Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Good morning and welcome everybody to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by paying our respects to the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, which is the Kabi Kabi or Gubbi Gubbi people, and pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Just a general reminder to everyone here today, would you please turn your mobile phones either off or to silent. May we have confirmation, we have no apologies. All councillors are in attendance. We have confirmation of minutes. Could someone please move that the minutes of the general committee meeting held on 14th March be received and conferred with Mayor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried. We have no presentations, no deputations. First item. First item today is the MCU application for a material change of use to a roadside stall at 201 Mary River Road, Cooroy, and it's a report directed general on page 5 of the general committee.
00:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So do we defer to all that further reports on the agenda or do we bring it forward? Councillor Wilkie: Well, this report is on page 5 of the agenda, so we're dealing with it as a first item. Hello. Hello. So. So we can either, people on our schedule today, but if you're not, it's great to put them all on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'm happy to move a motion that's alternative to the staff recommendation. Yeah. It includes the suggestions that are in the agenda on request with two additional clauses, if we can scroll down those and I'll read them out. Thank you. So the additional clause is, D, advise the applicant that were, where they wish, that were, where, where they wish to continue, if they wish, that should be, I think. Yeah, I was just trying to think.
00:02:00 If they, if they wish to continue to operate as a coffee shop, an application is required for a food and drink outlet. The application should be lodged within six months and during this time, the use may continue to operate from the site of the site. Subject to the use not causing any significant impacts on the area and E, the CEO be requested to prepare a set of amendments to the Noosa plan that facilitate a broader range of small scale rural enterprises directly related to the production of local food, beverages, arts and crafts in order to provide opportunities for home based businesses and relations, related uses that are of a scale suitable for assessment as accepted or code accessible development. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that please? Seconder. Seconder, Councillor Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say, we've all had the chance to look at this establishment. It did establish, without planning approval and during the time before this came to us,
00:03:00 has grown to be a, a well liked business that does focus on delivering the experience based on a range of local food, beverages, arts and crafts. It's interesting that it's probably got to the scale now that in normal situations, you would require an impact accessible application. However, I think when I heard the manager of government say last week that the touch and impact accessible application would be maybe incurred the extra cost of it, of being an impact accessible application. I thought, well, let's go back and have a look at the planning scheme, which I did. And even though the strategic intent does outline a range of support and say we will encourage these small scale food enterprises, it probably doesn't have a, in my mind, that sort of hierarchy
00:04:00 where something can start quite small, that might be self accessible or accepted development and then move to a point where we need to assess it against a set of codes. And then if it grows even larger, we have to get an impact accessible application. And that's what item E does. It's, I did circulate some suggestions over the weekend, but staff have said they're already working on one of those. So I won't go into the detail that I did in what I circulated over the weekend. I also think that's the same situation for people who are in the creative industries. We say we're going to encourage it at high levels, but we don't provide a pathway, I suppose, where we're, for me, there's probably a range of situations where small scale businesses that can get either as a home based business or the next step up within the rural area, rural residential area can operate in a way that increases the vitality of our rural area for the visiting public, whether they be local or tourist, but also in a way that doesn't
00:05:00 create impacts for their neighbours. This is one, I believe that in many ways does do that. That it creates value without creating impacts. And hence, item D is that if I thought there was any significant issue with giving a little bit of a period to apply under the current scheme, which is impact accessible for food and drink outlet, I wouldn't have done that. But I do think that there's been sufficient, I suppose, representations to suggest that it does not cause any significant impacts on the area and is providing a service which is well liked. So hence the additions. Councillor Wilkie: And Councillor Stockwell. Do you have any councillors who wish to speak to the motion? A question. Councillor Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. Is the motion before us the only way forward? And why can't we simply broaden the definition of roadside store to include consumption of
00:06:00 food and drink and approve the application in its current form for an MCU for a roadside Speaker 9: store? The roadside store definition is included in the planning scheme. It's a state-wide definition. So the state would not allow us to change the definition. I think it's clear that this proposal is not a roadside store. It does actually constitute, it is a coffee shop. That's its primary use. It does have other elements you'd expect to see in a roadside store. But it is a coffee shop, food and drink outlet. So there's no opportunity really to widen that definition, being a state-wide definition. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And my other question is, will the bus stop Espresso be permitted to operate outside the hours of 9 to 9pm? Speaker 9: The hours in the proposed motion is reflected in the hours they've asked for. That's not consistent with the accepted measures of the code.
00:07:00 But given it is well separated from neighbours, officers don't have any communication with those extended hours. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify the point that Amelia raised there, for those that are listening online, can we get the definition of a roadside store, please? Speaker 9: As per the planning scheme? Yeah. It is in the report to Council to Planning and Environment Committee. So I'll just find what page it is for you. Councillor Finzel: Page four. Number four. Speaker 9: So page four. Page nine is the definition of a roadside store. And a food and drink outlet is also there for you. The definitions. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of this, Kerry, what are the financial implications to the applicant changing from
00:08:00 an ECU for a roadside store and now for a food and drink outlet? I think that's a good question. Is that going to be added cost? Speaker 9: Well, the applicant has incorrectly made an application for a roadside store, in my opinion. So there was a fee paid for that. I'd have to check exactly what that fee is. Councillor Jurisevic: $3,421 for a code impact. $4,276 for an impact accessible versus $6,062 for a food and beverage outlet. $7,500 for a food and beverage outlet. $377 for an impact accessible. Those are the figures that Kerry quoted. Yeah. Speaker 9: Thank you, Councillor Joy. They're from our fees and charges policy. So there is a difference between a roadside store and a food and drink outlet. The applicant, though, does have the opportunity to apply for a fee variation to the director for environment planning based on, you know, what's Council's reasonable cost in assessing
00:09:00 it. And, you know, there's been quite a bit of consideration already to this proposal. I think there would warrant some consideration on the fee variation. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just follow on the question about the fees? Just to follow on with the fees. Sorry, Tom. Just with regard... I've had a few emails and a few comments with regard to fee structures with regard to these types of applications. Can you explain the difference between the level of assessment and why the fees are set the way they are with regard to those two different types of assessments? Speaker 9: Yeah. So the two types of assessment are code and impact. And there is a 25% difference between the fees, code and impact, with impact being the higher of the fees. And that's to account for an impact assessment application is assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. Whereas a code is only... An assessment is only assessed against particular codes. Impact also has to be publicly available to the public. It's not publicly notified. So council have to consider any submissions both for and against received.
00:10:00 So there is additional costs to council assessing an impact. Councillor Jurisevic: The other figures I quoted there were roadside stall versus food and drink outlet. I think those are the figures you quoted to me. So the difference in the level of assessment between a roadside stall and a food and drink outlet. The fees... What I'm trying to assess is why are the fees structured with different values? Is there a different level of assessment? Is there a different level of assessment required? Or a different amount of staff time required to undertake those assessments? And so the fees are based on... Speaker 9: That's right. So there's variation in the fees and charges between the different uses. And it is based on the time taken to assess the different uses. So obviously as an extreme example, assessing a house compared with an industrial use, there's a lot more assessment involved with assessing an industrial use. So the same consideration is here. It's considered that a food and drink outlet, which often operates till midnight in the Shire,
00:11:00 there's a lot more assessment involved with those sorts of uses than a roadside stall. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. Councillor Wegener: When you said on page nine, there's the definition of a roadside stall, is that definition... And it says it's in the planning scheme, but when I look at the definition, I see AO 25 to 20 to 25.1 to 25.2. And PO 25 and PO 26. So which is it? Is it page nine? Or is the definition in the POs and the AOs? Speaker 9: Yeah. So the scheme definition is on page nine, as indicated. So that is the actual definition of the use. On page 10, you have the acceptable outcomes of the scheme for a roadside stall. So they are not the definition, they are the requirements for a roadside stall to operate. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I just have one quick question.
00:12:00 And then above on number five, on the... What's on the screen? Food and drink must not be prepared and sold for consumption on the premises. No on-site dining is permittable. Are we... So with the amendment down below that's in red, is that inconsistent with number five? Do we need to get rid of number five in order for E, D and E to be removed from the list? Is E valid? Speaker 9: So the motion before you seeks to approve the development, but with some restrictions to ensure that it does operate as a roadside stall. D allows the applicant six months to lodge it as a food and drink outlet, and so operate the coffee shop that they really wish to do. So they are two separate things that are complete. Councillor Wegener: With it, and E, the CEO, is requested to prepare a set of amendments. There's a six-month timeframe with a doable in this situation, because we'd love to see
00:13:00 him apply after the amendments have come through. Speaker 9: Yeah. Planning scheme amendments take some time to be progressed, so it's not only staff time to obviously write them, but there's a check by the state government, an approval by the state government, there's public notification of scheme amendments, and again, sign off by the state after that. So it's quite a lengthy process. So you're looking at least a year for scheme amendments to go through. So the six months in D just purely allows the applicant to continue operations for six months, but then make an application for a food and drink outlet in the end. So a bit faster process than waiting for a scheme amendment. Mayor Stewart: So six months to continue, Kerry, just for complete clarification, to continue as it is, as sell and coffee. Speaker 9: Yes. Mayor Stewart: So business as usual. Business as usual for six months. Speaker 9: Providing this commitment at the end to lodge that application. Mayor Stewart: And then they lodge that, and then they have the ability to continue on as is.
00:14:00 Speaker 9: Absolutely. As it's always been. That's right. And I think that's reasonable, because the use is not causing significant impacts to anybody in the area. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Kerry, could you explain the principle of when planning scheme amendments under way, and say for argument's sake it's to allow food and drink outlets in the hinterland, and an application against the planning scheme is made for a food and drink outlet, but there's amendments under way that indicates that that's the way the council wants to go. What's the principle of planning, and what does it, what weight does it bear on assessment of that application? Speaker 9: Yeah. With planning scheme amendments, council is able to take those amendments into consideration when deciding an application. It's known as the CODI principle. And there's a good case law on it. But essentially, scheme amendments should not be, and the further along the scheme amendments are, the more weight council can apply. So typically, not a lot of weight should be applied to scheme amendments until we have
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 publicly notified those changes, and the community have had a chance to comment on those changes, and council's considered what they would like to do in response to those submissions. So that's, not a lot of weight should be applied to scheme amendments until the scheme amendments are substantially progressed. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: My one concern is that we're just kicking this down the road six months. In six months' time. Speaker 5: Just a question. Councillor Wegener: Yes, yes. Since you're so familiar with the facts of this case and so forth, there's not an obvious way that it's not going to be approved, as if a properly made application is made for a food and drink. Is that an unfair question? Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Prejudice in the process. Okay. I'm happy to speak to the motion. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Councils have been overwhelmed by community support of this local business, and it doesn't need any explanation that this hub is more than just a coffee shop and needs our support. Our planning scheme, as discussed, supports and encourages rural tourism and small-scale
00:16:00 tourism facilities, and our corporate plan states that council's purpose and role is to work with our community to help shape our future. The motion before us. Thank you. Is a good example of this and has my full support. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it, Councillor. Councillor. Sure. I had the opportunity to visit Bus Stop Espresso, as did the majority of councillors. We met with the owners, the locals and the local producers and business owners who showcased their products at this place. We can talk a lot about the vibe and spirit of a community, and we can wax lyrical about the importance of connectivity and connection. Perhaps of the impacts of COVID or mental health, never more important. We can talk about these things, but last week we got to view them firsthand. We got to see what a small, locally owned and run business can do to lift a community, to bring spirit and a sense of community to a place in so many ways. We heard about the patrons who arrived first thing in the morning, wanting to share a coffee and share a story. I met some of the wonderful local producers and suppliers who, with pride, showed me
00:17:00 their products, locally made and locally sourced. I saw a community come together because of this place. I left feeling uplifted and overwhelmed. There are types of businesses that we should support. Locals helping locals in so many ways that transcend a scheme. But the rules and regulations are there, and that is why I support Council Stockwell's amendment. I support the continuation of this wonderful family business, and I support it the right way going forward with the correct application. And I take comfort in the fact that this business can operate without recourse for the next six months while those submissions are made. I support the amendment to facilitate a broader range of small-scale rural enterprises. These are exactly the type of businesses we should be supporting. I want to thank the owners and the communities who engaged us and provided feedback to us. Your voices were well and truly heard. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Mayor, the sentiments of Councillors Forreston and Stewart there. I think it's a great facility. And like the community that has informed us, I don't think anybody wants to see this closed. I think the amendment you provide, the facility it provides, is exactly what's needed out
00:18:00 there. And it's, I think, in keeping with what the intent of the planning scheme is to agribusiness and to those types of facilities. I see the challenge of a roadside stall, even though when you read through the planning scheme, I could see how it could be interpreted that this doesn't stretch the bounds of a roadside stall. But when all is said and done, it probably, you know, the food and drink outlet aspect of it and the dining there do put it into a different category to what the intent of a roadside stall is meant to be. And for that reason, I do agree with the point Councillor Stockwell makes in point D, and that staff have given advice to the owners and the communities who engaged us and provided the applicant that they should operate and put in application as a food and drink outlet to try and facilitate that . I acknowledge there's a difference in the fee structure.
00:19:00 It is relative. It's not significant, but it's enough to almost double the price of the fee, and I can see that becomes a challenge for a small business operator in the first instance. But this operation has grown, has developed organically into something of a scale in that the demands that it really needs to rethink the application so that it can get approval going forward. I applaud the opportunity to review the planning scheme and look at the amendments that might be in place to facilitate greater use of opportunities for agri-tourism and agri-business for the future without having to go through impact assessments where they can really be done so. This facility, as we all enjoyed, was a beautiful setting in which to enjoy a coffee and a lovely place to get respite. Many, many members of the community enjoy that amenity, and so I applaud the applicants
00:20:00 and I wish them well in their future endeavours, give them six months to get their house in order if they wish to continue to apply in the proper way. That's it. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bob and Susie, for what they've done with the bus stop espresso for the last year. It's provided an enormous service to the community. And yeah, they deserve awards. I'm very happy with E. Now, when it comes to E, the amendments easing restrictions on preparing food on properties is really important because we need to change our diets. We still have a northern European diet. We eat carrots and iceberg lettuce and all those things during the summertime when they don't grow here. Well, at the same time, there are plants that want to grow here, that want to sustain us, that nature provides. But to get to that place where we change our diets, we have to do it incrementally, one person's diet at a time. And I believe that these roadside stalls are the way forward for that because the IGAs and so forth, they're not going to do it until they're pushed,
00:21:00 until they're forced into this, until we change our diets enough that we create the demand for that. So this is very, very important for us moving forward, becoming a healthier, more resilient, climate change responsive, happier community that's engaged with each other on a community level instead of relying on the long supply chains and the superstores. So thank you. Thank you, Brian, for your efforts in putting this on. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. I wonder if this is section A, the 12th century. It's about home-based businesses and R&D users that are on a scale suitable for assessment as accepted or co-assessable development. Is that too narrow? Will that preclude something like this, the bus, which is an impact-accessible application? Do we need to include impact-accessible development in there to cover the full range of what might be possible on the internet? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the intent is to define levels of uses.
00:22:00 Like what is a level of a food and drink outlet that we think... should be code-assessable, therefore broadly applicable within a range of situations and meet the other codes versus having to go through impact assessment for anything that's a food and drink outlet, if there's anything that it triggers in the arts and crafts, anything that triggers a shop definition rather than a home-based business definition by having too many people visit it. Do we want them to automatically go to impact assessment with the advertising extra cost, or is there a scale that we think, no, generally, if it's just going to this scale, we think that is code-assessment, therefore an easier process, so that the intent of the amendment is to define a level of development that doesn't require advertising, is cheaper to do and easier to get the approval, so it's not excluding what's there now, which is everything that is over and above a home-based business or a roadside stall is impact-accessible, so it's not excluding
00:23:00 It was going to refer to Station 1, but staff gave advice this morning that they're working on one aspect of it in terms of the current scheme, for example, limits medium impact industry as a home-based business in the rural residential zone. Unfortunately, medium impact industry in its definition doesn't have a minimum level, so even the smallest of the manufacturers triggers a higher level of assessment. But staff are already working on that. So the other aspect of it is in terms of how you set it up in the different zones so that you can do more without the high level of assessment. Councillor Wilkie: So it just sets out to describe what's desirable out there and anything outside of that remains impacted, so to speak? That's right. Okay, thank you. It doesn't include it, does it? Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, everyone, for what you brought to the table today. I think this is a great example of how we can engage with community and that we can have staff give us information and we can work together to negotiate outcomes that match changes in community.
00:24:00 I think given COVID, we've been fundamentally changed. This roadside store grew organically through that time when people just sort of met up. They could meet outdoors. They couldn't necessarily get into coffee shops. I think. I think the community has shown us that they want to meet together in these informal ways, and it's fantastic because we build community resilience, which is really important, given the disasters and associated impacts of COVID that we've experienced. I like the idea that we can, in item E, that we can look at more opportunities also for arts and crafts. We've got a lot of artists in our shire that already run business. You know, for their arts practices. And so to add this further opportunity where people perhaps may like to drop in and see their work, have a chat and engage with the artists, I think it's a great opportunity to look at how even the arts, culture and heritage can be supported through this amendment.
00:25:00 I also think it promotes excellence between council, and it's another step forward in engendering trust in our community. So I'd like to thank everyone for the work that's been done here, and especially the community. It was so engaged in this process, and I think we've given them a fair representation at the table. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. I think the councillors have summed up the issue very well. I, of course, am in support of this motion, because it helps these applicants negotiate the framework, which is very complicated. It helps them achieve the ends that they're after. I think what they've shown us is perhaps the future of rural tourism. I think once... The planning scheme amendments and the public consultation, it's likely that there will
00:26:00 be overwhelming support for these sort of niche enterprises throughout the rural zone. And I think this articulates a way forward to achieving that. I support the motion. Councillor Stockwell, you should go next. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will go. I think it's good to sum up by clarifying or reinforcing what came out of the questioning. That is, the application erred in that it sought to... ...apply for a business as a roadside stall by arguing that elements of a performance-based code would mean that the use was a roadside stall rather than the reverse. You look at what the definition of a roadside stall is and always has been, and those are the requirements for that. So we couldn't approve the current use with the current application. It wasn't within council's power, in my view, to do that. So what this motion does is... ...calls out those aspects of the enterprises does comply or do comply with the roadside stall definition and gives them approval for that and then provides a pathway to address the other areas of the current one that complies with the scheme, which is how it's operating as a food and drink outlet, and gives them time to do that.
00:27:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion to those in favour. That's unanimous. We now move on to item two, which is minor change to an existing approval for a dual occupancy at 122 and 222 Kingfisher Drive, Bridgerton. Thank you, Jada. Jada. Bridgerton Beach. Now, I believe I have a copy. Sorry. A variable copy, if interest would be. I'll get there. Thank you. Just got to move it up. Sorry. Right. We're moving on to item two. I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to this application, and I'm in favour. As the applicant, Sharon O'Mara-Barnes, were on my list of campaign volunteers for the 2020 local government elections.
00:28:00 Now, I've had, subsequently I've had different advice, and I would like to put this in the hands of the fellow councillors, whether they remain in the room or not. But to be clear, I'll put that out there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I move that Councillor Lorentson take the chair. Speaker 3: I haven't done this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've all said why not. Councillor Lorentson: It needs a seconder. What's the expression? Pressure is privilege. Second. Councillor Jurisevic: So, now you second it? Only if she's happy to accept the chair. I'm not going to enforce chairmanship upon someone that's not comfortable in the position. Mayor Stewart: Of course, I will. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: All in favour? Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So. Yeah. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll leave it in the hands of my fellow councillors whether they remain in the room or not.
00:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, I'd like someone to move for Councillor Wilkie to either stay or leave the discussion. I have a question. Or ask questions. Or ask questions first, please. Yeah. So, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move that, because I have my hands up, I'll move that he does, that it's a declarable conflict of interest and that he remains in the room as the level of in-kind support is below even the minimum of that stipulated by the legislation in terms of the in-kind support. So, if you campaign, it's down to $500. Councillor Wilkie: How do we know that? And to that, I can say with clarity. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So, just to clarify, I've got a question in that regard. Yeah. Just to clarify. So, there were, did the Barnsers spend any time handing out election material for you at all? Councillor Wilkie: Not that I can remember. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. But they were on your list of volunteers?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Yes. Mayor Stewart: So, I've got a question. Maybe it's for the CEO. I know when someone appeared in a campaign video for Councillor Lorentson, that was a declarable conflict of interest and she's always left the room on that. How does that differ? Both involved or potentially involved in a campaign? How does that differ in this instance? Speaker 3: We're not being overly familiar, but what I would say through the Chair is that Councillor Lawrenston's person that appeared in that video actually undertook the task. What Councillor Wilkie is saying is that while they were on Councillor Wilkie's list, they were on Councillor Wilkie's list. So, they never undertook the task as a result of COVID. So, as a result of the restrictions that were in place, that did not occur. So, the conflict that may or may not be incurred due to the in-kind support that would be provided actually never happened. Whereas, the person that appeared in the video appeared in that video and that would always
00:31:00 then be delivering a service for Councillor Lorentson. So, that's a review that I would take on. But on the information, I have to admit. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think there's a key difference, because Councillor Wilkie asked me when I said I don't think he's even got a declarable conflict on this, is my recollection is that the first time Councillor Lorentson declared the video, she did ask to stay in the room, but then came to her own conclusion that in fact that person was a close associate as defined by the Act and therefore became a prescribed conflict. Councillor Lorentson: To add to that, I also stated that I do believe that I've passed the pub test and I think that ultimately, that's the test. Would a reasonable person believe that Councillor Wilkie today would have an objective and impartial position on this application in front of us? Will he pass the pub test? Councillor Jurisevic? Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a question for Councillor Wilkie. With regard to your relationship with the public sector, I think that the public sector
00:32:00 is a very important part of the Barns. Can you explain what the nature of the relationship is and how they came to be on your list of volunteers for your campaign? Councillor Wilkie: They are Parisian residents that I see around the village very occasionally and they express support for the work that I do and that they would like to help at the next election. I haven't had coffee with them. I haven't had coffee with them. I don't know if they're facing my personal close friends or anything like that. Councillor Jurisevic: OK, thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Councillor Finzel? Thank you. Through the Chair. Just a question. When you raised how conflicting advice, is that legal advice or where's your conflict around advice you've received regarding the matter? Councillor Wilkie: I've re-read the Declarable Conflict of Interest Rules and I was talking a lot with my colleagues
00:33:00 The changes in the legislation since Belcarra came in and the monetary amount is what constitutes a deterrable conflict of interest, whether for $500, the contributions of $500 in work, is the advice I've received. But it's up to the councillors whether they want to keep their money or not. But I can tell you that a lot of my volunteers didn't get the handout because of COVID. Councillor Finzel: Okay. And did they donate any cash to your campaign? No. Councillor Lorentson: So I put it to the table. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm sorry. I knew something, but there's been no seconder. Okay. So. Councillor Lorentson: Looking for a seconder. No. Jurisdiction. No. No. Councillor Jurisevic: I didn't take it. That was to a point. That was to a point, Amelia. Councillor Wilkie: I'll probably need to check my register about whether they've donated cash.
00:34:00 But if they did, it would be under $500. I can do that now. Just want to make sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So many donations. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. If we're happy for Councillor Wilkie to do that, I'll talk to the motioner. Oh, we haven't got a seconder. Councillor Jurisevic: We haven't got a seconder. You can't talk to the motioner. Councillor Lorentson: And I'd like to ask a question of Councillor Wilkie. How long have you known the Barnes for? You've said a long time. What's a long time? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, look. They became known to me during the debate, the divisive debate in Perugia about shifting the surf club. They live on Kingfisher Drive. And where it was proposed to shift the surf club was in front of their house. So they were very concerned about that. And that's when they became well known to me.
00:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: What year was that? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, 2018. 2018. Something like that. Yeah. But I do know a lot of people that they're not close friends. They're not on my- It's a natural thing. It's a natural thing. It's a natural thing. Councillor Lorentson: So we have this. Do we have any more information, Council? Do we have any information as to the amount that is? Councillor Wilkie: They're not on there. So if it is, these are amounts in total of $500 or more. If they are, it's less than that amount. I couldn't even say whether they are or not. But I'll be sure they're not. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Jurisevic, do you have a question? Councillor Jurisevic: A question for the CEO. I'm not sure if you can answer this one, CEO. But given that Councillor Stockwell has suggested that the value of contribution is under $500, how would one assess volunteer time for handing out of flyers and things for an election campaign in the dollar value?
00:36:00 Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Councillor Jurisevic. I think it would be reasonable to look at a nominal amount, given that it is not skilled work and that it's not difficult labour as well. And that's somewhere between the $20 to $40 an hour would be reasonable for those in the community to look at that as an in-kind contribution and a cost thereof. Noting that polling on election day is generally running from, let's say, first of the morning. Councillor Jurisevic: 8 till 6. Speaker 3: At the end of the afternoon, you would probably work through that, you know, it would be less than $400 at the absolute most. Councillor Jurisevic: It would be rare for anyone to work a whole day. It would be, it would be. Except for your relatives. Yeah. Speaker 3: So on that basis, and just looking at that from what would be very raw figures, I would say that their in-kind contribution would still be less than the $500.
00:37:00 Councillor Lorentson: Now, would anyone like to speak to the motion? I'll second the motion. I do so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think it's important to understand is previously, well, the main thing is that Councillor Wilkie has declared it, and in my opinion, under legislation, he did not have to. Okay. So $500 is the trigger, the value of a contribution to a campaign that triggers the need to declare it. So it's below the minimum trigger level. So the reason why it's declared is to put it out and above it. Yes. That's the reason why these people have indicated they support it. I think the other one, you know, in the past, people who, in the old legislation where people came up that were doing letterboxing, except for me, I didn't go out of the room. But I think when the new legislation came out, I asked the question, and I forget where it was, but the answer came back was it wasn't, they're not meant to inhibit people taking part in a normal part of democratic process.
00:38:00 Mm. And that's what we really have to think about, because if you start saying that people should get out of the room every time someone's made a small contribution to their campaign, it's giving a disincentive for people to actually have volunteers. It's actually reducing the robustness of our democracy, and hence why I think it's great that Councillor Wilkie has declared it. It's well below the $2,000 value of an electoral contribution. That would mandate him go out of the room. And it's even below the minimum amount of $500. For those reasons, I think it's reasonable to allow him to stay. Councillor Lorentson: Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? Can I put this to a vote then? All those in favour? Speaker 9: So, leave or stay? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Leave. Stay. Councillor Lorentson: Stay.
00:39:00 So, all those in favour of Councillor Wilkie staying in the room and considering this matter? Speaker 9: Anyone else? Councillor Lorentson: And does not have a close personal relationship with Sharon and Marie Barnes, and therefore a reasonable person who trusts that the final decision is made in the public interest? Yep. Those against? Councillor Jurisevic. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, Alinda, in the appointment motion above, at the end of the meeting, there was a motion to vote. Could you note that Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Lorentson did not vote? Councillor Wilkie: Question? Why? I voted. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did you? Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilkie did not vote. Councillor Wilkie did not vote. I didn't see a hand. That's all. Councillor Lorentson did vote. Yeah, you can vote. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. I voted.
00:40:00 Now you can hand it back to you. Councillor Lorentson, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Good work. Yeah. Well done. Okay. So, this item's on page 15 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting agenda. Councillor Lorentson: And I'd like to move a motion. Speaker 7: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 12th of April, 2022, regarding application number 51901.4116.01 to make a minor change to an existing development plan. The plan would require existing approval for a dual occupancy at Rolga Plagues 122 and 222 Kingfisher Drive, Peregian Beach, and request a further report for the ordinary meeting providing an alternative motion for approval. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Just for clarification, if I may, to see ...
00:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: It's been seconded by the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I just want a clarification of the wording of the motion before it's spoken to. Is that permissible? Councillor Lorentson: The applicant is seeking a minor change approval for changes and extensions to two units, one and two. The changes result in an additional 17 square metres of GSA and additional site cover of 42 square metres across the site. The changes also result in reduced front boundary setbacks. I'm recommending that we approve the application because the non-compliance with the NUSA plan requirements are minor as defined under Section 78 of the Planning Act and the changes do not result in a substantially different development because the changes relates to minor additions and the changes do not cause the approval to be prohibited development.
00:42:00 In relation to the proposed deck and roof cover extensions, this is going to result in 4.635 square metres setback from the main frontage and 2.52 metres setback to the site's corner. While not achieving the acceptable outcomes, the proposed additions will still ensure that the building will remain consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape. And that's where I'm going to draw the next part of my argument. I've asked Cathy or Elinda to provide some pictures and I'm just going to, I'm not a planner so I'm not going to go into acceptable outcomes, I'm going to talk about the predominant character of the streetscape. So in regards to setbacks, I'm going to start with number 20, Kingfisher, which is this one here. So this is the house right next door to the application that we've got in front of us. It's a large dual occupancy.
00:43:00 And it includes race pools, roofed deck structures that are two metres and five and a half metres from the front boundary setback. The next property, which is 18 Kingfisher Drive, it's a large house and it's got a 3.5 metre setback. Number 16, which I think is further down, again a large house and again 3.5 metre setback. I argue that the proposed 4.635 metre setback is consistent. With the predominant character of the surrounding area. It's also important to know that the proposed deck and the roof extension is going to be lightweight and open and, in my opinion, will improve the design of the existing building and the streetscape. In regards to your site's colour, so I'm going to go to site colour, the proposed extensions will cause the development to exceed its site colour. Again, I go back to the streetscape and again I go back to where the building will remain consistent with the proposed deck and the roof extension.
00:44:00 Again, I'm going to go to site colour, so I'm going to go back to where the building will remain consistent with the proposed deck and the streetscape. 22 Kingfisher contains an existing dual occupancy and it's got a site cover of approximately 46%. Number 18 has a site cover of approximately 49%. And number 16 has a site cover of approximately 49%. Thank you, Linda, has an existing house which is a site cover of approximately 42.7%. Therefore, I argue that the proposed development, which would have a site cover of approximately 41.9%, is compatible with the scale and character of the streetscape, is minor and should be supported. Additionally, the proposal achieves the overall outcomes of the Mingling Density Residential Code. That is, it will remain home to permanent residents.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 It does not have any short-term accommodation. The additions will make a positive contribution to the look and feel of the neighbourhood, as it maintains a low-scale character that is compatible with the surrounding built-form character of the area and will enhance the character of the streetscape. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Question for staff. With regard to the site cover and plot ratio, I'm looking at Table 1 on page 22. It states the proposed area will be 222 square metres with a plot ratio of 0.44 to 1 compared to the existing 0.42 to 1, but it doesn't state how many square metres the existing floor area is. That seems, for a very, very small plot ratio increase, 0.02 to 1, to be almost 10% or 9% increase in floor area.
00:46:00 Can you explain what the current, or the existing floor area is for the site as it stands? Speaker 9: I'll have to work that out for you, but in the description, in the executive summary on page 15, it tells you what the increased gross floor area is, which is 17 square metres and an additional site cover of 42 square metres. So they are the changes? It's an increase in GFA? Councillor Jurisevic: No, that means it's somewhere around about 180 square metres, 170 to 180 square metres at the moment. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: So the existing house house duplex area site cover is 37.6% and it's proposing a 46%? Speaker 9: That's correct. That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Could you explain why, say, that site cover is 37.6% and it's proposing a 46%? Yeah, the towering floor is just 610 Kingfisher. There's only a 3.5m front down...
00:47:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That's my next question, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: It's closer to the south and it's closer to the commercial zone. Speaker 9: So I have provided a summary to councils of all the setbacks in the street, both north and south of the site. And south of the site, the site's fairly close to the village centre for Bridgian, where a zero front setback is supported. So essentially, setbacks in the area. Looking at the houses, the two houses adjacent to that village, that was acknowledged, and so a reduction in setback was agreed to, and it tapers along. In the summary that I've given to council, as you can see, the majority of buildings in that street are, while they vary slightly, they are six metre setbacks. Their duplex next door, the high deck walls that we can see in those photographs, they are setback six metres. It does have a pool in the frontage, which is slightly above the ground, but it's not subject to setbacks given the height of those structures.
00:48:00 And you can see it sits well below the fence height. Councillor Wilkie: And the majority of properties, all properties to the north of 18 are actually not a six metre setback? Speaker 9: Six metre setback, that's right. Councillor Wilkie: And so if 22 was to encroach on that setback, would you block the northern view of 18? Speaker 9: Well, that's a concern. You allow them to come further forward and they start to encroach on the view lines. That's why they start to look out of place in the street. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, just to clarify. So setback wise, the setbacks are from the front boundary to the first overhang, not the wall. I'm looking at 16 and 18, and in figure one, Not necessarily 20, but 22 seems to be setback quite a considerable difference, the same as 20. 16 and 18 seem to be, as Councillor Lorentson suggested, far less of a setback than the six metre setback within the same street.
00:49:00 Speaker 9: So the setbacks that are provided to councillors are from the approvals and the approved plans. So we need to be careful about measuring aerials and the like. Councillor Jurisevic: So how do other properties in this street? Get lesser setbacks? Is it because of their proximity to the centre? Speaker 9: That's right, that's what I've explained. Those two properties next to the village centre were given setback variations, acknowledging that the centre is allowed to have a zero setback. And so what happens in the street is it tends to taper along, starting off obviously closer to the street and tapering back as you head further north from the village centre. Councillor Jurisevic: And the only element of overhang, or the only element of encroachment on that setback is the overhang of two deck extensions that I can't quite get a measurement of from the drawings provided as to how much more they're going to extend.
00:50:00 Speaker 9: Yeah, so the setbacks are detailed in the report. I'm just trying to find where they are. Councillor Jurisevic: So the current setback's six metres, the 4.5, so it's an extra metre and a half of peaking. Speaker 9: Yeah, so current overhang is at six metres, and the extended deck will be at its closest to Kingfisher, 4.6, and 2.5 to the corner with Brolga Plains. So a little bit closer on that corner. Councillor Jurisevic: And the new entry stair listed for Unit 1? Yes. On the left-hand side of the property, looking from the front. Okay, there's the other one. There's the other question. The other one is an internal. It currently has an internal staircase as per Unit 2. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, Kerry, my understanding is that this application didn't want to undergo public
00:51:00 notification. Were there any objections? Did any of the neighbours put any submission objecting to this? No. No. The extensions? Speaker 9: Look, it wasn't required to go through public notification. Councillor Lorentson: No, it wasn't. We still get emailed. Speaker 9: We do, and it depends whether people are watching our website to see new applications, or the neighbours have given the courtesy to tell them what's happening. But no, we didn't receive any letters. Councillor Wilkie: We don't know if the neighbours are even aware of it. Speaker 9: They may not be aware. That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Sander, I just wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I've got another question, if I may. Councillor Wilkie: Can I see the specifics of it again? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What's that, sorry? The specifics of what Councillor Lorentson moved furthering. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the next part of my question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Request a further report to the Order of Providing an alternative motion for approval. Was that it? Councillor Lorentson: And I'm assuming that will have relevant conditions attached to it.
00:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That was the element of my question that originally, with regard to the wording of the motion, whether that was sufficient for staff to address the issue, or whether it needed to have with conditions, or any other wording associated with that to be relevant Councillor Lorentson: My understanding of that was implied. Speaker 9: Yeah, well, you know, based on today's discussion, and the discussion by the majority of councillors, staff would prepare those conditions, and also have reasons why, you know, councillors thought there was grounds to go against the officer's recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's where I'm at. I'm 50-50 now. I wasn't. The risk is creating precedent. So the performance outcome, and why there are sufficient grounds to vary, is what will
00:53:00 make my mind up. And I'll probably have to go and have a look at that. But the, for that particular block, it does appear to have been a practice previously, even though the neighbouring block is six metres setback. It's quite a substantial form within that area. So it's, I'm happy to go with the motion, but would be, in considering it on Thursday, would it be guided by the whole precedent, notion of precedence, but also whether there are sufficient grounds, and I'll have to adjust, satisfy myself. Councillor Lorentson: Could I ask the question, Kerry? If the neighbour had no objection to the extensions, would that carry any weight to, well, or would it, I know it's not necessary, but do you think it would be worthwhile? Speaker 9: It's relevant to note.
00:54:00 But I don't think we should base our decisions on whether the neighbour thinks it's okay or not. We really should make an assessment against the planning scheme. And for me, this raises precedent issues, as Councillor Stockwell went to. Because we have a planning scheme that sets a maximum GFA and site cover. And I don't see the grounds here to vary that. Councillor Jurisevic: Jo? Can I, sorry, Linda, can I go back to the images of the adjoining properties, please? Yes, please. Specifically the one immediately adjoining 20, I think it is, that one there. Councillor Lorentson: And I really do recommend councillors go and have a look at the application and the . Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm trying to ask a question here. I'm looking at the site of the adjoining property, number 20, with the pools in the front, and I'm looking at the ground floor plan.
00:55:00 Figure four on page 18, with the plunge pool and decks and the like. As far as landscaping and taking up, and the plot ratio on the site, how do the two compare? It seems that there's, with landscaping, the plunge pool and the decks are considered part of landscaping. Is that correct? Speaker 9: Okay. The decks in that plan are considered part of site cover and are subject to setbacks. So if I may just point to- Councillor Jurisevic: So that would apply to the one here as well. So the new deck, the pool deck option, and the living decks are all considered part of- Yeah. Speaker 9: So these are the decks here. And you can just see the pools down below. Speaker 8: So these decks are subject to site cover and setbacks. Speaker 9: The pools, on the plans at least, they show the pool to be less than a metre, and so they're not subject to setbacks, and they constitute landscaping.
00:56:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. I'll speak to the motion. I have real difficulties with this. One of the common things, the most traumatic things I get called to, is situations where neighbours are having to deal with building works involving relaxations to decks, extending the neighbours' properties out to the point where their views are blocked, usually done by delegated authority. The purpose of the setbacks is to ensure that everyone has equal access to, in this case, northern views, where from 20 Kingfisher North, all the setbacks are six metres. To allow a council-granted relaxation in this situation, we know it's going to block the
00:57:00 northern view or the neighbour. And also, the setbacks are there for a very good reason. I'm basing this on the fact that the setbacks are there for a very good reason. The sound reasoning in the funding scheme, which is to prevent building large bulk, preventing it to the street, will be over scale for a very small lot. And also, I've just had too many experiences of meeting people who've had their views blocked by relaxations granted by this council. And, for me, that's not the case. I don't think we need to willingly approve something like that, knowing it's going to block a northern view, and perhaps create a precedent. I'm just very, very uncomfortable with it. But I'll be going and I'll be interested to see what, if it's the majority of you, interested
00:58:00 to see what comes before us and what doesn't come before us. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to just say that, you know, we've got a lot of work to do. Yeah, I'd need further information to support this amendment. Yeah, simply because I think, for those same reasons, I've gone out and attended situations where there's been bulk around sheds and all sorts of things. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think we've got to be a bit cautious about, even though it's minor and I hear what's being said at the table, I think we, I just need further information before I could, yeah, vote on this. Mayor Stewart: Kerri, is there an opportunity to work with the applicant between now and Thursday and obtain further information, or are they, are they willing to, I guess, negotiate or talk,
00:59:00 I mean, this is their application clearly, but are they willing to, to work with council on this and that they understand the concerns? Speaker 9: Yeah, look, as the report details, there's been a number of options discussed that they've put forward and they've essentially reversed them. They've converted to their original application. The options that they put forward really didn't address the issues in officers' opinion. So they have shown a willingness to make changes, but there's not a simple solution to suddenly make it comply, because, you know, the development, there's not a lot of room to move. They're really at their maximums already, so to achieve more on the site, they just can't without not complying with those proofs. Councillor Wilkie: If there are only 37 per cent site cover, is there an opportunity to increase the deck by a small amount? Speaker 9: Yeah. Or the stairs. Yeah, there's probably a little bit with site cover, you know, but not a lot with plot
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 ratio, obviously, because we're already above the allowable plot ratio. So site cover constitutes... Councillor Wilkie: Oh, they are six metres away. Speaker 9: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Let's see. I'll just flourish for a second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a. See, the precedent with... Like what we've seen is that there is variation in setback, but the risk of precedent also relates to gross fall area and site cover, and that's... Yes. Probably that's where... I'm going back to saying, you know, the staff have got it right, because when, if If site cover is 46%, that's a sizeable over and whereas the setback may be able to be justified in terms of elsewhere in that block, the site cover, there's no excuse. Speaker 9: I do agree. I think the setback is the lesser issue. It's the growth for our own site cover that's most concerned because that is the outcome of the scheme. And it's been a long practice of this council and the community to set maximum GFA's in site cover, which gives certainty to developers and neighbours in the area about what the built form will be.
01:01:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, site cover would include the decks? Speaker 9: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: If the deck at the rear, for example, were removed, that would potentially reduce the site cover? Speaker 9: Potentially they could do the deck at the rear because it's less than a metre high, so we wouldn't consider it site cover. So that's the one element they're clear on. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm trying to clarify. So in the site cover calculation, have all the decks been included or not? Not the rear one. Not the rear one. It doesn't constitute site cover. So the pool deck has and the two front decks have. Yeah. So if they wanted to do the deck at the rear, they would not need an application to count on.
01:02:00 Speaker 9: It's calculated site cover and GFA. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah, I think we need more information. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, my concern is the neighbour. And as Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Wegener have said, you know, blocking someone's view, you know, unfairly. Can we get any information from that person or is that able, or they haven't made any submissions, you said? Speaker 9: No, they haven't made any submissions because it's not something that's publicly notified. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, sure. And it's just a matter of time before the council lines and closes. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I'll talk to them. I apologise. I normally walk, I normally walk these and get a feel for it with Easter and everything else that's happened in the past week. I didn't get an opportunity. I will in the next couple of days make sure I get to site and have a look and form an opinion and get every subject to what the conditions of approval if this gets forward
01:03:00 for comparison. So, yeah, I'm a bit like Councillor Stockwell, I'm 50-50 at the moment. I think there's, I think there's, there may be some opportunities here, but again, I think it needs some clarity. Councillor Wilkie: I've gone to 75-25, sorry. Mayor Stewart: I will support Councillor Ernst's motion. I've been on the fence on this as well. But my, I'd like further information. And, and that we, you know, by bringing that further report to The Ordinary on Thursday, it's not necessarily approving it. It's just obtaining the further information needed. So, there, I have some concerns as well. And this is a difficult one. So, I'd be happy to support obtaining that further information and further discussions potentially with the applicant by Thursday. So, I will support this. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I ask a question? In the alternative motion for approval, my understanding with relevant and reasonable
01:04:00 conditions, that you may approve part and not all of the application? Yes. So, I think that needs to be clarified before everyone does make a decision on this. And this is my closing statement. Sorry. I've been told . Oh, excuse me. Councillor Wegener: No, that's okay. Yeah. Speaker 5: Go on. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, yes. So, I just want to, for, just by way of clarification. So, just by way of clarity, that an alternative motion for approval doesn't necessarily mean total approval of the extension GFA and setbacks, that part, it could involve part approval, whatever your recommendation is. Kerry, is that? Speaker 9: Well, I guess I'm, the alternative motion is what council are requesting. So, at this table today, if we're only, if you're looking for an alternative motion for approval in part, we really need to define that.
01:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Okay. I would like, in closing, and I respect the position and viewpoints of councillors at the table. To me, a fair and reasonable decision, if that involves part approval, that's, that's what I would want to support. I have been on the site, and, and to me, it was, the strongest argument for me was, I don't want to be on the site. So, it's a minor change. I keep going back to what the definition of 70-78 of the Planning Act is and the Planning Act defines minor as will the change result in a substantially different development and it's my opinion that it doesn't.
01:06:00 I accept there might be intrusions to you and that's why I asked the question did we receive anything from the neighbour and I think that's a big deal and something that I would be happy to have conditioned or not approved at Thursday's ordinary meeting. So, I put it to all the councillors that I think we're all sitting 50-50 on this. I would love any advice from Kerry. For an approval subject to conditions or part approval. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Weinstein. Speaker 9: Can I, sorry, I think we need to clarify this if that's okay. I'm not clear what council would like me to draft. Can I make a suggestion based on what I'm hearing? So, I think I'm hearing that we're okay with the deck at the rear.
01:07:00 This is advised that it doesn't constitute site cover. So, that's an easy one to support. And it doesn't constitute GFA. The front deck, which intrudes into the setback, I think I'm hearing that's okay. But the rest. Councillor Finzel: Can I just make a comment there because on page 20 it says that the concerns were raised around compliance and as a result the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Place the staff then council it. What? Sorry? The debate's closed. Councillor Finzel: No, it's closed. Well, it's just a question because the applicant. No, I like to keep it. Put forward the setback to be removed from the proposal. Councillor Wilkie: I think Councillor Stockwell is quite right. We've got a motion before us whether we believe it's fully formed or not. We still have to put that to the vote. So, those in favour of this motion that's before us, raise your hand. Those against?
01:08:00 The councillors Finzel, Stewart, Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Wilkie. So, the motion is lost. There's an opportunity now to make a new motion. That's it. That is more complete and fully formed. So, Kerry, please continue what you were saying. Councillor Finzel, you can ask your questions about that. Councillor Finzel: Just for clarity, it appears that when the applicant was, you know, brought to their attention around compliance over site cover, et cetera, it was submitted. And as a result, the applicant provided two other options and one of which was that the southern deck be removed from the proposal. Is that correct? Speaker 9: Yes, that's what's in the report. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: So, Kerry, what is your suggestion based on what you're hearing? Speaker 9: I think I'm hearing a little bit of a mix.
01:09:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I? I'm going to move the procedural matter for motion, thanks to the first of Thursday's meeting. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And in the meantime. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If councillors can have whatever discussions they need to with staff. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. I'll second that. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just think we're not going to get there. I was talking around the table today. I think there is such a diversity of views that it'll be a matter of individual councillors talking to staff about what they would or wouldn't like to see if approval was to be forthcoming. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. That's good. That'd be different. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak to the problem? Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Now, the next item is item three. Which is a material change of use model with drawings 25 and 27, two of those three to one. We have a request that's come through from the applicant. Is that correct? Speaker 9: Yes. So we received a notice today from the applicant stopping the clock pursuant to the Planning Act. So that essentially means the decision timeframe is stopped and councillors are unable to make
01:10:00 a decision during that time. Councillor Jurisevic: And the reason for stopping the clock? Is to give the applicant a chance to discuss further with staff and see if we can negotiate an outcome for them. Yeah. Speaker 9: The written notice doesn't give me a reason, but I understand that's the intention, is to have further discussions. Councillor Jurisevic: Happy with that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Who would like to move that one? I'll move it. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. I'm in favour of that. We've received emails from the applicant saying that they would like to work with staff to discuss the Planning Scheme. This gives the opportunity for the applicant to meet the staff and go and do some beneficial outcomes. So I respect that. And I also understand that if we were not to make a decision this week without this stop, it's code accessible. So we've been deemed approved. Speaker 9: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'd just like to quickly say I think this is, you know, a win-win moving forward given
01:11:00 that we do want to support, you know, these standards moving forward and provide opportunity for all access abilities to houses being built from the ground up. So yeah, I think it's a great outcome. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Very much, Mr. Speaker. I put the motion as a favour. That's unanimous. Now we have item four, application for another change to a development approval for multiple buildings to include short-term accommodation and operational works 1-125 Edward Street, Noosaville. That's page 59 of the Planning and Environment. We have a staff recommendation. Anybody wish to move that? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Jurisevic. May I have a seconder, please? Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: No. I support the staff's position on this. I think we should move that. We've been very clear on our assessment of short-states and I concur with the staff
01:12:00 position. Councillor Wilkie: Joe? Can I speak? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak. It's my view that you can't refuse a short-term accommodation application when the NISA plan identifies the land as consistent use. Amenity impacts can be conditioned and further, our local laws ensure that amenity is not impacted. We have already four refusals. We've been legally challenged. The cost of defending further refusal decisions in appeal and the potential for a class action will put pressure on Council resources and, in my opinion, waste ratepayers' money defending decisions which go against Council's own plan. I'm also concerned that the economic impact of reducing visitor beds has not been considered, nor has the trickle-down effect on local businesses and tourist operators been considered. For this reason, I will not support this recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Chair of this institute, could you explain the meaning of consistent use and impact accessible and how this recommendation is consistent with the planning scheme?
01:13:00 Sorry, this recommendation is consistent with the planning scheme. Go on and comment. Speaker 9: Yeah, so the planning scheme includes a table of assessment that identifies what's code and impact, the uses identified as impact accessible. The table also identifies what uses are consistent and inconsistent with the zone. Short term accommodation is identified as a consistent use for the zone, but that is not the end of the story. All uses still must comply with the scheme provisions and the code provisions. So the scheme includes a number of requirements, including that the area must be maintained predominantly for permanent accommodation.
01:14:00 The area is simply not that. The area includes a large number of visitor accommodation in the area and is eroding that supply of permanent accommodation. So the use, we say, is not compliant with the planning scheme requirements. It's for the use. That's why it's recommended for the visitor. Mayor Stewart: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? May I speak? Councillor Shearer. Look, I won't support the staff recommendation, mainly for the consistency of I do concur medium density residential consistent use according to the plan. This area historically facilitates short term letting. Many surrounding properties have existing use rights for short term letting. I had a quick look on realestate.com. We're looking at anywhere between $1,200 and $1,500 through a three bed town. We have a townhouse in Noosaville, which is exorbitant. We have a housing crisis, a housing shortage. That is certainly, we all know that we have a crisis when it comes to affordable and social and community housing.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 $1,200 to $1,500 a week does not fall into that category. If we don't short term rent it, according to our agenda and the statement of the applicant, they will load up. That doesn't, as I've always argued, how does that help the fabric of the community? How does that help our businesses? We've become like a town like Belgravia or Kensington where there is, it is a ghost town. So we also potentially have a number of challenges before us legally. We have a strong set of local laws that we've all ratified and agreed to. And so I believe that will go a long way to ensuring neighbourhood amenity is protected. So I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: You know, councillors, would you speak to the motion for Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. Obviously, we've had this debate just a few times before. And as Councillor Lorentson's pointed out, we'll identify through the current suite of court cases as to the correct interpretation of the scheme.
01:16:00 However, we can put all that behind us because we just have to read the last paragraph. The last paragraph says the driveways and parking code requires a short-term accommodation to provide two spaces per dwelling and one space per four dwellings for the use, resulting in a total of three spaces for Unit 1. The proposal provides two spaces for Unit 1 within the existing lock-up garage with the front driveway used to be able to use for one tandem space. The provision of a tandem space for the use is not considered appropriate as it restricts the use of the double garage and adjoining units garage and has potential for vehicles to park in the surrounding area. It doesn't comply with parking in the streets. It's very narrow and has parking problems. Why would you increase the difficulty and congestion in that area, even if you didn't want to approve it for all other reasons? I think the reasons we have now been consistent, particularly for me since we've received the housing needs assessment, is that one of the things you should do in an impact assessment rule is be able to show there's a planning need.
01:17:00 There isn't. The planning needs for permanent accommodation. We do not have an established additional demand. We have record levels of visitation with our current short-term accommodation stock. So I believe, both on demand and in the fact that it doesn't meet the scheme requirements, that it is the correct recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor SOTLOR. Any councillors wish to speak in motion? I'll second. As Councillor SOTLOR said, we've had this debate before. I've always said that we cannot put our hand on our heart and claim that our housing is under crisis and keep approving more short-term accommodation in neighbourhoods that are meant to be kept under the planning scheme predominantly for permanent residents. Also, I don't hear anyone in the community calling out for more short-term accommodation,
01:18:00 especially at the cost of permanent residence. They're calling out for more permanent accommodation. Also, as it's said here, this development doesn't provide adequate car parking. So by approving it, we'd be adding to congestion on a really narrow street, as Councillor SOTLOR said. So there's many reasons for not approving this particular application in this situation. Are we supporting this type of accommodation? Councillor SOTLOR. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? I was at the property and I ask again, has any other councillor visited this property? There's been a lot of reference to car parking that doesn't meet the car parking requirements. I very comfortably parked in front of the double car park and I'm challenged at how it
01:19:00 hasn't met the code. Councillor Wilkie: Is this a question? Councillor Lorentson: It is a question. Can I ask how you reached the decision that it didn't meet the code? Speaker 7: The visitor space is supposed to be separate, not in tandem. Councillor Lorentson: And off-street parking, there's plenty of off-street parking. Is that not considered in the application? Speaker 7: They're supposed to provide three spaces on site for the use. And the only way they could do it was provide it in tandem, which doesn't provide a separate space. It's supposed to be a visitor space. It's supposed to be separate for the use. So by putting it in tandem, we have a car parking the other site can't access as well. Or it could, in terms of their reversing and manoeuvring, to leave the site in a forward direction. Mayor Stewart: So Nadine, the visitor space has to be, so you're saying it has to provide a visitor space. Speaker 7: A visitor space, yes. Mayor Stewart: As well as the parking.
01:20:00 Speaker 7: For the unit. For the unit. Yes. Mayor Stewart: The visitor space is required on it. Speaker 7: Yes, an additional space, not in tandem. Councillor Lorentson: So the fact that you could fit three cars comfortably in front of both car parks, so two in the double car park, two could fit in front of the double car park, you're saying that that doesn't meet the requirement? Speaker 7: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yes, it's supposed to be a separate space, not in tandem. It's supposed to be another third space. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh yeah, you don't have to move a car to get a car out. Speaker 7: That's correct, yes. So it's not, so the other unit is not part of the application. Yep. So really, this car parking shouldn't be affecting anything to do with their unit, so they should be providing another visitor space for this one unit. Mayor Stewart: That seems quite onerous, doesn't it? This is a question. This is a question. Because I do a house, I'd have to provide a car parking space if I'm living in it. It's a different, it's different.
01:21:00 Speaker 7: Yep, it is, it is different for a single dwelling compared to a unit type configuration. And we are talking about a duplex in this instance. So that was approved with car parking requirements. So it's not, it's not a house. And this is a greater use of the house as well. Councillor Lorentson: So Nadine, was any consideration given to the fact that the typical visitor, and I actually spoke to the person that was renting the property, they had one car. And they had to move to Mooroogee Airport and then hide one car. Is there any weighting given to the fact that most visitors don't have to move to Mooroogee Speaker 7: Airport? That is one example. But we also have a lot of people who are driving up. We do know a lot of families drive. So that is one instance where someone has flown, but I mean, we all know of many instances where families drive up from the coast, from Sydney, from Melbourne. So the planning scheme says there is a requirement for an additional visitor space and this hasn't
01:22:00 provided it. So there's been no full on car parking assessment in that area. It is a narrow, it is a narrow street and there have been issues with car parking within the street itself. Speaker 9: Yeah. So the parking is required for guests staying there, but also people, you know, on holidays sometimes you have people come and visit you. So it's not just about the people staying in the unit itself, it's, you do have guests when you're on holidays at times. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? People joking. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question, just for clarification through the Chair. Given there was a comment made that the plan has reached its capacity for Airbnb, is that the intent of point five on page 60 of the report, there's no need for additional short term accommodation in the area? Yep. And if so, we've reached the capacity, what percentage are we at in that area?
01:23:00 Page 60. Yeah, page 60. Point number five. Page 60 on the P&E. Yeah. Just ask for clarification of the intent of the comment raised that the plan has reached its capacity for Airbnb. So is point five there, is that the intent to tell us that there's no need for additional short term accommodation in the area based on the fact we've reached capacity? And if so, what percentage in that area have we reached capacity? Speaker 9: Yeah. So the use has been found to be inconsistent with the scheme in terms of it doesn't maintain the area for predominantly permanent accommodation. When you have a use that is not meeting the scheme requirements, you look to whether there is a need for the use to locate there. Now, Noosaville has, I think it's around 20- 27%. 27% of dwellings in the area based on the carrying capacity work done in April 2020.
01:24:00 Obviously, there's a need for accommodation in the area. It's not being used for short term accommodation. I would suggest that based on those figures, there's no way the applicant can demonstrate there's a need for more short term visitor accommodation. People are not calling out and saying there's a shortage of visitor accommodation. What people are saying is they cannot find permanent accommodation in the Shire. So there's just simply no need in the community's interest to provide more short term accommodation. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Gary, would you close? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, please. Look, I'd just like to address a couple of things that were mentioned in the arguments. Again, Councillor Lorentson suggested this would be, by not approving this, it would be reducing beds. Actually, approving this would be increasing beds. There isn't a short stay accommodation currently in this property. So it would be an increase in beds, not a reduction in beds. I personally don't like the opportunity of a duplex having one unit as a short stay and the other as a long stay.
01:25:00 Because the amenity issues are going to be more significant living in close proximity to a short stay adjoining the other unit. The other point being that Councillor Stewart raised with regards to affordability. Someone, given the lack of permanent accommodation currently being felt across the nation, not only here in Noosa, but specifically here in Noosa, someone can afford that $1,200 rent per week. I'm sure there's somebody out there that could. If this property wasn't available to them, they'd have to look elsewhere. So the point about being affordable, it's affordable to someone. By removing it from the long-term rental market, it's less available because what happens is that tilters down. That person can't rent this property. They have to look elsewhere. So by having a property available in the long-term market, it's an available property. It's affordable to someone.
01:26:00 It might not be affordable to necessarily the average person on the street, but somebody can afford it. People can afford to buy and rent in the most extreme of our areas, like Sunshine Beach. They're million-dollar properties, multi-million-dollar properties. So I refute the argument that this is unaffordable and that having a property available in the long-term market is far more important than having another short stay so that people can come and holiday here. I've heard, as others have said, I've heard nothing in the way of saying that I can't get a bid in Noosa to stay in or that Noosa puts the full house sign up. And if it is, I'm not averse to that when things are as tight as they are during holiday season and perhaps we need to look at the limits on the number of people ultimately visiting without just incrementally extending the short stay.
01:27:00 So I concur that I support with the staff view on this, the staff recommendation on this proposal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion those in favour. So it's Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. And the motion's carried. Now, we're up to item five. Councillor, would you like a comfort break before we come back to item five? Speaker 3: Yes, please. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
90 minutes in ¶
01:39:00 Thank you. Welcome back, everybody. We're up to item five, which is an application for operational works, prescribed title works of 10 to 12 ages will drive. Mr Heads, the Mayor has a motion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Chair. That Council note the report by the Development Engineer of the Planning and Environmental Committee meeting dated 12th of April 2022 regarding OPW21-0133 application for operational works, prescribed title works and request a further report for the ordinary meeting providing an alternative motion for approval. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Mayor Stewart: We have a second for that. Happy to second, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: Mayor Stewart. Thank you. Look, I attended the site in question and I had a look at the jetty. This is an approval that was in place and issued in 1994.
01:40:00 Apart from minor cosmetic refurbishments, the jetty has not altered since then and has been in place for about 26 years without a problem. Neighbours have no issue. They continue to have no issue. In fact, it's a shared jetty between 10 and 12 Bradenswood. I met one of the neighbours on site last week. The other neighbours are also in close proximity. None of them are concerned or impacted. It is my understanding of that. I haven't spoken to them, but that is my belief and that is what I've been told. The concerns raised only came about because of a Council officer's inspection of a nearby property and its jetty. The applicants have been the landowners of 10 and 12 Bradenswood since July 2016 and November 2012 and have not received any complaints by neighbours nor actions or notices from Council prior to the advisory letter issued by Council on November 2020. Similarly, all neighbours are able to access and use safely their own jetties. That was very clear when Councillor Jurisevic and I attended the property.
01:41:00 The original, the development application or the applicant's revised application in this instance was to seek approval to formalise the existing jetty arrangements only. It is presumed that at the time of construction, the jetty was extended by about 3.4 metres further into the canal because of the constraints that the placement of the land ensured and that's why the extension was required. The constraints were the subject jetty, which is the joint jetty, is located at the end of a canal cul-de-sac and due to the nature of the canal, the water, there is minimal water there. The water that comes in at that end of the cul-de-sac is something that we experienced and if you took the jetty 3.4 metres back when we attended on site, it was clear that you would have beached moorings and you would not be able to safely moor any type of boat. So that was basically it. There's simply no water at the end of the canal. And similarly, if the canal was to be dredged in order to maintain that safe depth, this
01:42:00 would be a quarterly exercise. It would be up to every significant weather event and this would be unreasonably expensive and create unreasonable duress onto owners who have really done nothing wrong. They've just bought a house and owned a jetty that's been compliant since 1994. The development application was confirmed as properly referred by the State Assessment and Referral Agency, SARA, on the 17th of May, 2020. They said approval could take place with conditions. And they outlined in their conditions that the development complies with State Code 7. And these, Kerry has just informed me, are around safety. So SARA, and as Kerry also informed me, this is not their decision, but that is their belief and that they think it's safely constructed and adhering to those relevant conditions. This is a decision for us. I would ask that you support me in my motion to approve this.
01:43:00 The proposed permit for operational works is consistent with the intent of the original approval. The changes to the jetty since then, if any, represent minor alterations to the existing structure. It provides for safe and secure vessel mooring, as we have seen. The jetty has existed on site for approximately 26 years with no issue, and the jetty does not impede on adjoining properties and their use. And similarly, as I said, the State Assessment Referral Agency sought no concern and outlined some conditions which I am led to believe are commonplace among all requirements for jetty and structures of similar nature. To vote against this application for approval does not, in my opinion, make sense and causes undue hardship on the applicants who have, throughout the whole process, complied and been an innocent party to any proceedings. I'd ask that you support me in my alternate motion.
01:44:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Kerry, do you have any comments? Speaker 9: Yeah, I just, I think... In the background. We have a little bit of... We have had a discussion with the neighbours at Number 8, Ravenwood, and I'll just get... I think that's important for Councillors to hear, because we've had a number of discussions. I'll just get Mark to convey that for Councillors. Speaker 4: This really came to Council's attention, the location of this jetty, when the owners of Number 8 were investigating their potential to put a jetty in. Admittedly, they've got a small frontage to the canal, as they all do around there. And it was because of the location of this jetty that actually prohibited them having any access to their own frontage, because the jetty itself extends beyond the extension of the boundary line by 170 mil. And if you moor a boat on the outside of that, then you're actually prohibiting any access at all to Number 8. Number 8, since those discussions, has now gone into a shared arrangement with Number
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 11 in Quay Court, or 15 in Quay Court, sorry, I don't know the number exactly, to have a shared jetty over on that other frontage. But it still means Number 8 does not have any access to their frontage. If a boat is moored, a two metre, three metre wide boat is moored on the head of this jetty, Number 8 can't get to their waterfront. They have no room to get a more substantial vessel. The depth is an issue, obviously, into their frontage of the property. So it's not something that Council has not been aware of. It's been resolved with Number 8 up to a point. But they've offered no confirmation that they're comfortable with this jetty and this mooring being in their frontage. I notice the applicant has suggested that they've tried to contact them, but haven't been able to. But that's... Speaker 9: Yes. Discussions with Number 8, their thoughts are, their expectation is that Council will
01:46:00 refuse this application. So they're not supportive of the proposal. Which is Number 8 on here, please? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, that's what I'd like to know. The one with the green. The one with the green. Speaker 9: What page is that point? Councillor Jurisevic: With the white. Figure 3. Speaker 3: 75. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 4: This is Number 8 here. That's Number 8. So they, by the time, as you can see, the boat's moored in there now. Councillor Wilkie: That's their boat. Speaker 4: They can get a moment. Councillor Wilkie: This boat is moored beyond the... That's a boat there. Yeah. Okay. And whose boat is that? That's Number 10. That's the applicant's. Mayor Stewart: So can we put that up, Council please, Mr Chair? Yeah, that'd be a good idea. Sorry. When you're standing at the jetty, and it's a dog leg, so it goes like that. Are you saying 8 on the right? Speaker 4: 8 on the right. Mayor Stewart: 8 on the right, but the jetty goes that way. The dog leg's out that way. So how does that impact these guys? Speaker 4: When they moor a boat on the outside of the jetty. Once the photo's up, you'll see where the boat's moored. Councillor Lorentson: So can I go back to, you referenced, I think it's the information, Council's information request.
01:47:00 I've got it in front of me, and you did ask for a letter of support signed by the owner of 8 Ravenwood, confirming their acceptance of the location of the existing jetty and mooring and vessels. And I've read what you just explained, their explanation. Is there any way we could ask for that letter, given that you're saying that the owner's properties are there? Speaker 4: I've contacted the- Councillor Lorentson: It would mean, to me, it's critical. Speaker 4: Again, I think that's the essential part of this. We've got somebody with a waterfront who's adversely affected by what this approval might create, that they should have some say in it. There is a risk that the current owner might say, I've got no qualms with it, but he sells the property next week. And an incoming owner goes, well, I bought a waterfront property. I want access to my waterfront. Councillor Lorentson: But that's not our issue. Our issue is whether- I'm so sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
01:48:00 Can you show us what we're talking about? What this is? What we're looking at, please. So who's what? Speaker 4: 10 and 12 share the jetty here with this one. Number eight, up until recently, this jetty did not exist. So that's their front. It's there. What the state traditionally used to do is create a water allocation area, which means you extend your boundaries into the water, and you can occupy that part of the state, state land. Essentially, this is the same thing. But pushing that boundary further into the water, they would normally require any structure to be at least a metre and a half away. This one actually stands beyond that prolongation inside that frontage. And then when you moor this boat there, this property is really concerned with the water. It's really constrained with how they can get to their waterfront. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify that, would the boat have to stay constrained within the property extension boundary line, or just the jetty?
01:49:00 Speaker 4: No. Normally, it is a case of that any ... You're assuming you're using a piece of state land, an area. So your use must remain within that area. So that includes your boats. Councillor Wilkie: And what would be a solution to this? Speaker 4: Well, the depth is an issue, but you could dredge this out to make it all deeper. And then, I suppose, in the original situation where this was three metres shorter, you would probably have, because it's very narrow, that boat moored on the brim for all the prolongation. So it means the whole thing would need to move back. Councillor Jurisevic: The stairs have actually been constructed outside of that six metre line, whereas on the original drawings, they were shown within that six metre line, is my understanding. Speaker 4: So that leg there is three odd metres longer than ... Mayor Stewart: But the state has said, from a safety perspective, and with the boats, it's okay, and then with the conditions that they've outlined. Speaker 4: Yeah. They're looking at navigable channels and navigation use. So realistically, the head of the canal, there's no passing traffic.
01:50:00 So they're not overly concerned with that. And that's their approval to face around that maritime safety issue. Brian, do you have a question? Speaker 9: It is interesting ... I'm sorry, can we ... I was just going to say, the state's advice is interesting. There's actually some advice there that they're noting how far the jetty goes over, and suggesting that it potentially has impacts for neighbours, and suggesting that council consider it. And I'll just put that up, Elinda, please. Mayor Stewart: Would that be now on the agenda? Speaker 9: No. But I understand councillors have got a full copy of the referral advice. And I'll just point out one section of the advice to councillors. So if you have a read of point three, this is the advice given by the state. So essentially, they're noting it has the potential to impact the adjoining property
01:51:00 and the state are suggesting council give consideration to this. So they're acknowledging that their role is one of a transport navigational issue, and it's council's role to look at it in terms of amenity and impacts for neighbours. Mayor Stewart: So, Mark, when I attended the property, it was ... and Councillor Jo was there as well. It seemed to me it was quite clear that either side had access. There was a ... There's a question. Yeah, it is. There's a question that there seemed to be enough room for the neighbour on number eight to safely get a boat in and out. Speaker 4: And again, that comes back to the scale of the vessel, size of the vessel that number eight wants, because you're dealing with his frontage. I think in that aerial photo, it just showed that he had a small runabout. Party pontoon obviously is going to be one and a half times the size of that width, similar to what's on either side of that jetty. So it's really constraining what he can do within his frontage. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there any limit to the size boat that a person is permitted to own within those canal
01:52:00 estates? No. And actually more there? So it could be ... it could actually be a larger vessel of any one of those properties. Yeah. Speaker 4: It usually comes back to that water allocation, that use of the frontage. Councillor Jurisevic: Capacity to navigate the channel. Speaker 4: Yeah. And maintain your vessel within your frontage. Obviously, the structural elements, if you're tying it to a jetty, can it cater for a larger vessel? Councillor Wegener: Can I look at ... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm sorry. I do have that question. Okay. So one of them is a water allocation, which you've clearly identified. The other was ... just a point of clarification. I think I heard the Mayor say that the jetty's been compliant since 1994. My understanding is it's been non-compliant since it was constructed. Speaker 4: Is that right? Councillor Jurisevic: So that's the likely reason that it's never become an issue before, because nobody's ever wanted to construct a jetty at the adjoining property ... Correct. ... to create the conflict. Yeah. Speaker 4: That was my understanding. Mayor Stewart: There was an original approval in 94 in our belief that no one can ... this is correct,
01:53:00 that the actual document to sign off has not been able to be sourced from Council or the applicant. Speaker 4: I couldn't really comment. I haven't been involved in this application to that extent. It's quite possible. Would we have that on record? I think that's the issue. Do we have it on record? Is there a final sign off from 94? Speaker 9: So we certainly have a copy of the approval, of the original approval for the jetty. Councillor Jurisevic: But the approval doesn't show it as in the built form. Speaker 9: And it's not built as per that approval. Councillor Wegener: So seeing that this property comes this way and meets here, there's almost no real water there. And this one comes here, there's very, very little water. So this property, if you go by those lines, has far more water than this property. If you're going by your kind of definition of looking where the property lines meet, I can't see a way ...
01:54:00 I can't see a win-win situation, because this property and this property have almost no water rights, where this property would, according to that, have much more water rights. And then this property, if the lines come again, has very little water. So I'm not following the logic of you follow the boundary lines into the water. Speaker 4: It's a state premise, but if it's rectangular blocks, it's easy. It's easy to define. Mm-hmm. It's always difficult, because it is that piece of pie shape. Mm-hmm. Our scheme and the state also sort of recognise the fact that that becomes very difficult to deal with in those necks, so that they don't go for their standard setbacks from the prolongation to the boundaries. They sort of allow you to infringe on those setbacks, otherwise you don't have any viable space. But again, the issue, too, is the depth in the canals and around the heads of those canals.
01:55:00 At different points in time, whether it be dredged or whether it be natural accretion, that amount of sand's going to move around. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's part of the issue. Yeah. And I did ask the question the other day, even though I was sitting in the gallery, in regard to whose responsibility it is to dredge or whether they can dredge in those canals. Speaker 4: It's an exempt activity. You can dredge without a further approval if you're dredging a lawful use. Councillor Jurisevic: So for an evocable channel or the capacity to moor your boat, you could dredge without approval? Speaker 4: Without approval, yeah. It's an exempt activity under the Act. Whether Council has a regular dredging program, I really couldn't answer that. I don't know. Councillor Lorentson: So given that the jetty's been in place for some time, and there's been a lot of dredging, and it's never caused any issues for the adjoining residents and properties,
01:56:00 it may be not a question. I'm just wondering, dredging is not a one-off thing. You've got to continually dredge. I'm concerned maybe that it may not be- Is this a question? Oh, it's not. I'm going to phrase it into a sentence. So with dredging, what are the financial implications of regular dredging? Speaker 4: I've got no idea, to be honest. Councillor Lorentson: I'm wondering, is it exorbitant? Speaker 9: Well, there's a lot of properties in the Shire that have regular- They do. They do. Dredging. I find it difficult that it has to be done four times a year. That seems quite- Mayor Stewart: And potentially five, 10,000 at a time. Yeah. Oh, wow. Speaker 9: But yeah, I wouldn't have thought it would happen four times or five times a year. That seems excessive. But certainly there'd be some dredging required, as do all the properties that have jetties along the river or in the canals. Speaker 4: The commercial jetties are more obvious when they dredge because they need to maintain
01:57:00 clearances for the boats they deal with. Mayor Stewart: Do we have anything in writing from number eight objecting to the jetty? Speaker 4: Only in writing? I'd have to go back to look at the shared application with number 11 to see what they put in as to their reasons why. Speaker 9: Certainly, Mark and I met with them some time ago and talked through the issues, and they raised their concerns with us. So we had probably an hour-long meeting with them to talk about the issue and what their options are. Mayor Stewart: They bought that house. Sorry, Jo. They bought that house. They bought that house. How long ago did they try and put the jetty in? It's obviously been there a lot shorter time. Speaker 4: The one on number 11. Mayor Stewart: The one on eight and 11 that they're sharing. How long ago was that constructed? Speaker 4: 18 months, maybe. Mayor Stewart: So before they did that, when they owned that property, they obviously were well aware of that jetty and the constraints potentially associated with their property.
01:58:00 Speaker 4: Oh, they would have been aware. It depends on what boat was there the day they were on site. The shared jetty at 10 and 12 was in place when they were there. I've got no idea about that. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: I mean, when you go to buy a property, you look at all of that, don't you? So you presume if that's been there for 26, 28 years, it's a question, that you would be aware of it when purchasing. Speaker 4: Buy it, we wear it. That's something. Yeah, that's right. But again, I've got no idea whether they bought it remotely or whether they bought it online. I've got no idea what happened. Mayor Stewart: But you're right, by the way. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian, yeah. Just a question. It's over the waters of the state. There's no similar thing we can do like on land or providing easement access or anything like that, is there? Speaker 4: It's not a reserve as such. Yeah. It's not a piece of land. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. The piece of land is under the land act and the water's under the ... Yeah. Okay. Done. I was just trying to think if there was a solution, then it's not tenuous.
01:59:00 Councillor Wegener: So is this the property boundary? Speaker 4: Yes. Now, the aerial's a little bit incorrect, too. I think you'll find it actually goes back towards Ravenwood, a bit northeast. Sorry. Don't want to just hit that. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm against the revetment wall. It's pretty close to the boundary. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. But yeah, I would suggest that- That's good. Speaker 3: Let's push it in. Speaker 4: ... that revetment wall there- Yeah. Is the boundary. ... is the boundary. Because you can see the front here is a similar area in the aerial photo. Councillor Jurisevic: So the red light's not a good indicator of the boundary being accurate. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Well, I guess I'm just ... So if this is his private property, what's this? Mayor Stewart: That's going, isn't it, Kerry? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Mayor Stewart: It's meant to be removed. Speaker 4: Yes. Jenny's storage. Mayor Stewart: Jenny's storage. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the jet ski. Speaker 4: Yeah. Jet ski on a small retaining wall in the beach. But that's not part of the application. That's to be removed. That's to be removed. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. And the iron's in it. Speaker 4: Pardon? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Is that being removed as part of these negotiations? Speaker 4: No. He has not included it in his application. He sort of acknowledged that it ... By not including it, he acknowledged it shouldn't
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 be there. He's going to remove it. Councillor Lorentson: Is that the one? Yes. I think it's in the application materials. Yeah. He says jet ski storage device will be removed. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Has he made any other concessions about how access for his ... I mean, that will do something. Yeah. Will that do something? Speaker 4: Oh, it'll create a bigger beach area. It might probably not provide the neighbour an opportunity to get past the moored boat and do something else. But the depth is all sort of critical again there when you get into that ... It is the neck of the canal. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. John? You mentioned a conversation that you'd had with the resident at number eight. Was that prior to the construction of their jetty that's now joined with ... can join with number 11? Yes. So their current situation may be now that they've built the jetty that they have no further objection. Was it when they were trying to build their own jetty that they had an objection? Speaker 4: Well, when they built their own jetty, it was a resolution to the issue they had and
02:01:00 that they wanted a waterfront that they could use. Speaker 9: And Joe, we've spoken with them recently and our understanding is they're still expecting council to refuse this application. Councillor Wilkie: Just to make sure I'm understanding what I'm looking at, did the number 12 and number 10, they share a jetty? Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: And that green swamp there, that's part of another property called ... Speaker 4: That's number eight? Councillor Wilkie: And then there's number 11 next to it. Speaker 4: Yeah, it is ... Councillor Wilkie: Why is the number so irregular? Speaker 4: Number 11 actually has a frontage to Key Court, which is off to the northwest. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 4: So it's a shared jetty with ... between number 11, Key Court, and number eight, Ravenwood. Councillor Lorentson: So question, if a retrospective approval is given for the jetty, does the approval run with the land and can it be revoked at a later stage? So if eight Ravenwood reseeds ... Yes. That property owner has an objection or wants to vote, what happens then?
02:02:00 Speaker 9: So the approval runs with the land, so it can't be cancelled. Can't be cancelled. No. The only way a council could give would be a temporary approval for a number of years, so finished at a certain point in time. Councillor Lorentson: And is that an option that has been given to the applicant? Speaker 9: No. No. The jetty exists and they would like council to approve it in full. Okay. We're suggesting that, no, this application should be refused and they should modify the jetty to be in accordance with the original approval, because shortening it will make a difference for the neighbours. Mayor Stewart: But shortening it will create ... This is just a question. This is just a question. Thank you, Mr Chair. But shortening, Kerry, if you shorten that 3.4 metres, is it correct that it would actually be leached, unless there was dredging? Even twice a year? I don't know the numbers. Or four times a year? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order then. Point of order.
02:03:00 Point of order. You can't ask a planner about a dredging question then. Fair enough. Not in the standard planning qualification. Councillor Lorentson: That's very broad. So would council allow a temporary permit for the existing jetty structure? If this application was refused and they made another application, given there's no complaints at this stage, would that be something council would consider? Speaker 9: Well, can I just clarify, it's not correct to say there's no complaints at this stage, because there is a complaint. The neighbour at number eight expects it to be refused. If council wanted to approve this development and give it a life, three years, five years, and then at the end of the time, they expect it to be modified, that's up to council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we've had enough questions. I'm going to end the debate. Yeah, go ahead. I don't support the motion in front of us. I think there's the principle of ensuring that you don't generate a whole lot of future
02:04:00 applications based on development that has not met with its original approval, regardless of the passage of time. I don't think it's an issue where you say, oh, because it's there, they should be seeking forgiveness. And importantly, I think if there is a set paradigm that has always been the case in these heads of these canals, and other places where your frontage is what bestows your perceived access rights to the waters of the state, and this one clearly infringes on it, and there's, well, it's clear that to approve this would be, I don't think it's an issue that we should be giving one landowner what they want, and precluding the future options of another landowner, which I don't think we should be exercising discretion to do. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Brian. The councillors will speak to the motion before Mayor Stewart closes.
02:05:00 Time. Councillor Wegener: So does this, the mayor's motion, can you go down and scroll up to the top of the top of it again, is for? Speaker 3: Approval. Councillor Wegener: Approval. I agree. Just request. Just request for further . This is such a difficult one. I don't, I would like to make a motion, but I won't if this is a joke, to actually pass the buck to the state and avoid all responsibility for this. But I think that's state land. I think that the water is the state's jurisdiction. I worry a lot about us meddling in that. So I'm with Brian. I would think I would not support this motion. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question further for that one. The advice received from the state, is that an instruction or is it just a consideration? What role do they play in this?
02:06:00 Speaker 9: They are a referral agency. So if council wanted to approve the application, council must impose their condition as part of that approval. Mayor Stewart: And Kerry, you're fair to say they have seven conditions outlined for that approval. That's correct. Speaker 9: I'll just count them. Yeah, I think there's six conditions for approval. Six, sorry. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Is this correct? That's a question. The development complies with state code seven subject conditions to ensure. And it's five or six. Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah. So there are six conditions. Yeah. Remembering that the state is looking at navigation issues. And that's not what officers are concerned about. We're concerned about immunity for neighbours. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to this.
02:07:00 Before I got into the detail of it, there was an issue of equity which really concerned me and that was that the jetty's been there since 94. New property owners had come in and inherited a jetty that didn't have approval. And that was an issue of equity. And now the other issue of equity that's come up is the neighbours weren't unimpeded access to their waterfront. Weren't able to build a jetty to allow that. And they've discovered that because of the existence of this unapproved jetty, their rights have been infringed upon. Had this been a jetty that was there since 94, property would have changed hands and its existence would have been unapproved. So I think that this didn't cause any impacts for neighbours. I would have been more comfortable with the Mayor's motion as it is. But it is an issue of equity for protecting the rights of neighbours. I think I'm going to side with their rights.
02:08:00 And also taking into consideration the fact that a lot of property owners with canal front homes accept the regular dredging as part of having a jetty on a waterfront property. So I think I'm going to side with that. I would like to have approved this had there been no negative impacts on the neighbours' rights. Councillor Jurisevic: Question. Joe. Just with regard to that final approval as constructed, there's nothing on file as far as council's aware? Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of, no. Again, you'd be looking for a final sign off or something along those lines. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming it's a paper copy and it'd be in archives? Yes. Have another look. Can I request that we go and have a look? Yes. Have another look. Before Thursday? Yes. Let's see if we can find that. Because I think that would seal my view on this.
02:09:00 I can't. I can see both sides of the argument here. I can see something. And I'll speak to it now. Yes. For me, that would be the sign seal and deliver it. I mean, I see that the drawings submitted are not as constructed. The final approval is yet to be ascertained. I see the challenge here. I see that the owners of number eight have come up with some sort of a resolution to enable them access. But is that fair and equitable as far as all owners are going with that? Is that fair and equitable as far as all owners are going with that? Well, the answer is yes. The owner's responsibility, the owner's concern in that regard. So there's an element of that that I take out of that. There's a, I see that for the jet skis, they're able to put in a retainment wall and facilitate some setback there for the jet ski provision.
02:10:00 So I would assume they could also do the same sort of thing for the jetty if required as part of being . I know this would be a heavy, significant impost upon the owners. I didn't say I was abstaining, I said I'll reserve my judgement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I've just got a follow-up question. If we did happen to find, as Constructed Doorings, which did purport to have some sort of staff approval to say that the structure as we see it now was OK,
02:11:00 would that be lawful if it didn't have an association with another application to vary the approval? Speaker 9: Um, we'll have to examine it a bit closer for you, but we can answer that question as well. Councillor Wilkie: Could I just ask, is that the question you put in English? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might... I understood it. If it wasn't the question, I would be giving a statement saying that there is no ability for staff to approve something that wasn't applied. Councillor Jurisevic: Was it? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And was conditioned differently. So you can't override the conditions of approval, saying here, and say, oh, that's OK. Councillor Wilkie: So if it was approved originally... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, even if a staff member gave some... Signed off on that. Yeah, signed off on that, my view was, I wouldn't think it'd be lawful. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question that is through the Chair? So if the report, just for clarification, comes back to support the Mayor's amendment to this, will that answer, in that report,
02:12:00 all the questions that have just been raised around legalities and things like that? Speaker 9: The report for the ordinary meeting, if this motion gets up, will be finished by 10 a.m. tomorrow. So it'll depend on timing. So we will put in the report if we have an answer for you. Otherwise, we'll need to email councillors the answer around it. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, in that report... Thank you. Thank you, Kerry. In that report, are we able to get a writing statement from Number 8? Speaker 9: Well, that will depend on the owners of Number 8 as to whether they wish to make that statement. But we can contact them and have a discussion with them. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, further question. If a property search were undertaken on either of those two properties where the jetty in question currently exists, what would it bring up with regards to approval of the jetty? It depends on the search they ask for, they request. Speaker 4: A property search, the minimal one that most solicitors conveyances get, wouldn't go to that extent.
02:13:00 Because it only looks at the implications within the scheme, the zoning, the overlays, anything that will affect it. Councillor Jurisevic: A full planning certificate, maybe? Would it identify the fact that it wasn't built as... Speaker 9: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: It would? Speaker 9: Yeah. A full certificate. Otherwise, we do see a lot of people just writing to us, asking whether they comply. And, you know, they'll get a letter back saying yes or no, it doesn't comply for these reasons. Speaker 4: We do written advices on jetties quite regularly. Councillor Wilkie: How often do people not buy their jetties on the basis of their advices? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to ask a different question. Speaker 9: I don't think we know the answers for that one. Yeah. Speaker 4: Again, for the sake of argument. Is the handrail too long, too short? Does the incoming owner want to take on the risk that that creates? I don't think they do. Much gets changed. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So how would the certification differ if the system says that there's an approval?
02:14:00 No one would actually go out as part of the certification and measure the compliance of the jetty for certification, would they? Speaker 4: No. Again, it depends on the type of request they make to Council. If they request a written advice about whether the jetty complies with the approval, we will specifically go out and make a statement about that. But if they don't ask the question... Councillor Jurisevic: But if they did a search for a... I'll talk to you later. Yeah. That's right. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: My question, Kerry, is if the final building approval, which you're going to be looking for, if it's lost, what's the situation if they say they got an approval and we can't find it? Is it implied that it has been approved or are there other implications that there is no approval? Speaker 9: So there is an approval for the jetty, but what's built, it doesn't match the approval. There was a practice of checking those approvals to see whether it complies, and that is typically
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 recorded on the file for that check. And that's what we're looking to find, okay. Yeah. Whether, I guess, the officer was diligent enough at the time to know that the jetty wasn't matching the approval. I don't know. Councillor Wilkie: Right. So... Councillor Thindersall. Councillor Thindersall, can I exercise your right to speak before the Mayor closes? I haven't spoken either. Councillor Finzel: Oh, Mayor has spoken. Yeah. I just think in terms of equity, I'll support this. I think a further report back will give us further information and given the response to my question regarding the legalities, if it can't make it the report, we can ask the staff. So I think I'll support this so that we can just have further information and clarity. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I think there's just some critical missing pieces. The letter of support or non-support
02:16:00 from number eight is important. And that final building certificate for variation or compliance is really critical to my decision. So I will support this motion, hoping that there'll be enough information to make a more informed decision at the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. That information that Councillor Lorentson just mentioned, that can be forwarded whether this, if we approve this motion or not, can't it? Speaker 9: Absolutely. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. That information may not necessarily be part of this report. No, that's right. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Yeah, thank you. Look, I too would really relish the opportunity to have in writing number eight. It was my own and their thoughts and their concerns. Because it was my understanding that there was no issues with the neighbours. However, you know, I'm happy to be guided differently if that is the case. This is a very constrained waterway. The current jetty has been in place, sorry, my map is off. It is actually 28 years. According to Sarah, as long as, I mean, they're happy
02:17:00 from a navigation, but also from a safety point of view, if those five or six points are adhered to. The neighbour, I would suggest, at number eight, irrespective of, would have to have been. I'm aware of the jetty in place when they purchased their house and the constraints that that is a small canal area. I think that the concerns of having to modify the jetty will be very expensive and cause undue hardship on numbers 10 and 12, who bought the property in good faith and were unaware of these problems. Again, going back 3.4 metres, it's sitting on a bank of sand, so the dredging would have to occur. Again, I don't know, I won't ask you, Kerry, you're not an expert in dredging, but a number of times a year, that could potentially be tens of thousands of dollars. And I think we need further information. And I would challenge whether or not, I know that's a small boat
02:18:00 on number eight, but if you could actually fit another pontoon boat through there, which I actually think you can, I've been on site. Again, we're just looking at an aerial photo. I would suggest, and I know a lot of houses and canals have side-by-side pontoons, I would suggest that you could get another pontoon in where that small tinny is. Again, I don't know that for sure. This is hard. We don't have measurements. I think we need further information in regard to this. There are still significant unanswered questions. I hope you'll support me in my motion to obtain that further information for fairness to all parties concerned. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask the question if we vote against the motion? Councillor Wilkie: Point of order. Mayor Stewart: Oh, excuse me. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. No more questions. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Finzel, Stewart, Jurisevic, and Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie. The motion's carried. Moving on to the next item is a motion by the City Council.
02:19:00 Mayor Stewart: I have an alternative motion. Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Stewart would you like to move? Are we up for it? Mayor Stewart: I've got some questions. I've got a question too. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to second. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: Sean, before I go into my motion, can I ask a question, Mr Chair? Councillor Wilkie: No. No, you need to speak because we've got a seconder. Can I ask a question? Mayor Stewart: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Mayor Stewart: I'll come back to my question if that's okay? Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Mayor Stewart: Councillors, today we have an opportunity before us. We just have to be brave enough to take it, to acknowledge, in my opinion, past mistakes, and to move forward with clear intentions. We have had since 2019 a signed contract partnership alliance agreement. Whatever the term which has been referenced to justify the content, come before us on a number of occasions. This agreement ceases in September 2022. Today is the first day
02:20:00 that we have had the ability to argue on whether or not we should enter a new agreement partnership alliance contract with the same party going forward. We have not been able to undo a signed contract, but today we can put a stop to what is, in my opinion, a project which has failed to deliver and failed to get off the ground. To give background and relevance to my argument, I need to address past history. This project has significant history, but for the purposes of timing today, I'll begin my focus when the report monitoring of the Noosa River Oyster Reefs was brought to the General Committee in January 2019. Specifically stated on that agenda, there are some key areas where targets for success have not yet been achieved, and these will be better assessed after another year of monitoring, what was originally planned to be a three-year monitoring program by USC. Of particular note is the lack of evidence to this stage of the current reef design forming a stable matrix essential to the long-term success of the project. We also do not yet have detailed results from fish studies being undertaken associated with the project. It went further. Current state approvals do not
02:21:00 allow for the next stage of the project, so significant liaison will be required in the planning stage on the next stages of the project with state government agencies. Following on from this, in July 2019, to give further background, the alliance and funding agreement between the Nature Conservancy and Noosa Shire Council was approved and ratified by Council. The agreement outlines funding of $1.2 million towards initiatives from TNC and a matching investment from Council of $1.2 million over a period of three years. The project management plan was dated 25th July 2019 to 30th September 2022. To this date, risks highlighted around this project still occur. No state permits have been achieved. Since this Council was formed in April 2020, the Oyster Reef Restoration and Restoration Program has come before us on occasion. In July 2020, nearly two years ago, I requested in writing all documentation and correspondence between the Nature Conservancy and the state government regarding state approvals required for this project. As we are all well aware, the river is controlled by the state and it is the state's jurisdiction. Fundamental to the project
02:22:00 are the state approvals. Indeed, under Section 13A in Schedule A of the measurable outcomes, it states the requirement of TNC to obtain or require state government permits or ferries for installation of oyster reefs. This was to be completed according to the agreement within 12 months from 1 July 2019, which would mean state permits should have been achieved by 1 July 2020. At that time in July 2020, after a request for information, I received confirmation of an email from Craig Bowen, manager of the project, from TNC stating, the Nature Conservancy has had no formal exchange with the Queensland state government regarding the specific permitting requirements for shellfish restoration in the Noosa River Estuary. This is despite the measurable outcomes being required to be met at that time by July 2020. The letter went on, please note that permits and permitting processes will be a central theme of the next Noosa Technical Advisory Group meeting planned for August 2020. So that was central and fundamental to the reference group in August 2020, a priority, and here we are
02:23:00 nearly two years later. The email went on to outline what permits have been identified and what state codes are relevant. I won't go through the permits identified, but the state codes seem to be state code 7, state code 8, state code 11, state code 12, and state code 22. And so after the project coming again to Council in September 2020 with the annual report, the questions were raised. Specifically, the question arose around state permits, and according to the annual report, at page 11, it notes the words, on track, referring to obtaining these permits, even though the original date of achieving permits had blown out from July 2020 to December 2020, as per page 11 of that report. We received at that time no evidence of any formal correspondence in writing between the state and T&C regarding the obtaining state permits or the reasoning behind the delay of six months. There was clear discrepancy in regard to the annual report and the funding agreement in regard to this project deliverable. Fast forward to September 2021 and the second annual report, and under table 1b, total progress to date, the word delay is stated on page 14 in regard to obtaining the necessary state
02:24:00 permits, next to the expected timeframe for achieving them being June 2020. Similarly, in the table concerning deliverables of the project, on page 53 of the report, the same permits have been drawn out to 18 months from July 2019 to December 2020. Bearing in mind this is an annual report for the period of September 2020 to August 2021, it is clear that the deliverables of the project were unsuccessful within that timeframe. In the same report, talk of next steps on page 50, there was no mention of state permits without the state permits. Then there are the more recent questions surrounding QX disease among oysters in Noostar River and their failure to be able to survive for long periods. I have little understanding of this, but the response that was provided in our report was from a Dr Eddie Game from the Nature Conservancy, the partner to this alliance agreement. As noted last week, I would suggest that we receive further documentation from a third party for additional transparency. There are at this stage, in my opinion, still questions to be answered along these lines.
02:25:00 I am still unclear as to risks in this regard to the overall success and viability of the project and the impact that this disease could have on oysters and indeed this project. Despite assurances that have not eventuated, blowout of timeframes and a failure to achieve state permits, this project is, in my opinion, risky. We are risking ratepayer money for a project which, on camera last week, we heard from our Council staff was a risk. We are betting ratepayer money, public money, on a project that could clearly fail. We have no guarantees. We have before us a contract that commits our ratepayer to $1.2 million, currently of which $750,000 is quarantined for a project that may never get off the ground because permits may never materialise and even if they do, it is, in my opinion, a punt. The opportunity costs are significant, risk versus opportunity. We must always err on the side of caution when dealing with public monies. We argued the same for our reason not to purchase the TAFE site and we all agreed. We must be overly prudent in our financial deliberations
02:26:00 when spending the hard-earned money of our ratepayers. Which brings me to the second part of my amended motion. No one is disputing that protecting our waterways, our river systems and our environment is high priority. No one is disputing the funds allocated to this project out of the environmental levy. Mr Shire, I will read that because for the purposes of home, the second part of my amendment or my alternate motion. The first part was to cease negotiations but the second part was to request the CEO provide a report to Council detailing project options utilising the previously allocated funding for this project. So in regard to that, I speak. No one is disputing funds allocated to this project out of the environmental levy. No one is disputing that. But neither can it be disputed that now is the opportunity that we can refocus public monies, ratepayer funds into projects that can be achieved promptly with minimal risk associated with them. Without consultation and off the bat, other projects that can be pursued for river health include bring forward the contemporary water monitoring
02:27:00 program as per new initiatives presented to 22-23. Expand the Kin Kin Creek sediment management and revegetation program which is a key polluter to the Noosa River. Fund a major urban development and stormwater management program which is also a key polluter. Obtain further information and key evidence around concerns regarding Burgess Creek. Analyse issues there in conjunction with Unity Water. You see there is much that can be done. Under the current alliance, 1.2 million has been committed to a project that is high risk and that has not been able to be fulfilled because of the failure to obtain state permits, a key performance indicator. We must look at this project on a bigger scale. You see 1.2 million of public monies even out of the environmental levy is part of a bigger pot. It's part of our ratepayer monies generated from rates. It's part of our wider pool. Going into budget deliberations there is much to be done. Great works that can be achieved but it always comes down to the bottom dollar. How much? We have a housing crisis. We know that area of council dealing with needs attention. Priorities and hard choices need to be made. The monies we have are finite, yet the projects
02:28:00 seem infinite. We must be prudent. Our council of code of conduct demands as much from us. In making decisions in the public interest, councillors will commit to exercising proper diligence, care and attention. To ensure the effective economic delivery of services, councillors will manage council resources effectively, efficiently and economically. We must foster an excellence of service delivery. I don't believe, I think we all do that and we all strive to do that, but I don't believe that this alliance can continue. In my own thoughts and opinion, I don't believe by continuing with this alliance and funding agreement with TNC we are adhering to the highest standards demanded of us. I don't believe that it is in the best interest of our ratepayers. I don't believe it has achieved what it set out to do. Failure to obtain state permits would justify as much. I believe the hard earned monies of our ratepayers can be better allocated to projects that can be delivered and results achieved in the near future. As
02:29:00 I said, no one is disputing the fact that environmental levy monies are funding this agreement, yet there is so much more that can be done, that needs to be done, right here, right now, with little or no risk. I would ask that you support me in my motion to cease negotiations with the Nature's Conservancy and for Council to realign funding quarantined and allocated for this project on others which can be instigated and implemented right here and now, with little or no risk, to our community and be of great benefit to our community and our own waterways. Thank you. Thank you. I'll speak. Councillor Wilkie: World renowned naturalist and documentary maker Sir David Attenborough famously asks, how could we look our children in the eye and say we knew what was going to happen to our world and did nothing? Sir David and others may be surprised to see here today that in regards to restoring the Noosa River, not only are some custodians thinking of doing nothing, but are actively trying to stop others from doing something. This motion gives all
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Councillors a crystal clear choice between what regrettably appears to be party political style undermining or support for an evidence-based, science-backed Noosa River Health Partnership that brings millions in outside investment to the waterways. Sir David has consistently urged communities and all levels of government to do everything in their power to address the decline in our amazing, life-sustaining ecosystems and biodiversity. His warning also contains a message of hope in that if we do what we can by taking an innovative, evidence-based, science-backed approach, we can help restore the balance. I may not be here to see it, he concludes, but if we make the right decisions, we can safeguard our planet's ecosystems and its extraordinary biodiversity. Or not. Today is a day when we as custodians either heed or reject this call. Surely we as Councillors
02:31:00 have a duty to our children to protect and restore our natural assets at every opportunity. That's exactly what this is today. We know that just as forests clean the air and provide habitat for land-based animals, oyster reefs clarify the water, provide habitat for marine creatures, improving water quality and enriching marine biodiversity. The report by Dr Ruth Thurston of the University of Queensland showed oyster reefs were once abundant throughout the Noosa River system, as were vastly greater numbers of fish. The seagrass survey shows that in our lifetime between 1987 and 2020, the decline in Noosa River seagrass has been up to 100% in some areas. The economic, environmental and socio-cultural benefits of restoration projects are so apparent that all three levels of government are working with the Nature Conservancy to this end. This collaboration has also achieved what we have heard many calling for, the involvement
02:32:00 of traditional owners, the Kabi Kabi. The responsible and only cause today is to honour the partnership and respect this collaborative project involving our traditional owners, all three levels of government, a world-leading conservation organisation, local businesses, community groups, the Noosa Environmental Education Hub, philanthropic contributions, universities, recreational fishing group OZFISH and the Bribie Island Research Centre. With draft approvals from the state already being circulated, the advice is that the reefs could be in by September. Pages 8, 11 and 18 of the six-monthly report list the 33 or more project milestones. Almost all of them have been achieved or are on track, with only about four on hold or delayed. This is due to the complexity of issuing permits for something that has never been done in a river system before. We know that the Nature Conservancy have delivered on all the elements
02:33:00 of this partnership within their control to achieve. We await final permit sign-off from the state and the advice is that approval is imminent. There is no valid reason to disrespect these partnerships, damage Noosa's reputation by actively trying to fill up this opportunity and not follow through. This professionally run program also does what we hear a lot of rhetoric about, seeking co-contribution and philanthropic investment. The Nature Conservancy is injecting $1.2 million into the Noosa River system and has attracted another $1.2 million for Noosa from the Federal Government's Reef Builder Program. The Noosa Council's contribution of $1.2 million over three or four years is small in comparison to the $40 to $50 million we inject into infrastructure and capital works each year. The Federal Government granted $20 million to the Nature Conservancy to help restore oyster reefs around Australia, including in Noosa, because they
02:34:00 understand these projects strengthen communities and economies while protecting biodiversity. Noosa is one of at least 11 coastal communities from southeast Queensland right around Australia's southern coastline to Perth, where the TMC are doing such work. During reef building, a variety of jobs are created, ranging from barge operators to truck drivers, shellfish growers and divers. After construction, the reefs provide shared long-term benefits such as cleaner water and more fish habitat and numbers. The Nature Conservancy had the stated aim of rebuilding 60 reefs across southern Australia. 11 projects have been reported to be completed, or nearly completed so far. Today is a day when Councillors demonstrate by a show of hands who among us really means that when we say we support three levels of government working together, that we want to create jobs, that we support evidence-based, science-backed initiatives that involve local businesses.
02:35:00 Voting patterns today will show who genuinely seeks and respects engagement with our traditional owners, who support the work done by Darlene McHale's Noosa Environmental Education Hub in our schools, who genuinely wants meaningful partnerships with universities and community groups, and who wants to help restore and enrich our natural assets. It's an opportunity to show that we value the involvement of other agencies like the Bribie Island Research Centre and AusFish, who represent the interests of recreational fishers, that we value projects that triple the funds invested by Noosa ratepayers, and that we will take every opportunity to fulfil our obligations to improve our natural assets for future generations. I'll finish with a quote by David Attenborough. We're at a unique stage in our history. Never before have we had such an awareness of what
02:36:00 we are doing to the planet. And never before have we had the power to do something about that. Surely we all have a responsibility. The future now depends on us. Today's minutes on this motion will record for all time what we really stand for. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a few questions. I'll start with one. I believe the Mayor started with a 2019 monitoring report, and you referred to a USC matter where they were saying we need more monitoring to determine whether we've established a stable matrix. Can you confirm my belief that this related to a totally different construction technique that was used in the research stage of the pilot program, which involved filling oyster shells into biome? Speaker 8: Yes, that is correct. The pilot project used bags of oysters. The initiative through
02:37:00 TNC has taken learnings from the pilot project and quite specifically have redesigned a different structure, which is a far more complex structure. A hard structure using rock. So absolutely, it's a very different structure. And that's been tested in different locations. Councillor Wegener: Wasn't there the original oyster reef, in the bags there, the bags, that was to test if there were spats in the river and whether they would stick to the oysters. It wasn't actually... So it's not a... Yeah, so it's not a... It wasn't a... What would you call it? A model for the end project. It had a very simple design to see if there's a spat in the river that will attach. Speaker 8: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can I just tack on to that? My understanding is also a requirement of the state that the
02:38:00 bags were temporary in nature and that there wasn't permanent structure to test the nature of the pilot scheme. Is that correct? Speaker 8: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'll continue on. Another one about structures and new structure. We've been, obviously, received a few letters of approval. We've received a few letters of support in opposition. One of those opposing it was from the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance, which raised a number of issues which I think would be good for the public to understand the validity or otherwise. So one of the statements made by the Noosa Boating and Fishing Association is concerned that the creation of an artificial reef outside council chambers at a narrow section of the river will create a bottleneck and impede the flow of any future flood water. Has the issue of boating safety and clear setbacks from the navigational channel been considered and planned for in the current project? Speaker 2: Yes, Maritime Safety Queensland have been involved in the assessment of the reef sites.
02:39:00 And in particular, the one at Tewantin is already obstructed by rocky aqua. So we have various navigation obstacles in the river. I also want to note that the NSERAC members, the Noosa River Stakehold Advisory Committee members, have also inspected the reef sites and no concerns raised for obstructions to normal maritime operations. Of course, there will need to be a signage and mapping of navigation obstacles, which is common practice in river environments for marina navigation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. The existing rocks are the ballast from ships that came to collect the original oysters and the timber, is what I believe. The Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance also suggests any causal link between the creation of those artificial reefs and the rise in flood water has potential to expose the Noosa Council to lawsuits by residents inundated by future floodwaters. Considering the scale of the catchment and the floodplain and the proposed volume of the oyster reefs, is there any chance that structures will have any impact on the
02:40:00 floodwaters? Speaker 2: The contracted engineers have designed the structures to have negligible impact on the floodwaters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks. The last one is a suggestion from the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance that if the objective of the oyster restoration program was to replenish oyster stock to pre-settlement levels, then arguably this has already been achieved by the creation of neutral water canals or entrance, which has provided an extensive artificial reef habitat to facilitate oyster replenishment. Considering that archaeological and historical sources suggest that rock oysters were highly abundant throughout the Noosa River and lakes up to the 1870s, but by the turn of the century, millions of oysters have been removed, including accounts that the local government had built for the first time, in the mid-1990s, to the banks of the river composed of 12 to 13 foot in depth. There is a question. You have to have the context because he's talking about equal amounts, so I have to give you the amounts that used to be here. I was going to tell you this is a long one. So 12 to 13 foot of shells down here, but also the record also suggests in 1986, a bribey
02:41:00 broad water oyster beds removed two to three million oysters. And so, considering that's what it was, is there any chance, likelihood that the population in the man-made canals of Noosa waters could replace the existing ecosystem, the pre-existing ecosystem, either in extent or in terms of the habitat heterogeneity? Mayor Stewart: I question whether or not the staff have the capacity to answer that. It's not in their expertise. Speaker 2: In a simple way, the Noosa waters canals and other systems were designed for totally different purposes, and they don't represent or provide the complex nature of strata available for oyster reef restoration. So I think that's the simple question. They weren't designed
02:42:00 to provide oyster reef restoration, and I think it's arguable there's only some very remnant oysters establishing themselves on the walls. Those systems don't represent what you'd normally see with a natural oyster reef system, in terms of the habitat. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry for the length of the question, but I thought it was important to have the volumes compared. Councillor Jurisevic: And so why is it that we only see remnant oyster outcrops? What's missing in the river to facilitate further growth and development of oyster stock? Speaker 2: So my understanding from reading the reports is it requires strata, and it requires multiple layers and multiple depths and volume. Whereas at the moment, the rock oysters that you're seeing appear on the walls are just on a vertical surface, and you're not getting that complexity, that complexity of layers. Councillor Jurisevic: And so the nature of the project is to create those levels so that the oysters have got... Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. This is information we sent through about... I asked about funding
02:43:00 on Tuesday, and that's all the figures. And FY22 is $9,900. FY21, $18,540. FY20, $138,160. Total expenses, $232,000 to date. That's including $17,000 and $18,000, $19,000. Yep, that's yours. Just on the annual report, on page 48, it said by 30 June 2021, the project spent 48% of the total budget. Is that correct? So can you repeat that question? Well, page 48 of the... which would seem a lot more. Page 48. Page 48 of the annual report. No, I'm just trying to think if it's 20 or 20. It said the project had spent 48% of the total project budget. Just here we go. By June 30, 2021,
02:44:00 the project spent 48% of the total project budget. Is that the monies from T&C and from nursing council? What does that compile, and how much is that? Do you know? Speaker 2: I can't answer that without... I need to have a look at that report. Mayor Stewart: This is an annual report that was provided in September 2021. Speaker 8: Yeah, so that would be... the 48% would be of the total budget, so T&C's contribution and potentially the grant funding. We at council have only provided the amount that you have just outlined, based on the figures Sean's provided, in accordance with the milestone payments under the alliance agreement. So 48% and $2.4 million, because that's quite a lot. Yeah, so the six-monthly report that's attached to this outlines the expenditure against the project and for each of the project elements. Mayor Stewart: So on page 26 of this report in September 2020, it said $434,544. Is that including
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 T&C's contribution there then? That's correct. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. Go ahead. A couple of questions. What are the repercussions? What are the implications of not renewing this agreement? Will the project continue? And what will this mean in terms of relationship between the T&C and council? Speaker 2: I think there's a few questions in that, a few observations, but they could decide to proceed with the project because it's outside of council's jurisdiction. But I think it's fair to point is that we would probably suffer reputational loss, particularly with state and federal counterparts. You know, is Noosa a place to invest in actual investment? This is an active ecosystem restoration projects. So, and I think that needs to be considered as part of your, your discussions. You know, we've had a great relationship with the state and as a result of the UR Forest project, you know, with the Department of Environment Science and other agencies who have been really willing to co-invest in environmental outcomes for the shire and I think our rejection
02:46:00 of this project for aquatic risk restoration might lead to, you know, a lack of confidence in ongoing restoration. So. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Could you give us an update on the draft payments please? Speaker 2: Yeah, the State have actually issued a conditional approval to TNC and also to Council. So we've only just received that. So the only obstacle is for the TNC to accept the conditions of approval. They've indicated to us that they're comfortable with the conditions. And then Council then of course has to, it's received the SARA, the State Referral Agency advice. So Council still has to issue the operational works approval for the prescribed title works. Mayor Stewart: Do we have that in writing, receiving, having received from the State, those State permits? Yeah. Conditional upon? Speaker 2: Acceptance. Mayor Stewart: What are the conditions? Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't have them in front of me, Council, so. Joe, you've got a question? Councillor Jurisevic: So in that regard, apart from COVID,
02:47:00 have the State given us any indication as to why there has been that length of time in receiving those approvals? Speaker 2: They haven't. What their concerns have been through the process? Talking to the assessment officer in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is that this is setting a precedent. You know, the State had not considered oyster reef restoration projects in fish habitat areas before. And it required their significant, you know, consideration from both a principle and an ecological perspective. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that just in relation to Noosa River or is that also in relation to Moreton Bay where they're doing, there are other projects occurring? Speaker 2: So the team is quite different. Moreton Bay is a marine park under Parks and Wildlife Service. So the, you know, the lead agency assessing it would be Parks and Wildlife. They're really looking at it in terms of every fish, you know, Department of Agriculture and Fishery have jurisdiction over every fish habitat area in Queensland. And they're considering it in terms of precedent for the rest of the State. Because most of the State waterways that you would look at reef restoration would be
02:48:00 fish habitat areas, not marine parks like Moreton Bay. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, who pays the environmental levy? Speaker 2: Ratepayers. Councillor Lorentson: Every ratepayer? Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. It's a levy on each property. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question for you, Chair. With regards to the conditional approval permits that we've now received in writing, when will we know the conditions linked to them? Speaker 2: So I can talk with Mark Lewis, who is the assessment officer in the Council, to have a copy of the advice he's received himself. Mayor Stewart: Sure. I've got a question. Why has this just come to the table now and why haven't we heard about this prior to this? We've been told for three years that we're on track. I've read out that all of the, we've been promised we're on track, we're going to deliver. It seems, now at this point, this is a key component and we haven't received it.
02:49:00 We're receiving it verbally. We haven't received anything on our email. We haven't received anything in writing. Speaker 2: I received the advice on Thursday before Easter, and I was on leave that day. Today's Tuesday. Sorry. Yeah, so I was on leave on Thursday. So I haven't been able to provide an update to my leave from the office. Councillor Wilkie: What was the reference made to the draft permit? I was listening to the conversation on Tuesday's agenda. Yeah. There was discussion about it. Speaker 8: I was about to say that, Councillor Wilkie. Certainly. So I did advise Council, the planning committee, that draft conditions had been circulated to TNC and they were just trying to resolve a number of, some minor issues. So that was advised to Council on Tuesday, that there was conditions being circulated to TNC and there's been tooling and growing. That's what's been provided. Councillor Wilkie: And since then, it's been TNC have indicated that they're going to sort those things out? Speaker 8: I believe those conditions have been resolved.
02:50:00 Okay. Yeah. But to this date, we have nothing before us in writing that we can go by. Speaker 2: We can arrange that for you to do in preparation for the ordinary meeting. Councillor Finzel: So back to my question. When? When can we expect to know the conditions and if they've been expected, accepted by TNC? Speaker 8: As Sean just stated, we can provide that information to you before the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, you had a question or you wanted to speak? Councillor Wegener: Oh, I'm just gearing up to speak to it. Are we ready? Councillor Jurisevic: When, anyway. I'll wind him up. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Well, I was going to ask questions about, you know, whether the staff, also this is my speaking, whether it's off the ground. And of course the project is off the ground. The mayor said that the project has not got off the ground. My goodness, there's a lot of getting off the ground that has happened. I like Mark Bright with his little oysters here on page 85. I saw his little show.
02:51:00 It was spectacular. Anyways, comparing it to the TAFE site is just, is ridiculous. This has nothing in any way with relation to the TAFE site. So my speech, generations ago, Europeans came. Came down to Australia and cut down the trees and extracted oysters from the river. But in Noosa, we have found that value does not come from extraction, but comes from the beautiful natural environment. Our pristine, beautiful headland beaches and river are the source for $1.2 billion tourism industry. And most of us in this room would agree that we have a very strong, vibrant tourist industry. It is the foundation of our economy. Now we are replanting trees and working to bring back the ecological vibrance of our river. We are working to bring back the fish and we have the best partner in the world to do
02:52:00 this. The Nature Conservancy. We are so very, very lucky to have the best agency in the world come to Noosa, throw $1.2 million on the table, pull in $1.2 million from the federal government. And work with council on this. It is the greatest infrastructure piece that we are probably working on overall, the river. And it is going to stimulate our local economy to no end, seeing the fish in the river and having that broil up. But more than that, and more importantly than the economic value, is our integrity as people, as Noosa residents. We are replanting the trees. We are regenerating our environment. We are making Noosa even better than it was. It was the great forefathers of Noosa that saved the headland, that saved the North Shore, that have done these things, that have made the Noosa the economic powerhouse that it is. And this Oyster Reef project is one more step in that direction of Noosa continuing to be
02:53:00 a world leader on how you can actually make very, very good money, make it economical. Economical life and a wonderful life in harmony with the environment. And this project goes towards that. And I'm just so thankful that everything has worked out the way it has and the Nature Conservancy is with us. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much. The other council is supposed to speak to the motion before Mayor Stewart closes. Chair? Councillor Jurisevic: Patience comes to those who wait. I was prepared to wait for the state to refuse. I was prepared to wait for the state to refuse. We've had COVID, we've had all sorts of impacts on things and rhymes and reasons why things haven't gone properly to the time frame. But as staff have alluded, this is a slightly different proposal from what it's been elsewhere.
02:54:00 And it's taken a bit more due diligence by the state to come to that point when they are ready to approve and offer the permits. And I applaud them. I'm glad to see that we're finally at that stage. The Mayor talks about being brave enough to refuse this. I argue it's the other way around, Mayor. We've got to be brave enough to undertake this. The future of our river health is at stake. We've looked at reports, we've got countless reports about the history of oysters, seagrass. And I think the most important one that the council has instigated is the reporting to the Bentwick layer. And the follow-up report that we've had recently. To see the trouble that the... The bottom of the river is in, not the glossy bit we see on top and that we all enjoy and that we all get the A-plus rating for. But the real river health, the stuff that's underneath the water that we don't see and what it takes to restore that. The Kin Kin project, the Keep It in Kin Kin project is doing a wonderful job of managing the sediment now.
02:55:00 But not the sediment of the past. And that's what those reports have shown us. The sediment of the past. Is an issue. One of the ways that we can manage the sediment of the past is to reintroduce oysters into the river system. To deal with that layer of sediment that's there. Because that's what oysters do in a river system. Without those oysters, which we haven't had for many, many years, the river is suffering. And the river will continue to suffer unless we do something about it. A $1.2 million investment is a small price to pay. For the economic benefits of the past that have taken those elements out of our river. Many people have gained over the years by removing oysters and other activities within the river. This is a small investment to make back into the river to try and restore some river health.
02:56:00 Particularly as we've got $2.4 million of support from other entities. One being TNC. And the second being the federal government. These are the two big companies that have seen the value of this. It's not the only oyster restoration project in Australia. There is a significant project to restore oyster reefs. And the value of oyster reefs has been recognised around the country. So I struggle to understand the argument to end this. A little patience and a little investment and a little value going forward will see a great return on that investment. So I struggle to understand the argument to end this. The Mayor talks about risk. Well, if we hadn't taken a risk, we wouldn't have built the Peregian Hub. And look at what the Peregian Hub has delivered to this community today. And will continue to deliver for years to come. The Mayor also talks about where that funding comes from. From the environment levy. And then in the next breath, turns around and talks about the housing crisis. Well, the housing crisis can't be solved with the environment levy funds.
02:57:00 Speaker 8: Well, the housing crisis can't be solved with the environment levy funds. Councillor Jurisevic: Didn't say you did. What I'm saying is you included in the same breath. So to be brave enough to take on the challenges. To look for the future of our river health. To look at the opportunity that restoring oysters in the Noosa River could do. Without impacting on waterways. Without impacting on navigable channels and all the rest of it. Is a laudable, laudable project for the future of this community. And I see that investment as one that I support wholeheartedly. And will continue to support wholeheartedly. Until I see results that turn around and tell me it's been a waste of time and effort. I don't ever see that. I see this as an opportunity going forward. For a legacy project for the people that have been involved in this. And got this project off the ground. For the future of the Noosa River system. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Can you remind the gallery of their responsibilities, please?
02:58:00 Councillor Wilkie: In terms of the gallery, we welcome the view here that there's no line of interruption, please. Would someone like to speak in favour of the motion? We've had a few people speaking against it. Would someone like to speak in favour of the motion? Councillor Finzel: Karen. I'm happy to support this motion. Thank you. Thank you. We're talking about risk. We're talking about transparency. We're talking about fostering due diligence and excellence in council. We're also looking at equity. I think moving forward we've talked about a lot of those words today. And from where I sit, the bottom line is that the deliverables over the period of time have not been met. I support David Attenborough. I support the climate. I have grants. I support my grandchildren. Everything moving forward. To me today, I support this because right now we have money quarantined that can be used
02:59:00 for other projects. We have heard in response to the question from Councillor Lorentson that each household pays money towards the environmental levy. It is across the Shire. This project, in my opinion, needs transparencies about acquittal of finance that I believe that we are still waiting to see. And I think we need transparency. In terms of the TNC, I believe, agreement, please, if I'm wrong, is that correct? The TNC agreement, do we have clear, transparent figures about how that money has been remitted? Speaker 3: I'd have to take that on my own, Councillor Finzel. I've had no advice to the contrary. Through staff. Speaker 8: I'm not exactly sure what your question is, Councillor Finzel. But the funding provided to TNC was provided through a grant under the local government
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 regulation in accordance with Council's grant policy. The TNC have provided six reports to date, both annual and six monthly, in which they provide financials and how funding is expended. Those... Yes, so I'm not sure what additional information you're asking. I'm seeking... Councillor Wilkie: Are those public documents? Speaker 8: They're all... All of those are public documents. The alliance agreement and the six monthly and annual reports are public documents. Councillor Finzel: Well, I just had questions regarding the figures raised today. So I presume, through the Chair, that the staff will provide those figures, which I believe the staff has committed to, as well as providing further information around the conditions, around the approval... Yes. ...in writing, as spoken by the staff, with regards to the permits.
03:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor... Further question, if I may. ...Joe. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor. And... Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to reporting and the level of reporting, the federal government have contributed $1.2 million to this project. How does the reporting for federal government... Mayor Stewart: Point of order. Irrelevant. What's the federal government got to do with the question? It's asking... Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask the question before you interject? The fact that the federal government have contributed to the project. And the question comes from the questioning of the reporting that was just raised. Councillor Wilkie: Joe, we're allowing questions. Ask the question, please. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to how the federal government requires reporting for their contribution of the $1.2 million, does that... Is there any difference in the level of reporting to the federal government as compared to what goes to council, or even to TNC for their own membership?
03:02:00 Mayor Stewart: Point of order. How do the staff know what the requirements of the federal government are? Councillor Wilkie: Well, we... I don't know. Let's ask them. That question was put to staff, and we all received the answers to that. Yeah. Speaker 8: So the CEO's asked me to follow this up and benchmark the federal government requirements for the... Under the Reef Builder Program, which I have done, and I've circulated that back to the CEO who sent that to councillors over the weekend. So TNC have governance arrangements with the federal government where they meet with them regularly. As we do, through the executive level forum and the project, and also the technical advisory group. So equivalent governance and reporting from that perspective. Thank you. TNC are required to report six-monthly to the federal government around the Reef Builder Program. They are also required to report to us six-monthly. So it's equivalent.
03:03:00 TNC... Sorry. I'll just check that. I'll check the other. TNC had to provide a comprehensive project management plan and evaluation monitoring plan to the Australian government. This is the same as the requirements they had to provide to us. So they also have very similar financial reporting. Councillor Jurisevic: So financial acquittal is... Speaker 8: Is the same as ours. So I would say it's very... I couldn't find much distinction. In actual fact, if you compared in detail, our... The reporting to our... The reporting to us is probably a little bit more detailed and comprehensive. Thank you. One, because it's... Mainly because it's at a local scale. They report on the Reef Builder and across the whole program. And we are one of a number of projects within that program. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The only councillors that have spoken... Not spoken with this motion to end the relationship with TNC are Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell.
03:04:00 Either of you wish to speak? Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask another question? Of course. Yeah, just for clarification. You said the financial acquittal was to go with the Reef Builder. I thought we were talking about the oyster restoration. Speaker 8: The question was what are the reporting and government's requirements for the federal government's funding of $1.2 million that they provided to TNC. That was provided under what's called the Reef Builder Program. It was a $20 million grant to TNC, $1.2 million of which was allocated to Noosa. The other funding of the $20 million was allocated to a range of projects across Australia. Councillor Finzel: So, given that that $1.2 million was allocated to Noosa, is that $1.2 for the Reef Builder or the $1.2 for the Noosa River Reef Restoration? It's the same program. It's the same. Speaker 8: So, it's under a program called Reef Builder, but it's for oyster restoration in the Noosa River.
03:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion, Councillor Wilkie. I support the next motion. This project's been described as ambitious. An experiment or, said another way, a gamble. It may work or it may not work. At the planning and administration level, it's been described as ambitious. I asked if this agreement continues, is there still a risk that the project will fail? And the answer I received from staff was yes. So I'm still sitting here really quite confused. Why are we rolling the dice with $1.2 million of ratepayers' money, of which already $232,000 has already been spent, knowing that this project may fail? Councillor Wilkie, you said $1.2 million over three years is a small amount, and Councillor Joe, you also referenced $1.2 million as being a small price to pay for this investment.
03:06:00 I'm going to ask both of you and everyone sitting at this table, if it was your money, your family home, would you take the gamble knowing that there's never been an oyster reef project in the subtropical rivers like Noosa River? That TNC or... Oyster reef projects are all in open waters, such as Port Phillip Bay, Gulf of St Vincent, Oyster Harbour at Albany and Gulf of Mexico. And how about the impact of climate change on sea levels and these reefs? Do we keep spending money on oyster reefs as water levels rise? And how is this going to be funded? Sea level rise predictions for the next 100 years, according to the world's best scientists, range from 20 to 200 centimetres. And there's also climate change related increases in storm activities and associated sediment movement. Does that mean that we've got to continually build up the oyster reefs?
03:07:00 And what impacts is this going to have on the existing beds? And again, who is going to fund this and how will it be funded? I understand there are opportunities, but how much risk do we face? How much risk do we want to take? And how much risk are we taking? And why aren't we asking the community these questions, given that every ratepayer is paying for this project? It's ratepayer money, and it should be spent in the public interest on issues that are important to them. Councillors, we've all received submissions from the Chamber of Commerce, and it was a submission that was supported by Tourism Noosa, the Sunshine Beach Association, the Hastings Street Association, Corrigian Family and Friends Association, Eastern Beaches Protection Association, Noosa Business Association, and the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliances. All who supported the Chamber's recommendation that the alliance agreement end in September 2022 as intended because key milestones have not been achieved,
03:08:00 the project does not represent value for the community, and because no detailed disclosure of expenditure has been provided to the community. Whether everyone at this table agrees or don't agree with this, the fact remains that the community is split to their support on this project, and that is enough reasons why we should not go ahead. The fact remains that the project has, and I'm quoting from the report, notable risk. We came to Council to make decisions in the best interest of the community. It is therefore, in my opinion, the best interest of the community. In my opinion, in the best interest of the community, not to approve extending the three-year contract beyond its end date in September 2022, not to charge the CEO with negotiating an extension, and not to pay any further monies to TNC because key milestones have not been achieved, and it does not have full community support.
03:09:00 It is in the best interest of the community to investigate projects that could benefit from money allocated to this project. It is in the best interest of the community to investigate projects that could benefit from money allocated to this project. For this reason I will be supporting the Mayor's motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, I vote for the motion. Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the core issue is where we're different. Section of risk. And it says it's a risky project. Building a house beside the river is a risky project as well, a lot of people do it. All restoration of ecosystems is risk. The question is, do you put the risk of following 20 years of science and research towards achieving an outcome for our river on hold, or never happening, and risk the future of future generations to catch a fish in the river?
03:10:00 It's the risk of ecosystem decline that is driving the need for this project. It's the risk that people continue to put off what's going to happen in the future that's driving this project. So I've heard words like gamble and lack of value to the community from groups that probably haven't had any experience whatsoever in valuing ecosystem restoration. I have. I heard Councillor Wilkie talk about the scientific basis of it, and it's really important to understand. This is a classic science-based approach to restoration ecology. When it does happen, it'll be an example. Speaker 5: So let's go back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The only thing that hasn't happened in accordance with the partnership agreement is the bureaucracy being able to come up with a set of conditions within the timeframe we thought might be possible.
03:11:00 That's the only thing that the partnership hasn't been able to do. And it's been outside the control of the partners. I also think that people are getting hung up because it's $1.2 million to the environment. I'm not casting blame on previous generations, but it is about fixing past mistakes and trying to acknowledge the fact that oysters were a critical part of the local Indigenous culture. But I'm going to look at another past mistake. That is the shoddy development standards in Sunrise Beach. Where they built roads over unsuitable soils. Where they pushed development to the point that it's on the edge of very steep cliffs. And we've expended millions and millions of dollars over the last five years on fixing those mistakes. And not one person said it's too much. Let's the people walk to homes. Not one person said that's a past mistake. We shouldn't have to fix it up. It's someone else's responsibility. It's because it's about ecosystem restoration that people think it's too much.
03:12:00 So we've had a campaign. And I think what really got my attention is when an organisation that purports to represent fishing put in an objection. That's probably the first time in Australia that's happened. So it seems to me that there's still this really lack of appreciation about what restoration of oysters does. So in 1999 in the US it was sort of identified that oyster reefs by the Marine Research Institute in the US. Oyster reefs are critical for other species by the diverse fauna associated with them. They're important to filtering, benthic, pelagic, coupling. Try and use that one at some time. Critical to the refugia for predation. Creation of feeding habitat for juvenile and mobile species. Provision of nesting habit. Abundance. Biomass. Species richness of finfish species are higher at oyster reefs than in unstructured estuarine habitats.
03:13:00 We're going to rename this project. We call it the Field of Dreams. Of course as far back as 1999 it was understood if you build it they will come. But I'm going to go through. 2003 it was actually estimated restored oyster reef habitat may yield 0.26 milligrams grams per metre squared per year of fish and large decapod crustaceans crabs. In South East USA that was. 2004 resource economists estimated that the benefits to recreational anglers alone from the proposed oyster reef restoration project they were evaluating was roughly 50% of the total cost of the project. And that's one of the key things. When we're looking at the benefits we have to do it over the life of what this will do. In their case the flow of benefits they estimated over 30 years. In 2007 science identified seven categories. Ecosystem services, many of which we talked, not just the production of oysters, water filtration, habitat for fish, sequestration of carbon.
03:14:00 Another really important aspect is we're going to have to look at every opportunity to sequester carbon in our environment and oyster reef still as well. And our stabilisation of benthic or intertidal habitats increased landscape diversity. In 2008 the capacity of oysters to improve water quality was identified as one of the main ecological services. By restoration projects. So that was the science up to about 2008. In 2010 this document, this policy position was jointly developed and endorsed by the Noosa Residents and Ratepayers Association, the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Noosa Parks Association and Noosa District Landcare Group. And it was the Noosa community's policy position on managing and rehabilitating the Noosa River after a large community forum that was developed. Action 8. Reviewed data from Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere on low cost bioremediation options for water quality enhancement. For example, use of oysters as filters.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 12 years of community suggesting we want to go down this angle and we've gone through a scientific process. It's really important to understand this isn't just a flash in the pan. Journal of Restoration Ecology, two years later, Sydney Rock Oysters extend the benefits to the broader coastal food. But just go and sit down there and say it goes wide. 2013. Provision of structural material to support and sustain development of benthic and mobile reef communities may be the most important factor in terming reef value. 2014 found that oyster reefs harboured more unique species than unstructured bottom. And that's what we've got at the moment. Thereby enhancing overall biodiversity. Fish abundance on recently created reefs six to eight months after construction was similar to that on control reefs that were four to six years old. Suggesting rapid colonisation. 2016 that a research on rocky inside the shores found that abundance of epi fauna, I won't go into more, commonly increased by an order of magnitude in oyster reefs relative to neighbouring oyster free areas.
03:16:00 2018 the Sunshine Coast University started their research project on local oysters and had already established that habitat restoration in the Noosa River results in higher fin fish biomass. And diversity where oyster reefs replaced bare strata. In this study they surveyed fish assemblies from 14 restored oyster reefs, being quite small in scale, and 14 control sites using baited cameras. Fish assemblies at oyster reefs differed from those at control sites with more species, 1.4 times, and more individuals of taxa that are harvested by fishers, 1.8 times the recreational fishing. In short, there were many more fish on the reef, trial reefs, than there were fish on the reef. And in the surrounding areas, predation helped spread nutrients and energy through the food web and keep a balance in the number of fish at each food food level. And research showed that in the Noosa River, the predation was 212% higher at restored oyster reefs than at the control site.
03:17:00 And in 2020 a paper identified that 35 different fin fish species had been recorded using oyster reefs in New South Wales. Okay. And there's some. Rock oyster restoration provides an ecosystem-based strategy for assisting the adaptation of marine biodiversity to a changing climate and intensive human encroachment. So an estimated 92% of, though an estimated 92% of oyster ecosystems are lost, there remains great potential to restore these valuable and resilient ecosystems. That's why it's a good investment. That's why it's really not a wise move. That's why it's really not a wise move to try and stop the partnership. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart, do you want to close? I'll close. I'm offended. I'm offended on behalf of myself, other councils around this table, and on behalf of the community. The Council of Stockwell to say, people who don't have an ecosystem experience, what, shouldn't have a say?
03:18:00 Their opinion doesn't matter. Every rate payer has a say. It's their money. This is their project. As much as someone who's got a science degree to someone who works on the streets, everyone has an equal opportunity of say. And to say that you've received information from people who don't have ecosystem experience is elitist. I'm offended by what Councillor Wilkie said. Show of hands. Show of hands if you care about the environment. We all care about the environment. We've all got children. That's offensive. You can't say that we don't care about the environment. The fact that we don't support this shows clearly that we do care about the environment. This has been held up for three years with nothing being done. We want to reallocate the money to projects that can protect the environment right here, right now. It's not true. We all care about the environment. David Attenborough, great man. No one disputes it. I'm offended by what you said about playing politics. Simply because you don't agree.
03:19:00 We can't raise a different opinion. That's not called playing politics. That's called good governance. That's called responsible decision making. That's called a democracy. We talked about three levels of government working together. Well, they haven't worked together because up until right here, right now, we haven't received permits. We haven't received state permits. The state hasn't been working with us. So we can't say this has been a collaborative three-tiered approach because it clearly hasn't. Councillor Stockwell talked about the oyster reefs in the river system. In the USA, it's very different. The success in the United States is very different to the success in the Noosa River system. The rivers are colder. It's a different climate. It's a different place. So we can take that with a grain of salt. Councillors, we must commit to exercising proper diligence, care and attention. We must manage council resources effectively, efficiently and economically. I understand the sensitivities around this project. I understand that the previous council supported it.
03:20:00 This has not been the case with this council. At every vote, as Councillor Lorentson said, this has gone down the middle with three councils opposing it at every step of the way. Indeed, just like our community, we have been divided over this issue. And the project has not and will not potentially, if history has anything to do with it, have unanimous support from either the community or council going forward. And for a project as significant as this one and with the amount of ratepayer money potentially being expended, it should. Councillors, today is different to three years ago when this alliance was first formed. COVID has fundamentally changed us, put economic pressures on this council and this community that could never have been planned or expected. We are coming into budget deliberations. And I go back to what Councillor Joe said. Yes, that's right. This has nothing to do, the environmental levy has nothing to do with affordable housing. But everything comes from the same pot. It comes from our ratepayer money.
03:21:00 We must exercise caution. We must exercise prudence. We must look to what projects we can derive a benefit for our community. We must look to this environmental levy money and we must put it where it will receive and be of use to the greater good. There are so many environmental projects that we can put this money to, so many areas we can help with our waterways, our river systems, a few I've mentioned, but there is obviously more to come and we can investigate that. As I said, no one is disputing these funds should be used for those projects. Everyone agrees with that. This motion gives weight to that and allows for our current monies, which are quarantined and have been quarantined for years. They've been hamstrung. They can be better utilised elsewhere for the benefit of our environment and our waterways. And as Councillor Wilkie said, all about what David Attenborough said about our children and our children's children, we can engage in projects that aren't at risk, that guarantee success and that are a benefit to everyone.
03:22:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion in favour. It's Councillor Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson against. Councillor Stockwell, Wilkie, Jurisevic and Wegener, the motion's lost. Mayor Stewart: I'd like to move an amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: You want to move a motion? Mayor Stewart: No, an amendment to the current motion. There is no motion. There is no motion. We're all moving a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: No, I'm going to move. Councillor Stockwell is going to be the first to move the staff recommendation. That's right, I'm going to move it. Someone like to second the staff recommendation? I second it. Councillor Lucevic? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. And I'll follow on from the previous debate. This Council has supported on every opportunity this project. This Council is a democracy and therefore the majority has always supported this project.
03:23:00 It's not a project of the last Council, it's a project of this Council. There's many issues that I am in the minority for, but we are obliged as leaders within this community to get behind proposals that are well established in this community. It is a matter of leadership. It's about whether we do put the politicking and our commitments of 2020 behind us and start working towards a project that will be a feather in the cap as we go further. And I do think this is the time to say, okay, I've had my view. I know I'm in the minority. It's time for people to say, I expect democracy.
03:24:00 And this Council does want this project to proceed. Councillor Stockwell? Mayor Stewart: I'd like to move the amendment please, Mr Chair. Belinda, you have that up? So the additions to this are that this report seek Council authorisation to continue the project, review the procurement process to instigate the project risks associated with the project and how these are to be mitigated and incorporated into key performance indicators and any other matters that may be involved. So, I'll repeat that, seek to review the procurement process to instigate the project. I didn't have number one, seek council authorisation, that was already up there, wasn't it? No, I didn't add that. All I added was to review the procurement process from the original.
03:25:00 Speaker 8: That, sorry, number one was in, sorry, it was an extension of B, so I think you've just pressed enter. Yeah, I didn't add that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, that should be in black, but it's changed because the structure's changed. Speaker 8: No, no, no, sorry, through the Chair and the CEO, my understanding is, Councillor Stewart, that your B was that this report then seek council authorisation to continue the project and it was an extension of B. So, Linda, if you can, if you delete one, bring it up and make an extension of B. Councillor Stewart, if you'd like to read that. Mayor Stewart: All I want to do in this one is to review the procurement process to instigate the project risk associated with the project and how these are to be mitigated and incorporated into key performance indicators and any other matters that the council should be made aware of in entering into the agreement. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a risk assessment matrix we're asking?
03:26:00 Risk assessment? Mayor Stewart: No, I'm asking to review the procurement process and look at the risk associated with the project and how these are to be mitigated and incorporated into key performance indicators. Councillor Wilkie: When you say procurement, what aspect? Mayor Stewart: Well, background. Background to this process. The background to this. This council has not had the opportunity to be around in 2014, 15, 16, 19, so it's up for us, this council, to receive further information in regard to the instigation and initiation of this project. Councillor Wilkie: So, over and above the extensive reporting on this project? Mayor Stewart: Well, the reporting was from my information and what's outlined in the documents that I've received. It talks about workshops. 2015, there's a workshop. 2014. I'd like to know about the community consultation and the procurement process. So, in this funding alliance agreement, there was no mention of... Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
03:27:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for the motion please... Sorry, a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question first? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask about this? Of course, you can. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Can I add anything to this now, or does that appear not to be of value? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, you can ask. Councillor Finzel: Review the procurement process, could that be included also there in theคא Death The administrative process alongside that points. Can we add that? Mayor Stewart: I don't want to, sorry, Council, we'll just come back. I don't want this report, I don't want Council authorisation to continue this project. I don't want that to be in there. Councillor Wilkie: Well, that would be contrary to the initial motion. It would negate the initial motion. Oh, that's right, it's in the initial motion. Speaker 8: No, it's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. Sorry to interrupt, but the alternate motion that you circulated has this in red.
03:28:00 So B is to authorise the CEO to commence negotiations and bring back a report to Council. Councillor Wilkie: That's what Council Stockwell has moved. No, no. Speaker 8: Council Stockwell has moved the other thing. Mayor Stewart: No, he's moved that thing. Councillor Wilkie: If Council Stockwell moves, please start the motion. Oh, right. If Council Stockwell moves, please start the motion. No, no. Speaker 3: One, two, yes, please. Councillor Wilkie: We're moving on to staff recommendation. Right, right. Yeah, okay. So that's included in the staff recommendation. It's not. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Okay, sorry. Mayor Stewart: My apologies, if we could delete that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but it's still... Mayor Stewart: But all I want to do is add to the original motion that Council Stockwell has moved Point D. Yeah. There's Point D. Councillor Finzel: Which is the Procurement? I want to hand it to that. I can't do that then. Then I've got to raise that. Mayor Stewart: Review the Procurement Process. That's all.
03:29:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That would just be a D rather than Y. That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be O, B, C and that becomes D. Councillor Finzel: And can I add something into that D? We haven't seconded it yet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Under the new Standing Orders you can't change your motion unless it's withdrawn and then redone. Councillor Finzel: Unless it's withdrawn and then redone, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Can we just skip this before I withdraw? Let's just get the wording right. And that becomes D. Councillor Jurisevic: And then add D. Mayor Stewart: D was just my amendment, sorry. Councillor Finzel: Review. That's it. And then can I put an E on there? Look it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 Councillor Finzel: And then can I add an E please? Councillor Wilkie: Well, what we can do, the proper procedure would be for the Mayor to argue this one out. See how it goes. Then it's accepted and you can add an E. You can move a second amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: You can move a further amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Any number of amendments. Councillor Jurisevic: You can move a further amendment. Councillor Wilkie: It could take a while before we've got one rule up here. But Councillor Stewart, you're second. Yes, I'm second. You can second that and still make an amendment. Mayor Stewart: Well, you can't second it if you're making an amendment. Oh. Councillor Wilkie: You can't amend it. You can't second an amendment and still make an amendment. Councillor Lorentson: No, I'm not. No, that was my, that was me reminding Councillor Wilkie that we didn't. No.
03:31:00 Mayor Stewart: She can? Councillor Wilkie: She can second it and still make further amendments. Sure. Mayor Stewart: Once it becomes a motion. Once it becomes a motion. Yeah. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: All right. So seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stewart. Can we talk to the changes? Yes, thank you. Mayor Stewart: This, can I have it down please? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I can't see it. Okay. Mayor Stewart: If we are to enter into a further funding agreement, contract or alliance with TNC, then the executed contract needs to have, as many of our contracts should, restrictive controls placed on and around it. Last week I spoke to section 104 of the LGA, which talks about financial management systems, which makes certain requirements of us. These include, and I'll repeat them again, to ensure it is financially sustainable, a local government must establish a system of financial management that ensures regard is had to the sound contracting principles
03:32:00 when entering into a contract for the supply of goods and services, the disposal of assets, and it complies with subsections five to seven. Sound contracting principles are value for money, open and effective competition, the development of competitive local business and industry, environmental protection, and ethical behaviour and fair dealing. We must be mindful of this in our deliberations and prudent in our decision making, and that is why a further document must be implemented adhering to those sound contracting principles. We must seek for our rate payer, value for money, open and effective competition, the development of competitive local business and industry, and ethical behaviour and fair dealing. It is legislated as such. To know where we are going, we must always look to where we have been and what has been done. It is the same for this project. There has been much discussion and debate around the Noosa Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project. That is why this amendment seeks to address the procurement processes undertaken and gives comfort to those who raise concerns. How it came about, the necessity, the justification for the project, the trial project, its success or failure, and the reasoning behind the validation to proceed with the current alliance.
03:33:00 Was the community engaged? Was consultation undertaken? Did other research or scientific and environmental groups apply, provide feedback, have their say? All of these questions have been raised, and for complete openness and transparency, it would be great to have answers provided. As this current council was not around at the time this project was ratified, nor workshops undertaken or advice provided, it is only fair that all information be provided to us and to the wider community. Increased information will only increase community comfort, and increasing transparency and striving to do better at all times is what this council is about. It is what we seek to do with every project and initiative we undertake. Any future contract must contain strict KPIs, with repercussions if timeframes are not achieved. It's the same as any standard contract. Value to achieve project deliverables and KPIs within the contract must have penalties applied, just as they would for any other standard contract, as I said. Irrespective of the good nature or the intention to work together, at some point the rubber hits the road and each party must be accountable.
03:34:00 We must seek further legal advice, which I'm sure we will, to ensure that the expenditure of any further ratepayer money is accounted for, and the outcomes of the project are to the benefit of all our community and our ratepayers, as they are the ones footing the bill. We must do better without increased disclosure of money spent. A good example is noted on the 2020 Annual Report, page 26, that $177,772 to that date had been spent on community engagement, volunteering and media, community engagement products, engagement coordination, subcontractor identification, contracting and management, volunteer briefings, volunteer recruitment, stakeholder meetings, personal protective equipment, media statements, media management and educational material. Statements such as this need further clarity and further elaboration. We can and must do better going forward. For complete transparency and openness surrounding the project and moving forward, increased information in this regard can only be of benefit. Lending weight to this argument must be paramount to any future contract and must be a key feature of any future agreement.
03:35:00 For this project to be a success going forward, we must have complete openness and transparency and the community must be taken on the journey, fully armed with the knowledge of the project, its risks and its opportunities. They should have their say. After all, it's their money. Accountability, key on both sides. Irrespective of wanting to work together, there must be repercussions if KPIs aren't achieved within relevant timeframes and if deliverables are not forthcoming. Penalties need to apply, just as they would, as I said, in any normal commercial arrangement. And as public monies are being expended, increased diligence and accountability need to occur. It's our duty and obligation to the ratepayer to ensure accountability of their monies and as is required for every project we engage with. I've asked that you all support me in my motion for increased accountability, increased transparency and openness in regard to this project and any document or alliance formed going forward. Councillor Wilkie: Can you explain the difference between a contractual arrangement with a partner like TNC and a partnership?
03:36:00 Talk about penalties and contractual arrangement. Speaker 3: The fundamental difference between contractual arrangements and a partnership. That's right. And ultimately what is in place right now is a partnership. It's a lesser level. You'll then have contract requirements, deeds. So there's a whole swage of documents that can be put in place to be able to ensure that council's interests and also the other party's interests are fulfilled and also they're protected as well. Mm-hm. For this level, an agreement would suffice at this point in time. But it would be one where we go through that negotiation process as to exactly what the legal instrument is that was put in place. And we could bring that back to council and advise council through any further legal advice that we get as to what is the appropriate instrument. But at this point in time, it's termed as a partnership. That's the approach that's been taken, not just by the council, but then also all of the other stakeholders
03:37:00 that are taking part in this particular project. So that's something that we could provide back to the council. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Thank you. Speaker 3: Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that the current agreement hasn't come to fruition, would we be commencing a new agreement or an extension of the existing agreement? Speaker 8: So the agreement does foresee that an extension to the agreement can be undertaken if both parties agree. So given that we're nearing completion, you know, once permits are finalised and our council's operational works permits are finalised, construction of the reefs are planned for June, July, essentially the program will be delivered. So it may only be that there's a short extension that's required to allow final reporting and wrap up. They still have permit requirements
03:38:00 to continue to monitor ongoing, so that will continue, but that does not require us to be in agreement, have an alliance agreement for that to happen. Councillor Jurisevic: So I guess the question I'm asking is, if an agreement is to be extended, whether there's capacity within an extension of an existing agreement to add new KPIs or other conditions within an agreement that currently exists. Speaker 2: To chair, to answer that question, in regard to recommendation B, I drafted that with a fairly open mindset to allow the CEO to commence negotiations. Councillor Jurisevic: And that was where I was heading to next. The way I'm reading B is we haven't, Speaker 2: it hasn't proposed to. There's no specification there about whether it's an extension of the existing agreement or a new agreement. I'm looking to the leadership of the CEO to assess it and come back to council with a recommended model. Councillor Jurisevic: And that was why I was reading B. I was wondering why it wasn't just requesting an extension of the agreement. Okay. So there would be capacity to then, if it was a short extension to then add some additional conditions.
03:39:00 Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Look, I've got no problem with this. Every time more scrutiny is piled on the project, it's always, the answers have always come back that all due processes have been covered. There are any statements about lack of financial reporting or lack of achievement of the majority of milestones are misleading. We know that in our, this is the latest six-monthly report, there's over 30 deliverables mentioned and over 30, most of them, the vast majority, all except about four, are either on track or achieved. We've learned that the pivotal one, that the permits, the draft conditions for the permits have been, there's nothing, nothing to hide. There's a, a lot of, there's been extensive reporting around this. The alliance is a public document. It was checked by Key & Co. According to the Local Government Act
03:40:00 or other aspects of it, it's an above board project. Even if, there's a limit, I guess, to how many, how much red tape you put around any process. The question starts with the ad, are they genuine, a genuine interest in the governance or are they just trying to trip a project up and undermine it? Oh, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, Councillor Wilkie: that's, that's, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm unclear what the purpose of the amendment is. If it was to say in review the risks associated
03:41:00 with the project at this current stage, looking at incorporating any further additional key performance indicators, should there be a lengthy extension of the current agreement, that would probably be a reasonable use at the start of time. To go back and review the procurement process, I wonder what is the purpose of that? We have an organisation that is bursting at the seams with jobs to do, and this appears to me to be putting bureaucracy in the way of performance. It appears to me it's trying to specify the way that the CEO does his job in terms of negotiations by retrospectively going backwards rather than saying, this council has repeatedly said they want this project to proceed, we want to make sure that the agreement that
03:42:00 as it goes forward is done so in a way that is transparent and accountable. For that reason, because the amendment is so blurred and it's apparent intent, I can't ... Councillor Lorentson: That's his opinion. That's your opinion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you finished interjecting? Sure. Okay. I won't be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now the councillors will speak to the amendment before Councillor Stewart closes. Councillor Finzel: I will support the amendment. I will speak to it because I just feel the essence of this meeting has deteriorated in terms of comments that have been made that I find offence at. But I think this is done out of good intention, with governance in mind, good governance,
03:43:00 to engender trust in the community that somehow through this process has been eroded. I think that for due diligence and in terms of good governance, we need to come together now and put any amount of framework around it to ensure our community that it is transparent. That we are about continuous improvement, we are about excellence and engendering trust, which are our corporate themes. I support this amendment of the Mayor's because I do believe that we need to look at any way that can help engender trust back in community, given the discord in the community that still remains after years down the track around this problem. And I think a way that we can do that is through good governance, is pulling on every lever available to us to make sure that it is in order.
03:44:00 Procurement is one way that we can ensure that and I will support that. On top of that, I also will have intention to move an amendment to include administrative process because we need to pull on every lever before us today, councillors as a whole, to engender trust that we are combined in unity to deliver outcomes for the environment, socially, and economically for this community. We all sit here because we all care. We've all been voted into this position because people trust us to make these decisions. Inference about our attitudes, about how we govern, is inappropriate today at this meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Question for staff, is the wording of that Part D clear enough to understand what we need to do? Do you understand what it is? Do you understand what we need to do? Speaker 2: I think it will give us the opportunity to provide a history of the way the project was conceived and then planned, the review process that was undertaken as part of that process.
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 So it's held on council file. And I think my reading of it is about how we've considered the key risks for the project and how they've been built into the relevant documentation. And I can see that that would be a report that would satisfy the councillors. In terms of public record of the level of scrutiny and process applied to the process. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. John? Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I think I see the intent here. I think I see how the councillors that were involved in this see this as a matter of due diligence and outside of a project that they were to part of. I have no problems here. We've got a new environment manager, acting environment manager, and we've got a new CEO and some fresh pair of eyes to look back and reflect upon the way in which the process was undertaken and see if there were any learnings that we can add going forward and entering agreements like this in the future.
03:46:00 I have no problems in the Mayor's proposal here to review the process and see if there's any elements of that that can be incorporated into furthering this agreement and any future agreements that may occur. I think we're all right. Councillor Wilkie: Chair? How do the councillors wish to speak to the amendment for Mayor Stewart closed? Councillor Livingstone? Councillor Lorentson: I support this amendment which simply seeks to ensure that checks and balances have been put in place. I also concur with Councillor Finzel that this is critical because at the moment we need to build community confidence that council is in fact making decisions in their best interest. Thank you. I also want on record that I have also personally taken offence to some implications made around this table today. I am pro environment and I fight for environment and any implications to detract from that offends me and I would like that on record.
03:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment before Mayor Stewart closes? Mayor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: This is a no brainer. This has been a very divisive, you can see it around the table today, you can see it in the community. This has been a divisive project. It is one that we're not going to put up and shut up with Councillor Stockwell. If I don't agree with it, I'm here on behalf of the community and I will voice my opinion. This amendment seeks to engender trust of community monies with increased good governments, with increased transparency, with increased openness. That has been, as I said, divisive and contentious. There are some who love it and some who don't. If this project is as great as what has been spoken of at this table, then there should
03:48:00 be no problem with people supporting this motion. In fact, it should shine a light on the project and should give comfort to the community. And we need to engender that comfort and that trust in the community. We need to get that trust into this project because, and something like this, with a review and with all cards on the table, we'll do just that. So I ask you to support it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Well, in favour? Councillor Finzel, Stewart, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Wilkie. All against? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener. The amendment is carried. It becomes a motion. We go back to Councillor Stockwell's motion. Motion? Councillor Finzel: No. And I want to raise an E, please. And I have amendments to it. Councillor Wilkie: Well, Councillor Finzel is first. Procurement amendment. Councillor Finzel: Yes. So basically, I want to replicate the wording in D and I want a review of the administrative process.
03:49:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll just amend D to go review the administrative and procurement process. So cut and paste and just change. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Or it'll have to be E. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Could you not just add the word administrative and procurement process in D, Karen? Sure. Yep. Just to simplify. Is that sufficient? Councillor Finzel: Well, I imagine so. It's the same outcome. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm alluding to. Good. Councillor Finzel: When we're looking at excellence as a council and our corporate plan, we have administrative processes where we can put in complaints around how things are being managed through council. Now, it's years down the track. Our community's put forward, I don't know how many complaints. I don't work in that area. I think, again, to support all the things we've previously discussed, that to include administration- Councillor Wilkie: Sounds like you're going into debate here, Councillor, so we'll just get the wording right from the start. Review the procurement and administrative process. Yep. To instigate a project.
03:50:00 Councillor Finzel: Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. More money. Yeah. Review the procurement and administrative process. Councillor Lorentson: Processes. Councillor Wilkie: Processes. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: We'll need a seconder. Councillor Wilkie: We need someone to second that, please. Can I move? Can I move? No. Can I move? Can I move? Can I move? Can I move? Can I move? Can I move? Councillor Finzel: I just think in terms of good governance, transparency and all the things that we've discussed today that relate back to our executive themes around this organisation and in support of continuous improvement and engendering trust back to our community, that we want to build assurance that there is good governance, that we are governing with good intention
03:51:00 for the best outcomes for our community, that align with the Local Government Act that are social, environmental and economic. So I put this motion forward today that in order to serve at our highest level in this community that we will add administration to the procurement process and further down the track I also think that at some point if we want to look at even rewriting an agreement that's called something else to deliver these outcomes, that we should consider a little bit more, you know going back to community, we're years down the track and see what they have to say. Councillor Wilkie: Look I'll support that. It's a very open process. It's extensively, extensive reporting, extensive documentation. There's lots of financial oversight. It's all done in accordance with the Local Government Act and regulations, relevant regulations. The latest six-monthly report shows all the deliverables that have been achieved along
03:52:00 the track. But the final one in circulation already, which was the drive permits. There is, this is stood up in scrutiny of, Council has requested a few reviews before. It's come back with a glowing report. I think it's only going to show, as the Mayor said, shine a light on what a great project it is. Yeah, so no problem supporting this amendment. We need to... No, go in there. No, go in there. No, go in there. Mayor Stewart: Just to clarify, I don't think this is a great project and I don't want to shine a light on it, but just to confirm what Councillor Wilkie said, Councillor Wilkie, for those who think it is a great project and whose light can be shined on it, I'd just like that clarified because I've just voted that it goes against the last two hours of what we've been arguing.
03:53:00 I don't support this project, but for those who do, and this will shine a light on it with this, so I support further information around it and I see no reason why others wouldn't who are very supportive of this project. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, I see no problem with going back and having a look at how we undertook a project. I see that as prudent, to be perfectly honest. And see whether there's lessons that can be learnt for how this was undertaken and going forward. There have been questions raised by elements within the community and I think it's a fair process to go back and just see if there are any lessons learnt or any elements of the process that could have been done better and could have been enhanced. So I've got no problems with the amendment 1 or amendment 2. I think review and reflection are a good part of any process.
03:54:00 Councillor Wilkie: Right, just to close Karen. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just to close, I think that in terms of what we've said before with regards to this project, we do need to have transparency and make sure that all our systems and processes are working towards excellence and delivering best outcomes for staff and councillors and community and all tiers of government. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The amendment goes in favour. That's Finzel, Stewart, Jurisevic, Lorentson and Wilkie against. Stockwell and Wegener. The amendment is carried. It comes part of the original motion moved by Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment that now forms E and F.
03:55:00 Speaker 9: And your motion will be then to add in E and F. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Yes, please. Yep. So E. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor on the board. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: So E. Amendment three. So amendment E. Authorise the CEO to consult with community stakeholders and the broader community to gauge overall community support
03:56:00 for the rest of the year. A. Renewal of the Noosa River Alliance and Funding Agreement and E. Provide a further report on the outcomes of the consultation as well as the outcomes of the contract negotiation and seek a further resolution of the Council prior to entering into any further agreements. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that, please? I'll second it. Seconder, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: Clearly, we've got community that are opposed and those that are opposed. Those that are supportive of the renewal of the Noosa River Alliance and Funding Agreement. I've added this amendment just to ensure that we are in fact making a decision that is fair and equitable and, again, to help build community confidence that Council, again, is making decisions in their best interest. Keep going back to what our job is and our job is to make the best decisions in the best interest of the people of our community.
03:57:00 We've talked and referenced the Queensland Local Government Act, and I'm going to reference it again, and it states that councils should advocate on issues that are important to their communities. This council's made a public commitment to transparent and open processes. Further, it's made a commitment to effective consultation on issues that affect our community. I'm asking today that you honour this commitment and support this amendment. That, in my view, is the best decision for the overall public interest. As I said, this amendment invites residents and other stakeholders to provide their views about the renewal of the Alliance and Funding Agreement and allow us to gauge overall community support. And then request the CEO to provide a further report on the outcomes of this consultation. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Linda, can you get that box off the middle of there so we can actually read the amendment? Councillor Wilkie: We're on it.
03:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There we go. Thanks. Councillor Lorentson: Again, we came into council to make decisions in the best interests of the community and this can only be achieved through genuine consultation Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a question of the mover. In E you talk about renewal. Is that meant to differentiate between renewal and say a three month extension or whatever and is it also relating to a new contract rather than an extension of the existing one? Councillor Lorentson: The existing contract, so there was some clarity around that earlier that we're actually not going to be having a new agreement, that it will be an extension of the existing agreement and community support for the motion that's in front of us is how that's supposed to read.
03:59:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there any conflict then between that and everything that I've talked about? Probably not. B, authorises the CEO to commence negotiations regarding the Noosaville Restoration Line and report back to council. So those require a report back to council. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, so it's part of the negotiations. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr CEO, question to you I guess. Given the timeframe of the completion of the agreement being July, sorry, July? Yes. Does that afford enough time to consult with community stakeholders and the broader community to engage the overall community support for the renewal of the alliance?
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 Speaker 3: Through the Shire Council address, it absolutely would be very, very tight for us to be able to consult. However, should that become a resolved position of the council, officers will carry that out almost immediately. It would be a very short timeframe and turnaround. And we do understand that there is a high level of engagement in the community already. So we would be able to receive very quick responses to the turnaround that we understand. But you are correct that given that the equipment structures in the river have been finalised in July of this year, it is, you know, we're sitting here today on the back end of April, it would need to be a very quick turnaround. But to assist the council in its decision making, we would absolutely do that. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, I have a question there. With regards to the reference to the built infrastructure, has council, have we approved planning permits to build those infrastructures?
04:01:00 Speaker 3: Through the Shire Council, it means that my understanding is operational works are still yet to be approved. The step was that the permits would be provided by the state government. That would then inform operational works approval. And then from there, they'd be able to be delivered within the river. But I may defer to our director of planning just to double check for the process right there. That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask, does that come before council then? Yes. For us to vote? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would be brave. Speaker 8: We could do it under delegation. Okay. So under that. I think we're going to force the council. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I think you should. Yeah. Under B then. Sorry, Mel. Do you want to go on? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, just in regards to your operational works, it is currently being assessed. Is that impact assess or code assessable? Speaker 8: I'm sure it's code assessable. Cool. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask a question?
04:02:00 This, the author and the CEO that commenced the negotiations, does that mean with the major conservancy regarding, does that mean a new, based on what will be discussed today, does that mean a new contract? Or a new alliance, a new agreement put in place? Councillor Jurisevic: Or the extension of the existing- Speaker 3: Through the chair and the sponsor there, and the responses provided by the manager, that part of the recommendation or the motion for the council is that it was intentionally brought. And so they gave officers the ability to be able to have as much leeway as possible as to whether it's going to be a new agreement or whether there's a continuation of the existing- So that will be to be determined at a later date? It would, should this become the resolution of the council on a resolved basis for officers to move ahead, they would then work with the major conservancy. So I would delegate that to the work that would commence immediately. And very quickly we'd ascertain new agreement or extension of existing. A question? And then as CEO, given the debate today, I'd ensure that I have oversight of that
04:03:00 as well too before it came back to the table. Councillor Finzel: Based on that, then, through the chair. I have a question then. So when do we move a resolution to clarify that it's our intent to either seek an extension or to start again, basically? Where does that lie? Speaker 3: We would bring that back to the table as soon as possible. Councillor Finzel: And we can't resolve that today? Speaker 3: That's a matter for council. I think we would need to go through a negotiation, though, so that council is fully informed and that you're happy with any agreement that we're entering into. Councillor Jurisevic: So yeah, what I- Councillor Finzel: Can we change that wording then? To make it a bit clearer? Councillor Jurisevic: You can't change the wording now because it's in front of us. So, in that regard, given the timeframes, again, if CEMU's got to have operational work come back before us, I guess we'll understand the timeframe for delivery of the project
04:04:00 to completion under this funding agreement. And once we have that understanding, we might have a better idea of whether we're going to extend or look at a new agreement based on that timeframe. Would that be your understanding? Absolutely. Speaker 3: Through the chair, Councillor Dereccevic, it would be proven of the council to continue what we currently have. But should that not be able to be mutually agreed, any agreement then could be drafted. And then depending as to how we add the additional elements that we have before us here, such as KPIs and understanding some of the risk elements, the future report, we'll be able to provide the timeline and background with regards to procurement and industry processes, and making sure that council has everything in place. So, we've got every single piece of information to be able to enter into the agreement. That's something that I know the officers will commit to. And then for all that time and effort to get that back to the council table as soon as possible to ensure that the project could be delivered within the timeframes that we've spoken about today.
04:05:00 So, until we enter in that negotiation and have the resolution authority to do so, I unfortunately can't say is it a new agreement, is it existing. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was alluding to there. Speaker 3: It's intentionally broad to give scope to myself and council officers to be able to look at that. That is broad and the reason for that is that business leeway to be able to act in a more commercial manner around this particular piece of work. So, I have a question through the chair. Well, in that we're not held to are we going to extend, are we going to have new, we're very broad for us. So that if we were to be held into a bureaucratic process, we might have to come back to the council for further resolutions if we start negotiation and that unfortunately changes and it doesn't get us to where we need to be. So, this gives us the broad brush approach that we as council officers can sit with Nature Conservancy with the current agreement and say, does this work for us all right now?
04:06:00 Does this deliver the requirements that we need and how can we move forward with that? If those answers are yes, then we can move ahead. If those answers are no, we still have the ability to move ahead given the bulletin. So, acting as if any business would. If we were tied and it was very explicit as to the authority provided, we would need to come back to council before acting further. So, you're saying the call and the rest would be at this point in time to negotiate, but final sign would be due to authorisation of the council. Given the debate today, I wouldn't sign that as delegated. I would have had to bring that back to the council. Councillor Finzel: Okay. I just have a question then through the chair to the CEO. So, if we're going to like extending out to this never-never for this broad brushstroke, can we have some idea, broad, around reasonable timeframes? Speaker 3: Given through the chair, given that it's to be delivered by July, I would say it would be well and truly delivered by that point in time.
04:07:00 But until we have the ability to start negotiations, I can't give you a timeframe. Apart from that, it's to be delivered by July. Councillor Finzel: So, that's sort of an underpinning of this whole project, this ether of broad brushstrokes. Thank you. I'm sorry. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Councillor Wegener: I've got... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Four moderated comments. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I agree. But now... Councillor Wegener: I've got a huge problem with E, authorised the CEO to consult with community stakeholders in the broader community to gauge the overall community support. Doesn't that cut us out? I mean, isn't that our job as councillors? And isn't that staff's job to work with the program? Councillor Wilkie: . Councillor Wegener: Is it staff's job to put together a community consultation procedure? We have very strict rules with community consultation. I don't feel as though we should burden the CEO with stakeholders in the broader community
04:08:00 to gauge the support. That's not the CEO's job. That's actually our job. Am I wrong? Councillor Wilkie: Can we see the amendment that we're actually talking about? Councillor Wegener: Well, it's the 3E right there. 3E. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. I can't see 3E. Councillor Wegener: It's the only thing on the board. Councillor Wilkie: It's the only thing on the board. It's the only thing on the board. Authorise the CEO. It's not on that one. Yes, it is. Authorise the CEO. It is now. It wasn't over there. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So authorise the CEO to consult with community stakeholders in the broader community. That's outside of what the CEO is supposed to be doing. That's our job. And we gauge the overall community support. Isn't that right? Councillor Lorentson: I don't think that was the intent with the wording. Councillor Wegener: Well, that's the plain wording right there. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to it. I've got some concerns and questions about this because you don't go into broader community consultation. Okay. Yeah. You don't go into broader community consultation unless that has a real possibility of changing
04:09:00 an outcome. We've already heard there are other processes in place with permits and operational works that are going to be going on concurrently. The CEO is going to be negotiating with TNC about whether to extend or draft up a new funding alliance. Okay. And community consultation, this is a very broad consultation, very broad term. There's been, I agree, consultation the whole way along the amount of information that's gone out to the community. The education work that's being undertaken currently in the schools via the education environment, education hub. There's press releases from the council. There's, there's a lot of information. There's a lot of information on the TNC website.
04:10:00 There's a lot of information out there in education already going on about the project. So unless you're talking about, I mean, are you setting expectations too high? What will you do with that information coming back? Are we going to learn something new about this project? We know that there are mixed views. Is it going to be, it can't be a pure numbers game. We get 1,000 in favour of it, 1,010 against it. Therefore, we're going to stop it. It's very vague what we mean by community consultation. Given that community consultation, part of community consultation is information sharing and public education. And that's been an integral part of this project all the way along. That's why it's a controversial project, because there has been information put out there about it. Also, I have trouble with it because I don't know how the timeframes are going to be. We've heard that CWA's got very short timeframes to finalise this, either the extension or
04:11:00 a new agreement with the Nature Conservancy. So I, there's too many questions about this. It's just, it's a bit vague. So I support the, and also we need to, there's going to be this other, the other amendments that we need to make. We need to have that come back first before we can decide what needs to happen next. There's just too much happening at once. It's a, it's a, this motion, this section of the amendment is passing, just being too much of a, and this is actually conflicting timeframes and confusing the community in terms of expectation about what's going to come out of it. So, for that reason, I want to support it. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Can I speak to it? Speak to it?
04:12:00 Yeah. To, to do that ENF is to authorise the CEO to go out and consult and be with the broader community and then make a report and come back to us, is so far out of normal procedure that, that this can't be passed. It doesn't make sense. We are, we are struggling to, to have clarity. And this is asking the CEO to, to go out without process, without clarity. And then come back with a report without clarity, without process. Seriously, let, let's go back, let's drop that and, and, and carry on because as we, we've just asked staff and the CEO to look into this with a fine tooth comb. This is utterly overboard and actually confuses jobs. Well, we just made it to a point. This is just very, very confusing. And in my opinion, it's a bit on the, on the run.
04:13:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak. There probably is a place for community consultation going forward. I think it would have been helpful if this was posed as before any new contracts were developed after what sounds like a, a likelihood that within three to six months of the existing date, we will have the acquittal of the infrastructure in the river. Councillor Wilkie: We don't know that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. Um, point of order, point of order. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cause I, if we start down that path, I'll probably do it better. Um, the, and so there probably is, you know, as, as I said that in my previous, there probably is still a lot more, um, community capacity building and understanding to happen. And there is decisions if we were to continue down this path about priority for investment. Now they're refined questions for community engagement.
04:14:00 If we, as I understand Councillor Lorentson's intent is, is to do a quick and dirty job just before we move ahead on this particular contract. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order. Point of order. I take great offence to that. Yeah. Take great offence to that. That's a personal attack, Councillor Stockwell. And I'm tired of it. Councillor Wilkie: So, um. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I support Amelia. That's out of order. Councillor Wilkie: Talking about, um, the description of the consultation process. Yes. Not referring to a counsellor at all. Talking about, talking about the brevity of the. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to withdraw that comment. It is about the suggestion that this would have to happen within the three month period. So I do, if there's any offence, it wasn't about, it was about the process, not yourself. Yeah. It was about, if we're going to rush community consultation, I call that a quick and dirty process. Okay. So that, it's not, it's about, it's, I support the concept of having meaningful community
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 consultation. So I do withdraw that, that inference if it's meant to be, if you took offence at it. Yes. The, the. Councillor Wilkie: Are you raising, are you raising a point of order? Councillor Finzel: Well, because I've been corrected so many times today, I'm uncertain where I'm allowed to speak and not. So I'm checking in first. Councillor Wilkie: You don't have to raise a point of order. Councillor Finzel: Well, I'd like to raise a point of order, um, with that comment also is not, could be a perceived, um, affront against Amelia, but also our governance. No one here has the intent of doing fast and dirty tricks. I just want to clarify that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Well, I, I think, um, Councillor Stockwell clarified that. And I think. Yeah, but I'm, I'm. Speaking now. We've all heard things around this table, inferences about the transparency and proper governance that's taking place to date, which has been very hard for the councillors of this, this project and supported all along to take as well. So if you can discipline yourself as we have when we're listening to your comments, that'd
04:16:00 be much appreciated. Councillor Stockwell has clarified, um, what he meant by that. Another point of order? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Just to clarify that I was standing for the voice of the collective governance to engender trust. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: To remove any smear. You're out of order. You're out of order Councillor Finzel. You can't discipline yourself. Councillor Stockwell has been called. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the, as I say, I do believe if we were to look at a new alliance agreement that maybe went on for another three years, that a, a focus targeted consultation process that may extend more broadly into the other rooty issues like the, you know, it may, for example, seek to gauge community support around, uh, oyster reefs versus seagrass versus sediment in the, in the catchment. You know, what are the priorities, what do people want to do? And it may have an involvement that they're involved in the consultation actually helps them understand the process more. That to me is valuable form of community consultation.
04:17:00 Just going out and just by nature of the timeframe that's stipulated, it is, it loses that meaningfulness. It becomes, as you say, the risk is it then becomes we'll try and get all our, our, our side to, to vote in favour and they try and get all their side to vote against and we, we haven't moved the issue on any further. Um, so in that regard, I think that's, um, the, the key, you know, the, the, the, the fact that while I am not against future consultation in terms of a new alliance, I think it's, uh, an over some requirement to try and rush this through prior to the need to determine what's going to happen between July, September, um, and maybe December. I think that's something that doesn't need consultations about. Okay. We recognise there's been delays in the, uh, resource approval authority, uh, whatever it's that, you know, for getting the approval from the state to be able to do the work and that's going to require a six month extension.
04:18:00 That's a different body of work to what you need to consult on. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Um, look, this, I support this amendment, uh, because this community concept engagement, I'm reading in the Noosa Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project Report in 2021 that in 2014, the Noosa River Expert Workshop at the Powerhouse Museum was undertaken. That was a two day workshop hosted by TNC for, and Thomas Foundation and Noosa Parks, comprising 12 academic and NGO estuary scientists. No Noosa residents or, uh, rate payers really attending that. The TNC Oyster Restoration Scoping Study in 2015. Ecological Service Professionals. University of Queensland Historical Ecology and the Noosa Estuaries, 2015. So all of these previous, up until 2018, 2019, all of these consultations, I can't see anywhere
04:19:00 where we've gone out to a have your say, to a community consultation, to a, a community meeting, just an everyday jar in the street. What do you think? Are you supportive of it? It's your money. So I think that in any time and at any opportunity, we can engage the community and stakeholders and the broader community in regard to this project, we must do it because I think this is something that should have been done. And correct me if I'm wrong, Kim, should have been done very early on. And all these high level meetings, I understand funded being undertaken, but for our rate payer and our resident, uh, I can't see anywhere that they've been consulted. So as I said, this is something that better late than never. So I support this. Councillor Wilkie: Um, Sean, can you give some idea of the community engagement that's been undertaken today in the aspects of this project? Speaker 8: I'll start. You can, you can both comment on that. Um, so aquatic restoration and habitat restoration in our river is identified as a key priority
04:20:00 of our environment strategy. Mm-hmm. And the environment strategy, um, went out for consultation. There was extensive consultation through the environment strategy, through your say and, and all of those, um, aspects. So, um. About the specific project? Well, the, the, it didn't, it didn't, it was, it didn't say TNC, but it did talk about river, river management, aquatic restoration, ecological restoration in our river as a priority. So it identified the outcomes that we're trying to achieve. It obviously at the time didn't say via a partnership with TNC. So, uh, at a broad level in terms of the outcomes sought for the river, yes, it was consulted on. Um, it's also been consulted on through the river plan process a number of times, bearing in mind that hasn't been completed yet, that they were still in the process of working with the advisory committee members on that.
04:21:00 Um, and then there's been a lot of community engagement specifically around the project in certain aspects of the project. So there's a lot of, um. Mayor Stewart: That's, sorry, Kim, I, I, that's been since the project, since it's been signed. That's right. And that, that's key. That, that's key. They have to do that. It's under their key performance. That's right. Deliverable. So irrespective of that, I'm just talking about garnishing support before you, that, that alliance was even signed. Can I just have the question answered, please? Yeah. Speaker 8: So that, that is, that is correct. So the, you know, the consultation that was undertaken through the environment strategy was comprehensive, was Shire-wide, um, which council considered, um, and then endorsed the, the, the environment strategy, which envisaged that we would undertake restoration projects and, and river management projects, um, through, as part of that project. Uh, like I said, through the river plan, the, these sorts of projects have been, um, understood, um, and consulted on twice through the river plan, um, and then fol- once we endorse this specific arrangement with TNC, you're right, then there was a community engagement
04:22:00 plan developed collectively that, that, um, needs to be delivered on and they are, they are delivering on that. You know, there's education sessions, there's community sessions, there's volunteer sessions. Councillor Wilkie: There's a couple. Yep. Speaker 8: Yep. Lots of workshops, those sorts of things. They're required to do that, though. That, that was. Right. They, yes, it's part of the agreement. Yep. That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um. Question? I put it as a question because I've spoken. Um, my recollection that I've moved a motion, uh, to establish the Noosa River Advisory Group, uh, with the terms of reference including, uh, this project, the Oyster Reef Project, and the Noosa River Advisory Group, which took about a year to form. But, uh, if that's the case, we already have, uh, the, set up a, uh, established community consultation process for this project and that would be the place where that we may be able to get some feedback. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Sounds like, sounds like a sound like a question. Oh, you're right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm sorry. I was not sure of that.
04:23:00 That's fine. Councillor Wilkie: I still don't know what you're saying. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sure. So, we have. Councillor Wilkie: No, no. So, is it true. You've spoken. Is it true. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is it true that the Noosa River Advisory Group was established both to give us feedback on, uh, the Noosa River Oyster Project and the Noosa River Plan? Speaker 2: Um. All I can comment on is that the Nursery of a Stakeholder Advisory Committee have been kept up to date on the progress of the project, but as the project was formed prior to their establishment, they were never given a role to sort of approve or consult or give their views. So I need to be clear on that, that the way the project was presented was that it was a council-approved project. Here's the information for your understanding. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask a question first? The Urinal and Ring Tile Forest agreement and re-establishment, did that go out to community consultation? Speaker 8: No, it did not. Councillor Jurisevic: And the reason it didn't is because it aligned with our environment policy. The environment policy did go out to community consultation and those elements.
04:24:00 So the essence of what we're trying to achieve, the detail goes down to the projects that we're working on. I tend to agree with Councillor Stockwell on this. If this were to be the next agreement and there was a next stage of oyster restoration required funding, I'd be happy to go out and see the elements V and F undertaken. That would give the community time to evaluate the success or otherwise of the project. Going forward and time to see whether there's ongoing support for further restoration projects to be undergone. That's what I meant. I don't think I'm prepared to accept the amendment as it reads at this point due to the timing and proximity of completion of the project that we will see.
04:25:00 There are other challenges coming forward with regards to operational work. And the further reports that we've already got. And I think the elements alluded to in A, B, C and D sufficiently cover the opportunities to review all of the elements of the process that we've undergone. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Joe. Councillor Wekner, you wish to speak? Councillor Wegener: I think I spoke on it. Yeah, I spoke on this. Councillor Wilkie: I beg your pardon. Amanda, you wish to close. Councillor Lorentson: I will. So, Councillor Wekner, you made reference to the exact wording of the amendment. I'm going to reference the exact wording of the original motion, B, which is authorise the CEO to commence negotiations with the Nature Conservancy regarding Noosa River Restoration Alliance and Funding Agreement and report back to Council on the outcomes.
04:26:00 As we've heard today, there is a possibility that there may be in fact a new agreement or an extension. That hasn't been decided. So now I'm going to go back to the exact wording of my amendment, which is authorise the CEO to consult with community stakeholders and a broader community to gauge overall community support. Councillor Finzel: For the renewal. Councillor Lorentson: For the renewal and provide a further report back to Council. So, given that we have a new CEO and lots has happened since signing on that agreement in 2019. There are KPIs and, you know, admittedly a few, not a lot, but there are KPIs that have not been met. There's operational works application that has still been assessed by Council. And our community is split on this project. For the purposes of the new CEO, to inform and guide him to achieve B, which is commencing negotiations with the Nature Conservancy.
04:27:00 For the purposes of the new CEO to inform and guide him to achieve B, which is commencing negotiations with the Nature Conservancy. It's in his benefit to understand the level of support in community. This is due diligence. There is a potential that there may be a new agreement. This is not dirty politics or whatever reference or input insinuations that you previously made Council Stockwell. This is about due diligence and and. I don't know if you've been listening. I don't know if you've been listening. My application is about community. It's about, it hasn't got 100% community support. I don't even know if it's got 50% community support. And this is the purpose or intent of the amendment to actually understand, is it split? Is it overwhelmingly in support of this project? In which case, majority rules. It is democratic, Councillor Stockwell.
04:28:00 But until we actually go out to community with the new, with full disclosure, we've got to spell out what are the risks. You know, like I said, lots has happened. We're at a different place than where we were in 2019. So simply, I ask that you support this amendment, which authorises the CEO to consult, because it's the CEO who's going to commence negotiations. And our new CEO hasn't been. He hasn't been part of this process. He's been in Noosa for less than two months. And for his own purposes, we have emails of support from associations and business groups. We also have those opposing, again, associations and business groups. It's not a formal process. The process is simply for the CEO to understand.
04:29:00 What the community, what the community's position on this. Do they want us to proceed? Are there more worthwhile projects? What level of commitment is the community? Do they want to give us, throw more into this project? You know, I don't know, but I will support the majority at this table and I will support the majority position of community. That is our job. So again, please. Support this amendment, because I just think it's critical that we consult the community. We talk about it. Let's just do it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Put the amendment does in favour, Councillor Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic and Wilkie. The amendment's lost.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 and Councillor Jurisevic, to which only Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wood was spoken. So it's a multi-part motion now, including amendments moved by Councillor Finzel and the Mayor. Any councillors wish to add further comment to this motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Can we go back to the substantive motion? No, that's the amendment. You've got it. We haven't got it yet. We got frozen this time and you've got it. I did think you were there. I've never seen the two frees before, so that caught me by surprise. Mayor Stewart: Is this speaking to the original motion now? Yes.
04:31:00 Councillor Stewart? I had nine pages. I've already spoken to those. I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, but I think we lost an opportunity here. I think this project is risky. I think that we could have allocated those funds immediately, the quarantine funds, to other projects. I'm disappointed that the majority of councillors didn't feel that way. We have an agreement and an alliance ending in September 2022. This was an opportunity, but this is democracy and this is how numbers fall. And it is, as I said, it's something that has divided this council. You can see today.
04:32:00 You can see how emotional and emotive this issue is, not just for us, but our community at large. We need to move forward with trying to regroup. I don't know how we do that. This will, I believe, continue to be a somewhat difficult issue. Going forward, as I said, I'm disappointed it was an opportunity that I thought we could redirect and refocus on other areas. But this is, as I said, this is why we are here, because we are voted in by our community and we all have an equal say. So, thank you. I want to thank you for that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Stewart. Any other councillors wish to speak before councillors stop or close this? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I will. Look, I support the recommendation here. I think it's a good way of going forward. I think the project, as I've said, is a worthwhile project. And I think the proof will be in the pudding.
04:33:00 What's the worst that can happen is that our river health isn't improved. At least it won't go backwards. Because it's been going backwards for a long, long, long, long time. You know. But having said that, I don't think it will. I don't think it will have a detrimental effect. I think it will have a beneficial effect. I think this will be a significant project going forward. I think it's an opportunity here for people to see the benefit of restoring habitat. We have no plan for restoring habitat on land. I don't see why we have an issue restoring habitat within the water. And that's the only difference between something like the Eurem Ringtail Forest project and this project. It's land versus water. For some strange reason, the water seems to be a sticking point. The reports that have come to date with regard to the benthic layer and all the other historical elements of the river show us that oysters will benefit the river again if we can re-establish
04:34:00 them. So that's the challenge going forward. I support this. And I support, again, the other elements. To review the process. I mean, we talk about transparency. You know. You know, councillors that haven't been in the room while we've gone through, in the previous council that went through this process. I support the elements of going back and looking back and seeing and reflecting on the processes that have been undertaken. I've got no qualms with that. I think that should be part and parcel of everything we do in council. And I actually asked the CEO to cast his eye over this last week and say, look, as a new fresh pair of eyes, is there anything of concern to you? I bet it's the opportunity for you to have a bit deeper dive and see if there's anything more. And again, a new pair of eyes in our acting environment manager. I think there are opportunities going forward to see that we do this well and that we can do this better in the future. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Gressley.
04:35:00 Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd like to speak. Yeah. It's disappointing today that this was a great opportunity to be nice to, you know, find some agreement around the table that we could agree on moving forward on some issues that have, you know, caused division and discord. It's, yeah, it would have been nice to say that we could have left the meeting and felt that we had some clear things we could agree on moving forward. That's unfortunate. However, we'll move forward with what is before us. It's interesting to note that every time I come to the table, there's another like, you know, there's a reef builder or there's another community thing. Today we're looking at also, you know, I thought we couldn't eat the oysters, now we're looking at resilience of rock oysters related to Sydney. So I'm just going, what is the end goal of this project?
04:36:00 Yeah, I guess more questions remain than have been answered around the table today. So I just hope in terms of good governance that the community can see the rigor that each of us as individuals have undertaken to ensure that there is transparency and trust and continuous improvement afforded to this community. Who is, you know, currently needing good, strong leadership, given the impacts of disasters over the last couple of years, including COVID, it would have been nice to offer community assurance today that, I don't know, the councillors around the table could find something that was agreeable that we could move forward on. Anyway, we'll continue to our higher aspirations of delivering good governance to our community. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener: That was just the most unusual speech, but I fully support this.
04:37:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's been mentioned, it's been an emotional debate and at times, suggestions that I've played the person, not the process, and I'll have to launch back, because I don't think I have. But I think it is important to clarify in my summer. Firstly, I never said that we don't value the input of community. What I said was the organisations. There was a statement that the project doesn't represent value to the community, and I said the organisations who are making that are not people that have got experience in valuing restoration ecology to the community. That is a key difference to saying they haven't got a right to have their say and to make those statements. And that's what I, and I think what Councillor Lorentson was reacting to as he thought, I suggested she wasn't pro-environment, was my statement that I think the hub of the project is that the problem is about this being investment in restoration ecology, not about the environment.
04:38:00 And I gave the example that we're spending millions of dollars to repair failed roads, and it might generate five minutes of discussion. Sobrone Street, Ross Crescent, these are all investments by the rate payer of actions of past that are now, because of the failure of the environment to support, we're investing in. So when it comes to repairing past mistakes, when it comes to fixing past mistakes, we're investing in. So that's where the debate is. And that's where the perception of risk is. And to me, that's really important to have that debate. And to me, I know those same debates happened when we started planting trees on the side of rivers. Everyone said next flow to wash away. I've now seen since we started that 30 years ago, hundreds of kilometres and really good water quality outcomes. And so when you go into the river, it's even more complex and more hard to understand. I also think it's important to understand in terms of the process of community consultation.
04:39:00 And it's had nothing to do with a statement about dirty politics. It had a statement about the quality of the consultation. And I will read you the motion that we adopted this council in July 2020 with the report, item two on the planning environment agenda on the Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project. And it was a motion that I put up and it said, NC, establish a Noosa River stakeholder reference group to provide strategic input, local knowledge and expertise into river management initiatives, initially providing input into this shellfish restoration project and more broadly into the finalisation and implantation of a Noosa River plan. Now that was lost in the terms of reference. And if you have a memory, I did a 10 minute attempt to reference it up so I thought they didn't reflect that. But in this next three months, it's perfectly reasonable for the CEO to say, well, there is our meaningful community consultation. There are people that we've put their hands up to say we want to represent our interests
04:40:00 on the river. They're the people you can have a talk with in that short period rather than going to the broad, have your say, let's vote on this or not, yes or no with that. So that's what I'm talking about when the process of broad community consultation is a bit rushed to try and get this feeling that it's a numbers game. So to me, I know that reference group is also involved on this project. So if that's the way you go, you'll get the same sort of difference. But there are people there who do have good local expertise. There are people there with real expert knowledge. And there is good people there with river management. So to me, the way forward on this project is getting the compilation of what, as I said, was 12 years of thinking by a lot of people in this community about the best way to go ahead. It's 12 years to get to this point where we are now and six months away from having something real in the river potentially providing habitat that may have as many fish as a remnant one would have had in six to eight months' time after it's put in the river. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
04:41:00 We'll put the motion, those in favour? Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Finzel, Stewart and Lorentson. The motion is carried. The next item is a... Could we please have a comfort vote? Comfort, sorry. And a vote should always stand up. Thank you.
285 minutes in ¶
04:53:00 Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back, everybody. Meeting's open again. We're up to item eight on the agenda, which is a development application for a reconfiguration of a lot. One lot and eight lots at 60 Glenridge Road, Glenridge Drive, Cooroy. Councillor Lorentson: ...relationship with the applicant Mark Bain and the Bain family, who are family friends. We have attended social events together and our children have attended school together. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
04:54:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Speaker 7: Okay. All right. Afternoon, everyone. We're dealing with an application to subdivide an existing lot into eight rural residential lots at Cooroibah. The layout has been... designed around the mapped flooding and environmental constraints on the site. The site does exhibit some extensive flooding, which reflects the waterways, and the applicant proposes to cover those, the predominant... predominantly cover the waterways with a vegetation covenant, and also proposes extensive rehabilitation of those covenant areas. He proposed... the applicant has proposed eight house sites. One of the house sites our consultant, hydraulics consultant, has indicated isn't that desirable.
04:55:00 The remaining house sites have an appropriate house site, which is above the 1% AEP, which is the old Q100 flood line, and also they proposed some minor filling to get up to the PMF, which is a probable maximum flood event as well. When we were assessing the application, we did ask the flood consultant to have a look at whether this site would be cut off in a PMF. Some preliminary modelling indicated that the site would be cut off from the urban services of Tewantin for a period of up to four and a half days. Some preliminary modelling indicated that the site would be cut off from the urban services of Tewantin for a period of up to four and a half days. So, there are some concerns based around sort of the impacts of that flooding and those impacts on the development of this site. The site's also got some bushfire on it, which the applicant has proposed to
04:56:00 address by... At the moment, sorry, it's a low, low impact buffer bushfire effect mapping across the site. At the moment, sorry, it's a low, low impact buffer bushfire effect mapping across the site. When the site is re-vegetated, it will actually go up to a higher bushfire level, but the applicant has proposed a bushfire track that goes around the house sites. So there's a fair bit to look into this site, but we have indicated a detailed preliminary approval with a range of sort of a range of further information for the applicant to provide. Questions, Tom? Councillor Wegener: So, this is zoned rural residential? Speaker 7: Rural residential, that's correct. Councillor Wegener: Would they be able to chop it up in such a fashion if it was rural? Speaker 7: No. Councillor Wegener: No, it would be different, then it would have to be a 100 acre block or something? Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct. Yes. So the minimum lot size in the rural residential is 1.5 hectares.
04:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that lot 8 is the lot that the current residential area is located in. The current? Original, yes, the current house site is, yes. As far as, as far as water flows in there, I noted, I had a bit of a look at the site the other day. There only appears to be one culvert under Glenridge Drive, which, I'm going to ask a silly question here, but potentially, which way does the water flow? Speaker 7: From the north, north-west? It flows down through the site. Down through the site. From, yes, so it flows through, you can probably see on. Councillor Jurisevic: So from the top left of the bottom right. Speaker 7: From the top left. If you, I think if you go, I'm trying to think of a good one for you. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's really coming down over. Speaker 7: If you go into page 29, that's the flood depth, that's figure seven.
04:58:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That was what I assumed. So it's, so it's, yeah, so the deeper levels that are shown in the map are on the down. Speaker 7: On the downhill, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Down, down, down side. Speaker 7: The eastern side, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: On the down, down flow side, yes. And those water lines, as they stand out, Brian, you might actually be able to correct me on the language here. They're not in regular flow. They're in regular flow. They're in sort of flood, flood of water flow or rain event flows. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so my assessment of a similar creek in this estate was that. We spoke about one in Geroma. It was a series of wetlands that flow during events. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, because I noticed there's one, there was one puddle there, but I didn't see a lot of water, actually, apart from this one puddle out in front of Block Eight. The other element of this that I would say is given that we're going to increase the
04:59:00 bushfire hazard by re-vegetating and that we have a buffer around all of the properties is why no, the opportunity for being cut off by either flood water or fire, why no emergency access to McKinnon Drive has been considered in the gates that have been proposed. Because to me, my view when I saw it went there, yes ma'am, the gate actually exists currently and that to me that would offer at least an alternative access in the event that fire or flooding prevented access out the other way. Speaker 9: So McKinnon Drive is state controlled road at the start, so it's main road, so it's outside our control. They've indicated no access to their road, if you're committed. Yes, the main roads have.
300 minutes in ¶
05:00:00 They may consider though emergency access, so that would have to be a question put back to them if we were to consider it. I would suggest to you that having access to McKinnon Drive, a second access to McKinnon Drive will make no difference in terms of emergency access. That's what we're concerned about is cut during a flood for four and a half days. So the road floods just past the Sundale site, McKinnon Drive, so all those properties out there are affected and blocked off. So I really don't think a second access to McKinnon Drive is going to make any difference whatsoever. In terms of fire, generally it is good practice to have a second fire exit in and out of the site. Sorry, it is or it isn't? It is. It is. Yeah. But I suggest that this is a, it's a low impact site and the risk does increase because of the rehabilitation that's proposed by residents, but still consider that it's not necessary in this instance. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, well we'll agree to disagree on that.
05:01:00 Speaker 9: Yeah. So if Council wished to, they could ask for that to be investigated, noting that it would also be up to main roads. Councillor Jurisevic: Now, you mentioned the potential for residents to be cut off for four and a half days, but I would argue that every resident that we've allowed in this area over the past 50 years or however many, you know, 100 years that have been developed there has gone through that and suffered that. Is the concern that we would be adding more residents to the potential? Speaker 9: Yes. That's right. So I would suggest that this is not the best planning outcome and it's really why the matter is before Council for a decision. So part of the recommendation to Council on page 22 is to investigate flooding impacts on the area and also for it to be referred to our planning scheme team to have a look at. Because to continue to increase the number of people in an area that is cut off by flood,
05:02:00 I don't think it's good practice. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the recent event, and I did send an email to James, I was wondering if we had any comments on that? Yes. So the road gets cut off during a probable maximum flood. Speaker 9: The recent flood events we had were not a probable maximum flood. Councillor Jurisevic: But it would be a good indication. Speaker 9: So it's likely that during the recent events, and I don't know for sure, I don't know if anyone else knows, I don't think the road was cut off. Councillor Jurisevic: There were some cut offs. Certainly Boring Point was cut off. I'm not sure off the top of my head exactly where all the cut offs were. There were some low lying areas through there as well. That's why I'd like to get some aerial photography. Speaker 9: So certainly Boring Point would be affected. Councillor Jurisevic: You should see the comparison of what a maximum event is compared to one that we just had, just to see if any areas were cut off. Speaker 9: So McKinnon Drive is not cut off during a 1% AEP, so the old 1 in 100 year near the
05:03:00 Sundow site. It only becomes cut off during the biggest flood. So a probable maximum flood is the biggest perceivable flood that may occur in the area. Councillor Wilkie: Has that occurred yet? Speaker 9: Not in my lifetime. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's 1893 and the mayor he was probably giving a place to it. Councillor Wilkie: How did you have similar effects there? I don't know really. Councillor Jurisevic: The other interesting part for me in this proposal was the control of domestic cats. Is that something that was put forward by the developers? I don't think so. Was it put forward by staff? It was put forward by the environment officer. Speaker 7: By the environment officer? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Good work. So. Challenging when eight lots go . Councillor Wilkie: Just so I understand what I'm looking at. All these lots are subject, right? Speaker 7: All, all, yes. So they have a house site that is above the 1% AEP.
05:04:00 Councillor Wilkie: So they have a house site that is above the 1% AEP. All of them do? Speaker 7: Apart from lot one. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. And that's 25 centimetres . Speaker 7: Yes. And our consultant doesn't think it's a good outcome in terms of the amount of water going over and around it. Councillor Wilkie: And so these ones here are showing to be totally surrounded by water. Speaker 7: That's in a PMF. Councillor Wilkie: Which hasn't occurred yet. Speaker 7: Hasn't occurred yet. So the one on the left there is the 1%, the old Q100. So you can see it's got those sites in the middle are all above the 1%. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Are we looking at 29? Councillor Wilkie: 29. Yeah. It's probably different. And their access road would be navigable in that? Speaker 7: It's hard. Yes. Again, we're not quite sure in terms of the velocity. That hasn't been provided. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a water course flying through there? Speaker 7: There is. That's the water course.
05:05:00 That's the map. Councillor Jurisevic: If you go to the site, there is a tree line. It sort of alludes to an element of it. I don't think it goes all the way there. Yeah. Because a lot of that block is cleared. And it has been modified through past grazing activities. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: The image shows it's normally . Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: The image in Figure 5 shows the area of photography. It shows that that tree line doesn't go all the way and we can then draw it. Councillor Wilkie: So have these houses been required to be filled up? Is there fill involved? Speaker 7: There's minimal fill on the, on page, in the table on page 22. You can see there's some fill required on the second table. Speaker 9: And that will mean lots of fill to a PMF level. Speaker 7: So that's the worst. So all sites have been filled up. All sites other than lot 1 are above the 1% AEP, naturally occurring, and they just need some minor filling to get to that PMF, have a floor level above the PMF, which, remember,
05:06:00 is the worst case possible. Councillor Wilkie: So just so I understand what I'm looking at, the house on lot 1 is required to have 40 centimetres of floor? Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: And then it would still be in a 25 centimetres? Speaker 7: No. Councillor Wilkie: It would be in a 25 centimetres? Speaker 7: Yes. What did we say? That's the bad one. Lot 1 is bad. Yes. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But that's 0.4 of a metre to take it up to the PMF? Yes. Not the 1%? Speaker 7: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. And our scheme only requires the 1%? Or does it refer to the PMF? 1%. That's what I thought. Councillor Jurisevic: And I dare say an element of that is because that's where the culvert exists. If you block 1, that's probably the lowest point. Speaker 7: Yes. Going across on the northern boundary. Yes. Across to the left. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. It would be 25 centimetres down the PMF. For a 1 AEP.
05:07:00 Go on, Eric. Speaker 9: So we might have to come back to the exact numbers. Yes. But essentially, lot 1 floods in a 1% AEP now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And our scheme would not support that. Speaker 9: And our scheme does not support that because it floods. The other lots are acceptable because they're above the Q100. Councillor Wilkie: And they can get out? Will they access one? Speaker 9: What the scheme also requires, so it has a provision around the extent of fill and that the house site should be clear of the Q100. It also requires that lots either have a clear evacuation route during a PMF or they have a place to shelter in place during a PMF. So we're suggesting that lot 1 is not acceptable, it should be amalgamated with lot 1 and 2. All the other lots do have a suitable place for sheltering. There's no evacuation route. And so our conditions are recommending that they have a warning system in place, similar
05:08:00 to what we've been looking at with Lake Wybar Drive. So that's the issue. That's why we're recommending a preliminary approval, essentially, because they have no warning system in place. So if people are cut off for four and a half days, they need to have a choice whether they stay in shelter in place for that four and a half days or if they have medical issues or for whatever reason they wish to leave the site. Councillor Wilkie: Just so we're all on the same page, could you explain the difference between a preliminary approval and a development permit? Speaker 9: Yeah. So a preliminary approval doesn't allow them to proceed with planned sealing. It essentially requires them to come back with further information before they receive a development permit. And applicants often, when Council recommends a preliminary approval, they can go through a process of requesting a negotiated decision notice and provide that information as part of that process. So rather than lodge a fresh new application, they can lodge it through that process. Councillor Wilkie: So just to, for you, with disasters and flooding being foremost in mind, what are some of the
05:09:00 measures, can you outline what measures would be put in place to ensure that the safety of these people, the business community, get the full approval? Are they coming out of this negotiation through preliminary approval process? Speaker 9: At the moment, the applicant is just proposing that their houses will be above the PMF. That's essentially what the applicant's proposing and that people will be able to shelter in place. Officers are recommending that really a flood emergency management plan needs to be done. To deal with the fact that these people are cut off during a major event. So we want a flood management plan, a risk management plan, to be prepared that gives people warning of times that people have the opportunity to make the choice to either leave the site or stay in place to shelter on site. Councillor Wilkie: Would it be unreasonable to request that that access road be involved in one area of heat and raised to be one area of heat? Speaker 9: Well, that's not going to work because the Kin and Dry floods.
05:10:00 So McKinnon Drive down near the Sundale site goes under water in a PMF for four and a half days is what the advice is. Councillor Wilkie: What about a one area of heat? It doesn't flood during that time. So will this road, this escape, this access road be above the one area of heat? Or will it be under water during the one area of heat? Speaker 9: The new road proposed for the subdivision? Yeah. It's normally, roads are normally designed to be constructed to a, what's the event, 10%? One in 10. One in 10. So no, to a lesser standard. So it will potentially be flood affected. But there's no point hopping on this road unless you can get anywhere and out McKinnon Drive. Councillor Wilkie: But you said that in a 180 thing McKinnon Drive, it's not under water. It's not under water, that's right. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's what you're showing in figure six of the hazard overlay is McKinnon Drive on the way into Tewantin being cut off.
05:11:00 A reintroduce event. Councillor Wilkie: So what I'm angling at is that if McKinnon Drive is spreading away, that means if they can get out, they can get away. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. But the access road, if that's under water, then the 180 people won't be able to get out. Yeah. So is it unreasonable to expect the access road to be the same level as McKinnon Drive? Speaker 9: Well, that would improve the situation for future residents. I don't disagree. But the requirement of the scheme is to have an access route that's clear of the PMF. And McKinnon Drive is not clear of that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Frank, you would prefer to see, you know, an access route that's clear of the PMF, that the road's built up so that it wasn't... It looks like it's about 15, 17... It's accessible under 180P.
05:12:00 Yeah. The only problem you've got if you start building that up is which way does the water flow in smaller events. So normally when you have a road at a 1 in 10 per cent, is it actually when the draining system overalls and the road becomes a drain that takes it down there? So is it... Councillor Jurisevic: That's where you need a culvert and you need a drain. Considering it's all flat land, it's essentially flat land and there is no water course. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Is it envisaged that a water course could be created to help facilitate the draining site? You know, because it's being farmed. The water course here on page... On figure seven is sort of dotted in on land that really isn't a water course. It's actually being farmed. Speaker 9: Yeah, well, that's not the applicant's proposal, and that would require a lot more detail in the investigation. Sorry, just to go back to Councillor... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not suggesting that's a good idea, but I'm just asking that at the moment, it's a flood problem. Speaker 9: Yep, it is. Just to go back to Councillor Frank's question, I don't disagree that would be a better outcome in terms of making the road to a Q100,
05:13:00 but that's not what the planning scheme requires. And we have a code-assessable application. It's quite a bound assessment, which is part of the reason I'm bringing this to Council, because I'm concerned about our scheme provisions around flooding. Councillor Jurisevic: So it would be unreasonable to condition it? Speaker 9: It's not the scheme's requirement. Councillor Wilkie: Can we... You're saying that more negotiation has to be done to finalise the provisions around this. Speaker 9: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Could that be asked? Yes. I've got a question, because I'm not... Look, if McKinnon Drive's driving around... 1AEP, and this road is not, that means they can't get out. Yep. And if you'd like to know that they could, it's a little bit of a hell to get out on the 1AEP, to get on the 1AEP drive. Yeah. A PMF, of course, when they're all... Yeah. McKinnon's under, and it's over the bus.
05:14:00 Yeah. Which we recently planned for. Speaker 9: It would help to minimise the risks for future residents, if we made them build to that standard. Yep. And just need to be mindful that our scheme code doesn't require it. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So how do we, could I suggest, alongside the investigation of a gate that I proposed to put in as H, we could investigate the requirement for the road to be at that level, as a condition to investigate? Mm-hmm. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah, we could just, I think we should have a separate provision. So H, make it I. Councillor Wilkie: Mm-hmm. Speaker 9: If we don't... It's H. So have H and then make an I. That's two separate matters. Councillor Jurisevic: I haven't moved it yet, but that's what I'm proposing to include is I. Speaker 9: Am I following meeting protocol here?
315 minutes in ¶
05:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: Investigate the provision of a... No, it's moved here. It doesn't seem to be. It doesn't seem to be. Yep. Speaker 9: . Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: And just to confirm, figure seven, whilst it shows all the lots there are dry, the only reason all the lots there are dry, even though there's water in it, is because they've been, they've had their building parcels elevated above the flood depth. Speaker 7: Oh, flood, that's the 1% AEP? Yeah. No, all the lots apart... Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, sorry, sorry. Figure eight. Sorry, figure eight. In fact, three, four, five, six, and seven are all shown, almost all lots are shown to be inundated to some degree, but the building lots have been then built up above that level. Is that what that's like? Speaker 7: That's correct. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess that's the case with the joining lots. Councillor Wilkie: .
05:16:00 Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: . Yes. I'm thinking the reverse at the moment is that this sets a precedent in two ways. If we have higher levels of requirements under the probable maximum flood, what does that do with every other developed site that is so impacted? So most of the future development land in Pomona, for example, you wouldn't be able to get to 10. Is that going to be somewhere, you know, this one's different because it's so close to it, but then, you know, the probable maximum flood separates a lot of Pomona. Speaker 9: Yeah. So the recommendation is in accordance with the current scheme. But we're putting it here because we're concerned about it, and we think more work needs to be done with our planning scheme, as well as through disaster. Councillor Wilkie: But that's the question. How do we respond to what we've learned in the same . Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah. And that's why that C, I think it is, is there for people.
05:17:00 It needs more investigation, including, you know, when we develop our disaster management plan for the area. Page 22. As well as looking at the planning scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Can I ask a question about the table on page 22 and the figures within that? I'm just... The height, it's 13.52 metres and 13.48, 12.87 feet. The building envelope floor level AHD and the PMF flood level AHD, 13.52 metres and Speaker 7: 13.48 metres. That's what's being provided on the plan in terms of what the applicant's given us. Again, it's a measurement. Can you give me some reference? Councillor Jurisevic: I can't see where... Oh, it's above sea level. It's above sea level. It is above sea level. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. I was just trying to clarify that that's what it's... No. That's what it's... It doesn't say sea level in there. No. It's what I assumed.
05:18:00 No. AHD. Where did we get 13 metres from? Yeah. Above sea level. I can't see... Yeah. It's having to be built up to 13 metres. No. Speaker 9: It doesn't mean we've got a turkey nest at 13 metres. Councillor Jurisevic: No. No. I didn't think it did. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah. That's what it was referenced to. Yeah. Pretty well. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Just making sure I've got a full understanding of the figures in front of me. Tom. You've got a question, Tom? Councillor Wegener: Just... So with the water that's onto this property, because it's a flat cane field basically, you can't really put culverts in or things like that to move the water off the property because you're just taking the water and putting it to the next person's property. Yeah. So is it... It doesn't sink in real fast here, so that is the overall issue, is you can't... You just have to make islands and then prepare them for the floods, and then the road's a bit of an island, but even the road, going from house to house, creates a change in the water course. So you've got to... Kind of makes the problem worse even. Is that it? Speaker 7: They did design the road to ensure that the culverts were appropriate size to cater for
05:19:00 the amount of water coming through in events if there's any blockages and things like that. So the engineers have looked at it and are happy with the design and trying to keep the flow moving without blocking it and damming it to impact on other properties. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. It's interesting considering there's only one relatively large dam in the area. There's a relatively small culvert under Glenridge Road and similar under McKinnon off the top of my head. I think it... In fact, I think your diagram here shows the... One of the diagrams shows the culverts doesn't fight. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If anything, the rest... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Figure seven. I'm assuming they're showing the culverts, so the black... Black glass, because that's where the culvert is on Glenridge Road. Yes.
05:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Access Road, above the Q100, 1% AEP, above the 1% AEP flood level. Can we have a second of all that? Have you seconded that, Joe? No. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, OK. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm a little bit morphic. I'll second it.
05:21:00 I do so. I think we understand we're a little bit cautious about flooding since the recent event. From my understanding, the 1% AEP is irrelevant to end it under the state planning policy still. The new requirement against the probable height is something that we will have to consider going forward. As this is not giving a final approval, it allows both the applicant and staff to get their head around what's happening here. In terms of the whole concept of can we design this development such that it's reducing downstream impacts? Probably not. But there is a potential that the restoration will do what we call increased catchment friction. So it won't be like a normal urban development with a lot of concrete drains. If the water's coming through that riparian rainforest, it will slow it down so that the curve on the runoff will be a little bit flatter. So it shouldn't. That'll be offset by the fact that there's roads and hard,
05:22:00 brooms, et cetera, going in. So it's probably going to be about the same situation as can't exist in terms of the speed and velocity of runoff if you look at those two options. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question about bushfire management. It says to ensure the safety of people and property on this property is maintained, all buildings and structures must be sited and constructed in accordance with the bushfire management conditions of approval. I have a question. What does that mean in terms of construction? What does that mean in terms of materials and design? Speaker 7: If you look at page 25, figure 4, the applicant has provided a bushfire management plan which involves, unfortunately, I didn't print mine in colour, but there is, on the bottom one, there should be a yellow dotted line that goes, thank you, Leo, and that yellow dotted line is a firebreak trail.
05:23:00 Which is detailed in colour underneath. And that's showing you the distance. So it's a 20 metre firebreak, which involves 20 metres. So it's a 20 metre and it's a trafficable firebreak. And there are controls in terms of vegetation species. And there's the road. And then there's limitations on vegetation planting on either side. And of course, then there's a buffer to the house as well. And then there are plant species going the other way to the environmental covenant. Councillor Wilkie: And what about the materials and design of the house? Are they made of concrete slabs or what? Speaker 7: The building code will dictate that. So when they come to build, the building code details will assess the BAL, based on the site conditions and the existing vegetation surrounding it. And that will dictate building materials, fire screens, whatever is required. Councillor Wilkie: So there's fireproofing. Speaker 7: Yes. There is also a requirement in the condition for,
05:24:00 and as part of the fire management plan, provision for a water tank to be specifically provided for firefighting purposes. And that's so many thousand litres, which I've forgotten how much, sorry. So there is a condition here requiring a specific, when you construct it, you will have to provide a specific tank for firefighting purposes. For each resident? Yes. For each resident, yes. Councillor Wilkie: And it's only when the vegetation is restored that the water tank will be provided for firefighting purposes? Speaker 7: That's correct. It will increase it, yeah. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Obviously, the houses are on septic and they're not connected to the, okay, just wanted to make sure. Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. It's a 10,000 litre dedicated water supply for firefighting purposes only. Councillor Jurisevic: Excuse me. If you were septics in a flood plain? Speaker 7: That will be above the flood area. Councillor Jurisevic: So the house lot would have to incorporate sufficient land to incorporate sufficient
05:25:00 floodplain as well? Yep. That's correct. I'm not seeing that in the drawings, in the images that are there. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I guess also. Speaker 7: The building envelopes are in the table. Councillor Jurisevic: But it's obviously data scale. The building envelopes are obviously larger than what they appear. Speaker 7: Yeah. The building envelopes are, they're around 1,300 square metres, 1,300, 1,200. So stage two, page 22. Councillor Jurisevic: So you're talking about about half of the house and then you need half of the equipment of the houses. You need about the equivalent of the house space to be the septic offset area, do you think? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: 1,300 metres, it would be 650 and 650. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you find it in this landscape, they're highly likely to have a requirement for an advanced treatment system anyway. They don't have, whether it be a reticulated system or advanced environment septic, which will mean that, yeah, compared to a normal septic problem.
05:26:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I've got you. I've got you. Yeah. I'm with you. I'm with you. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair, then I have a question, please. Yes. Can we ask for some information in regards to that? Despite whatever type of system they have, is the building envelope large enough to fit the requirements of that? Speaker 7: That's actually in the preliminary approval item. Okay. Item F is to provide an effluent disposal report demonstrating that the house site areas can sustain appropriate disposal. What page is that? Page 11. Oh, sorry. Page 11, item 2F. So that's confirmation requested. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay. Joe, did you want to make any amendments? Councillor Jurisevic: No. Brian's added the clauses into it. Yeah. It's for approval. Okay. So that's the first item that I was ... If it was going to be approved, I think, so I
05:27:00 was seeking ... In fact, you added the second one, which is the road. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Are any discussions going to be had with the applicant between now and Thursday night, in terms of the direction that this is going to be taken? Speaker 9: Well, we've already had some discussions with the applicant. They know when our recommendation was going to be before the item went on the agenda. Yeah. So we wanted to resolve it before reporting it to council, but they wished ... They wanted a decision. Councillor Wilkie: And that's the ... Did you want to ask about these investigations with the fire access and the flood access? You sounded now about that. Councillor Finzel: I can talk to them, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So does ... Can we have an answer back from staff by then? What was that, Captain? Do we have to have an answer back from state by then? State. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So just further to that. What we're being asked to do is approve the application issue of preliminary approval
05:28:00 in accordance with the conditions, provided those conditions are met. We've got some investigation elements within that preliminary approval. If they can't be agreed upon, where does this go from here? To staff, delegation, or does it come back to council? Speaker 9: So remembering that the process for the approval is the applicant can request a negotiation decision notice, and they can put forward reasons why these conditions shouldn't apply, or they can ... There's one meeting to work on. Or they can give us amended plans that demonstrate compliance. So there's a few options open to them. I would be bringing this matter back to council. That's because council's made the decision. So as part of representations, council will get to see it again. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Tom? The land, is it farmland? Was staff concerned that they might be putting this on top of good farmland? Or is this good farmland?
05:29:00 I know it's rural or residential, so it doesn't really matter, but I remember Brian Stockwell was showing me the best farmland is around Katheriba. This wouldn't be it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. This is Cooroy, but not Katheriba. Councillor Wegener: Not Katheriba. Okay. Dismiss the question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This would be probably Class D and non-agricultural lands. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Previous use of . Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It has to be . It has to be . Probably during ... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to ask a silly question. Given that the land is farmland, why would we have put it into planning scheme as rural residential and not rural? Speaker 9: Good question. Well, that's a good question for strategic planning. But I would suggest that the land has been long zoned for rural residential by past planning schemes. And the state is often very reluctant for councils to down zone land when we're doing new planning schemes. But yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the answer is. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. All right.
330 minutes in ¶
05:30:00 Anyone else wish to speak to the motion before the iron closes? Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to speak. When I was on the campaign in 2019, I was called out by residents to go to quite a few of the development sites here, like the little suburbs, like Noosa Banks, for example. I have real concerns about the one access in and out of this place. And given we've got ... We've got to get permission for McKinnon Drive. I just think in this day and age, given the vulnerability of peoples due to ... We've got to get permission for McKinnon Drive. Disaster events, I'm reluctant to support this development unless it is heavily conditioned. We have to be really taking into consideration climate change and impacts moving forward. The devastation past that 2019 fires when I attended those residents that had to make fast evacuations, given how fast that fire moved, was devastating.
05:31:00 And I saw the impact. I saw the impact of that on those people living in those communities. It really does worry me with just that one access in and out. And I think unless we can really find a way to mitigate that at all levels, and given talk of people, possibilities of taking us to court over lives lost or whatever, given we've given approvals, given this far ahead in where we exist in history. And the new data and everything we have around bushfires, moving people out, the impacts on our emergency services, I don't think we as a council need to be opening ourselves up to those impacts and people's lives being lost and the devastation. So I think we really need to see what I do. Clear constraints or whatever you people call them.
05:32:00 I think we really need to see what I do. I'm planning people because I'm not a planner. And I don't profess to be a planner. But this has come up before us today for consideration due to flooding issues and bushfire management. And I am not happy how this sits here before us today. So unless there can be some really clear risk mitigation shown to me, then yeah, I would be really reluctant to support such a development. I had a drive out there today. It's risky. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. That's my opinion. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I will. I've got to agree. I've got to care with Karen a little. I'm struggling to see how we could approve a subdivision of a lot that is so inundated with water flow, even though the planning scheme seems to have ways and means of allowing it. I'm sitting in disaster management.
05:33:00 I'm challenged to put anybody in harm's way in any way, shape or form. The water flows are not... The flow rates... Have we had a hydrological survey done at all? Speaker 7: We've had... We have had our flood consultant look at it, but no information has been provided on velocities through the site or how fast it comes up. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I know I'm asking a question in the middle of my deliberations, but is that part of the conditions? Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Going forward, so that a hydrological survey has... Speaker 7: Some further information. It would be a risk assessment. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I'm struggling. I'm really, really challenged at this point in time without further information to go to an approval. What would be the alternative to approving this with a... I don't know. What's the wording that you've used?
05:34:00 Approval with... Speaker 9: Conditions? Councillor Jurisevic: No, not... Preliminary approval. Approval with temporary... Sorry. Excuse my... Councillor Finzel: Issue a preliminary... Councillor Jurisevic: Preliminary approval, yes. Approve the application and issue a preliminary approval. What would be the alternative? Could we not issue... Approve the application, but look further at preliminary approval with conditions? I.e. There has to be... We have to come back with more information before we approve it, or is that, in essence, what we're doing by having that preliminary approval? Because you're saying approve the application and issue a preliminary approval. If we approve the application, aren't we giving... Councillor Wilkie: I don't know. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Effectively, you're... Yeah. Through the Chair, you're indicating to the applicant that Council is prepared to approve it, but there's a lot of... A little bit more... Councillor Jurisevic: Just a little bit more work to be done prior to it coming back to Council. Speaker 9: So, staff are just as concerned as yourselves around this one, and that's why the matter
05:35:00 has come before Council. We're making a recommendation because it is consistent to a large degree with our planning scheme, and so it's a bound assessment. It's code accessible. Okay. So, we are making the best of what we can... So, Council can refuse it. I'm just concerned that we wouldn't be able to sustain that in an appeal. That's the other option for Council, is to refuse it. Nevertheless, the applicant is required to do quite a bit of... You know, a bit more work. That's what the preliminary approval is about, and there's a process for that. Councillor Wilkie: So, it's guaranteed . Speaker 9: It does, but they still have to meet those conditions before they get a development permit. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the word... The word investigate doesn't compel them to have that emergency access.
05:36:00 Speaker 9: No, it doesn't. Councillor Jurisevic: Or build a road to... It's at their discretion. Speaker 9: No, they've been asked to investigate. Yeah. And I've suggested the word investigate because it's a main road. There's another party involved. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but as far as the... As far as, oh, I investigate for a bit of an access road about the 1% AEP level, we couldn't compel that? Speaker 9: You could change the wording of the condition. My problem is, is our planning scheme does not require that. Councillor Wilkie: You know, I'm not comfortable approving that unless we can get those two things as a minimum. Investigating's quite broad. It is very broad. We want those things. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd say they'd be things that are required as a minimum. Councillor Wilkie: We just couldn't live with that. No one would want to know. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure there are others in there that I'd be able to look at. Councillor Wilkie: Between now and 1st September, yes or no? Speaker 9: So we could change the wording today to say require. Councillor Wilkie: Require. Yeah, exactly.
05:37:00 What's the time? And then... Councillor Jurisevic: What's the time? Councillor Wilkie: On Thursday night, if we don't... We can't change the date. If we get those things, can't we refuse it on those grounds? Yeah, it's due. Because we're not satisfied that there's safe access... It's due. Sorry, exit... On Thursday. ...egress in a fire or... I don't think that's what it's meant to be. I mean, that would be a... Speaker 9: Well, I'm suggesting to you that our planning scheme is fairly limited. Yeah. But if Council wish to refuse this, and it's significant... Councillor Wilkie: If there's no safe... Yeah. Speaker 9: That's okay. That's okay. But we would need to start preparing those reasons of refusal now. So if Council wants that, I need to know whether you would like that alternative motion on Thursday night. Councillor Wilkie: What would happen if we changed the wording now, require that? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, we'd have to have one amendment. Because it's already been moved and signalled. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Well, I've seconded this. I can't move an amendment. So I'd like to say require... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the amendment to change H and I to say require.
05:38:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, sure. Thursday night. Sorry, Linda. That's right. Can I just ask a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. It's due. I just thought the answer was that we would not have that information back by Thursday night from State. Councillor Jurisevic: We wouldn't. We don't need it. It's good. It's a condition to go back to the applicant. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: And just on that, the fire access road, it's separate to the... It's proposed to be separate to the existing proposed access road. Sorry. Where's the fire access road proposed to be? Speaker 9: Well, that's come from the floor of councillors. So we'll have to investigate. Councillor Wilkie: So that would be a separate road. Yeah. Are we talking just temporary? Yeah. Speaker 9: You just have an easement through one of the locks? Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah.
05:39:00 So it's just a gate? It would be a gate. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, it would be a gate. No. It would be a gate for emergency access. Excellent. Speaker 7: It would just be... There's... It's proposed to have an easement over the fire break as well, the 20 metre fire access track. So it's a gate to the fire break in and drive. In the pre-lodgement meeting, the applicant did actually propose to put an access there, but... First? Again, it is a main road. So minimising access is one of... Councillor Wilkie: So before first, can we certainly... Whether they would... Speaker 9: Whether they'll accept the condition? Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Of course. So when it comes back on Thursday night, will they be able to... If it was... Sorry? If we were to not make a decision on Thursday night... Speaker 9: It'll be deemed approved the next day.
05:40:00 Okay. So we need to make a decision on Thursday night, unless the applicant agrees to extend the decision period. Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, one more question. Question, if I may? Yes. Just with regard to the hydrological port, where is that in the conditions? Speaker 7: In the conditions? Page 11, item 2, so 2A, amend subdivision layer, that's from the hydrological side of things. Amend the sub... Sorry, that's not it. Update the field level. Councillor Jurisevic: I said I didn't see any... That's why I asked the question. I didn't see anything about hydrological report when I read through it. That's... Speaker 7: We're considering that as part of the risk assessment report, item 2D, and it's also to amend the flood investigation. Councillor Jurisevic: That doesn't specifically require... Does it require... Is it part of that risk assessment report, a specific hydrological report? Speaker 9: Well, they've provided it. They've provided that. Councillor Jurisevic: They have? Speaker 9: Yes. What's missing is they haven't dealt with the risks and forgetting residents... Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm alluding to. That's what's missing.
05:41:00 Yes. That's what I'm alluding to. I just don't see how that... So that provider risk assessment report alludes to the element of risk assessment. That's where I just want to clarify where it was in that, so I'll satisfy myself that if we were... We have to approve this and all of those... Yeah. Jerry, you want to speak to the amendment? Yeah. I'd like to move the amendments. And we haven't had a... Haven't had a move or a second. Councillor Wilkie: We haven't had a second. You've got a second by the Mayor Stewart. Do we? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Go on, Jerry. Yeah. I just think if we're going to put people in that point of danger, we're going to get them to re-vegetate the lots, which would actually increase the push-fire risk. And they're going to be in behind that. I think it would be prudent to have an emergency access point that gives them a second point of egress. Also, I agree with Councillor Wilkie's points around the provision of the road. I mean, the road should at least be at the same standard as the road that they will access, so that they have all... Where the permit's access, they'd have access from their properties out.
05:42:00 If the entire road system is innovated, different story. But if the entire road system is innovated, different story. And if there's an element of access there that could get them back into Tewantin and doesn't isolate them in their homes, I wouldn't want them to be isolated by their own road. Enough saying, Bobby. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll support the Councillor Jurisevic's amendment. These two items are... They're makers or breakers for this whole application. Knowing all we know about flood and fire, we've all seen it and lived through it. Especially out of Cooroy, that we've seen out there. If those two access requirements aren't in the conditions or not agreed to, it's... I just couldn't in all conscience approve the subdivision application and put people in that subdivision knowing the flood and fire risk without those requirements for safety
05:43:00 grants. I just couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Councillor Jurisevic: Another question to staff. We had a subdivision on Lake Weyba Drive before us that had flood and fire issues. And I... The lights were proposed to be built up above the flood level, but we did not approve. The staff didn't recommend for approval. Why is this different? Speaker 9: Yeah. So, that subdivision was built up above the flood level. That subdivision was recommended for refusal. The council refused it. We're currently in appeal with the applicant for the subdivision. Yeah. So, what's different between that... It did contain similar issues. It didn't have a warning system in place, which is what we're looking for here. But what it had in addition to this is they were reliant on National Parks maintaining a fire buffer. And we were saying that the fire buffer needed to be within the lots.
05:44:00 Including that fire buffer within the lot layout would significantly impact on the lot layout and the lot numbers. So, that's why it was recommended refusal. What we're talking about here, yes, is an amalgamation of lots one and two. But really, we know what the footprint is. We know the number of lots they can achieve. It's just about the measures in place. So, a little bit different. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct me if I'm wrong. One of the other elements of that was who maintained the fire break, not just from Queensland Parks. It was brought inside that if it was broken up, maybe it's another development. Speaker 9: Yes. No, you're correct. There was two issues. Yes. They were reliant on National Parks having a fire buffer. And they were also relying on Wonderful Lots maintaining a fire buffer for everybody else. For all. Councillor Jurisevic: Which... What's the situation here? How do we control that element in this? Speaker 9: Well, at the moment, the fire trail runs through all the lots, which is inappropriate.
345 minutes in ¶
05:45:00 But they can just place an easement over it and that way giving access to each of the individual lot owners to that fire. Councillor Jurisevic: Who would be responsible for maintaining the easement? The lot. Speaker 9: The lot owners. All the lot owners. Councillor Jurisevic: They'd be responsible for their own individual... Speaker 9: Yes. But they could access the whole fire trail. Councillor Jurisevic: So they could access the whole lot. Yes. And they'd only be responsible for maintaining their own. Speaker 9: Yes. Whereas the Lake Weyba One, it made one lot owner responsible for everybody else. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 9: So that's the difference. Okay. So yes. Lake Weyba One resulted in changes to the layout. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The issues we're talking about here, yes, there's a minor change with the amalgamation Speaker 9: and Lake Weyba goes under during a 1% AEP. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'm just drawing commonalities between the two elements with regard to the fire break and the maintenance of the fire break.
05:46:00 Councillor Wilkie: If it's useful in the reports as Lake Weyba Drive approves, council has considered and refused two applications due to flooding risks, extended isolation times up to three days, bushfire and filling issues along Lake Weyba Drive municipal. These lots are considered to have a different risk level than the Cooroibah site as they are located. Are there other areas of the site that are less self-sufficient in terms of services for the residents? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's probably worth putting in. My concern about it is that it's probably may be perceived to be a requirement over the scheme requirements. But if the applicant understands it's more likely to result in an approval than a refusal, they might have a look at it. My other issue I think more generally about our discussions is if you look at rural residential development around the Shire you could probably pick up the same level of risk over the majority of lots and there's lots of areas that are cut off from town by flood, there's lots of areas that have got this sort of level of bushfire hazard and so you know straight across the road, Little Creek Road, the whole road's below the 100 for 10 or so lots accessing.
05:47:00 So it's not a new situation, it's whether we want to you know in this case we're being asked to add more people but it's that balance between the level of risk and the expectation when you're living in a rural area and as I said the sort of risk as we're seeing here is something that lots of people live with. If I may just point out the level of rehabilitation is something that's proposed by the applicant. Speaker 9: It's not necessarily required by the scheme so they're actually elevating the risk to a higher risk with bushfire because of the extent of planting they're taking. Now if the applicant wants to do that in terms of the rehabilitation it's a great result for the site but it's the applicant's own planting that's elevating that risk and it's not necessarily a requirement of the scheme.
05:48:00 Councillor Wegener: You know with grey water treatment now there's there's ways to get it out into the soil and you know have fire resistant plants there and really try to keep them wet as best better and use that as the fire break you know green non-combustible trees like mulberries and so forth. Is that a part of what he's thinking do you think? Speaker 9: No it's not currently proposed. In the fire trial they've detailed what their measures are which Speaker 7: includes you know understory for paths, grass, low species beside it, limitations on yeah open trees. Speaker 9: Yeah so it's making sure you know the canopies don't touch on trees, no understory in order to achieve that buffer. But yes I've seen before where you might plant rainforest species to help
05:49:00 Councillor Jurisevic: retard bushfire. So considered planting with regard to fire minimisation? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question on your statement about it's not required. It would be required in riparian buffer but they're going over and above that is that? That's right, that's right, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask one? Karen. Councillor Finzel: You know given for excellence for council we want to ensure we're listening to our local communities post the flooding event in Pomona. I went to a few homes in that area in that recovery process. One of the issues around the flooding was that the their insurance companies weren't you know looking at their applications to get insurance due to like infrastructure, council infrastructure, that's what the company said. I don't know the facts around that so I don't prefer to know them. So just checking if we're listening to our local communities does this site will it have efficient you know infrastructure so that people's insurances,
05:50:00 will cover in flood disasters? How do we assure that for our communities? Councillor Wilkie: Well the question knowing that it's approved in a flood prone, how will that affect the Councillor Finzel: president's insurances? Yes if and when they have to apply for their insurance too. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a question Bill? Speaker 3: We can't speak on behalf of an insurance company, so ultimately those that are fine would be well and truly aware and ultimately it's a matter for them as to the level of insurance that they take out. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. My understanding is that's part of the conditions that all of those elements have to be part of the sale of the block prior to purchase that they have to have a full understanding of the risks and hazards in purchasing in this area. Speaker 9: Yeah and obviously all the measures that we're recommending help to reduce and minimise those
05:51:00 Councillor Finzel: risks. So Aubrey's got another question then. I forget which page it's on, I read something about a booklet, so the brochure has to be like given at the point of sale. Can you tell us a bit more about that please? Speaker 7: It's a condition I think I understand we've used before and that will advise the community. Page 16, condition 33. So that's that also talks well that one talks about the vegetation protection covenant. Speaker 9: I did think there was page on page 17 condition 45 there's a bush bushfire information kit that has Councillor Finzel: to be provided. Do you think we could expand on that to put something about like flooding as well Speaker 9: or is that only comport? Well that's really part of the risk assessment that we're looking for.
05:52:00 Yeah okay. So we're looking for a risk assessment and how they're going to minimise those risks and part of that will be information to future landowners about that risk. Councillor Finzel: And will that include flood mitigation or just the fire and the brochure? Sorry it's been a long day. Speaker 9: Yeah it's been a long day. So page 17 deal condition 45 deals with the bushfire information kit so that'll be about bushfire. Oh yeah okay yeah. So it's two separate. Condition two is about Councillor Wilkie: flooding. Yeah thank you. All right councillors the amendment before us is about these two additions for council Jurisevic's move. Anyone else talk specifically about them? No I'll just agree Mayor Stewart: for making it prudent. As councillor Jo said in the single disaster management we've been very fortunate that you know in our last two disasters we've had no loss of life or serious injury. We need to be prudent and we need to ensure that the safety of residents comes first and so I support Councillor Wilkie: this amendment. Thank you councillor Stewart. Anything else to speak to the amendment of these two
05:53:00 Councillor Jurisevic: additional clauses? Jo you wish to close? Yes. I don't agree Brian. The problem is the problems of the past are the problems of the future. What we need to do is learn from our mistakes and try to stop them from occurring again. Just because a large percentage or an element of land is maybe flood prone and that people have to we've learned that a lot of people aren't bushfire aware and aren't flood resistant and we deal with those in disaster management. These are the people that get left behind when all this isn't done. So our purpose is to ensure that we learn from the lessons of the past and we implement provisions in the future to ensure that people aren't cut off, that people aren't isolated, that people aren't flooded and people aren't bushfire prone wherever possible. So I think the planning scheme doesn't require this. I think it's an opportunity for us to go back and review
05:54:00 the planning scheme to maybe make it a little bit harder to build in these areas instead of exacerbating the situation that we find out is normally when a disaster occurs. Okay the amendment Councillor Wilkie: hasn't paid off. That's councillor Stewart, that's his name again, Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Not only with a swear word either side. Those against, councillor Finzel, the amendment's carried and becomes part of the original motion moved by councillor Stockwell and only councillor Stockwell, Finzel and Jurisevic have spoken to that. Any other councillors wish to speak to the original motion? Look I'll use this as an opportunity to pick up on councillor Stockwell's comment that other sub-divisions don't have what they're seeking to look for. I don't think we're going to require here, but the difference is this is the first opportunity we've had to address the subdivision approval and knowing what we know now after recent fires and floods. So we need to be
05:55:00 mindful of that. It's not about retrospectively changing the approvals that exist. It's about how we deal with the approval that's before us now and every subsequent approval that comes before us knowing what we know about flood and fire risk. I'll support the motion. Any others wish to speak to the motion? Brian, do you wish to close? Yeah, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Since you've both challenged me, I'll come back. Have you thought about where they will get to once they build their one in a hundred, one percent AP access road? Another hundred meters down the road is the answer. So we have to think about sort of making these conditions on the run versus looking as you say. If we want to have a higher level of risk aversion within our planning scheme, we change
05:56:00 the planning scheme. I've supported the amendment and I think it's a good amendment, better to do the risk. But at the back of my mind is we know that most of the potential developables and subdivisible land left in the Shire is always going to come up with this mix of constraints. So, yes, Councillor Finzel, that's exactly the right word. And we do have a housing crisis. So I don't want to put it up too high that we're making it impossible to create more lots. And all the risk and the outline I'm totally with, I'm just saying let's make sure that what we come up with is something that is, A, causes the planning scheme, B, and causes the state planning policy we have to go up to natural hazards. And if we want to actually go above that, and climate change is essentially the legitimate reason why you might say no, if we want to go higher, then we do it by Councillor Wilkie: our scheme amendment. Thank you. Put the motion those in favour? Councillor Stewart, Stockwell,
05:57:00 Wigner, Wilkie. Those against? Councillors Finzel and Jurisevic, the motion's carried. Councillor Lorentson, come back in a minute. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. The next is 99 Peregian Beach Beach Surf Lifesaving Club Near Lease Request. Welcome, Dennis. Speaker 1: OK. Sends his apologies, Clint, and the author of the report. He's got a family member in hospitals. Oh, nice to meet you. Councillor Wilkie: Please pass on the address. OK. Can we just get a brief summary of what we're looking at, please, Dennis? Speaker 1: Yeah. So the report's about a lease request for a new entity, the Peregian Beach Beach Surf Lifesaving Club. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, we hadn't forgotten you. We just kept going. Speaker 1: So back in 2019, Council awarded a trustee permit for the site to the Sunshine Coast branch of Surf
05:58:00 Lifesaving Queensland. And the shared goal at that time was to explore and encourage the creation of a new surf club entity at that site. So that's what we're looking at right now. So that's what we're looking at at that site, at Fort Peregian Beach Beach. So that was the stated goal of the permit, both from the applicant at that time and the permit that we issued. And there's been good progress since that time toward that goal of creating a new Peregian Beach Surf Club. There's been strong growth in NIPA numbers across that time, and also of membership and interest from locals in joining a new club. So that's what we're looking at right now. And with the oversight of SLSQ, the two new entities have been created, one being the Supporters Club for the New Peregian Beach Beach Supporters Club, and the other being the Surf Lifesaving Club itself. So with the endorsement and oversight of Surf Lifesaving
05:59:00 Queensland, those two entities have now been created. I think since the time of writing the report, the two entities have now been created. I think since the time of writing the report, the Surf Club itself has actually been incorporated, so now exists as an entity. And on the back of all those things, we've had a request from the club to offer or to provide a new lease at the site for the new entity, which is in line with what was anticipated with the permit. So this report outlines that lease request for a 10-year lease at the site, to the club, which is supported by staff, and it also addresses some other things that hinge off that with regard to council covering the cost of lifeguards on Monday each weekend through the volunteer season. Also some other matters about building maintenance and to do with
360 minutes in ¶
06:00:00 the market permit, which has always in recent times sat with the club entity. So I'll throw it over to the questions. Councillor Wilkie: And also $90,000 for building maintenance? Speaker 1: Yes, in building maintenance. Councillor Wilkie: And based on a council assessment? Speaker 1: At this stage, it's a budget allocation, so we haven't gone out for quotes on that at this stage. But that's, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, John. If it doesn't all payment itself, we're not going to be able to back them up. Is that a conflict? Is that a conflict? I'll do it, I deny it. I'm in trouble. Yeah, with regard to payment, do you know when it was last attended to with a lick of paint? Speaker 1: I don't know, but it's fairly obvious that it could use one.
06:01:00 So I think it's- Councillor Jurisevic: I agree. That's why I'm wondering how long. And the other element of that is with regard to the building structure. The asset management, has it had an asset? Asset management and condition assessment. Condition assessment. Thank you. Thank you. Has it had, when was its last condition assessment and what is the current condition of it? Is there any other elements that they're attending to? Speaker 1: I think the last condition assessment was about six years ago. So we have looked at that in the past. The major works that we've done in recent years was repairs to the roof. So that's been completed. Other things have been fairly standard sort of maintenance items, but there are some reasonably pressing maintenance items to be looked at in the buildings with regard to the bathrooms and amenities for club members. And the report sets out that there is potential funding, quite significant funding available through QFES for surf clubs.
06:02:00 And this one's towards the top of the pile as far as priorities go for potentially being suitable for that funding. Councillor Jurisevic: So we're assuming that any maintenance on the building needs to be done, but we don't know if it's going to be suitable for that funding. So we're assuming that any maintenance on the building needs to be done through a grant application, if there's also not council taking responsibility for building, which is... Speaker 1: There'll be opportunities for both, I would say. So grant funding through community grants and also through this QFES funding as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So who would be expected to undertake the maintenance? Council? Speaker 1: Well, that'll be set out in the lease agreement and it's probably run along similar lines to the way the permit was structured. So, you know, structure and building exterior type items sit with council as the building owner and the lessee takes over. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's what I'm suggesting here, Dennis, is the building owner, would it be council's responsibility to ensure the building is of a current habitable standard
06:03:00 with no maintenance issues before the lease is issued? Speaker 1: It's habitable, Joe. It's just, you know, the standard. Like all of them. The bathrooms are older style and there's things that would be nice to upgrade, but those things are a normal part of our building maintenance considerations. So I'm not saying that it's not habitable. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, okay. Habitable is probably not a word, but modernised as opposed to... When were they... I'll rephrase the question. When were the bathrooms last updated? Speaker 1: No, I couldn't take that. Councillor Jurisevic: Exactly. Speaker 1: Council? Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Speaker 1: Again, the applicant... You know, Surf Life's own Queensland has pointed out that there is this opportunity for significant funds from the QFES funding, so that's something that is going to be looked at. Speaker 5: Thank you, Chair, and the report does note that beyond the QFES grant opportunities, obviously
06:04:00 the club can also look at doing what a lot of other clubs have done in recent years and secure real estate and federal funding applications as well as a significant investment. Here, there might be a great opportunity for major site renewal or redevelopment. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, look, I'll move the motion. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Is that all right through the Chair? Councillor Wilkie: Well, we can still ask questions, but I'm just conscious of the time. So I'm happy to move. I'll have a seconder for Councillor Lorentson. Look, this is a great day. It's been a long time coming. Thank you for the report. It's an excellent report. It's a very good story. I'd like to congratulate the work that the Prism Beach Surf Life's club members have done to build up their NIFAS program, their members, and also in becoming incorporated in their own lives. It's something that the community's been waiting for for a long time to happen down there, and I'm sure that once that's made public, its numbers are going to increase. I'd like to also acknowledge the hard work of Gerard O'Brien, who was the branch president
06:05:00 of Surf Life's 18 Queensland Sunshine Coast branch, who's steered the ship for several years now, and John Roddick, who was the incoming president. I wish them every success in continuing to grow the numbers. I support the proposals put forward by staff and agree to look at key stages of the project. I also support the proposal of funding lifeguards on one day a week during the season, I believe it's the Saturday, to assist the club and get some momentum happening, and also return the market permit to the Prism Beach Surf Life's having club so they can make use of that revenue from the markets to help get their club off the ground. And also, with the building, as Joe said, a lick of paint. It's a very good story. I think it will be long awaited.
06:06:00 Thank the Noosa Head Surf Club for stepping in when the Peregian Beach Surf Club did fall over back in 2014 and a debt of thanks is owed to them as well. Back in the day when the Peregian Beach fell over and Noosa stepped in, the offer was to work together with the surf club and the community to help build a club that the whole community could be proud of, a Peregian Beach village scale. I'd like to think that that offer still holds and what I've read in this report is a lot of goodwill and willingness to support this new club. Thank you for the report. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll concur with everything Frank.
06:07:00 Councillor Wilkie has said, long time coming but a very worthwhile result. Exactly what we were envisaging and hoping to occur, that the population of nippers and volunteer surf life savers down there would grow under the auspices of the Noosa Head Surf Life Saving Club. I'm glad to see that's finally occurred and we've got to the point where the desired outcome that we had hoped for is that we have a standalone Peregian Beach. Thank you. We've got to get the Noosa Head Surf Life Saving Club back again, hooking up for its own beach, for its own community. So I too congratulate everybody involved in the process to get to this stage. Slowly, slowly, catchy mokey, one step at a time and I believe that's what is envisaged here. One opportunity at a time to proceed, ensure that they grow and establish with strength and go from strength to strength from there.
06:08:00 The opportunities for refurbishing of that clubhouse are there and I'm hoping that they can do it in a fashion to which they want to see achieved. And that the Surf Life Saving Club will be long established for the future of Peregian Beach residents for many, many years to come. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Mayor Stewart. I'd like to firstly thank you Dennis and Clint for the report. I'd like to congratulate the Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club, the trustee. Permit granted by Council in 2019 to Surf Life Saving Queensland Sunshine Coast Branch over the form of the Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Building was conditional. The trustee leased to be then negotiated with the new Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving entity was subject to satisfactory performance and progress under the trustee permit. This has now occurred and the Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club should be very proud. After three years and a proven track record with extensive community consultation being undertaken, Surf Life Saving Queensland Sunshine Coast Branch acknowledges that there is widespread support for the establishment of the new Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club.
06:09:00 This report demonstrates Council's commitment and faith in the new club by proposing a 10 year lease of financial support for beach patrol operations. Council will support these beach operations which include Council funding, additional service provision on Saturdays and public holidays via SLSQ contract lifeguard services. This funding amounts to $71,000 per annum plus CPI. This funding is proposed for a three year period to allow Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club to build membership and establish operations. Similarly, with the real likelihood that Council will provide a permit for the club to operate the Peregian Beach Beach markets as they requested, as well as funding the club house to be repainted, this adds further weight to the trust and belief that Council is placing in this new entity. But so we should. There is nothing more important than the safety of residents, of our children and of those who visit our Shire and make use of our beautiful beaches. Surf Life Saving Clubs are fundamental and provide significant contributions to our communities and they should be acknowledged and thanked.
06:10:00 I would like to congratulate this new independent community based club on the milestones they have achieved over the past three years and how those milestones are helping support that very goal. The instigation of 70 new patrolling members across five patrolling groups formed with the support of Noosa Head Surf Life Saving Club's training team and 205 children enrolled in the NIPA program is brilliant. As I said, nothing is more important than safety and children engaging in learning and water safety is incredibly important. The main features of the Surf Life Saving Clues and Sunshine Coast branch for a new Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club include a 10 year lease as requested by Surf Life Saving Queensland Sunshine Coast, which will give comfort to those community groups in regard to attraction and retention and overall commitment to the formation of a new club. Life Saving patrols to commence in September 2022. Life Saving patrols to comprise one weekend day, Sunday, with season concluding May 23 as per SLSQ guidelines. Council funded SLSQ conference. Contract lifeguard services on Saturdays and public holidays.
06:11:00 Council funding is proposed for a three year period to allow the club to build membership and establish operations. Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club to manage the Peregian Beach Beach markets with income proposed to fund surf club operations as a primary source of club income. Future proposal for a small kiosk proposed on ground floor of buildings subject to financial viability and necessary council approvals. All areas to be made available, an area to be made available to support SLSQ contract lifeguards services. A support staff recommendation for all the reasons listed above. And again, I congratulate the newly formed Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club on their efforts over the past three years to meet the key milestones and deliverables required under the trustee permit, which enable them to achieve what they set out to do. The establishment of the new Peregian Beach Beach Surf Life Saving Club with a 10 year lease in place. Great asset to our community and one I'm proud to support. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. Dennis, in regards to C in the recommendation, agreed to consider as part of the budget deliberations,
06:12:00 the allocation of $17,000 per annum plus CPI to fund SLSQ contract lifeguard services. Is that for one lifeguard on Saturdays? Currently it is. So is it maintaining status quo or not? Speaker 1: I think it's maintaining status quo. My assumption would be that there'd be a couple of shifts across the day. But maintaining that service level that we currently provide. Councillor Lorentson: Can I amend that? Can I make an amendment to that? Speaker 1: I personally wouldn't feel comfortable talking about service levels in relation to the lifeguard contract because it's not really something we're dealing with. Councillor Lorentson: What I want to raise is that I've actually had a lot of requests, both from lifeguards and the community, Dennis, requesting dual lifeguards at Peregian Beach Beach.
06:13:00 At the moment we've got one lifeguard and I don't believe that's actually ever been changed. And one lifeguard is not proportionate to the number of beach visitation growth. So I'll probably throw the question to you. How are best practice levels of lifesaving services calculated? And is there an opportunity for us to look at double manning at Peregian Beach Beach? This is in regards to Saturday. You know, the mayor talked about nothing more important than safety. I really want to raise this. I think as a patrolling lifeguard and I've patrolled Peregian Beach Beach, the beach visitation growth is huge. And one lifeguard poses a major safety risk for the public. And not only for the public, also for the lifeguards. So I spoke to... Councillor Wilkie: This is it.
06:14:00 You're speaking to the motion. Oh, no. Councillor Lorentson: I'm asking the question. So I was thinking that... Councillor Wilkie: So maybe we talk about any of this question in relation to the review of the lifeguard contract that's coming up. Sure. Through the chair. Speaker 5: Through the chair. So obviously, separate to this agenda, we are obviously in the process of our broader review of our lifeguard services contract, which is going to expire shortly. So that will be coming through council workshops and then through subsequent council report in the next month. Affirmatively, it's coming up in the next month. So that would cover more broadly, obviously, the number of services, the frequency, location, number of paid staff on site. Councillor Lorentson: So the fact that ceases the allocation of $71,000, there is still the opportunity of increasing that allocation if the decision is made to Jill Mann, Peregian Beach. Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. And that was my question. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And I'm happy to speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I'll keep it brief.
375 minutes in ¶
06:15:00 Everything's said. The report was excellent. Thank you, guys. To me, when I read the report and I met with Gerard O'Brien as well and Ross Fisher, it's really clear that this didn't just happen. The Surf Life Saving Queensland Sunshine Coast branch have worked tirelessly, as has council staff, with the community to form this new surf club. And the end result is excellent. It's an independent community-based family surf life-saving community. We are also called the Calf Life Saving Club at Peregian Beach. So big congratulations to all those involved. It's a major achievement for both the Peregian community and also the Surf Life Saving clubs. I do want to note that part of the lease agreement was it expressly prohibited the introduction of gaming machines or gambling facilities on the club premises and having spoken to members.
06:16:00 Members of the Surf Life Saving Club, they welcomed that and I think again, really reflective of the community we have and go Surf Life Saving Queensland. I know in New South Wales they don't have gaming machines. So again, end results, we've got a more family friendly and a more welcoming club. So again, huge congratulations. Councillor Wilkie: I don't need to close the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Dennis. It's a two-bender. Thanks, Dennis. Shall we go to the final item of the General Financial Policy Report? I'm Pauline Cowles. Thank you, Leah. Good afternoon. Speaker 6: So I'll make it as brief as possible, if we can get the time.
06:17:00 So good afternoon, councillors. We are three quarters of the way through the financial year, and council operating performance year to date to March is still tracking above budget. Our operating result is currently $4 million above budget year to date, with $3.5 million of that relating to revenue. In this regards, rates and levy, fees and charges and sales of goods and services are the main contributors. However, this month we received $1.4 million in disaster relief funding. So that's the bulk of the movement through this year, this month for revenue. As requested at our last meeting, we were asked to include a summary around the disaster recovery works. Year to date, we've spent $460,000 on the disaster coordination costs and the immediate emerging works that came out of the flood relief. There is an external contractor engaged currently who is assessing the remediation work for the infrastructure that was damaged, and we have not yet received the report on quantifying how much that may cost, although a lot of that work will be subject to QRA funding and remediations.
06:18:00 So we expect that that will come through in time. The other item that was requested was an update on legal, so we've included the year-on-year legal summary. You'll note that it's $1.3 million year to date in the budget, now that includes the Kin Kin Quarry legals and appeals, so that's quite a substantial amount. In regards to the year-on-year trends, I just want to note that legal fees aren't seasonal, they're dependent on emergent issues, so it's not always a great comparison, but it is indicative of what we have spent. And lastly, I just wanted to touch on capital, so the capital revenue remains on track, however the capital program is running behind, about $7 million year to date. That's largely due to the impacts from the floods and delay in delivery, and also some ongoing supply chain issues. So at this stage we do anticipate that there will be some projects pushing out into the new financial year, so I'm just flagging that with you now. Overall, however, we are in a strong financial position, so we'll see how the rest of the quarter goes for the rest of the year.
06:19:00 Any questions? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just one question, just to clarify. The legal costs for the Kin Kin Quarry, are they coming out of the CEO office? Speaker 6: Yes, so they're sitting in the CEO office. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Tred, the question of the $7 million being pushed out because of the capital works, or the delays in capital works, how does that affect us going forward into budget deliberations? Does that have any impact going forward? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, Councillor, this is primarily about timing and capability to deliver pressure. A lot of those projects, we had already done. We've already budgeted as multi-year projects. If you think of some of our larger capital works, such as our bridges, a lot of those have already been spanned across multiple financial years. So the key pressure is about capability to deliver and the ongoing supply chain pressures that we're likely to see flowing through to the next financial year as well. In terms of the financial impact, we've already allowed for that funding and funding those capital works.
06:20:00 It's just moving the spend over to the next financial year. It's the roll over. Speaker 6: We have $18 million in committed funds above the actual, so I think there's only $6 million of the budget that's not currently committed. So the works are engaged, they're just delayed. So they will happen. It's just a timing thing. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll go first. Pauline, you mentioned, it's not a question of you, it's not a question of the CEO, you mentioned our disaster recovery and the funding opportunities there. CEO, I'll put that in the Q&A. If we've got any idea of a final date, then we might have a report to the Council on the impact of the floods and what the likely cost and remediation works may cost and what funding we may need to send. Speaker 3: Yeah, through the Shire Council, it's still ongoing. I don't have a date for you to be able to advise. The biggest issue that we're facing is the quantum and particularly where we've had the landslips.
06:21:00 Once we have that detail in place, we'll be able to put that forward. But it is going to be very important to inform our budget preparations. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there an option to at least do a stage, one of the ones that we do know, and a hold off for the ones that we don't? Speaker 3: Absolutely. And having the new staff member engaged will give us that opportunity to be able to have that sooner rather than later. But it was onboarding them, having that specific work being undertaken, and particularly with the requirements of the funding that we get with QRA and DRFA, that we had somebody engaged specifically to do that. Landslips will take a little while, but the other elements are largely known purely on the basis. So I'll take a note on that and what we'll do is I'll work with finance and also infrastructure just to get a dollar figure of where we know where we are now. Councillor Jurisevic: So what we know versus what we don't know would be good. Have QRA and have any of the funding streams open for opportunities to present.
06:22:00 So we have received notification. Speaker 6: We received another million dollars coming through for us. I think we received $300,000 of that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that was at our location, not specific to our requests. Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't believe that a formal request has been submitted, but I do know the QRA representative was on site with our contractors assessing them and had indicated that they would be supportive of any of the RIFA claims coming through. Councillor Jurisevic: So they're ready to receive claims, basically. Yeah. Stupid question from me. Other revenues. Waste bin sales below year-to-date budget offset by lower number of bin purchases. Where do we buy? Speaker 6: It's just solo bins. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the bins that we allocate to households. Yeah. We actually charge. Speaker 6: So we basically procure and then we're charged back to Clean Away. So it's a bit of a circular. Councillor Jurisevic: It's to Clean Away, not to. Correct. Thank you. Speaker 6: We don't charge the residents. We charge Clean Away. Speaker 5: Through the Chair.
06:23:00 Less broken bins is better for the community. It's just money for us. So it's probably a good indicator. It's really replacing the broken bins. Councillor Wilkie: Trent. Asset management investigations. Is that asset condition assessments? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, yes. So we have within our civil and assets branch in Council, we have an asset management team, which undertake condition assessments, as well as development assessments. So they're developing asset management systems and data. So they're developing asset management plans. They're collecting data on assets to help build our 10-year capital works program. So it is a combination of condition assessments, but also analysis and evaluating of asset data. Councillor Wilkie: I just noticed that we're a bit below budget there. What's the reason for the lag in the condition assessments? Speaker 5: I think you'd find it's primarily just due to timing. There is a restructure and then a new set of assessments. We have a civil and assets manager now formalised into the role, and that temporary second, if you like, to finalise that.
06:24:00 But I think you'll find in terms of the actual condition assessment work, which comes through the capital program for our roads, condition assessments in our stormwater, CCTV, where we send the cameras up through the pipes looking for any damaged pipework, all of that work is actually ahead of schedule on time. So that side, which is the critical work. But it's all still happening. That's great. Councillor Lorentson: One question for me. Legal costs. Thank you, first of all, with the summary. It's actually excellent. We've had a lot of discussion over the last couple of years about an in-house lawyer. You expect me always to throw a question. Will this change your mind? You know, the graph or the break-up is clear that the area where we're spending most legals is in planning and environment. A lot of discussion has been made about a general practitioner.
06:25:00 Will this give reason to be actually looking at a planning and environment specialist as our in-house lawyer? Or maybe question directed to our CEO? Speaker 5: I can probably answer this one through the Shire councillors. Please. This information has been... So obviously any decision about in-house lawyers is forming through our government service review, which is obviously underway. This information has informed part of their reviews. So they're aware of the mix of spend that we have incurred historically, both obviously primarily in development appeals, but also in the other areas and where it's consulting, but also obviously legal and court fees based. So that information is with them. And that should help inform future decisions about resourcing. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. Thank you. CEO, perhaps one for you and one through Craig. Crony costs. OK, below your today's budget. Previously I used to hate when I kept asking this month in, month out.
06:26:00 Seeing as that we build from a zero base, I'm assuming that the allocation for training is based on something that the managers and or directors put forward for staff within their areas to undertake. Going forward... I'm getting the nods there, yes. Going forward, how do we ensure that that training actually gets undertaken? Because obviously it wouldn't be put forward if it wasn't a value to staff, I would imagine. Speaker 3: To the Chair and thank you for your questions, Councillor. It really comes down to the ability for staff to be able to attend the courses. The advice that I've been given as a new CEO coming in is that COVID had slowed down our ability to be able to face-to-face train. There has been some of the online. It's just not at that level. So really for us it's about having our workforce plan training needs analysis done to ensure that those that need the tickets to get the day-to-day don't have the tickets and they're compliant and they're at the stage that they need to.
06:27:00 Then the rest is, you know, how do we start to really build in professional development? So that takes another step in relation to our attraction and retention strategies of staff. So when I talk to the executive services team, there's a bit of frustration there saying, we've got all this money and, you know, we're ready to be able to spend it. Then when I talk within the departments, the department's going, we're not really sure what's available and what we can do. So it's just some of those things you see when you come in. A little bit of a disconnect. Funding is there. What are the programs that we have in place? Have we undertaken our training needs analysis matrix at the level we need to? The advice is those that need, the qualifications have them. But how do we then broaden that out? So that's something that we'll definitely be working on and hope to see this time next year that similar application at a larger extent. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll be looking forward to that. Thank you. Not asking you the question on a month-by-month basis.
06:28:00 But on top of training costs, I mean, there's also the opportunities to attend and network with other, you know, other peers in their areas of expertise. So, you know, like planners going to planning conferences and people going to to understand and learn about what the latest technologies are and the latest opportunities are. As I have done whenever I've done one of these. And then I come back with 101 ideas and try to start there. So those are the other things I'll be looking to ask you questions about. But seeing that we are actually getting staff out there in the real world. Not just within our own world. Speaker 3: The outside of our own silo. Thank you, Council President. Mayor Stewart: Trent, just in regard to the economic development expenditures for low budget due to lower employer costs. Employee costs, sorry. Are we addressing that? Because I know we're really short staffed in that area. We've got a local economic plan to implement.
06:29:00 Are we looking at increasing staff in that? We've got the money there. Obviously, it hasn't just been a case of not being able to find people for that. The recruitment, priorities. Speaker 5: Through the Chair. This is the vacancy in staff in that branch is due to the manager position. So, obviously, with the incumbent moving on, we are actually advertised on Thursday. For a temporary position or person to fill that role. Which means we can then obviously look at, you know, the back bill behind that. To prop up the resourcing in the interim. To ensure we can continue to progress the programs through the FD Australia. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Tewantin. Thank you. Councilors, it was really good we decided to have a fast meeting for that. The FD Australia deployment process so we could get through this quickly. Would anyone care to move the recommendation please? I move the recommendation. Senator Joe. Senator Tom. Joe Jurisevic. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to acknowledge the work of our staff.
390 minutes in ¶
06:30:00 Particularly the finance staff who are currently in their budget process. And with the added burden of all the flood stuff and all the rest of it. Thank you, guys. It's still a sound financial position we find ourselves in. And moving forward, I'm sure we'll catch up in a couple of weeks. Eventually. Councillor Wegener: Well, we'll see you tomorrow. Thank you very much. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else? Councillor Lorentson: I will say something. Yeah. Just thank you both because the reports get better and better every month. And you listen to us and also understand that we sometimes struggle through the reporting and detail is important. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Motion those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you, Frank. Councillor Wilkie: We'll meet together.
06:31:00 I'm sure about discipline. Brian. Night discipline. Thank you. Thank you.