Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting for April and we wish to start the meeting as normal with a kind of respect to the principal owners of the land, the Kabi Kabi people, and we respect the role they've played over millennia as custodians of this country and hope to emulate them in the future, in today and in the future. We have seven items on the agenda today, of which six have been referred to the General Committee. Therefore, it will be a little bit different process than that one. We don't want to duplicate the debate, so if I can ask the councillors just to restrict prior committee motion, a matter of seeking clarification of questions that you need to help inform your opinion of the debate on Monday, and then once we get to the motion that the only debate of the motion is agreed to. That's rather than the extent of matters that are going to be prosecuted on Monday. So, there is a temporary apology from Councillor Stewart, who should be joining us in the not too-distant future, otherwise we have all been in attendance.
00:01:00 Can I have someone to move a confirmation of this, please? Councillor Lorentson: I'll have it moved up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Wegener. There's been no debate, I presume. All in favour? And that's unanimous. There are no presentations, nor are there deputations, so we move on to the first item under section 5, which is a mature change of use for an application for a roadside stall at 21 River Road, Cooroy. Kerry, would you like to give us an overview of this application, please? Speaker 7: Yes, so this is an application for a roadside stall. It was brought in for an application after a compliance matter was raised for the roadside stall running without an approval.
00:02:00 The application was brought in without a pre-lodgement meeting, so we just received the application as a roadside stall. We do believe that it's not fitting for the definition of a roadside stall. And that it would be better suited for a food and drink outlet. Speaker 2: Recommendation? Speaker 7: Yeah, so the recommendation is for a refusal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, do we have any questions in regard to this matter? Councillor Wegener: I'll let everybody else go first. You're at the table. We don't care. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: If it hadn't been triggered by a complaint, and they put in a material change of use, what would be the recommendation from the staff? Speaker 7: Depending on what it was brought in for, a material change of use. If it was for a roadside stall, it would still be recommended for a refusal. Same with a food and drink outlet. Okay. What would they need to modify or do differently?
00:03:00 Speaker 2: So, officers are saying that this proposal is not a roadside stall under the planning scheme. That it includes a number of elements that don't constitute a roadside stall. You know, it has on-site dining. This use is primarily a coffee shop. And so, the roadside stall is intended to sell products, you know, natural products, like, you know, honey and eggs, vegetables, fruit, but not necessarily act as a coffee stall. So, that's the issue. We haven't given a lot of consideration to whether we would support a coffee shop on the site. A coffee shop is not a consistent use under the planning scheme. So, we'd have to consider whether there are grounds in the community's interests to support that coffee shop. But that's a different application. If they were applying for a coffee shop today, which we say they are, they would have to lodge an impact-accessible application and go through public notification and give people
00:04:00 an opportunity to make a submission, either for or against the proposal. And that's the important thing here. We're missing out on an important part of the process in giving people an opportunity in giving the community a chance to make comment on the application, because it's been applied for incorrectly as a roadside stall. So it's about the process? It is absolutely the process. Councillor Wegener: Can I ask a hypothetical question? Are you done, Catherine? Yeah, sure. Thank you, Councillor. Hypothetical questions. If there was no coffee sold there, would it be constituted a roadside stall? Because there's still... Imagine there was... Just take out the coffee, but there's still people staying there. Speaker 2: Yeah. So if there was no on-site dining... Councillor Wegener: But we... Okay. Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. So what would... If we look on page six, which includes some dot points about what the applicant is proposing for the use, so there's a number of elements there that would constitute a roadside stall.
00:05:00 So coffee is not part of a roadside stall, it's not produced in the area. Honey, wood, eggs, yes, fruit and vegetables and herbs, juices, if they bottled them up from fresh produce grown on the land or the surrounding area would, but breads wouldn't constitute a roadside stall. So a number of elements do constitute a roadside stall there, but not what their proposal. And their proposal, when you go there, is primarily a coffee shop. The smaller components are the honey and the eggs, really. It's primarily a coffee shop with dining. So, yeah, that's a concern. Councillor Wegener: Could it be seen as a meeting place? I mean, so the reason I'm asking is if you took away the coffee and you still had people meeting there, eating roadside stall stuff that came from around the community, there wouldn't be a problem that it would be a roadside stall.
00:06:00 I guess the reason I'm asking this is because this has enormous... Enormous implications for the future of the hinterland. So that's why I'm asking these questions, is I think that we're all going to have to know the parameters of a roadside stall. We need to, because there's going to be a lot of produce being grown out there and regenerative farming is a huge movement throughout Australia, but especially here in the Southern Mary. So I'm just asking... So we can keep to the debating points. Yeah. Yeah. So that's what I'm asking is I really would love a clarification on what is a roadside stall and what is an ancillary and what is the local area. Speaker 2: Yeah. So look, a roadside stall is supported by this planning scheme in rural areas. In fact, it's made accepted development, so no application is required where certain parameters are met. So those parameters are not exceeding nine square meters and not on a state controlled road or a road that's 80 kilometers.
00:07:00 There's a few other provisions, but they're essentially the provisions. If they meet those requirements, they can go in without an approval. And a roadside stall is made a consistent use. We want to support our agriculture and our rural activities here, but what the scheme is not envisaging is coffee shops going all the way along our rural area. So if we accept this as a roadside stall, we would potentially have a lot of coffee shops all the way along our rural areas. Councillor Wegener: What if... Again, you pull me up if I'm going too far, because I'm asking lots of questions. I'm just so curious on this. The coffee is roasted across the road. So across the road, if they had a coffee stall there, a roadside stall selling coffee, that would be okay then, because it's roasted, been manufactured on that property. Yeah. Speaker 2: Look, it's all the elements that make up this proposal that mean it's not a roadside stall. It's the dining on site, it's a combination of that and the products they're selling that make it not a roadside stall. And I think I've picked out the elements for you that I would suggest would comfortably
00:08:00 fit with a roadside stall definition, but what they are is primarily a coffee shop. That's certainly how it started. You know, when we went out there with compliance, there was a bus selling coffee and there was a small camp table with some other basic products. It is primarily a coffee shop, and they really should be applying for a food and drink outlet so they can go through the proper process and council can consider whether there's merit to approve this one in this location. Councillor Wegener: Brian, you mentioned there's an ability for kind of a bus, or not a bus. There's another zoning, a temporary something zoning that's possible. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a non-planning issue. The option is to, for what some vendors like this operate on within public space, is a commercial use permit.
00:09:00 And that can be low or high. Low is when they have a one-year permit, high is when it's advertised that anyone can apply for it. And what we do is say, see if it's fitted in the main beach. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And then, as I said, it's not a roadside stall. I think that one of the key things is the concept of ancillary. What is an ancillary use on the property? And to me, that's a gradient. I think I may talk to you, I'll make a time, I won't waste everybody's time, kind of going through the gradients of what ancillary means and what fits within ancillary and what doesn't, because it's not a clear cut. Speaker 2: No, I'd agree. But I think we don't have to give a lot of consideration to that in this instance, because the coffee shop, that's the primary use. It's clearly not ancillary to the other rural products that are sold on the site. So that is really the primary use. So I'm not sure we need to, I'm happy to talk through, and there is a definition of what ancillary is, so I can provide that to councillors, but it's clear that the primary use is coffee.
00:10:00 And so it's certainly not ancillary to the other rural produce being sold there. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a clarification of some of those points that you raised there, Kerry. The size of a roadside store, you said nine square metres? Speaker 2: Yeah, to meet the accepted development requirements and not require a planning application, they must comply with nine square metres. So that's just... Councillor Jurisevic: I've heard something in the... That just... ...the acceptable outcomes being bachelors. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. I think so. I'll just have to check. Councillor Jurisevic: And how do we get 40 square metres from nine square metres? Speaker 2: So the nine square metres is just in the tables of assessment and helps you determine whether an application is required. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So anything above nine square metres would require an application, as is what they've done here. That's right. That's right. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just a trigger for if an application's required. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Second question. Can manufactured goods be sold at a roadside store?
00:11:00 Speaker 2: Yes. So the scheme supports people processing produce, such as fruit and vegetables. You know, they might produce and make some jams, or jams, or pickles, or whatever. So they can make some... They can sell sort of processed food. The scheme certainly supports that. And those are things that you would typically expect to see in a roadside store. They're related, and ancillary, if you like, to those that will produce. Councillor Jurisevic: So a cake or bread manufactured on site could be considered manufactured goods? Speaker 2: It is a manufactured good, but that's not associated with the rural produce from the site. That's not produce in terms of your fruit and vegetables and your natural products. Councillor Jurisevic: So to clarify, it has to be grown on the property. Is that the definition of roadside store? Speaker 2: Yeah. That's the intent. That a roadside store sells goods that are grown on the property or on nearby surrounding properties. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's... Thank you. You clarified that. Nearby surrounding properties are also permitted.
00:12:00 So if a Cooroy coffee roaster was two doors up, and they were manufacturing there, would they be able to have a roadside store out front with coffee, for example, if it's being manufactured on site? Speaker 2: They couldn't set up a coffee shop. They could sell, potentially... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not asking about a coffee shop. Could they sell coffee? Speaker 2: They could perhaps look at... Councillor Jurisevic: Roasted coffee beans if they were roasted coffee beans. Speaker 2: They could perhaps look at selling the roasted coffee beans. If they're lawfully producing that on site, they could perhaps look at selling that. Councillor Jurisevic: And if they were offering tastings of their coffee? Speaker 2: The scheme does allow for the tastings, but that's not sit down dining, the consumption. Councillor Jurisevic: Just trying to work out where the bounds are. Yeah, sure. Is it clarified? And you mentioned juice here. I mean, juice is a strategy, of course. If they were a citrus orchard, and they offered a tasting of their juices, the juices of the oranges produced on site, that would be permitted. Speaker 2: Yeah. Typically, with a roadside store, you get to sometimes sample the products that you look
00:13:00 to buy. There might be strawberries out, and you have a strawberry. Equally, there might be some fresh juice that's bottled, and you get to sample that. Councillor Jurisevic: So are you permitted to sit at a roadside store? Speaker 2: Dining is not supported. It's not part of the definition. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's where the line's getting caught. Speaker 2: Yeah. It's the consumption on site. Tastings, but the consumption and the dining on site means it's really another use. Councillor Finzel: And what would be the other use? The food and drink outlet. So they could apply for that? Speaker 2: Yep. They can make an application for it. Councillor Finzel: So that's where we come back to the process, was it? Speaker 2: That's really where we come back to the process, is we're saying it really should have been, the application should have been a food and drink outlet, and gone through Impact Accessible for comment from the community. And then Council could rightly consider whether there are grounds to approve the coffee shop in the community's interest. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a couple of other things. So provided that within the roadside store, goods are only sold, and the coffee, the bus wasn't actually parked within the bounds of the site, potentially with another use, the
00:14:00 roadside store would be a permissible use. Speaker 2: Sorry, I missed that joke. Councillor Jurisevic: So if you take the coffee-making bus out of it, and everything else that's there remains, would that be a lawful use? As a roadside store? Okay, tables and chairs, and the tables and chairs. Speaker 2: Yeah. So there are a number of elements with the proposal that would meet the definition of a roadside store. That's right. So, you know, there's a number of elements that they're proposing that would meet that definition. But there's the major components do not meet the definition. And that's the concern. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, Councillor Lauren. Councillor Lorentson: So, Kerry, at the moment, the application's been made, MCU, for a roadside store. So that's code-accessible. So amenity impacts that you were describing, things like, you know, table, dining, that could actually be conditioned under a potential approval.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Is that right? So you can still approve and still tell the owners they can't sit down, they can't sit down and dine? That's not permitted? The fact that there is dining is, where I'm going with this, is the fact that there is dining isn't a reason for refusal because that can actually be conditioned to the approval? Speaker 2: We need to be a little bit careful with the process that we're following because the applicant has specifically applied for these uses. And we have raised the question with them and advised them that we don't consider it a roadside store. Okay. So we would need to have those conversations with them as to whether they're willing to change their application to something that Council would be looking for and more compliant with the roadside store definition. I don't think it would be appropriate just to try and condition out no dining, no coffee shop when that's the primary use that they've proposed. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the locality, though.
00:16:00 Speaker 2: But we can certainly have a conversation with them again if that's what Council is like. Councillor Lorentson: Because I sort of, you know, I go back to, and I would love a workshop following after this round of meetings about Section 60 of the Planning Act. So how an assessment manager decides code of six civil applications. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to pull you up there, Councillor Lorentson, that's a more general issue. Councillor Lorentson: It's not related. Oh, it's relevant to this if you can just let me finish, Councillor Stockwell. So in reference to Section 60, it says that... Okay. Okay. You can still decide to approve an application, even if it doesn't comply with some of the assessment benchmarks. And then it looks at other relevant matters. And that's my question. So community benefits. So all those councillors have been inundated with emails. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you get to a question? Councillor Lorentson: Can you get to a question? So how much weight are we going to put on community benefits, given that that is, in
00:17:00 my opinion, inferred under other relevant matters? How much weight does community benefits weigh into this? Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, that would be appropriate for council to consider that and weigh that up if they had made the appropriate application. So, you know, I've said to you that the food and drink outlet is identified as an inconsistent use in the rural area. So there's, you know, the scheme suggests it's not appropriate in the rural area. And at that point in time, it would be appropriate to consider, are there certain grounds that we should support that? In terms of being in the benefit for the community. But the issue is we don't have an application for a food and drink outlet. That's the fundamental issue. That's the fundamental issue. We've got one for a roadside stall. So it's not really relevant to consider that when they've made the wrong application. Councillor Lorentson: So when you look at, I think it's AO 26, when I read that, it says facilities that allow us for tasting or purchase of food and beverages don't operate outside the hours
00:18:00 of nine to five. Can that be open to interpretation? Can you, does that, to me, that looks at the intent of, or the meaning of roadside stall and it extends further than just produce that's ancillary to a rural land use. To me, food and beverages, the fact that it's actually stated food and beverages, infers that there is the intent or the definition of roadside stall was meant to include food So I think it's important to consider that. So can it be challenged, is what I'm saying, or can it be interpreted that way? Speaker 2: Yeah, that's certainly what the applicant's consultant has suggested, but I would suggest that the tasting or purchase of food is around a few strawberries on a plate or a small cup to have a taste of some fresh fruit juice.
00:19:00 It's not about consumption. The definition does not in any way envisage sit down dining on site and consumption as part of a roadside stall. Councillor Lorentson: So going back to the gin factory case in Cooroy, sort of similar, we were, we were playing, not similar, but we were playing with ancillary use, definition of ancillary use. Has the council ever stepped outside or allowed some flexibility? I don't think so. Or over the ancillary use aspect? Speaker 2: Yeah. I see them as different matters. So the Cooroy gin facility, they actually made application for a bar, so they made the appropriate application in the first place. But we supported it because the primary use was industrial and the bar would operate in ancillary nature. But they, the issue is they actually applied correctly.
00:20:00 And we don't have that with this one. They're not applying, making the proper applications. And I think we just need to be a little bit careful because we need to think about what might come down the track. You know, if we interpret a roadside stall to have dining facilities and selling coffee like this one is, a roadside stall is an accepted development in our rural areas. And we will potentially have that pop up on every site along our rural areas. I mean, that's the worst case scenario, obviously, and unlikely to happen. But nevertheless, if we take this interpretation, the scheme allows roadside stalls in rural areas without an application. And that's not what the scheme intended. Councillor Jurisevic: But that's not what we've got in this case. In this case, we actually have an application on MCU as a roadside stall. Yeah. With the elements within. Speaker 2: Yeah. But if we take an interpretation of a roadside stall, you know, other consultants will pick up on that and think, well, council's accepting these sorts of products being sold as a roadside stall.
00:21:00 And they will know what council's interpretation is a roadside stall. So we need to be careful in decision making on this one because it has implications for others down the track. And my suggestion to you is that this, my recommendation is a food and drink outlet and it should be going through an impact assessment process. Calling for submissions, both for and against. And then council decides whether it's in the interest of the community that we support this one on this site. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's not that it's not a supported activity as far as planning goes. It's just that the application for it is not appropriate for the use. Yeah, yeah. And that if a more correct application were to be put forward, it would be more likely to be supported by staff. Speaker 2: Well, we haven't made that assessment because it's not what's applied, but we'd have to consider... Councillor Jurisevic: Based on... Yeah. Based on... A different application would be assessed differently to the roadside stall application and may have a different outcome. Speaker 2: That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might bring it to a head. I'm going to move the motion. One last question. Councillor Wegener: Well, concerning the space, AO 25.4 says, building associated with roadside stalls,
00:22:00 roadside stalls have a gross floor area not more than 40 square meters. And then PO 25 said that for the sale of locally grown and manufactured goods. So there's just... And then in the report, it says that the hours can only be from 9 to 5, where in the rural activities codes, the time frame is 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. So it's not... There's nothing clear here, is there? It seems... Anyways, I just wanted to bring up those points because that's what the rules say. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I'll read this out. It's longer than we normally have, but I think it's important to try and bring it here. Does the Planning Environment Committee agenda item 1 be referred to the General Committee for further report which includes, A, a set of conditions that would allow Council to
00:23:00 approve those uses that can be lawfully conducted as a roadside stall on the grounds that it meets the strategic intent of the planning scheme which supports rural tourism and further acknowledges those aspects of the use are consistent with the aim to facilitate the evolution of traditional agriculture and the emergence of new sectors are supported by encouraging opportunities to value waiting to occur before agricultural produce leaves the farm gate or leaves the region? I'll add in there. And staff, if you don't mind. To determine their views on that approach. Mayor Stewart: So that again, staff be requested to liaise with the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What would be the words you would like us to say? Speaker 2: Be requested to liaise with the applicant. Speaker 5: I referred to your previous thing, so we can... So that's a tie-back decision.
00:24:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a tie-back decision. Speaker 5: That's a tie-back decision. Speaker 4: That position. Speaker 5: That position. Keep H-E-I-R. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Their position. Speaker 2: Can I just raise... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm still moving. Speaker 2: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The use contributes the overall outcome to H as a rural zone that envisages that establishment of outdoor recreation and small-scale tourism facilitates in suitable locations is facilitated in a manner that does not significantly compromise the rural productivity or ecological value of the land, and B, wording to append to the conditions of approval and advise a note that would indicate to the applicants that council would be immediately considering an application for a low-use commercial activity on the road reserve immediately in front of the premises for the running of a mobile coffee bus on the ground that such a use is consistent with the commercial use of community land policy that requires a commercial use activity to enhance the visitor and local experience of this shire.
00:25:00 So do I have a seconder? I'll second that. I do, sir. We've heard a range of queries and questions around this. I believe this is one way ahead. We need to... I don't want to debate it now. I want the information to be available at the general committee so that we have got options on the table to debate. I think, as is identified, you know, I come from 30 years of planning experience. It's really clear what a roadside stall is. There's no way that you try and muck around with the technical solutions in a code to change how a use is defined. I used, as in the act, a roadside stall is one example of a supply-to-use stall. Whether we support this nature of activity in our rural area, there is a range of support. You know, the next step up is agri-tourism that becomes part of a boring experience. So it's not saying that the planning scheme doesn't look at creating these places,
00:26:00 but we can't do everything as a code-safe or acceptable solution in a roadside stall because then that suggests every property should be able to do it and every property won't be in the right place to do it. So in this case, I think this is one option that we can debate on Monday and I just want the information there so we can. Speaker 2: Council? Yes, you may then. If I may. Thank you. Obviously, I'll be led by what Council wants to do, but I'd just like to raise some concerns with the process here. I would prefer not to have to write a report ready for General Committee until we know the majority of councils want to support this way. Obviously, there's a lot of work preparing conditions for Council on matters and I think the better process would be for Council to have a debate on Monday at General Committee and where the majority of councillors, you know, agree that this is their approach. We would take, we would write the conditions from there on because at the moment, I don't know the majority of councillors' view
00:27:00 and so we're sending our officers down a path where we're spending a lot of time writing conditions that may not go anywhere. And I'm concerned about that approach. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm confident I'm not wasting your time. Speaker 2: Thank you for that assurance. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you need a straw pot? Speaker 2: I just want to raise concern because obviously this will come up for other matters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'd say for me, it's then the general, when we go to put it up to an ordinary meeting, it's more complicated, whereas I am confident the majority of councils will be interested in this in the main. Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's for Council to sign, but I'm just raising a process issue and I would not like this to become the norm. Yes, because it's a lot of work and our workload is very high at the moment. I appreciate that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, you've heard that, you're welcome to either support or not support on the basis of the concerns.
00:28:00 Councillor Lorentson: I support it. Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to the motion, or do you want to speak to the motion first, Karen, or? Councillor Finzel: Oh, you can go, yeah. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Not every property, one of the points is that, you know, we don't want every property doing this, but this property seems to be very unique and fortunate to have a lot of people doing this. So, it's not on a main road, it's actually on a cul-de-sac, which is, which is pretty unique for a property. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you debating the development application or the development plan? Councillor Wegener: I'm just, I'm speaking to the motion, because I support the motion. I think that this is a very good motion because PO 26 and PO 25 are self-contradictory, they cannot exist together. And so, when you have contradiction in the planning scheme itself, then you go up to the next level, and you go to the Rural Activities Code, and the Rural Activities Code states that the outcomes sought are rural activities directly and indirectly support the local production of food and beverage products.
00:29:00 And A, rural activities contribute to the economic strength of Noosa hinterland and create opportunities for employment. So, that, that is our big-picture thinking. And so, thank you. What falls from that, the, when, when, when two, two parts of the plan are inconsistent, well, then you look at the higher principle, just like we were just doing. Is every place going to be like this? Is everyone going to have road folk, roadside stalls everywhere? And I would say, well, every single cul-de-sac, heck yeah, that sounds marvelous. So, this is, yeah, I appreciate the motion, I support it. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I support the motion, given that I think most of the councillors, bar one, went out to the site. We've all received, like, considerable correspondence from community that engage in that space. When I was there, there was probably about 30 vehicles. I would say that it's well used by the community, and I think it is worth the debate and bring it to the table. We also want to support economic development in the hinterland with a fair and equitable process.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 And I think this has provided us good opportunity to, to underpin that as we develop the hinterland with opportunities for people to be able to live there and are living there off the, off their land. So, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, we'll put the motion. All those in favour? That's passed. Thank you. That wasn't too painful, people. It was pretty good. We'll move on to item two, which is a minor change to existing approval for dual occupancy. At 1 and 222 Kingfisher Drive, Peruvian Beach. Can you talk about this one? I think so. Speaker 2: So, this application is for a minor change to the development approval for a duplex. The duplex is constructed, it's built. It's quite an older duplex, it was built some time ago. The owners are looking to undertake some renovations.
00:31:00 And, which we're supportive of, but some of their renovations result in increasing floor, gross floor area and site cover, beyond the maximum that the scheme supports, and the intrusions also result in, sorry, the proposed works also result in the intrusion of a balcony into the front setback. So, review of the surrounding area indicates that. Okay. The gross floor area and site cover is not consistent or commensurate with surrounding development, and the setback, the reduced setback, in our opinion, will look out of place. Importantly, that these extensions are not required necessarily to improve the building's presentation to the street. I don't think they substantially add to the building's presentation in any way to the street. So, it is recommended for a refusal, because it is contrary to the scheme's requirements, the gross floor area.
00:32:00 So, it's not necessarily a problem for the site cover. That's that part. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any questions? Or are we going straight to the Commission? Looks like we're going straight to the Commission. Do you wish to move that motion? I have a question. Oh, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So, Kerry, just in reference to whether these setbacks are consistent or inconsistent with the character of the precinct. Can we get some information on West Main Road properties, whether there's any inconsistencies or varying setbacks, and north and south, or, you know, that whole precinct. Yeah, sure. That information would be great. Speaker 2: Happy to do that for you. I am aware of, I'm familiar with the area, and certainly it's near the Peregian Beach Village. Yeah. And so there's some, you know, zero setbacks, or two metre setbacks, consistent with scheme requirements. So we're not going to go back to that initial zone. And actually you come from Peregian Beach Village heading north towards the site.
00:33:00 Yes. There's sort of a graded setback. Yes. You know, because it's sort of been tapered back. But as you get to this site, you're sitting back further. And so I feel this development should be maintaining that setback consistent with others. But happy to give all the setback information for the properties. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I wish to move the motion to refer it to, there we go, that will be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. I'll take it. Do we need to discuss that at all? No? All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Wegener, sorry. I think that's clear. And we welcome Patrick to the table. And this is for a material change. Yes, for a multiple dwelling, for eight dwelling units at 25 and 27, two last, three, one, two. Questions, applications, but for more information, Councillor?
00:34:00 Councillor Finzel: I'd just like some information on the landscape. Will we do a little overview? Yes, sure. Yeah, thank you. I forgot what I said. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like to do some overview, please? Speaker 3: I would love to. As you've referred to, Brian, this relates to... Yeah, there are eight dwelling units, the multi-dwelling development at 25 and 27, two last, two streets, two existing residential lots. There's four of the dwellings that's to be two bedroom and three to be three bedroom. The applicant is proposing that the structures or the dwellings achieve a gold standard under the Limbal Housing Guidelines for the purpose of achieving
00:35:00 Thank you very much. Landscaping that's non-compliant as well in terms of the overall landscaped area on the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Can I have an interview? Sure, yeah. Councillor Finzel: In relation to the landscaping, in what way doesn't it comply? Speaker 3: So there's two provisions in the scheme regarding landscapes. One is for 40% of the site to be a landscaped area and then for 60% of that to be soft landscaping. So specifically, the 40% would require 808 square metres of landscaped area. The proposal doesn't achieve that. It only has approximately 620 square metres.
00:36:00 It does achieve the 60% requirement of soft landscaping. Councillor Lorentson: It does. Yeah. Speaker 3: So there's been some... The plans were followed by the applicant. They've been incorrectly detailed what the landscaped area actually is. It includes areas which are under terrace and it includes area under roof, near pergolas. And it also, in some parts, minor areas actually intrudes out of the landscaped area into some hard surface areas. That's why the drawings that they've provided, they've got a green area, a green shaded area, and you can see that doesn't align with what should be considered to be a landscaped area. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Would you consider that then to be a minor incursion, given you said, what was it? Six... Speaker 3: Well, it's 180 square metres. Councillor Finzel: It's 108 and they're at 620. Speaker 3: 808 is what they need to be. So it's 180 under...
00:37:00 Councillor Finzel: And they're at 620. Speaker 3: Yeah. So it's substantially less. And I think that is a consequence of the other elements of non-compliance, where they're exceeding their site cover and plot ratio, that they're ending up with a built form that's excessive on the site and therefore minimising opportunity for those landscaped areas, which, in effect, pushes the building closer potentially to the streetscape and to surrounding properties and doesn't allow for a suitable buffer between the building and surrounding areas. Councillor Finzel: So given this has been an ambitious application, what's your take on that? In my opinion, in my opinion, to try and look at, you know, achieving a gold standard and given that, moving forward, in my opinion, that is, like, a really high order to aim for, and if there's just minor inclusions that have caused the refusal, then what does this applicant need to do then to get this over the line?
00:38:00 Speaker 3: I'd probably disagree that they're minor intrusions. I think that when you're in combination together, they actually add up to quite a substantial element of non-compliance. There's elements that to condition a reduction in plot ratio or site cover is likely to substantially change the development and result in an outcome that we would not have a line of sight of what that might look like. And that's something that we should really be having an understanding of, you know, how they would propose to change the front setbacks and what that might do to the appearance of the building. And whether that's still in keeping with the streetscape. And similarly, I mean, they've put forward an argument that they could just create a big void in the upper levels and the building would still look the same from a plot ratio point of view. And as I say in my report, that's a pretty well-worn argument. And people don't do it because it's not practical. And just to cut a big hole out of the upper level, it just won't work from a practical maneuverability point of view. It would just render the development unusable.
00:39:00 And I take your point, to achieve the gold standard, it's a commendable aspiration of the developer. And we certainly, we're not having a problem with that aspiration. It's just how they're delivering it on the site. And it's possible for them to still deliver gold standard, but they need to modify the form of their development. So they might not, they may not achieve four by three bedroom dwellings and four by two bedroom dwellings. They might need to make some changes into their layout. But they could still certainly achieve the gold standard. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So one of the areas of my compliance is in front setback. And I'm racking my brain. For the last six years, I can't recall any other approval other than maybe one corner site that would have anything near the level of setback variation that this application requested. Do you think of anything in our recent or long-term history that we would approve such a variation?
00:40:00 Speaker 2: No, I can't. And I recall the one you're talking about in Cooroy, where it was a corner site. And so some setback is, variation is warranted. Because it's got two road frontages. And Cooroy also has substantially wide road reserves. So affording sort of, you know, pushing the building back, making it more in keeping with the street. So I can't think of any. Certainly, you know, there are some minor variations. I'm not saying no setback variations are given. There are. It's appropriate for some minor variations to be given. And we had the discussion with the applicant about whether they could change that setback variation and push it back. And we're willing to support some intrusions. But it's just not to the extent they're proposed. Mayor Stewart: On page 41, you've got the core design elements. Councillor Finzel: Out of those listed there, they say there's five that were non-compliant around design in the kitchen space, laundry space, the bedroom, switches and power points. And those things. Is that when you talk about the bulk that you just said that they . . .
00:41:00 Speaker 3: You know, this table on page 41, and make sure I'm referring to the same . . . It's kind of core design elements. The core design elements. Yeah. So that's what they need to achieve to . . . That's what they need to meet to achieve either silver or gold standard. So you'll see silver standard, which is something that the National Construction Code is looking to bring in, has, I think it's what, seven elements. And the gold has 12. So what that table is just demonstrating the additional elements that they're proposing above the silver. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's not council's requirements. Speaker 3: That's the codes, the design . . . . . . standard. . . . livable housing. Yep. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So if they'd have just applied for silver, would we be having this discussion for refusal? Speaker 3: It would depend on . . .
00:42:00 Speaker 2: At the moment, there's no requirement for them to do silver or gold. Oh, this is just their aspiration. Yeah, this is their aspiration. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So, well, it seems when they talk about the gold standard that they're saying, well, we're really doing something here for the tenants, which are going to be disabled people, or older people, that they're shooting for that. And so it seems to me there's a bit of horse trading going on, saying, well, we'll let you slide a little bit, you know, because you're doing this for these people. But then you say on page 42, no mechanism has been proposed by the applicant to ensure that the dwellings are occupied by persons with mobility needs. Is it possible that we can say, look, we'll let this . . . we'll give you this, but you've got to give us this back, or else it's just talk? Speaker 2: Well, this has been raised with the applicant, as to, you know, you're asking us to approve a development that's outside the planning scheme, you know, exceeds the maximum GFA site cover, and we consider it looks out of place in the street with the front setback.
00:43:00 And so we, you know, we've asked them, how can you deliver this benefit to the community, rather than it just go to the highest bidder in the marketplace? But there was no . . . Okay. . . . real response from the applicant, apart from, you know, they say it will be listed on these different sites that promote these sorts of liveability options for people, but they acknowledge it will just be put on the open market. So we have had that discussion to try and explore that with them, but there was no sort of agreement or proposal that came forward from the applicant to do so. Councillor Finzel: Did you give the applicant an opportunity to fill out an agreement, as we did with that site over here at the back of Tewantin? Speaker 2: Well, if they had said yes, we'd like to explore that, we could have gone down that road, but obviously drafting a formal agreement is costly and time-consuming for both parties, but there was no agreement, there was no . . .
00:44:00 Councillor Finzel: Did Council offer that opportunity, or were you saying it was relying on the applicant to pass? Speaker 2: Well, we had that discussion with them and said, you know, to deliver some real benefit to the community, this is what the expectation would be, and there was no proposal. So we . . . I guess I didn't formally say we can draft an agreement to them, but the response really was, no, we're not interested in that. Councillor Finzel: Given Council is just like looking at our housing analysis and where we're moving forward with that, to me, the intent of this application matches where we want to go forward as a Council, in a higher order of scheme of things and how we're moving forward. Well, I'm just trying to understand how this is a straight-out refusal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Can I answer that question? Sure. This application's had quite a long history, we're almost at 11 months since the application was made, and prior to that we actually had a pre-lodgement meeting with the applicant. So there's been a lot of discourse with the applicant over that period of time around the elements of the design that we're willing to accept and those that we're not, and the applicant, to cut to the chase, just hasn't been willing to make any changes.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 It actually increased the site cover from when the application was originally made. And it's been made quite clear to them that we wouldn't be able to support the application. So, ideally, we can see some merit in the product, but because of the number of elements of non-compliance and what that does in terms of the streetscape and our standards and our planning scheme, that's why we're refusing it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So given the standards and our... I need to follow up on that one. Yeah. Just to more fully understand, in terms of compliance with planning scheme, providing housing for people with high mobility needs is one aspect, but surely the bigger issue is our planning scheme really focuses on the need, which is for one and two bedroom units, to meet the demographic.
00:46:00 And that if this, for example, development came in with more one and two bedroom rather than three and two, and with a reasonable yield from the site, there'd be no... We would encourage that. And there would probably be much less requirement to vary the planning scheme. Speaker 3: Well, there might be, yes, some narrow issues. The front setback in this bill is problematic. And I suppose the new scheme has specifically contemplated bonus provisions. And those bonus provisions have been around the smaller dwelling units. It hasn't provided bonus provisions for this type of development. Sorry. Councillor Finzel: Well, then, given that, I think it's a good thing that the new scheme has been put in place. But do you think the new scheme falls short of this provision moving forward to provide mobility in the life of a house in terms of... I think we're looking at instance here where if you build according to accessible housing to everybody for the life of that infrastructure, for example, if someone comes home from hospital post a motor vehicle accident, they've had an amputation, and the modifications are already in place.
00:47:00 In their original home, then they can discharge to home without other impacts. For example, is that something we want to support moving forward, where all ability housing is supported and promoted in the Shire? And if so, when we look at wanting reasonable yield and the new scheme, and it's just answered me that we didn't look at that for three-bedroom housing, and it's set up for two. Where are we going to look at that in the bigger picture to accommodate? Better housing in the area for all abilities? Speaker 2: Well, I think it's a good discussion to have. And it's one, you know, for the housing study that's happening and recommendations that will be coming forward to council around that. The concern with this one is it's...we're looking to not comply with the scheme and haven't considered it fully.
00:48:00 Their proposal is to deliver three-bedroom units and family rooms upstairs. I just don't get it. I think it's delivering to, you know, what we're looking for at the moment. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, but that could be your opinion, where I've just heard that the new scheme does not have provision, has not yet... It sounds like it's lacking when we talk about setting precedents. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You tend to be using questions as debate, so... Councillor Finzel: Well, I'm trying to understand what... Yeah, well, I thought you asked... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, well, thank you, Mr Chair. Because it is becoming more of a debate between the two. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Please. Thank you. And I apologise I was late. It's a medical appointment. Kerry, can you tell me the differences between SDA housing and the gold standard that's proposed in this? Speaker 2: So SDA is special disability housing. And this is accessible housing, gold standard. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. What are the main differences between the two?
00:49:00 Speaker 2: I haven't actually done that comparison. Claire, but we can do that comparison for you. Yeah. To know. But, you know, the applicant says that's not what's proposed with this proposal. They're not looking at specialist disability housing. But I can do the comparison just to point out the differences for you. Mayor Stewart: But they're looking for a similar thing, aren't they? In that they're looking for accessible housing and enabling a whole other variety of people, I guess, abilities and ages to live in that housing. Speaker 2: It's... My understanding is it's more adaptable. It's built in a way that can be adapted to suit future needs. So... So... So I don't... It's... I would suggest, and I need to compare them, that it's probably a lesser standard than specialist disability housing. Yeah. But I can do that comparison for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. We have a couple of questions at the back. We've got Councillor Lorentson in first. Councillor Lorentson: Just... I go back to Section 60 of the Planning Act when there's inconsistencies with the code and way of community development.
00:50:00 I would like to get my head around this whole standard... With all standards and just to ensure that we're not missing an opportunity. So the inconsistencies with site cover, plot ratio and set base to mean... You're saying major, Patrick? But I'm looking at 0.2%, 0.03%. So I'd like to just have some more information in regards to what's been proposed, which is eight by gold standard liveable house in Australia certified units and understand whether the benefits outweigh what I consider minor. So again, just don't want to miss opportunities. This might be a great opportunity. So can I get some information? Speaker 3: Can you just clarify the point about the 0.2% and the 0.3%?
00:51:00 Because I'm not too sure where you're getting that from. Councillor Finzel: It's on page 39. There's a table under the brochure. Speaker 3: So there's 4% over site cover, which equates to nearly 100 square metres across the site. So... Yeah. Yeah. And 3% for plot ratio. So it's at... The scheme says essentially 40%. This is at 43%. So 3%, again, I think it's about another 70 square metres. So the figures of 0.2 and 0.03 are very different numbers. They would be insignificant. These are not. These, as I said, you're talking about nearly 100 square metres for site cover. Excuse me. And I think 68 square metres for plot ratio. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Sorry. So for site cover, required is 3%, proposed is 42.3. So it's 2.3%. Speaker 3: That's what the applicant suggests? Yes. It's actually, they were wrong in their calculation. My table indicates that it's 44%. Mayor Stewart: So 44%.
00:52:00 Speaker 3: 4%. That's right. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. 4%. Speaker 3: So 10% more than what's... Mayor Stewart: 4%. And in plot ratio, what's your calculation? 3%. 3%. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a table on page 39. There's a table on page 39. If we're looking at the cause of non-compliance, if we were to take that extra graph over here for 100 square metres, that is the size that we say is the maximum for one small unit. Is that correct? Yeah. So if the developer was maintained in the gold standard and reduced it and redesigned to take out the equivalent of one unit, it's likely to comply with the planning scheme in a random position. Is that clear? That's correct. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: And would you say then there'd be a reasonable yield from that scenario? Yeah. It's not a planning matter. It's not a planning matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Sorry. No, you were first. Mayor Stewart: Just, Patrick, page 42, just a comment. It was also unlikely that an NDIS participant would be able to afford the purchase of one
00:53:00 of these properties due to the level of funding available. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, my understanding is that the funding that would be available for an NDIS participant wouldn't enable them ... If these were going to the open market, it's likely to be quite expensive, and that the funding that's associated with an NDIS participant wouldn't be the threshold that would enable purchase of such a property. Mayor Stewart: But SDA housing, which is NDIS funded, is one of the largest returns for a developer, and the funding that ... Yeah. ... the government funds the people in those. Speaker 3: Do they fund the purchase or do they fund the rental? Mayor Stewart: They fund the rental. Yeah. So this is saying this is not in any way would be able to be afforded by those same people. Speaker 3: Afford the purchase of one of those properties is what it says. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: I guess that ... I guess a lot of people who purchase this might be under NDIS that
00:54:00 still might have a disability or still might have accessible ... need accessible living. Potentially. And could potentially afford it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I think, once again, we're getting into ... I'm just questioning, well, it was ... So the answer was, you explained this report so I'll leave it there. Have you got other questions? Councillor Finzel: I've just got a question. Say my dad, for instance, who's not completely needing mobility items at the moment, and he's in relatively good health at 85, he wanted to buy this into the market, and he could be looking for a property for him to age in. So are we looking at opportunities for people to purchase property that is not about NDIS and all of that as a scenario, but we have properties available that people are looking to buy a property that has the features that support mobility and safety for ageing in place? Speaker 3: So we're not saying they can't build this product. We have no issue with the product they're trying to achieve. We say in the report it's good.
00:55:00 It's commendable. But we also say that they can build this type of product on the site and comply with the planning scheme. That's the core of the issue. So please don't be disillusioned by thinking that we're saying they can't build it and we're stopping them from building the gold standard. That's not the case at all. Okay. Councillor ... Councillor Finzel: Can I just have one last question? Speaker 3: You may. Councillor Finzel: I'm just wondering, how come this report ended up in front of councils today? Speaker 3: Because two of the applicants are staff members. Speaker 2: And it's also recommended refusal, so we're following delegation. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor ... I've got three questions. Can I just hold on to the comment that the Mayor made and perhaps refer to you as well, Kim, with regard to the conversation we had yesterday. Can we look at not just the gold standard against SDA, but can we look at silver, gold and platinum? Look at all the standards associated with disability compliance? Speaker 2: Councillor ... We're happy to send around the brochure on that gives you ...
00:56:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It might be good if we get the whole range of the whole thing. Councillor ... But just with regard to landscaping, Patrick, you mentioned soft landscaping. Can you confirm the difference between landscaping and soft landscaping as it applies to the planning scheme and in this application? Speaker 3: Councillor ... I think it's a bit off the top of my head. So landscaped areas is ... it's those elements which I suppose contribute to just the general outdoor amenity of a development. And it'll include your garden beds. It'll include your swimming pool. It'll include ... Councillor ... Decking? Councillor ... It'll include ... sorry ... Councillor ... Pathways? Pathways. Decking would be something you might want to look at, but certainly not when the deck's got a roof over it. Councillor Jurisevic: But soft landscaping is more about the plants? Speaker 3: Councillor ... Councillor Jurisevic: Soft landscaping is ... In terms of general ... Councillor ... Yeah. Councillor ... Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. It just sounds like I've got the definition of soft landscaping versus landscaping. So vertical gardens. Do they come into calculation with regard to the percentage of landscaping? Speaker 3: Councillor ... Councillor ...
00:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I understand it's a vertical garden ... Councillor ... Speaker 3: It's not a volumetric analysis, and I suppose a vertical garden tends to be a volumetric spatial arrangement. We would be looking at it from a bird's eye point of view. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor ... Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. We've got to do with setbacks and I've had a look at some of the other properties in and around this area in particular but also elsewhere in Shire. How do front fences apply with front setback compared to property setbacks? Is a front fence, because there are some adjoining properties that have solid brick front fences or quite high front fences there, do they have to be set back that distance or is it only the property that has to be set back the six metres? Speaker 3: It's building and structures. The front fence, if it complied with the, if it was under two metres in height, you'd say well you can build, on a dwelling you can build a fence on the front boundary and not be considered to be a setback intrusion. If it went over two metres you could consider it to be a setback intrusion. Notwithstanding, for multiple dwelling developments there are provisions around fences being set back from the boundary and having height requirements and having landscape between them and the front boundary.
00:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I suppose there's another issue for you, but I think we have to refer it to the General Committee for further consideration. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask another question please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One more. Councillor Finzel: On page 41, just for me to get some understanding on it, for a technical referring, meaning states and territories can decide to upgrade to the gold voluntarily. Now each state or territory will be free to determine whether and how the new provisions will be applied. To their jurisdiction to minimise the regulatory impact on the construction sector. Does that mean that as a council we get to decide how that's managed or is this like something like, for example, this is better going through the P&E court to be debated to inform our planning moving forward?
00:59:00 Speaker 2: The decision has to be at a state level. Oh, it's at a state level? Yeah, so council's planning schemes are unable to replicate building code requirements. Okay. So, yeah, the state would have to decide they're going to implement the silver or the gold or whatever, but that's a state decision and not council. And council often receives feedback from state about not trying to replicate the requirements for building that is best considered a building matter in our planning scheme. Speaker 7: Okay, thank you. Speaker 2: So even though these are, you know, good things for buildings to include, you know, as we said, it's commendable, often the state won't allow us to include them in the planning scheme because they think it's a building matter. So we can't actually put that in an amendment up back to state? Well, I mean, obviously strategic can talk with the state. Strategic can talk to state about this? Yeah. They can have that discussion with the state. But often it will be a state decision and we can only try and influence that decision.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So we're back to the motion, which is that the planning environment would be referred to the general committee for further consideration. I'll move it. And Councillor Stewart's seconded. All those in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to the next item. We're moving on to the next item. This is an application for other change to the document approved for multiple housing by a city complex to include short-term accommodation and operation works at 125 East Street. And we have another new staff member. Speaker 6: Yes, we have. A bit rusty at this, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 20 years since you've been sitting there? 18. Oh, sorry. You were only 18 at the time. Thank you. Speaker 6: Yeah, the kids were young too. So you're all frightening again. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Would you like to give us an overview? Speaker 6: Sure, Tracy. So we've got an application for another change to an existing duplex dwelling down at Edward
01:01:00 Street. It's for one of the units, unit one, to be converted for use for short-term accommodation. Something you're all very familiar with. So it's to be used for, at the moment, it's permanent accommodation. So to have the ability to be used for short-term accommodation. We received nine property claims. We made submissions. Two not properly made. One in support and several not in support of the proposal. And the recommendation from staff is to not support the application. It doesn't comply with car parking and it reduces the amount of permanent accommodation in the area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Do we have any questions or clarification or further information required for Monday? Mayor Stewart: I just got a question. Do you know how much the permanent rental is per week? Do you know how much they're paying? Speaker 6: No, I don't. Sorry. That's all right. Mayor Stewart: Can I get that one? Speaker 6: Oh, for this site?
01:02:00 Speaker 2: Oh, it's not really relevant. This is more of an application. How much people pay for rent. Yeah. I'd be interested. I don't know. Speaker 6: So my understanding is that it's actually currently being used for short-term accommodation. That's from the ... Oh, okay. Okay. The submitters have indicated in their letters to us that it has been used and that's a result of some of their noise complaints as part of their submissions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just to clarify, Kerry, that the Act couldn't be accepted if we can't take a personal financial certificate? Yeah. That's a consideration. Okay. Mayor Stewart: I guess I'll retract my question. Could I potentially then get whatever this is, the scope in this, in this area of an average rental? In fact, I can probably do it myself on realestate.com. But just an average ... Speaker 6: Average for a unit? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Like, a dwelling like this would rent out for per week on a permanent basis in that area. It doesn't have to be this one. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have a question from Councillor Lorentson.
01:03:00 Do you want to take? Councillor Lorentson: I have three questions. My first question's, are council aware of any refusals being legally challenged? Are there any refusals of short-term accommodation and medium density zonings? Speaker 2: Well, councillors have asked me this question before and that we do have four planning appeals that have been lodged against grants or refusals of short-term accommodation. So they're currently going through mediation and there's some orders for some joint expert reports on those. Councillor Lorentson: Is there the potential for a class action? Are you aware that ... Speaker 2: No. There's four appeals. Councillor Lorentson: There can't be a class action. Speaker 2: There are four separate appeals. They are four separate appeals. Okay. You know, there's some ... We're using the same team to look at all four for some savings for ourselves and I think the applicants are similarly doing that. Councillor Lorentson: Second question, in regard to the car parking, the requirement under the car parking and
01:04:00 driveways code is to provide two spaces for dwelling and one space for fore-dwelling. So that's a total of three. How is that being properly discussed? How did you get a ride to your conclusion that there wasn't adequate parking? Speaker 6: Again, it hasn't been considered as an appropriate result, I suppose, for accommodation, for this type of accommodation. With that car parking space there being utilised in the driveway, it does restrict the use of the other cars. And Edward Street is relatively narrow as well. So, there hasn't been a tendency for people to be parking on the street, and that's impacting on the surrounding neighbours as well.
01:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: In regards to ministerial conditions, where are we up to with that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not relevant to the application, so I won't accept the question. Councillor Lorentson: No, I'll rule. When reasons for refusal are based on matters that can be addressed under the... It's a broad question, it's not relevant to the matter then. I accept that, thank you. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question, Mr CEO. Can we get a, on those four appeals, and that we're going for mediation, can we get a costing on how much that is costing? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once again, I won't accept the question, it's not relevant to the matter. Mayor Stewart: Well, I think it is, because... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's how I'll rule. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Nadine, thank you for the report, and welcome. You mentioned the noises. There's complaints. What's the situation there? Has there been formal complaints to council? Speaker 6: No, in the submitters' submissions to us, they indicated that several of them live adjoining the premises, and there's a pool, and the outdoor deck has been, when people are utilising it after hours, there's been a lot of noise generated from the unit.
01:06:00 Okay. Councillor Finzel: So if this was to be approved, then that could be addressed through the local law, those noise complaints? Yes. In a satisfactory manner. Speaker 6: Again, we impose conditions about the restrictions of the outdoor areas and the pool areas, so that would go to some way to mitigate against those impacts. Speaker 2: Thank you. If I can just expand on that. You know, in offices recommending refusal for amenity grounds, you know, there's an expectation in areas that there's more permanent residents, and that lends itself to a certain amenity in terms of the neighbourhood and the connectivity with your neighbours and so forth. Okay. So, I think that's a real shift in the way that the community, when an area starts to convert to more visitor accommodation, it does start to impact on that neighbourhood and that community feel and people's general amenity that lives in that area.
01:07:00 So, I think that's something the local law can't deal with. You know, it may be able to deal with some of the immediate complaints next door, but it doesn't directly deal with, you know, that broader amenity issue of a neighbourhood that's changing from permanent to visitor accommodation. That's a real shift in the way that it is. So, I think that's something the local law can't deal with at all. Okay. Councillor Finzel: So, then do you think in your opinion then that the local laws that we've just implemented did not take into consideration that broader impact of what you speak? Speaker 2: The local law, yeah, the local law can't, it doesn't regulate land use. It helps to manage existing properties that already have use rights for short-term accommodation and deal with those immediate amenity issues. So, the neighbourhood next door. But it doesn't, it can't deal with that broader amenity issue of a neighbourhood and what it means to residents living in that area. Thank you.
01:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Do we wish to move that it be moved to the general committee for further consideration? Sure, yeah. I'll go. Councillor Finzel, Councillor Stewart second. All those in favour? We then move on to the next item. Thank you, Nadine. And that's application for operational work for private prescribed, prescribed private works at Kensington Road and Drive, Noosaville. Do you like to give us an overview of this application? Speaker 1: I've got some history with it. Diogo wrote the actual report. The adjoining landowner came to council inquiring about what their opportunities were to build their own jetty. As part of that investigation, the landowner said, it was determined that this jetty that's been erected has extended three metres beyond its original approval, and its location now actually eliminates the possibility for a neighbour to have their own jetty in front of their property.
01:09:00 And as a result of that investigation, this application was made to basically try to ratify what has been constructed. And council, as evidenced by the report, cannot support that constructed jetty. Because of its impacts. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Do we have any further questions? This one's also been referred to be referred. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to refer it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you cancel it? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I've got some questions. Which neighbouring property, Matt? Councillor Jurisevic: Because my understanding is the neighbour owns both properties. And there is a jetty on the adjoining property on the other side. Speaker 1: This is a shared jetty between 10 and 12 Ravenwood. The property in question was 8 Ravenwood, which has got a small frontage to the canal. Councillor Jurisevic: And the drawing shows, or the images show a jetty at that property, does it not?
01:10:00 Speaker 1: A number 8 has since actually constructed a shared jetty with number... Councillor Jurisevic: Something in the other, the adjoining court. Speaker 1: Yeah, key court. I think it was 11 key court. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 1: So as a result of not being able to build in their frontage, they've reached an agreement with another neighbour to do a shared jetty. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that this extends into the frontage of number 8. Councillor Jurisevic: The calculation of the length of the jetty is something like 9 metres. I'm struggling to see where 9 metres from the property boundary comes into being. Can you explain the dimensions that are quoted in the report? Speaker 1: Yeah. It is 9 metres. Councillor Jurisevic: In overall length. Speaker 1: Yeah, in direct length. Councillor Jurisevic: Because it doesn't go straight out, it goes out on a dog length. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's 9 metres out from the property boundary. If you were, like a key line, as this is how it's referred, is measured as a distance parallel to the boundaries. So this extends 9 metres out from the property boundary.
01:11:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I understand that part of the reason it has to extend out 9 metres is because of the sand that congregates in that area, and the canals aren't dredged. Whose responsibility is maintenance of the canal and dredging? Speaker 1: Probably beyond me on that one. But I assume Council would have some responsibility on a regular basis to dredge those canals. Councillor Jurisevic: If that was an issue, it would be... Speaker 2: Equally, there's a lot of properties in the Shire which obviously have jetties in these waterways and out onto the Noosa River. Often the owners actually engage a company to come and do the dredging, to ensure their jetty continues to function appropriately, because sand builds up over time, and then it doesn't function. Councillor Jurisevic: Could that be ones in the river? I'm not sure about ones in the canals. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not 100% sure. I can check, but I think it is done in the canal as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm certainly aware of people who particularly do it, and they file a sign up against the revetment walls,
01:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: and the canals are Council's maintenance issue, so... Speaker 2: Yeah, so some of these... You know, the ability to dredge these areas is an exemption that's allowed for under the legislation. They don't need approval to do minor dredging works in these areas. So, you know, there's at least one company in Noosa that does... Quite regularly goes around dredging. Councillor Jurisevic: I know it's probably not a planning matter, but I would... I would like to know which area of Council is responsible. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: CEO, and when the CEO can advise... I'll rule that out. I want to see the CEO any time. Mayor Stewart: I have... You said you had a long history with this application. Just so... There was a... Approved plans in November 1994 for this jetty. Speaker 1: I don't go that far back, unfortunately. OK. Mayor Stewart: Because it's my understanding that the revised... The revised application, when they met with Councillors on site, was to seek approval to formalise the existing jetty arrangements and...
01:13:00 Is that correct? Speaker 1: That's basically what they're trying to do with this application, yes. OK. So it's... It sort of... It acknowledges the fact that the 1980s, 1970s approval, which was for a six-metre design, that they haven't complied with that. They've gone to nine. Common sense, I suppose, is that they're trying to seek approval for what's been built rather than have to modify it. Mayor Stewart: Right. Speaker 1: And that's what this is about. Mayor Stewart: Right. And so... And that approval has been in place. And it was an approval since November 1994. Speaker 1: But they haven't complied with that approval. It hasn't probably been of consequence. I don't believe. Obviously, Neighbourhood's made a bit of agreements, but it hasn't been a consequence and it hasn't really been brought to Councillors' attention that they didn't comply with their original approval until investigating these matters. Councillor Wegener: Question. So the State doesn't have jurisdiction. It's actual Council jurisdiction over the canals and the water of the canals. Speaker 1: There's a bit of a crossover between the two.
01:14:00 The State tends to, especially in the canals, default to Council because they're aware of what's in our planning schemes. They're aware of what structures may or may not be built. And they're aware that Council tends to enforce the activities within those areas. They don't get actively involved in what these have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But the exemption in terms of the minor dredging would be under State legislation? Speaker 1: State legislation. Yeah, you can... It's an exemption if you can... If it's a lawful approved use and you need to dredge to keep that in operational, then that dredging is an exempt activity. Councillor Wegener: It seems to me they're making an adverse possession claim, meaning that they've been holding onto this property in the view of everybody for so long that it now belongs to them. And if it's Council property, they may actually have a potential of a case, but I don't think it would work in State.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer from that point of view. I think that would be an overreach on their part. Because you don't, even with these approvals, you don't actually own that piece of land. They're basically... The State's giving you the opportunity to use a piece of public land for a specific purpose in line with a specific set of conditions. Mayor Stewart: So we lost a very big case recently, very high profile, in regards to the extension of a jetty. It cost us a lot of money. If we refuse this, what are the options open to the applicant in this case? Speaker 1: Oh, it's a refusal of a planning approval. Mayor Stewart: So what are their options then? Speaker 2: Yeah, they have the right to lodge a planning appeal. That's right. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Which will incur legal costs, obviously. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Potentially. But, you know, as with any case, they all turn on the facts of the case. I would suggest this one's quite different to the other one we had in the river. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We wish to move that the matter be referred
01:16:00 to the General Committee for further consideration. Moved, Councillor Stewart. Seconded, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? We move on to Wyden Street. Wiggins and Noosaville. The ecosystem restoration program. Yes. And we welcome Sean to the table. Thank you, Kerry. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. Would you like to give us a note? Yes. Speaker 4: Good morning, councillors. Good morning. This report provides an update. Yes. The update of the Noosa River Oyster Restoration Project includes the six monthly update reports submitted by TNC. It provides a presentation on the status of the Noosa River project compared to nationwide reef restoration programs. It proposes a rescheduled project delivery program due to delays in obtaining the Queensland Government approvals. It also includes findings of a seagrass study which notes a quite significant decline of seagrass
01:17:00 in the Noosa River. And it also outlines some risk considerations of winter mortality and QX disease. The report sort of recommends accepting the report from TNC, but also notes that in the event that we wish to continue with the partnership, we need to commence negotiations with TNC about the extension renewal of the funding and alliance agreement, which is currently concluding on the 30th of June. Just one little update. We've actually just received an email from DAF, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, this morning, just advising us that they met with TNC last Friday and actually have provided them with a draft approval for the Resource Allocation Authority with conditions. Those conditions are currently being considered by TNC. I just wanted to provide that vertical update. Councillor Lorentson: Question. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Sean, July 2020 KPI, one of the KPIs was estate permits.
01:18:00 Is that what you're saying, that there is verbal now confirmation, some 18 months later than two years later? Speaker 4: Yeah. And the report is, my report is quite clear that they are running that far behind schedule compared to the original deliverables. I think that they note that when that original program was established, it was regarded as reasonable, but I think their contention is that this is sort of unprecedented or paving the way for reef restoration projects in Queensland. And they didn't anticipate this length of time needed to negotiate the approval. Mayor Stewart: Sean, this is due to run out in September this year. Speaker 4: I think that the funding agreement, there's probably a bit of a mismatch. The funding agreement runs out on June the 30th that they're required to report by September 2022. Mayor Stewart: So by June the 30th, will those, absolutely, because we've been hearing for a year and a half, things are in play, emails are going backward and forward, things are looking positive, will the actual permits be 100% guaranteed
01:19:00 that they are in place by the 30th of June? Speaker 4: I can't provide that guarantee, councillor, because it's actually the state government that will provide the approval. And it depends on the acceptance of the draft conditions by TNC. We also note that council also has to issue an approval for prescribed title works. So that's the operational works application following the Resource Allocation Authority. That application has been submitted to council, but it's awaiting the RAA, the Resource Allocation Authority, to come from the state government to allow its assessments. Mayor Stewart: So no pun intended, there's still a lot of water under the bridge. Speaker 4: For the approvals, so... For everything. Yeah. I'd say that towards the end of the negotiations with the state government, I can't speak on behalf of Council Development Association and its assessment team. I've reviewed the development application. I have no requirements for further information.
01:20:00 I believe the TNC application submitted to council for prescribed title works is very comprehensive. Mayor Stewart: Okay. But we're going on the information before us and the evidence before us. And as it stands, what we're voting on on Tuesday, there will be no state permits. Speaker 4: That's a correct statement. That's correct. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So that brings me back to the KPIs. So that KPI was June, July... July 21. It's a long time ago. Yeah. And really, you know, the rhetoric has always been, you know, works in progress. And that's fair. It could well have been. But at what level, if I buy a house, turn up, don't have the money, game over, contract rescinded, it's void, null and void, super damages, you know, all those things can transpire. At what point in the alliance agreement do those similar contractual obligations adhere to either party? So at what point or... This is a big legal document with a lot of money,
01:21:00 a lot of public money at play. What contractual obligations are within this document that those KPIs have to be met? Speaker 4: I'm going to find it difficult to answer the question. Council, as you're aware, I wasn't a staff member when the documents were prepared. I can answer in terms of that. Since I've been in this role, we've actually asked for three executive level forums, which are regarded as the key meetings between Council and the consultant TNC to actually discuss its performance against the contract. And those minutes have been noted. And I've been very clear about the fact that they're well behind schedule in terms of it. So I think in terms of contractual compliance, I could say that the approval from the state is something that's beyond their control. And I'd need to review it further with assistance
01:22:00 to see whether there are contractual breach issues. But my gut feeling is probably not. Because it's a matter beyond their control, which is approval by the state government. I've got the director here in the gallery. Mayor Stewart: It's just interesting. Because if I guess, I mean... Speaker 4: So that predates my employment. So thank you, Kim. Speaker 8: Yeah, just to further comment on that. I would suggest we've been working with TNC collaboratively for the last couple of years. And that was the intent of the alliance agreement, as opposed to from a contract perspective. It's been a collaborative partnership. And we've been able to satisfy ourselves in terms of what the alliance agreement says about meeting the performance indicators, that all reasonable efforts will be made by both parties towards achieving those milestones.
01:23:00 And we've been able to satisfy ourselves through the executive level forums and the communication, both directly with TNC and the state government, that all reasonable efforts are being made and have been made towards meeting those milestones. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Yes, I do. Kim, I appreciate that. Just in regard to our, I guess, under Section 104 of the Local Government Act, were those principles taken into account, I guess, when this contract was drafted? Or was it more, or you're saying it's more of an alliance or a partnership agreement? Because I'll read you those principles. A local government must establish a system of financial management and ensure that it has sound contracting principles when entering into a contract. Sound contracting principles are value for money, open and effective competition, development of competitive local business and industry, environmental protection, and ethical behaviour and fair dealing. So I'm just, were those, I guess, our obligations under the Act looked at in regard to this when drafting this?
01:24:00 Speaker 8: So the Council of the day gave this partnership considerable consideration over a number of months. There was a number of reports to Council about the opportunity initially and what that presented Council about the funding arrangements and about the options of, if Council was interested in pursuing this opportunity, what are the options in terms of an arrangement with the Nature Conservancy? The Council of the day received legal advice and the partnership agreement was drafted by a legal firm and the Council of the day satisfied themselves under the Local Government Act that the arrangement would be a partnership arrangement and a grant funding. So it was done under the local government regulations and met those requirements at the time. Mayor Stewart: More as a partnership, you're saying? Yeah. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Just a few questions. So the report in front of us,
01:25:00 we've got some KPIs and some financial information. Do we have any KPIs or financial information in regard to the funding that was provided by Thomas Foundation and Federal Government? Speaker 8: Both the Thomas Foundation provided a philanthropic donation to the Nature Conservancy directly, not to Council. So it was to the Nature Conservancy. And the same with the Reef Builder funding that came from the government. That was given directly to the Nature Conservancy, not to Council. Councillor Lorentson: And can we, as a Council, request just some details or some information in regards to where that money was spent or we can't? Speaker 8: We can. So the initial arrangement documented how the $1.2 million donated from the Thomas Foundation was to be spent across the phases of the project.
01:26:00 And that information is all on public record. And it also forms part of the update reports. It's a six-monthly report. The additional $1.2 million from the Federal Government has been allocated to expand the reef construction so that the... It was always understood and the partnership agreement envisages this, that if there was additional funding the TNC could attract, they felt they could attract further funding that it would go to expanding the extent of the reef restoration. Councillor Lorentson: And can we request details or information on that spending or is that outside our scope or outside the Alliance arrangement? Speaker 8: They do provide expenditure, but I think in the back of the report, I'm sure the six-monthly report provides a schedule of expenditure, Councillor Lorentson.
01:27:00 Oh, okay. Please let me know if there's further information you'd like and we can get that. Mayor Stewart: Sean, I've got a question. We've received emails, you've received emails about the potential winter mortality, the QX disease and everything like that that pertains to oysters. I'm not a scientist, but we've got a report here that's a response from TNC from Dr Eddie Gain from the Nature Conservancy. So is he responding, someone who has been to the answers about that disease, and he's from the Nature Conservancy? Speaker 4: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Is it prudent to potentially get, I guess, because the Nature Conservancy, as we've heard, have been heavily involved in the project, is it prudent to perhaps get further information out to that, that's completely, I guess, third-party? Speaker 4: It's probably, it's a reasonable request. I do note that TNC do pride themselves on having a very peer-reviewed technical content.
01:28:00 Mayor Stewart: I guess that if you had, I guess my question is, when you're part of the contract, it would be good to potentially get some third-party information. Speaker 4: I think that's a reasonable request in terms of us raising the TNC, so to get external review of that material. So, yeah. Mayor Stewart: And we can note that. No, I still have another question. Could you, Sean, tell, could you, because if we are, you know, I guess the recommendation is to enter into further arrangements, could you please let us know how much, since April 2020, this Council has spent on this project? Speaker 4: I suppose, I provided the financial details to the CEO yesterday, which is a full breakdown. I didn't get time to pull it out since April 2020, but, you know, total project to date is $220,000, but I think it was only about $8,000 since, you know, April. $9,099. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, since April 2020. Yeah. Sorry, how much? $9,000.
01:29:00 Speaker 5: Just for a moment, Mayor, I'll bring out a few questions. So FY20, if I may, through you, Chair. You may. Thank you, Chair. Be careful. He's on the phone. In response, Mayor, expenses for FY22 actual year-to-date is $9,909.65. Expenses for FY21 actual is $18,546. And FY20, $198,231 in expenses. There was some revenue at that point in time. Of $10,000. So total expenses there, $188,160. To very quickly bring that to $10,000, I'd be saying somewhere in the vicinity of $220,000, $230,000.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 From FY20 through the current FY. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do we want to answer that question or not? No, please. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll make my own. Councillor Lorentson: I just have a question. So if we do agree to continue. Is there still a risk that the project may still be planned? Speaker 4: If we compare it, like Noosa is very advanced in terrestrial ecosystem restorations and would become, you know, known as a, you know, a very proactive and assertive re-vegetator. Like Ural Forest is an example, turning previous state forest across into natural habitat. Generally across Queensland, local governments and state government are not very advanced at aquatic ecosystem restorations. So it's almost at the opposite end of the scale. And this project is definitely at the front end of doing new things.
01:31:00 And if we're going to have a healthy Noosa Biosphere, then we should have healthy terrestrial ecosystems and we should have healthy aquatic ecosystems. And so there are risks with this project. It's a new approach to try and reinstate pre-existing aquatic ecosystems. So it is about restoration. There are risks associated with that. But I think the good thing about this project is the extent of partnership funding from both the Thomas Foundation and then also the federal government. So they're actually achieving these outcomes. So it's not just council carrying the risk. It's considerable other entities. Councillor Lorentson: And I'll just think about that. Thank you. Speaker 4: Yeah. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Mayor Stewart: So I guess we've got $750,000 quarantine, Kim. Is that right? Yeah. In the fund that is to be potentially spent on this project.
01:32:00 Sean, you said it is a risk, right? So this is rate pay money that is a risk. It may not be successful. It may be successful. But it's a risk, as you said. Is there the ability, if we didn't pursue this project, that we all want a clean river, we want a healthy river, we want a pristine river, to fund a major urban stormwater management program with that money that we could begin straight away? Speaker 4: Well, these issues about the priority of expenditure would have been debated by council as part of this original project inception. We didn't have a committee then. We weren't at that point. No. So I'm just saying at that council. You know, of course we could invest in an urban stormwater program. Of course we can invest in better sedimentation at Kin Kin Creek. We can invest in better nitro in the Noosa River. But how we balance competing interests at the same time and how we, you know, hold the fort in some areas and advance our understanding of ecosystems and others, it's a complex question
01:33:00 you're asking. And it really gets back to the prioritisation of the council of the day about how you wish to direct, you know, the rate payer funds on the overall Noosa environment. I can't really answer that for you. It really comes down to a political discussion about the priorities you see in the Noosa environment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a comment. I'll add. Yeah. What you're saying is this is funded through the environment, that it would be highly debatable whether an urban stormwater program would be a policy for our environment. Mayor Stewart: Kim, I'd tell you to take that on notice. Yeah. Speaker 8: We'd have to have a look at that. That wasn't what I was going to say. But, yeah, we'd have to have a look whether it does meet the criteria. But what I would say is that it was not only a consideration of the partnership arrangement and the opportunities and weighing up the environmental priorities. This initiative and restoration of aquatic systems in our river is also in that council's
01:34:00 environment strategy. As a key priority. So, you know, it is something that's enshrined in your 10-year plan for the environment. So, as a key priority. Okay. Speaker 4: Just answering Councillor Stewart's other question. So, Noosa River improvements is covered underneath the environment levy policy. And so, I just wanted to clarify that for you. And the Keep It In Kin Kin project is funded through the grants program, which is funded by the environment levy. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 4: So, I think on a project like that, you'd probably want to see if you can get partnership funding, you know, to achieve, you know. And so, you'd have to look at the mechanics of it. But theoretically, the policy would cover river improvements. Mayor Stewart: So, there's other options. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if I may, I was coming to the point of view that you don't use levy funds for business
01:35:00 and stormwater management is called business in my perspective. But anyway. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. We talked about the risks. But what I'm interested in is the opportunities, financial, environmental, the opportunities going all the way from catching more fish, to having cleaner water, to being experts at this growing field of regeneration, which is so desperately needed. Can you maybe give a little bit overview of the opportunities that you see coming from the Oyster Reef project? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we leave that for Monday? So, there's really not, we're really, you know, we're really, you know, we're preparing for information you need for the debate on Monday. Councillor Wegener: Okay. No worries. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you take that on notice as part of the overview for Monday. Tuesday. Oh, sorry. Tuesday. If you turn up on Monday, you'll be lonely. Mayor Stewart: Sean, could I get that, potentially, that independent report then, about the QX disease by Tuesday? Or is that pushing it? Speaker 4: I think that would be unrealistic because this is a very specialist field.
01:36:00 So, and trying to engage a specialist consultant over the Easter weekend and they'd want to look at it in some detail. So, I couldn't commit to that, Councillor. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: A lot of them. Just a quick question. We're making more of a reference to water quality, health and the ecosystem. Has our Noosa River rating ever reached below A minus? Speaker 4: I think at one point it went to B plus. Yeah. So. Councillor Lorentson: So, B plus is the lowest it's ever been and the most recent. Speaker 4: It's important to note that. A minus. A minus. It's important to note that that's a once a year report card snapshot for the overall system. We do have sub-catchments which would definitely be less than an A minus. So, and separate to this, as part of the budget considerations for 22, 23 is the notion of a much more sophisticated monitoring approach. So, it's a much more sophisticated monitoring approach to the Noosa River and the sub-catchments. Because we know that storm water coming out of Eany Creek, you know, from the residential
01:37:00 and industrial areas is certainly not an A minus. Creek water coming out of Kin Kin Creek due to the sediment loads is certainly not an A minus. But we're just very fortunate that the vast majority of water coming into the Noosa River system is from the headwaters of the Cooloola Great section of the Great Sandy National Park and I think we need to be careful that when we talk about river water quality, we're thinking that's a great amassed hole. But we do have concerns in our other, in some of our sub-catchments overall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if we just, back to where I might have at the beginning, make sure where our questions are related to the item in front of us and what you need for Monday, Tuesday's meeting rather than general. Is there any other? Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify a point raised earlier with regard to where this project sits in oyster restoration projects that have been undertaken in the past.
01:38:00 And one of the reasons, and the reason potentially behind why the Queensland Government and ADAPT have struggled with this. This is the first, in my understanding, estuarine oyster restoration project to be undertaken in Queensland, if not Australia. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Not quite correct because there's been some experimental projects. For instance, there's been some experimental projects that have been done in Queensland since there was a forerunner to this in the Noosa River using sandbags. And there is also simultaneously a sandbag oyster restoration project currently underway in Palmerstone Passage. Councillor Jurisevic: But that's not an estuarine. It's not a river. Speaker 4: It's a saltwater. It's also a marine park. So the head of power for that project is actually Parks and Wildlife Service versus Department of Agriculture and Fishery. But this is the first project in Queensland which is actually seeking to re-establish the rock strata or the structural layers that oysters would need to re-inhabit. So it is quite different to any of those previous trial efforts.
01:39:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Okay. So I'm happy to move that the matter be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the incident. Councillor Stewart, all in favour? That's carried unanimously. We move on then to the last item. Thank you. Planning Application Bethlehem Authority February 23-2. Do we have any queries? Comments? To move the recommendation. To move it by Councillor Hazel. To second it by Councillor Stewart. There being no discussion. All those in favour? Looking closed. 10 past. Do you want to say something? No, I think I said enough, that's all.