appreciate the quality of that. So there's lots of different possible solutions to try and reconcile all of the, you know, community viewpoints. And we need to tease that out in consultation with the community. And then, you know, the cost implications longer term for that. I do note that NICA are funded under a program funded by the Department of Environment and Science
01:19:00 to do a get wetlands protein new reaction program at the moment. And they're under, it's both the Tewantin foreshores as well as Lake Doonella, and they're undertaking a wetland mapping exercise. And they're funded to do a series of de-vegetation of them . But that's not funded by Council, it's funded by the State of Melbourne. So of course we need to see that information and evaluate it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's a good point. There are, you know, like while I'm, I will be looking at a different priority being placed on this work than what's indicated by the item B. We also note that there is current work being done at community level, and there's also an enthusiasm, we understand, to start a bushcare group. And in the bushcare report, it's identified that we can put a hog on that because of the resource constraints we have. So many people wanted to start a bushcare group. So in terms of how we could progress this, that is one that would be a dollar resource that perhaps under the next year's budget we could also address
01:20:00 if that is the case needed for some more funding for a bushcare coordinator, a work health coordinator. Speaker 3: I have a question regarding to the NICA study. How relevant would that information and data be in supporting this development of support at your point? Speaker 5: So they contacted Council when they received the grant funding. And I've actually used the same methodology that Council uses for bushland operational assessments. And I've got a qualified psychologist doing that work. So I have high faith in the material that they've been generating. So of course we need to review it to ensure that they're comfortable with it. But I think it probably could form a really good basis for ecological planning and understanding of the most important bushcare areas as well as the areas of the regional and national restoration. So I hope they can take it into the work. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think with the expertise and knowledge within that group,
01:21:00 so obviously at the state level you map it to the scale and that level of getting down to very local. So there'll be issues here around, say, the black swine. There are particular areas where keeping humans away would make sure that they aren't moved away. Are there issues where there is actually, you know, is it watermats, you know, lucid species? Is there habitat for that? But once again, these are species that you wouldn't want to pass through the habitat. They have to go from, say, the Melaleuca through the sand flyer flat through the mangroves into the water for their habitat. So there's all those sort of very local scale issues that we could consider within the planning process that could come out by the detail of analysis and looking up, looking towards the lake, looking towards the urban area and saying, is it being affected by urban runoff? And Councillor Shrewsbury? Speaker 5: I think also the benefits of doing a full short planning process for Lake Doonella, whether we start it now or the next one, is that hopefully we can proactively prevent these same issues
01:22:00 occurring again on the other residential interfaces of the lake, you know, the Surrey which are approximately a year old. So we're actually being really clear about what the community goals and the prospects of the questions are. Speaker 6: Dan, are you sure? You've taken my buzzer. That was exactly what I was going to allude to. I mean, the opportunities here are not just this area that we have in contention at the moment, but the empire in my lake structure, as well as, and Brian alluded to it, urban runoff and saltwater, saltwater capital, particularly where it's around the lake relates to the industrial area and the runoff from that industrial area. Things could be looked at and water quality could be looked at as part of the saltwater management plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, certainly. As I said initially, I've no dramas whatsoever with the concept. I think it's a good concept of having a saltwater management plan. Do we have any other questions otherwise? I will move that it be referred, I won't say to the significance matter, but you do have a...
01:23:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, I just have a question with regard to the... It's a complex mix around the closure of state and council, managed land and tenure. Can you just tell me a little bit about what you identified some of those risks? Speaker 5: There's inconsistency with the cadastral boundaries of number of the lots, whether it's actually the replication of the cadastral boundaries shown in survey or whether it's technically defined with a mark. So... and there's been various legal opinions all about that, so the process would need to refine that to ensure that where is the boundary of the private land and can we respect, you know, people's private land. There are a number of parcels that are still retained by Queensland Government Transport and Main Loads. Looking back in history, the foreshore of that lake was actually indicated as a quantum bypass for road traffic. So, now that was booked to be decades ago, but there are some, just to be clear on that, but there are some weird little bits of land tenure which are still in TMR control. And obviously,
01:24:00 the Portable Management Plan process, you know, jumping the gun, would recommend that that be transferred to an appropriate tenure such as reserve or the like, so, you know, under council and military. And then there's the relationship with a lot of the land, because it is below high tide, it's actually allocated state land and it's not under council control. So, that would need to be really clarified and that influences the whole of the legal process. So, various sort of structures to be made available. But there's some of the issues that need to be clarified. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If there's what we call parametric boundaries, then on the other side of the boundary is the medium high water spring, so that turns into a lake, and therefore that is the land, the state land and the waters and waters of the state. So, that's where the key issue is, around those few dots between there that go from private property straight to state tenure. Speaker 3: So, just to summarize, Sean, going forward, your recommendation is Portable Management Plan, taking the community views,
01:25:00 community consultation, looking at the state, looking at the tenure, looking at the high water mark, looking at all those aspects. And that's the cleanest, most succinct way, and I guess the most collaborative way moving forward. Is that correct? Speaker 5: Correct, yeah. And I think putting on those other issues like stormwater management. But I think we also need to include the whole list of, you know, the desires for public access, whether it's immediate access or it's as far as public access, park fundages, viewpoints. So, it's certainly a collaborative and holistic way of looking at how we manage this space. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, I agree to move, so I'm looking for a seconder. Speaker 3: Seconder. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconder, Councillor Stewart. The motion is to refer it to the General Committee in significance of the matter. I changed it, right? Speaker 3: Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
01:26:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Sean. You're going to stay around. So the next one, which is, we move on to reports and noting to the committee, and this one is about the current status of the Community Conservation Partnership in Egypt. Over to you. Speaker 5: Under Council's Environment Strategy, we're obliged to actually report performance to the Council on an annual basis. We are running late, you know, in my current position, but this is some of the early data that's coming forward on our performance benchmarking with our Community Participation and Conservation Initiative, and I thought it would be nice to present it to the December meeting, and it's actually a good news story. Over the
01:27:00 last 12 months, we've seen significant uptake in our community bushland care program, and also partner in participation in land for wildlife, and also voluntary conservation agreements. A voluntary conservation agreement is a binding title, and there are really significant measures to, you know, securing nature reserves. So you will note that the report does indicate that as a result of the popularity of the program, we are seeing a decline in the number of hours we're able to be used to support the program, and we'll be using that to, you know, consider as part of a bunch of resource allocations for next year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Yes, you're right. It is a very good news story. The report, across all the different elements, and it's very high. Do we have questions, or...? Councillor Wegener: How much would you put down this success to how awesome it was?
01:28:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. Certainly having a dedicated resource dealing with the land for wildlife and voluntary conservation agreements, and his knowledge on the topic, as well as his excellent trust and service manner, is definitely an attribute to that particular program. I think it's also, we are seeing a change in demographics, and, you know, new populations moving into Queensland, areas of the Shire, and they're certainly very attuned to wanting to preserve the natural amenity of their land. Councillor Wegener: I would love to know what percentage of the bushcare volunteers have been here, have moved to Noosa recently. That would be fascinating to me, to know the percentage. It's probably hard to guess, but... Speaker 5: Yeah, that might be hard to guess. I could probably have done a SNAP survey if we had a push-in party on Saturday, which is what I received, so I'd probably have done a show of hands.
01:29:00 Councillor Wegener: Actually, I was thinking of it, but it seems that most of the people may have been around for a while. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's really, I suppose the really good thing is, in 2016, one of the key issues that was identified when I first saw the largest environment and natural resource management community-based group together was, oh, we don't have the old relationships, we have the sole nursing council, we don't have priorities, and you see back there in 2016, we had about 50, which did. And so we did invest. And having continued to invest in offices, both the, you know, technically and highly respected Dave Burrows, but we also brought in a very active bush care team that we saw on Saturday was very much appreciated by all our volunteers, and we've grown 500 per cent, so about 100 per cent a year if you average it over the five years between 2016 and 2021. And it shows, I suppose, the enthusiasm of our community.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 The other one was the BCA, which is the most cost-effective way to meet our target of having half the Shire protected for nature conservation is by investing in private conservation through BCA, far cheaper than going out and buying it, so that's, once again, this is, I suppose, all adding to the story of that strategy that we've had in place now for a few years, and how it's paying off both for the environment, but also, you know, I think it's a really good thing that we've been able to do, and I think it's a really good thing that we've been able to do, and I We won the Silver Spade from Marcus. He said he does it, he loves it, he enjoys it, and it's his exercise. He gets out in the morning, he gets out there. So it's also a health and well-being, the networking as well as doing it as a councillor who did attend. A lot of people who make me look young, who have been around for a long time, came on Saturday, but there's also the new ones. We're starting to see the inmovers, the underlings coming in and adding value as well, novel perspectives, which is really good.
01:31:00 Speaker 3: I've got a question. You talk about page 107, we talk about the volunteers, 18 groups, 57 projects, and we talk about what the volunteers, the unskilled volunteers, what they actually per hour equate to. So we've got a figure of 215,000 there, 300,000 in the next paragraph. But when we look at Corrigian Digital Hub and those other areas, we talk about a social returning investment. So we look at, you know, for me, the people involved in these groups, you've got traineeships, you've got social connection, you've got the health and well-being that Brian's alluded to. Do we have a figure around actually what it's worth, I guess, to our community? It's hard to put a figure on, I know. But there's so much more value to me than just those two numbers do, for all those reasons I've just mentioned.
01:32:00 Speaker 5: I can certainly explore that, because that might be useful data to support a budget view. Speaker 3: Corrigian Digital Hub, I think it's $7 million worth of social return investment. It would be interesting, you know, as I said, with all those aspects. Speaker 5: Yeah. It's certainly very clinical, that U.S. statistics figure, and I agree with the social and... and the community's return is much better than that transcript. Speaker 3: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, and it's quite funny, when you mention unskilled, I'm going as much as I could, far from unskilled. Speaker 3: It says unskilled here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. That's what I was just reading from this. I know they're very skilled. One of those unskilled labourers was the head of CSIRO. Speaker 3: I know, but it says unskilled volunteers. Sorry, I retract that. I'm just reading from the report. But yeah, they're very skilled, but yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wasn't picking on you, saying, yeah, we have to be costed like that, because that's what you do. Yeah, 100%. But yeah, we have retired landscape architects. We have people with vast knowledge. 100%. Speaker 3: And if they were to charge for their time, we'd be paying a couple of thousand dollars a day on the cheque.
01:33:00 Speaker 5: It's also good benchmarking data. The Queensland Land for Wildlife meeting was held recently. We've actually got the most significant uptake in land for wildlife in the Queensland. So, which is, I think, Sunshine Crescent was in 65, and this was like 60. So if you look at that, we've actually got an over proportion of residents seeking participation in the wildlife. We also have per capita some of the highest participation. So, again, benchmarking the Sunshine Crescent Council, we've got their data. There were three times per capita involvement in the Sunshine Crescent Council. So, there's really good data on the benchmarking data that we're looking for. Councillor Wegener: And then you have the data that Annie Nolan's working on, the carbon capture of growing trees.
01:34:00 As they grow, the capture of carbon, that's actually not then monitored, or the data's not there. We're still working on collecting it. As well as, you know, as the trees continue to grow, you have more koalas, more wildlife, and so forth. And I would be interested to know the actual dollar value of having a koala and how much they're worth, because they'll be worth quite a bit for the tourist economy and so forth. So, there's so many ways to look at this. There's so many ways to measure the value of these groups that, yeah, these numbers hardly capture the big picture. Speaker 6: Okay, Councillor Tewarczyk. Yeah, I'll add to the comments from the Mayor with regard to value. The unskilled become highly skilled over time. We've got a number of volunteers that have now gone on to become accomplished authors and reach a value of resources within the industry that produce books through their knowledge and learning
01:35:00 through the bush care activities, my intent, Sean. Speaker 5: And I've put out a report that this is the volunteer programme directly funded by Council. It certainly doesn't affect the volunteers supported through Narco Land Care and others. So, when we bring the performance report on environment strategies, we're actually capturing that as part of reporting on the funding acquittal process. So, there's actually a bigger picture on where the volunteers are. Speaker 6: So, comments here regard to the needs, comments regarding the value, I mean, I'd suggest there's even more value, you know, to the resource that we've encapsulated within the programme and the resource material that they've been able to introduce to the volunteer. Great. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would someone like to move the motion?
01:36:00 Speaker 3: I'd like to move. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Moved, Councillor Finzel. Seconded, Councillor Wegener, if you'd like to talk to us. Speaker 3: I just think it's, yeah, it's an encouraging report given that we're in a biosphere and that, you know, we've got measurable outcomes. It fits under our corporate strategies and it hits quite a few of our themes that we aspire to in the Shire. It comes out of Environment Levy and I think people only have to drive through the Shire to see the work that's being done and embrace the enthusiasm of our volunteers to want to engage at this level, at the mental health and wellbeing, for engagement in our community. I think it ticks all the boxes. So, it's a really good news story. And I think we need more of them given what's going on out there with COVID and the impacts and the uncertainty. I think engaging, especially that workforce through the volunteer programmes, is really significant for the growth and the capacity of people to thrive in our Shire.
01:37:00 So, thank you, Charlotte. Speaker 5: I was out planting trees out there. Councillor Wegener: I was outside of Cooroy on a big property. And I was amazed at how many people showed up and how many from Brisbane. Almost everybody drove up from Brisbane to plant trees in Noosa. And I think that that was a very significant moment. And then coming back to Harpon with the Olympics coming, this is a regional area. And they considered this is just a part of their region. And that's really exciting that this stretches out the tentacles of what happens. It really goes out a long way with the volunteer group coming all the way from Brisbane, from the black trees here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, was that the roving restorers project? Speaker 3: I can't remember what it was. Councillor Wegener: But it was just, there was a lot of trees. There's a big piece of land. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. It's interesting because I'm quite interested in one of the funding grants. It's the Carbon Council in New South to provide funds for tree security, which is a great initiative.
01:38:00 But I'm also intrigued at the New South Wales with koala go out. There was an auction item, which was trees and deers. And that was actually bid on some of the most with the other thing. It was about $300,000. It was a simple event of planting trees and deers. And there were actually two people in the race, and I think they sold it again. And again, the idea of combined tourism with trees shouldn't be discounted as a public strategy. And, you know, we've got funding mechanisms possibly out in New South to make that happen. And tourism is sort of, you know, reaching in with a fund program and stuff like that. I think there's some quite fun possibilities for the gay community. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 5: I think that- It's true in that way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah.
01:39:00 The stand-in auctioneer had a great job in bidding that one up from memory. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: At that, that will be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'd better not- We had a great generation. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson with I think it was? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, just to add to this wonderful conversation, I just think the success of all these I think it's a reflection of the community and what we value the most which is our environment. In regards to trees for tourism, I think there's always an opportunity for the reverse tourism for trees. We've talked about access tourism as an opportunity for the future. I think environment for tourism, you know what they do in New Zealand, don't just plant the tree. One year down the track, there's a can't stand having trees for the rest of the year, come back and water it. So yeah, I'm inspired and as a councillor, I'm still into doing all that. And this gives me a little bit, you know, a report card on our community.
01:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you're just talking to the motion, it is an uplifting report. Sorry Kerry, one of the reasons that I got out of being a Development Co-Plan and moved into Captain Coordination was because you feel so warm and aglow when you're organising these things. Speaker 3: I thought that was a bit out of tension there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it does, like the take home message for me and you've heard already is the quality of the staff that we've got running these programs, the commitment. You know, we have someone with great ecological knowledge and being the musicians for their Christmas barbecue. Speaker 4: And playing very nice smooth jazz. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think to that effect. So we have a range of things and built the capacity and it's not just, like Dave was in the old Mr Shire, but a lot of those staff that come in, the new, the young and they're part of that succession in this organisation
01:41:00 as well as building both good community links but also capacity to look after the place where we live. And for Stewart, I think you're the only one who hasn't had a chance to talk. Speaker 3: No, great. I think it's fantastic. And going forward, thank you for your hard work on this, Sean. Really appreciate it. I know you needed a role but, you know, it's really taken with gusto. It would be great to potentially get those numbers down the track. You know, I think that would provide a holistic feature. I think a really important one too, not just for us but for our whole community. Because it does add value in so many ways. Thank you. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, would you like to close? Speaker 3: I think we've said it all. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I'll take that. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We move on to item nine, which is a review of environmental values and water quality objectives for the mission of a basin. And Sean has advised us he's keen to take whatever technical questions you've got.
01:42:00 Is that right? No. Would you like to give us a synopsis of your report, please? Speaker 5: Queensland Government Department of Science, Environment Science have recently undertaken an update to the Environmental Protection Policy and the prescribed environmental values and water quality objectives for the mission of the basin. I do note that this isn't a statutory obligation from the Consulting Council. There's no sort of consultation program. They did engage with us and we suggested that would they like to come along and do this with the State Water Advisory Committee. And on a good note, because we had a coordinated stakeholder body, they're happy to do that. So just tying that in to prevent us from having to walk through. The review has sort of focused on a few things. Firstly, it's trying to rely on real data. When the objectives were set back in 2010, they actually used data from Victoria and Tasmania. There's this bit of an urban myth around it, that Mississippi has been used as the benchmark for what's happening. Remember, that's actually the first statement. They actually used Victorian and Tasmanian data to develop the environmental values and
01:43:00 water quality objectives for the area. So they're now using real data to determine our water quality objectives. They're also creating a requirement of the environmental value area maps. And I'll particularly point out that they're proposing a specific environmental value area for Burgess Creek. So it was before it used to be amalgamated in as part of what it used to be. They've also got some good work being done to separate low flow and high flow events. You can understand that water quality, naturally, is very different from when we're in low rainfall periods to when we're now in high rainfall periods with different parameters such as . So it's a fairly informal consultation process, probably the wrong word. They're still receiving comments. I've presented this report. If you would actually change any further technical comments, of course, to take on
01:44:00 to the DES officers that we're dealing with. I do note that I'm not a water quality expert. So I'm probably more familiar with environmental values areas. And I note that the officer who prepared this has not approved non-service needs. So any really specific technical questions, I might have to take on later. So just wanted to prepare you for that. So that's that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any really specific technical questions? No. Councillor Jurisevic? Speaker 6: Yes, Sean. I noticed in the report that it mentions all the lakes far, Lake Manila, each of the lakes reported by name and water quality. And Lake Manila doesn't seem to have an own objective. Is that an opportunity to look at Lake Manila for its water quality objectives on its own? Is that an opportunity to look at Lake Manila for its water quality objectives on its own? Speaker 5: Yeah, it's included as part of the, um, lower estuary, which we thought was appropriate
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 because it includes it as part of, you know, Tewantin, you know, lower reaches of the river. It is actually called that. They call it Doonella Lake on the map. So it's called Doonella Lake and Noosa River, Lower Estuary. So I think our mistake was in the attachment on the report, which was actually from the We should have said in that table and attachment to Doonella Lake and Noosa Lower Estuary, so I think that the way they're dealing with it is appropriate because they're actually subscribing it with the same boundaries as the Noosa Lower Estuary, which I think is more than sufficient to ensure protection from a river quality perspective. I dare say that probably Lake Doonella is probably the most challenging because of the inputs from the surrounding creeks. Speaker 6: That's why I would have thought that water quality in that lake should be monitored individually and specifically around that lake. Speaker 5: So the whole question of monitoring and how we meet things is a totally separate discussion.
01:46:00 So to this sort of mapping process, which is just about the overall report card data for the whole system and also when we go major development for COVID. I do agree with you, though, that we could refine our sub-capture monitoring. And I've sent you an email about that earlier this week. Because recently we've had the Noosa River report card rating come across as a negative, which is fantastic. But we don't get into the refinement of what it means due to the sub-captions. And there's also no parallel report card rating at the same time because it's not true. And Mary River capture represents these for some of our Shire. So if we're talking about report card rating, longer term it would be great to have an amalgamated rating, but also sub-caution rating. I'm proposing a report come to the February meeting about the whole issue of water management in the Shire.
01:47:00 Because we have some pressing issues concerning the preparation for the new water management plan for Mary River Basin. And also some other competing issues. And I was proposing to talk about the way we prepare our water quality monitoring as well. Because it also times in the partnership agreement with Healthy Land Waterway, which comes up in Joe Ryder's view. So I was hoping to, in the February meeting, we'd raise a number of topics such as that about how we report our sub-caution rating. Speaker 6: So is that first handled here through the water quality objectives? Or is that something that can be handled through something like the Lake Manila Portial Management Plan and actually look at water objectives, inflows and monitoring through the Portial Management Plan? Speaker 5: So I can certainly ask Department of Environment and Science whether they think that we can better serve the specific environmental value area for Lake Manila and put that feedback. And whether there's any data for them having a separate water quality objectives for it considering the stresses that it's under.
01:48:00 I can certainly ask that of them. Speaker 6: That would be great. I think it's the greatest volume of urban runoff in the industrial area as well. I think it's worthy of it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think, Councillor, the same issue I raised with staff around Emy Creek, Councillor Wegener: I think it's a part of the WIBA. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we know that the outflow or the diffuse end pollution coming from an industrial state in terms of water quality is separate. WCROs and EVOs have pointed out that you wouldn't necessarily be swimming, have contact recreation in Emy Creek near the infrastructure. You can't swim in the industrial estate, or whatever you want to call it out. Speaker 6: And there's an EV in Lake Manila. I'd argue there's an aim of the blue for the water in Emy Creek. Oh, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's secondary contact. Not direct contact. Yeah. Some good reasons not to swim in Emy Creek. If you saw the size of the bull shark a few years ago,
01:49:00 it was pulled over. Speaker 6: And that's the result of the . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. Yes, questions? Speaker 3: I've got some questions that are a bit technical. Just around the clarification around the recreation areas and giving them the EV areas, like primary recreation, all of that, and the symbolism related to the water. Can you just give us a little bit more clarity around what those things are? The EMAs, and what they do, and what they're doing? Yeah. Speaker 5: So, if you think about the symbol of the person swimming, that's primary recreation. And that means you can immerse your head under the water without the fear of having, I don't know, the condition of the water. So, it's not quite over water, but it's a level that actually allows you to immerse your head under the water. Secondary recreation is a series of sport on the surface, such as sailing or paddle sports, where you've got limited immersion of your body in the water.
01:50:00 So, that's the biggest immersion. It's all about risk and the life. But that's why the water quality objective is a little bit different, in terms of the number of health families and the life. So, you'll notice that drinking water is another value, again, which is you've got a higher speed in terms of the water quality. Speaker 3: Okay. And what would be the benefits of looking at this recreational noting of the Noosa North Shore changing the EV around that area? Speaker 5: So, at the moment, the area, and if I talk about the Noosa North Shore as being the area east of Lake Kasaraba and Lake Kiroiba, so between Mariem and the ocean. At the moment, most of that area is included in the map as part of the Kin Kin Creek and Kasaraba attachment. Now, that includes environmental values, including aquaculture and agriculture. So, and because that is consistent with the land use expectations of the Noosa North
01:51:00 Shore and Lake Kasaraba. And the water quality objectives, if they have a major proposal, are attuned to recognising those type of land uses as being acceptable. Our belief as staff is that whilst those values are appropriate to Kin Kin Creek and Kasaraba, the rest of the lake, we think the area between Lake Kasaraba and Lake Kiroiba and the ocean is more natural than the values, like the Noosa North Shore. A lot of it is in national park management. So, we believe that it should have environmental values which are the same as the Northern Noosa, which excludes agriculture and aquaculture, and focuses more on primary and secondary recreation and aquaculture. So, it's really about ensuring that the water quality objectives and the environmental values for those natural areas of the Noosa North Shore are protected in a consistent way. But still protecting the agricultural ones. So, we're looking at the area that's most important to us, the balance of the people
01:52:00 and the community in the area. Speaker 3: And will that affect the further heading north up into the catchment area around the, what is it, the wilderness trekking that we're going to be opening up further up there around the Lampuna and those given areas? I know it's not our Shire, but when we're looking at the broader catchment area, how will that benefit the region? Speaker 5: Well, the Northern Noosa area, you know, that has the highest water quality objectives because it is attuned to primary recreation and removal of agriculture and aquaculture. So, the DAS or the proponent of any sorts of new development proposals would have to have regard to those water quality objectives, which are very, very stringent. So, I do note, as we've talked about in previous meetings, is that the Northern Noosa doesn't include a potable water environmental value, and that reflects the intake from TY3, which
01:53:00 supplies are going to the regions in Canberra, which is a big heavyweight to the region. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And then, just as we discussed around fire mitigation and management moving forward, is there any opportunity, when we look at the Mary River basin area, to look at unregulated water drilling down to the table? In what way is that contributing to increased water quality? Which fires? And risk of fire? Speaker 5: It's a very proactive question, and I'll continue to come to the report to Council at the end of February. So, the Department of Natural Resources and Water, the current title has changed a few times, so excuse me. The Department of Water and the State Government, for want of a better word, have initiated a new water management plan to the Mary River basin. It's very important to note that in their bureaucracy, that includes the use of the basin as well. So, it includes the use of the water. The catcher stream. Yeah, the catcher stream. One of the points that we've made to them is that extraction of ground water from the
01:54:00 Noosa River basin, including the use of the water, which is part of our regulation, all you need to do is, the drilling contractor just notified the Department of Water Drilling, and there's no requirement for any reporting on some extraction. In other areas of Queensland that have potable water, that practice is in the community. So, you're actually not required to put a bore in unless you get special permission. And I think it warrants an investigation, because there is a significant number of bores along the eastern beaches, and they would be deflating the ground water through the eastern beaches. And that would possibly be impacting upon the ecology. We might have them in a high water table. And a supposition might be that that could be the case. So this issue requires a lot more discussion by council and that's why I'm forecasting a report to the committee up here to discuss that further because it is a very difficult time.
01:55:00 Speaker 3: And Sean, does that at the moment feed into any of our climate response plans or policies or where is that actually captured in council? Speaker 5: Funny enough, the way council resources and leads this sort of issue about water management as a whole is not particularly clear. So I've been talking to the CEO about this and that's one of the things that we need to answer. So whilst our portfolio environment, we've been concerned about environmental flows and impacts of climate change, water security for its residents requires perhaps a more holistic view across council. So I'll be working with the CEO and Leo to figure out how the organisation will respond. At the same time, you know, we've also got the Department of Aquaculture, Fisheries and Aspen and Giraffe Resilience Plan for the move of the basin. And we've also got community water proposals and water security plans for South East Queensland.
01:56:00 And there's one other process that I've forgotten about as well. So there's parallel processes which have the potential to impact both on environmental flows in our water bodies, but also water security for our residents as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to put you back on that. We have done some work looking at that effect, not in the Merri, but down here. The aquifer that comes under, I suppose, probably Inus Fong at Frickin, going through under the high dunes and coming out. That's the sort of groundwater system that in other areas is highly vulnerable. With increased extraction and if you just link that with also climate change, it has been identified as an issue for further investigation, I think, in the Environment Strategy, but I forget where that particular body of work has done. And just to give you an understanding of the complexity in those coastal areas is if you get saltwater intrusion because your aquifer is going down.
01:57:00 Generally, the rule of thumb is for every one metre the aquifer goes down, saltwater goes 100 metres in there. So if you start that process and you do something like that, you're going to be able to do that. But if you start to extract and get over extracted, what happens is the less surface water we get, the less potable water, the more people who want to keep lifeguardants put down more boards in those coastal aquifers. If they put it down into those areas that traditionally are feeding our ecology, then it can have a significant impact over time. Speaker 5: Councillor, I realise I couldn't answer this question in response, but I am working very closely with the SHIR and with their current climate change accounts. So in terms of water security, we're looking at this job. Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. And just on the back of that, then, as to water security and harvesting of water around the climate response plan, when we talk about, like, you know, if we look at individual phenols that are put by tanks on their houses, is that being discussed in those plans?
01:58:00 You know, if we looked at, like, volume of water that could be captured at a minimum, you know, litres per household through water harvesting at each individual residence, are we considering or looking at any of that when we look at, like, water security? Speaker 5: Not yet. But I think that's a great topic to further discuss in the February. But the way, you know, the water supply mechanisms set up at Unity Water don't encourage the provision of local water supply, whether in terms of tanks or the like. So there's a mechanism there which almost don't support local industries. And then, you know, the water supply. But the Government also in support of self-ministering. So how, if Council has a particular strategy they want to pursue in terms of local harvesting of water, we need to navigate those processes towards doing a climate change management. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that one of the unintended consequences of going through the model of air-to-queue bulk water supply
01:59:00 and commercial providers, just like when you brought it, is there's a lot of momentum leading up to that point to try and tackle water cycle management in Councils. Where, you know, we looked at the series in our water supply together with our, you know, our urban catchment management, which is to try and get the best use of all the water that we have. And we found it exciting and probably a good time to have a look at it. Because no doubt the State Government will be looking at the climate projections and looking for what is the lowest cost options for future water supply. And the untapped resources in the Upper Noosa River is one that we'll probably have to continue to fight for the conservation. Speaker 6: Certainly, certainly some of those points have been raised. The issues that we raised in water and sick water, and we were talking about water security when they came in and talked about the drought management and the drought measures that would be put in place.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 And so it's a good thing, well, what about all these other measures that are there that could potentially store water and it could be considered for being a commercial entity that's after water sales and water piping. That doesn't come into their realm. So it's an area that we've got to work with them and the State for when we deal with water security for the future. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I suppose you'll get back to the topic at hand, which is water quality, even though there's a direct link between environmental players and water quantity issues, which is water quality. It is only a port for noting. I have brought Shane's attention. I would obviously ask our officers to drill down a little bit further. Quite supportive of their position, except I think probably it's item four in the summary position. Where it says, where the proposed WQEOs are less stringent than 2010 objectives, they are not immediately supported. And the request is that the 2010 objectives remain in place until the needs change can be suggested.
02:01:00 Something in the existing environment cannot be changed but better managed. And up further though, there's, I think, conversation around that this is about the perception of us of reducing our standards. My preference would be to say that water quality objectives should be always made based on best available science. Whether that's higher or lower standards, it should be on best available science, not just that the Pantheonian guidelines that we adopted are higher, so we shouldn't drop them any higher. We're just commenting. The example I gave to Sean is one of the applications we had up in the Mary River catchment where we know in the middle of the Mary River section of the Mary River, particularly in the Six Mile Creek, that water quality objectives don't take into account the real nature of the water course and the type of geomorphology that's needed. And that the consultant was asked to make sure that their development could put out water
02:02:00 that met the water quality objectives. And they came back and said if we re-forested the whole of the inductors, they still wouldn't meet the water quality objectives. So that then reduces the, I suppose, the value of having water quality that can be shown that they're unrealistic. So a little bit of balance there. And the other one is just in terms of, it's only mentioned under the legacy situations. And I think it's good to highlight that, you know, yes, Lake Croix and Lake Cootharaba have septic systems in their catchments, but the science that was done in quite a lot of it up in the Cootharaba said septic systems aren't the cause of nutrients or not significant contributions in septic systems. The results of that study, which was multiple studies of those, was that the major source of the nutrients was probably the reintroduction and suspension of dentic sediments with wind effects, etc.
02:03:00 So it was actually a process. Certainly the amount of sediment present for genie coming in, and there's an old, it talks about it being an old choked lagoon system. So when the coast used to be out of the shelf, there were little coastal wetlands which choked, and now we have a rear system. And so we have to be careful not to sort of just have commentary that feeds into the sediment. When we, when I, 10 years ago now since the last time I've written on this study, when I was looking at this area of these peri-urban areas like around Lake Croix and Lake Cootharaba, if you had the detailed analysis of water quality where you can actually go and say where this nutrient's coming from, the most common major source was domestic animals. Septic systems, and now we have most of these areas involving the advanced treatment system, a much lower risk than your dog, your cat, your horse. Just there on top of the ground, first wash-bushes of endocrine and endometriosis.
02:04:00 So we have to be careful that we're not perpetuating the myth that the risk is septic. The risk is living there and not managing nutrients as a whole. And I think, I just wanted to get that off my chest. Thank you. Speaker 3: Can I just make one last comment too, if we're talking about perception and consistent treatment. Around the Lake Weyba, given we've just approved the expansion of the landfill, just to make sure that how we're going to be monitoring our potential leachate leaves from the landfill, which flows to Lake Weyba, and how we're ensuring that with that increased, you know, hole in the ground for our rubbish, how are we going to ensure that we, you know, make sure that there's practice around that side of that. Speaker 5: So we've included the VWES, which is consistency. So, but I do note that the Weyba environmental value area
02:05:00 does recognise industrial purposes, which is consistent with these languages, that means industrial. But then if you look at Lake Weyba, which is a different environmental value, it clearly indicates that the important objectives for Lake Weyba are primary recreation and secondary recreation. So... Assessing it is only to assess both the impacts upon the local waterway, and then the flow-on impacts from the river into Lake Weyba. So it would be a comparison of both, yeah. So... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: OK. I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Second, Councillor Stewart. I don't need to talk to her any more. Are we all happy to vote? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We voted and it was unanimous. Thank you. And we welcome back Kerri Coyle. We have planning applications decided by Dildab's authority and once again, a declaration-free month. Do we have any questions about those areas?
02:06:00 Speaker 3: Yes, I have a question. On page 135, I note a reconfiguring of the lot in Pottery Street, Pomona. One out of ten lots, and talking septic, I've just got a question around will they be developed with infrastructure and storage in mind, or will that be septic? This might not be the space to ask, but I'll just put it out there.