Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 9: Okay. Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that all councils are in attendance, although we are attending via Microsoft Teams, with the exception of Councillor Lorentson who is attending in person. Our acting CEO Larry Sengstock and those attending from our executive team and staff are also online via Microsoft Teams. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Seconder? Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. All in favour? Karen, can I have a yay? Speaker 8: Yay. Speaker 9: Thank you. That's unanimous. Thanks, Kath. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting? Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you. Second, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Aye.
00:01:00 Aye. Unanimous. Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Does anyone have any petitions? No. We'll move on to item five. There are no notified motions, no presentations, no deputations. That brings us to item eight on page four of the agenda, which is the consideration of the committee reports. We had no P&E and S&O committees this month, so we go straight to the general committee recommendations. Report one, contract number T000056, Cleaning NS Noosa Shire Council Buildings and Facilities Tender Award. Report number two, MCU20-0143.01 and OPW-2. Application for another change to a development approval occupancy and associated operational works to include short-term accommodation at 6 Angler Street, Noosa Heads.
00:02:00 I'd like to deal with this item separately. We have Kerry Coyle online for any questions. Does anyone like to move a motion, speak to this motion, or ask Kerry any questions? Speaker 3: I'm happy to move the motion as was the recommendation at the general committee meeting. I'll second. Speaker 9: Thank you, Councillor Jurispich. Any questions for Kerry? Speaker 3: Just before we do that, I think understanding orders, I have to talk before any further questions, and you have to move and second it. So I'll do so briefly. We had this debate in the committee. The last time we had a debate, the last time we had a debate, the last time we had a debate, The change over the last two years in terms of housing stock and terms of what we have read in the housing needs assessment clearly shows that there is an overriding need for more residential accommodation and there is little argument I believe
00:03:00 should be put forward to say that there is an overriding need or a planning need for additional short-term accommodation so I believe the grounds as put forward in the staff recommendation are appropriate in terms of the correct interpretation of the Noosa planning scheme. Thanks Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone else have any questions or would they like to speak? Councillor Wilkie. Yeah just a question for Speaker 5: Environment and Planning Manager Kerry Coyle please, Madam Mayor. Kerry the the application has been refused on many grounds but principally because it conflicts with some higher order elements of the Noosa planning scheme. For the benefit of those who are listening, maybe listening, could you explain what they are and why...
00:04:00 Speaker 8: Sure, you just cut out there at the last minute but I think I've got the gist of your question. But essentially the proposal conflicts with the planning scheme because the planning scheme seeks to maintain the area predominantly for permanent accommodation and it's clear from the information before us that there is a substantial amount of accommodation in the Noosa head. I think there are reports that some are over 40,000 40%, 46% of dwellings in Noosa head are being used for short-term accommodation. Now that's substantial. Now there's been a lot of information come forward in the last two years which demonstrates that we have a housing crisis and really show there is a great need for us to protect this stock for permanent accommodation and there's not the need for further visitor accommodation in the area.
00:05:00 So it's important that we maintain a range of accommodation styles which the median density housing zone provides for. Speaker 9: Anyone else, questions, or would they like to speak? Council Laurenston. Speaker 1: Kerry, we received an email from the applicant. I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. At the time of the application, and I've understood it's September 2020, the applicant was given assurance by the assessing officer at the time that his development would receive approval
00:06:00 from council and was compliant to the Noosa plan. How relevant is the time of lodgement and how relevant is that in the context of approvals? So there's been quite a bit of expense and time put into this application under the assurance that it would actually be approved. Is that a relevant given that it's now being refused? Speaker 8: I think we just need to take a step back there for a minute. I don't have the email from the consultant, but the application was lodged, was properly made on the 25th of August 2021. So that's fairly recent and that occurred after a lot of discussion in council and recommendations
00:07:00 to council about the housing crisis and the problems we were facing. And officers certainly at that time were recommending refusal of applications. Officers at the time contacted all applicants at Twine and consultants, explaining the reasons for that. And so all our local consultants would be aware of this position that officers have taken. You may be referring to pre-lodgement meeting notes, which were had in September 2020. Wherein the applicant asked for advice around building a duplex as well as short term accommodation. And certainly there was a range of advice, mostly centred on the design of the duplex dwelling. But there was advice given on the short term accommodation that an impact accessible
00:08:00 application is required. Now our officers, when an impact accessible application would not be telling applicants that the application will be approved. That's subject to an assessment against the scheme and subject to submissions. Of course, they would have told them that it was consistent, but it didn't comply with the scheme. Speaker 5: Just a clarifying question there, if I may. The statement that we've just heard that the applicant was told in September 2021 or that their application was going to be approved prior to the application being lodged, that is false? Speaker 8: Yes, that's false. The application was lodged in 2021 and that's August 2021. And as Councillor aware, officers have been recommending refusal of more short term accommodation since June 2021. Speaker 9: Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify that Kerry, why then does the application have an MCU number starting
00:09:00 with a 20 and operator work number starting with a 20? I thought that related to the year that they were lodged. Speaker 8: Yeah. So in 2020, the applicant made application for the duplex dwelling. So that's currently under construction at the moment. In making application for the short term accommodation, they have made application as an other change to that duplex approval. So that's why it's still dated that. The 0.01 signifies the change. Speaker 9: Kerry, would it have been possible when they made that application for the duplex to have an application in 2020 for the duplex that there were discussions, however informal, with staff about, we're doing this because we want to potentially short term accommodation or we want to potentially permanent let it? Could those informal discussions have been had at that time back in 2020? Speaker 8: Yeah. As I said, certainly there was a pre-lodgement meeting in September 2020.
00:10:00 And the discussion was centred around the duplex dwelling. But they did ask about pre-lodgement. And they did ask about short term accommodation. And officers advised that an impact accessible application would be required. Speaker 9: But back at that time, we were supporting, weren't we, medium, we were supporting short term accommodation in medium density residential. Speaker 8: That's right, Council. We're aware that there were three applications approved late in 2020, early 2021. But I guess my suggestion is that since June 2020, there's been a lot of discussion around short term accommodation and refusal. And this application for short term accommodation was lodged in August 2021. 25th of August 2021. So there has been a period of time where they should well have been aware, at least a consultant being aware, of officers' position around short term accommodation.
00:11:00 Speaker 7: I have a question. Speaker 9: Can you hear that, Kerry? Thanks, Councilor Finzel. I can. All right. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you, Kerry. Given that you're saying the applicant would have known by that time, in August 2021, that we were giving refusal, how was that communicated to the applicant? Speaker 8: Well, there was an information request to the applicant, wherein officers talked about the lack of need and whether they met the requirement for maintaining the area for predominantly permanent accommodation. So all of our consultants have been advised that we have not been supporting short term accommodation. But the applicant has chosen to continue with the application after they've lodged it. Speaker 7: And is there a record in that process that you received a confirmation back from the applicant that they would continue to proceed, despite the messaging from Council staff?
00:12:00 Speaker 8: I'd have to check in with the officer around that. Okay. But they certainly responded to the information request and chose to continue. So it is our practice to advise applicants during the information request whether we can or cannot support something. So we've advised them and they've chosen to continue. Speaker 9: Any other questions? Speaker 1: I do. I asked this question at the general meeting, so I'm a little bit confused. I think the question I asked Kerry was, does the housing needs assessment report, is that a change of policy direction for Council? Is it an endorsed policy? My understanding is the NUSA plan states that short term accommodation is consistent use in medium and high density residential zones. My understanding is to change that, if we need an endorsed policy, that states in the
00:13:00 general meeting that it's a change in direction. And when I posed the question at the general meeting, my understanding was we don't have an endorsed policy. Is that correct or not? Speaker 8: So our current policy indicates short term accommodation is a consistent use, but it is also required to meet the scheme requirements. And there are a number of requirements it must meet, including whether the area is being maintained predominantly for residential. So it's also required to meet the scheme requirements. So the housing study is not a change in policy, but what it is, is a lot of information around the housing crisis, which points to the need to maintain, the importance of maintaining housing stock for permanent accommodation. So it's not a change in policy. It's information. And there's a lot of information there to suggest that we should not be supporting short
00:14:00 term accommodation. Thank you. Speaker 9: Kerry, would it be fair to say in some instances, without that change of policy and going through the proper process, I mean an argument can be argued either way. Some of the information is subjective. So in that street, as an example, we have in our agendas statement, and I know we're looking at the whole area, but particularly in that street, 23% of the residential properties are used. Speaker 5: Point of order. Respectfully, Mayor, this sounds like an argument, which are you going to exercise your right to speak? Speaker 9: Yeah, I've not got a question. My question is, is that information subjective? Speaker 8: Planning is not black and white. You know, we really have to look at each element and decide where that meets the planning scheme. But we have a lot of information before us now, which points to the extent of property.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 There are a lot of properties in the area being used for short-term accommodation. And it's not a small number. There's a large number of properties. We've got a lot of information before us that shows that there is a need to protect properties for permanent accommodation. So I think we've got good evidence why we should be refusing these applications, and that we would be able to use if there was an appeal against us. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. There were a number of submissions, again, supposing the short-term accommodation. Can I ask the neighbours at 6 Angles Street, I couldn't find whether the neighbours had submitted a submission opposing or supporting the development application. Would you know offhand? Speaker 8: No, I'm not aware of where all the submitters were located. Sorry, I'd have to have looked that up before tonight.
00:16:00 Speaker 9: Any other questions? Karen, I can't see you. Do you have any questions? I have no further questions at this time. Thank you. Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? We've had Councillor Stockwell speak. Would anyone else like to speak to this, the motion before us? Amelia? Speaker 1: Yep. Thank you. To me, this is about interpretation of the Noosa Plan. And I've taken a different position to that of staff. I keep going back to what our job is, and our job is to look at the planning application and assess it on its merits against the benchmarks and outcomes that are set out in the Noosa Plan. So it's my interpretation that the application is, in fact, consistent use with the Noosa Plan. It is consistent with the medium density residential zone.
00:17:00 It is consistent with the Noosa Heads Local Plan and the visitor accommodation zone. Therefore, my interpretation is that it should be approved and subjected to relevant and reasonable conditions. Again, I'm a little bit challenged with the change in policy direction. So we don't have a change in policy direction, but we seem to be doing it by refusing individual applications. Again, my opinion is that the applicants just followed rules, the rules that were laid out in the Noosa Plan that were approved by the majority of the councillors that are today refusing the application. So to me, the application is consistent to the Noosa Plan. It should be subject to relevant and reasonable conditions.
00:18:00 I won't be supporting the recommendation to refuse. Speaker 9: Thanks, Councillor Lorentson. Would anyone else like to talk to this motion? No? Councillor Wilkie? Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor. Look, I'm back from the staff job to assess applications against the planning scheme because they are trained. They are trained. They are trained to read planning schemes. Councillors can make their own assessments, but that will always be an opinion. And unless you're a trained planner, it's not an expert opinion. And since July 2020, when the Noosa planning scheme came in, the intent of the planning scheme has always been to protect these residential neighbourhoods as principally for permanent residents. And we've had subsequent information that has shown that in many cases, a large portion
00:19:00 of these residential neighbourhoods have been protected. They've been converted to short-term accommodation. And the planning scheme is meant to respond to need. And this is reflected in our Housing Needs Assessment Report. It just shows we do not have a crying need for more visitor accommodation. We have a crying need for permanent accommodation. And in my opinion, we don't need a Housing Needs Assessment Report to show and indicate that the more visitor accommodation we have, the greater the need for permanent accommodation. The more visitor accommodation you have in a community, the less permanent accommodation you have in a community. This decision to refuse is consistent with the principles of the planning scheme. The zoning is one element of that, and I take that point.
00:20:00 But more weight has been put into higher order elements of the planning scheme, since we've discovered that already large and significant portions of residential neighbourhoods have been lost to short-term accommodation. Short-term accommodation and visitor accommodation have always been an important part of this here in Winchester. But what we're striving to do is get the balance right and preserve residential amenity, as well as ensure that there's a plentiful supply of permanent accommodation for the people that live and work here. Yes, the argument's been made that short-term accommodation creates jobs. But the problem we have is that we don't have that. The problem we have is that we have a shortage of permanent accommodation to house the people that work, want to work in the industry, service our tourism, and serve those short-term accommodation properties. So to lose more short-term accommodation, knowing we have a declared crisis on our hands,
00:21:00 not only in Winchester Shire, but Australia-wide, this is one of the principal reasons why this property is being recommended for refusal. And I'll be supporting staff's recommendation with this motion to refuse. Speaker 9: Thank you, Frank. Kerry, just a question. This application is for short-term or permanent, isn't it? It's not specifically just for short-term. It's to be able to use for both uses, correct? That's correct. They are looking to have an option to use either or. So they could use it for permanent, potentially? Speaker 8: They could. Speaker 5: That's right. I have this question, Kerry. By making this, once this refusal is passed tonight, if it's passed tonight, this will mean that the property can be used for permanent accommodation, won't it? Speaker 9: That's correct. Would anyone else like to speak? Amelia, you've spoken. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion?
00:22:00 Speaker 5: Tom? Speaker 4: Yes. I'll make a motion. Well, I support the staff's decision, recommendation. We have a housing crisis. And I keep following my doctor, who is an essential service person. And my gosh, he still has not found a place to live on a substantial wage and willing to pay $12.50 a week. So we have a crisis that's actually affecting our amenity or our standard of living, really. But we can't house our doctors. Well, we're in trouble. So I completely support that. The research that we've done within Council with Rowena clearly states that the short-term accommodation is impacting the ability of long-term rentals to stay here. So it's exactly right. I feel that this is completely consistent with the County Plan and I support the staff recommendation. Speaker 9: Thank you, Tom. Councillor Joe.
00:23:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I look up and care with the points raised by Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell and Wegener there. There has been no change in the Planning Scheme, correctly, but the Planning Scheme does suggest that we need to, or more than suggest, it reiterates the fact that we need to have a balance and apply that balance. We now know that we're at the point of saturation with short-term accommodation in certain areas, and particularly in this area. There is a range and a raft of options for short-term accommodation in this vicinity. So there is no need for more short-term accommodation. The situation that we find ourselves in is that if we get to the point of saturation or beyond saturation of short-term accommodation we have no long-term accommodation available for the people to service the other areas of business within the Shire. So it is prudent to reflect on the level of short-term accommodation available, the need for further short-term accommodation, and to refuse applications coming in next year.
00:24:00 Now, short-term accommodation, because we are at the point of saturation, beyond the point of saturation, where long-term residents cannot get long-term accommodation, and it is prudent for councillors then to support the Planning staff's recommendation to refuse further applications of this nature for short-term accommodation. So I support the staff recommendation. Speaker 9: Thanks, Councillor Judge. I'll speak to the motion. I pulled it out because at the General on Monday, it was 4-3, and since that time, so that's a close vote, it warrants and deserves a re-prosecution, which is what we're doing tonight. And on that, and subsequently since that time, we have all received an email from the applicant outlining some of their concerns and their point of view. Look, as Kerry said, it isn't black and white.
00:25:00 Planning schemes aren't black and white. The only thing we have black and white at the moment is the Noosatown Plan. And that is, and if we look at that from a purely straightforward point of view, under medium density, this is consistent, short-term accommodation is. If we look at the Performance Outcomes 6 of visitor accommodation, we look at how the importance we place on the privacy of residents, on the increase in noise, on the scale of use. We look at how the importance we place on the privacy of residents, on the increase in noise, on the scale of use. On the retention of primary residential function. Well, this is a dwelling, or two dwellings, that have underneath car park, that are basement, behind a gate, screened from the streets. The noise has all been designed to be contained on site. We haven't heard from the neighbours that they're of concern. There's a construction is robust, that is ideally contains any noise. And there's extensive screening proposed to reduce any potential impacts on neighbouring properties.
00:26:00 Similarly, if we take into account just on that street, and we talk about the retention of primary residential function, it is stated on page 17 that 26% of this street is used for short-term accommodation. Six properties. Now, that is information that has come forward from the applicant. That is documented in our agenda. As I said, that's not taking into account the whole of Noosa Heads, but on that specific street. And when we look at Noosa Heads local plan guide, purpose and overall outcomes. Development in the medium density housing zone accommodates a greater diversity in housing types, including dual occupancies. Well, this is a dual occupancy. Noosa Heads is the principal focus for visitor accommodation and services in Noosa Shire. This is a stone's throw from Hastings Street.
00:27:00 This is 1.5k away. This is where our tourists come. This type of accommodation caters to the type of tourists we want. We want low-impact, high-return tourists. We want the families who can come and stay here, who can spend in our Shire and who contribute to our Shire. These aren't party houses. These are properties that will be used potentially for permanent residents, but also potentially for short-term accommodation. But not for party houses. We've got short-term local laws now that address that. But this is the very type of visitor we keep talking about. Low-impact, high-return, high-value. It is a stone's throw to Hastings Street. Now, we don't house our visitors in places like this. Where will we house them? And what will that do to our economy? And we haven't had any policy change. This is an applicant who has done everything by the book, and we need before, and who should not, on the basis of what we've decided, be impacted through two years of money, of
00:28:00 process, and of hard work, on the belief that this was or would have been potentially compliant in their minds. So I will not support the staff recommendations. I will only support the recommendation in this instance. Thank you. Councillor Finzel? Speaker 7: Councillor Sarah Finzel? Yes, I would just like to add to that, that I think good governance and leadership comes into play around here. I think we've been fundamentally changed by the impacts of COVID. I think the applicant went forward with the application with goodwill based on feedback We have received feedback from staff over a long period of time, which included a time when community was being, you know, managing their way through all the impacts around COVID in many different ways. I think in terms of effectiveness and efficiency and equity moving forward, I think that we have to, you know, if we're going to be making policy changes, we need to change it.
00:29:00 We need to look at the robustness around our processes and we need to move forward with decisions by this council to make things clearer, in my opinion, and more concise, given the overriding factors and impacts that are impacting our community now. And we all are aware of what they are. So I will not be supporting this recommendation at this time. Speaker 9: Thank you, Councillor Stockbridge. Do you want to close? Speaker 3: Yeah, I will. Reference has been made to, I think, July 2021, when staff first recommended refusal for short-term accommodation on similar grounds to what we've got in front of us. I recall that debate well, and I know there was a number of councillors who said we needed an evidence base before we moved on to support that decision.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 I was one of them. There is clearly now overwhelming evidence as has been formally presented to council in the Housing Needs Assessment. There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence to say, well, for planning schemes, why would we approve short-term accommodation? It would be to support the tourism industry. So the overriding driver for short-term accommodation is a planning scheme that wishes to maintain the economic value of tourism. Now, in the last year, I haven't heard one person say that we need more tourist accommodation. No one in the industry. What I've heard is that housing is so bad that the industry is voluntarily converting existing short-term accommodation back to residents so they can keep trying to maintain employees.
00:31:00 We've heard that the housing crisis is such. That it's very difficult to find employees and large bonuses are being offered to attract people to work in the tourism industry in Noosa. So if supporting short-term accommodation, the purpose of the planning scheme is to support the tourism industry, then continued approval of additional capacity when the visitors who come here may not be able to be served in a community. I think we have to rethink. It's not a change in policy in Mike's perspective. It's a change on weighting of how different aspects of the scheme are considered. And it's really clear to me that with the evidence now in front of us, that the appropriate weight to be placed on planning needs for further short-term accommodation is the quintessential decision criteria.
00:32:00 And in this respect, there is no demonstrated planning need being provided by the applicant to justify approval. Speaker 9: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll put the recommendation to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Wilkie. Against? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel. What's your vote? Against. Against. Councillor Finzel. Against. Councillor Stewart. That recommendation is carried. Thank you, Kerry. Oh, you're still on for the next one. That brings us to report number three, NCU 19 slash 0054, Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 476 of 2020. Refusal of application for material change of use for a mixed-use commercial development situated at 2 to 18 and 20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. Report four, Financial Performance Report December 2021.
00:33:00 Report four, Financial Performance Report December 2021. Report five, Budget Review 2 BR2 for the 21-22 financial year. We have our Acting Finance Manager, Pauline Coles, attending in place of Corporate Services Director, Trent Graff, who is currently on leave. The general committee meeting, it was discussed. There needs to be a slight change to attachment one to the report. Therefore, I'd like to move the committee recommendation with an addition shown on the screen, which I will read out now. Councillor Finzel, just make sure you can hear me. That council note the report by the manager, Financial Services Acting, to the general committee meeting, dated 17th of January 2022, and approve proposed changes to the budget for the 21-22 financial year as outlined in the revised budget financial statements attached to the report, with the following change for attachment one operating submissions. Speaker 8: This is the change. Speaker 9: Under the heading, General Rate Funded Sustainability Program.
00:34:00 In the following terms, delete first sentence. Part year value of moving council's existing electricity contracts to 100% renewable energy contracts. Leaving just, funding to be utilised by sustainability offices for further progressing zero emission priorities. Do I have a seconder? I'll second that. Okay. Thank you, council. Councilor Stockwell has a hand up. I'll, Councilor Stockwell, second. Look, I won't, I'll waive my right to speak on this. Would anyone like to speak on this, or have any questions? Speaker 5: I did have a question. Oh. Okay, Councilor Wilkie. Yeah, Pauline. At Monday, we also mentioned that there was a graph in the report that needed to be altered to, to ... Speaker 6: Yeah, there was a page that had an incorrect total at the balance of it, and I had raised that as an amendment. So I was advised that only the attachment should be altered.
00:35:00 So the report needed to be updated as they reflected the correct numbers. Speaker 5: So the correct numbers are ... In the attachments, correct. All right. So the draft will stay as it is, but the attachments will reflect the correct numbers. Correct. That's right. Okay. Speaker 9: Councilor Wigner. Speaker 4: I'm just, when did this come up? It's not in the, in the ordinary meeting agenda. It's not in the, in the ordinary meeting agenda. Okay. Speaker 6: Did we get an email with this change? No, I don't think you did. I think it was discussed at the general committee. I'm not sure if you were actually, did you attend, were you at the general meeting? I can't remember the call back. We did discuss it as there was a change at the general meeting, I suppose. Speaker 3: So I can probably explain further. Councilor Wigner, I don't think you were present online for the budget review workshop, where this change was suggested. And I raised it on Monday that we were going to change it.
00:36:00 I think Councilor Lorenton was the one who brought the discussion about wanting to change the wording to give staff a little bit of flexibility. Speaker 9: And Councilor Joe, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: I have the same problem that Tom has in this regard. To clarify, there was a change in the budget. The changes were made to the attachments, the original attachments, and they are online because I haven't seen any amended attachments forwarded associated with the meeting agenda or in any other way, shape or form. Speaker 6: No, there was no additional attachment that's re-sent out as I was advised that we could do it in this way. That's all. Councillor Jurisevic: So what has actually changed is the original attachments have been amended. Correct. And they are online. Okay. And they're not going under the general committee agenda item for budget review too. That's correct.
00:37:00 Can I ask that those amended attachments are also sent out to councillors? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: Tom. I need to ask a couple of questions then. So what were the lines that are deleted? That were taken out? Speaker 6: I'm not sure. So basically there was a line item within the schedule of operating from the beginning. And then there were submissions around sustainability programs. And there were two sentences. One was around replacing council's electricity with a sustainable provider. And the remainder was in looking at sustainable options. And the discussion around that was that it wasn't necessarily that council would take up the option to change over to energy-efficient or sustainable energy options, but that they had that option available. So they felt that change over to energy-efficient or sustainable energy options was a good option. So changing that description to allow council staff to explore the most beneficial priority
00:38:00 would be clearer to them. So if you... I'm not sure if you can see on the screen, but it was simply two sentences. We deleted that first sentence around basically the energy... Sustainable energy option. Speaker 9: Councillor Jo. Councillor Jurisevic: Should we also note the corrections that Councillor Wilkie alluded to in this? There were... Yes. That was on the table, the adjustments that were made in the drafts and tables that needed updating and correcting. Could that be mentioned in this resolution to note that those changes were made? Speaker 6: I had raised that at the time and was advised that the process was that they didn't need to be updated, but I'm more than happy to update them and recirculate them to councillors with that. Speaker 9: Councillor Jo. Would you like to move or cancel a Wilkie amendment in that regard? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just trying to clarify the need for it first, Madam Chair. My understanding is that if those documents are made public and put on the website, that those changes to the tables and grants have now been made,
00:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: whether there's a need to actually reflect that in this motion. Mr CEO, perhaps I would defer to you. Speaker 2: My understanding, sorry, through you, Madam Mayor, my understanding is that the attachments are correct. The report had some minor mistakes in terms of collecting those. That data will bring it forward in the actual report. So I think as long as the attachments are correct and we can make the necessary adjustments to the report from the General Committee, then we should cover it. Speaker 9: Who's got the hand up? Joe. Tom. Sorry, Tom. Councillor Jurisevic: You go ahead, Joe. Sorry, could I then make the suggestion that those attachments be attached to this,
00:40:00 the minutes of this ordinary meeting, sorry, of this general meeting? Absolutely. Thank you. Speaker 9: Thanks, Joe. Tom. Speaker 4: The change being made that says I'm planning to be utilised by the Sustainability Office for further progressing zero emissions priorities, is that limiting something else, something else concerning the climate change response program? Speaker 6: No, it wasn't. It was to actually make it more flexible for council staff. So they could still take up the option of using energy, sustainable electricity, but it also didn't restrict them to that. So that was why that first line was removed. Speaker 4: Okay. When it comes to zero emissions, I've been putting a whole lot of work into the concept of Biochar, which I think, which I've been talking with Kai Rohn about, and working with the Biosphere and experimenting myself with it. And I'm a fear that that concept might be being limited by this language here to produce, to go down that route at the Resource Recovery Centre.
00:41:00 And because it's clearly towards our zero emissions goal, I think it's going to be limited by this language here to produce, to go down that route at the Resource Recovery Centre. Speaker 4: So it doesn't have anything to do with electricity. It's actually about varying carbon . Speaker 6: Correct. So that's why we're removing the section about electricity. So the statement will simply read, funding to be utilized by sustainability officers for further progressing zero emission priorities. And that would therefore cover what you've just mentioned. Speaker 4: So. But it doesn't otherwise limit anything from the climate change response plan? Speaker 6: As long as it's speeding into zero emission priorities, then no. Speaker 3: So. I'll speak to the motion because we're having a lot of questions that probably should have been asked before. I supported the councillors. The particular item in Budget Review 2 was an additional $84,000 being allocated to fund initiatives
00:42:00 to help achieve carbon neutrality for council's electricity consumption. So councillors last year resolved to try and get staff to report to Budget Review 2 potential low-cost mechanisms to achieve net zero emissions from our electricity and our vehicle flex at the end of this financial year. Staff came back and did an analysis. They suggested that at this point in time that we couldn't go down the line of a power purchase agreement for all our electricity. We could purchase green electricity. The cost of purchasing green electricity for the remainder of the financial year was $84,000. The wording in the Budget Review 2 table included wording to say that we could use its core
00:43:00 to purchase green power plus the sensors which are currently in front of us. And councillors thought that we perhaps should leave it a little bit more open so staff could come back or make their decision based on whatever is the most effective and highest impact allocations at $84,000 to try and achieve a reduction in the emissions from our activities. So it is about providing more green power. It is about providing more flexibility, not less flexibility. It is about providing, the good news is it's providing another $84,000 for the implementation of Council's zero emissions organisational strategy. It's not linked to the community initiatives within the climate response plan. So that's why it was only a very minor change to make it clear that it gives staff flexibility
00:44:00 to come up with the best option. It may be that at the end of the day that buying green electricity is a good option. But it may also mean that spending $84,000 for more solar panels on top of a Council building may actually produce a better outcome in the long run. Okay. Thanks, Brett. Speaker 4: You can see why I've been jumping up and down at a change like this. Thank you for that. Speaker 9: Thank you. We now have Councillor Finzel on screen as well. Would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Kath, just for clarification. I'm not a member of the Council. Can you move that motion under five? You've got it on the screen. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? No. Karen, you're right. Let me know. No. Okay. All right. I'll waive my right to close. All in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Report six is 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey Results.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Can I have a look at that? Can I have a mover and a seconder for the adoption of the general committee report? Thank you, Councillor Wilkie, and Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. We are now up to item nine on page seven. There are no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. There are no confidential items. There are no submissions to public question time. And that brings us to the end of our agenda. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Thank you very much for joining us all on Teams and for those listening. Councillor Jurisevic: And we apologise for... Just before you go, item nine was ordinary meeting reports. Wasn't the entire agenda the ordinary meeting report? Speaker 9: What? There are no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, sorry. General committee. You're right. My apologies.
00:46:00 Speaker 9: That's all right. No worries. It's quite difficult when we're not all together. So that brings us to the end of our agenda. And our next meeting will be held on Thursday, the 17th of February, 2022.