Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 8: Good morning and welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting for the 13th of December. I begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land of which we meet, which is the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people and pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. We have no apologies for today and with Council's permission we've had a request to move item nine, which is the draft economic development strategy up to the first item of business due to other appointments of our economic development manager. Any objections? Speaker 2: No. Okay. Speaker 8: Welcome Anthony, Leo and Carolyn. Speaker 2: Welcome. Speaker 8: Welcome Dave. Okay. Oh, beg your pardon. Could we have a confirmation of the minutes please? The last general? Second. Thank you. Second. Secondary Councillor Finzel. Secondary Councillor Finzel. Moved.
00:01:00 Councillor Stewart. Secondary Councillor Finzel. All in favour? We have no presentations. No deputations. And Anthony or Carolyn, would you like to give us a brief summary of the draft economic development strategy report please? Speaker 14: Thank you, Councillor Luton. So this report, the economic development strategy, is seeking endorsement from Council. It's a draft economic development strategy report. And approval for the CEO to make any minor amendments for editorial purposes following endorsement. Following adoption of this strategy, as we outlined in our recent Council presentation session, the economic development team will be doing a deep dive into our potential projects and thoughts and concepts for your involvement as a part of the 2022 budget process. Okay. So we have a high level of strategy and we'll be working closely with you on the implementation plan. The consultation process, as outlined in the report, includes feedback and comments from
00:02:00 business and industry and from our colleagues from your council and obviously the councillors. On that note, I'd really like to thank you for all your input over the last few months. It's been valuable and I hope you can all see some of your feedback reflected in this strategy. Thank you. So the economic development strategy is run by the aims, objectives and outcomes that we're seeking locally within the context of environmental stewardship within the environment that we are now operating, which is clearly biosphere focused. And with the needs of the environment obviously put up front. So we're looking to pursue diversification. There was a strong support from that to continue from our previous strategy, from the community, from the councillors and from engagement with state government and our colleagues in regional
00:03:00 offices. So what we've done with this one is we actually tried to focus it down a little bit more. We've always been looking for growth in high value sectors that have low environmental impact. This EDS looks to actually help us to do that. So we're looking to see if we can really set some boundaries around that and some focus on that. So in the absence of population driven economic growth, we really seriously have to look at other ways and means to achieve economic growth because it won't be coming from population growth as we near our population cap. Obviously, this has been very successful in the last couple of years. Our economic growth has outstripped our population growth. And this strategy tries to, again, put some focus on that and how we can dive deep to replace the economic growth that won't be coming from population growth.
00:04:00 Technology has also had a significant impact on the Noosa economy for the last 20 years. We're in it. We're seeing it. We're watching it. And that's going to continue. So of course, we're looking to generate economic activity that comes from technology focused industries. That comes from import, replacement, or continued export of services and goods outside of our region. And technology will play a big part in that. So this strategy is committed to pursuing a robust diverse and resilient local economy. One that recognises the importance of skilled and talented people. And the necessary infrastructure to accelerate economic growth. Supports a sustainable economy. And creates a sustainable business environment for a diverse range of employment opportunities. Our new economic vision is to seek the evolution to a smart biosphere with the emphasis
00:05:00 on smart and the biosphere obviously recognising the environment which we work in. A smart biosphere connects our strong environmental values of the community to our local economic challenges. Traditional economic development tends to take a sector based approach. We're not doing that in this case. We've had a focus on economic enablers. And a philosophy that bold leadership, strong business ecosystems, investment in infrastructure, and a culture of entrepreneurship are the very foundation of a strong, healthy, and resilient local economy. And our vision is to create a strong, resilient local economy. The strategy has a clear expectation of outcomes that will drive everything council does. In pursuit of our vision and goals. These are outlined obviously in the report.
00:06:00 Sorry, in the strategy. So we're taking a treated approach to monitoring and reporting. We'll be looking at the key economic indicators annually. We'll be reporting on the projects that we deliver. And can be responsible for. As you would imagine. In those key economic indicators, there's a number of things that this council and this community can't influence. I.e. a pandemic. Which will affect those higher order numbers. We're also looking to continue the conversation around economic development. And broaden that conversation. Invite the community into the conversation on a regular basis. Holding an economic development summit. To really get some good dialogue. And some strong relationships. Established. So we're looking to continue the conversation around economic development. The economic development strategy will look to reviewing and updating every three to five years. We're finding that in the current environment things change really quickly.
00:07:00 And this strategy needs to be in line with any of those changes. And potentially with other council policies that might come after this. Okay. So. In the annual budgeting and planning process. It will be the ongoing planning process. And we'll have the opportunity to dig deeper. Into the priorities and actions that will actually deliver this strategy. A number of the projects that economic development is already delivering. Are mentioned in this. As we transition across. Going forward looking at investment levels. To achieve those outcomes. And what those projects look like. Will be the next topic for conversation. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 8: Questions for the staff councillor. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I read. We've done so much like this. And I know we do it in other areas of council. Particularly with transport reasons I think. But I see. I'll take page 33. Of the local economic review background report.
00:08:00 And it mentions. The last paragraph says. No says. Headwinds for future development of these industries. Given the slow population growth in the region in recent years. And slow population growth predicted for the coming decade. But what we have outside of our region. And only just outside of our region. Is a much more. Faster element of growth. And we've got a lot of development coming from the south. How much in reports like this. Is the impact of. 5 Ks. 10 Ks. 15 Ks. You know. And the potential. Growth and development in those areas. Considered in our. Economic report. The potential for. You know. All those people come here and shop. There we are. For Brigham Springs. You know. A majority of the kids. They're either employed here. Or their kids are coming to school here. Or to shop in the region. So I don't know. How much of that. Is considered in a report like this. And is that something we could.
00:09:00 We should be looking at. If not. How much of that. Should be considered in a future report. With regard to. The impact. On the margins. Or the. You know. The. Just outside of our boundaries. With regard to. What happened within our. Shopping. Shire. Yeah. Speaker 14: We work within. The data. That is provided. By agencies. The credible data. So. It's all done at an LGA level. The spend. Coming from outside of our region. Is most definitely. Captured. In our. GRP. Data. The people that are coming in to work. Are absolutely captured in. Our. Economic data. And those people that are leaving our region. And working outside of. The Shire. Are definitely. Captured. Where. The brief didn't include. Anything further than that Joe. No. But we are looking. At. New forms of. Data that can be. Developed. And it's great. From a number of different platforms. To give us some of that information. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm thinking of things like. You know. Not far out of our region. Is the Coolum.
00:10:00 Industrial area. That's been. Slated. Slowly. Increased. And what's going near. The potential there is. For. Not only. Growth out. But also growth in. An opportunity. Speaker 14: And a number of. And we will be relying. With the. With the limited land. Some of the work we're doing. Around employment land. We will be relying. On some of our neighbours. To help accommodate. Some of those. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's. That's what I'm alluding to. Because. Speaker 14: The economic. Obviously. The economy. Doesn't function. In isolation. Our economy. Doesn't function. In isolation. Is the regional thing. And. In our programs. And. Projects. We absolutely. Work with that. Regional perspective. Not just. Purely. Near to. LGA. Boundaries. Speaker 9: Just further. I guess. To. I think. There. Is a good point. Around the interactions. That we have. Especially. On our. Kind of. Boundary areas. Of the Coolum. And. The Peregian Hug. Is a great example. You know. That 50%. Of the impact. Is in. Sunshine Coast.
00:11:00 LGA. And 50%. Noosa Council. I hope. Our strategy. Actually. Kind of. Enables that. Because. If you think about the. The enablers. That we have. Around ecosystems. Infrastructure. And then. Entrepreneurship. That's across a region. And. The good thing is. We're going to. Benefit from. The airport expansion. And the. And the. The. That population is going to add to our talent base. It's going to add to our opportunities and that infrastructure is not in our Shire, but we certainly benefit. So I think we're all working together to make that happen. Speaker 14: On the other side of the coin, the region's benefiting from the Peregian Beach Digital. So, you know, it's a region. Our youth education and training alliance includes... Councillor Jurisevic: It's just when I read a statement like that at the end of a review, I wonder how much that has taken into account what's happening outside of the area, because it only refers to... Speaker 14: Only in those key indicators, Joe. Only in those key indicators.
00:12:00 Speaker 13: Any other questions, councillors? Just to follow on from what Joe just said. So my question is, what's the relationship between population growth and economic development? Speaker 14: Traditionally, population growth is responsible for a third of our... Sorry, servicing the local community is responsible for 30% of our gross regional product. As your population grows, that value grows as well. It brings more people, it brings more investment, it brings more businesses, and it brings more jobs. But of course, we've been on a... In a process of decoupling that traditional link between population growth and economic growth. So we have some challenges that other people don't, going forward. Which is why we're looking for future-focused industry development, higher-value jobs, because...
00:13:00 And increased exports outside of the region, because that's where our economic growth will come from, not population. It won't be supplemented by population growth. Speaker 13: So there's adverse impacts also with population growth. Oh, absolutely. Which I... Well, this councillor's chosen not to pursue population growth. Well, look at Atlanta, for example. Yeah, yeah. So what I got quite inspired about is that I love data. And I, as we're going to be looking at the housing needs assessment later today, I go back to data-driven decisions. Yeah. To me, we've identified key essential... Key workers and essential workers' housing prices. And I'm hoping that the data and these strategies, A, encourage initiatives in that space. And also feeds information to our housing needs assessment. So, yeah. Great. Some great information there. Speaker 8: I have a question.
00:14:00 Yeah. On page 37 of the strategy, one of the KPIs, or the target of measures, it says, investment in infrastructure year-on-year increases to gold. Are you... What infrastructure are you referring to there? We've just got a record every year seems to be more and more staying on capital works. Is that... And that's infrastructure? Speaker 14: It drives... Directly drives employment growth. Councillor Jurisevic: So... Something along the lines of what we're talking at the Civic was an innovation hub, correct? Correct. Speaker 14: Yeah. Yeah. But of course, there's a context to all of that. Any data we have, we're trying to track and monitor and see what our progress is like, how we actually shifted the dial. Speaker 8: So it's not just the council infrastructure, it's community. Speaker 9: Correct. It's commercial infrastructure. So just to add to that, Chair, within the details of page 31 of the strategy, enable an infrastructure where we've got to drop into a bit more detail, yeah, page 31. I think if you just look at the intent of the strategy, it talks about activating those
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 employment hubs and business sites. So I think if you... Infrastructure, for me, in an economic sense, is the big $45 million investment of capital, but also the Shire Business Centre and the Noosa Business Centre, plus our own activation of Cooran and et cetera. So I think in our context, it's everything but specifically around infrastructure that helps connect and activate. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Land development would be part of that as well. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 14: Commercial redevelopment in our industrial estate. Yeah. Speaker 8: There are a lot of very specific KPIs that you've mentioned here and very worthy strategy, very important strategy and critical to the future of the Shire. How will you ensure that all managers and all departments of the Noosa Shire Council are aware of this strategy and they're part of it?
00:16:00 How will you ensure that they're aware of the part that they will play in implementing it? How are you making sure that they're aware of how they're connected to these objectives, the aims and objectives? I noticed that in the consultation process, not all managers were able to, because they're very hard working. They are. My question is, how will you ensure that all the departments who are well across this and are instigating actions that have been potentially in conflict with these aims and objectives? Speaker 14: Well, we're obviously putting together a communication plan, a plan of communications with our colleagues internally at Council. Economic development has been around more tables internally, and Council in an operational capacity has been broadening and widening the conversation around new specific transport planning. A whole raft of departments are at the table for a lot of those discussions. From a commercial property, commercial development perspective, we'd be doing the same thing
00:17:00 with our colleagues in other departments. So bringing concepts to the table, inviting a broader conversation, and working our way through, you know, changing the culture of the way we've always worked in silos. Speaker 9: Obviously, this is the classic journey, I think, economic development and business support enablements, being part of Noosa Council's delivery and culture for a while. I think it's really important that we're able to do that. But we're now going into, I think, a new era of that, a new strategy. And Carol mentioned around more tables. What's happened more recently is there's been much more connection across Council, as Carol mentioned, especially around the Noosa Business Centre. And waste in particular, I think, is an area that we're doing a lot of work as a green economy. And I guess I have the privilege of chairing the Climate Change Response Plan round table and the impact of what this could do. So I think it's a great question. And we're continuing to work on that, building the representation, and the belief that this
00:18:00 will make a difference. That's the big thing. Speaker 8: So will we all, will all managers receive a presentation about the economic strategy, or are the ones that you just have working directly with on certain projects? Speaker 14: No, we're planning to actually present. And in part of the consultation, the draft will be sent out to the leadership group for comments on that. And once it's adopted, we'll be absolutely doing a presentation for that group. And engaging individually where appropriate and necessary. Speaker 8: Anyone care to move the recommendation? One more question. Yes, Tom. Councillor Wegener: On page 14, point number one. Use of the economy is diverse and resilient, and development supports both established and emerging priority infrastructure.
00:19:00 Providing business growth pathways. Most of the businesses are very, very small. One person. I know that most businesses probably don't want to be recognized by council. The best thing, my own personal opinion, the last thing I ever wanted to do was to be the council walk up the driveway. What, you know, what are some of the things that the council wants to be recognized for? And for those people, for the vast majority of businesses out there, what sort of olive leaf or what sort of assurance can you give them that their experience with council will be positive and leading them to these pathways? Speaker 14: Ensuring their experience will be positive can be difficult when sometimes they're inquires and what they're looking for. Our expertise and our area of focus. But what we are doing is we're definitely looking at what we're looking for. Providing a lot of information on and via the business pages of council's websites. So if people want to remain anonymous, they can go to those pages and find dedicated information
00:20:00 and direction to planning regulations and food licensing and all of those types of topics. We're looking to lead a, with the support of council and our colleagues, a business friendly council initiative. So that when calls do come into council, they're responded to in a way that they're doing it in a timely manner. They get the information that they need. It's not just a person in economic development picking up the phone all day. It's a whole of organization looking at how we can concierge and facilitate better engagement with our businesses. So that's where we hope to be in two years' time. Just following on. Oh, sorry, Timothy. Maria, she's a local, the small business commissioner. Just curious, yeah. Yeah. There is certain councils that have been nominated as business friendly councils. And I know there's certainly one of the first ones that she was talking to. And are we continuing that dialogue and conversation with her?
00:21:00 We are. We are. So it is a project that we are progressing internally. And yeah, you should have something on your list. Fantastic. Because it's almost like a stamp, isn't it? Like organic. It's like, this is a business friendly council. That's right. That's the stamp. It is. Yeah. It is. And there's a number of initiatives that councils need to look clearly at what they contemplate to actually deliver on that business friendly council's charter. Yeah. So it does come with some responsibility to actually do it better and look at where we can improve our processes, et cetera. Yeah. Speaker 9: Just on that. And I guess it came through a while ago then. Yeah. And I think we just have to be ready for this because as Karen said, it's got some responsibilities. I think the last thing we want is to kind of have a flag but actually not follow it through. And so I think that we all need to work together in that next stage and learn the detail on how will it look and are we ready for it? Are we resource as well?
00:22:00 There's a few things in there about resources. So we'll certainly come back to you on that. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And follow me on from what Colin said. I mean, you know, we don't want to discourage. In fact, we want to encourage more diverse and niche-type opportunities that people see out there to come back within the Shire, one would imagine. Speaker 14: Yes. And we can help with the provision of data and information. We take a number of calls looking for clarity around funding connections and collaborations. We connect them up to their groups and organisations. Councillor Jurisevic: And also potential planning conflicts and things along those lines. Speaker 14: Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. So we do take a number of calls. Councillor Jurisevic: Now, ask first is probably the mantra and come and see us first and talk to us first. Speaker 14: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other questions? Karen. Speaker 2: Just firstly, I'd like to thank all the staff and the work that everyone's done. It's been a long time and a big body of work. So thank you. We're fundamentally changed by COVID and we want a state to keep community informed, to, you know, make sure that everyone comes along on a journey and no one's sort of left behind.
00:23:00 Speaker 14: Our key communication piece at this point in time is the economic development meetings we've got. So it will be one of the two that we'll be using to keep people abreast of where we're at. Obviously, we'll be trying to engage with people through the different projects and processes that we run during the year. So we're building our databases. In fact, we have a CRM where we're looking to really categorise people. So we're not spamming everybody. We're actually going to the people that need the information that we've got to distribute. We're really trying hard to connect the dots with this strategy, Karen, to ensure that the projects and the premise of enablers will actually benefit everybody. So those people who are interested and want to know what council's up to. I think they'll be able to find the information really quickly and easily and the contact people to be in touch with.
00:24:00 So we'll be reaching out via the website, et cetera, et cetera, and via the individual projects that we develop that will underpin this strategy. Speaker 8: We have a recommendation there, councillors. Anyone care to move this? I'll move it. So we'll move Mayor Stewart, seconded councillor Flindell. Mayor Stewart. Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank Carolyn for all your hard work on this and for your really thorough engagement with all of us individually as councillors. It's really a collaborative approach and thank you so much. There's hundreds of hours of work in doing this. This local economic plan drives the economic development strategy. It is time for a refresh, as Carolyn said. The previous one was adopted by council in 2016. And as you said, Carolyn has a lifespan of three to five years. So it is very timely that we are doing this. Things are changing rapidly. The aim of the economic development strategy is to continue to pursue diversification of the local economy, to build resilience, increased employment opportunities in the high-value industry sectors, and continued economic growth, as per page 27 you highlighted, Carolyn.
00:25:00 The vision and goals, I think, worth noting are diverse and resilient local economy, less reliant on volatile industries, increase the number of high-value jobs that retain local talent, because it's really important that we retain our local talent, skilled and talented workers, and more. Of course, driving innovation, bridging digital hub is a good example of that, and promoting and accelerating that. Infrastructure that accelerates industry and development, and smart precincts, again, our digital hub. Businesses maximising global opportunities and selling to the world, and we can do that, and we're seeing that being done right here, right now. Successful home-based businesses and remote workers, collaborative and connected approach to businesses, expanded education and research opportunities. These are a number of things. And as you said, Carolyn, I've written it down, bold leadership is really important in this space, empowering ecosystems, enabling infrastructure, and encouraging entrepreneurship, and continuing that discussion with our community, the economic summit sounds fabulous, having that community involvement, it's so important that our community is taking on this journey, so thank you very much, and I look forward to progressing this further.
00:26:00 Speaker 8: Councillor Stockwell, I'd like to make an amendment, please. Councillor Stockwell, I'd like to make an amendment, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the amendment is to add an additional clause, which will read, Council wish it noted that it disagrees with the statement, population growth is important to support economic growth in the local area, as the state, oh, sorry, area, within the review report. We'll need to, yeah, we need, after that, after the, yeah, within the review report, it's not stated in the strategy. Yeah. As the statement is contrary to the approach to economic development in Noosa for most of the last 40 years, it's inconsistent, and it's inconsistent with the thrust of the Noosa economic development strategy, and to add in C, the words, to make minor amendments to the economic development, preparing and finalising the document for population.
00:27:00 Speaker 8: Seconded by Councillor Jurisevic, and there's an and after 40 years. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And there's a bit of a comment. Speaker 8: 40 years, and is, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 14: Mr. J, the seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll do so because I think this is quintessential to our thinking. I'm going to go to the strategy where we've defined economic development, and it's been consistent with the LGAQ's definition. It says the sustainable, economic development is a sustainable increase of living, a sustainable increase of living standards that deliver higher income, better education, health and well-being, as well as environmental protection resulting from the conscious and applied efforts. At its core, economic development is about improving the quality of life experienced in your community. Now, councillors, I mentioned there that 40 years ago, there was a group of councillors, 82 to 85 councillors, that started to question the role of population growth and its nexus with economic development.
00:28:00 In fact, I'm quoting here from a 2000 Peter Bycroft, and councillor Peter Bycroft was on the 82 to 85 council, and he suggests that the 82 to 85 was the first council, and I'll play for degrees, that brought up this concept of how we decouple economic development from population growth, how we actively manage growth. And he, in this one from 2002, it says, the concept of a steady state economy was first mentioned internationally by Herman Daly, who was widely regarded as the father of economic development. In 1973, he founded and succeeded in expressing a scene in contemporary Noosa. The most obvious expression of this is in Noosa's commitment to a population cap. Council's 10-year land use strategic plan, as it is in September 1997, provides for a future resident population of 56,000, based on the land's capability to support development and the available and planned infrastructure, i.e. economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
00:29:00 Now, Council's, that concept of steady state economy is probably a little bit dated now, because we have, as the strategy talks about, the fourth industrial revolution happening with digital. So there's a, you know, in old days, most economic production was based within the natural world, you know, the utility extracted from the natural world. I'd like to point out that the whole concept that economic growth from population is based on, you know, the natural world, is based on, you know, the natural world. I think that's a good thing. I'd say it's a lazy thing. Yes, certainly in the, what follows in that paragraph talks about economic activity being generated by an extra population. It doesn't talk about the externalities, the cost of population growth.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 It doesn't talk about the impact. The only way that population growth is important to economic development in the long term is if you believe at a global scale that we've got unlimited resources, unlimited... We don't need to go to that big picture. We can go to other reports that are in our agenda today. And Council Lorentzen's question clicked on it. So, population growth, we've had it. And if population growth was good for economic development, then we'd see a whole range of benefits flowing from it. In fact, the last year, we've had probably the peak of population growth this Shire has seen for decades. Speaker 12: And what do we know has happened? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We know that there's a loss of pensions, probably because they can't afford to live here. We know that there's a lot of businesses that are going to be working sub-optimally over the next break because they can't get work. And why is this so? Well, this is so during this period of population growth since 2001, where at that time, your medium weekly income, you'd pay 29% of that to rent a two-bedroom house.
00:31:00 Or 33% if you want a three-bedroom house on your medium weekly income. After all that population growth in 2021, if you're a single individual, to get that two-bedroom house, rent, apartment, it'll cost you 83% of your income. Or if you're a single person and have two kids and want three bedrooms, 100% of your income would go towards paying rent. Speaker 12: That's not economic development. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, I don't know. I don't know exactly what the 2001 figure relates to, whether it was personal income or household income, saying what this strategy said. Speaker 13: Does the draft strategy rely on population growth? We've heard Brian's amendment, but I don't know.
00:32:00 When I read the draft strategy, I didn't get that takeout. Can I get your understanding? Speaker 14: I'll get what you get. Correct. So the consultant's comment does reflect the economic development approach that's generally adopted in Australia, that a bit of population growth is good and healthy. It was used, I guess, to really clarify that we're actually not doing that, but what we will need to do if we're not relying on population growth is have other strategies that look at increasing, exactly, increased export. So I guess it was some context around what we need to do if we're not relying on population growth is have other strategies that look at increasing, exactly, increased export. What we need to do, if we're not relying on population growth is we're relying on very low levels of population growth, or economic development. Okay. Thank you. Supporting population growth. Speaker 9: Anthony? Just to add to that. And the title is population management.
00:33:00 I'll take Councillor Stockwell's point, and I think it's a really important one. And that's why the strategy is what it is. It is certainly trying to continue to. It's all about balance. In my view, the report is an independent view. The author does know Noosa, so I really understand why Councillor Stockwell is reiterating the point and going to the council to debate. Speaker 8: Thank you, Anthony. Do you have a question for staff? Speaker 2: Yeah, I just have a question. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, for bringing that to our attention, looking retrospectively and honouring the past. Thankfully, we're mindful we're in the present and we're projecting forward. In the report, it says roughly one third of the economy is directly related to local residents and includes local services such as retail, trade, education, healthcare and others. That you need one third of the economy that lives here to actually keep the economy growing.
00:34:00 I'm concerned about this amendment in terms of, I'm wondering, that amendment, it takes it out of context, in my opinion. With regard to this report. Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 2: So with regards to population matters, how are we attracting the best people here to meet the target of innovation, the adoptive improved technology moving forward? When we talk about population, we also talk about attracting people to live here with the skill set required to reach the target. How do we plan to do that? Speaker 14: Traditionally, Noosa, as a destination, has done that. People want to come and live here. They choose to live in Noosa. They're introduced as tourists and visitors generally. Then they want to be here. And those people make it their business to be here. So we're not looking at broad skills attraction or investment attraction, but more targeted.
00:35:00 Who is it? Who has made Noosa their home? How can we collaborate with them? How can we connect them up within our ecosystem? How do we tap into their expertise? Those kind of things. So we'll be doing targeted investment, sorry, talent attraction, to try and meet the needs of current businesses and to look at the skills and training that we need to provide to ensure that our homegrown workforce can continue to service businesses. So that's what we're looking at. We have a lot of population churn, as you would understand. People come and go all the time. So we keep, I guess, looking for those skilled and talented people that are being attracted to the destination. They want to live here. Councillor Jurisevic: The councillors wish to speak to the motion.
00:36:00 And the words are misleading, because for the last four years, you're right. Population growth hasn't been the focus of Noosa. It's been tourism. It's been tourism. It's been visitor attraction. It's been the focus of economic growth in the local area. Whilst we've had peaks and troughs in those early stages, over the last 20 years in particular, since I've been involved in the local economy, those peaks and troughs have balanced out with smarter work and harder work by those trying to facilitate a steadier economic range and opportunities for full employment. It's been the focus of all the area. The diversification that we're talking about, thankfully, is alluded to, as staff have said, within the economic plan. And it goes away from this sort of concept. The diversification is more important that actually targeting and those things. So I'm pleased to see that the economic plan doesn't follow that mantra.
00:37:00 And I agree that the statement there is a bit misleading. It's a bit old-fashioned. And I'm happy to acknowledge that. So that's what that's never been the line that Noosa has followed and as a result, it's still the most desirable location for people to visit, the site of where people live. We want to make it a more desirable place for people to look at the opportunities that does presented here as people realise that cities are not the be all and end all The COVID has driven things like that and people are starting to rethink where they need to be based and all the rest of it. A global economy now that focuses on digital opportunities and a digital economy that gives opportunity to the entire world for anybody living anywhere. I think it's a great scope here. Population growth has never been the mantra of Noosa and probably shouldn't be in an economic report associated with Noosa.
00:38:00 Speaker 13: I'll speak to it. The draft strategy does make it very clear in my opinion that Noosa doesn't rely on population growth. However, the purposes of clarity and just adds a little bit of certainty about our position and doesn't conflict with our other strategies. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you, Councillor O'Reilly. Do the councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Speaker 8: Before Councillor Stockwell has the closing comments. Look, I'm happy to support the amendment. Noosa's going to speak to it. I think it, as has been said, it does clarify the position this council's taken for many, many years. And if any people in the community have questions about the direction of this new council, it makes it clear that we're not driving,
00:39:00 going to be driving population growth as a means to achieving economic development goals. There's no harm in it. It doesn't interfere with the integrity of the report itself. If Councillor Stockwell was suggesting we alter the report, then it would have been an issue. But it's, there's no harm in making that clear here. So I'm happy to support the amendment because it does speak to a very important point of difference for this child. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 8: You're allowed to speak to the amendment. Yes, yes. Speaker 2: I take on board everything everyone has said. In my opinion, I just feel that by putting the amendment as it is, doesn't actually capture the intent of what was said. And taking one line out of a whole report,
00:40:00 to make, you know, a fairly bold statement, in my opinion, in the report under population matters, if you read the whole paragraph and take it in the context of the report, if you read to the bottom of it, it actually supports the entire document by saying, we're looking towards increased investment in the high value industry sectors and all the adoption of improved technology. This is, my concern is it's out of context and one line. And it, it personally, I think maybe if we could change it somehow, I just think it is out of context. If you precede that last bit of the paragraph, it looks at population matters as the requirement of meeting one third of the economy. It doesn't matter the size of that economy,
00:41:00 which I might add is going to grow. That's what it says in our housing needs assessment report 2021 on page 26. They project out of the 218 addition of the Queensland Government population projection, the population near to Shire is projected to increase from 54,033 persons in 2016, to 64,999 persons in 2020. When you put it in context, this says that we're projecting we need one third of our economy will be used by people coming here in the population. If you read it in context, in my opinion, the report is encapsulated in this in a way that it is about the spend to keep the economy going so we can survive. It's not about our economic plan and review. In my opinion, it's about our economy being determined or coupled to population growth.
00:42:00 Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stewart, you wish to speak. Speaker 14: Look, I agree with Councillor Finzel. I don't think there's anything in these two documents that is in contravention to what the statement on the board is saying. I think it made very clear and I read out a whole lot of things about what these documents seek to do and what they will do and how we can look at driving our economy through a whole range of matters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the first statement isn't reflected in just factual accounts within the rest of the paragraph. The first statement gives a sense of the importance of population growth.
00:43:00 The first statement, in my opinion, says it's important, but we're not going to use it. If it was important, we would have put it into the strategy. Councillor Finzel mentioned about the need to attract, to look at the talent. We also need to look at the retain. How do we grow local talent? How do we retain the 18 to 40-year-olds within our community rather than losing them? It's actually, that's important for the economy. And it's not an advert statement. It's saying, we just disagree with this statement and the thrust of it is we're continuing on with the same principles that underpin why probably the vast majority of people move to Noosa. Now, there would be another way to make that statement that suggests, you could say that economic development is important for population growth.
00:44:00 Because if this strategy works, then it's quite likely that in 10 years' time, the Council is sitting here saying, we can actually look at the use of technology that's reduced the amount of cars, so we don't have to build four-lane roads with traffic lights, which was one of the determinants of the population gap. We can use technology such that every person's using less water. Because that was another one of the considerations when we came to the population gap that Noosa made the decision not to try and extract more water out of the Mary River system. We can look at a range of housing options where one in two people, households, which are the majority in Noosa Shire, are living in one- and two-bedroom dwellings, such that the four bedrooms are attracting new families. It's the economic development that creates the conditions that allows us to manage population growth
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 so that it's sustainable. So it's the as-defined economic development. It's not population-led growth. That is, to me, one of the fundamental problems that politicians and people throughout Australia haven't grasped. Yes, it creates economic activity. Interesting in that paragraph, you find a lot of that activity are for sectors that are declining as a percentage of our local economy. So why would they be important? Why would you try and drive, you know, retails going to the internet, not to the local self? So to me, it's both a restatement of principle, but also an acknowledgement that as we go forward, we have to look at different ways of doing things because we won't always be able to rely on population growth as the strategy so well enunciates. Speaker 8: Called by the bell. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell.
00:46:00 Well-timed. All those in favour of the amendment? That's Councillor Lorentson, Wegener, Stockwell, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Stewart and Finzel. The amendment is carried. It becomes part of the motion. Speaker 14: Can I put another amendment up? Speaker 8: You can move an amendment if you wish. Speaker 14: Councillor, it's the second of the original motion. Speaker 8: Oh, sorry. Sorry, Councillor Finzel. The Mayor is quite correct. Speaker 14: Sorry. Right. Speaker 8: Now, the only person who has spoken to the original motion is Mayor Stewart. Any other councillors want to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. We talked about bold leadership. And in my estimation, bold leadership. Excuse me, Councillor. Okay. Bold leadership is maintaining the environment that we hear, specifically the natural environment, the point that the national parks, the hinterland, the Everglades and so forth.
00:47:00 Speaker 8: Councillors. Councillor Wegener has the floor, please. Totally. Very disrespectful. Councillor Wegener: It's very disrespectful. And that is what brings talents to us, is actually being the most beautiful, livable place in the world. It brought myself here. It brought most of the people that have done very well here. Maybe they want to be a part of it. But maintaining that environment is what brings people here and it brings businesses here, like in entrepreneurs. And I talked about, like just to wake up planning, the Thomas & Surford factory has 600 boards on orders and they are booming and they are entrepreneurs doing amazing things. And they started very, very, very small. And they are worked off the Noosa brand, which is the environment. Land & Sea, of course. They're branding. They've built off the Noosa brand and the brand is tied to this beautiful environment and they're going gangbusters. And then my own surfboard business,
00:48:00 when I licensed my boards to be made overseas because we just couldn't make them here, again, it was built off the Noosa brand, which is the environment. So I feel that our natural environment, our biosphere, and I think that by claiming, introducing the biosphere into our economic strategy is very, very important because it really leads the charge and solidifies that working within the biosphere, within our natural environment, maintaining our natural environment, giving the natural environment to the next generation is so key to our economic strategy. And to our branding. And the two work with each other and build off of each other. And it's not about population growth. It's about maintaining our brand, maintaining our integrity, maintaining our vision for ourselves as Noosa. That is the key driver to our economy. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Whitten. Speaker 13: Councillor Lorentson. I'll make this brief. I just want to pick up a quote that was in one of the strategies.
00:49:00 The best way to predict the future is to create it. And clearly, through these documents, we are creating. We're creating by providing infrastructure, attracting investment, and fostering strategic alliances that create high-value jobs for our residents. I want to take this opportunity to thank Anthony, Carolyn, and the team Chris Bowden included for their hard work. And through the success of the Digital Hub, showing us what bold leadership is, so thank you. And I'm inspired by this ambitious plan. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 8: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm delighted, Councillor Lorentson. It was the previous councillor that turned around and was willing to put its foot forward and look at the Digital Hub and look at the digital economy through the previous economic strategy.
00:50:00 And it's things like that that are included in here too. I think it's important to look at those elements that continue to diversify, to look at high-value opportunities, to try and foster the elements that we have within our economy at the moment, which is a low socio-economic base, Speaker 10: not a high socio-economic base, Councillor Jurisevic: how we can foster that, how we can amend that, how we can take people on that journey, and how we can encourage that within our Shire. So I think I too would like to thank the staff Speaker 10: on their efforts here Councillor Jurisevic: and their consultation process that they've undertaken here. I think this is a relatively bold vision for the future and I look forward to seeing it implemented and what comes out of the economic plan for the next 10 years, if the economic plan or the economic strategy is defined and in place for our Shire going forward. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councilors, knowledge, skills and creativity linked to new technology are the cornerstones of success in the digital economy. When these are successfully blended, the knowledge economy takes hold.
00:51:00 Digital technology does not just open up global markets, it provides the critical ingredient to release knowledge workers from conventional city-based workplaces. With the new freedom to move and the desire to lead a more balanced life, Australia's pre-retirement baby boomers and Generation Xs are using freedom to allocate to their knowledge-based business in lifestyle locations. It comes up where we are, doesn't it? It was written in 2002 in that same paper I was referring to before by the Economic Technical Board of Noosa. Now it's important to understand that there's been some, you know, we've got to here because there's been this consistent struggle. But we're really going to sign amp up the digital side of things. You know, back then they were saying that, not surprisingly, the knowledge economy is a natural progression for Noosa. It reflects a capability to deliver high yields with minimum impact or consumption of existing resources.
00:52:00 Noosa already has many locally based yet nationally and internationally renowned resident knowledge workers estimated to be injecting more than $75 million per annum into the local economy. The Noosa Council and the Community Sector Board have identified, this is in 2002, three significant economic sectors. A unique blend of village, which is the village economy that Councillor Wegener is trying to amp up again with the agri-hub is one of those. And you might put your arts and creatives in that village economy as well. And you note in the report that when we looked at location quotient, when we compared our capacity or capability within our economic industry, that actually arts and creatives is pretty good in terms of a natural advantage. And the experience, which is obviously our tourism market and the knowledge economy.
00:53:00 This makes ideally suitable for a cradle for the development of regional knowledge based businesses. Now, it goes on to talk about how important the Shire Business Centre is. And there's a business centre which we've said we're actively trying to negotiate with the owner of that to actually get some infrastructure in there to foster this digital future for Noosa. I think it's really important. But the other thing that I think is important is what's driven the approach. Now, when Chris Bowden was in the workshop the other day, he kept on reinforcing that this strategy, if implemented and invested in appropriately, would be transformational. Now, that 82 to 85 council was transformational. Has this council got the wherewithal to make that change? I think it's really important to understand why it may be more critical or more urgent to invest in this as a way of looking at a driver or a key driver in this organisation.
00:54:00 And that's outlined both in the review report and summarised in the strategy. And it relates to the 2021 Kinsley report. And it highlights the key trends globally. There's a crisis that sparks a wave of innovation and launches a generation of entrepreneurs. And so we're trying to pick up on that entrepreneurial capability that we both have here. Digitally enabled productivity gains accelerate the fourth industrial revolution. The future of work arrives ahead of schedule with an acceleration of working remotely and other technological solutions in the workplace. Green, with a touch of brown, is the colour of recovery that expects sustainability to become as pervasive throughout the economy as technology has been over the last decade. Sorry, I'll say that again. That expects sustainability to become as pervasive throughout the economy as technology has been over the last decade.
00:55:00 So it's saying there's a big sustainability revolution in business as well. Stakeholder capitalism comes of age. The requirement for business to ensure they are acting in a morally responsible manner will become more important. And accelerated e-commerce changes the way we purchase out as the surge in online shopping increases. I'll demonstrate. So they're the drivers of what we're changing. And as other councillors said, I really thank the economic development team. They're a small team. They're growing, which is good. But they've come up with a strategy that adds value. It hasn't done the traditional thing of saying, oh, let's do a little bit for this industry and let's do a little bit for this industry. Let's do a little bit. And then council said, oh, but what about my pet industry? And what about my pet industry? And all of a sudden, we've got Vegemite. What it says is this is the type of business, the type of skills, the type of capacity, the type of relationships that we're going to invest in.
00:56:00 And that's what we think will create the best opportunity for transformation of the Noosa economy. So I wholeheartedly endorse it. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought Vegemite was a good step. Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 8: Councillor Finzel, you have to speak to the motion. Speaker 2: I just think it's an exciting time in history to be here. It is definitely transform... Transformative leadership. Leadership is defined. It's defined as authentic, transformative energy that adds value to others. That was a quote by Kevin Cashman. And I think that's important that as we come together today, we haven't got all the answers, but it's great that we're projecting forward based on the foundations that are being set behind us and moving forward to a great future. And I just think it's really positive that we're all to be part of this today. And just in closing, I'd like to say that economic development is important.
00:57:00 It's very important for population growth. And I think that we're all moving forward with the hope for a bright future. So thank you. Speaker 8: Good work. Good luck. And thank you. That's all I have to say. Councillor Stewart, you wish to close? Speaker 14: Very quickly. We're doing quotes. Here's a great one. The ultimate resource in economic development is people. That's very important. And I think obtaining that growth and the talent from people, retaining local talent, getting the right sort of people here who are in those high value industries that can really add value to the economy. All of the things that are in these documents are so important. So thank you very much, Carolyn and Anthony, for your hard work on this. We're really looking forward to driving it forward. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 8: Put the motion in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Anthony and Carolyn. We're going to go back to item one on the agenda, which is the development application for a material change of use, home-based business, small-scale meat processing and 82 Paterson
00:58:00 Drive. Tim Beerwire. Welcome, Will. Welcome, Kerri. And Mr Leo Jensen presides still at the table. So Kerri or Will, would you care to give us a summary of the application we have for us? Please. This is referred from the Planning and Environment Committee of the Council. It's on the agenda, page four, and it was referred due to the significance of the issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Chairman, I believe there's a conflict of interest. Councillor Stewart. Yes. Speaker 14: I am Councillor Stewart. In form of admitting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I was approached by the applicant's adjoining neighbour, Kirsty Pocock, to advise me that our sons play football together. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person for the perception of bias, as I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Ms Pocock, and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. I also declare that I similarly received a submission from Laura Prater, who also lives in the area.
00:59:00 I have met Ms Prater on a number of occasions, and our children go to daycare together. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person for the perception of bias, as I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Ms Prater, and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting room on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Do councillors care to move a motion? No. I'll ask the question of the councillor, if I may. Councillor Jurisevic: So, outside of the activities there, there's no other social contact? Speaker 14: I didn't even know that our sons played football together. Just clarifying that there's no other social contact. And no, I don't have Laura's mobile number. We say hello to each other at daycare. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the option to stay. I'll second it. Second it, Councillor Finzel. I do so. So, I think it's always good, if you think you may have a declarable conflict of interest, to have it out in the open. In fact, it's quite clear that neither of these relationships get to the trigger under
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 the Act. So, it is a public interest disclosure. There is no, as stated, there is no close personal relationship. So, under that, there is no declarement that needs to be cleared, but councillors are open to declare whatever they like. Councillor Jurisevic: So, I've got that as well. Speaker 8: I'll put the motion those in favour. That's Councillor Lorentson and Wegener, Stockwell, Finzel, Jurisevic and Wilkie. And Councillor Stewart did not vote on the motion. It carries unanimously. Right. Are there any further conflicts of interest? No. Back to the staff. Hello. Can you give us a summary of the application you have before us, please? Speaker 1: Sure. Thanks, Councillor. So, the application is for, like you said, a development application for a home-based business. The applicant who also resides on the property is the sole operator of the business. Located at A2 Passing Drive, Canberra. The application, the applicant proposes to harvest up to five red deer a week.
01:01:00 He would leave the Shire and hunt off, in part, but sometimes within the Shire, sometimes outside of the Shire. Harvest deer offsite. He would field dress the animals, leave what waste he cannot use for product in the field. The deer would then be loaded onto his vehicle, wrapped in cloth, loaded onto his vehicle. He would return to his property either Thursday or Friday around midnight, because he does the shooting at night. He'd then unload the animals into his mid-processing facility. The facility would then be used as a shelter for the deer. The property is located within an existing shed on the property. If you refer to Figure 1, Figure 2, it's shown to be the northwestern corner of the property, where the existing shed is. So, he's retrofitted that shed to be able to process meat.
01:02:00 There's, like I said, he's the sole operator. He doesn't have any employees. He resides on the property. He does not propose any on-site sales. So, he's the sole operator. So, following the processing, he loads the product into his refrigerator trailer, and then attends farmers markets on weekends to sell the product. Speaker 8: Questions for staff councillors? Speaker 2: I have a question. To just clarify, field dress the animals. What does that mean, and how does that then affect, how do these animals transport it? So, I think that's a good question. Speaker 1: What was the second part of that question, councillor? Speaker 2: Just then wondering, like, whatever happens at the field dress the animals, does that process, what does that mean? And then how does that affect how the carcass is brought back to the business? Speaker 1: The applicant is, he's a butcher, and he explained to me that he would take out the
01:03:00 offal. He would decapitate the animal, and he would take off the offal. The other parts, like the hooves, that he cannot use. Apparently, he keeps the skin on, so that the meat's not exposed, because he can use the skin as a product as well. And then he wraps it in cloth. Speaker 2: That process, like, I'm not a butcher, would that minimise the amount of blood coming from that carcass? Speaker 7: Yes. We would bleed down the meat as well. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 8: And then the question, we had a question from nearby reference that this constitutes medium industry. Is that correct or not? Or is it light industry? Can you explain the difference between the two? An operation like that, is it light or medium industry? Speaker 3: Yeah, it constitutes light or medium industry.
01:04:00 It's very closely known, particularly identified as medium. Speaker 13: Excuse me, we can only hear that from you. We're very interested to hear every detail. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Yes? There's no capacity for a member of the public to engage, and I think it's important to establish that. Speaker 8: Oh, yes. Sorry, sir. Thank you for your comment. I should have said, like the staff, that there's no interaction, but I'll... No, I understand that. We know what you said, sir. We'll speak up. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Could you speak up, please, Kerry? Sure. And count. Speaker 3: So the proposal is best defined as a medium impact industry under the planning scheme, because it includes food processing. But any food processing proposal under our planning scheme would constitute a medium impact industry. So jam making or spice making would also constitute a medium impact industry.
01:05:00 But it's much more akin to a light industry. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. Why does the home-based business code in this plan stipulate that light industry occur on lots no smaller than four hectares? What's it trying to achieve with that? Speaker 3: Yeah. In the drafting of the planning scheme, Council took into consideration a proposal that we had before several years ago for a trailer manufacturer. The Council considered it was not appropriate as well as it was appropriate for a trailer manufacturer. So when the scheme was drafted, industry was particularly targeted and identified as being perhaps inappropriate as a home-based business. But the way the scheme needs to be read is the requirement for a home-based business to not include a light or a medium impact industry. That is an acceptable outcome. The format of some of the schemes is what needs to be met here.
01:06:00 And that's what we're trying to do. So we're trying to make sure that we're having a system that is appropriate for a home-based business with a small scale and any potential impacts can be managed appropriately so it does not impact on the community. Speaker 8: Forgive me. I wasn't there on Tuesday. The other question I have is when officers attended the facility on November 17 to assess noise levels, does this involve observing noise levels? Does this involve observing noise caused by the operation of the meat saw? Yes. Follow-up question. Was the meat saw cutting through burn at the time? It was not. Speaker 1: Just to further elaborate, he switched on. So the facility has internal and external compressors just for the cooling of the facility. He's got a mincer and a bandsaw. He switched both the mincer and the bandsaw on and all the compressors were running but
01:07:00 he was not processing product at the time. Thank you. Speaker 8: So the meat grinder wasn't grinding product at the time either? Did the officers observe the sound of the compressor on the refrigerator trailer that will be packing and taking the meat to market on Saturday? Speaker 1: The trailer was not switched on. To my understanding, he was loaded into his trailer, switched it on, leave the site. Okay. Speaker 8: The final question. Are the noise nuisance conditions on page six of the report standard regulations for compressor refrigeration and other mechanical equipment required for light industry? Speaker 3: So those conditions have been recommended to us by Council's Environmental Health Office. So they're specific to the proposed business to ensure it will not impact residential mobility. Councillor Jurisevic: So that would be typical of what we'd have on any commercial-type activity. Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: They are typical. My understanding, those figures are in line with any other commercial activity that we've... Speaker 3: That's right. And you can see that each commercial type activity is different.
01:08:00 It's basically allowed the business to operate. And it must say... It must be depending on the time of day. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., they can do a maximum of five decibels on top of the maximum background decibels. So a little bit of... I guess levity. And 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., maximum three decibels. So they are the standards that are set by the Environmental Protection... Councillor Jurisevic: That would be something on the lines of what we... The air conditioning conditions that would have been on something like bounce backpackers that had... Yes. Surrounding residential... Yes. Right up next door. Speaker 3: These are the allowances that are provided for all businesses. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 13: I have my questions. Thank you. The compressor runs 24 hours, seven days a week. Can I ask, when was the noise levels measured? At what time of day? How many days? And by whom? And were the neighbours consulted, given that there's a bedroom that sits 70 metres from the compressor?
01:09:00 Speaker 1: We did not measure the noise. I attended the site and observed that only within about 20 metres of the facility itself, you can hear a slight hum. Initially, I thought it's a pool pump that's switched on, was my observation. Walking further back down the driveway, I could not hear the facility. It's my opinion that... If you're standing within or outside of the adjoining sensitive receptors, you would not hear the facility. Sorry, what was the rest of your question? Speaker 13: That's right. So there's a requirement under... I think it's the home-based business that the operation doesn't work outside of 8 to 5pm. Would you consider a truck driving through it? Yes. And would you consider a driveway in the middle of the night delivering carcasses to the sheep? Is that a function of the business? And was that considered as part of the application?
01:10:00 Speaker 3: So again, those hours are the effective development planning of the scheme. So if you miss those, you automatically are ticked in terms of compliance with the code. What council has to have regard is whether it meets the performance outcomes of the scheme. And it comes down to whether it will impact the nature. So it's obviously a recommendation that when this gentleman goes out to hunt for deer once a week in the middle of the night and returns, that that will not have anything to do with the impact of the ability. And how people go out in the night for sheep work and arrive home at different times, I suggest it's very legitimate to do that. Speaker 13: Can I ask... My understanding just from correspondence from neighbours is that the neighbour also has ducks... Dogs. Dogs. How can I word this? Have we received any complaints about barking of dogs? And I say this in relevance to the case because my experience, I have a dog. When I drive down the highway, my dogs start barking. They know it's not a car and they get excited.
01:11:00 So my question is, was that noise factored into or was it investigated? Again, did you ask the neighbours? That's sweet. His bedroom is located 50 metres, I said 70 metres before. It's actually 50 metres from the shed where they asked whether they were disturbed in the middle of their night and the young family kept awake by headlights and a truck driving down the highway, driveway in the middle of the night. Speaker 3: So. We do have a local law that deals with barking dogs. So that really was a separate matter and dealt with under our law for the year. That's not part of the proposed law for the homeowner's business. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be true whether it was the dogs were the homeowner's or the neighbour's dogs, I would imagine. Speaker 8: Council, just a general reminder that when we're answering questions, it's to ascertain information.
01:12:00 As I say to myself and my colleagues, not to drill. Have paid opportunity to follow our debates during the formal debate. Any other questions of staff, councillors, before moving to the formal debate? Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel. I just have a question. On page 12, under AO 9.5, the condition to comply is no. And I'm just wondering about the amount of metres that a dwelling can be used to comply with the law. How far away is the processing plant from the dwelling on the adjoining property, or why is it a no under the condition to comply? Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's the acceptable outcome and it makes a statement that it's not necessarily desirable
01:13:00 to have commercial activities within close proximity to residential buildings. But if they can demonstrate that they can comply and not unreasonably impact residential amenity, then they can be within that 100 metres. But that's a performance by the outcome. Speaker 3: So no has been identified because the nearest house is within 100 metres. And then to acknowledge that machinery equipment will be used as part of the business on site. So again, it does not meet that acceptable measure, but what we need to have regard to is to whether it meets that performance outcome. Which is felt out on page 13 of the report. And that's about whether it will impact significantly on their dwelling amenity. Which is the primary purpose of the property and surrounding it is residential. And that's what we need to tackle. Okay. Speaker 2: So just another question to follow on from that. So then I just have a question about the facility.
01:14:00 How many tonnes per annum is it allowed to process? And how many tonnes per annum is it allowed to process? Given that the property is less than four hectares in size. Speaker 3: I don't quite understand your question. The proposal is for five year. Speaker 2: Yeah. So when they process the meat, how much tonne of product will be produced? Not the number of years. Speaker 3: Well, I'm not understanding your question so much. Speaker 2: Well, I'm just wondering, to assess the impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, for example, the distance from the processing facility, how many tonnes per annum will be produced? Should that be in excess of the 50 metres if they're processing less than 200 tonnes per year? Speaker 3: The acceptable measures of the home-based business don't have a tonnage limit. So I'm not quite sure where that comes from. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, okay. So with regard to noise and other mechanical equipment, you mentioned that sound recordings
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 were taken with equipment running. Not sound recordings. We haven't... Well, sound decibel levels. Did we actually meter, measure sound levels? No. Speaker 3: What officers did is went out on site and asked the gentleman to run his equipment. So standing near the shant, you can hear the equipment outside the shant. And it sounded similar to a swimming pool pump being run. But given that the most... And the officer walked further down the driveway, they could not hear the equipment outside the shant. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that one of the elements of the machinery, i.e. the bandsaw cutting through bone, will make a far greater noise than the machinery running, would it not be prudent to at least undertake a sound check with the saw going through bone? Speaker 3: Well, the officers have referred this to Council's Environmental Health Officers as well.
01:16:00 So they have made their own assessment as to whether it is appropriate or not. And they have recommended the conditions which set noise limits. So if there is a noise limit in the future, Council will be able to address it for residents. Councillor Jurisevic: My concern is that... But the expectation is... Speaker 3: The expectation is it will not have adverse impacts on residents. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there something that can be conditioned to be checked and tested before approval is given? i.e. can we ascertain that that noise, that is probably the loudest noise that will be created in the future, will not have adverse impacts on residents? Well, the expectation is that the noise limits that are being imposed by the operation to be checked and tested cannot exceed the limits that are being imposed by Council officers. Speaker 3: If Council was reminded to do that, Council would have to hold over the application and ask the applicant to engage an acoustic consultant at their expense to do those noise readings if they are the first ones to be made. Now, I suggest that that's unreasonable for a home-based business to be found.
01:17:00 So that's Council's decision. Speaker 8: And if we were to hold it over, Chair, would that be a deemed refusal? Speaker 3: The applicant would have the opportunity to do it if he is engaged. Speaker 8: Councillor Morrison. Speaker 13: I'd like to move a motion, please. Motion? Yep. I'd like to move a motion that Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 7th of December, regarding application on CMU21 slash 0154 for a development plan for a development plan for a development plan for a development permit for material change of use home-based business for scale meat processing situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Timbewer, and request staff to prepare a further report for the ordinary meeting dated 16th of December, 2021, with a draft motion for refusal of the application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Speaker 13: Councillor Scott Clark. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not sure that staff could implement that motion, A, because they've recommended
01:18:00 contrary. B, because a motion for refusal would have to have the grounds. Staff haven't given us any grounds for refusal in the report, and the motion doesn't give any guidance as to what those grounds are. So it would not be possible to implement the decision. Therefore, it's an ultra-various motion. Speaker 8: Question for staff. This motion is suggesting that there be a motion for refusal drafted for in times of first annals. Is there a reason for that? Would there be, is that sufficient time for you to ascertain grounds for refusal to put into a report by first annals? Speaker 3: Yes, it would be sufficient time. I would need some direction from the councillor if she's refusing. What sort of grounds they're looking for, they're looking for as councillors. Sometimes they just haven't been using a staff for refusal.
01:19:00 So I'd need some expectation from the councillor if she's refusing, what sort of grounds they're looking for. Yes. Speaker 8: Would the requirement of properties less than four hectares in the area not include an operation that would otherwise be defined as low-impact industry be an example of the sort of condition that grounds that you would be seeking? Speaker 3: So for a decision to refuse, we would really have to make reference to the performance outcome of the scheme. We could make reference to some of the acceptable outcomes for the scheme. But we really need to look at the performance outcome, which is whether this proposal is likely to impact on whether it's going to move by. So those sorts of things that councillors would need to consider. Okay. Speaker 8: I'll second the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You haven't ruled on the point of order? Speaker 8: I've heard from staff that there may be sufficient grounds that may flow from this discussion
01:20:00 that will allow them to formulate grounds for refusal. If not, we'll know by first hand. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You didn't suggest that because now councils are voting on a motion that they don't know what they're voting on. Speaker 8: Well, we haven't had the discussion. Your opinion is noted. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know that the motions are very clear. You're voting on a motion and you don't know why you're repeating it. Speaker 8: We've had similar motions for approval where... We've done this for approval in reverse. Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Okay. Speaker 13: I learnt very fast in this job that every decision that we make as a council has short-term effects and long-term impacts. I learnt this through legacy decisions, such as the approval of the Kin Kin quarry, where a decision that was made in council in 1987 to approve a quarry until 2032 has seen a community destroyed, where a few quarry trucks became 100 quarry trucks, became 200 quarry
01:21:00 trucks, driving up and down the street, driving up and down the street, driving up and down the street, driving along country roads every day, six days a week, where the amenity of residents has been detrimentally impacted by a business that should never have been approved. Today we have a decision that has short-term effects and long-term impacts, a decision that's already dividing the community and a decision that may set a precedence for future development applications for home-based businesses. On Tuesday, council officers said that this home business would be equivalent of a jam making factory, and I'm going to quote a neighbour who wrote back in response to this comment. Quote, it is a business that involves the transfer of air carcasses in an open truck outside of the regular operating hours of 8am to 6pm with a material disturbance and emotional impact on the family and children next door, and I want to add, and the community.
01:22:00 So let's learn from our past decisions. Based on the information I've seen so far, my site visit and Noosa planning scheme co-considerations including assessment of relevant benchmarks for home-based businesses and the rural residential zone code, I cannot support this application on a number of grounds, including, one, the development fails to satisfy the acceptable outcomes and performance outcomes of the home business code, and the activity is therefore not suitable or compatible with the home business code, given the off-site impacts and would be better suited in a different location. In particular, acceptable outcome eight, it is required that the business does not generate any noise audible beyond the boundaries, outside the hours of 8am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. The business does generate noise outside these areas. There's a compressor that runs 24 hours, seven days a week, and it's located 50 metres
01:23:00 from the neighbour's bedroom at 9am to 5pm. The neighbour's bedroom is directly parallel to applicant's driveway. Further, the applicant once a week leaves kill up to five wild deer and brings them home in the middle of the night. Noise is generated from vehicle movement in the late of the night, when the applicant arrives with five deer carcasses and then removes them from his truck to the shed outside again the hours of 8pm. Acceptable outcome 9.1. It's required that the home business does not include an operation that would otherwise be defined as medium impact industry or high impact industry. The town planning report that's been submitted by the applicant states, quote, the level of assessment, the proposed small scale meat processing use falls under the medium impact
01:24:00 industry threshold number 12. Processing small scale meat processing use falls under the medium impact industry threshold Thank you very much. Acceptable outcome 9.4. The home business does not emit dust, fumes, odour, smoke or emissions discernible beyond the boundaries. We have received numerous emails from neighbours who have complained of odours from carcasses.
01:25:00 So that outcome is questionable. I also note that the provision in acceptable outcome 9.4 seeks to ensure that the business remains domestic in scale and appropriate. I argue that a $300,000 retrofitted shed with three-phase power, grease trap, 4 x 2,500 tonnes of water and increased on-site sewerage is not small in scale. And my question is, how do we know whether other deer hunters will be using the processing facility and why has this not even been conditioned as part of the approvals that we have in the report? Acceptable outcome 9.4. 5. Noise generating machinery and mechanical plant used for the home-based business is enclosed within the building and not located within 100 metres of a sensitive land use including a dwelling house on an adjoining property.
01:26:00 90 Patterson Road is located 50 metres from noise generating machinery including a compressor that runs 24-7. His bedroom again is located 15 metres from noise generating machinery. It does not comply. And it does not comply with the rural residential zone claim because the proposed home-based business negatively impacts upon the rural residential energy enjoyed by the surrounding residents. Finally, I want to address the issue of public trust and process. Firstly, I want to respect and acknowledge that the conflict of interest that was reported and stated in the report. It went through a review by the CEO. It went through the acting planning director and also through government. So I do want to acknowledge that before I start. I do want to add my opinion.
01:27:00 And my opinion is that the assessing officer should have simply been removed from this application. Given. Speaker 8: Councillor Lorentson and I just, I'll make a point here that we, in our debate, we've come to the conclusion that the assessing officer should have simply been removed from this application. And that's the reason that I cannot make statements that cast, even if it's an opinion, impugn motives or integrity of offices. And you did very well to talk about the process to which the conflict of interest is handled. I'll advise you please leave it there. Speaker 13: I accept that, Chair. Okay. So back to public trust and process. Just want to add, again, questions that are already raised. I will go to the next question and then I'll go to the next question that I've given. In this debate, why weren't the neighbours and residents interviewed? Did the council officers actually know that the neighbours' bedrooms situated 50 metres from the shed and compressors? And did anyone bother to ask whether a highlux carrying carcasses arriving in the dead of the night, headlights on, disturbed the young family?
01:28:00 On this basis, I ask that you support this motion with the refusal of the application. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: While I start from, could we have the report site plan up, please, for later on? Councillors, our role as councillors in statutory development of the trial is to implement the Noosa plan. Our staff have given us their professional judgment and assessment of this application. Councillor Lorentson has made a number of statements which are contrary to that that are in her opinion and has no professional basis. It's really important to understand what is a land use decision and what is a, like one of the questions, for example, emotional impact.
01:29:00 Speaker 12: Can you tell a story to start with, to put this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've done a lot of application content. My son had a friend who lived around the corner. So, he had a very big boat. He'd go out fishing quite often. Quite often he'd come back early in the morning, mid-night. Big trailer, big boat. He'd catch at least five fish, some of them quite big. He'd gut them on the side of the river. He'd put them in an esky, take them home, and he'd transport them into his building. He didn't have a commercial lot. If he did, he could have maybe made fish cakes and sold them at the local farmer's market. There's no emotional impact there. We all do fishing. I'll put it to you, as a person who hasn't eaten red meat for 40 years and has been a vegetarian for most of those, that what we're dealing with is perceptions, not reality. We're dealing with a real emotional impact about the perception that hunting a wild, feral animal
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 that's destroying the habitat of Australian native wildlife and turning it into healthy, free-range food is offensive. That's the fundamental. Because we talk about the key issue is probably sound. How are we happy with sound? Now, I've been using my phone to record. The sound level's coming out of this conversation when Councillor Lorentson talks. It's just under 60 decibels. It's about 57, 58. When the manager of the Vognitrol, same level, it comes up that that's a level of a quiet library. When I was out in sight the other day and the compressors were on, I walked on to the other side of the driveway, and guess what? It was a quiet library only 10 metres away. To suggest that's going to create an impact 50 metres away in the middle of the night, I think is uninformed. For example, if they put an air conditioner on the side of the house that's a muppet closer, would that noise be higher?
01:31:00 Could it be? Now, if you look here, we can see that the actual location of the business is up against quite a large forest. It is distant from the house, and it is buffeted. It's got six-inch thick insulated walls. Now, I think Councillor Jurisevic's quite right that the peak noise is going to be in the operations. They'll have to be during the time, and I think the argument at the start would be that it will be nowhere near as someone blowing leaves off their driveway during the day. It will have no greater impact than people living there. It'll have no greater impact than someone who's a keen fisherman. So now let's look at what the planning scheme says. Let's look at the strategic direction that our planning scheme does, and it's the rural residential, not the low-density residential, because of course, the purpose of the rural residential code and zone is low-density and semi-rural in nature, okay?
01:32:00 That non-residential activities are limited to small-scale activities that are compatible with and do not impact on rural residential character and amenity. And as I said, staff have assessed that and believe it will not have that impact. It's really important to think that rural residential has always been intended to have a blend of residential, residential character plus the ability to do some rural-related activity, like growing food, like making food. It says that work-from-home opportunities and climate reduction are envisaged. So when we look at that, we also have to think about the higher levels of the scheme. So what did the planning scheme do with it? We just had a discussion about economic development. So what are the economic strategies within the Noosa plan? Okay. Noosa diversified economies underpinned by a complementary mix of business activities that support new technologies, new enterprises, goes on.
01:33:00 Flexible work arrangements, opportunities for affordable workspaces, convenient work-from-home enterprises, et cetera. Rural enterprises provide a variety of sources of employment opportunities and grow in traditional emerging sectors, and they may include primary production, agribusiness, value-adding, farm gate sales, cottage industry, artisanal workshops. There's a clear direction there that we see in the rural, and then I'll say at a full scale in the rural residential zone, that these nature of activities are actually encouraged by the Noosa plan 2020. We can go up further, because we looked at, so it's any impact assessment, we go right up to the SEQ regional plan. And it actually has outcomes for the northern part of the SEQ region, us and Sunshine Coast Council. And it talks about opportunities exist to further grow and diversify the regional food system, which seen a range of direct marketing and valuating opportunities emerge from small
01:34:00 to mid-scale, common produce and food processes. Okay. It talks about local farmers, markets, restaurants, and consumers are increasing the demand for the range of locally produced, high-value dairy products, grass-fed, and free-range meat. Speaker 8: Councillor, you're happy for Councillor Smith? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll finish what I need to say. I think we've gone a little bit further, but those words were directly taken from submission of this council to the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Most of them were written by me in that submission with Ralph. And what it says is at a regional level, this is what we want for our hinterland. We want small-scale, locally produced, high-value products that are grass-fed, high-grain meat. They're the arguments, together with my belief that the staff are correct, that the amenity will not be impacted, that we shouldn't support this motion. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 8: Thank you. Excuse me.
01:35:00 All right. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All right. Anyone wish to speak? In favour? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Lorentson then spoke of precedent. Excuse me, sir. Spoke of precedent. Well, we've spoken of precedent. We've been talking about the bandsaw, and bandsaws are not noisy tools, and how many woodworkers may have small businesses in rural residential areas, properties, where they use a bandsaw? A lot. So, say that setting a precedent for not using a bandsaw on a rural residential property is the worst precedent I could possibly imagine for us. Second, all food preparation businesses would be considered medium density, setting a precedent for that. And how many food processors and bakers and so forth are on the rural residential, preparing food for sale? A lot. We really appreciate that.
01:36:00 That is where we're going, and it backs up what Councillor Stockwell was saying. So, when we talk about precedent, to refuse this on the precedent, on the idea that it's food preparation, it's a precedent. And the sound of a bandsaw cutting through meat, which is not noisy, and inside of a very, very contained shed, it sets a terrible precedent. So, yeah, I can't support this amendment. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. I'll agree with Councillor Stockwell. There's no basis in planning before us, apart from some amount of issues. Thank you. And I'll talk to some of them. I mean, would we prevent... I think Councillor Wegener alluded to one of them. Would we prevent timber manufacturers with saws and planes in their operating? No. What we would do is we'd condition them, as we have done here, to operate within reasonable noise levels and noise nuisance management.
01:37:00 A compressor operating. A compressor operating within the noise nuisance conditions is no different to what happens within a residential area, in the Noosaville area, where a previous application... Applications all the time come before us with these noise level constraints on air conditioning, compressor, refrigeration equipment. It could be, as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, be no different to having a ducted air conditioning system and having a compressor unit on the other side of the house, far closer to the resident. We still have the same level of noise nuisance and noise restraint. If there was an issue with the level of noise and was complained to by the owner and found to be outside of those levels, they would have to contain that noise within some sort of sound-limiting arrangement. I believe they have here. Having worked in the air conditioning industry for many, many years, I find these conditions and the noise associated with those sort of compressors to be there. There was some mention of 200 tonnes being some sort of a limit.
01:38:00 I've just done some quick calculations. 200 tonnes. 200 tonnes divided by 52 weeks a year is 3,846 kilogrammes, which equates to, at five animals per week, 769 kilogrammes per animal. I've just done a quick Google search and found that red deer are typically in the vicinity of 160 to 240 kilogrammes. From a weight perspective and a tonnage perspective, particularly eviscerated, I doubt that they would reach anywhere near the 200-tonne limit that Councillor Stockwell tried to associate with that. As far as lights up the driveway go, well, my son comes home at 11 o'clock at night from his job. Do we prevent people from working night shifts and the like and returning home? Is it an owner's right to drive into his driveway at any time of the day or night with his light shining? Speaker 8: Finzel, Councillor Stewart, would you speak to the motion? Speaker 14: Yes, I will. Councillor Stewart. I will support Councillor Lansdown. The Noosa 2020 Plan says, the requirements of the Noosa 2020 Plan home-based business code that businesses operate in a manner that protects the amenity of the surrounding premises.
01:39:00 Well, we've very clearly heard about the impacts of the amenity on the surrounding residents. We've received emails, and we have to take those emails and those statements at face value. And we have to accept that that's the experience of residents and our community members. And they're very real, and they're of concern. This is a meat processing plant. It is not a butcher, a baker. It is not a jam maker. This is a large scale, certainly not small scale. If you look at page nine, and the figure, and the description, of the butcher, I'll call it the butcher room. There's nothing in my mind that is small scale about this.
01:40:00 These are relatively small rural blocks. Absolutely they are rural, but they are small rural blocks. And people live somewhat relatively close to each other. So I, my concern, and my focus, is on the amenity of the residents. And we have heard, and seen, and been told, about the impacts. So therefore, I'm not prepared to support this business. Speaker 8: Councillor Stewart. Speaker 2: This is very challenging. My concern is the way the amendment is written. Councillor Jurisevic: What amendment? Speaker 2: Oh, the motion is written, given there's no clear direction to the staff alluding to like, what, what are the compliance issues. Yeah, my concern is about the wording around that.
01:41:00 If there'd been more specific around the conditions to comply, and things like that. I want to ask this question. No. Speaker 8: After you've finished speaking, I'm going to ask you a question. You can ask a series of questions if you like. Speaker 2: If the staff prepares the report, do we make the vote on that? Do we get the vote on their new report? Yes. All right, then in terms of the debate, then I will support the amendment. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Yeah, and I'm waiting for a comment.
01:42:00 Thank you. This is a really tough decision. I find it tough. Because if there's any detriment to come from an unusual application that's not strictly Where the process is retrospective, I don't feel that any detriment should be borne by the innocent bystanders. In this case, it's the neighbours. And I've not been convinced by what I've read in the report and what I've heard from the neighbours that there will be no negative impacts or no reasonable negative impacts on their amenity when the bandsaw is operating, coming through meat. And I believe that more work may need to be done, if this thing goes ahead,
01:43:00 to protect the neighbours from the sound of a bandsaw operating where it's processing meat and the meat grinder operating. I have no problem supporting applications that bring locally caught, grown and processed foods to our markets, restaurants and tables. That's a good thing. We are trying to encourage that. But they need not be at the expense of what I believe to be core planning rules and resident amenity. One of the key purposes of the planning scheme, for me, is the protection and preservation of resident amenity and avoiding conflicts that arise from incompatible land uses and close proximity, especially on neighbouring lots. And I appreciate the great lengths that officers have gone to in the past to make sure that this is a typical reality of the existence of this plant, where a light industry, business, medium impact industry has been built on what I believe to be an inappropriate
01:44:00 site. I say inappropriate because it's not even one-fifth of the minimum size required by the plan scheme for low impact industry, or suggested for low impact industry. Contrary to the planning scheme, it does have noise generating machinery and mechanical plant well within 100 metres of a dwelling house on an adjoining property. And despite the extensive list of conditions in this report, neighbours advise they can clearly hear the sound of compressors on the refrigeration trailer, which they say is working all through Friday night, getting the temperature suitable for taking meat to market on the weekend. The neighbours agree the sound of the meat saw and grinder may be contained within an acceptable radius when switched on, but they advise the sound of the meat saw is very loud when carbon superimposed. And that's a concern for me. The applicant's driveway on the Battle Axe block runs very close to the neighbours' bedrooms,
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 and they report more regular noise disturbance and headlights shining into their bedroom as a result of the increased light industry activity next door. And if we can give anything to residents, it must be some assurance for prospective property owners doing their due diligence. Before purchasing homes in Noosa Shire, incompatible, disturbing land uses not listed in their property searches will not be established next door. And if they are, then they will be challenged and questioned. And that's why I'm questioning this decision. I do appreciate the work that the officers have done in this situation, retrospective of cruisers and dealing with their problems. But the reality of a business that exists that hasn't technically gone through the ideal process is very, very difficult.
01:46:00 And they have done a great job in attempting to mitigate the negative impacts on the neighbours. But this sits very uneasily with me on many levels. So, in principle, I cannot support this application of the conditions contained within the property. So, I'll be supporting the motion. Councillor Sopcich. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Sopcich. I've got a question. Two staffers, two questions. In his debate, Councillor Wilkie reported what he alleged to be information provided by neighbouring where he said that we've got information that the refrigerated trailer has been recorded and could be heard at night. When I was out there, I was told that the trailer had been recorded and could be heard on site and the applicant advised that he wasn't expecting delivery of such a trailer until the end of this week.
01:47:00 Is it true that when you were on site, there was no refrigerated trailer on site? Speaker 1: I did not see one, no. Councillor Sopcich. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. The second one is about the retrospective nature of the application. It's retrospective in the fact that the shed has been converted to facilitate the business. The applicant advised the reason where he became aware of the need to apply was after receiving, or he suggested contrary advice from a staff member earlier in the feed, was when he went to Food Safety Australia to get his permit and they said you'll need something more. That suggests to me that there's been no commercial operation or no conduct of a business out of this shed. Would it be true that if he was using it only for personal use, to a shed to make it refrigerated? As no impact in terms of this retrospectively or breaches of the planning scheme? Speaker 1: You would not require approval if this was not a business.
01:48:00 So you could operate this facility on the site. And nothing was, we were not made aware of, received any complaints from the facility that the applicant alleges had been operating in. However, like I said, we did not receive any complaints or we were not made aware of anything. It's only once there's been public notification and a joint application has been made that the land owners were informed, that's when we heard about the alleged issues that he was emulating. Otherwise, nothing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The explanation of the applicant was that he had run through his processes to get his safe food plan together, but he did not sell it. He would use it for friends and family, which would be a private enterprise and wouldn't trigger any planning approval. Is that correct? Correct. Speaker 8: Thank you. Is the council, you said the council is not aware of any complaints being made.
01:49:00 We've received information that the neighbour has made a complaint to the council officer who accepted the call, directed the complaint to the police. Is that a possibility? The noise complaint was directed by the councillor's assistant to the police. Is that a possibility? That might have occurred. Speaker 3: It's possible. It would be unusual for my planning to make a complaint to the police. Speaker 8: It's possible. Speaker 3: Generally, some noise complaints do go to the police. It would explain that they're operating a business. It would indicate something's been done to it. It would be enacted by cutting the environment. Councillor Jurisevic: And the final one from that question, where would a noise complaint like that typically go within council? Environmental? Speaker 3: If the council does approve this application, and there's complaints about noise. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, if there had been a complaint to date, now.
01:50:00 Now, where would it have gone within council, and who? Speaker 3: It would come to planning, if it was clear that there was a business being operated. If it's unclear that there's a business operating, and there was just a noise complaint regarding Councillor Jurisevic: noise on a property. Speaker 3: One of those would investigate. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Speaker 13: I went to a bit of trouble to try to find a legal definition of amenity and I'm going to finish by just quoting case Mills and Orr's against Townsville City Council and another. Amenity is traffic, noise, setbacks, landscaping. Factors that affect a proposal, and it looks at the effect these impacts have on the community and the surrounding area and how it will fit into an impact on that environment.
01:51:00 Quote, the most important part of that environment is the community. The people, the families, the businesses which live and work and communicate. They coexist in it. They are in fact the environment, the area, the envelope or the footprint in which a proposal must take its place, fit into and be compatible with. They do not exist in a vacuum divorced from the community which generated it. They order that community. So in closing, the proposed home business would unreasonably impact on the amenity of the rural character of the area. And does not demonstrate compliance with the rural residential zone code and home base code.
01:52:00 It is not an appropriate home base business in a rural residential area on a small property located 50 metres from one neighbour and 72 metres from another neighbour. I thank the councillors who have supported this application and I thank the other councillors for good debate and also the planning officers and I respect your typical job. Speaker 8: Mr. Councillor, it's Councillor Lorentson, Stewart, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councilors Stockwell, Wegener and Jurisevic. The motion is carried. For those in the gallery who have interest in this matter, this motion will have the status of recommendations going, being carried forward to Thursday night, where staff will come back with another report. There will be another debate on Thursday night because there are some conditions that need to be worked out. Speaker 7: Can you pass over a few of the signatures?
01:53:00 Speaker 8: Point of order. Point of order. We can do that through the front office, sir. The petitions can be presented on Thursday night. Speaker 2: Point of order. Speaker 8: Point of order. Sorry, sir. This is inappropriate, sir. We'll call a five minute adjournment now. Thank you. More appropriate. Yeah, that's more appropriate.
120 minutes in ¶
02:03:00 Thank you. Okay, welcome back, everybody. To clear the meeting open again. We're now up to item two, which is actually item three on the agenda. Other change to a development approval, a material change of use for multiple housing to include short-term accommodation situated at 13 and 15 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach. From the planning and environment agenda,
02:04:00 page 22 refers you to the significance of the issue. Speaker 13: Thank you. Friends, we have attended social, Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 8: Okay, Carrie, just a brief summary. A brief summary. Speaker 3: This is an application for an improved multiple dwelling development, not yet built, comprising four three-bedroom units, to be used for short-term accommodation, with a total of two persons per bedroom, or a total of 24 guests per site. So, the site is located in the high-density residential zone of Sunshine Beach in Park Crescent. It's been recommended for approval to Council for generally reasons we have recommended to Council before.
02:05:00 Primarily because the scheme seeks that this area remain predominantly for permanent, but the area has been eroded over time and is no longer being used for permanent, and this application would just erode that further. The 28th event of Sunshine Beach is currently being used for short-term stay, which is a significant number in the trial. Speaker 8: Thank you, Carrie. Questions for staff? Carrie? Councillor Wegener: I'd like to move the staff recommendation. Speaker 8: Move Councillor Wegener. We have a seconder. Seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Wegener, you have four. Councillor Wegener: Well, there's three reasons we should approve the staff recommendation. And first, we have the staff to terminate that this application for further STAs,
02:06:00 incentives, or any other type of support. Second, we've discussed the economic development strategy, which supports the refusal, and I'll quote from Empowering Business Ecosystems, page 29 of the economic development strategy. A key aim of this economic development strategy is a more diversified local economy, one that offers more high-value employment opportunity. Well, as we know, high-value development opportunities include the housing for these people to live in so that they can come here and live here. And as many of our potential employees here have had a very, very difficult time or have even been turned away due to finding housing. Third, we have a housing need assessment report, which also supports the refusal. And it says, implications of short-term accommodation has resulted in a number of issues.
02:07:00 And this is on page 64. Excuse me. Implications of short-term accommodation has resulted in a number of issues, including short-term accommodation providing a higher return on investment, leading to a loss of housing stock for permanent rental occupation. So, if, when with more STAs, the business occupations are going to be higher. So, we have a lot of opportunities. We are supporting, are really for cleaners and that sort of people that support the short-term accommodation. And if you support that, well, you are not supporting our economic strategy of high-value employment opportunity. So, which do we want to go? We can go one way or we can go another way. And the planning scheme clearly says that we, that there's plenty of STAs already out there. And that we need to support our long-term rentals.
02:08:00 Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Does the Councillor wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think this is an interesting one for me. In the, back when we first started to get recommendations for a huge short-term stay in medium-intensity and high-density, my position was, we needed one to be short-term, we needed to get more information. A few Councillors agreed with that and we have now got that information. And it is as bad or worse than what was, we thought would be the case at this point in time. The other part I suggested was, I varied from staff in relation to how to deal with this in the interim. And that was about the statements in the Eastern Beaches which said short-stay shouldn't go into areas which don't have a lot of existing rentals. And that's what I agreed with. This one is an area where it's almost 95% already converted to short-stay.
02:09:00 Now, previously, I would have supported an approval on this one, but I no longer do because we've got both the information. And because I think looking at where we need to go is we need to take every opportunity to create preferences. This won't be affordable housing, whether it's short-term or not. But I think we need to take every opportunity to create preferences. Every time we approve a short-term housing, it does have a domino effect that goes from the top of the market where this will be, all the way through just gradually pushing the housing at a higher price and further away from the jobs. It is an area that probably if we do review after a two-year period, zonings that we may wish to consider as to whether high-density residential is the appropriate zone or whether it's a tourist accommodation zone. But in my mind, it probably stops short of this particular block where it may be the tourist accommodation zone instead of high-density where it already has been converted.
02:10:00 So, yeah, it is a transition. When we look at advice in the Housing Needs Assessment, we can see that Sunshine Beach has very, very low availability of rental accommodation. We can see that Sunshine Beach also is an area where it's very, very low availability of rental accommodation. We're finding that the amount of vacant houses during the census night was quite considerable, I've just tried to find. I think, just ahead of Sunshine Beach, there was over a third of the houses that were vacant at the time. So that would suggest that they were temporarily used for short-stay and not snow in there on that particular night. And it talks about the quantum likelihood of housing that was used for short-stay and then for work accommodation for others that is now unavailable.
02:11:00 And I think in the Housing Needs Assessment, it talks about how that increase between the two census periods. So for that reason, I do support staff and there will be a sort of consistent approach until we have different information that the Housing Needs Assessment clearly gives grounds that suggests that there is a high priority need to create residences but not short-term accommodation. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stewart? No, it's a question for Councillor Stockwell with regards to which census data you're referring to. Because of my understanding, the 2021 data isn't available yet. You're referring back to 2016? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, it was a comparison between 2016 and 2011. So the past? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: When you mentioned comparison, I was just checking which two census you were comparing. Thank you. Yes. Speaker 14: I will speak to this. Councillor Stewart? I don't agree with the staff recommendation on this. This is high density residential. It's close to the beach. Visitors, this is where we do, our visitors do come to stay.
02:12:00 As Councillor Stockwell said, it almost could be potentially virgin or tourist accommodation zone. There is an approval read for the bill in relation to point five on page 23 of our P&E agenda. The proposal does not comply with performance outcome P03 A and B of the high density residential zone code as there is potential to overlook the private open space of neighbouring properties from all balconies and unreasonably impact on the amenity of those residents. Either way, and you know, I don't think just because you've got a stranger in there, if I'm walking around and I've got to help my neighbours in my undies whether or not they're my neighbours who live there permanently or they're neighbours I don't know, it's still a breach of my privacy irrespective of who it is. So that doesn't change. So the bill, which is approved, and whether or not we have full term residents in there or short term accommodation residents, it doesn't change the fact that that amenity is exactly the same either way. There is a stringent code of conduct.
02:13:00 We now have stringent local laws. We've passed that legislation. It's very tight. That will help protect the amenity. If we lease it out, if these were leased out full time, it would still have the same number of people. So the people, how many of each building is, in my opinion, somewhat irrelevant because either way that is the same, again, or potentially it would be the same. And as Councillor Stockwell said, this isn't affordable. These units are likely to be well over 2,000 per week for a unit based on the building position, potentially even more. Again, I'm not a real estate agent and I can't confirm that, but perhaps even more. So I understand what Councillor Wegener is saying, that this is where people who have those high paying jobs could potentially live, and he's correct on that. We also have to acknowledge that tourism is a huge generator. We know that over a billion dollars, that's not going to change into our economy. And when people come on holidays, they spend a significant amount of money, and that helps our businesses, and that helps our economy, and that drives it. And in this precinct, it is predominantly surrounded by other short term accommodation,
02:14:00 as has been stated. And as I said, it's verging on potentially a tourist accommodation precinct. It's very close to the beach, and it's high density residential. So according to the town plan, it is in alignment. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I tend to agree with Councillor Stockwell. In the past, I may have considered this in a different fashion, and if we had gone to the first iteration of the 23 units of plan, it may be the story. But it's not housing affordability, it's housing availability that impacts. And the fact that we continue to approve short stays means housing availability for long stays creates that impact down the line. So this property is in alignment with that. If it's not available for long term stays, these people will go elsewhere, and that will have a concertina effect down the line.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 I think we've reached this actuation point of short stays and approving more for the sake of approving without greater clarification or definition in our planning scheme. It's not in my realm at this point in time. I think we have a housing crisis, and we have a need to have available properties for long term and for workers, accommodation on the right. But whilst that won't, may not occur here, it doesn't mean it won't have an impact elsewhere. So I'm not prepared to support another short stay at this point in time. And I support the staff recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Joyce. Speaker 8: Councillor Finzel, you're next. Speaker 2: I just have a question. Is there a point somewhere, because it's on the edge of this, like, you know, a lot of holiday houses there and short term accommodation close to the beach, that it would become a zone or a precinct that is, you know, changed to the holiday zone or...
02:16:00 Tourist. Tourist. Yeah. Is there opportunity for that at some point if this continues to head in a direction where it becomes predominantly short term stay and holiday housing? Speaker 3: Yeah. I think that question and consideration is really kind of a big issue that we don't have to consider. Mm-hmm. So this round, strategic planning has put to council housing analysis. We saw a lot of data analysis behind it. The next step from that will be, you know, a strategy and recommendations, which is likely to include recommendations around changes to the planning plan. But I think it's at that point that we'll consider what is appropriate in terms of whether we do allow some of our areas that are medium and high density to continue to be moved or turned into. Short term accommodation. Mm-hmm. Speaker 2: Thank you. And is there a percentage amount that would trigger that conversation for change?
02:17:00 Like 55% or 80% or how do you measure that time for a change? Speaker 3: Well, that really is a consideration by council as to which way they go there. I mean, I find, you know, as a planner, 28% of housing in Sunshine Beach to be a significant thing. I mean, that's a significant number. And I would suggest already that it's saturated. And, you know, some of the stats in the housing report that's put up, you know, it's showing that the available rentals are very low, an all-time low. And it's also suggesting that, I'm reading this on the weekend, that occupied private dwellings and apartments and units have nearly halved between 2006 census and 2016 census. Mm-hmm. I'm not sure what the percentage is. I'm sure our strategic planning will come up with a recommendation. It's a consideration. Speaker 2: It depends on the policy of the council's decision.
02:18:00 Thank you. And just to remind me, the 28%, does that also include the properties that were approved for short term stay on a superseded plan? Speaker 3: The 28% comes from the tourism accommodation carrying capacity data that was done in April 2019. So that was a review done by strategic planning. At that point in time, what properties in the Shire were being used for short stay? So that would also... So it doesn't include all properties that have the lawful use right to use them for permanent or residential. It was just the number currently being used at that point in time. And it's quite relevant, because that number is the most likely, the relevant number that people have in terms of use rights.
02:19:00 Speaker 8: I'll speak for the motion. The Noosa Housing Measures Assessment Report, which we've received, really reinforces what town planning staff have been indicating to us through these reports about short-term accommodation and the impacts on medium and high density residential neighbourhoods for some time. The Housing Measures Assessment Report also mentions that Noosa has one of the highest penetration rates for short-term accommodation in the country. And Councillor Jurisevic made an excellent point of what we're considering here is permanent housing availability, not just affordability. And what we have here is this application for four approved loans termed out for short-term accommodation would see those lost to the potential for permanent rental. And in the Housing Measures Assessment Report, the median rent for three-bedroom units in Sunshine Beach is about $850, could be much higher than that.
02:20:00 If they were to be hired out each bedroom separately to high-income workers, then we can understand how that accommodation could be very valuable to them and provide housing for them. We're in the, we are still in the grips of what's been described as a national housing crisis and agree with the officer's assessment there's no more need for short-term accommodation in this area. We're not saying we're against visitor accommodation, we're just saying there's plenty. Tourism plays an important part in the economy, there's no need for more in this area. The application is contrary to the planning scheme's requirement for the area to be kept predominantly for residents. And there are many other opportunities for visitor accommodation in the area. Now in the motion are the calls to address the lack of short-term accommodation. In this application we see four dwellings converted to short-term accommodation, which the Housing Measures Assessment Report identifies as one of the main contributors to the permanent housing
02:21:00 shortage. I can't place my hand on my heart and claim to be serious about addressing the crisis and at every opportunity approve more dwellings, in this case four units for short-term accommodation. So I support the recommendation. Speaker 2: I think what's before us here today is, you know, we're talking about accommodation. I think that given the amount of housing that has already been approved, given that it's for Airbnb and it's close to the coast in proximity, it's predominantly surrounded by Airbnb, the building has been approved for residential living already, there's local laws for regulation.
02:22:00 I think when we talk about the housing crisis, I think predominantly the crisis lies with trying to house our key workers, our essential workers. I believe that this property, you know, given its location and the, you know, the cost of properties in that area, given key workers are our most casualised workforce, they're our most lowest paid workforce, it would be, in my opinion, challenging for someone in that market to, you know, have this as affordable housing. So I won't be supporting the recommendation today. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, $2,000 a week is actually not that far outside a lot of professional needs today. I tell you what, I'd like to live there. It would be a great place to have kids. It's a beautiful spot, and there's no place where it's dead. Don't turn all the nice places to live into holiday rental, because needs to still need nice places for their locals to live.
02:23:00 And this is the type of place, when we talk about key workers, we're trying to get a new CEO, and that's a key worker as well. They'd have no problem paying that sort of rent. So, to refuse the application is to override the town plan, devalue our own economic plan goals, and ignore the data that we've collected. So, I urge you to back this up as an innovation. Speaker 8: I'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favor? Councilor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisdict and Wilkie. Those against? Councilor Stewart, Councilor Finzel. The motion's carried. Councilor Lawson, come back, please. Next item is item three, which is actually item four, which is other change to a development approval for material change of use for two multiple housing type two duplexes at Operational Works that include short-term accommodation at Unit 113, Kipping Terrace, Noosaville.
02:24:00 On page 38 of the plan, Agenda, and it's referred you to the significance of the issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And Councilor, what was the opposite? Speaker 8: Oh, Councilor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conference of interest in this matter, 1-113, Kipping Terrace, Noosaville, as I've been involved in the Noosa Sea Scouts 15 years in various roles. Noosa Sea Scouts is a neighbor to the subject site. In the previous role, I was the group leader, which is the equivalent of an executive position with an incorporated association. In that role, I had cause to deal with complaints from campers and caretakers regarding the unruly and late-night behavior of short-term accommodation in another neighboring 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, and has been, as has been agreed, approved.
02:25:00 Although I have a declarable conference of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because 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. However, I will expect a decision in the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the Council note the declarable conference of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine from the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes in this matter. This Council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss of motion in the matter, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest. Speaker 14: I'll second that. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that, Councillor Stewart. Do you wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 8: No, we've spoken about this matter before, and I'm happy that the discussion is all being had. Anybody else wish to speak? I'll put the motion those in favour. That carries unanimously.
02:26:00 Councillor Stockwell does not vote on the matter. Kerry, could you give us a summary of this report, please? Speaker 3: This application is supposed to use one of two units. The duplex currently constructed on site is speaking to use one of those units for short-term accommodation. The unit has three bedrooms, so they're looking at up to six people on site at any time. The application is recommended for refusal to Council for some of the reasons that were presented before. The scheme seeks to maintain the area predominantly for the permanent, and there are a high number of properties in the area being used for short-term accommodation. Twenty-seven percent of residential dwellings in Lucifer are being used for short-term accommodation. There is an additional reason in this one that's included around car parking. Staff have recommended that the application be refused also,
02:27:00 because they are short on car parking. So six people on site, I suppose. They only have two workable parking spaces on site. The scheme would require two spaces past one space before dwellings. So at times, the majority of the time, I would expect that there would be a need for at least two cars on site. But at times, there would be three spaces on site. So at times, they may have visitors come and attend them while staying there in the holiday house, or there may be a group of people come with three cars. So that's what you're going to do with those three spaces. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the staff recommendation. Speaker 8: I'll second it. I'll second it. I'll second it. Councillor Morrison. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: For all the reasons alluded to in the previous application with regard to housing availability, but also I heard an argument earlier about amenity. This is one unit in the complex
02:28:00 that's been recently developed for residential living, and I believe that the residential amenity is something that could be impacted by having one short stay in and amongst the complex. So I support the staff recommendation. Speaker 8: Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion? Jodie, would you close? No. No, seriously. Moving things along. I've got nothing further to add. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian. Different to the last one we just discussed, this one is clearly outside an area that's traditionally used for tourist accommodation. That probably stops around about Robert Street, directly access to the river. It is an area where most of the surrounding land uses on this side of the community terrace at least are residential in nature, and I think for that reason, it's a slightly higher ground-thaw refusal,
02:29:00 as well as the fact that it's in the overall need to maintain medium-density residential as well as the fact that it's in the overall need Councillor Wegener: to maintain medium-density residential. Do we or do we not have a housing crisis? To let this become a short-term accommodation, we just make it a sham as a whole housing crisis issue because this is not in the middle of a tourist zone, or not even close to a tourist zone, really. It's the perfect place for people for long-term residents to live. Speaker 8: I'm supporting the recommendation of the motion. The same reason is this. Please vote. I agree with this one, but also lack of sufficient car parking is a real concern because it means that if approved, there could be real impacts, blow-over impacts on the street and we don't want to unnecessarily
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 further negatively impact the neighborhood amenity by having cars parked out on the street and they need to be parked on the property. So I'll be supporting this motion. Speaker 13: I'll speak to it. I also... I also will be supporting this motion on the grounds that, again, not enough car parking and it will impact amenity. I also want to note that I did ask a question in the planning and environment meeting and the information given to me that the visitor space, which was initially proposed as a third-car space, is not of suitable dimensions and is partly located on common ground with property, which was contrary to the development's own body, corporate boards. Again, confirming my decision to support the application for a refusal. Acute cancellation. Speaker 14: Yes, Stuart.
02:31:00 I will support this for a refusal as well based on the fact that there is no car parking. And that is of concern, especially in that area and it is a predominantly residential area, but mainly because of the car parking. Speaker 2: I will support the motion. It's not located in a designated visiting and accommodation area. We're seeking to protect the neighbourhood here and trying to find some amenity to the neighbourhood and build that. And also parking is a concern around that area. It's a busy place and I think in terms of our transport strategy we're aiming to reduce buildings in that area so I will support the recommendation on that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Now I've said everything I need to say and I think everything else has been said. I put the motion of those in favour. Speaker 8: That's unanimous. Thank you. Next item is I have a conflict.
02:32:00 Yes, the development application for reconfiguring a lot, one lot for 12 lots under the superseded planning scheme 111 Lake Wyther Dry, Noosaville. Speaker 14: 1927 for the second 20 and 1927 for the second 20 to my 2020 election campaign. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and raised. Thank you, Speaker 8: Councillor Stewart. I remember there's a typo there. 1925 27 2 202 meets visitor 0. Thank you. Okay.
02:33:00 Hello, Patrick. Hi. Would you like to give us an overview of what we looked at this application for? Okay. Speaker 12: As you said, it relates to the reconfiguring of a lot at 111 Lake Wyther Dry in Noosaville. It seeks to reconfigure the lot from one into 12 lots and it is assessed under the superseded planning scheme. It is a split zone site with approximately two hectares in area to the east of its own detached housing and to the west of its own open space conservation and that part of the site is outside of the town boundaries of its own open space conservation. There is a number of overlays that apply to the land and those critically relate to bushfire and flooding. The site is at risk of ember attack from the north and the west associated with the national park. The applicant has sought to mitigate this risk by developing or having building envelopes and that those building envelopes
02:34:00 would be situated a certain distance away from the fire risk to achieve a bell rating of 29. Part of the methodology used by the applicant is to use the partly clearly existing cleared area within the national park as part of their buffer. There is also a 20 metre wide fire break to the west of Watt 9 to 12 and that would be located within Watt 12. That bushfire management plan has been provided by the applicant and has been reviewed by our bushfire consultant. There are some issues associated with the methodology move in so far as relying upon the lands in the national park to provide fire break and also our consultant considers that a bell level of 12.5 should be applied as opposed to a bell level of 29. That creates a greater buffer that's required. So
02:35:00 also the proposal to have the fire break hole contained in Watt 12 is problematic in so far as it relies on one landowner to provide safety for a number of lots. In terms of flooding the applicant proposes to fill the site to mitigate the risk of flooding. Their methodology has been reviewed by an external consultant whose opinion is that across the Florida flood plane that there's no risk there's no issue associated with that fill. However the road itself is subject to flooding so the nature of flooding on this site being that it can be cut off for up to three days there's an issue there in terms of persons being able to evacuate the site because the applicant is proposing that they would have four levels above what's called the PMF and that they could stay in place during a flood.
02:36:00 So the use of fill also creates an issue from a an aesthetic point of view noting that it is something that we view except on a a settlement at 135 Wakewater Drive however the difference here is that it's the closing floor across the whole site as opposed to sort of mortifying house pads at Wakewater Drive and then there's some associated with the same structures to the park and to the side of the site that has been out of character with the area. Councillor Jurisevic: Questions Councillor? In which regard to the lot that you mentioned the individual pads was that something Speaker 12: We haven't obviously had a flight expert, so I doubt we're going to have time to call out to the court here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I'd like to move the motion, but can you scroll down a bit?
02:37:00 I think, have we still got the conditional grounds to take out? No, keep going. We shall remove the utterance. You said what was in it? Ah, number 7. Speaker 3: Number 7. Speaker 8: And I'll second that. Seconded councillor Jurisevic. Speaker 12: Because it's a superseded planning scheme request. Excuse me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the second motion in council. As it's a superseded planning scheme request. Speaker 12: I'm happy for Brian to speak to it. Quite a point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so that's the reason that we received advice that we can't use the compliance or otherwise against the misplanned 2020 in a superseded planning scheme request. It would be quite valid if it was submitted before the end of the reign of the 2016 but
02:38:00 Speaker 12: not as a superseded scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: More generally, this is the type of development we don't want. We don't want... This is a type of development that fills flood plains and relies on major changes to the landscape in order to create habitable spaces within a bushfire and flood hazard area. Previous developments along this road, I did... I advise or have had first-hand experience in how a storm event early one morning created the road to flood. And I think it's quite valid. And it was only a matter of hours before it came up to a point where me and my postie bike barely got through, but the mail must go through. But it was put in depth just after one storm. And that's, I suppose, not the key thing of the flash flooding after a storm. It's more the long-term impacts of flooding as a result of river flooding and the overall
02:39:00 cats are filling up. I think the main issue here is that when we reconfigure lots, we create lots where we Thank you. We've seen historically where subdivisions have been approved where you're reliant on your neighbours to maintain access for fire fighting fails, and while they're developing conditions for that access to be maintained, we now know on the southern side of the Nella we have fences instructed in the way of what was meant to be retained clear for emergency services to access to wood fire.
02:40:00 So it's not, in my opinion, appropriate to condition an approval based on fire safety mechanisms that are reliant on, albeit unenforceable conditions, or what they could be enforced, but very difficult to enforce conditions and goodwill rather than the tenure and the structure of the plan itself. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else like to speak? She's had a motion. Brian, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I've just heard a statement there where the... Yeah, a statement suggesting that people would, in the event of a flood, would stay, you know, the expectation would be to stay on their property for several days while the flood receded. I'm not prepared to support any application where... That's the conditions under which a property is bought or sold, and the expectation of residents would be to hang in there for a couple of days while the flood waters recede.
02:41:00 So I don't think it's an appropriate application in that regard. Speaker 8: Thank you, John. Councillor Wegener: It's just that, to add to that, I would just see liability issues with it. You know, once you're okay with it, you're pretty much guaranteeing that it's all going to be bickety-boo. Chickety-boo. Chickety-boo, that's it. You know, in the distant future, which this is clearly not. It's not in that category of guaranteeing that this is going to work for a long time through the climate change. You know, we're reading quite a lot of what's been said about it. Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 8: Brian, do you want to close? No. Put the motion over to Baber. That's carried unanimously. And Melinda May, come back to the chair, please. That was in favour of a lot of people.
02:42:00 I'm sorry, Bob. Move on now to the sixth item. Thank you. From our agenda, which is the 2021, sorry, 2122 Environmental Grants Programme Round 2. It's from page 93 of the Planning and Environment Committee Agenda. I get it. I've referred for further consideration and discussion. And we have Annie here. Oh, thanks, Kerry. Speaker 3: Thanks, Kerry. Good morning. Speaker 8: Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Hello, Annie. Would you care to give us an hour? Viewers at home, just an overview of the Grants Programme for this time. Councillor Wegener: Oh, no, no, this is, this is, oh, sorry, we do have some conflicts of interest. No, thank you. Tom? Speaker 8: Hastings, this is number five. Speaker 5: This is Environmental Grants Programme, not number five. Councillor Wegener: Oh, that number five wasn't, I do, yeah, exactly right. Okay. That one didn't go to general, right.
02:43:00 I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I am the President of Permaculture NUSA, which is applied for funding under the Climate Change Response Grant Category of the 2122 Environmental Grants Programme, Round 2. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Speaker 8: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I wish to inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in regards to the Climate Change Response Grant application submitted by Zero Emissions NUSA Group, which is for the proposed use of the consultant to enhance the adoption of solar in strata tidal development. The applicant 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 casual dinners as part of the committee network, and recently had the completion of the large solar in strata summer site. I am no longer a member of the Body Corporate Committee and have not socialised with Mr. Wright outside of that context.
02:44:00 Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have the reception of bias, 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. I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mr. Wright, can you go on to my next one? Speaker 8: I just have a question about this one first, Brian. You're focusing on your relationship with Mr. Wright, but I have a question. Did you, the Zero Emissions Grant application that was considered here, did you have a part in putting that together? No. What is it? Could you say? Okay, so the only conflict is your relationship with Mr. Wright, your friendship with Mr. Wright. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Hold on. I have a question with Mr. Wright. So even though we've discussed this before, that sort of brings up, was the Body Corporate, the Noosa Lakes Resort Body Corporate Committee working in conjunction with Zero Emissions Noosa to achieve the outcome?
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speaker 8: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I have a further declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by the Noosa District Landcare Group. Due to my long-standing connection with the organisation as one of the inaugural members of the Unincorporated Agents Group dating back to the 1980s and a current ordinary member. Although I have declared a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias concerning the community nature of this relationship. I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates in votes on this matter because Council believes that he does not, the word he is missing here, that he does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and does not have the post-personal
02:46:00 ownership that Mr. Wright or me care and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision was made in the public interest. I'll second that. I'll second that. Thank you Streit. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Speaker 8: Thank youmer so much, Good morning, everyone. The first paper will be rolled, Splendid. Speaker 11: Okay, yes, the report in front of you is actually looking at the climate change response grants and also the environment grants under the banner of the environmental fund. So those grants were actually guidelines for the terms. I'll deal with the climate change response grants first because that's a new category that has never been offered before and was approved under the Prince of Kerala to this budget.
02:47:00 So within those grants, we actually put out for advertisement of those available grants and developed guidelines for the community to provide applications to those grants in accordance with those guidelines. As a result of those applicants, we received five applicants under the climate change response grant. And we have recommended that four of those five grants be approved for. Would you like me to go through each one of those grants in a bit more detail? Sure. Okay. So the first one is for zero emissions Noosa Inc. And they have recognised that the solar uptake in particularly the postcodes of Noosa heads is lagging behind.
02:48:00 And this is a result of the number of rental properties and strata properties as well. So they have come up with a recommendation. That they actually provide assistance to strata titles by providing a, utilising the services of the consultant to actually work through a number of case studies to actually work through with the body corporates to actually determine the appropriateness of solar on those specific properties. They haven't been determined as yet, but that will be part of the project to actually determine those. Yes. So they are recognised. They requested $20,500 and the recommendation has been used over the years for that $20,500 as well. That would be up to 10 strata properties for feasibility assessment and case studies. Speaker 5: Did you want to ask any questions? Speaker 2: Keep going. Speaker 11: Oh, keep going? Okay. The next one is around Slow Food Noosa.
02:49:00 And this was a proposal to introduce a community-based education about buying and utilising. Local seasonal produce. And it would be connecting local farmers under the Slow Food Noosa banner to students within two to three schools within the Noosa Shire. And they would actually be understanding more about where the food comes from, the importance of carbon miles and reducing those carbon miles for actually utilising their food at their school. And the opportunity there is also to bring that message at home to their parents about low food miles and the importance of using local and sustainable food. I'm going to go through a clip of the next one because that one was not recommended. The next one that was recommended was Permaculture Noosa and they are proposing a climate change garden up in Cooroy and recognising that the climate is actually changing.
02:50:00 They are proposing a climate change garden up in Cooroy and recognising that the climate is actually changing. Which means that they trial farming methods for climate, more specific climate produce to actually trial that in the conditions that look like and be facing impact. So they have requested $1,730 and that's how recommended. It, as well. Within Tourism Noosa, they have proposed a carbon-free Noosa holiday travel calculator to be incorporated on the Tourism Noosa site. And what that does is to enable people who are looking to come to Noosa to actually calculate their carbon emissions as a result of their travel. It also provides them with guidelines to the sustainable travel options while they're in Noosa. And once they've calculated their carbon miles, they can then actually choose to participate in something like the Trees for Tourism to actually offset their carbon emissions as well.
02:51:00 Or they can have a carbon neutral trip to Noosa. Potentially, yes. It wouldn't actually be certified carbon neutral under the Climate Active Standards, but all the methodologies would be in accordance with what's required under that. Speaker 4: Yep, thank you. Speaker 11: And that was recommended for funding of the requested amount of $6,120. So that was the recommended funding approval. There was one that had not been recommended for funding, and that's from the Sunshine Coast Environment Council. And what they were suggesting was a week-long climate change event providing speakers, climate scientists, industry, professional, insurance, government, community program. Now, this was not recommended as we felt that this really was a bit too narrow in scope, and we thought that we would help the Sunshine Coast Environment Council to really work through, to potentially get this done.
02:52:00 So I think it's a good idea to get this proposal into more of a better opportunity for perhaps next round of funding, but it just wasn't quite there at this stage. Speaker 8: Then there's one more. Speaker 11: Oh, sorry, and then the Environment Grant. Yes, so under the Environment Grant, yes, that is the Noosa and District Land Care Group, and that is for Regenerative Land Management Workshop Series, using qualified presenters to local primary producers to work with. And that's a great opportunity to actually improve their management practices on their land. And that's got a significant number of environment outcomes, particularly biodiversity, waterways, wetlands, and coastal outcomes as well, in accordance with the Environment Strategy. And they have requested $11,330, and that's what was recommended as well. So all these grants, we actually assessed them under the guidelines for both the climate change response plan, and the National Environment Program.
02:53:00 And also the Environment Strategy and the Environment Guidelines, and we have recommended them for the five, plus the Environment Grant. Speaker 8: Thank you, Amy. Councillor Jurisevic: Any questions? Joe? Did we look at whether any of these are being delivered by other facilitators, i.e. education in schools with regard to food sources? Speaker 11: We didn't specifically go into the full-on curriculum. But we did actually look at food sources. We looked at what the alternatives were. And this was a unique opportunity, particularly within the Slide 3 infrastructure. Councillor Jurisevic: Because it relates directly to... Speaker 11: Correct. It's connecting local producers with the school children themselves. So that's really differentiating. Speaker 8: Raising awareness of these local supply chains. Speaker 11: Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just a question. From memory, there's only two of the three schools in the application that were in the Noosa Shire, and they were both climate schools?
02:54:00 Speaker 11: That's correct, yes. And one of the conditions of the grant it would be to include a third school in Noosa Shire. Thank you. Speaker 8: Any further questions for staff? I can't move the motion. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a motion that's different to the staff recommendation, so I'll read it. The council notes the report by the Carbon Reduction Project Officer to the Planning Environment Committee meeting dated 7th September 2021. A, approve the Environment Project Grants Note, noted in Attachment 1410, Missions Noosa Inc, 2, Pemacosta Noosa Inc, 3, Tourism Noosa, and 4, Noosa and District Land Care. B, request the CEO bring forward options along the lines of that adopted for Economic Development Grants to facilitate the allocation of unspent funds in the Environment Grant Budget and the unspent new $50,000 allocation for zero emissions and niches in the Community Grants Budget Projects to Budget Review 2. C, request the CEO review the grant guidelines and eligibility and scoring criteria relating
02:55:00 to the Community Implantation of the Climate Change Response Plan to prioritise projects that can demonstrate meaningful progress towards its targets to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and or the initiation of priority adaptation actions identified in the plan. Councillor Jurisevic: You haven't recommended SLO, FOO, Noosa in your... No. Okay. I'll second that. I'll second it for the sake of... Seconded. I'll second it for the sake of discussion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded. So, Councillors, this is a new form of grant. In the Budget, nothing was... It is... Councillors advocated in the Budget Development Process for two specific grants, which were new, in relation to achieving both our zero emissions targets, which we've talked about
02:56:00 in our Climate Change Response Plan. The first one was following up on a new initiative that I'd put up back in 2019, which was a suggestion to set up a dedicated fund for community groups to apply for renewable installation on council assets. That was recorded in the minutes of a meeting that we've developed it, to say that it's $50,000 for ZEN initiatives. So, that's why the reference to the Community Grants Budget, because it was in the Community Grants Budget. There's a $325 million grant in the project, and recommended from the Services and Organisations Committee, zero of that $50,000 that Council specific had identified for that use had been allocated. The next one is about what, as we said, the new grants for the climate change and lifestyle sustainable living sections of the Environment Grant, and really, that is something that's new. And while we've got a few good projects, it's clear that we haven't used all the budget for that.
02:57:00 And what we found, I think this round, is the same as what the economic development team found in the first round of economic development grants, where they went out for a competitive bid and then they came back and said, well, I think because this is new and the organisations involved probably need support to develop up really good applications, that we're going to provide a lot more flexibility. And I forwarded an excerpt of that report to show how we made economic development grants more flexible so that we could make sure that the allocation we put to these things was being used for high-impact projects. And hence, C, and the NC, what I've suggested is, I think we have to really, if we've only got $100,000 in a budget, to implement some really key priorities in the Environment Strategy and the Climate Change Response Plan.
02:58:00 I think we have to be very mindful of achieving maximum impact from that investment. I think we have to, when we're assessing applications, have some pretty clear outcomes we're trying to achieve. And that's what I've tried to put into words. And that's why I have taken out the Slow Food Noosa project. Is, as Councillor De Ruzza has mentioned, there are a range of programs being run in schools. I've run them before, trying to get young children to get more connected with their food, to get community gardens within the, within the schools. It is a good, nice-to-do, long-term project that will have some impact going forward, that may, in 10 years' time, have some impact in achieving the priorities of our Climate Change Response Plan. To me, it doesn't get above the line of saying it needs to be about $14,000 worth of funding out of a $50,000 bucket,
02:59:00 when I look at what the priorities are in our Climate Change Response Plan. It does talk about Slow Food Noosa working with primary producers. Now, if it was a project that was looking at how do we get more primary producers getting into local restaurants or whatever, getting the sale of approval, et cetera, it would be, to me, yeah, that's a direct link, because it's an action in the Climate Change Response Plan. What's not in the Climate Change Response Plan is that we take over the State Government's role to educate kids in primary schools. And, as I said, it's not a thing that's saying that the project is not one that has benefits. It's saying that if we've only got this much to invest, it doesn't come above the approval line for me, in that I think we should be directing it to higher-impact activities. And I think that's better achieved by working with a range of groups to come up with projects that utilise the budget we've got.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 The other aspect is also that this is one group thinking about what could be good in schools, but we've also had a report from the Nursing Youth Climate Summit, where a whole lot of children in high school and youth have got together and said, this is what we think are the priorities. Now, I think it'd be better to have a grant process which would allow more say from the outcomes of that Youth Climate Summit to say, well, what is the priorities that we see for school-based activities that might link to the Climate Change Response Plan? That may involve slow food news, but to me, there's an important step to take there of saying, okay, we've listened to this presentation about the outcomes of the Climate Summit. They said that empowering them is one mechanism that they can feel less anxious about their future and that they want to be more active in learning and doing at school. To me, if we can make the guidelines a little bit more flexible,
03:01:00 we can see how this can be refined to make some maximum use of this particular budget. Speaker 8: I've got a question, Steph. The report says that a review process has already been commenced with relevant council departments to provide a clearer pathway for sustainability funding, whether for the Community Project for Climate Change Response, or the Community Response Grant Programmes. A separate report will be taken to council with clear recommendations in preparation for the 2022-23 funding rounds. If the process has already been commenced, how does this feed into that? So that's probably an unfair question. Look, I'll speak to the promotion. Speaker 14: Can I ask a question, sir? Speaker 8: Yeah, of course, councillor. Speaker 14: And just on the slow food, because this has gone through a very thorough process by you and your team over a number of months, and these are the recommendations that you as the staff and the expert in this area has come to.
03:02:00 Can you tell me why you chose, or the benefits of slow food in Noosaville? Speaker 11: It was because around, there are a number of things. It connected with the environment strategy. So at the start, an overarching policy document. And that was, for example, on the implementation action page of page 10, it says support community environmental and sustainable development networks to build partnerships to drive the implementation of the environment strategy. And then as part of the sustainable living action, page 13, it says to provide waste and sustainability education programs to improve the understanding of waste management and sustainability in the Noosa community. So they're certainly two aspects that we saw as the environment strategy. And then in terms of the climate change response plan, it was certainly to build that agriculture,
03:03:00 to... to improve agriculture and reduce emissions from agricultural food systems. So we saw this as an opportunity to bring together those local producers, make sure that children know actually where their food comes from, from the start, rather than going buying highly packaged stuff from wherever to reduce food miles. And also that they, as part of that, it is also looking at composting, food waste, what actually happens with the residual food waste as well, because we know that organic matter is one of our highest conditions, particularly for landfill. So we thought it ticked a number of boxes, and particularly because there is that intergenerational connection. The kids learn, they go home to mum and dad and ask some serious questions of mum and dad. So we thought it did ticked a number of boxes, both in the environment strategy and a number of themes on the climate change response plan. Speaker 14: They certainly do ask a lot of questions of mum and dad.
03:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Annie, so doesn't our waste team and our waste education officer provide a lot of that sort of information as well? Yes, they do, yes. Is there a difference between what our waste officer is presenting and what the slow food nurse may be presenting? Speaker 11: I think it's connecting where the food comes from, so it's not on... the waste is one small component, but probably the bigger component is around... reducing food miles. So making sure that the kids... Councillor Jurisevic: So that's the additional element that has a synergy to what's being taught, but gives an added component? Speaker 8: I'll speak to the motion. This is a three-part motion, and there are three debates within each one. The first one item talks about not supporting a Slow Food Noosa grant application, and that's fine. The next one refers to what I'm understanding as Councillor Stockwell's hopes for the outcomes of a review of the grants,
03:05:00 the climate change response grant guideline, environment grant program, community grants budget. And I have to be honest, I do not understand what this will result in. I do not understand what's being asked. For example, request the CEO bring forward options, to facilitate the allocation of unspent funds in the environment grant budget. But there certainly need to be applications for those funds, rather than us just allocating those funds, based on options that are presented by the CEO. I have concerns needs to be... is needed. And that's what this review that's been hinted at, that has been stipulated in this report will address. I can't agree to this motion in its current form, because there's too many elements to it that I do not understand,
03:06:00 and maybe unintended outcomes. I will support, if this motion is defeated, a motion first to debate whether or not we approve all the grants or not, and then a motion about the review that reflects the process that's already underway, rather than a motion that stipulates a particular outcome from the review process underway, which we may or may not collectively agree upon. So for structural reasons, I can't support this motion in its current form. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the question posed by yourself there, Councillor, I'll ask the question of Councillor Stockwell if I may. Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Brian, what's the intent of B? Is it to utilise... Is it to look at how the unspent funds from the grant allocation of $50,000 in this round get utilised in the future, rather than being lost to consolidated revenue and the potential for it to be extended to the next year's grant round?
03:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The key difference between what the staff report talks about in the review is they were reporting to the next budget. What this one says is, can the staff bring forward some options to expend all the funds that councillors had identified in the budget for the community to do ZEN and climate response plans? So it's saying to bring it forward to the budget review too. And it's talking about options along the lines of the economic development grant. And so, faced with the same situation where we had unspent money and some of the applications coming in weren't meeting what were the priorities, the economic development grants were changed to include quick response grants which looked to support small one-off projects such as work, meetups, events that engage the benefit of the community. It talked about a whole range of different ways to deliver the grants budget
03:08:00 without necessarily just having two set calls for competitive grants each year. So what that says is, should we look at something similar? Should we look at giving staff the flexibility to do some of those small start-up grants as part of the way they do? Do we give them the ability to do one-off ad hoc or extraordinary funding using that budget? Because to me, it's important that it's taken two years after the adoption of the environment strategy to actually get $100,000 into the budget for its implementation by the community. And as we sit here today, of that $100,000 that every council supported, only $30,000 and perhaps $44,000 if the Slow Food Noosa has been supported in any other case. So we've said it's a climate emergency, but if something's not working by way of a competitive grant, this gives us the ability
03:09:00 to look at other measures which we could use to fund this financing year. And the subsequent one, the C, is about how we change that for the next financing year, which is what the review is talking about. Councillor Jurisevic: A question for the CEO. CEO, if that was referred to you from this recommendation, would that be sufficiently explanatory to bring that forward to BR2 for review? Speaker 10: Timing. Timing is an issue for us given that BR2 is imminent. I would have to sort of refer to the staff to see if we can do that. Again, it's the process of at the moment, the grants are allocated based on If I'm correct, Councillor, what you're suggesting is that we would look to find opportunities to utilise the funds. Yes, to amend the way Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that this particular budget could be allocated by staff,
03:10:00 whether it's always has to be by a competitive grant process. Speaker 8: So you're saying perhaps give money to community groups without a grant application process? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This one talks about, as with economic grants, have the ability for staff to work with community groups to refine an application and do a quick start for a small amount to get things going. Speaker 8: Do you think it would be better through a workshop process where all councillors can be on board and fresh out? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, that's what would happen in budget for you too if it was not too soon. Speaker 8: Sean, do you have any comments Speaker 6: you want to add to this? Just a bit of information. I'm aware that Council is actually recruiting for a grants officer at the moment. It's quite a difficult time to recruit and the current grants officer will be leaving very soon. So our ability to respond for this, you know, probably this financial year could be somewhat compromised from a resourcing perspective.
03:11:00 Speaker 8: Thank you. Yeah, the councillor should speak for the motion. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll go. Nobody else seems to be stepping forward. Look, I agree in principle with what Councillor Stockwell's trying to do here. But I believe there's an element of process that perhaps just bringing forward this time without sufficient time for councillors to understand what the councillors are trying to achieve here. Some scope with regard to the timing of budget review too and the fact that we don't have a grants officer or we have a leading grants officer may provide challenges. So at this point in time, I'm not prepared to support the motion as it's been presented to us. But I do understand the intent and I do accept that the intent there is something that perhaps for next year's grant process should be considered. However, I do support reviewing the element of unspent funds
03:12:00 and how that is dealt with and how that is dealt with in particular the opportunity to carry those over into next year's grant funding and actually expand next year's grant funding should additional programs be put forward now that people are aware of the grants program availability. Speaker 13: I'll speak to it, Chair. I don't mind BNC. I think the one I probably don't agree with is excluding Slow Food and Usage Project from this grant application. It's a grant opportunity. I think the project, I agree with the staff recommendation. I think the project satisfies the criteria and achieves the outcomes of the response grant category. And just repeating what you said before, Annie, the fastest way we can make a difference or tackle the climate crisis is by making the right choices about what we put on our plate.
03:13:00 And to me that achieves the outcome which is one of the most important outcomes which is for a more sustainable more sustainable living outcome. I actually did quite a bit of reading on climate damaging foods on slow Noosa and I encourage anyone if they have the time to get into the space because it was an education in the heart for me. So if my kids can bring their own food, they can go to that education home and it means that we have a meat free Monday or we waste less or buy organically or buy locally, I actually understand exactly what that means in terms of reducing emissions. And I'm so supportive of this program. But on that basis that you've included the three parts in one amendment, I will not be valued for this.
03:14:00 Speaker 14: I won't vote for this either Mr. Chair. I'm very supportive of the Slow Food Noosa program. I think it's very important and all you've highlighted. The greatest thing, we all know this, the greatest change agents are our children and their influence upon us is significant. As an example at home, I left the water on and my children said, Mum, why do you leave the tap on? You're wasting water. So they remind us and they engage us and educating them through and when you're talking about food, I see waste, I see landfill, but I also see health of our children and obesity and all those issues coming to paddock to plate, how important that is for the health of our children. It's very important. So I am supportive of the Slow Food Noosa and the program and you've taken a lot of time to go through this. This has gone through proper process,
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 procurement, you've looked at every positive and negative of each. So I take heart in your recommendations and that is on your recommendations. So on that basis, I won't be supporting this amendment either. Speaker 13: Can I ask a question, Anna? I'll turn to the Chair. Sure. NIAC. So Councillor Stockwell made reference to the Youth Advocacy Group. Were they formed after an education program was brought to the school through Dahlia and the Education Environmental Hub or was NIAC formed first? So what motivated NIAC to take action for example on climate change? Speaker 11: My understanding on Council Stockwell is that the Noosa Environment and Education Hub consists of the pre-case Fantastic. Speaker 13: So the Education Awareness Program
03:16:00 helped motivate young people to form a group like NIAC. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 13: Alright. Speaker 8: Councillor Kingshaven if you wish to speak. Speaker 2: I do like what you're trying to achieve, Council Stockwell. Especially working, everyone works hard to secure funding to deliver projects to the community and that is highly valued and we get some awesome outcomes out of that. And to see money taken out of that space and go back into general revenues makes me a little bit sad because all the hard work that's gone into getting those outcomes. I would support some way that we could maintain that allocation for the purpose that it was initially approved for. Given what we've just been told about staff resourcing and other things it looks like maybe the time frame is working against us.
03:17:00 But I do support that idea. A review from my understanding is part of what students come before us anyway. Can you give us some indication of when that may be happening? Speaker 11: Yes, sorry. The meeting that I had scheduled for this week unfortunately has to be postponed and so I'm just trying to find a date in terms of stakeholders within that. So I would hope maybe there's something in February. Speaker 6: If I can add to that, Councillor. So the next funding round is in March next year. So we would need to have the policy for the use of funds to council to the third round of meetings. So any of the scheduled meetings with internal stakeholders So we're very keen to progress that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What we're dealing with here are those funds directly related
03:18:00 to the climate change response and the Environment Levy Sustainable Living. They come directly out of general revenue not out of Environment Levy. And you're right, it isn't clear in that item B if that's what I was referring to. That was an intense research. The zero emissions in the community budget grants is general revenue funded. The climate change and sustainability grants we were dealing with here are funded out of general revenue. The environmental levy policy does not allow for those to be funded. Speaker 8: My question was about item B refers to facilitate the allocation of unspent funds in the environment grant budget. The environment grant budget is derived from the environment levy funds and unspent money there cannot be given back for general revenue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's my confusion around the whole word. I accept it. Speaker 8: Brian, do you wish to close? I do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll deal with the difficult issue first.
03:19:00 And it's always hard to sit here as a councillor and say you don't support a community group getting money. And what I didn't say was I don't support the community group doing what it proposed to do. My sons benefited from that in biosphere events. Slow food and nutrition, their values and their theory, excellent. And if this was funds purely related to how to build in our young people some understanding of the food process, it might be a priority. What my argument is is if we've only got $50,000 to support initiatives in the community relating to two chapters of the environment strategy, in my opinion, going in to give education about local food in primary schools does not get to the approval stage. Now it's mentioned that our investment over three years in the Environmental Education Hub has generated a whole lot of benefits.
03:20:00 It's really clear that environmental education is delivered by an environmental educator with qualification. It's built on action learning and processes that link both curriculum, bushfires, real action learning about our community at a level where people in the next few years will be starting to vote. So the fact that we then, that led to them, they actually asked us to form a junior council. We said let's call it a youth advisory group. That is a wise investment. The payoff for general food based education in primary schools is a long way off. If we had $500,000 I wouldn't even be raising it. We've got $50,000. And $14,000 or $50,000 to do two things in the community suggests to me that there is capacity building needed within the community groups to work out how best to spend the limited funds we have available. And in the economic development crew they've done that by saying okay, we're going to give ourselves some flexibility.
03:21:00 It always doesn't have to go through the two grants. I take from staff that, you know, timing is an issue and we've got the staff choices. No problems there. Speaker 12: Number two Deputy Mayor Stockwell: is the statement of frustration. Number two is the other one and the other grant. Not one of those intended targets which was community groups having the ability to put solar panel on the roof and council assets are funded. But the $50,000 has been allocated if we go by staff recommendation. And number three is about saying show me what you can do to reduce the amount of emissions in this case it was water quality and diffuse emissions then the quality of applications go up. So being really clear what you want to achieve out of your grants by saying here's our target. Saying we're going to support the projects that have the most ability to get the most reduction of greenhouse gasses.
03:22:00 You would support the ones from Tourism Noosa. You would support the ones from Zeroes Emissions Noosa. You may support the ones from Thermos Lodge Noosa which is a broader program. So that's what I'm trying to get at. If we really need, if we've got limited funds we really have to be clear from council as to what is the target for that fund that we allocated. We might have to wait for next year but my aim is to spend the whole $100,000 on climate and living sustainably for this financial year. Speaker 8: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Stockwell? Those against? Haven't had one of those for ages. One five, one five. Councillor Wilkie, Jurisevic, we don't have a motion before us so we can move the motion. Speaker 13: Oh, okay. I just want to
03:23:00 just go back to Councillor Stockwell's amendment. Motion, not amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: There's no other motion before us. Speaker 13: And put forward a motion that will request council to facilitate a workshop to review the current guidelines. Point of order. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order Mr Chair. There's no motion before us and you're asking to amend something that's already been voted on. Speaker 8: Have I missed my opportunity? Councillor Jurisevic: I believe the option exists in the next motion to either move move it with to add to the recommendation or amend it once somebody has voted. No worries. Speaker 8: Someone care to move the staff recommendation? I will. Second amendment. We can if you want. I'm seeing it on my hands. Second. I'll second it.
03:24:00 So we can get the show on the road. Speaker 10: Councillor Stewart. Speaker 14: No, thank you Annie. A lot of hard work. A lot of good, great groups involved. Money will be well spent and it will make a difference. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. I'll move an amendment to the recommendation. Unfortunately I didn't get the wording that I requested so I'll add and I might borrow a little bit from Councillor Stockwell that request of the CEO that any unspent funds from this grant process be referred to BR2 for consideration of carry over to next year's grant allocations rather than being returned to consolidated revenue. And I'll also add point C that Councillor Stockwell had in his previous recommendation.
03:25:00 Speaker 14: Well that was one. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm only adding one element of it. I'm adding a different element. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The motion is still substantially different so it's an OK motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Well it's substantially different because one we're allocating funds to someone that you didn't accept. I'm reviewing the unallocated funds in a different way. I don't mean to be difficult. Speaker 13: This is our Christmas present for Linda. Yep. Speaker 10: Yeah that's right. Speaker 7: . Speaker 3: .
03:26:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: . . Speaker 7: . Councillor Jurisevic: . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaker 3: . Speaker 6: . . . . . .
03:27:00 Speaker 8: . . . Speaker 2: . . . . . Speaker 8: Thanks Trev. So if I can guess what we're coming from Councillor Finzel, will this motion mean that the total pool allocated to grant funding next year will be over and above what we allocated in this year's budget because of the carryout?
03:28:00 Speaker 7: BR1 and X1 actually in that. Can it go to the budget process? Could it be referred to the budget process? It can be referred to. I would suggest the approach would be to refer to any review of the grant guidelines about carryover funds and review that review process. And then that would then create the enabling carryovers of unspent grant monies that we can apply next year. Because what we don't do at BR2, for us to set aside those funds would be that our reserve and restricted cash policy would be written as such that those funds are then put aside part way through the year. What we do is we wait to the end of financial year and then of course part of the standard carryover process is BR1.
03:29:00 So BR2 is not the budget or process or forum for setting aside funds unspent part way through the year. Councillor Jurisevic: I take that and I appreciate that. So what would, how would you suggest that we give an, given you understand the nature of what I'm trying to achieve here, how would you word A? Speaker 8: He may not support it at all, I'm just asking for wording. I'm not asking for a report, I'm asking for wording. You may be putting him under duress. I'm asking him for wording. Councillor Jurisevic: Something that he doesn't agree with. Well then that's for council to decide. No it's not. I've got a question. It's an unfair question. I've got a question. Well I think the wording came straight out of Trent's mouth that I was going to utilise. Speaker 13: Well then you need to call in a voter please. Formal meeting. Speaker 14: Thank you Trent. In your opinion as our acting CFO, what is the best way to proceed with this from a financial perspective going through the proper process? Speaker 7: I think the proper process would be the BR1. It's supported by the grant guidelines and policy review.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Is there anything bearing in mind that as you come into the budget adoption process for the 2022-23 budget, the larger the quantum of carryover, the larger the quantum of base budget surplus, you will come through the original budget process targeted. So normally through a budget process we try to spend as much as we earn during the year because it gives us a matching chance. It's in terms of noting surpluses. It's a much higher operating surplus in the vicinity of up to a million dollars at the start of the year to give us capacity to bring in more out at the BR1 carryover costs. It's more about just understanding that process through the upcoming budget. Councillor Jurisevic: I could make this far simpler Trent and just turn around and ignore this. Just ask the first point and have the CEO review the policy with regard to carryover funds from unallocated funds.
03:31:00 The grant process here for review in the 2022-23 budget process and then at the budget time we could just turn around and say, Speaker 10: well, we had unspent funds last year and just allocate more funds next year as part of the budget process. Councillor Jurisevic: So I could either refer it to BR1 next year, it is, so I'm asking, so I could either, I've got two options there as I understand it. I could either refer it as part of a process and a review of the procedure and look within the budget as to what we allocate with regard to grants. Or as I'm trying to do here, refer it to BR1 next year for suitable carryover. Speaker 7: Councillor, your item B essentially covers the opportunity if the review of the policy, the grant guidelines and policy and scoring criteria, if the review of the policy, the grant guidelines and policy and scoring criteria,
03:32:00 if that results in a change in policy of the state, yes, we will carry over our unspent funds. Councillor Jurisevic: So if I delete A, that would be sufficient in your understanding of what we're trying to achieve? Speaker 7: And then it will come through the policy process. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I'll leave it at B then. I'll just think, delete A and just leave it at B. Make B A. Speaker 13: I'd like to ask a question to the Council's Jurisdict. The wording of A. Suggests that the CEO review the grant guidelines. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, you're probably right. It's probably the request after. Speaker 13: Or I'm still leaning towards workshop. Whether that's the better forum and takes pressure off the resources. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to refer it to a workshop. CEO refer the grant guidelines and early scoring criteria related to the community implementation of climate response change
03:33:00 to a workshop for further consideration. How's that? That's it. That's it. That's it. Speaker 10: No, my opinion is that's not necessary. It's the CEO's role. I can go to a workshop. You can organise. Absolutely. Councillor Jurisevic: Absolutely. That may be the way he reviews it. That's right. Okay. Speaker 7: I'll leave it at this. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll leave it at this. Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you for the clarification there. I apologise. It was policy on the run. I had asked for the wording to be forwarded. I didn't get it. Speaker 10: Sir, for clarification, I understand that the Council and Stockwell's request is to really quarantine any ... Ensure that we quarantine any savings or unspent funds. No. No. That now is no part of this motion. That's no part of it. Hang on. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the intention. Speaker 10: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. That's it.
03:34:00 Speaker 8: Okay, Joe. Is there a seconder for this amendment? No, I don't have a seconder. Seconder, Brian. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Yes. I apologise for the nitty gritty that we went through there to achieve the outcome, but I think there was merit in what Council and Stockwell was trying to achieve in his previous motion, and that is to go back and review the elements of the grants guidelines. I mean, what I don't want to see is that unspent funds in a grant allocation from this year, because typically our grant allocations are fully extended, that unallocated funds then fall back into general revenue and that we have to go back through a budget process to fight for those funds in some way, shape or form, or particularly if this has been the first time that this process has gone through with regard to climate change response grants. There may be an opportunity here in ... Yes. In the next allocation where some of those things like talking to the youth group and that other opportunities may come up and that $50,000 may not be enough to follow up.
03:35:00 I'd hate to see the funds that we've allocated for this purpose and this opportunity don't just fall back into general revenue because they weren't fully expended this time and that we have to go and fight through a budget process for the next time. I'd rather see those funds have the opportunity to be carried over if that process does. I also acknowledge that Council has some higher thoughts and eligibility around what these grants are to achieve, and I believe a review is the appropriate way to deal with that issue. Speaker 8: Question. Do unspent environment grant funds, do they go into general revenue, as just stated, or environmental levy reserves? Depends on where they come from. Okay. I have another question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian.
03:36:00 I'll say it again. Thank you. The grants for the climate change and sustainable living under the environment strategy, which I'm not sure if they ... I think it's climate change response is what they talk to. Do they come from the general revenue or do they come from the environment levy? They come from the general revenue. Speaker 8: The climate change response is what they talk to. Speaker 13: Do we get any reporting back whether or not the projects that we've allocated funds to actually achieve their targets? Speaker 3: . Speaker 11: And do you see any benefit in more detail in the system that you use? . Speaker 13: And do you see any benefit in more detail in the system that you use? . Speaker 6: Yeah. I can answer this.
03:37:00 I've identified a weakness in the grant program that there's actually no formal mechanism to report back to the council of including the outcomes of the grants in terms of what good work they did or what good work they didn't do. So I'm due to bring forward the environment strategy performance benchmark report to council. And in that will be an appendix of recent grants and the acquittal programs that we have run to council to judge whether the grant funding has been successful or not. And I think that should be in there with our programs. . Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 8: I'd argue that should be done across all. . Look, I'm going to support this motion because it doesn't do the thing that council has said it's going to do. . And that is set aside unspent funds to make sure they come from the environment. And if the money's compounded, that adds to next year's grant program.
03:38:00 There's nothing in that motion to suggest that's going to happen. A review is appropriate. What I'm really concerned about is an improper process where unspent grant, whether come from the environment or consolidated revenue in a grant program or unspent, it's dependent on the quality of the applications whether that money is spent or not, no other factor. And if that money is compounded and set, I'm really concerned that a set of funds is going
03:39:00 I support the need for a review, a review of the grant guidelines, eligibility and scoring criteria, as Councillor Jurisevic has said, and also to ensure that the grants, as they are allocated, really, even more accurately reflect the aims and objectives of the climate change response plan and, yeah, climate change response plan, the key targets of the climate change response plan. So I'm in support of this application. Yes, sir. So there's motion. Speaker 13: I'm happy to support this amendment, and I agree with Councillor Wilkie that part of the review should be an investigation as to why there are, in fact, unspent funds. Are we communicating the grant program effectively? Should we be directly targeting groups that we know will be able to achieve the outcomes of these grants?
03:40:00 So for that reason, I support the amendment to... Speaker 8: Yes, sir. You're quite correct, the amendment. Brian, you've already spoken. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Not to the amendment. Speaker 8: Yes, you have. You made some strong statements before as part of the debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, to Joe's amendment. I just seconded it. I haven't talked to him. Speaker 8: No, I've got you down as having spoken. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I made one question which was a question. Speaker 8: You made a question. It wasn't a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I asked a question about the climate response plan, the funds and general revenues. I don't think I've talked to him. Speaker 8: I understand correctly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, actually, I could have left it for Nicola. I support, obviously, the inclusion of this issue in terms of the review. I think, for me, what I was trying to do was put that last bit about meaningful progress towards targets,
03:41:00 because the targets are pretty specific and it's something that the Environment Strategy and the Climate Response Plan have waxed lyrical about. So I think that is important, how we do it and when we get there. As the staff have mentioned, BR2 was perhaps a big push for staff. And the option to look at new initiatives occurs at BR3 as well. So that might be something we can look at if we think there is an emergent need to fund anything to achieve the initial aims of the budget. It may not have been achieved by this grant, but I am sure a different source may be something we can do at BR3. Speaker 8: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stewart or Councillor Finzel, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Speaker 2: I can see where Councillor Stockwell wants to hang, and it's a good aspiration and I like it to reach targets.
03:42:00 I think it's important. Yeah, I do think that is a replication of robust projects. It's a process that we already have in place. I guess we can always look at continuous improvement. I think that's real important. The review was on its way, as we've been told. And I'm sure that once we get to the budget and things like that, we're going to look at policies and targets and they'll be debated around the table. I mean, I'm happy to support it. I do think that... You know, I don't know if there's a good place to raise this today, because I think we've got, like I've said in the reviews and things coming forward. But I'm happy to support the amendment as it fits the purpose of the CEO. I do think the organisation has the appropriate mechanisms in place to support where we would like to go. And myself, Councillor Stockwell, so...
03:43:00 Speaker 8: I'm derisive. Speaker 2: I'm derisive. Thank you. You too. You too. Yeah, so I'll support it. Speaker 8: That's a good start. Yes, Joe Jurisevic. Kabi. Joe Jurisevic, please. Councillor Jurisevic: I do. If only to clarify something that you said, Councillor Larkin, which is not correct. There was no intent in any way, shape or form for the funding to be allocated to any specific project or pet project of any council. It was to ensure that the funding was allocated to any specific project or pet project of any council. It was to ensure that funds allocated for grant funding continued to remain available and supplement next year's grant funding for any shortfall this year. What typically happens within our grant funding is this will be extended, and we have projects sitting that are not able to be funded or have to have part funding available because there aren't sufficient funds. As this is a new grant process, my intent was to expand the pool in the hope that we would
03:44:00 see that more projects would become available as this is still a fairly young and fledgling arrangement. As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, one of the things that didn't get up in this element of grant funding that I would like to see, which is a direct element of climate change response, is solar panels on community organisations and supplementing community organisations. So those sort of opportunities that may have been missed are ones that I just wanted to make sure that, through due process, that funds could be considered. That funds could be added to a complement instead of finding that we've got $50,000 and $100,000 worth of projects being put up and saying, well, I'm sorry, we can only fund $50,000 in a year. So that was the intent. Again, that can be reviewed through this process, as Trent has alluded to, and also through the budget process, because we can make a greater allocation towards grants next year if we see the need.
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 That was the intent. So I was quite offended by what you suggested there. That wasn't the intent. The intent was to ensure that funds that have been available for climate change response and environment grants continue to be made available into the future with a greater capacity, because they weren't expensive issues. So I'm happy with the amendment being accepted by the majority of councillors, if that's the case. But I think the review process, as alluded to by staff, is the appropriate mechanism by which to do that. Speaker 8: I put the amendment does in favour. That's unanimous. That becomes the part of the motion and only Councillor Stewart has spoken of the motion. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 14: I will get everyone out of their misery. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I only apologise that was a very lengthy debating process but the reason I did move my three part motion here was to save us time on Thursday night.
03:46:00 Speaker 2: You're all heart-brined. We're truly grateful. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What do you think we've got to get worse then? I know. Re-open the community grant. Speaker 8: Okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I think we've arrived at the great spot. Again, I say I'm really glad that the motion before us says nothing about unspent grant funds accumulating for the grant pool next year. And I think the reviewer's reflected the way they handled the review of the whole thing. And the way they managed the grant schemes and I commend the staff for their very hard work and patience in allocating funds to these worthy projects. Thank you. You wish to close? Speaker 14: No, I don't wish to close. Thank you. Speaker 8: All right. All in favour? That's carried unanimously and now we'll call a lunch, a 15 minute break. Thank you.
240 minutes in ¶
04:07:00 Australian councillors. Thank you. Welcome back everybody. We're up to item 7, which is the Lake Doonella Foreshore Management Plan from page 99 of the planning... Speaker 2: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter.
04:08:00 As of 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,676.66 to my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception... of bias, because I believe that I do not have a personal close relationship with Mr Butt, and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 13: Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 13: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my brother, Gabriel Cherasani, owns the property of Beaches Estates, so...
04:09:00 I'm a member of the Executive Committee of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. During my election campaign, my brother helped me with my campaign and handed out voting cards, and two of my election signs were outside his property on David Lowe Way. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, and I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that the Councillor notes a declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel, and I intend that it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel remain in the meeting room for this item, on condition that she does not state an abatement or vote on issues regarding the private estate along the Eastern Beaches, because Councillor Leeds and Councillor Finzel could provide valuable input into the discussion. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest.
04:10:00 Seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. I do say it's only because there is mention of a potential impact on the Eastern Beaches Coastal Management Plan and the staff recommendation. It's an indirect link, and one that if things go the way I plan, it won't be there anymore. Speaker 2: What the conflict of the beaches. I'm puzzled. Yeah, me too. Speaker 8: Good one, Karen. All right. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Put the motion over in favour. Carried unanimously. Councillor Finzel did not vote on the motion. Nor did Councillor Lorentson. Nor did Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Next one. Oh, I'll move that. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: The council made the terrible conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson. It determines in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room for this item on the condition she does not participate in the debate nor vote on issues regarding the private estate along the Eastern Beaches, because the council believes that Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input into the discussion.
04:11:00 Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Speaker 8: I'll second. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Joe. No discussion. Anybody else wish to comment on it? Put the motion over in favour. Carried unanimously. Councillor Finzel and Lorentson did not vote on the above motion. That's all. Malcolm. Speaker 6: In summary, the proposed report recommends the council initiate a foreshore management planning process for the foreshores of Lake Doonella. A foreshore management plan seeks to reconcile tenure, ecology, costs, views, recreational access, and the management of the land. That is undertaken in accordance with a very structured consultation program with Councillor Locke and the community. The proposal seeks to replicate the project planning that's already been initiated for
04:12:00 Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan. The key issue for council consideration seems to be timing, whether council wishes to initiate this process now or await a budget bid for the next one in two years. The report clearly articulates the difference. If the council does initiate the process now, in the delay for Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan, do they value the new staff resources? Speaker 8: Thank you. Questions, councillors? Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Sure. Given that there are significant differences between the Eastern Beaches foreshore and the Lake Doonella foreshore, I'm assuming there will only be elements that will replicate and there will be significant differences between the two. So I'm concerned about part A saying it will replicate the process. It will only replicate an element of the process, I would suggest. Is that correct? Speaker 6: I was saying more of a methodology. The methodology is still very similar. The first stage of the methodology is to examine things like tenure, access, views, ecology, areas that are degraded.
04:13:00 The findings about the foreshore might be quite different. The communities are different. But the methodology is very, very similar. Speaker 8: Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The link between the two is that, of course, there's only one staff member. And if this was to become a priority, that person's time on the Eastern Beaches coastal management plan would be reduced accordingly. That's correct. Speaker 8: Councillor, we have a motion before us. Anyone care to move it? Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not moving that one. I'm moving the different one. I'm moving that the potential new initiatives produce a foreshore management plan at Lake and they'll be referred to the 2022-23 budget process so it can be assessed against other priorities set down in relevant strategies and plans. Speaker 8: I'll remove, can be more fully. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can be assessed. Speaker 8: So it can be assessed. Sorry. So it can be. Assessed. Yeah. Yeah.
04:14:00 Against other priorities. Do we have a seconder for that, please? I'll second that. Seconder. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. So the report did a good job of identifying the current issues around there that have been brought to the heads as a result of conflicting views or outcomes from different residents around the lake. But there is also much broader community value associated with the lake. And at the planning and environment meeting, I don't think I need to bring it up, I identified that the lake and its surrounds are in the coastal management plan. They're in a high, they're rated as a high ecological value wetland from a quantified diversity perspective. They have habitat around the edge, which is habitat for endangered and vulnerable species, which is probably the koala, because there are wild net sightings there. So they've got matters of state environmental significance. And they're also within the coastal management district. Now, they're all the state level ones from our plan around the edge of the lake.
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 It's also a potential asset to the lake. So they're all constraints on actually developing anything in the foreshore that needs to be assessed. So there needs to be a very thorough assessment process at the planning environment. Point of order, Chair. Speaker 13: Yeah. Is Council Stockwell already arriving at outcomes? This is a noting report. And specific outcomes should not be articulated, in my opinion, in this debate. I'm not sure. I'm not sure I understand your point, Council. He's raised some restrictions as to why some outcomes can't be achieved. And I think that the entire intent of this plan is to investigate legislative restraints laying tenure. And I'm just concerned that, what I just said, this has already arrived at a decision
04:16:00 about the investigation. And I'm just concerned that, what I just said, this has already arrived at a decision Speaker 8: I took it to understand these constraints based on the nature of the environmental qualities that he's identifying there, which were general comments. I didn't take it to mean jumping to a conclusion about the findings of the foreshore management plan. So my ruling is, Councillor Stockwell, please continue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So at the Planning and Environment Committee, I asked the question of the Development Control Manager, or Manager of Urban Assessment, and she identified with all those constraints that it was going to be a difficult process to progress. So that's one issue, is that trying to start this now is going to take some time. The other issue is about the second part of the staff recommendation. We assess all new initiatives that come up via a process.
04:17:00 And so there could be in there... The second part of the staff recommendation is probably not reflecting the process that started in 2014. So what the first time the Eastern Beaches, what we now call the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan was proposed was by a forum of every environment group in the Shire, in a workshop at the end of the Municipal Biosphere Limited, where the issue of how to react to climate change was first raised, and the highest priority project was around funeral management. 2016 was the first time that it was put up. And it was the first time that it was brought up to the CEO as a need to take action. 2018, the issue was brought to a head again, which resulted in the staff recommending the Coastal Management Plans identified as a not convinced key component of the environmental planning hierarchy in the environment strategy. So we're looking at what is a particularly valuable approach to resolving issues and managing them.
04:18:00 And that is managing Lake Doonella to increase both the environmental management and also the recreational opportunities around there. I'm not discounting that that's a useful project. What I'm saying is we're comparing a local project with something that's identified in our hierarchy of environmental plans as being a key gap. So every time we produce a strategy or a plan, we identify the structure and this coastal management has been a gap that's been identified ever since the adoption of the environment strategy. So that's what led to the 2021 budget. It wasn't a isolated response. During that time, between 2014 and 2021, Council has received numerous concerns raised by the community down on the eastern beaches equal to or surpassing the level of complaint we've received locally in regards to the two different perspectives around Lake Doonella.
04:19:00 So the progress process is very important. The progress process is to look at new initiatives as part of the foreshore management plan. There is no, in my mind, no urgency and no likelihood of a early outcome from a process if we were to delay what is a really important piece of work identified now also in the Coastal Hazards Adaption Plan and the Climate Response Plan. For another one, which is valuable, useful, but local in scale rather than Shire in scale of importance, hence I think we can determine whether we need additional resources or change our priorities at the budget session rather than doing it via a resolution. Speaker 8: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anybody else? Councillor Jurisevic: It seems to be silence is the game changer.
04:20:00 Let's go and see who steps forward first. I'll step forward again. Look, I'm the one that initiated the idea of a Lake Doonella foreshore management plan. I approached that with all the elements that approached with regard to the challenges that have been put forward at Lake Doonella and my understanding at the time, my understanding at the time when I spoke to all those elements, that I would put that forward. I would put that forward as a new initiative for next year's budget consideration, so I'm happy to support Councillor Stockwell's proposal here. Whilst there is some angst in the community, I believe that the number of elements, those that can be regularly dealt with, are being dealt with by staff through the CEO and that a more thorough and comprehensive review of the management of the Lake Doonella foreshore will be fairly extensive. Thank you.
04:21:00 A comprehensive process that requires staff dedication to it. I wouldn't like to see that taken away from anything else that the Council is doing. And as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, the Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan is a significant project, has been on the agenda for some time, has been Shire-wide and has been proposed for a long, long time by members of the community along that area. And our coastal hazards adaptation plan also alludes to the need to address that. That's the challenges there. They are very overarching documents. So I see this as the best way forward. I agree that putting this forward as a new initiative for next year's budget is the appropriate action in this regard. Thank you, Jane. Speaker 8: Any councillors wish to speak for motion? Oh, sorry. Speaker 13: I will concur with comments already made. I do believe this is the better process. I just wanted to raise that I want to rebut something that Councillor Stockwell said in terms of priority and urgency.
04:22:00 A quite valuable and useful document that there is no urgency. I would think that the residents in Lake Doonella would disagree. I'd like to just table that. Thank you. Speaker 2: I just had a question around. I've been down there and seen all the community beliefs. It's unfortunate. This is all heightened to the state of conflict and discord amongst our community. Yeah, that's really unfortunate. And we're trying to work through that. Some of the residents I saw last week have concerns around access on community land along the area behind where the kindy is down there. So I'm just wondering, you know, how soon we can make that happen. I don't think we can make the need of the community to want access on land.
04:23:00 And it's all well and good we're talking about the Lake Doonella foreshore plan. But where are we meeting needs as a council to engender trust in our community that the things we can change in the short term can be done and are not reliant on our decision around the foreshore plan? How are we managing that as a council? Speaker 6: I think I've made it quite clear in the committee report that our area doesn't have the resources, you know, to immediately start attending to some of these immediate issues along the Lake Doonella foreshore. Because the issues are complex in terms of tenure, community desires. There's been no consultation process in that area before about the use of the foreshore. So I fully understand that there's a lot of angst in the community. Yeah. You know, certainly council's cycling and walking strategy set up expectations for access to that area that requires a lot more consideration and resolution. So, you know, I would be amiss of me to say that our area will start resolving issues in that area because we don't have the resources at the moment.
04:24:00 The only way we will start working through those issues at Lake Doonella is by delaying the Eastern Edges project if the resources that we've had come along. Speaker 2: So, removal of rubbish and waste along the lake. Community land. Who did that? Speaker 6: So that would certainly, if it's at that scale, if it's rubbish, we'd certainly work with our teams to remove that. But in terms of, you know, arranging more formal access and negotiating it with the adjacent landholders, that's certainly not within a reasonable operational scale. Speaker 2: And can I ask a question about splashing, about that land off the end of November Street up through to the Grandfather Tree behind the Kendi? Does council slash that? Speaker 6: So, I'm not aware of the circumstances of that particular parcel and that area. So, I can't answer that truthfully. Okay. Speaker 2: Can someone tell me that?
04:25:00 Speaker 10: Which area are you talking about? Speaker 2: Well, the land behind the back of the, you know, where the Catholic Church is on Marendal Street and head down that road. And there's a, I understand it's community land. Marendal Street back up towards. Back towards behind the Kendi heading towards. Does council slash that? Or who manages the maintenance of that open space then? Speaker 10: I'm not sure which area. Councillor Jurisevic: I believe that's between Marendal Street and, the council's referring to, between Marendal Street and. Cydanie. Back towards council. It's Cydanie? Speaker 10: It's Cydanie. It's Cydanie. So that's the second piece. So the real piece we've been focusing on is between Wareham and Marendal. Yes. And then Marendal, where the Kendi is, Marendal through to where it's Cydanie. Cydanie. Is a different piece. So I'd have to go back and have a look at that. Yep. In more detail. Thank you. Speaker 3: Is that, that will be part of the foreshore plan then? Speaker 10: Well, we're looking at the whole foreshore, the whole of the lake.
04:26:00 But the immediate piece that's been causing the issues currently is the Marendal, but we're intending to look at the whole foreshore of the entire lake as part of this specific plan. That's why it's such a big issue. Speaker 2: So part of that though is I'm asking, within that whole area, what can council do now? Speaker 10: Well, there are some pieces. For example, the end of Marendal, is it? No, Cydanie. The end of Cydanie is where the land is owned by the state government, the roads part. That's currently at and looked after down to the lake. So there's some sections in there that are owned by us, owned by them, looked after by us, a whole range of things that we just need to look at. But I'll take that on notice and have a good look at it. Speaker 2: Okay. And then through the chair, I have another question. I drove down there this morning on my way to work. There's fencing up on that property.
04:27:00 Where in the street? Where in the street? Yeah. There's like a big piece of fencing that says you can't get through there. There's construction work going on. How long has that been going on for? Speaker 10: Works that are going on there. So that's being dealt with through various groups within our organisation. The fence does encroach, and there's no question, it encroaches onto the road reserve. It's been put there from a safety issue. We've had, I think, my staff in discussions with the landowner there in terms of the process to have that done. Speaker 2: And will this also come under part of this? Speaker 10: No. That's a separate thing. It's just part of that construction of number one road in the street. Okay. That's a separate thing. That fence is part of the development application. It's part of the development. So whilst it gets caught up in this, it's really a separate piece in terms of this construction
04:28:00 on that side. Speaker 2: And is this some of the complex tenure issues around the foreshore? Speaker 6: Some of the complex tenure issues are lack of consistent definition of where the property boundaries are, and whether it reflects the cadastral boundaries as shown on the actual plans that we've been bringing up, or whether it reflects where the property boundaries actually relates to high watermarks. And there's been various legal advice to confirm that. So it's about knowing where the boundary is of the private land and the lot. And then that has complexities, because if the boundary is at the high watermark, then that means that even public access would need to be through the foreshore, which is between high water and low mark. And that gets quite complex in terms of it's actually not necessarily within Council's jurisdiction. There's also, and I'll raise this in the planning committee, there's also some
04:29:00 unresolved TMR land, from when there was a proposed decade ago for a bypass where land was wanted. Now, that proposal is long gone, but there are some unresolved land tenure questions concerning that as well. And the foreshore management plan would explain that. I think it's a very clear indication of who's got rights to do where as part of the primary information in the research documents that we do. Speaker 2: And given the body of work that's going to be required with this foreshore plan, and the community is asking for something to be done sooner rather than later, and we can't raise it to expansion if that can happen, how long do you think it's going to take to work for all the issues? Is that five months, one year, five years? Yep. Speaker 6: Between six months and 12 months, you know, to be realistic. And noting that we have to go through the process of a project plan, consultation plans,
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 researching information, and then engaging with all the groups, you know, to get a good understanding. As well as government departments. Yep. Speaker 13: In terms of project planning, will you be consulting with the State Council? Will you be consulting with a stakeholder reference group? And a diverse group of stakeholders. I'm talking community, park-run, local, state, traditional owners, local businesses. Will they all be consulted as part of the project planning? And will they be able to assist with the development and implementation of this plan? Speaker 6: Yeah. Similar to Eastern Beaches, there will be a community consultation plan. So, as we go through the process, we're going to be consulting with the State Council. You know, get our mind around the project. You know, if it's endorsed by Council. We've determined the best consultation program. It could involve a stakeholder reference group, whereby we nominate specific, you know,
04:31:00 representatives from different interest groups. Or we could have a very targeted program where we go see them directly, and bring the findings to the Council. So, I suppose Council may see the benefits of having a stakeholder reference group, but there are other ways of achieving really high quality community consultation. Sometimes, having a stakeholder reference group, and particularly in this case where we have a lot of angst from different stakeholders, can be a little bit disruptive to the process. Sure. So, we'd need to weigh up the pros and cons of whether a stakeholder reference group is merit. But I do concur that we need to scale community consultation. Speaker 13: Thank you. References made in the report about a comprehensive community consultation process. And, you know, I think it's important to note that there are a number of different approaches to this. Can you give me a little bit of detail about that? Well, I've referenced the Eastern Beaches Portial Management Plan, so I have an idea. But can you just go through methodology? Speaker 6: Well, we haven't started the project yet.
04:32:00 So, I need to point that out. And every time I start talking about the project, and looking at it, then we're actually diverting our time from Eastern Beaches. So, we went through the process of preparing a consultation plan for Eastern Beaches. We distributed that to the councillors for their review, and we've started implementing it. I don't necessarily say that we would replicate the Eastern Beaches consultation program. This is a different . But you can see the level of rigour that's been applied, and the very careful staging of information to the community. And we'd apply the same approach to Lake Doonella. But we need to look at the relevant community groups. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, there'd be considerations of other elements as well as the industrial area, the residential areas, and the bridge, and things like that, as well as the inflow of a creek. So, that would have a different range of parameters, I would imagine? Speaker 6: Yeah, definitely. So, . Speaker 13: And Eastern Beaches Portial Plan, that's, when we look at the geographic area, I think
04:33:00 it states 11 and a half kilometres south-east of the National Park to the south. Is that correct? Speaker 6: Yeah. I think the actual catchment would be still quite considerable. And I don't know the kilometres, but, you know, now the bushland reserve and interface with residents would be fairly considerable to the Eastern Beaches. There's hundreds of properties that interface with that bushland reserve. And I think our recommendation to look at the whole of the Lake Doonella foreshore is to prevent the issues that we're seeing with Warren Street and Shewell Street replicating around the other foreshores of the lake. So, I wouldn't want to understate the scale of the Lake Doonella foreshore. I put it at a similar scale to Eastern Beaches, in terms of the number of impacts. Speaker 13: Which would support the recommendation that we have in front of us. Thank you. Speaker 8: Look, I'll speak in support of the motion. It is, as we've heard, it is a considerable body of work. There is considerable community pressure and angst out there at the moment, and it is, for
04:34:00 us, a problem. But I do appreciate it. It's a high priority for residents that live along there, and that are really concerned about clarifying issues of tenure and access. But, rather than rushing it and handling this in a reactive way, it is worth giving it full treatment of a foreshore management plan. Lake Doonella is a very important natural asset. The people that live along the foreshores would like to be given proper consideration of a full-time process. As we've heard, there are various departments within Council that can address reactive issues as they crop up, such as litter and illegal encroachment that may come from a construction site in the short term. But I think consideration as part of the budget process is the way to go. Even though this has just cropped up, and Eastern Beaches' foreshore management plan
04:35:00 has been many years in the making. We do recognise the importance of giving this community around Lake Doonella access to proper process to fully assess all the issues. So I support the motion. Speaker 14: I support the motion too, Mr Chair. I think it's very important. I think we go through the proper process. There are competing opinions in the community. There's community angst. It's very important to those residents. I think it's very important that we go through the proper process. But we need to undertake. We do it all the time. Proper and due process. Formulate a plan and take the community on the journey. And also very much, you know, have it involved and look at the costs, costings associated with it through that budget review process. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 8: Councillor Pinto, would you like to call for the motion? Speaker 2: Okay. Can I just ask one more question? Of course.
04:36:00 I'm just wondering if you can explain to the people who have applied for something to be done around this area, have we exhausted all avenues for mediation with people to get any other, like, outcomes? There was a meeting with 10 community members present with Councillor Lorentson and Jurisevic with Mr Sengstock, with matters to be addressed. How do you think we've gone with mediating this community before we've had to call short plans? Councillor Jurisevic: I believe that was the mediation outcome at that meeting that was. It came as a result of that meeting, right? That was the process I suggested. It seems to be the process that was agreed by all parties that this was the best way forward to resolve all the issues. That's why I proposed it. Speaker 2: And was that, do you think that was the fair representation of the whole community? Councillor Jurisevic: I think it was understood by elements of all those that were associated with this. They understood and they accepted that this was at least a method going forward and they
04:37:00 all seemed to acknowledge that it was a good outcome to achieve the desired results in the long term. Speaker 8: Councillor, oh, sorry. Mr Sear, do you have anything you'd like to add to that? Speaker 10: Yeah, so this is the letter that, sorry, Councillor, just gave it to me, but a letter that we wrote back to the landowners along there addressing some of the issues that we discussed, both with them and also at that public meeting with the resident, the community. The public stairs at Waring and Shield Street, so we've already done some work on those stairs in terms of making them safer. There's still work to be done, but we've done what we can at this point in time, given our budget and time of resource issues. So we'll do more if we can go forward. Stormwater drain in Waring Street is being addressed. We've done some analysis of that and we've got two or three options that we're just now deciding which one to address there. The property boundaries is really, we've been working very hard on that with the surveyors
04:38:00 and we're trying to get everybody aligned with that. So that's been a long and lengthy process, which hopefully has been resolved. The pet department and then the Portual Land Management Plan, which is the piece we're now discussing. So they're all the elements that were mentioned there. I do admit that there was the piece about the pile of rubbish or the leaves that accumulate up on the end of Waring Hill Street. So we'll address that as an operational issue. That's not an issue for us going forward. But yeah, we've done that. And to be honest, the biggest piece of this is to get, to take a step back before moving forward. And that's to take a step back and do this, the full investigation and operational plan. So that we all have the opportunity to have our say in terms of community as well as council to then move forward with the plan. So we've done that.
04:39:00 That's an interesting question. Because obviously we're not going to make any progress on that, is that correct? No, we're not going to make any progress on that. So the other piece we wanted to discuss was around the construction of the White House and the cabinet. So the Council of Council and the Council of Councils have said it's a very important project. And it is definitely a very important point because there's a lot of work put in place to do with it. Councillor Jurisevic: And the other consideration that was raised by residents in that area was particularly for a bush care group in that area. I believe that we've looked at our resourcing and somewhere in the new year that we would be considering communicating that to them as well. Speaker 10: The bush care are doing that and NYTRA are also doing a study that's good, more than support as well. Speaker 13: In regards to some of the concerns of a community, would it be okay if we could give them an update in regards to some of these outstanding issues through the CEO? Speaker 10: Absolutely. I think our focus has been on this process and dealing with everybody's angst.
04:40:00 Speaker 8: Councillor Stothwell and Mr. Clowes. Speaker 7: Do I have a chance? Speaker 8: Unless Councillor Finzel wants to speak to them. You don't have to. Councillor Stothwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say, I think the solution that Councillor Jurisic came up with is the right solution. There's no doubt that it would be very valuable to have a foreshore management plan. I take on board that Councillor Lorentson was voicing the views of some of the locals there that see it as an urgent need. The thing about budgeting in local government is where dreams meet reality, and the reality is, we haven't got sufficient resources in this budget to do both this and a much higher priority plan. As we've identified during the question, it doesn't stop, if there is urgent environmental management or waste management issues that come up, they are dealt with as operational business, it doesn't require a foreshore management plan.
04:41:00 There are lots of values around Lake Doonella, both environmental and recreational, and I probably have, I've lived in the early 2000s on the other side of the lake, I take one or two scout hikes with, you know, up to 100 kids around Lake Doonella, and then have to take them onto roads and footpaths each year, and so I know there's a great benefit to have off-road walking facilities, I run environmental education as part of those processes, it's one of the most important things that I've done in my life, and I think it's a great There's all these opportunities that a Lake Nineveh foreshore management plan will address, but it's not in this year's budget. So, while there is a great work from a vocal group of local people who want to see change, that's their role, is to get into where it is and say we want more resources to come to us. It's probably very similar to the thousand people who signed a petition who wanted to get a bikeway between Cooran and Pomona.
04:42:00 Because they had this really clear route that was identified as the quickest way, but there was tenure constraints, we couldn't proceed. So we have to be in reality. So it's, to me, I don't want to get the hopes up or I don't want to ruin the enthusiasm, as we said, we can start with a, as Councillor Jurisevic said, if there's an ability to start with a bushcare group where they start working in the areas of most importance, that would be a good start. That would be a good thing. And the other thing, I suppose, is what I'd really like to say to the community is we've got respectful members of our local community on either side of this debate, and both sides are feeling significant stress. It's unwarranted, it's unneeded. And so, since it's our last committee, how about the priority and the urgent action is to show respect, show respect to your neighbours, show respect to the place that I am going to know,
04:43:00 and show respect to the abilities that you've got. Show respect to the ability of people to enjoy what we've got to offer without disturbing other people. Speaker 3: Can I just ask? Speaker 8: Put the motion. Speaker 3: Can I just ask? Speaker 8: The debate can be put the motion as in favour. That's Councillor Stewart. Speaker 2: No, we're not allowed to vote. Speaker 8: Councillor Stewart. You're allowed to vote. You can vote. Yes, yes, yes. Speaker 2: All the same? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 8: It's in animals. It has nothing to do with eastern beaches. You're all outstanding. You can vote. Yes. That's your numbers. Okay. Next item is the material change, thank you, Sean. Thank you, Sean. Thank you, Sean. Material change of use, motorcycle scooter sales and repair and caretaker's accommodation situation, situated 16 Weenie Street, Noosaville. Report to the Director of the General Committee, page five of the General Committee Report. Hello, Kerry. It's me. Wrong report. I have a report.
04:44:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Just a brief overview, please, Kerry. Speaker 3: All right. This application is a big approval for a motorcycle and scooter sales and repair business, as well as a caretaker's accommodation building. It's part of that. So, the application is a big approval for a motorcycle and scooter sales and repair business, which is recommended for approval in part. This is a recommended approval for the motorcycle and scooter sales and repair business. That should be considered appropriate in the industrial area. But certainly, repair component is industrial. So, a roof and showroom component is ancillary and will really affect the social issues in the industrial area. However, the caretaker's accommodation is recommended for refusal. The applicant grounds for wide and thick the accommodation building. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
285 minutes in ¶
04:45:00 The new scheme has been fairly clear on that, in that it seeks caretakers in the industrial area to have an operational impact, whether it be the manufacturer that runs the machinery 24 hours, that will come to change. The grants employed by the applicant, which are detailed in the report, do not warrant a caretaker for the population. In fact, take away from the ability for the applicant in the future to expand his actual industrial business. So, yes, it's recommended in approval for a chart, and that review will allow us to take it. Speaker 8: Questions? Councillors? Councillor Jurisevic: I've just done, yeah, on the page 12 of the report, mechanicality provisions, where it states, while the caretaker accommodation is identified as consistent use within the zone, that is under certain parameters.
04:46:00 Speaker 3: That's right. In all requirements, in all development in Shire, it may be identified as consistent. But it must meet the scheme's requirements. And our interpretation is that it does not meet the scheme's requirements. Speaker 13: Is this the first caretaker resident, caretaker accommodation application that we've received under the new scheme? Speaker 3: It is the first application that we've received under the new scheme. Noting that we've had a couple under the 2016 for caretaker documents, which I think will be all three of those. In appropriate, the industrial area did not have the operational needs. But really, the 2016 would like to be considered provision for us to maintain the approval, and we have to settle it as appropriate for you. The 2020 scheme contains different provisions.
04:47:00 It's much more focused on ensuring you've got business and employment uses on the site, rather than residential uses that you're not going to find in the industrial area. Speaker 13: In terms of definition, operational need or genuine need for caretaking of a property, you mentioned 24-7 supervision. Are there any other genuine, can you give us some more examples of genuine need for caretaking? Is providing essential key worker accommodation, is that, would that meet the requirement? Speaker 3: No. If you're just purely providing sort of security services you're doing, there's not really an operational need. An operational need is if they've got machinery and equipment that runs 24 hours, and someone needs to be there to make sure if it breaks down or lands or locks, and I think you're going to need to return them on. But providing the ongoing security, I think it's going to be a bit more convenient if you're planning that.
04:48:00 There's not really an operational need. Speaker 14: Gary, this is a repairs place. Is there, and we all know things with COVID and deliveries and everything has changed so significantly, with things arriving at all different times now, would there be a justification that a caretaker being there could take delivery of packages that arrive, you know, after hours or before hours? Speaker 3: Yeah, we have done talks with the applicant about that. We've had proposed hours on Monday to Friday at 9 to 4.30am. So they've suggested they need the caretaker to... 4.30am? 3am. Oh, sorry, 3am. Speaker 14: Long day. Speaker 3: That would be a very long day. That might worry the caretaker today. Councillor Jurisevic: They probably need a bit. Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, 9am to 4.30pm. They've said they're standard operating hours. And they've said that they do have deliveries outside those hours. So we asked them, what sort of hours does that mean?
04:49:00 And they said, it depends on the value of the time. So they don't have to understand that. They're just saying they need it. And in my mind, most of the car yards, the villages, repairs, they don't start at 9. They start really early in the day. So the hours are fairly limited. Karen. Speaker 8: Karen, do you have your hand up? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: I've just got a question surrounding the owner's... Yeah. ...challenge due to COVID impacts on his business. And the shortage, as we all know, around parts and building things or water that people need to run successful businesses. So apparently, his insurance is not able to be secured for the stock because they can't put it on site. Something that would help towards that would be, you know, someone living on site, because
04:50:00 it can help this way. Mitigate. Yeah. So he can't have... I don't know. I'm sorry. It's been a long day. And this is just... Speaker 13: I think they're making reference to... He has two sheets where he keeps stock. Yeah. And apparently, that is uninsurable. Yes. That's... So one of the items he presented was that if that stock is relocated to this industrial site... Yeah. ...it would then avoid... Or he... ...he's been allowed to insure the property. Yeah. Thank you. If he is a caretaker. Yeah. If he is a caretaker, accommodation approved. Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Amelia. So does that hold... Speaker 13: Sorry. Speaker 2: So given the impact of COVID, which, you know, we don't know how long that's going to be, is it in support of business and for him to be able to proceed forward? Because he's been operating successfully since 2019, and we want to promote and support
04:51:00 business in this community for successful outcomes. Would we be able to have a temporary suspension of the plain thing codes, like a moratorium? Whatever that is. Moratorium. Speaker 3: Moratorium. Moratorium. Speaker 4: I'm not sure. Speaker 2: To enable this business, and perhaps other businesses in similar circumstances, to at least for the next 12 months, to look at supporting our business communities and the struggles around COVID and the associated impacts. Please. Speaker 3: Yeah. So my understanding of the insurance comment that's come to the applicant, and if I'm getting this through myself, is that they are looking to... They do have two off-site storage areas, where they have their parts and their back storage. And they're very much looking to... Speaker 2: ...bring them to the flat. And they can't at the moment, because they're going to be storing them outside.
04:52:00 Yeah. And thus they'll have the insurance issues, because they'll be outside. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that goes away if they have a caretaker involved. Well, I would submit that instead of having a caretaker, why not expand your building storage? And then you can do that like that. Yeah. So that's my understanding of what the applicant's saying. So yeah, I would submit to them that why not expand your actual business and employment industry on the site, rather than to the caretaker that deals with the insurance. Speaker 7: Can I just declare a... Speaker 3: In terms of COVID, I suggest all businesses can claim impact on COVID. And certainly all businesses can have significant impact on them because of COVID. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So as far as the building footprint goes, apart from the caretaker's residences proposed,
04:53:00 there is no expansion of storage facilities or current building footprint... No. ...with regard to motorcycle sales and... No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. It's a follow-on from the moratorium question. Yeah. And I'm going to break the golden rule and ask you a question. I don't know what you're going to say. Speaker 3: That's a bit dangerous. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is. This is an impact-assessable application. Speaker 3: Oh, that needs a check. Yes. Let me see that. Let me check that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 3: It is in pass or upon admission? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So as an impact-assessable application, we can consider the whole of the planning scheme. Speaker 3: Yeah. That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so I actually agree with your staff's assessment against the medium industry code is correct, and it is the interpretation that was intended by the initial planning scheme. Speaker 8: Can you say that again? Can you say that again, please, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think staff's interpretation of the intent of the planning scheme and what the provisions
04:54:00 for caretaker's accommodation in the medium impact industry zone code is correct. I think what we've been given is the correct way to interpret that code. Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As an impact-assessable application, can we have regard to other elements of the plan, including housing choice? Speaker 3: Ooh. Good question. So impact-assessable applications, the rules are much broader than . We can have regard to any other relevant matter. I would not think a caretaker is a relevant matter. And certainly strategic planning is not sitting that far as kind of our housing does, so I would suggest that that would come to the side.
04:55:00 Speaker 2: How's that? Should we have called it a day? Yeah, we've missed it then. We've missed an opportunity. Speaker 8: Okay, this is it. Commentary questions please. Speaker 3: My apologies. Speaker 8: Someone care to move the recommendation? Yeah, I'll move this one. Moved Joe, seconded by... I'll second it. Speaker 10: My laptop's gone dead and I couldn't find my charger unfortunately. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I can see where the staff are coming on this. I see every rhyme and reason for the material we're trying to use for the motorcycle. Scoot Sales and Repair to go forward and I understand the staff's reluctance with the planning scheme to approve caretaker's accommodation. I don't think the reason's put forward. Certainly deliveries outside of hours can be accommodated with phone call and an indication that a delivery is coming. These days when you get a delivery more often than not, you're being informed by electronic means that it's there.
04:56:00 I understand the aspects of security. But I am challenged by the fact that storage offsite is one of the applicant's rhymes and reasons for wanting a caretaker and the development doesn't include any additional storage to facilitate that. So I think that's a little odd. So I support staff recommendation. Speaker 13: Can I ask a couple of questions in regards to Councillor Stockwell's comment about an opportunity to provide worker accommodation? Has the applicant indicated that his staff work outside or is struggling to find staff and this is an opportunity for him to get staff to help him with his business operations? Speaker 3: That hasn't formed part of the application material to the staff. They have indicated that we've got housing priorities and it could be part of the application.
04:57:00 But I think we need to be very flexible about that. We have got, this is our industrial area. This is our only industrial area, our primary industrial area in Shire. We've got really limited industrial areas. And I don't think that providing the caretakers there is going to go very smoothly. Resolving the housing crisis in Shire is not going to create real conflicts between visitors. Residential visitors and industrial users just don't go very well together. You know, you can have a noisy business next door disturbing the caretaker, the employee, or whoever it is there. It's not the age to know how to handle it. We've got our strategic planning team working on a housing study. We've got the part of our analysis coming to Council this round. We've got a range of recommendations that will come forward to Council early next year. And the recommendations won't include accommodation in the industrial area.
04:58:00 Speaker 7: Just in response to the Councillor's question, I met with the applicant on site. The indication was when I first lodged the application that the owner was looking to reside on the site. And the caretaker is a resident. But he since has found accommodation. And he was just indicated that he had an employee living in a premises that weren't approved. Speaker 14: Kerry, we've talked a lot about not having approved STAs. Because of the diet situation we all find ourselves in. We've got a housing needs assessment coming up on the next item on agenda. This actually is traditional local accommodation. This fits the bill perfectly. I mean, it's already a structure. This is a question. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 14: He said the opportunity to revisit this as a holistic approach. When we're looking at the Noosa plan and all aspects of it, and we're taking into account
04:59:00 our local economic plan and looking at that across the board, is there the opportunity to revisit these areas? Because this, to me, is local accommodation in best form. Speaker 3: Yeah. And I think you've got a good point. Because if we're going to do it, we do it in a strategic set. We don't do it by application. We look at it more holistically across the Shire. So we do it as part of that housing study and part of that . Because if we approve this application, we're going to put it in the bar and it's asked for future applications . So we're going to be careful about that. Because if we decide that's not the way we're going to go into the future, then we've got an application that applicants will hold up in the appeal that we have . So if we want to look at worth of decimation in a gestural way, I suggest we don't do it as part of an application. We do it as part of a more strategic look around housing in the Shire.
300 minutes in ¶
05:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. We're finished. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks. Yeah. Just to follow up on that. This is going to be a conflict. If we did go down this path, if the applicant, or sorry, if the person that's living in the residence is part of the operation of the business, then I would assume that that conflict is going to be fine. Only if something either side or within the immediate proximity operated outside of normal business operating hours. Is that when conflict is most likely to occur, i.e. a 24-hour industrial operation as opposed to a 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. type operation? Speaker 3: Yeah. My record is certainly not to actually want the conflict to be on site at that moment. But if this is when we operate Monday to Friday 9 p.m. to 4 p.m., you know. Saturday morning. Councillor Jurisevic: Saturday morning when other businesses are operating, perhaps that would create conflict. Speaker 3: That's right. And if the industrial area can operate 24 hours, then there is no restriction. So you're talking about other businesses.
05:01:00 Yeah. Unless you're the one . Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a procedural question for you. Speaker 7: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is a suggested amendment that would keep all the existing conditions but conditionally approve a caretaker's residence for a limited period of time acceptable as an amendment, as not being a direct negative of the motion? Speaker 8: For the purposes of today and keeping it simple, I'm going to say it's not. Because it seems it's a key part of the staff recommendation, a key part of the motion. It's a direct negation of that. And to keep it simple, if you don't support, if you refuse to support, you're not going to use all of that. Kill off this motion and then put another one forward to keep it simple. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll talk to the motion. It is a very difficult one. In that, as I said, I've read through the code and the code talks about caretaker's
05:02:00 accommodation in the medium index industry occurs only when it's directly associated with industry activity on site and there is a demonstrated operational need for full-time caretaking. So I'm going to say it's not. The industry component of it is the repairs associated with retail. It's probably the one that has the higher value stock that would want to be a caretaker, you know, have a night watchman and get the high value deliverings outside of hours. Is ancillary to the primary non-residential use on the site and a small-scale component of the building or premises subsidiary in size, form and function? So it's that comment about being ancillary to the primary non-residential use on the site and the primary non-residential, not the secondary, is where we are caught. It's occupied by direct employees in principle non-residential use of premises. So the key thing here is that in a medium impact industry zone and potentially approving
05:03:00 it may cause a precinct. The mitigating factors is while we haven't encouraged that nature of caretaker in this particular precinct, the precinct at this point is very different to the rest, a large part of the median impact zone in that it tends to be small-scale like industrial service industry type uses on that side of the street that backs onto our depot. So there's the actual individual site doesn't create in me a concern about the reverse amenity. Yes, any one of those small things could perhaps want to go to 24-7, but it's less likely to be the case in that particular location. The concept with being the primary use is clear in the scheme. That's why I asked the question about can we consider other matters because as council, the housing crisis does necessitate some flexibility in our approach.
05:04:00 And in my opinion, as I said, unlikely to be adversely affected or constrained by the presence of care-taking units based on the existing land use tax. So to me, that's the difficult part. I look at what Carramar did the other day and they had a temporary worker's accommodation. And I'd probably go for a motion that supported it as a transportable building that would be reviewed say after two years temporarily. And that way we're not creating any precincts saying it is a response to the housing crisis. So the workers that have here are probably the, you know, I do get the bike service there, so I can tell you that they're of that age group that are finding it hard to find rental accommodation for children. So to me, I'm really, I completely accept the logic for why you would approve it, no
05:05:00 doubt. And it's only whether there is an overarching need as a result of the higher levels of a completely different element of the plant that would justify some precinct. And I'm going to listen to Bate more before I form out my opinion. But that's, to me, that's where we're at. Can I ask a question? Speaker 13: Mary. So what we're talking a lot about here is the roading process. What I want to ask you is if this application fails, can the applicant, after we follow due process, and possibly improve as part of our housing needs strategy, as part of the implementation where we look at or give consideration to temporary caretaker units in industrial zones, can the applicant at a later stage, when we have a policy on this, can we reapply? Speaker 3: Absolutely. And that is my particular advice.
05:06:00 And, you know, Council worked through the goals that they wanted to provide for worker accommodation in the industrial zone. We think it would be appropriate to also reduce it, reducing the fees that we pay for them. Yes. Thank you very much. Speaker 14: Kerry, is now, and this is a question for CEO, is now a time to amend this to include that? We will look at that or is that maybe something I've said about the issue? Speaker 8: No, the housing needs assessment. I would suggest the next item, the housing needs assessment. Okay. Speaker 2: Can I just ask this question? No, Karen. I was just going to ask, you know, we'll look at this and go forward, is a tiny house in the middle of a building, and they're not going to be able to take out something that you would consider as a, as an option for a caretaker in the industrial estate? Speaker 3: The applicant hasn't presented that he's found a housing issue, so it's not the county who's presented that housing issue to us. So you haven't said to us that they, that they're having trouble with housing.
05:07:00 They've noticed that there's housing prices, and there's actually a physical consent that they'll do. You know, the council wanted to approve some workers' accommodation or a caretaker's accommodation there, but what Dr Rowan suggested, I think it's kind of sort of a building, it would be nice to do that. You're putting sort of a permanent building there for three years, but there are a lot of adjustments that are going to be made to some of those accommodations. Whether he can actually transport it onto the site physically, I don't know. Speaker 8: So, would your concern be if council used this application to allow that sort of thing? Because there'll be a lot of applications to tap tiny houses in the industrial estate, which would be very hard to reverse then. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think they're doing it a little bit on the run, not this application, and they've got it very well in that place. And we need to do that a bit more well before we start continuing to use this application. Speaker 8: To move this debate along, I'd just like to say that
05:08:00 Council Morrison made a big point that if we've changed our approach to housing needs to the appropriate process, which involves a review of our approach to caretaker's accommodation in the industrial estate, and it does come under certain circumstances, and it may involve tiny homes or not, then that's the way to go. What I'm really struggling with is this has been an extremely long day. We have an application. It involves a discussion about a caretaker's residence. And we're talking about broader things that have broader implications for the whole industrial estate. That may be a very great idea that we pick up and run with, and it incorporates through a planning scheme amendments. But I think if we approve a caretaker's accommodation on this particular site,
05:09:00 whether they're a tiny home or not, we run the risk of starting a home, and we're going to have to deal with a lot of applications where we get outcomes we don't necessarily want in the industrial estate. And I note that there's nothing in the housing needs assessment report that says that the industrial estate should be used for accommodation. So I think we need to be very, very careful about decisions we make in this meeting, especially this late hour of the day, that may have unintended consequences. I'm also encouraged by this line in the report that says the business has been operating successfully since 2013 without a caretaker's accommodation. And that it is, in regards to security, they're responding to anecdotal evidence. There's been no voting on the site. There's anecdotal evidence that they're facing their concerns about safety on. So I think this...
05:10:00 Staff recommendation, Councillor Griffith's motion, is the way to go at this stage. And perhaps we can tease out the idea of resident accommodation in industrial estates in the next agenda item, which is the housing needs assessment, and get an idea of the correct process by which that can perhaps occur. I'll be supporting the motion. We're about halfway through the agenda for today, aren't we? And it's about 3.30. Can you order dinner in? Are you up to, Mr Chair? Look, yourself, Councillor Stockwell and myself are the only three that have spoken to this motion. Time has left. He's had... He wants to get... He's got a... It's Charles' graduation. I'm just going to wait for him to miss that.
05:11:00 He left at about 20 to 3, which, by which time, he had bought the... This meeting would have been a mile and a half away. Thank you. I'll speak, Chair. Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 8: The council will order. Speaker 13: I support the staff... Excuse me. I support the staff recommendation and concur that there's... He hasn't proven that there is an operational need for a caretaker's accommodation. I'm first to put my hand up and say that we have to consider economic and social benefits, that sometimes we have to allow some flexibility, especially in terms of, you know, in terms of small business and especially in a COVID environment or during a housing crisis. But I agree with the conversation that we've had today that we've got to just go through due process because there are bigger implications that haven't been considered, you know, at
05:12:00 this late hour of the day. And I don't want to make a decision that I'm going to later regret. So I'm happy to support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Speaker 8: Does anyone wish to speak before Jo closes? Councillor Stroud. Speaker 14: I was going not... I wanted to support staff recommendation, but there was angst about the caretakers because I acknowledge that this is actually work for accommodation. It's tourist form. But I agree that we need to go through the right proper process. And I think we need, as I said, to carry a holistic approach. And revisit this, but in a different way, in a different form and through the housing needs assessment or in workshops and really take on board what that means and what are the implications. So I will be supporting staff recommendation in this instance, but I hope to and look forward to further discussions around this opportunity and what it means for our community.
05:13:00 And it may not be the right way to go, but it may be in some areas, but it warrants further discussion and it warrants further consideration. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Councillor Finzel. Speaker 2: Yeah, I would like to just reiterate, you know, where the discussion's gone today. I will support the staff's recommendation, but I'm happy for the narrative that has started here today. I think we do need to go back and look at essential key work and accommodation as part of our strategic conversation. So I think, as has been stated, this is important. I think we need to do it. So I look forward to that. Speaker 8: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, Mr. Stewart. I had a question. Oh, I think you can. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I obviously made an indelible impression on you. Speaker 8: Sorry. What did you say? Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I will close.
05:14:00 It's interesting. Sometimes I get frustrated when we go off on tangents, but in this case I think there's been some valuable discussion come out of this. However, with regard to this application, some of the rhymes and reasons for wanting the workers' accommodation were around security and around storage. There's been no element of this application that seeks to increase the storage to facilitate better security, better storage, and addressing the insurance issues. The site is well fenced and, as Councillor Stockwell alluded, abuts the council's defo at the rear. Speaker 10: So it's got some quite good site lines at the rear as well to be protected from. Councillor Jurisevic: So those are the challenges for me in looking at this. I mean, I'm quite happy to further this debate with regard to this, but we've had an application not long ago before us for a number of residential units on one industrial lot, and no one sought
315 minutes in ¶
05:15:00 to seek that as potentially a great idea to further that. We actually scaled it. We scaled it back from the original application. So I think there is scope here to look at this and review this. The housing needs assessment is one of the next items coming up. We can go through all of this again in a minute if we like. But with regard to this application, as it stands, I'm quite happy to accept the staff and commend the staff outcome. I think that is the right decision here. And I think the applicant could have made some other operations there to facilitate these other needs. Speaker 8: I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's Councillor Lorentson, Stewart, Stockwell. I'm sorry, that's unanimous. Thank you. Speaker 14: Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Kerry. Next is the item up, is the housing needs assessment report, which is page 18 in the general committee.
05:16:00 17. 17 in the general committee agenda. Hello, everyone. This is Rowena. No conflicts of interest on this. Rowena. Welcome. Just give us a general overview of what we have before us and what you're asking us to do here today. Speaker 4: Councillor, this report brings forward a new housing needs assessment for the Shire. So it's a technical report on the context of housing in households. Communities right across Australia have been reporting a lack of reporting on housing needs, affordable housing, a shortage of permanent rental vacancies, and struggles for first home buyers and residential households, particularly in securing appropriate housing. Nationwide housing prices have led to federal parliamentary inquiries, the contribution of tax and regulation on housing affordability, and supply in Australia. And this is at the very pointy end of that, because it's a desirable coastal holiday
05:17:00 and lifestyle destination. Permanent rental properties have become occupied by new resident owners or have moved into the short-term letting market. Rents have increased significantly and are now largely unaffordable for low to medium income households. Businesses, government services and community sectors are all struggling to attract and retain new workers, where permanent accommodation is lacking. And this has caused some businesses to want to move out of their homes. And so we're looking at housing in the space of long term, local residential housing, even Shire in search of a more affordable community. So it is as our council has pointed out previously, at a crisis point, and they're having both an economic and social impact on Shire. This study looks at what housing needs there are moving forward, what's happening at the
05:18:00 moment, and what council might do in this space. This housing assessment will inform a housing strategy to come to Council in the first quarter of next year and also today we're looking at Council committing funds to advancing feasibility assessments on two of its own properties for housing outcomes and to initiate skin amendments. Speaker 8: Thank you. Any questions for Rowena Skinner? Anyone care to move a motion? Hopefully he's in a hurry to move in. No, I'm happy to move it. Move. Councillor Stockwell? I second. Seconded. Councillor Lorentson? Brian used to speak.
05:19:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do, yes. It's an excellent body of work that includes generally what we see in housing needs assessment. But for me, obviously... I've read a few of these over the years, decades, and it does go into areas which provide the much richer picture, which is really useful. You know, we talked earlier on about, you know, the postcode by postcode analysis of current rental vacancies, you know, a really vague theory. It goes into things like the fact that there seems to be a reduction in the number of pensions of people that's receiving social support and whether that's a result of they can't afford to live here anymore. And that's really interesting because I was talking to a pensioner the other day, yesterday actually, who owns his own house, but just went through how he spends it and said, you know, even without having to pay rent, he has a hundred bucks left for a fortnight to buy food, and that's fairly typical. And you read in here that 71% of people over 65 in Tewantin are on the age of pension.
05:20:00 There's another one there which... It was very interesting, and that's a statement, and I thought I copied it, I haven't, I hear it is. The data suggests that in Noosa Shire, the most frequent, I'll take it that's the modal value, total personal income range for both was 20,800 to 33,799, the most frequent. Compared to the state figures, Noosa Shire employment was overrepresented in the lower wage segment. So, in March of this year, Noosa Shire saw the largest growth of inward migrations in capital among all local government authorities. Since 2016, in-migration has been increasing and fewer departures, most notably in 2020.
05:21:00 People already living in coastal and regional areas stayed put rather than moving to more populated cities, and that's because of lockdown. The usual appeal of the city was lessened, and university students studying remotely online. We go on, and there's some observations that, in general terms, demand of housing and holiday rentals is far exceeding supply. And it talks about research by the Reserve Bank Australia that shows that housing prices are typically more sensitive to changes in interest rates in areas where land is limited and more expensive. They suggest a low interest rate increases housing wealth inequality, while higher rates do the opposite. So, in a low interest rate period, where the amount of investment in housing has gone through the roof, in a council where we have limited supply. And if you happen to have some land, the report notes that it's Queensland's most significant annual rise in residential growth.
05:22:00 That's construction costs on record. That means we've never seen these conditions before, in Queensland or in Noosa. And what does that mean? So I've mentioned some tensions, but also it talks about the Equity Economics Nowhere to Go report, that the benefits of providing long-term social housing to women that have experienced domestic and family violence is important. It states that family and domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness for women and children. So, for all these reasons, this council has to take an interest in what is proposed, which is a housing strategy. For all these reasons, we do have to go further than previous councils have gone. Because elsewhere it's talked about the only way to address the need for social community housing and to find affordable housing,
05:23:00 or something that may be subsidised so it's getting close to 30% of your income, is by investment. And it talks about the need for a housing strategy that creates partnerships. Partnerships to deliver social and affordable housing with state government, to increase social housing supply in Noosa Shire, the number one priority. With the Commonwealth government, by seeking funding commitments for housing in Noosa Shire. With community housing providers and other local governments. And as, in our intro, investment, committed by council to deliver the agreed actions and advocacy. So, to me, this body of work has really set the scene for why it's important that we take a big step early in the new year. And it's really timely that it came at the same month as the economic development strategy because they are both so intricately linked that we won't be able to achieve either.
05:24:00 Without our companies, we don't do it well. And it is probably the chance of this council to make a difference to this local community. Speaker 8: Thank you. Stockwell. I'd like to move amendments, Chair. Mayor Stewart. Yeah, amendment. I'll second it. Speaker 14: Thank you. And that amendment is that F be added as follows. That we advocate to the state government for a holistic review of all state property assets for their potential short to medium-term housing outcomes, including crisis housing, social housing, affordable housing. And B, to work with council to identify new opportunities for state housing investment in Noosa Shire. I move this amendment because this is very much an issue for the whole community. We know that housing is a state issue and it's one that we, as a council, are taking on board and need to take on board for all the reasons that Councillor Stockwell said.
05:25:00 The request for a housing, state housing needs assessment report was raised with state in our housing action group last week. And it was flagged very simply with them that that's what we'd like. It's my belief and hope that after the request was put to them, that they will undertake their own assessment just as we have done with this report. It is fundamental that state are involved as housing is a state issue. Council have worked incredibly hard on this report and I thank Rowena for all her hard work on this. We've highlighted areas of land that are owned by council and acting within our parameters and areas we can control, we are now calling on the state government to do exactly the same. It's also important that the state take a holistic review of all their assets, their property to assess potential for short to medium-term housing outcomes, including crisis housing, social housing and affordable housing. Just as council is working with state through the housing action group, we're also keen to work with state to identify new opportunities for state housing investment in Noosa Shire.
05:26:00 This amendment puts that firmly on the record and acknowledges the importance and significance of this. This recommendation of this housing needs assessment is something that we as a small council have undertaken and achieved thanks to hard work of council staff. And now I'm calling on the state to do exactly the same thing to enable us to provide affordable social community housing for the residents of Noosa Shire. Speaker 8: Thank you. Well, the council's wish to speak to the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Joe. I couldn't agree more. I think it is the state's responsibility and the state have been negligent in their responsibility in looking at these opportunities over time. They haven't been building stock. They've been using private subsidised rental accommodations. Instead of building their own stock. They haven't been looking at the opportunities that sit there right in front of them.
05:27:00 They've been relying on private developers to do things and then when we turn around and make an application for them to consider private developers to add a component of social need housing in those developments, they turn us down. We've got developers sitting on the answer fire. One of the developers is the state government. So this is absolutely the loudest scream that we can do. It's a bellow at the state government saying pull your finger out. Turn around and do your job and actually start to facilitate this better than you have been. It's falling back on councils to turn around and tell them where the shortfalls are. Speaker 10: It's not good enough. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean there are so many unused state assets that we've discussed around this table at various times that frustrate us to the next degree. Community opportunities for state assets, let alone the need for crisis housing, social housing and affordable housing.
05:28:00 I can't support this amendment strongly enough. Well done, Mayor. I think this is the loudest voice and the loudest shouting that we should do. In fact, I'd go one step further. We should take this to the LGAQ and have 77 councils belting the state over the head and turn around and take their responsibility and seriously look at all of their land assets. It's not just the ones that are sitting there under certain departments. All departments, including rail, including TMR, including every last one of them. Turn around and actually go back and look at their... Sandy turned around and took this to them and half of them didn't know what land they bloody well owned. And yet here we are as council, we've turned around and identified their own passes of land that are ready for redevelopment and opportunities for redevelopment. They can come to us. They don't have to wait for us. They can do what they bloody well like when it's their land. But it would be nice to turn around and work in conjunction with this
05:29:00 and actually facilitate things, particularly within the Noosa planning scheme. So I can't commend this amendment enough. I think you could go even further. I think there's a strong voice here from all councils that need to go back to the state. So do your job. Speaker 8: Thank you, Joe. Can the councillors speak for the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will do it. Speaker 8: You don't have to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: He wants to. I do. I agree with the amendments and the observation. I was councillor in terms of the historic under supply of community, social housing, public housing in Noosa Shire. I think it is good to actually also acknowledge that there has been significant new funds made available by the state for housing partnerships like we're proposing to do.
330 minutes in ¶
05:30:00 So I'm just quickly looking at the housing investment fund announcement. I've seen here October 2021 is a $1 billion housing investment. We'll use the new housing proposal to add new social and affordable housing. There's also the fast track scheme. I think it's a kickstart fund which will provide capital for others. So there is obviously we could go to LGAQ and do it. But I think the government has heard. And I think the key on this one is, okay, yeah, we're going to work on some opportunities that we might be able to get funding for. But we all want you to also do exactly what we've done is to say, okay, we own these assets. How do we make the best use of them as quickly as possible? Speaker 8: Look, I support the amendment. There were, in terms of councillor Jurisevic's question about taking it to the LGAQ, I can assure him and confirm that at the October LGAQ conference,
05:31:00 there were no fewer than seven motions that were passed almost unanimously by the conference asking for the state to do more to address the housing affordability and accommodation crisis and to work more closely with councillors to address these issues. As Councillor Stockwell said, the state seems to have acknowledged that there is a crisis now and has changed their, is moving to address that. So I feel this invitation by the mayor to work in partnership with the state is a good one, the right way to go. And of course, I support it. Speaker 13: I'd like to just say that in the report, it states that there are state-owned properties in the hinterland that are zoned for residential development in underdeveloped and subject to native tribal claim.
05:32:00 So I'm quite excited about this amendment because I would love to explore options for indigenous housing on these sites. And this is a really effective way to advocate to the state on this matter and offer. Let's partner up and get some indigenous housing options on the table. Also, support this amendment because we need to be clear to our community. Many aspects of housing, of the housing market is outside the control of local government. So I like this because the community needs to understand that the primary responsibility for housing policy actually lies with both the federal and state government. And we need to be clear on what our role is.
05:33:00 And our role is, one, to facilitate and develop affordable housing. And we do that by ensuring that there's enough supply and mix of housing to meet the community needs and do whatever we can to encourage construction of affordable housing through incentives to developments. And looking at innovative projects to develop affordable housing. Speaker 8: All right, before Mayor Stewart closes, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment? Speaker 2: Sure. I just want to say thank you to staff for the great job. I think this amendment is timely. Thank you for raising that. And I think it's great that this council has supported the amendments and the staff to produce the outcomes and this needs assessment report.
05:34:00 I think it's a great resource and that will help us advocate and put this in the state's hands as well as further information to inform where we're heading. I think it's fantastic that we've got key reforms and clear pathways for housing opportunities. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor, you're talking to the amendment? Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. So, yeah, thank you. Speaker 8: All right, thank you. Mayor Stewart, do you wish to close? Speaker 14: No, look, I think it's all been said. You know, we've done our bit. Now we're asking the state to do theirs. Speaker 8: Put the amendment all in favour. That's unanimous. That becomes the motion and Councillor Stockwell has spoken to the original motion. This is really good talk today. I want to, Karen, if you wanted to. Speaker 3: It's fine. Speaker 8: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion about the housing assessment, needs assessment report?
05:35:00 Speaker 13: I will. This is a wake-up call for all of us. We're facing a dire housing situation in terms of availability and affordability. I want to thank the staff for really comprehensive housing needs assessment and for all the recommendations on how we achieve our housing goals and potential housing policy initiatives. I hope this data is used as a catalyst to attract and encourage innovation and investment in the types of housing that we most need in our community. I hope that when we do develop an action plan, we do so in collaboration with our community and stakeholders. And I just want to add that we actually want to understand local insights regarding housing needs. And understand from the local government that we need to be more inclusive in our social work. From a local perspective, a lot of the barriers that exist that may limit residential development or housing diversity in the market.
05:36:00 And finally, I just want to add that, again, data, data, data. Housing Needs Assessment Report provides us with the opportunity to make data-driven decisions about our housing needs and also economic strategies. Speaker 8: Would you speak before Brian closes? Speaker 14: I'll speak briefly. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, again, thank you, Rowena, and all the team for your hard work on this. It's exciting, and there's actually some meat in this. This recommendation authorises us to commission the CEO to look at detailed sites, investigations and scoping of opportunities at two specific sites, which is great. It looks to give us more information and more data. We know that housing is getting worse. We know COVID has exacerbated it, as has a desirable location and low interest rates when it comes to Noosa.
05:37:00 It's fundamental that we have this assessment. It will drive the strategy. And the strategy will include land use by two independent organisations, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, as well as Hornsby & Co, who are both very experienced practitioners in the housing sector. And so it's an all-encompassing report. And it's exciting. It's a step forward. And it's fantastic. So thank you, Rowena. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Someone could say, you know, this is a victim of its own success. I mean, you know, it's become an unaffordable place to live. But we're not alone. This isn't something you need to Noosa. This isn't something you need to Queensland. It's something that's hitting the entire country. And, you know, the conversations need to be had at a much higher level. One of the things that I think isn't being considered or being tackled within housing affordability is the amount of investment in investment housing.
05:38:00 And the federal government's policy on negative gear. And I would argue it needs review. You know, how many houses... Is it fair to negative gear in a... You know, how many houses... I don't know. I don't know. One or two. But, you know, endless. But there's other areas, you know, that I think we can also advocate. We talked about advocating for state. I think we've got an option here to advocate for the... Yeah. The proliferation of SDAs. I mean, you know, again, there's investment while other markets are low, people are turning around and turning to the housing market, which is giving a great return. So investment dollars are going into it and pushing up the price, if we can. So, whilst we facilitate endless investment, I've got no crumbs against investment.
05:39:00 I think there should be some limitations on the levels there. Housing and land supply. I mean, those are challenges. It used to be in days gone past that state and federal governments actually did the land development. Handed it off to developers. Well, developers are looking at their profit. Developers are looking at sitting on land supply and limit it so that the value of it goes up. Some of those things. Maybe some time constraints regarding letting those land releases out as to when land is available. But, again, I think we've, you know, one of the things that is the most substantial with regard to social needs housing and all the rest of it is the fact that the state and the federal government, they both have a responsibility, haven't done enough in their area. I think Scott Morrison missed out on the opportunity when COVID hit in making a lot of funding available for private land operations instead of turning around and saying, well, here's an opportunity to keep the building industry going and create social needs housing.
05:40:00 Let's look at the low end of town, not look at the top end of town and actually facilitate delivery of what's needed. You know, what's not being built and what's not being developed and what's not being facilitated. It's time for all levels of government, not just this council, all councils, the state and the feds to look at their land availability and consider where they have proximity to facilitate social needs housing, lower housing, and maybe go back to the concept of developing some of the land themselves so that there isn't a need for a developer to take care of all the readings and look at whether we can keep the cost down by facilitating it through some other means of private development and large releases. All of those things, I think, are concepts that need to be looked at in housing needs, housing affordability, and housing availability. Investors turning around and investing in FTAs and taking those out of stock for a quick
05:41:00 buck. It's great for the investor, but it's not good for the rest of the economy. As far as this report goes, Rowena, for you and the staff that have taken the time to put this together, I commend the work that you've done. There's some great in-depth information in there, a lot of detail, a lot of data, data, data, data, as Amelia has alluded to. It's great having the data, but it's a matter of using that data and acting on that data and actually getting it to the appropriate places. Again, the Mayor's amendment there. Let's keep dictating it, but also let's take it up to the federal system as well and turn around and let's see what responsibilities they've got. Championing this as a cause that needs to be addressed. When we cleared John's Landing, one of the elements that we had, we had a whole bunch of people there that were living under the poverty line and the rest of it. The challenge was that we had nowhere to facilitate them.
05:42:00 It took a round table facilitated by this council to get all of those stakeholders together to look at the challenges that were there and try and address it. Speaker 12: And it was bloody hard work because there wasn't anything there. Councillor Jurisevic: So this isn't a problem that's going to go away easily. This is a challenge for our community and a challenge for the entire country and the state to try and address these things. And to, not a time to sit on their laurels, but a time to actually get off your backside, do the job that's in front of you. It's all well and good spending billions of dollars on a new stadium for the Olympics. And I don't begrudge that. But by all means, make sure you're spending the billions of dollars on the needs of those that probably don't have the capacity to facilitate their own property. Done. Speaker 7: I'll set the limit. Thank you. I was timing it down to a minute. Speaker 8: At this stage of the day, I think five minutes is enough.
05:43:00 Yep. Yeah, I think that's enough. All right. Speaker 2: Can I just say something? Yes, of course. Speaking slowly so the state would understand. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll be really quick. Speaker 2: I just want to thank everyone that supported this because at the heart of this, housing is more than just shelter. It's about people. So I think we've sat here today and we've talked data, data, data, and we've talked about all the data and more data. But I think it's about the people. And I think it's about our most vulnerable. And I think it's how do we ensure women and children are kept safe? And how do we provide fair and equitable access to housing? So I just want to thank everyone here that's poured their, not only their skill set and their professionalism into these reports and data, data, data, but also the heart that's gone into them. And thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian, do you want to close? I will do. And I'll try and be brief. The recommendation, which is now up in front of us, is a big step.
05:44:00 So we've heard about, from the Mayor, about our item C there, about two council land properties that we're saying might be suitable for housing. We're going to spend $50,000, perhaps, on doing investigations. Some of those are quite a significant area of land. And historically, when we have these meetings and report in the media, then you start getting the people who are concerned about what might be happening. And I think it's really important to understand that what we're looking at is not Liverpool by the sea and the high-rise blocks of public housing. What we're looking at is purpose-built, small-scale things that fit the area. And the discussions we're having is, yes, we need to meet the needs. We need to meet the needs, the large needs of single women over 50 who are finding it very difficult to find accommodation. We need to meet the needs of people with disabilities, but also people who are working on low incomes who can't afford to live here. But we also need to find accommodation for people who are applying for jobs with Noosa Council, because we're trying hard to find the right people because they can't afford
345 minutes in ¶
05:45:00 to live here. So we're going to create, on the larger block, we'd be looking at a mix of community housing where it is a broad demographic that meets both the high need in one end, but also the broad need in terms of affordability to try and get people living in our town and being able to afford to stay there. The other one which hasn't been mentioned that much is item B, and that's resolve, prepare, amendments to the Noosa plan to advance housing. Now we just had a long conversation about one option which isn't in that report, but there are the options identified in the housing needs assessment, and there is once again a really good opportunity to, without the cost of review, how we can create conditions where we encourage others to try and start meeting these needs, a small scale and affordable
05:46:00 as well. Speaker 8: Thank you. I'll put the motion in those in favour. Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you. We're two thirds of the way through the agenda, today's agenda. Can we have it until tomorrow? All right. Next up, board and corruption control policy. Welcome, guys. Thank you, Leo. Thank you, Rowena. Councillor Jurisevic: Well done, guys. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What happened? Did he declare a conflict on this one? Speaker 4: Yeah, you're pretty good, aren't you? What do you mean? Speaker 11: Yeah. Speaker 8: So this is page 34 of the general committee agenda. Welcome, Di. Could you maybe, coming to the chase, tell us how this new policy changes from the existing policy? What are the main changes, please? Speaker 5: So as you know, it's part of our governance integrity framework, this policy, and we haven't had ... We still had the original policy in place in 2018, and we needed to as part
05:47:00 of policy review, look at it to the extent it survives. The main changes are around aligning it to the ISO standard, or fraud and corruption. So we've looked at inserting things to make sure that we comply with that. As well as the triple C guidelines that they've issued around fraud and corruption best practice for organisations. It's a priorised manual, and we went through it in detail to unpack that and see how our policy needs to align in order to that. So essentially, it strengthens that. Some of the key elements around those changes is it's as simple as the heading. So fraud and corruption prevention is now no longer. It's now fraud and corruption control, which is what we're looking at now. We're looking at what we expect the board should provide around it. It's other things like greater clarity around the terms. There was a bit of ambiguity, and we've kind of split it and made it quite clean as to what
05:48:00 is fraud, what is corruption, and provided staff and the public as well with more examples on the ground practically. What can that mean in an organisational perspective, so that people can start to understand and pick up that kind of behaviour. So we've looked at that. The other thing, too, is we've included clearer principles. They were in the previous version, but they were kind of hidden and embedded, so now we have a clearer set of principles that govern us. So zero tolerance to everyone having the responsibility to declare and basically speak up and report these things. We also have a new framework. You've probably seen that triangle in the document. So we didn't have a framework before. We now have a framework. We had the elements, but we didn't have a holistic framework that looked at fraud and corruption control, which is now in place. And it's simple things like this policy to what underpins our policy, which is a fraud
05:49:00 and corruption control plan. It talks about our leaders in organisations that look at managing this type of risk. And finally, clearer roles and responsibilities. Including for you guys as well. There was a couple of sentences in there. There was a policy around councillor role and responsibility. But now it's quite clear that, you know, if you do witness or see or view fraud and corruption, you need to speak up. And that's, you know, referring it to the CEO or the government branch as well. So overall, we've tried to just clarify it. There was one other element that I should mention is we never had in our policy a section that said how to report it. So the public didn't know where to go. As well as staff. And it wasn't compliant. So basic things like that have now been included so that it's quite clear that, you know, you can go to council. You can report it to the public.
05:50:00 You can come to the government branch. And we consider these matters in a confidential space. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. This is a serious topic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But I know that in your business office, you did say at one stage, board members are not allowed to report fraud, corruption, best practice. I'd just like to clarify that the ISO standard isn't a how-to guide. It's a fraud, corruption, control, best practice. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 5: How to control it. Speaker 8: Thank you. Any questions for Di? Can someone get a motion? Speaker 14: I will. Speaker 8: Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Mayor Clare? Speaker 14: Sure. This is an update of a policy that already stands but will strengthen and align our content to the relevant statutory requirements. It will seek to inform and assist employees at all levels of council, prevent, deter and
05:51:00 detect fraud and corruption. Key improvements outlined on page 35 of our agenda include policy title to align to CCC recommendations, greater clarity on key definition and additional examples to identify fraud and corruption, clearly defined guiding principles, identification of council's fraud and corruption control framework. An additional recognition of training and awareness as part of council's control measures. Clear reporting processes for employers, employees and the public and updated roles and responsibilities. This will strengthen council's governance framework and it's being reviewed every two years and thank you Di and Deb and all the team for your hard work on this. Great. Speaker 8: Thank you. We're here. Well said. Anyone need to say anything more on this? No, thank you. Would you close, Councillor? Speaker 13: No, I don't. I just want to recognise the government's department, Di and Deb, because over the last two years, well I've been here two years. Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. But you guys just get better and better and better and you take on board anything that
05:52:00 we recommend from human rights statements and every report and I just want to let you know that your hard work and your hard work and your hard work and your hard work and your great work doesn't go unnoticed. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Put the motion all those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you Di. I mentioned we didn't carry this one. Speaker 14: I wasn't planning against it. I wasn't planning against it. Thanks guys. Speaker 3: Oh, thank you. Two more to go. Speaker 8: Next up the financial performance report. Speaker 3: We're on our way from Missouri to happiness, okay? Speaker 8: Page 49. Trent, Pauline, I'm glad you find your job miserable, I'm only joking, it's just been a long day, I'm only joking, you've only worked six hours, come on, financial performance report for November, page 49 of the Janus meeting, I've got to get a miniature version of it, okay key points Trent,
05:53:00 Speaker 7: Council, we're five months through 2022, coming into budget review two, it's been four through January and May, operating position is positive, upside, wish to return you, obviously a number of emergent matters and variations have come through, come through BR2, that's obviously resulting in you riding more times, which I decided, it's just that we can have a stable position, We've got a significant amount of work program in place, $64 million, we've got the budget. Whilst we have only actually spent $11.9 million, we've got well over $20 million in significant
05:54:00 terms of contracts left and work underway. So, taking that into account, it seems to be that all externality is considered, whether that be pending wet season weather or uncertainty of borders throughout the state, any lockdowns that may occur as a result of that, the work Councillor Jurisevic: will continue to progress. With regard to that, are all those contracts that are left intended to be expended within the financial year, or some likelihood of Speaker 7: being carried over? There may be some carryover, at this point, for most of those contracts. They're intended to be? They're intended to be completed. There's more tenders in the way at the moment. I don't have a number of tenders going that laid out and some already out. Obviously, those, once they're let, will carry over into the next financial year, in terms of being the recent Noosa Parade and the Landfall contracts, which went through in the last
05:55:00 two years. So, it's a bit of a Deputy Mayor Stockwell: question. Just looking at the graphs, there's one that's probably the worst compliant, and that's page 55 when we look at cash expense code. So, the target is between three and six months, and consistently over the whole year we've gone from nine to 12.8. My recollection was, the last time the graph looked like that, QPC did a review and said, you should pay down $10 million worth of debt. My question is, well, we've just restructured debt and it's not a great time to pay down debt, but in our last report, there was the option of the potential strategy of land banking in wood, reducing our cash that's invested at low interest rates, and investing in strategic land reserves that could be used for housing for 50 years, 20 years, for the future. Is
05:56:00 that a valid strategy in a financial management perspective? Speaker 7: Potentially, capital, but what needs to be considered, again, is the rate of investment and not just the last 12 months of cash cover. So, what the forecast is long-term. So, part of the budget for SSHU, one of the first things we wanted to do was inform the 10-year forecast on what our value of cash cover is. And one of the challenges we'll see coming out is that we're in a very strong position now, but coming off the back end of a $54 million program, and a bail way for next year as well, is that we actually will, our cash balance will decline over the next 12 months or two years. Coming back out of that, there's potential once we have bedded down some of the longer-term capital work commitments not in there, for things like some of the major street stakes, coming out of post-making, maybe stock for some of those major items. Once you've got those bedded out and you've got some firm
05:57:00 understanding of what your cash commitment is in the three to five-year range, it's potentially more important to consider about how we reinvest those funds, whether it's, as you mentioned, land banking, whether it's reinvestment and reduction in money. And we can assess that and we'll do that each year. As you've seen, each year, if we get to the budget, we look Speaker 8: at what we do with that cash balance. So, just to flesh out that question, a lot of the money, the cash, is committed to work. So, the key figure in that graph to consider Speaker 7: is what the low point is. So, if we're sitting quite high now at 11.8, we're midway through the cycle. We've got another month or two before we hit the low point and we raise base again. And then the lowest point of the year will be June, July. So, you can see that in the graph there. If you look at December, you're down to nine range. So, you've got
05:58:00 an extra 10-month surfer podcast coverage for that. Speaker 8: That means, would that necessarily mean, if you had to, you could not spend it on capital works that you committed to and spend it on just running your organisation? Speaker 7: That's right. The idea of cash cover and the idea of having a sustainability indicator of three to six months is if we had a dire or emergent event, we were unable to level our rates, whether that's through, from a community perspective, or we said, you know, if we had an unfortunate five-a-time event occur, five-a-time or 11-a-rate in terms of delay, there is up to nine months' worth of capacity in our balance sheet to continue to long break down in the next 11 to 10 years. Speaker 8: So, the choice we could have made this year is buy $50 million worth of future housing or $50 million worth of capital works? Correct. Speaker 14: Treen, I've got a question. Just on page 52, economic development spend, we've got
05:59:00 $270 million. The annual budget's $950 million year-to-date, $330 million, and we've spent $270 million for the actual compared to the budget. Is there any reason why we haven't spent the full amount there? Speaker 7: I would have to take that on notice. It comes down to the timing of the various programs in economic development in terms of the additional support, the destination management plan, grant program, et cetera. And obviously, noting that over the last six months, our manager of economic development has been acting as well. He's been resourced, as you say, covering multiple areas. Speaker 14: Okay. And just on the statement of income and expenditure on page 58, $692 operating Speaker 3: results. Can you talk me through that, Thea? We're down $692.
360 minutes in ¶
06:00:00 $692 is the current budget. Okay. Speaker 14: Oh, okay, so that's all on track. That's fine, okay. Speaker 2: Yeah, so we're currently sitting at just like nine minutes. Speaker 14: So that's all accounted for. Speaker 2: And what does the payment figure, repayments of property, plant and equipment, on page 60? Speaker 14: What does the payment figure represent? Yeah, payments of property, plant and equipment on page 60. Just let me see what that represents. Speaker 7: Yeah, so payments of property, plant and equipment come relatively close to or form part of our capital expenditure. So we talked about a capital expenditure of $11.9 million. Some of that focusing on property, plant and equipment. Some of it's intangibles, some of it's software,
06:01:00 investing in developing software. And... Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 7: Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, Craig. I thought I understood why waste charges really, really well. And then I looked at this and I suddenly had a question. Waste management disposal fees are above the unit date, and I'm assuming that's the landfill. Waste management sale of recoverable goods, I understand that. Waste utility charges under rates and levy. I would have expected they were the... Charges that we associate with third-side collection, facilitation on the rate charges. Now, given that they are a fixed charge, and they appear on the rates notice, and that the general rate is at, well, slightly below the unit date budget, how is it that the waste utility charge is directly above the unit date check? Speaker 7: Yeah, that sounds right. Well, I mean, coming out of...
06:02:00 COVID? And... And a lot of changes to bin structures, for a lot of the larger rate payers. When we built the budget, we used the rate data we had at the time, which obviously, between then and now, there's been some significant changes to bin structures. Now, obviously... Councillor Jurisevic: But there's people taking their bins back, that may have not used them before, or they didn't budget for them. Speaker 7: Correct. So when we went through the scale back of business activity and business proposals, I suppose, we went through a process of promotion and reduction, so we weren't having paper charges. And then we've had a bit of a figure out of paper, and we've kind of anticipated an issue. Councillor Jurisevic: OK. That answers it. So it was really odd that the correlation between rates notices and waste utility charges just wasn't there. I was going, why is one ahead of the other? But thank you, that explains it. Speaker 7: Back to 14. Thank you. Speaker 8: That explains it. So when are the audited financial statements due from the last financial year?
06:03:00 Speaker 7: They were adopted at the annual report last round, that our team's government brought up. Nothing as well as public documents. Speaker 8: Oh, it must have been very many of the payments. Speaker 7: It was coming about this time of the afternoon, I don't know how long it has been. Speaker 13: Sorry about that. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I did have one over. Speaker 13: In terms of risk... No. In terms of risk on ongoing financial sustainability, page 56, it says that there are a number of risks, but you don't list them. Can you give me a summary of what those risks are and how we're addressing or mitigating those risks? Speaker 7: Sure. Now, what we obviously refuse to reference in this report, it doesn't have to be every month,
06:04:00 because obviously our strategic financial risks don't change that frequently. It's something that we can do, but it's accordingly a biennial report, so we can flesh that out. Thank you. In terms of our strategic risks, we talked about one before, which was about cash flow, and some of the payment coming in. So if we're unable to level our rates for a period of time, for every month that we're late, leveling our rates can be involved. We've got that kind of feeling. And then we have a $100 million operating budget, and we have a capital work budget of $150 million. So without the cash flow, top that up, we're fixed in. Thank you. That's a very good point. The other one is in regards to disaster management. So, what we do in our reserve and crisis past policy, keep an element of internal risk in the past, because 1% of our rates are solid.
06:05:00 We all know that we've been, not as important as we might have been in the Middle Ages, in terms of the strategic financial risk loss and impact of a major disaster. So if we were to have one, There are a number of different types of funding available, but it doesn't cover everything. So one major event could be a fire or a landslide, flooding, a heavy rain. Speaker 13: That's right. Speaker 7: The landslides keep going. So they're two key ones. Financial risk around infrastructure rises is a lower risk for us. But not funding impacts on commodity prices. This is one of the things that we can see now. And then we have a program in London. Geoscience, for example, at the moment. Which means design. Availability of other building materials such as what we have with Zimba. Either something that's as important as Zimba or in our funds can be difficult to do at this point in time.
06:06:00 That's great. And if you think of a 50 million, 54 million level capital program, a 10% price rise to $5 million a year. Speaker 13: And legal risk, will that be identified also in the report? Speaker 7: It will be identified. Great. Because we obviously, the work we do building around the base budget, and we're doing it as part of the budget as well. It's just coming through the notes we have today. You see that in the report. So make sure we're accommodating that in the bottom line. Thank you. Joe, you had a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Sure. Unity Water Distributions. Fun fact. Fixed each year. I know it's part of a loan repayment arrangement from the original concept of Unity Water being established between the three councils. Speaker 10: What point in time does that cease? Councillor Jurisevic: And is there no concept of a profit sharing arrangement with the other three councils with Unity Water Distribution?
06:07:00 Speaker 7: That's the take that I've noticed in terms of the timing essentially. Yeah. That'd be interesting. Councillor Jurisevic: I know it was established. I know when it was established. I don't know what that establishment period and loan repayment arrangement is and what happens after that. Speaker 8: I don't know. That'd be good. Anyone care to make a motion? Oh, yeah. Joe. Seconded Councillor Finzel. Joe, you wish to speak? Councillor Jurisevic: No. Look, thank you again for all of your efforts in this area, Trent. Thank you very much for both you and the team are instigating. Pauline's taken over the range really, really well there and keeping us well informed. And I think our position keeps us in good stead for the remainder of the financial year. Thank you. Speaker 14: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You go.
06:08:00 I think the new person in charge of Canada. Speaker 14: Yeah, the mentor. Councillor Jurisevic: That means you're spending too much time down with you. Speaker 8: Okay. All those in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. I will get a motion to move to confidential session now, please. So moved. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second. Moved. Carried unanimously. Speaker 2: Jurisevic? Speaker 8: All in favour? That's a no.
375 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
390 minutes in ¶
06:32:00 All in favour? The meeting will now be reopened. Livestream is on, councillors. Welcome back to the meeting. We have a recommendation. We'll put the motion all in favour? That's carried unanimously. That is the last item on today's agenda. I declare the meeting closed and I thank each and every one of you for your discipline and your patience today.