Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good evening everyone. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. I note that all the councillors are in attendance and I welcome everyone in the gallery this evening. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordering? Thank you councillor Lorentson and seconded by councillor Finzel. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. And a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting? Thank you councillor Wilkie, seconded by councillor Finzel. Thank you very much. All in favour? Carried unanimously. There are no mayoral minutes. Item 4 next up is petitions. I have an e-petition with 1500 signatures submitted by the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. Regarding their concerns about storm water and sewage erosion. I move that this position be received and presented to the CEO for appropriate action. Can I have a seconder? Thank you councillor Finzel. All in favour? Thank you. Carried unanimously. Thank you Linda. Thank you Mr CEO.
00:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any further petitions? Petitions councillor? Yeah Madam Mayor. I have a petition from over 100 residents in Royal Street, Tewantin. They're very concerned, they have safety concerns about a car that's been covered and parked. And occupying the same parking space in the street for some time. They're concerned for the safety of passers-by. Restriction of vision when traversing cars out. The large amount of motorised scooters, children on bikes and pedestrians. There's also a disabled child living three doors up with a bus collecting heroin on Monday and Friday at a table at school. Garbage trucks also struggled to turn from the turning bay allocated. They would like Mr councillor to consider lengthening the yellow line to include the front of 6 Ward Street to a no standing zone. As this one car space is monopolised by the same car. And it will not be missed if it becomes a no standing zone. I'd like to submit this petition to the CEO for appropriate action.
00:02:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, can I just clarify that the resolution in front of us which refers to 51 people as opposed to what councillor Wilkie alluded to, over 100 people. Can you clarify for the purposes of accuracy of recording of the minutes please? Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I've counted them, it was over 100 and I've just been confirmed it was. Councillor Jurisevic: So if we sign by over 100 people there. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I think we should be precise in the number. Councillor Jurisevic: If we can clarify the number. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that petition. Thank you. Sorry, I'll just change that. By over, I mean that, sorry. So councillor Wilkie I've seconded it. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. We have one notified motion from councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes councillor. So this notified motion came about after one of the many discussions I've had with
00:03:00 community members where they asked me a simple question. And that made me reflect. And the reflection was that, does this plan reflect the desired future for this area or does it simply reflect the current development approval? And to me, I thought the latter. And while we can't prejudge the outcome of the current application to extend that development approval, we can make sure that the planning scheme reflects the public interest and the community aspirations for their own localities. Hence, I've suggested in this motion that we consider, and it's important to record, it is only asking to consider a range of changes, a couple of changes it is, to the planning scheme, and to request the CEO bring forward a further report as part of the current planning scheme review.
00:04:00 So the outcome is that this issue would then form part of a report to council about the potential scheme amendments, which we know is coming to council in the near future. But why is this important? Why does it warrant this urgent action? The community has a great interest. And that interest has been growing since the time that the development approval has been in place, since the time that the planning scheme first identified it for its current purpose. And that concerns largely around the habitat that's there. Initially, the development approval that's over the site did have community input, but that is well over a decade ago. And there's been a large turnover. Excuse me. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second the motion. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. I was just about to ask the same question on whether it had to be seconded and councillor Deputy Mayor Stockwell: was talking about it. Sorry. Interrupt. That's okay. It's better when it's seconded.
00:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It's a lot of waffle level on this. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there's been a huge turnover in the community since last the future of that site was open to public comment. There's a growing concern about the glossy black cockatoo, which is listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act, and has also been put up for listing under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act of Australia. And that is a result of the threatening pressures, which include fire, climate change, and habitat loss. The result of this is that the environment has become more and more vulnerable. There's also been, since 2019 and 20, the local community has reasonably had heightened concerns about bushfire hazards and the prediction that there'll be more extreme bushfires. And this site is immediately adjacent to the Noosa National Park. So what else has changed? Why else would we consider changing the planning scheme? So when it was first proposed for the current use, there was a lot of concern.
00:06:00 There was no state level significance mapped. And now there is. In 2000, it is now meant as essential habitat, and our new scheme does, in the biodiversity overlay, record that as having a matter of state environmental significance. And that's because the Banksy Amelia woodland, the serre, is currently mapped from a vegetation management perspective of concern, but from its biodiversity status, it's endangered. So these are matters that generally... In the Noosa plan, you would be requiring a higher level of assessment for any development application. Quite specifically, we now know that there are 71 identified feed trees for the glossy black on lot nine. That still remains unclear. And that there's been records of up to 40 birds coming to feed, drink, and rear their young in the locality. It's important to say that we've also committed to doing action in our environment strategy
00:07:00 when we do have ecosystems like that. So it talks about... The environment strategy talks about, by 2030, populations of key threatened indicator species remain viable. And the specific action, 1.3, says mapped remnant vegetation and important regrowth vegetation is protected through the planning scheme and also through state and Commonwealth legislation. So this motion helps to implement that aspect of the environment strategy. The bushfire hazard and climate preparedness. Also, the... Lot of concern. Lot nine of Grass Street Court has got a high bushfire hazard. When we adopted our climate response plan, we also made a commitment that said that we'll be taking measures to have a well-informed and prepared community that considers climate change in making day-to-day and business decisions. And clearly identifies there is an increased risk from bushfires. These are issues that, in a good planning, you will get an impact-assessable application,
00:08:00 which would be considered against the whole planning framework. So it provides the community that opportunity to have their say. And finally, in the housing needs assessment adopted in Council 2021, it identifies that the Shire has been gripped by a housing crisis, which is having a significant social and economic impact on the community. We have limited, cleared zoned land for community uses, which is suitable for social housing. And the other aspect of this motion suggests that we increase the flexibility of the housing flexibility for the cleared lot, being lot six, to allow a range of social housing options on that block to meet that critical need. So the overall aim of this motion is for Council to adopt a position to ask staff to come back that reflects what I believe is the community's aspirations for the future, that they get a
00:09:00 larger say. If it stays as a code-assessable application, they don't have any formal say. Their desire for involvement in the development of that location and the current planning need for social housing will be catered for if we do amend the planning scheme in this way. While there are potential sites within the locality to accommodate other new aged care facilities, as is currently proposed, there is very limited supply of glossy black cockatoo habitat. And considering the high conservation value and bushfire hazard ratings of lot nine on the south side of the street, it is proposed to schedule that the current schedule of use for retirement facilities be removed. So, Councillors, I recommend this to you. I believe it is a way that we can provide clear direction for what this Council wants on that site. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Gough, would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Yes, please. Just for clarification. Councillor Stockwell said he was asking the staff for reports.
00:10:00 Oh, sorry. I forgot it was formal. My apology. To ask the staff for reports to inform the plan. I'm just wondering why it's got remove the listing in the motion. Mayor Stewart: We might have staff. Do we have Kerry? Kerry? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, it's my motion. So, the intent is to remove the listing. It's currently over lot nine, which is the one with the remaining high conservation value. There is a scheduled list for the map which says it's residential care facility. That remains. It means that any future application we receive for a residential care facility would be code assessable and would not have the ability for the community to have any say. By removing it, it doesn't say that they can't have a residential care facility there. They say it has to go through an impact assessable process which allows the community input and which allows council to consider a broader range of aspects of the planning scheme when
00:11:00 determining that application. Speaker 2: Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Councillor Stewart. You're right. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Someone asked a question. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to the current planning scheme. With regard to the development application that is approved there, what impact would this have on the current approved development application? Speaker 5: Okay. We do have an application to extend the currency period of the approval for blue care. So, that's the with offices and we're currently undertaking an assessment. There's the planning access we're required to assess the extensions to currency period against any relevant matter. So, it's a fairly broad ranging assessment.
00:12:00 Primarily, the assessment would be against the current planning scheme because it wasn't in place at the time the application was lodged and extended in 2017. So, that would be very relevant. We would also consider has anything changed on the site? Has the ecological values changed on the site? Has the bushfire requirements changed? There'd be a range of matters. We can look at what scheme amendments are in place. There's a well-known principle called the CODI principle, which allows us to consider also scheme amendments. But typically, the further progressed a scheme amendment is, the more weight you can place on it. Obviously, this is just a proposed amendment today. So, I would suggest only a little weight could be placed on it in considering that as well. Councillor Wilkie: Question probably for Councillor Stockwell. Why have you been proposing to remove the listing for three on lot nine, but retain the listing of three for lot six? How will that change the uses possible on those two sites?
00:13:00 It seems to be a differential treatment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There is a differential. So lot six is the one that's already been substantially cleared. And so it's saying that as a cleared block of land zone community facilities, that it is still suitable for residential care facilities. It just proposes to add other uses that may be able to be established there in terms of social housing with multiple units and might be a range of different ways of social housing. So it just allows that. If the current development group calls over, any future applications have a broader range of social outcomes. And obviously up to the landowner, but what it says is that in this community at the moment, social housing is a critical priority.
00:14:00 Mayor Stewart: Question for you, Councillor. Part B, request the CEO to include these matters in the future report to Council on the planning scheme review. So this is, this is not, we all agree that this isn't set in stone. This is just more formal part of a report that will come back to Council with more detailed analysis. Is that the intention? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly the formal part will come back. I don't know whether the staff will be more detailed than I was. Mayor Stewart: We'll come back. Councillor Wilkie: We'll come back, Councillor Stewart. Speaker 2: Thank you, Kim. Yes, it would be subject to a future report to Council where we would consider the motion and recommendation and weigh up all the issues and report that back to Council prior to any formal amendment being undertaken. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Kim. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Kim. I'll speak in favour of the motion.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 I'm very interested to see what the report will come back with because the situation pertaining to these two lots has changed dramatically since it was approved by the Sunshine Coast Council back in 2011. There are changes to the biodiversity overlay. This Council has, is facing a housing crisis. We have need to assess choices we make on available land against the need for affordable and social housing. There are changes in bushfire hazard, which I know have been conditioned in the current approvals. But I'd be very interested to see what comes back. And also if there is an opportunity for the changes to provide an opportunity for the community to have a say, making it impact assessable as opposed to a rubber stamp for any approval we may wish to give on the site. I'm approving this because it is an information gathering exercise.
00:16:00 There's a lot I would like to understand with the help of the staff's expert advice that comes back in a report. And before we make a final decision on that. So I thank Councillor Stockwell for his work on this. The situation certainly has changed dramatically since 2011 the world's turned. Our community is very, and community needs are very different now to what they were in 2011. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Councillor Finzel: We are fundamentally changed given the impacts of COVID throughout the past two years. I do have a question though to Councillor Stockwell. And I thank him for his motion before us today. I'm just wondering why if it's a report back to this council, why we need the need for one and two with actual directives to remove the listing and add a range. Why can't we just have a report back from council without the constraints of one and two as in your motion? Thank you Councillor Stockwell.
00:17:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because I believe that it's appropriate for this council to adopt that as a position to be investigated. I think it's important that we put up the solution, not just ask for a very broad range. And to me, that is a solution that has planning merit without exposing the council to any adverse effects. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Given I'm not a planner, I'm just wondering how you yourself arrived at the solution. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thinking about that, I have the benefit. I have had 30 years. 30 years experience as a planner. So it just was an outcome that if I thought about it, it was probably something we could have done at the scheme review back in two years ago. But at this stage, it was, as I said, prompting from community members asking questions about shouldn't it have this and why not this. But I thought, well, if it may be the case in a few months time, we have a blank sheet on that site.
00:18:00 What is the outcome that both council and the community would like? And to me, this is the best way to change the scheme to achieve that. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair via the CEO, can you please clarify if we need the solution that comes via a councillor or should that be through the planning staff to give us the solutions to take to the vote? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor in response, Councillor Finzel, thanks for your question. It is totally appropriate for an elected member to be prescriptive in what they put forward for council officers to review. However, it wouldn't inhibit council officers from providing further information that may assist the council in making further decisions. This is calling for a report. It's very prescriptive. And in that report that's being called for, it's fantastic that the council officers can actually be very clear in the advice that we provide back to the whole council table for the decision. It won't preclude council officers though from providing further information. So it is appropriate and that direction is appreciated.
00:19:00 Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Another question through the Chair. Given then that we're here doing this, I'd just like to know how long does the amendment take and is the amendment that's up for review with the report back to council, is that around the affordable housing review that's going up to state? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I can just, and staff may wish to comment, that is one thing that I was prescriptive of in terms of item A where it says, consider the following zoning map changes as part of the current suite of planning scheme amendments. So the intent of bringing it forward in this way was to get it fast tracked into the current suite of planning amendments. And I believe staff may indicate when they are going to report to council, but I think the last advice was quite soon. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Kim, can you add anything further on that? Speaker 2: Yes, I can, Councillor Stewart. The current suite of planning scheme amendments are coming to council next month. And we have a workshop with council next week, and then they need to be finished within about a week and a half.
00:20:00 So understanding that this motion requests that they be included in the current suite of amendments. If we are to prepare a report investigating these options and come back to council, that may be a little difficult to achieve. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So do I understand from that, Kim, that this, the intent of this or the motion in front of us may not be able to be achieved? That we've left it a little bit too long, too late? Speaker 2: Potentially, we may be able to get a report to the next round of meetings. But at that same round, we are bringing the planning scheme package of amendments to council.
00:21:00 So that's probably the best scenario we could achieve. And it would then need to follow council's decision at that time. Like I said, we've been working on this round of amendments now for a number of months, and it is coming to council in the May round of meetings. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yeah. Through the chair. Look, I do have concerns with those constraints with removing like explicit, you know, action. Can we get the same outcomes to include other things around, you know, community CERN, around assessment of applications based on the 2020 plan as opposed to 2016 without putting actual prescribed things in the motion?
00:22:00 Speaker 2: Through the chair. Councillor Finzel. Officers aren't concerned, following up from the CEO's comments. Officers aren't that concerned about the prescribed solutions in the motion. They provide officers some direction in terms of what council would specifically want us to consider. However, if the council, council officers report will provide all the relevant information around those solutions, but may very well also provide you with other options that officers may consider appropriate or relevant for council. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, look, I've got no problem supporting this. The element of being prescriptive is actually beneficial, I think, to staff because it narrows the scope that they need to address with this. I'll concur with the chair. The thoughts of both councillors Stockwell and Wilkie. Previously this has been a controversial site.
00:23:00 A site that was approved under a previous council and we've had to follow through with, and the world has changed. There is some elements that have changed around the site. That's not to say that development won't go ahead. But in the event that there are, if there is, challenge in any way, shape, or form to proceed, This gives us a raft of options that aren't on the table at the moment to consider as part of the planning scheme review. I know it's a short time frame, but being as prescriptive as it is, I think that actually facilitates the opportunity for staff to look specifically at only one other element of the reviews that they're currently undertaking, and I'm happy to support it. Mayor Stewart: I'll support it too. I think the word you used, Councillor Jurisevic, is options. For so long, we've said that our hands have been tied in regard to this development, and they very much have. This is a small window that gives us some options. It's not making decisions today, it's just getting further information, and I think always having further information, the ability to obtain further reports, and the potential ability to do so.
00:24:00 I think is important. So I will support this, noting that it is just bringing a further report to Council, but that will guide us, it will provide us with more information, and further learnings in regard to this matter. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to this motion. I'm a little bit challenged by it. I'm going to start with what I like about the motion, and what I don't like about the motion. What I like about it? What I like about it? What I like about this motion is that it's changing the use to community use changes, which means the level of assessments change from code to impact assessment. As articulated tonight, that provides an opportunity for the community to have their say on the future of this lot, and recognises that in the 11 years that this application has been sitting with Council, our community has changed, as has our community.
00:25:00 As I've said, it's changed in the last 10 years, and that's why I think it's important for us to think about the future of this lot, and to think about the future of our current and future planning needs. Now I'm going to start with what I don't like about this motion, and why I won't be supporting it tonight. It's my opinion that this motion does not represent the voices of the Noosa community that was led by Spencer's petition, which had over 63,000 signatories objecting to the grass tree court development. I won't be supporting this motion because it doesn't acknowledge that lot 6 and lot 9 had conservation status and that this needs to be reinstated and honoured. I go back to page 5 of the notified motion and Councillor Stockwell, you note that lot 9, the previous ecological assessment of lot 9 has identified 71 feed trees of the glossy black cockatoos.
00:26:00 Quote, there are records of up to 40 birds coming to feed, drink and rear their young in the locality. This to me has critical ecological value and I think this area should be returned back to the black glossy cockatoos with no conditions. Third reason I'm not supporting this motion is because it doesn't put ecological or environmental needs before economic and social outcomes. I appreciate immensely. the intent of this motion and I fully support low-cost housing for workers, but it's my opinion that this is not the site, so I won't be supporting this.
00:27:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Tom or Karen? Councillor Finzel: I'll just ask questions. Speaker 5: Councillor Tom, Karen, what do you want to ask? Mayor Stewart: Councillor? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will finish. There's a provocative thinking there, Councillor Lauritsen. The big difference we've got here is a change to the level of assessment does not incur the costs of an adverse planning change. It does put in more focus the requirements of the biodiversity overlay that is on the site at the moment and an impact-assessable application on the site at the moment. and an impact-assessable application on the site at the moment and an impact-assessable application on the site at the moment. Under a biodiversity overlay, we'll take into account all the values, as opposed to, and I think, in my mind, and staff may come up with a better solution, by making all uses impact accessible, it does say that there's higher levels.
00:28:00 Not all of that block is in the highest conservation value ecosystem. There's two ecosystems and not all the block is in the highest bushfire hazard. So there may be some options that can retain ecological value without necessarily losing the most significant aspects of it. They're all the things that in an impact assessable application that the applicant has to prove, in my mind, versus an applicant going to a code and saying we meet that one, we meet that one, we meet that one, we meet that one, please approve it. And that's what this does. It avoids the issue of adverse planning effects and the flow on to potential compensation. It highlights what the values are. And yes, no doubt, if I was around in 2007, and I think there's on record some previous Council Melrose,
00:29:00 I recall that statement and I concur with it at the time. But we're not at ground zero. We're at this point in time. And to me, this is the best step we can take right now. And I do believe that the specificity is one that staff can review and provide their assessment and any other options within the timeframe. It is deliberately brought up in my first Noesaville motion in six years, because I realised the time constraints were under and if I hadn't got the staff, weren't aware whether the majority or not the majority of Council supported it, it would not, maybe not worth pursuing. But if we do get a majority of Council supporting tonight, it gives staff a clear direction about what our priority is. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour? Councillors Griswold, Fitch, Stockwell, Widenar, Wilkie, Stewart against the Councillors Insall and Lawinster. Thank you. That brings us to item eight of the agenda, which is the consideration of the committee reports.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Firstly, we have the planning and environment committee recommendations page. Report eight. Reports one to six were referred to the general committee. Report seven. Planning applications decided by delegated authority, February 2022. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the planning and environment committee? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, seconder, Councillor Widenar. All in favour? You're nervous. Thank you. Next are the services and organisation committee recommendations. These are on page ten. Report number one. Contract number T000064, Cooroy, Bellarmine, Creek Road bridge replacement. Report number two. Register of pre-qualified suppliers of business and marketing services. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I am a personal client of Insight Social Media,
00:31:00 which is one of the 35 service providers that are proposed to be appointed to the panel for digital strategy and marketing. Please refer attachment three. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I have had no influence on the operational decision of council officers to engage Insight Social Media. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor, will you please assume the chair? Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I'll move the motion that council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart. Determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter because council believes that Councillor Stewart had no influence on the operational decision of council officers to engage Insight Social Media. Indeed, they said during the committee that they had no idea that Councillor Stewart was even a client of Insight and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
00:32:00 May I have a seconder, please? I second. Seconder, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Councillor Stewart do not vote on the motion. That's carried. Mayor Stewart: Welcome back. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Item, report number three. Councillor Jurisevic: We have to deal with that item separately. Mayor Stewart: Oh, yes. Would anyone like to remove the recommendation on page 10 of the agenda? Councillor Stockwell, seconder. Yes. Councillor Russell. Councillor Russell, thank you. All in favour? I'll trade unanimously. Thank you. Report number three. T00043, ICT Managed Services Tender Award. Report number four. Noosa Shire Council, Specialised Supplier List. Report five. Noosa River Holiday Park, Opposed Interim Management Agreement. Can I have a move? So moved. Thank you, Councillor. Seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Except we're dealt by it separately. Thank you. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Linda. Now to the general committee meeting recommendations, which are on page 12 of our agenda.
00:33:00 MCU19-0089.02 and OPW19-0160.02. A minor change to development approval for retail business type 5, vehicle, uses, retail business type 2, shop and operational works. Signage at 5254 Mary Street, Noosaville. This is the subject of a further report that went direct to General at Report 7. So we'll deal with that then. Speaker 2: Sorry, I'll just... Mayor Stewart: No, no. I beg your pardon. Sorry, no, Mary, you're reading the right thing. Sorry, I'm reading the wrong thing. Yeah. Pardon. Sorry. Please retract that. Yeah, sorry. Report committees item 1, MCU21-0194. Application for material change of use for roadside stalls at 201 Mary River Road, Cooroy. Please refer to further report at item 7, which we will deal with. We will deal with that now.
00:34:00 Speaker 5: No? Speaker 3: Later on? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was actually yesterday. It was yesterday. I think the way it's been reported is incorrect. Item 7 was dealt with in association with item 1, so that the minutes should probably have the resolution at that point there. Mayor Stewart: All right. Thank you. Thanks, Mr Stockwell. Report 2. Minor change from existing approval for dual occupancy at 21-22 and 2-22 Kingfisher Drive, Peregian Beach. Councillor? Councillor Wilkie: This is a report... Sorry. There's a report directed... Sorry. There's a report directed to the ordinary meeting on this one, so... Mayor Stewart: Okay. We'll defer it to the ordinary meeting. Yes. Report... We'll refer it to later. Yeah, yeah. Report 3. Application for material change of use, multiple dwellings, eight times dwelling units at 25 and 27 Toolar Street, Tewantin. I note that this applicant... The council note the report by the project coordinator planning to the Planning and Environment
00:35:00 Committee meeting dated 12th of April, 2022, regarding application number NCVU21-0083 for a development permit for material change of use, multiple dwelling, situated at 25 and 27 Toolar Street. Tewantin, I note that the applicant has stopped the decision period pursuant to Planning Act 2016. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe I'll... We have to move that as a separate item. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we? Can we? Can we? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we? It's a fresh motion tonight, it's not the motion of the general committee. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes it is, it was. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, that one was stopped, it's the other one that was. Sorry, I do apologise. It's a rare meeting that we have two of the same. Mayor Stewart: No, it was, it was the subdivision. Yes, it was the subdivision, the Coroyville. Report 4. MCU 17-0076.01, application for another change to a development for multiple housing type 2 duplex to include short-term accommodation
00:36:00 operational works at 1-25 Edward Street, Noosaville. I'd like to deal with this item separately. Would anyone like to move a motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the motion. It's in progress. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Would you like to speak to the motion? No. No, thank you. I'll put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Stockwell, Wegener, Wilkie. Against? Against, Councillor Finzel, Laurence Dunham and Stewart. Thank you. Report 5. Application for operational work prescribed title works at 10-12 Ravenwood Drive, Noosa Heads. Councillor Wilkie: That's not a name. Yes, that's a further report. Mayor Stewart: This is subject of a further report direct to the ordinary meeting, so we'll deal with this later in the meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Item 6, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move it. What will you be moving? Item 6.
00:37:00 Item 6, Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project Update. I'd like to move the motion as written in the report, minus Part D. That's part of the staff recommendation. That's part of the staff recommendation. I'll second it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillors. Staff have recently advised that the conditions of the key state permits have been... No, no, no, no. ...unapproved. No. ...unapproved? ...by the Nature Conservancy. Good. The pivotal approvals include state permit giving owners consent with conditions to restore reefs to the Noosa River. Another is the Development Permit for operational works in the river. Another is the General Fisheries Licence to handle oysters. Another is approval for TNC to be a registered resource provider. These were the pivotal approvals beyond TMC or Council's power to issue, but through working cooperatively in partnership with the state, this innovative project, they've achieved this.
00:38:00 The Development Permit for Operational Works prescribed title under the Planning Act will now allow Noosa Council staff to get on with it. Council officers are finalising the assessment and this will be reported to Council in the next few weeks and tonight's motion allows us to move forward. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question, Kim. My correspondence with you this morning was that you had not received the Resource Allocation Authority, RAA, under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and Fisheries Management Regulation 2008, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Not yet issued was the words and Operational Works application, again, the words not yet issued. Can you confirm that, please? Speaker 2: Yes, through the Chair. As per the information provided, councillors, there are five permits required, three of which have been approved, three key state approvals, as Councillor Wilkie just outlined. There's one remaining, which is the Resource Allocation Authority, which is nearing completion, but we have not received that final approval yet.
00:39:00 And then, of course, there is Council's Operational Works application, which Council officers are in the process of assessing. Mayor Stewart: So it's correct that out of those five, we still have two to receive. That is correct, isn't it? Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So, Kim, it's true that the council staff can get on with the Operational Works now, that assessment? Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. I have a question. We've received response from the state agencies. Through SARA, we've received conditional approval from the state agencies via the Resource Allocation Authority. So that, and we are now undertaking our own assessment as per normal assessment of an Operational Works application, which we'll be reporting to Council. Councillor Wilkie: And that SARA was what was the pivotal assessment approval from the state that allowed the Noosa Council now to get its own approval process underway?
00:40:00 Speaker 2: Yes. Operational Works. The SARA conditional approval is a necessary part of Council's assessment as part of the Operational Works application. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: But, Kim, I mean, we've got five state approvals we haven't yet. Councillor Wilkie: Point of order. Mayor Stewart: Is this a question? It is a question. I'm just clarifying. We've got five. That's correct, isn't it, Kim? We need five permits. That is correct. That is correct. And we still, at this point in time before us, have two permits which we have not yet received. So, therefore, we can't say that Section 13C has been adhered to because we haven't received all state permits. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's correct. The Resource Allocation Authority under the Fisheries Management Act, which is issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, has not yet been received. The fifth permit is not a state permit. It is Council's under the Planning Act.
00:41:00 An Operational Works application has not yet been received. It is the State Council's application, which as I just outlined, is under assessment. Councillor Lorentson: So, just for clarity, Kim, we do not have formal permission from the state to build reefs in the river bed. Speaker 2: The Nature Conservancy have not yet received approval under the Resource Allocation Authority permit by the Department of Fisheries. As just mentioned, so that remaining permit is in its final stages. There's been discussions and consideration of all the draft conditions, but we have not yet received that final approval. Councillor Lorentson: So therefore, again, just to get this in my head, we do not have state approvals to proceed. We cannot commence building reefs in the Noosa River without this one state approval.
00:42:00 Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's right. Works cannot commence until this permit's been achieved. Councillor Wilkie: What does the owners, the state has given owners consent. What does that give the, what does it mean by giving owners consent? Speaker 2: Is Mary still in the room? She might want to comment here. Mayor Stewart: She's still here, Kim. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Essentially, it's authority to, yeah, lodge the application. So the application, as Kim has indicated, is currently under assessment and we're looking to report that operational works up next round. Thanks. Mayor Stewart: Kim, sorry. I've got a question about that. I'm looking at the nature conservancy. Some of the forms that you provided us on this morning, development application details, specifically at the end, it says the estimate.
00:43:00 What is the monetary value of the proposed operational work? And the estimate that's been written by, presume, the nature conservancy, because I think it's come from them, it has, is $500,000. Can you give us a breakdown or an outline of how that $500,000 figure came about? Speaker 2: Councillor Stewart, I'm not sure what document you're referring to. Could you? Sure. Mayor Stewart: It was one of the ones that you sent through this morning that was in the email that you sent to all councillors. I believe it's dated 13th of October 2021 and it says, main B, dear Bobby, reference is made. And then it talks at the back of that, it's a DA form one, development application details. That was. Councillor Wilkie: Owners consent. Mayor Stewart: If you don't agree with that, I'm looking at the $500,000, that's my question.
00:44:00 Councillor Wilkie: If it helps, it's the document that says the department hereby gives owners consent as the owner to accompany the development application for the purpose of operational works for title works for the placement of oyster bed restoration. Mayor Stewart: It says also, although owners consent to development applications being provided in O10 and the land act is required, your client is to undertake works on the land only if and when the development, application has been approved by the assessment manager and in accordance with the conditions of that approval. So it's in, it's in that suite of documents. Kim. Speaker 2: Yes, I may need to take that question on notice, but in, in general, when, and Kerry, you might be better to, to provide any detail on this. When applications for owners consent or permits are sought, often there's an estimate of, of value of development that's provided, so it potentially could be that, but I will have to take it on notice to provide you that detail.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Speaker 5: Um, I, I haven't seen the documents, I'm not, not quite sure what we're referring to, but there's a requirement to pay once a, once a development reaches a certain value, they have to pay a, a superannuation contribution, but I, I'm not quite sure what the documents are referring to. Mayor Stewart: This just says, what is the monetary value of the proposed operational work, and it says estimate 500,000, that's it there. I just wanted a breakdown of those figures for complete, um, clarification and, and openness, I guess. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Um, I just have another question. Um, how does the approval of these, um, permits relate to the planning application for seeking approval for the built infrastructure planned for the Noosa River? Can you tell us how that process works? I have got some pictures I'd like put up, because I just need to see in my mind where in the river. How this infrastructure is tended to go that's under discussion, please.
00:46:00 Speaker 5: Um, so, it, it's a fairly standard, uh, process under the Planning Act, um, people when they're doing works in tidal areas, so in the river, must launch an application for operational works, it's called described tidal works, so the oyster reef, in some ways, is treated no differently to a jetty in the river. Or, um, in Moosa Sound, so the requirement for an operational work application. The State is a referral agency for part of that application, and we are unable to decide, Council's not able to make a decision on that application until we receive the State agency conditions, which we now have. Um, and that's why we're finalising our assessment on the, the application for operational works for the oyster assessment, because we can now finalise that assessment, report the matter to Council, uh, for consideration, and the decision, uh, so fairly standard process there under the, under the Planning Act.
00:47:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Kerri. So, just to clarify, you said the State is the refer, referral agency, I'm not a planner, um, and you have the conditions, does that mean the conditions will inform the planning process? Speaker 5: Uh, no, uh, just to explain referral agency, what that means is they are a party to the application, and they may direct Council to refuse an application, or direct Council to impose conditions on approval, um, they assess, uh, their aspects for, which is stipulated by the Act, of what they have to assess, which is about generally navigational channels, um, the fact that it's in a, I think there's three triggers on this one, it's in a fishhook, it's in a, it's in a, it's in a, it's in a coastal management area, I think, from memory, but we'd have to check that for you, um, so they are referred to for three reasons, and they make those assessments on those three elements, they have provided us with conditions, Council then needs to make its own assessment against the planning scheme, and to make a decision whether they're happy it complies with the planning scheme, and if they were to approve it, they have to include conditions from the referral agency that we've, which has recently received.
00:48:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Um, given the volume and the cost to many, um, the community, are you confident that this will be able to proceed forward, through the State? Speaker 5: Uh, well, I think, to be fair, we are still making our assessment, so we've actually, um, gone to an external marine biologist to help us in the assessment, um, because we're not, we're not experts in that field, um, and so, really, I can't tell you our officer's position on what we're going to recommend. Because we are making an independent assessment, notwithstanding Council has, um, you know, has some collaborations with this project. Councillor Lorentson: Um, I'd like to move some amendments, amendments, please.
00:49:00 So, I'd like to add a D, seek to consult, oh, sorry, CDE, so, oh, it's already there, sorry, excuse me. Mayor Stewart: It has deleted D, which I'll come to question in a minute. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, seek to consult with stakeholders. Yep. Um, authorise the CEO to consult with Council's Audit and Risk Committee. So, I'll start again. Um, and seek to consult with stakeholders, including the Noosa River Advisory Group and the broader community to gauge overall community support for the renewal of the Noosa River Alliance and Funding Agreement. Okay. Authorise the CEO to consult with Council's Audit and Risk Committee and seek advice that the arrangements are appropriate and in alignment with Council's Risk Management Framework. And provide a further report on the outcomes of the consultation and seek a further resolution of the Council to help inform and guide future negotiations.
00:50:00 Mayor Stewart: Okay. My question, Councillor Wilkie, is you moved the motion, the original motion, and you asked for D to be admitted, which says review procurement administrative processes to investigate 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 the council should be made aware of in entering into this agreement. My question is, why would you admit D when that is purely just increasing transparency and openness for this project? Councillor Wilkie: Look, I think I'll leave my answer to the debate, if anyone wants to raise that issue.
00:51:00 I don't think it's a genuine, my short answer is I don't think it's a genuine motion because the councillors who moved it didn't, but it came to the final. The councillors who voted on ratifying it didn't vote for it, so if you don't support it, why should I? Mayor Stewart: That's not just a question, we've heard of Councillor Stockwell, Senator Tewantin. Councillor Wilkie: So are we having a formal debate now, are you speaking to the motion? Mayor Stewart: No, I'm asking a question, is that the only reason because councillors who voted for it didn't support it? Is that the reason? Councillor Wilkie: Probably a multitude of reasons, but I've given my reason. If the councillors that wanted it couldn't, when it came to finally ratifying that as part of the motion, couldn't support it, why should I? I don't think it's a genuine motion. Councillor Finzel: Can I have a question through the chair to the CEO then, in terms of process with regards to amendments, is the mayor able to put that amendment in tonight, and at what stage? Speaker 3: So councillors, the stage of the debate, or the process that you're currently in right now is that you have a motion on the floor.
00:52:00 Councillor Lorentson has put forward a motion. We have an amendment to that motion, we are waiting for a seconder, that will need to follow a process, should there be a seconder to the amendment from Councillor Lorentson, and at a point in time if further amendments are made, it can be made at that time. But we have a motion before us with an amendment that's been put by Councillor Lorentson, awaiting a seconder, and then the process will follow again from there. Mayor Stewart: Anyone set in Councillor Lorentson's amendment? Sorry, Joe, I'll read it out. Councillor Jurisevic: I don't need to read it out. Mayor Stewart: Can you read it out please? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, please. I'm happy to read it out. Speaker 3: Please just wait for minutes in agenda, secretary, to catch up if that's possible, so that we can have that fully before council, and then please continue through the mayor.
00:53:00 So D... Mayor Stewart: Can you let us know, Linda? Yeah, sorry. Thank you. Just take notes. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So D, seek to consult with stakeholders, including the Noosa River Advisory Group and the broader community, to gauge overall community support for the renewal of the Noosa River Alliance and funding agreement. E, authorise the CEO to consult with council's audit and risk committee, and seek advice that arrangements are appropriate and in alignment with council's recommendations. F, request the CEO to provide a further report on the outcomes of the consultation to help inform and guide future negotiations. Councillor Finzel: Do we have a seconder? Excuse me. I just have a question through the chair.
00:54:00 Thank you. To the CEO. Given the stress of the last week or so, I just need clarification. If I second this, am I able to put an amendment in, or do I need to put it in now? Just lost track of the meeting process. I can't second you, then. Speaker 3: Through the mayor. No, that would be the motion that you'd have on the floor, and you second it in its entirety as it stands. So no, I don't believe that you'd have the ability to have a further amendment to what you have seconded. That would then become the motion on the floor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once anything is a motion or not, it's only the original mover and the original seconder that is barred from doing amendments. So anyone can do an amendment, but you can't amend an amendment. So you'd have to wait for the outcome of this particular amendment, and then proceed to move it up. Mayor Stewart: So can we go back to see who moved the original? Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Wegener seconded.
00:55:00 So they're the only two who could not do amendments. Yes. And then vote. And then vote. Councillor Finzel: And then I'll put the amendment up after you vote. Mayor Stewart: So then it forms part of the original motion. I'll second this, Councillor Lyons. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I added these amendments the other night, the other afternoon, at the general meeting. And I've had the opportunity over the last couple of days to reword the amendment, after a lot of debate and discussion. And I've had the opportunity over the last couple of days to reword the amendment, after a lot of debate and discussion. This is too important a matter not to have another go at putting forward community consultation. The community is divided on this, and we know over the last two days the public outcry. I'm going to proceed, and I ask that everyone at this table listen respectfully and debate respectfully. We have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a respectful manner.
00:56:00 And we also have an obligation to our children and anyone watching this that we actually respect each other. And we actually do really respect each other and like each other. And sometimes that is not properly displayed. So I'm just going to just move on. This is not about environment. I spoke about risk, and I spoke about community, and I spoke about consultation, and making decisions in the best interests of the community. I've said it the other day and I'll say it again, lots has happened since 2019 and today. KPIs have not been met. We've just heard, we still haven't received a state approval to proceed. Operational works, we've heard again today, that's still being assessed by council.
00:57:00 We heard the other day that if the project does go ahead, there is a major risk that it's going to fail. And we know the community is split on this project. My amendment, all it does is authorise council and the CEO to go ahead and proceed. To go to the greater community and ask the questions. Ask, do you want us to proceed? Is spending or committing the balance of $1.2 million, is that what the community wants? Or are there other projects that the community would like to have their money invested in? We've so far received, and again, I'm repeating myself, but it's important, we've received emails from the Chamber of Commerce. And I listed all the communities that supported their submission.
00:58:00 I didn't add the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance to that. But I do want to make a point that the associations, all eight or nine of them, actually represent 1,100, more than 1,100 businesses and residents. That's a lot of people in this community that don't support this project. In fairness, we've also received emails from the Chamber of Commerce. From other community groups like MICA, like the Biosphere, like the Noosa resident rate payers, and from individual residents that support it. To ensure that we make a decision that is fair and equitable, and more so to help build community confidence that council's making decisions in their best interest, we just have to go back to the community and consult. Thank you. The project, we know it's ambitious.
00:59:00 We know there is a risk it may fail. And we know there's lots, there may be opportunities. This has got to be spelled out and given to the community. We need to ensure that the community actually understands the risk, and further, that this project is consistent. With council's own risk management frameworks. And that's why I added the E to that council authorises the CEO to consult with its audit and risk committee. We have an advisory committee of council. It's independent of council's management, and it's been established under the Local Government Act for this very purpose, to assist council to discharge its responsibility of due care and diligence in relation to risk management.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 It's therefore important as part of the consultation that we consult with our own audit and risk committee, and seek advice that what we're doing is appropriate and is in alignment with council's risk management framework and compliance framework, including whether or not we are operating within our own risk appetite. The risk appetite is our own risk appetite. It's their money. It therefore must be their decision. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to ask a question of the CEO. And I don't know if he's going to be able to answer it, because he wasn't here at the time. Do matters like this get referred to, individual matters like this get referred to council as an audit and risk committee? And possibly not the CEO, but through the CEO to someone that is involved with the audit
01:01:00 and risk committee. Was the audit and risk committee aware at the time that this went through council of the risks associated with this project? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor in response, Councillor Jurisevic, it is appropriate for the council from time to time to refer matters to the risk and audit committee to be able to be reviewed. Having said that, though, this is well progressed, this particular project, and is entering its final stages. I understand that the nexus of the project was in 2014. It can be referred, and that can occur. I would need to defer to the acting director of corporate finance. I would need to defer to the acting director of corporate services in relation to the second part of your question. And if Trent is able to answer that. Otherwise, we may take that element on notice and come back to you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll talk to the nexus. I won't spoil it.
01:02:00 I think the CEO raised a point that when you're in completion of this particular alliance grant project. I think the CEO raised a point that when you're in completion of this particular alliance This one has an undefined reference to a renewal, which it's unclear whether it's talking about a fresh alliance grant type approach for more briefs, or whether it's about the extension of the current contract should it be needed to achieve the outcomes of the existing alliance agreement. There has been extensive review every six months for the report. Similar questions in this term of council have been raised, and one of the highly experienced chief executive officers who comes from a corporate service and financial background reassured councillors on each occasion that the way that the agreement was structured and framed was both legal and appropriate.
01:03:00 It is a project that aligns with strategic objectives of this council, and it's one that the agreement that was put in place is over and above what is normally put in place for an alliance agreement under our grant scheme, and has had a level of overview which we've heard since the last meeting that exceeds the requirements for similar grants from the federal government. To ask staff to go through this process. Is asking them to retrospectively look at something that's nearing an end at the cost to rate payers. And that's what we have to mind. Are we trying to really achieve an aim of a commitment and a partnership that on every occasion since it was first initiated, a majority of this council has supported?
01:04:00 I think that's really important. It's really important to understand the majority of this council on every occasion has supported an agreement, have an alliance to build oyster ribs. There is no suggestion of any impropriety. The only delay has been in getting a approval through a range of bureaucratic processes, of which one key one is outstanding, but we know from the advice given to us, draft conditions of the resource allocation. There have been some minor tweaks and they're awaiting an offer to come back from holidays. It would be unwise, in my opinion, to go down the path as outlined in DE&F to unnecessary spend rate payers money to perhaps meet some previous commitment not to support this project. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question?
01:05:00 Is it a reminder base? Mayor Stewart: You can ask a question. Councillor Lorentson: I can ask a question. Can I ask the question, reference was made to cost to rate payers, probably question directed to the CEO, cost of consulting with community groups and requesting and consulting with the Audit and Risk Committee, can you, would you agree that that would be a huge cost or a small cost to rate payers? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Council Morrison, and without being drawn into the debate on this particular matter, I would say that to expeditiously deliver this for Council, we would probably outsource any community consultation that would come at a cost, and I could give a figure, but please note that this is an estimate that I'm taking off the top of my head to be able to try and answer your question that you have somewhere in the vicinity of $20,000 to $30,000, I think, could come at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000, I think, could come
01:06:00 at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000, referring back through the Risk and Audit Committee, that would just be additional workload for the staff that are engaged in delivering that, so that would be an operational cost, but to ensure that we did have a degree of openness and transparency, my recommendation to Council on consultation would be is that we would put that to a third party, and that would ensure that that is at arm's length and those results come back, but my advice and my answer to your question without being drawn into the debate. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I'd like to speak. I will support this. I think the aim is about good governance and the process and equity to all. That is my goal, that we find a resolution where we can act with excellence and represent
01:07:00 the entire community and bring balance to this, and I think that the amendments put up will help find the balance in the space as we aim to find resolution and bring resolve to this community. This has gone on since 2014, well before my time in this position, and I think the intent here is that it is about the aim to present a process that is open, transparent, and shines a light on excellence, and this is where I believe this Council would like to build on that and continue to improve in that space. So I will be supporting this. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else like to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: I won't be supporting the amendment. It seeks to consult with stakeholders, including the Noosa River Advisory Group. We were given advice the other day. The Noosa River Advisory Group have been consulted about this and are in favour and support the
01:08:00 project going forward. The authorisation for the CEO to consult with the Council's Audit and Risk Committee. I've been here to consult with the Council's Audit and Risk Committee. Through the entire process here, I was on the Audit and Risk Committee. I'm sure that they were aware of the risk of this and informed of the risk of this going forward. So going back to the Audit and Risk Committee, I feel it's unnecessary. I feel they're stressed out with that. There's been some inference, again, with regard to transparency, good governance, open and transparent Council and excellence. This has always been at the forefront of all of the reporting on this project. To say otherwise has cast an aspersion, I guess, on the Council of the time that was there. And I was part of that Council. So I feel an element of offence to that because I believe we went through due diligence. I was happy to support our review going back with some fresh eyes on it in light of any
01:09:00 further agreements going forward to see that all of that was undertaken. Not an issue. But I don't... I don't think we need to go to this extent. I see that the elements being requested here are really re-prosecuting or trying to go back over all of the elements that we've done over all the years of this project going forward. And to do this at the final hurdle to getting on to actually putting this into the water, I struggle with. I'm sorry. I can't support that. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Sean, my understanding is I was at that last meeting where, at the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group, where a presentation or an update was given in regard to this project, but at no time was I privy to, or perhaps, please correct me if I'm wrong, if this has been done outside any of those meetings, where a vote was undertaken and support was garnished from the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group and its members.
01:10:00 My understanding is the last time they met, it was just to give an update on the project. Speaker 1: Thanks, Councillor Stewart, that is correct. The committee has been provided with information and advice about the project, because it was already a council-approved project. They have been out on a boat and inspected the site, so they're very well informed of the project, and I also note that a number of the stakeholders are actually being engaged in the community consultation activities underway. But you're correct in stating that there was not a vote passed. Mayor Stewart: And it would be my understanding that no vote has been taken and that it could potentially be somewhere else. So I'm not divided on this issue. Speaker 1: Yeah, on similar matters to this, where, you know, council doesn't necessarily need the, basically, you know, majority vote for NSERAC, you know, consultants or stakeholders are just engaged with them one-on-one to get a perspective. For instance, the non-powered water sports study underway at the moment. The consultants have engaged with the members one-on-one to provide, you know, individual sort of views, which will go into the broader consultation activity.
01:11:00 Mayor Stewart: Thanks. I'll stick to this motion. I will support this motion. I actually think it's a good motion. I think it's a prudent motion. We've just heard that the NSERAC stakeholder advisory group don't have a position they've been advised of, but they don't have actually a formalised position nor a unanimous position in regard to this, so it would be good to understand what that is. I think it is prudent to have a look at this. I mean, I've got a question of $500,000 here no one can answer, right? What is the monetary value proposed of operational works? I can't get an answer, right? That is something that the Audit and Risk Committee can have a look at. I'm sure that money's justified, but I'd like to know what it's for, and I think the ratepayer has, you know, when that is put down on a piece of paper in an application, I think that we all deserve a right to know what that accounts for. It's just being prudent. It's just being cautious in regard to our risk management.
01:12:00 I don't think we're anywhere near the, we're not at the end stage of this project. In fact, we heard during the week that we've only outlawed approximately $232,000. We still have, if we've made a $1.2 million commitment, we still have over $900,000 left to commit to this project. So I don't think we're anywhere near the end stages. I think we're only just beginning. We've heard, we do not have, the State have not granted us permits to put any structures as it stands today, or any reefs, currently in our river system. We've heard that. We are, we have, a number of the permits have been achieved, but at this stage we've heard that our operational works at Council are still being assessed, and the project can't actually begin until we receive it. We haven't received that permit to put those structures in our river. So I think that this enables the community to come on the journey with us. This is a divisive issue. We've seen that over the past week.
01:13:00 It's one that's very important and a motive to many in our communities. Some are positive, some are negative. This gives the ability for stakeholders to be involved, to gauge the pulse. We are fundamentally changed since 2019. There are a lot of nice-to-haves, but we just can't afford it. We are in budget deliberations, and we are all acutely aware of the impacts that COVID have had on this organisation. 2022 looks a lot different to what 2019 did, and no one could have foreseen what would have happened. But here we find ourselves. We must now more than ever be prudent in our deliberations, in our discussions, and in where we put our money. And so I'll be talking to this later, but there are other projects that we don't need to wait for any approvals to begin, that we can begin right here, right now, that will go a long way to addressing our environmental concerns around our river systems. So, Councillor Lorentson, thank you for putting up this amendment. I will be supporting it tonight.
01:14:00 Councillor Wilkie: Look, councillors, I do respect that councillors Stewart, Finzel and Lorentson have actively tried to end this project. And I hope that they can respect and understand that this is not the end of the project. That their comments and amendments now are seen in that light. From the outset, this project has had stringent and detailed oversight, as detailed in the 25-page Alliance and Funding Agreement that has been a public document since 2019. No one would condemn any councillor for not knowing or seeking advice on where to find project monitoring, information about risk assessment and project milestones and deliverables and KPIs. The question is whether it's reasonable to claim or infer, through debate or motions, that proper oversight doesn't exist when it most clearly does.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Pages 19 to 24 of the Alliance and Funding Agreement, which has been a public document since 2019, outlines over 30 key performance objectives and deliverables that have been reported against in all three publicly available annual reports. And all three six-monthly reports. They include items such as the establishment of a technical advisory group from key stakeholders and Kabi Kabi with terms of reference to give expert oversight on the permitting process. A project implementation and public engagement plan detailing, at a minimum, a detailed risk assessment associated with this project. That was a deliverable. It was done. A monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan which identified ecological and social risks. The monitoring, evaluation and reporting plan was peer-reviewed to provide extra governance and assurance at the request of dissenting councillors.
01:16:00 And when it returned a favourable result, it was still rejected. Other deliverables, annual report projects, reports and final reports, each of which addresses at a minimum activities throughout the year, status and progress of the project. Income and expenditure reporting against the monitoring and evaluation programs and others. It's all there. Risk assessment, financial oversight, reporting against deliverables. They're all in the three annual and six-monthly reports. Three six-monthly reports. If some unfairly and unreasonably keep inferring, this is not happening. Familiarising ourselves with these aspects of the project is due diligence. Why impose onerous conditions requiring staff to compile all this publicly available material for us when it's there? No one would condemn a councillor for not knowing where to find it. We all ask staff where to get it from time to time.
01:17:00 And just as an extra peer review was required under the guise of better governance and the result rejected, an amendment was moved on Tuesday. Councillor Jurisevic: D. Councillor Wilkie: Supposedly to provide much needed oversight. But when it came to the final vote, it was not supported by those who wanted it. So if councillors are continually not supporting the final vote to ratify changes that will put staff to work, their behest, under the call of better governance, when so much oversight already exists and when some have even tried to actively kill off this project, I do question whether it's a genuine motion or not. We've heard repeatedly from our directors and managers that this organisation is already understaffed, understressed and overworked. Yet we are clear to be ordering staff to do the reporting and information gathering we can do ourselves
01:18:00 when they need to be getting on with the constellation of many projects we've already burdened them with. That's why I'm not supporting this amendment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to close? Councillor Lorentson: Um. Our job is to make the best decision for the overall public interest. The Queensland Local Government Act states that councils should advocate on issues that are important to their community. Councillor Wilkie, I'm not convinced that this matter is important to our community. I said in my debate that there are over 11 million people in our community who are understaffed. There are over 1,100 businesses that don't support this project. And I have a duty as a councillor to represent their views. This council has made a public commitment to transparent and open processes.
01:19:00 Further, it's made a commitment to effective consultation on issues that affect our community. This is an issue that affects our community and they are entitled to it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. And we'll put the matter, the amendment to a vote. All in favour? Councillors Lorentson, Finzel, Stewart against. Councillors Jurisevic, Councillors Wilkie, Councillor Brian and Councillor Tom. Motion is lost. I'd like to move a further amendment. Thank you, Elinda, to the original. I'd like Dean to put it back on the table, please. I'd like Dean to put it back on the table, please. So, Elinda, are you right? Yeah. So, for the purposes of those. Second it.
01:20:00 Sorry. Thank you. Sorry. Second it. Thanks, Councillor Lorentson. D, this was originally 5 was at the general committee, was supported. It's back on the motion of the amendment now. It stands as review the procurement administrative processes to instigate the project, risks associated with the project, and how these are being mitigated. And incorporated into key performance indicators and any other matters that the Council should be made aware of in entering into the agreement. Look, take on board what Councillor Wilkie said, but the voting practices of this Council and what we choose to vote and not vote for should not determine increased transparency, openness, and a review of the procurement processes associated with the project. In fact, it wasn't the first time that people have put up amendments and voted against the full motion.
01:21:00 In fact, Councillor Stockwell, I remember the first time I did it, you said it took me two years to do that. So, everyone has been guilty or potentially guilty of that at some point in time. It is no reason to vote down what is a good part of an amendment. And that will give further information and clarity to a Council that will be able to Authorise this project. This was done in 2019. This council has not had the opportunity to have available to it all the information that you have, the procurement and administrative processes to investigate this project, the risks and how they can be incorporated into key performance indicators are basic fundamental things that we should have no problem with. We should have no problem with this. This should just be basic good governance. That's what it is. How can you argue against it? Because we didn't vote for the whole project?
01:22:00 You voted, that does not make to me any sense. This is something that, as I said, 5-2 was supported on Tuesday and this has been an emotional issue and people may be upset that, you know, the community does not like it and some people do, some people don't. But that's not our decision. Our decision is to debate what's in the best interest of our community. This amendment, D, is in the best interest of our community. It does seek further information, further clarity on any project, on any document that we are committing $1.2 million worth of rate payer money. This is what we should do. This is what we should be doing. Not just for this, but across the board. As I said, there is so much money here at stake. This is such an important project for our community to get right because the opportunity costs are significant.
01:23:00 If we don't go forward with this project, what else can we do? What else is on the table? As I said, within budget deliberations, we've seen how difficult and times have become since COVID. We've seen our community fundamentally change. We need to reassure and we need to confirm that this project is what everyone wants to see going forward. And so I think that this is a no-brainer. I think reviewing a project and providing further information and shining a light on it does nothing but help. And so I'd ask that you support it. Councillor Jurisevic: Questions to the CEO. With regard to review and fulfilment of the administrative process to instigate the project, risk associated with the project and how it needs to be mitigated and incorporated with key performance indicators and any other matters of account which would be made aware of in entering the agreement, do you understand this to be into a new agreement or into an extension of the agreement that currently exists?
01:24:00 Speaker 3: Through the Mayor in response, Councillor Jurisevic. At this point in time, I think we could, with the agreement of the Nature Conservancy, put this into the current agreement on an extension basis. However, if it was not to their agreement, and this does become the resolution of the Council, on an extension there would need to be a new agreement is my view. But I would consult with them first if we could add that, extend the current would be the best way. If we were unable to have that. As it is a resolution of Council, it would definitely be a go no go scenario as far as negotiations. Councillor Jurisevic: And as far as staff time and the effort to undergo this review, I'm assuming that yourself would be involved in this. Who would you envisage would be involved in this review?
01:25:00 Speaker 3: Through the Mayor in response, Councillor Jurisevic, it would be myself, the team that have been around the project already, and then I'd ask for some assistance from executive staff. and potentially corporate services. Gathering the information, analysing the information and then ensuring that's encapsulated in either an extension or a new agreement, that then further brought back to the Council, for Councils final resolution before signature. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you Mayor for putting up this amendment. I will be supporting it. In a contradiction to Councillor Wilkie's inference that I'm actively trying to end this. I would like to say that I'm actively promoting good outcomes for everyone with regards to this project. I'm not actively trying to end it.
01:26:00 I am seeking merely information to inform decision making. I support this. I think anything that proceeds forward to bring about continuous improvement and strong leadership with values that promote excellence in line with our corporate themes is anything, is something worth addressing if we feel that we can do better. And I think that we can do better. I think we can all learn a lot from the outcome. We can learn a lot also from listening to our community. And we can learn a lot from each other. And I think diversity is good around the table. And I think that we need to have a rigorous approach to questioning processes and question how we've arrived at this place. And I think through the lens of difference and diversity, we can provide excellence leadership to this community. And I will be supporting this amendment.
01:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: I don't really want to discuss it. I'm just a little bit, just on record that I'm disappointed that it was taken out in the first place. As Councillor Finzel and Councillor Stewart have articulated, this is what we committed to, continuous improvement, transparency and openness, good governance. I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed. I totally support reinstating what was already. We previously approved five to two on Tuesday. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't repeat the arguments from the last amendment, but they are the same. It is about, is this wasting rate payer money? And should it happen to get up, I will be moving a further amendment to make sure that it is costed and reported what the cost of such a review is.
01:28:00 We did mention the. Significant level of transparency, accountability and governance that there have been throughout this process and Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Jurisevic indicated, you know, that the Audit and Risk Committee previously has not had issues raised. I also point out that the Queensland Audit Office does look at our organisation and has never raised issue. So we have experts employed, paid large salaries. We have independent people coming in, employed, give us advice. Not once in the three years the project has any concern been raised in terms of the issues that this seeks to address. Why? Why when the council has a commitment to an alliance, to a partnership, to best practice science driven project, would we,
01:29:00 at a minute to midnight, go back and review what we know to be a robust, accountable and well-founded agreement? Mayor Stewart: What a question, Deb, it's for you. Has the Oyster project ever appeared on the Oyster, the Audit and Risk Committee register? Or been determined by the Audit and Risk Committee? Speaker 5: Through the Chair. No, I don't believe it has been specifically identified in the Strategic Risk Register. I don't believe it has been specifically identified in the Strategic Risk Register. Thank you, Deb. Councillor Wilkie: I have to respectfully disagree with the Mayor which says it doesn't matter what you do, in terms of amendments and motions. What you do vote for when it comes to finalising a motion shows what you want this organisation
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 to dedicate its resources to. And if you don't vote for it to ratify any amendment, it's part of a motion to put into effect those wishes, in this case this oversight, especially when there's so much oversight already existing, then you're not fair dinkum. And if you don't believe enough in it to vote for it right through to the final conclusion, then why should anyone else? As I said before, I respect the right of Mayor Stewart, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Lorentson to vote for a motion to end this report. But they need to understand now that any subsequent motions or amendments under the guise of better oversight, when so much already exists, is always going to be seen in that light. And I agree it's an unnecessary burden.
01:31:00 And I cannot, in all conscience, support it. Maybe if voting patterns had been different, and then you'd supported your motions through your amendments right through to the end to ratify them to the point where they're acted on by staff, I would be viewing these differently. But also, I already believe that there's already sufficient oversight. And no one is condemning anyone for not being, knowing where all the information is, there's a lot of information that's been reported over the years. But to demand more and more report, get the staff to do more and more reporting, when it's already there for you, is something also I can't support. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, as I did the other day, I am going to support this. And the reason I'm going to support this, is because I'm going to support this. Because when that concern of the community came, the first thing I did was go to the CEO and say, Mr. CEO, with a fresh pair of eyes, and with a fresh acting environment manager, can you just cast your eyes over this and see if you can see anything untoward that needs review?
01:32:00 I'm not expecting a deep dive, I'm not expecting this to be torn to pieces, I'm not expecting this to be gone through and scrutinised to the nth degree. An overview of the current administrative process to make sure that we've got all our eyes crossed on our teeth and that there's nothing untoward here. I'm confident, with the process that we've undertaken to get to this stage, over all the years I've watched this process, that that's been adhered to. All the reporting that we're hearing, tells us that that's been adhered to. I don't expect this to be a long and lengthy process to undergo an administrative review. So I'm happy to support that, and I'm happy to support the concerns of the community that brought their concerns to us, so that we do see that if anything here is untoward, or that needs review, particularly if we're going to enter into an additional agreement beyond the current agreement, or further, most of the rest, with the success of this going forward, and I'm confident that the success of this going forward, that we know what we're interested in.
01:33:00 And I appreciate that the three councillors that object to this, or three of the councillors that object to this, weren't here for the process going forward. So I understand you've got legislation. I understand there are elements of the community that have got the right legislation. But at the end of the day, it's our job, as councillors, when the community's divided, to make a decision. And my decision is to support you in your review, but also to support this process. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Tom, would you like to speak? I'll close. Councillor Wilkie, it does, if I was unclear, it does matter what you vote for. Our duty is to represent our ratepayer. Our duty is to speak to our ratepayer and our resident. And our duty is to do exactly what is prescribed of us under our Code of Conduct, under the Local Government Act.
01:34:00 And by adding that, even if we didn't vote for the whole of the motion, as it was in its entirety, that is speaking for our ratepayer. That is what our resident and our ratepayer demands of us, expects of us. It's good governance. So that is why that has been added. Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. I appreciate you supporting us in this motion. I think it's a good one. I think it's a strong one. I think it's one that will be of only benefit. We talk about not wasting our weight cracking time. Absolutely. So before we enter into a contract to expend over $900,000 of ratepayer money, let's be sure that we are absolutely in agreement. Let's be sure we've taken our community on the journey and let's be sure that it is in the best interest of our community.
01:35:00 So thank you, Councillor Jurisevic, again, and for Councils Lawrence and Finzel for your support in this one. As I said, it was one that had already come up by two, so I'm hoping that that will continue and it will be a great thing for the community and for this project. Thank you. I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Finzel, Lorentson and Stewart. Against? Councillors Wilkie, Councillor Tom, Councillor Wesson. Mr Ryan, amendment is carried. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I have a further amendment. And that amendment to add, whatever the next number is, that the CEO be requested to keep a full record of staff time and costs and ancillary expenses associated with the conduct of the review and include these costs as part of report back to Council. Mayor Stewart: Second that?
01:36:00 I'll second that. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so, I think it's really important that we do keep an eye on just what this does cost the community, and while it won't be coming out of the environment, maybe it certainly will be coming out of getting other works done for the people who need it the most, it will be an administrative cost in my consideration is unwarranted. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes, thank you, Councillor Stockwell, I support this, it supports transparency, I'm more than happy to have that recorded, and for continuity and equity throughout the organisation, this is exactly what I'm seeking with regards to the whole TNC agreement and the alliance grant, so I welcome it, bring it on, I think that the community would love to see the results of where their rate payer money is going.
01:37:00 So thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson: I support this, Councillor Stockwell, it's exactly what Councillor Stewart, Finzel and myself have been debating for the last half hour, good governance, transparency and openness. I also think it's good value if the cost comes between $20,000 and $30,000 when we've got a balance of just under $1 million still available. I think it's great pay as money to be expended on this project, I think it's money well spent. Mayor Stewart: I too support it, Councillor Stockwell, I think, again, it is another good bow in the armour, and I think it's an important one. You're right, we need to be very prudent with our costings going forward, and I'm happy to support this. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to support it. Councillors, be wary what you ask for. We start doing this for every time we ask the CEO if they want to take something, so we know what every minute and every hour and every dollar of the CEO's time is spent doing and staff's time is doing.
01:38:00 We may well create a right for our aim there. There's an element of trust that goes in this job, and there's an element of trust that the Council staff undertake the tasks that we do them prudently, within the time allowed, within the budgets that they have. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: So just keep that in mind. Look, of course I support this. There's already going to be and has been explicit, clear, adequate reporting around the cost of the project so far and to its conclusion. That's mandated, that reporting. This is, will show, will be a good exercise for Councillors to understand the cost of their extra instructions to the CEO and the staff to do this extra body of work. And I'm hoping that all Councillors will support this when it becomes final, a part of the final motion.
01:39:00 And that'll be the real test whether they believe it or not, in my opinion. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Tull. Councillor Wegener: In a way, I see once again we're asking the CEO to do our job. Perhaps he could keep a record of the costs. And then take it out of our wages. Because I kind of see this is our job to actually be on top of this stuff without going and putting it back on the staff saying, you know what, we kind of didn't read it. I don't know. We're kind of across it. But would you tell us what to do? And I think that it's really our responsibility to dig deep and do this. And to really understand this project and these projects. So I will support the motion. But I have to do it with a grain of salt. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. It's time to close.
01:40:00 All to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Melinda. That forms part of the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: So, Councillor? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I've got an amendment, please. Do I do that now? Mayor Stewart: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Or do I finish this off and then bring it up? Mayor Stewart: No, no. No, you have to. Speaker 3: Do you think it's addressed already? I believe it's adequately addressed, Councillor Finzel. But it is absolutely your call. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I'm just going to put it through. I'll second it for you, Councillor Finzel. I'm putting this amendment forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, could I ask, because we haven't seen it before. Do you want me to read it? Councillor Jurisevic: Do you want me to read it? Councillor Finzel: Can you read it out? Yes, please. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, please. And for the benefit of those online. Mayor Stewart: I haven't seen it either. Councillor Jurisevic: No, no, no. For the benefit of those online to hear. Councillor Finzel: My apologies that you haven't seen it previously.
01:41:00 It took a day to sort of get all the information to put this together, and I appreciate the staff and the extra work that they took to deliver that for me today. The items B, F, G, and H added to read, F, authorise the CEO as per the TNC Alliance Funding Agreement Clause 20.42. Amendments to this agreement may be proposed by either party at any time in writing to the other party. The terms of any amendment shall be negotiated by appointed contact officers and given effect by written agreement signed by both parties. G, contact the TNC in writing with a request to see the receipts and finance. Financials as per the Noosa Shire Council project acquittal form and H, contact the TNC to commence in writing negotiations for inclusion within the current TNC Alliance Funding Agreement and or any future TNC Alliance Funding Agreements to include the proper disclosure of all funds
01:42:00 spent to include but not limited to all receipts and financials to align with the Noosa Shire Council acquittal guidelines policy. To accurately show. Who each supplier, contractor, receiver of funds, receipts, etc. to align with all other recipients of Noosa Shire Council funding without prejudice, the need to request in writing the information if Council wishes to see it as per the current project acquittal form. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Any questions? Councillor Jurisevic: That's, that's, she's ready to answer, can you speak to the question? Councillor Finzel: I'm just putting this forward. We've covered it all. I'll just be quickly in support of good governance, equity, transparency and continuous improvement as a Council with the view of fostering good relations between Councillors, staff and community in the hope of promoting good working relationships and professionalism with a view to engender
01:43:00 trust and build resilience through the application of aspirations for transformational leadership. With a model to identify needed change with a clear focus, create a vision where outcomes provide Noosa Shire residents and visitors alike a Council they can be proud of, foster an ethical work environment to promote clear values, priorities and standards. Thank you. Build a culture with an emphasis on authenticity, cooperation and open communication with respect. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for the CEO with regard to project acquittals. Can you give us an overview or understanding with regard to project acquittals as to the information that's typically provided?
01:44:00 Does it go into depth, into the depth of the project? Supplier, contractor, receiver of funds within our funding environment? Speaker 3: Through the Mayor, Councillor Jurisevic, and without going through this process for Noosa Council yet, I can only draw on my previous experience. Funding agreements, depending on their quantum, will have different requirements with regards to how we acquit, but we would, I think, and given the quantum of funds being over the time of the project, $1.2 million, we would go quite in depth. In relation to the acquittal. So it would need to be able to see how the funds have been broken up, where they've been spent, proof of expenditure and how that then relates to the delivery of the project thereof. So my view would be is that, yes, that would absolutely be included there for that to be prescriptive within a resolution of the Council. There are no issues with that, but there are a number of elements to the prescribed requirements for this project now from the Council.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 If there's more, we're happy to receive it as officers and we'll deliver that exactly as the Council is requesting. Councillor Jurisevic: So seeing as you're not familiar with the specifics of this project, perhaps Kim online or I don't know whether anybody else at the table might be able to answer the elements of that question with regards to this project specifically, as to the detail required in the project at the moment. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair to the CEO, I do notice Trent is in the gallery. He may be able to answer any questions. He may be able to answer some questions regarding the funding acquittal. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Trent. Thank you, Trent. Speaker 4: Through the Chair. In regards to the funding acquittal and the regular reports that come through, we haven't, as I'm aware, gone through the detail of actually looking at the individual transactions of them. They provide us with a financial report, similar to other funding acquittals that we get through our grants program.
01:46:00 So I think that's something that we need to look at. So now if we were to request that, as the CEO mentioned, no different to other previous ad hoc requests that we do on interim audits or funding requests, if it's possible. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So in essence, that's how you would see this, as an audit of the acquittal process? Speaker 4: Through the Chair? Yes, it would be. Yes. So it's a similar process to what would happen for funding requests that are granted to us, where we are the grantee for a state grant. It's a separate funding arrangement. We provide our expenditure to them. And we may need to audit it time to time to provide the detail behind that. And it's a request that would come through. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And just one last question with regards to the funding acquittal, there are three payment milestones over the course of the agreement. Have we met all those milestones, Mr Chair? Are you able to answer that? Speaker 3: I can comment on that. Yeah.
01:47:00 Yeah. Speaker 2: So there, you're correct, there are three payments specified in the agreement under Section 7 of the agreement. Those payments are linked to achieving the measurable outcomes listed in Schedule A of the agreement. Today, Council has only paid one payment, which is the commencement payment. The other three payments have not yet been paid because the measurable outcomes of the State Permit has not yet been achieved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I've got a question. I think Kim, you'd be the only one who could answer it. I'm not sure if you've had prior exposure to the amendments in front of us. On the surface, they appear to be a restatement. They're a procedure under our policies and grants forms. Is there anything in there that you are seeing that would be in conflict with the terms of the current agreement
01:48:00 or anything that would require a higher level of disclosure or a higher amount of work? Or is it something that would be perceived to be just a natural part of the current agreement? Speaker 2: Well, Stockwell, I haven't seen the exact wording of the motion, amendment on the table. So I would probably need to have further consideration of that. What I would say, though, is the agreement that we, that Council put in place, the alliance agreement, was established with legal advice. Both this Council had an independent lawyer. The legal firm helped draft that. TNC also had a legal firm review it from their perspective.
01:49:00 Our corporate finance manager and corporate services director had input into the funding and financial reporting requirements. And it was determined that the alliance agreement was robust, rigorous, and had enough checks and balances. and accountabilities for this project. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. With regards to the point I'm trying to highlight for efficiency is a part of the form that you sent me today. The example form for the procurement. There is a line in there that says, if Council wishes to have further information around receipts and financials. If Council wishes, we can add those. So mainly that's what I'm focusing on. I'm not asking for, you know, is the contract secure? I'm not questioning how the contract came about. I'm not a legal person. I respect that. I'm just asking us to activate a part of the said contract. Do you think that's agreeable?
01:50:00 Speaker 2: Well, as part of the annual reporting and six-monthly reporting, TNC are required to report on all expenditure, which they do. They also report on all contracts and list all the contracts that have been undertaken and payments associated with those contracts for that reporting period. So that information is provided at both the six-monthly and annual reports already. Councillor Finzel: If I ask council to provide those forms, with what's already been paid, is the actual receipts and down to the last cent, as per other grant recipients of council monies have to provide, will I be able to find that? Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel, you've been provided with all the annual reports and six-monthly reports. They're all on public record and I've provided them to all councillors again today.
01:51:00 And at the back of each of those, six-monthly and annual reports, lists all the financials, all the expenditure against every aspect of the project. And again, also lists the contracts that have been awarded and the amount that's been awarded and whether or not it's been paid or it's still pending or it's still ongoing for that reporting period. Mayor Stewart: Kim, just on, and I think I asked this question on Tuesday, I'm looking at the annual reports of 14 September 2020. It was annual report number one on page 26. Just under the total project expenditure. And you're right, it outlines community engagement volunteering in media that $177,722 has been spent. And it says, and this is the level of detail it provides. Community engagement products, engagement coordination, subcontract for identification, contracting and management, volunteer briefings, volunteer recruitment, stakeholder meetings, personal protective equipment, media statements, media reports, etc.
01:52:00 So, I guess, can we dive, I guess, Councillor Finzel's question is, do we dive any deeper into that, who engaged the media, what were the media statements, when did they engage it, who's the media company, community engagement products, what's a community engagement product, subcontract for identification, I don't know what that means. So, I guess that's the question, can we deep dive further into information such as that which has been provided in those annual reports. Speaker 2: Council can request TNC provide further information on any information, that's part of it, a collaborative arrangement. We've got a great working relationship with TNC, so we can, you know, we can definitely request that information. I would, going back to Councillor Stockwell's original question, I would say, though, that the Partnership Alliance Funding Agreement does outline quite a bit of that.
01:53:00 We have a Blu-ray clip of us, but the TNC did tell us specifically that the purchase of goods, contracts, awarding, procurement for each party is to be done under their own organisational policies, procedures. So, that was part of the original agreement. So, it was understood that TNC would be procuring, purchasing, making payments and that they would follow their own organisational procedures, as would we. So, that was part of the original agreement. Mayor Stewart: I guess, Kim, though, I mean, it's all our documents that, you know, they're a matter of public record. They have to be. We're a council. Is it feasible that, you know, when we are putting $1.2 million into an alliance, a partnership, that I guess that information is able to be obtained with, I guess, with further detail,
01:54:00 which I think, because, I mean, I was quite unsure about what, as I said, some of those statements even meant. Sorry, just a question. Is that possible to get that further information? And if TNC say no, what recourse do we have? Councillor Wilkie: Through the mayor, we cannot. Is that an unfair inference of TNC? Mayor Stewart: No, I'm just asking, because Kim said we're... If they say yes, fantastic, that's great. I'm just, the possibility, worst case scenario is if they say, look, no, there's confidentiality associated with all those sort of things. What happens then? Speaker 3: Director C, I'll take this question. And councillors, to assist you with your decision making with this particular amendment that you have before you, it is quoting the specific clause of the funding agreement
01:55:00 that's allowing both parties at any time to have the ability to be able, to request variations or further information from each other. So, that ability is there, and would not be, I believe, would not be unreasonably withheld by either party to be able to do that. Again, as we said, this is prescriptive. Officers, I think, would have no issues in being able to look at this. And as the Director of Corporate Services said, that it draws more towards an audit. But, if this is the view of the majority of the council to be able to get this additional information to be able to act, they clause 20.4.2 of the agreement, then by all means, please, we can absolutely do that for you. But, that is something that, to help assist, we can go ahead and we could deliver this. Mayor Stewart: And just to put it on record, I have no doubt that I'm sure TNC, it's a partnership, it's an alliance, would have absolutely no problem. My question just was, what happens in this process?
01:56:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Madam Kim, would you speak into a motion or would you ask me a question? Mayor Stewart: Sorry, I'm just clarifying my position, just to make it clear, that I'm sure that that would be very forthcoming, because it is an alliance. Thank you. Karen, you're the only one who's spoken to this. Would anyone else like to speak to it? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson, please go ahead. I'll speak to the motion. As the, sorry, the amendment, as the amendment states really clearly in F, clause 20.4.2, amendments to this agreement may be proposed at any time in writing to the other party, the terms of any amendments shall be negotiated by appointed contact officers and given effect by written agreement signed by both parties. That clause was agreed to by all the parties. So the intent and essence of this amendment is simply to activate, to do exactly what
01:57:00 the parties agreed to have included as part of their arrangement. So I see no, I think this is a reasonable request and I support the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can I just ask a question? Have we just heard that F is already in the alliance agreement? Yes. That's what I've understood. So why do we need that if it's already in the alliance agreement? It's already mandated as part of the alliance agreement. It's already in effect. Why is it, it just seems superfluous for me. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I try and answer that? Councillor Wilkie: I can. Councillor Jurisevic: Because the level of detail being requested here is beyond what's in the reporting. It's a variation. It's down to an audit level of supplier, contractor, receiver funds and receipts. That's my understanding. Is that correct, councillor? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I raised this simply because today when I was asking for the process and trying to
01:58:00 identify how the acquittal process is in the organisation, I was sent the forms. What are they called? Procurement. Yeah. The procurement forms. I can't remember the name off the top of my head. And I was reading those documents. I was reading the documents. I saw this clause and I thought well let's activate that because in my opinion that provides deeper information that may help alleviate concerns in the community around the project. My intent is only to provide further information to inform community so that we can try and put to rest the concerns that people have. There is no other intent and I used a mechanism already readily available and approved through the contract by legal parties and everyone agreed I'm only pulling on a mechanism in my opinion that is available and I'm asking to authorise the CEO as per the clause.
01:59:00 That is my only intent to dig down a bit deeper to get the monies to just try and allay and provide further information. For questions arising around this project. Thank you councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could you scroll to the original motion I want to see I think it would be C or B. Mayor Stewart: Is it going? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No it's the one I'm answering. Mayor Stewart: C? No it's B. Councillor Jurisevic: Mm-hmm. Oh it's a point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The problem with the amendment is it's cumbersome. Item, if you go back to the amendment, is that F is just providing us with the clause under which B will be done, so it's not new.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 And G and H are saying the same thing. Except maybe H adds in future agreements. Yes. And to me I can't. Well, you know, as a motion it probably doesn't rise and fall on the repetitive nature of some of it. That's the problem with it is it's not clear. And so it's hard not to say, well, let's work on this a bit more. But that's the problem with it is it's not clear. I also wonder whether G and H aren't also really part of what D did, which was to review procurement and all that stuff. But in essence, in terms of asking to comply with our acquittal policy to a greater level
02:01:00 of detail, as long as we're not asking for every paperclip, et cetera, I think from my experience, that's the problem. In terms of value, I haven't got any great objection. But I just think that F and G may be superfluous. Mayor Stewart: Look, I think it's always good to err on the side of caution. And it may very well be superfluous, Councillor Stockwell, but I think it's good to have up there. We always take exactly what's written incredibly important, and it guides us going forward and guides the councillors and our council staff. I support this amendment. Again, I think it just adds weight. And it can only be in the best interests of all involved. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I know that there was a lot of work in regard to this.
02:02:00 This is the first we've all seen of it. But I certainly support it. And yeah, I'll just put it in motion. Thank you. The amendment. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I tend to concur with Councillor Stockwell. And I've usually not supported superfluous motions that are conducted above. But as this actually details the type of, the element of detail that Councillor Finzel is trying to drill down to, and the essence of that is an audit on the financials. And an audit is in keeping with the agreement. I have no problem with that. I have no problem supporting the amendment. I do have trouble with the elements of wording too, with regard to potential repetition of what we've already said. But as I said, as it drills down to the details and specifics of what is requested, I'm prepared
02:03:00 to support it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I think it's largely superfluous. We've got section D, which is involving a review of the proposal. We've got section C, which is about the procurement and administrative processes. This, we can already do a lot of that under the current agreement. I just see it as superfluous. Staff have a lot of work to do already. I just do not see the need for that particular amendment when that information could be gained under the current arrangements. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, . Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I think it's over the top. I mean we've asked the CEO to have a good look at this above. And this is drilling down further. I worry, like, are we setting a terrible example for Noosa as a no-go zone for partnerships
02:04:00 and projects in the future? I mean, we have the Olympics coming. We are going to want to have partnerships with all sorts of different countries. We're trying to promote social housing. We're working on the various alliance of the arts. This is now who we are and how we drill down and the level of scrutiny. I mean, it's one thing for transparency and it's another thing for having a reputation for unbelievable scrutiny in record keeping and going down and then go changing from council to council saying, oh, well, okay, wait a minute, we're going to drill down so hard that I think that if the Nature Conservancy is watching us tonight, I wouldn't be surprised if they took the millions of dollars and left and the reputation for being a place to come and have partnerships with the Music Council will be in shatters.
02:05:00 That's my worry. I voice it because we want to be a council that can. Work with other big groups like the Nature Conservancy, and I just have a very strong feeling like this is going to put a chilling effect on those further negotiations and partnerships in the future. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Leighton. Anyone else like to have spoken to it? Councillor Finzel, would you like to make a point of those? We'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? Ms Stewart? Yes. Speaker 2: Sorry, the amendment refers to the wrong clause in the agreement. Mayor Stewart: Hello? Speaker 2: Do you want to? Do you want to correct that? It's 20.5, not 20.4.2. Thank you. Speaker 1: And I've just extracted that from council's document register. So I'm reading it. So I pointed that out. Can we do that on the run here? Councillor Jurisevic: Or do we have to turn around and actually vote this down? We better check the document.
02:06:00 Speaker 1: We can't change it. We can't change it. I've got the executed agreement in front of me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I know, it's just the Standing Orders doesn't allow you once it's been moved from segment, oh, I can double-check, but it used to be. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, in the interest of accuracy, I mean, it was just coding the wrong clause. Would it not be with the approval of the second amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, that's what it used to be. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yes. Go with it, don't you? Councillor Finzel, are you happy to? Well, we're only going to re-prosecute and go through it all again, so, yeah, I've changed it to 20.5. Are you happy with that? Are you okay to do that? Well, I'd have to read the contract. The officers are advising you that. Okay, yeah, sure, that's fine. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: And I'll move that too on the second amendment. Speaker 3: So the approval of the move on the second amendment. So 20.5. Mayor Stewart: 20.5. 20.5, Kim, just to confirm. Speaker 1: Correct. Mayor Stewart: 20.5. It was 20.5. 20.5. Speaker 1: I asked Kim to change it. Thank you, this is a bit crooked. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Kim. Thank you, Sean. That motion is...
02:07:00 I haven't put the vote in yet. I haven't put the vote in yet. Goodness me. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Finzel, Lorentson and Stewart. Against? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wolfe. The motion is... The amendment is carried. That brings us back to the suspended motion. Okay, I just need to add in this. We'll give you a minute. Alinda, please. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just in terms of it, I know there was one thing changed. It had to be the agreement of council to change that motion. The council. We did it. So it shall not be withdrawn or modified without the consent of the mover, seconder and councillor.
02:08:00 Mayor Stewart: So just confirming that everyone, we have changed 20.4 to 20.5 on recommendation of staff, being the correct clause. Speaking in order of order, please. Call the... I just have to get it. Are you at one, Alinda? Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm just going to take this. That's the final one, then. That's the final, yes. The suspended motion. Yep. Eight parts. Eight. Speaker 3: Eight parts. Okay. Mayor Stewart: We'll put the... No more amendments? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Mayor Stewart: The only person who has spoken to it is Councillor Wolkie.
02:09:00 And... Councillor Wolkie. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will, just to address some statements in the debate that I believe are things that should be reviewed and perhaps challenged. So there was one statement made in Monday's committee meeting that there was a comment that there is a major risk that it's going to fail. That didn't appear on Monday at all. Tuesday. Tuesday. There was an acknowledgement that any project in the risk, any project in the river is subject to risk and any ecosystem rehabilitation. The extent of that risk has been heavily modified by the extent of science and design and world experts involved in this process. So the confidence level and the risk is not one that I consider to be major.
02:10:00 The other one, which was quite amusing, was a suggestion that because a business organisation writes to council with the views that they've canvassed, the views of all their members, a suggestion that 1,100 businesses support that position is laughable. Only today I've talked to one person involved in the business group who had a diametrically opposed view. Thank you. This was a lobbying campaign that was organised by a select group to try and derail a project. It's perfectly legitimate, but let's call it for what it is. It's an organised lobbying campaign to derail a project from entities within the Shire. Their ability to talk on behalf of all their members will reflect the amount of consultation made with their members.
02:11:00 I'll stand to be corrected if each one of them had consulted and got a majority view in their deliberations. I think it's important to understand that when we look at what our visitors want in terms of TripAdvisor, that the Noosa River is number three. The beach, the national park, the river. It's clear it is one of the Shire's greatest economic assets. It's clear from the science that it's biodiversity, abundance of fish and other river species is in significant decline. It is clear that if we don't do anything, that that will get worse with the impacts of climate change. And that the benefits that many generations before now, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get, we've been able to get. have enjoyed by being able to catch a fish, a variety of fish, a size of fish, will decrease.
02:12:00 And this project seeks to adjust that. It seeks to make one small step back towards the abundant ecosystem that this place enjoyed for tens of thousands of years since the river stopped being a wetland and started being a river when the last ice age was over. Under custodianship of the traditional owners, oysters were central to the local culture. And we can't stand up here and say we want to do reconciliation plans and to acknowledge the traditional owners. We don't respect one of their key aspects of their culture and they support this project. Really important to understand, it has to be, you're willing to invest in those works. Thank you. So this project is an excellent project. It's coming under more scrutiny than previously.
02:13:00 I wish that the, I'm confident that within weeks we will have approvals and within months we'll have the restoration works commencing. I look forward to that day. I look forward to the reports in 10 and 20 years time of the benefits below in common. Mayor Stewart: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. And I'd like to speak to some standard notions. Councillor Judd. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah I will. There's an element that I didn't mention the other day and I think it's pertinent to mention. And that's the element of structure in the river. I talked about Ural and Ringtail Forest comparing a land based restoration project with a water based restoration project. One of the elements that any fisherman knows. And anybody who likes oysters knows. Is that what they appreciate is structure.
02:14:00 You won't find oysters on a seabed. Just sitting there lying around. They need structure. They need reef. One of the reasons that you see old vessels being sunk out in the ocean is to create structure. For fish habitat. For fish growth. For fish development. Where do fish come from? All of our fishermen go offshore. They go to the reefs. Structure. Where you find fish. Where you find oysters. Where you find cogs. Where you find all of those elements. That we're talking about being able to restore here in the river. Without structure, we won't see those elements being restored in the river. We won't see those elements increasing in the river. Because over years that structure has been removed. And that's the point of all of this. The studies that have been undertaken. And what they've told us. That without structure. That's why they're gone. And I've seen the essences of.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 I've crushed oyster shells. And where they've been used. Around the Shire in the past historically. And what they've been used for. And that's the. The proof is in the pudding. But the proof in the pudding as a fisherman. Is where do I throw my line? I don't throw my line in the water. I throw it towards structure. I look for the tree that has fallen. The branch that's in there. The structure that's in the river. That the fish congregate to. I look at the rock. That has been. That is there. Either man made. Or has been there for eternity. And I see that structure has crustacean going on. I see bivalves. I see all the essences. Of marine life. Around structure. And what this project is. Ultimately about. Is the restoration. Of structure. So that marine life can thrive. Marine life thrives. On structure. Places for small fish to hide. It's food sources. It's algae to grow on.
02:16:00 It's all of those elements. That you can't have. Without that structure. So for me. This project is a no brainer. There is no way it can fail. I've seen. Fish. Crabs. Crustaceans. Bivalves. All of it. On tyres. That have been disposed. I've seen it on. Rubbish. I've seen hermit crabs take up. The essence of. Broken bottles. I've seen fish living. In waste and. They all provide. A form of habitat. And structure. So if we provide. Good structure. Well. Thought out. And processed. Structure. Based on 30 years. Of science. And. Understanding. Of. Oyster restoration. Projects. We will. Restore. Fish habitat. We will. Restore. Oysters. To the Noosa River. And continue. And give them. The ability. And the structure. They need. To thrive. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
02:17:00 Councillor Joe. Councillor Wilkie: Tom. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to speak. Because. I want to address. Some of. Councillor. Tom's. Comments. Because. They. Concern me. You raised. Two issues. And. I noted them. First. Is. That. What's. Happening. Tonight. May. Compromise. Our. Relationship. With. The. Nature. Conservancy. And. The other. Issue. You raised. Is. What. We're. Coming. Across. As. What. We. Represent. Tom. Really. Good. Points. But. I. Need. To. Also. Hope. That. The. Nature. Conservancy. Also. When. If. They're. Listening. Also. Understands. Or. Reads. Maybe. Something. A. Little. Bit. Different. That. What's.
02:18:00 Perfect. I. Hope. That. The. T. And. C. Respect. This. Representation. That. We. Are. Diverse. And. Courageous. And. Sometimes. We. Just. Need. To. Step. Up. I. Respect. The. Majority. Decision. Of. This. Council. At. The. End. Of. The. Day. That's. Our. Job. That's. Our. Role. But. Our. Job. Is. Also. To. Understand. Who. We. Represent. And. Why. We're. Sitting. Around. This. Table. So. I'm. Hoping. That. The. Nature. Conservancy. Can. Also. Understand. The. Other. Side. Of. This. Argument. Mayor Stewart: Thank. You. I. Want. To. Be. Supporting. This. Motion. In. Full. I. Will. Certainly. Support.
02:19:00 Aspects. Of. It. I. Think. That. We've. Had. Nearly. An. Hour. And. Half. Of. Debate. I. Think. That. The. Substantial. Motion. Is. Stronger. I. Think. It's. Better. Thanks. To. Everyone. Around. This. Table. And. Their. Input. And. Those. Amendments. Made. I. Support. Those. Amendments. Nice. For. The. Inclusion. At. End. Of. The. Day. This. Project. And. Some. Stand. Of. Motion. Before. Us. Is. Can. You. Please. Go. Down. Authorize. A. CEO. To. Commence. Negotiations. With. The. Nature. Conservancy. Regarding. The. Restoration. Alliance. And. That's. Something. I. Can't. Support. Because. At. End. Of. The. Day. It's. Still. A. Risk. It's. A. Risk. To. 1.2. Million. Dollars. Of. Pay. Monies. We. Heard. Tonight. That. If. We. Wanted. To. Start. This. Project. Tomorrow. We. Can't. Because. We. Still. Don't. Have. The. Necessary. Perhaps. It's. Only. One. And. We're. Waiting. On. Professional. Works. As. An. Addition. But. We. Still. Can't. Start. That. Project. Tomorrow. The. Opportunity. Costs. Are. Significant. I. Mentioned. On. Tuesday. What. We. Could.
02:20:00 Use. And. We. Have. To. Think. About. What. We. Do. All. Environmental. Projects. All. Things. That. Will. Our. River. System. As. Councillor Wilkie. Said. It. Is. So. Important. It. Is. What. Our. Visitors. Love. To. See. We. Can. Obtain. Information. And. Key. Evidence. Around. Concerns. Regarding. Burgess. Creek. We. Know. The. Concerns. The. Community. Have. Around. That. And. Can. Analyze. These. Issues. In. Regard. In. Conjunction. With. Unity. Water. See. And. None. Of. That. Is. In. My. Opinion. Risking. The. Success. Or. Failure. Of. A. Project. That. Is. Something. That. Something. That.
02:21:00 Can. Delay. So. That's. Why. In. Regard. To. This. Project. I. Still. Believe. There. Are. Risk. Associated. I. Still. Believe. There. Has. Been. Long. Delays. And. Although. We. Potentially. Close. Start. The. Project. Tomorrow. Can. We. Start. Next. Week. Can. We. Start. Next. Month. I'm. Not. Sure. And. It. Is. Around. There. Are. Infinite. Projects. We. Could. Do. With. Finite. Expenditure. I'd. Like. To. See. That. Finite. Expenditure. Or. Monies. Go. To. Projects. That. As. I. Said. That. Can. Begin. Immediately. And. Can. Help. Our. Environment. Immediately. So. As. This. Stands. In. A. Full. Motion. I. Won't. Be. Supporting. It. Because. Of. Paragraph. B. Councillor Jurisevic: Questions. So. You.
02:22:00 Might. Be. Authorized. To. Commence. Negotiations. But. Can. You. Complete. Negotiations. Before. Those. Commits. Have. Been. Issued. Speaker 3: Through. The. Mayor. Councillor. Jurisevic. My. Understanding. Is. That. The. Last. Permit. Is. Well. Progressed. Is. The. Advice. That. I've. Received. And. It. Is. In. A. Draft. Format. We. Haven't. Received. That. But. This. Work. Will. Endeavor. To. Do. All. That. We. Can. But. We. Are. Waiting. On. The. State. Permit. Operational. Works. That. Will. Go. Through. A. Separate. And. Independent. Process. Through. Our. Development. Planning. And. Assessment. Team. And. Then. The. Should. This. Become. The. Resolved. Position. Of. Undertaking. All. Of. The. Requirements. That. We. Have. Within. The. Motion. That. Is. Before. Us. At. The. Moment. So. There. Could.
02:23:00 Be. Some. Time. In. Between. We. May. Not. Be. Able. To. Have. This. Completed. By. The. Time. All. Of. The. Permits. Are. Provided. But. Does. Authorise. Me. That. Item. Be. To. Negotiate. Another. Delegated. Authority. Our. Team. Will. Do. That. Best. Councillor Jurisevic: Through. Chair. With. Regard. To. Works. In. An. Area. Like. Burgess Creek. That. Involves. Works. With. Queensland. Parks. And. Wildlife. Service. Land. And. State. Controlled. Beach. And. All. The. Rest. Of. It. Any. Other. Project. That. Involves. Land. That. We. Are. Only. The. Custodians. Of. Would. We. Need. To. What. Other. Projects. Along. Those. Lines. Require. Us. To.
02:24:00 Councillor Finzel: Look, it's a real challenge to say the least. I'll hold my ground again in support of good governance, equity, transparency and continuous improvement at council with the view of fostering good relations between council and staff and community with the hope of promoting the good working relationships and professionalism with a view to engender trust, build resilience,
02:25:00 through the application of aspirations for transformational leadership. Given what has been included tonight in the debate, I am prepared to trust the process and I will vote for this and trust the process. And hopefully the goals towards the aspirational leadership will be seen through this project. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Karen. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. Look, it's been a great debate tonight. It's been robust. It's been extensive. It's really, it's changed the motion before us. We've all had an opportunity to test the veracity of the amendments coming before us.
02:26:00 Look, it's clear that the motion is going to be passed and Noosa Council will still continue to support the oyster reef project and will be in partnership. I'm not going to go on about the values and the benefits of the oyster reef projects which are happening around the world. TNC is leaving. That's well established and that's clear. What I will say, it's been the democratic process that these amendments have been passed. There's a multi-part motion before us. I'm going to respect that, but that's the collective wish of this table. I am really, really moved that Councillor Finzel is also going to trust and respect the democratic process and vote in favour of the substandard motion. That's all we can ask for, that we act in good faith when we're around this table. And I believe each and everybody is for their own specific reasons, and I mean that.
02:27:00 It's not easy to be in an adversarial position with contrary views on an issue like this where a lot is at stake on either side. So I respect each and every Councillor around the table for their contribution here tonight. And I will, of course, be supporting the motion. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. We can put it to a vote. All in favour? Councillors Grusevich, Stockwell, Wegener, Finzel, Wilkie against. Councillors Lorentson and Stewart. Substandard motion is passed. Would anyone like a comfort break? Yes, please. We might have a five-minute comfort break. Thank you.
150 minutes in ¶
02:35:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready. We are ready to 7.35. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Mr. CEO. I'm going to reopen the meeting. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. Mayor Stewart: Okay, thank you. All in favour? That's me. Thank you. We are now back. Item number seven on our agendas is the further report for material change in this application for a roadside stall at 201 Mary River Road, Cooroy. Report eight. Application for reconfiguration of a lot, one into eight lots, at 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroy, Bar. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable
02:36:00 conflict of interest in this matter due to my personal 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, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the revised motion and I'll read it out because it was not the same as what's in the agenda. And that council note the report by the development plans of the general committee meeting dated 19th April 2022 regarding application number AL21000001, for a reconfiguring of a lot, one into eight lots at Glenridge Drive, Cooroy, Bar, and note the applicant has stopped the decision period pursuant to the Planning Act 2016. No need to talk. Mayor Stewart: That's lovely, thank you. Does anyone else like to speak to this?
02:37:00 All right, I will put the motion to vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Elinda. Scott, could you please come again? Councillor Jurisevic: I can do. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Do we have any new chairs to bounce us up out of the chairs so we can get the standing position? A little shock. Well, not the way you think. Speaker 3: No. Mayor Stewart: Oh, no. I've got nothing in there. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Sprung. Absolutely sprung. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Welcome back, councillors. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Mayor Stewart: We won't ask the councillors any questions. All right. Item number nine. Report nine. Phrygian Beach Surf Life Saving Club will at least request councillors. Councillor Lorentson: I just, in our marathon general meeting the other day, I forgot to acknowledge, and I
02:38:00 would like to acknowledge the community groups that played an integral part. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Madam Chair. Oh. Point of order. The motion has been moved. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Councillor Lorentson: The councilor is speaking to the motion. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Excuse me. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, would you like to read this? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, I will. Yes, I'll take it. Mayor Stewart: I'll take it. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make this very brief. I just want to take the opportunity to thank, personally, the community groups that helped revive the Phrygian Beach Surf Club. Their tireless efforts need to be recognised and applauded, and I missed the opportunity to thank them at the general meeting, so I'm just taking this opportunity to do so. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. I'll take it. No, no. Councillor Jurisevic: I did take it at the general meeting. I didn't. Would I take the opportunity to say, here, here, I can do it? Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Joe. Yes, I'd like to reinforce that, too.
02:39:00 It has been a great community effort, great collaboration, and I'm really excited to see what the Phrygian Beach New Surf Life Saving Club will deliver over the next 10 years. I think it will deliver anything the last three years to go by. It will deliver great things. So, this is a great day. Speaker 5: Anyone else? Mayor Stewart: No? Okay. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to close? Councillor Lorentson: No. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thanks. We'll go. Item 10, or Report 10, is Financial Performance Report March 2022. Councillor Wilkie: Move to the general committee's recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Second. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Anonymous. Thank you, Linda. We're now up to item 9 on page 29 of the agenda. We have one report direct to the ordinary meeting, and that is a further report for operational
02:40:00 work described title works at 10 to 12 Ravenwood Road, Noosa Heads. We have our Manager of Development Assessment, Kerry, here. Thank you, Kerry. Could you give us a summary of this new report, please, Kerry? Speaker 5: Yes. This follows on the report. It follows on from discussions at general committee where councillors requested an alternative motion for approval of the jetty with conditions, as well as some additional details around what happened at the time this jetty was built in 1995, as well as written advice from the neighbours at 8 Ravenwood. So a motion has been prepared for council for approval if council would like to approve this application tonight. The additional information that we have found is that an environmental health officer appears to have undertaken an inspection of the jetty in 1995, and the comment on the file is okay.
02:41:00 So pretty limited detail. Obviously, going back some years ago as to what, but it's certainly the message that it was okay at the time. Just reviewing the conditions of approval for the jetty, I find that difficult that the officer has concluded that at the time, because it appears to me contrary to the conditions of approval. Nevertheless, there was the notation on the file of okay. The neighbours at 8 Ravenwood Place, who are impacted by this jetty and the additional length, have indicated that it was okay. They are pleased to see the jet ski removed, which is proposed by the applicant, that they wish for the jetty to be modified and reduced in length, because it has impacted their hands to build their own separate jetty extending out from their property.
02:42:00 So they feel that because their jetty was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans, it's reasonable for council to ask the applicant to remove it. So they're not going to modify the jetty as built. So their recommendation to council still remains the same, and that is that council refuse the application because it is contrary to the planning scheme and this jetty impacts on the space of the neighbour next door, 8 Ravenwood Place. Councillor Wegener: The water that the jetty goes in. The water that the jetty goes in. Is that right? Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. Councillor Wegener: The water that the jetty goes into is public property.
02:43:00 It's not private property. It's public property. And I'll just speak to the motion. Okay, sure. Mayor Stewart: Oh, nobody's moved it. Councillor Jurisevic: Nobody's moved it. Yeah. Which are we moving or seconding? The approval or the review? Mayor Stewart: This is for approval. This is for approval. Approval, yeah. Is that correct? That's the... Speaker 5: The recommendation is for refusal. Refusal, yes. But our officers have to pass a alternative motion for approval, should council wish to. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Which one are you moving to? The refusal. The refusal. I'll move the refusal. Mayor Stewart: The refusal. Thank you, councillor. Councillor Wegener: I'll second it. I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I will move it because Dojetty goes into public property, property goes three meters into public property and as I said before my policy is you can't have private a private enterprise going into public without an overwhelming public interest and it may seem unfair to the applicants but to me it's not an overwhelming public interest to allow
02:44:00 private property to go into public property. Mayor Stewart: Thanks Tom. Anyone else like to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. Any Dojetty will go into the orders of the State and what this actual as constructed has gone into the order to stay contrary to the approval of the original conditions which stipulated a boundary within that state waters that honours convention and the convention is set up in a way that it provides a form of equity to each owner in fronting a canal or a waterway. In this case we've seen that it wasn't built in accordance with the approval at the time. It is built in a way that does impact on the envelope that is generated in the waterway.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 It is a way that is generally provided or agreed to by the State for the neighbouring property. The neighbouring property has indicated that it is still their desire to ensure the neighbour's duty is within that accepted norm. Understanding that the passage of time and perhaps a lackadaisical inspection back in the 90s has complicated this matter I still think we have to consider it on its merits and that is the fact that we have to consider it on its merits. We've got an application today for a jetty that doesn't comply with the accepted norm for jetties in state waters. Mayor Stewart: Can I just ask a question? There is a lot of ambiguity around the Environmental Health Officer and what was found in it that said okay on the document. I understand this is a long time ago, it's hard. So with that okay, would that mean he, the person in question would have gone, looked
02:46:00 at the jetty, perhaps not had the plans with it and said oh that looks okay, come back and put it on the file as okay? I'm not sure. I'm just wondering how, you know, he would have, would they have had to inspect the jetty as it was in its finished form to then write the okay? Speaker 5: The file reads as though there was an inspection by the officer but I don't have any other detail. It just says okay. Mayor Stewart: And the plans, I guess, when you look at the plans in their original format, they actually are the same shape, aren't they? I mean it may not be that obviously it's longer but if you were to do a quick look and I guess you're on the next bird or you're in a hurry, you could mistake it as oh that looks right, okay. Speaker 5: Yes, it could well have happened that way. They may not have measured it up and it's the same shape, it's just three metres longer and so they may not have picked it up on their inspection. That's how it appears to me and why it's signed as okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion.
02:47:00 We've got a 1995 approval that says it's okay. We've also got a state assessment and a referral agency, SARA, that set out conditions of approval and I won't talk to all the details. All the conditions but I will highlight a couple. That the structure allows for the safe navigation of other ships or restricts safe access to or from neighbouring structures. It does. I think all the councillors were privy to some information from the applicant's town planner which clearly shows that safe navigation is possible and safe access is possible. So in my opinion it's just not fair, reasonable or equitable to then therefore request a jetty to be modified given a that it's got a 1995 approval, given b that the state assessment
02:48:00 and referral agency have also given it approval subject to conditions which the jetty complies with. So it's, in my opinion, not fair, reasonable. No. It's not fair, reasonable and equitable to request that the jetty be modified. And it's also not fair, reasonable and equitable to request an applicant to undertake regular dredging. I'm also concerned that we may be also opening ourselves up to legal challenge. For this reason, I won't be supporting the refusal. Mayor Stewart: I concur with what Councillor Lorentson said. I won't be supporting the refusal for that. We do have that document. However, I don't think that that's the case. We're not sure of the circumstances that arrived. We have a document that says the word okay. The applicants are getting rid of their ski, their jet ski construction that will be removed.
02:49:00 And that is in good faith for the neighbour. I know that that was something the neighbour requested. The concerns I have was that the people who have purchased the property, the people who have purchased the property, will be unduly under duress if they have to remove it through no fault of their own. As I said, the approval, despite how it got there, when it got there, how it got there, or why, it says okay. And that's the only piece of evidence we have to go by. So we have to take it on face value. Similarly, if they were to remove the jetty or be required to bring it back, we have seen that there is minimal water flow. It would actually be banked. Any boat. And it would be pretty much non-feasible, non-usable, non-workable. And that to actually make it work, they would require a quarterly, or after every significant weather event, some form of dredging, which again could cost a considerable amount of
02:50:00 money, which again causes undue stress and costings on the applicant, who really is in many ways the innocent party in all of this. We have seen that. That the state, they looked at the safety, and they had the seven conditions imposed, and they were happy with that to proceed as long as those conditions were adhered with. A concern that we had on Tuesday, and one which we've all seen aerial footage of now, was that whether or not that number eight would have access to their jetty with a bigger boat. And we have seen aerial footage that two pontoon boats, side-by-side, were able to actually quite happily live there together. So they're not just constrained with a small tinny. They can actually get a much bigger boat in. So their access isn't constrained in regard to a very small boat. So I also too am concerned about potential legal implications if we refuse this on the
02:51:00 basis of the evidence before us. So I won't be supporting the recommendation for refusal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question Kerri. They have a 1994. A 1994 applicant, 1994. Yeah. Approval. So, the owners at that time were given an approval. Oh, sorry. Speaker 5: 94. 94. Councillor Wilkie: Were given an approval from the councillor, correct? But it's contrary, the approval they were given, by a council staff, was contrary to what we saw in the bar at that time. Speaker 5: The approved plans show a similar shaped jetty to what we're currently considering,
02:52:00 but the approved plans were 6 metres long. The current plans are 9 metres. So they did not build the jetty in accordance with the approved plans. It's 3 metres longer. Councillor Wilkie: That's what I thought. So they don't actually have a 1995 approval for the jetty in its current form? No, that's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does the 1995 approval still stand? Speaker 5: It is not a development approval under the Planning Act, so it's not a continuing approval. Because it was under a local law, I believe, and a policy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the application before us today in the planning approval, which should be assessed on the criteria for planning as it exists today, and therefore the appeal would be
02:53:00 against the application being refused on current day's permissions. Is that correct? Speaker 5: That's correct. It is a bound assessment against the current planning scheme codes. Councillor Wilkie: So the structure that's actually there is still inconsistent, but it's still a bound assessment with what the codes were back in 1994 as well. Speaker 5: Yes, that's right. It's inconsistent with the policy at the time, back in 1994, what's there. Councillor Wilkie: So it never had an approval? Speaker 5: What's there never had an approval. That's right. Councillor Wegener: Concerning the sand, is there evidence that there's been a sand build-up underneath the dock since that time? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I answer that? Because I've actually asked the question of the occupant with regard to that,
02:54:00 as to whether any dredging has actually taken place with the current structure as it is. And the response I received from RG Strategic was, I have checked with the owners and they have advised they have had to dredge twice in the period of their ownership in six years, in the current format. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, in regards to the 1994 approval, is it possible that an approval, while it's been approved, was okayed and the oversight, the extra three metres, wasn't picked up? Speaker 5: Well, I think that's what we've said. The notes on the file indicate that there appears to be an inspection, a site inspection, and then the note just says okay. I guess my advice to you is that yeah, I don't consider that the officer had picked up, but it just didn't match the approved plans, because the conditions in that approval were fairly specific around the approved plans.
02:55:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, according to the owner in 1994, the JDS Constructors was lawful. If that wasn't picked up, he's got a certificate saying that it was approved. Speaker 5: No certificate was issued. He has no certificate. But I understand that an owner may well assume that if a councilor has said okay. Councillor Wegener: If the owner that brought this to our attention now has a dock, but if that dock gets destroyed or something and they want to put a dock on their own property, would they have grounds for a legal battle with us for approving it? If we do approve it, would they have a legal argument against us for approving something that actually blocks them from having a dock from their own land?
02:56:00 Speaker 5: Well, I think there is an avenue in terms of good governance to make that sort of appeal. There can be an application for a declaration into the Planning and Environment Court that that approval given by council is so, you know, no reason for it to be approved. There's no reason for it to be approved. Council would have given that approval, but that's a very hard task to make. So I would suggest that there's not much of a legal avenue for the owners of 8 Ravenwood to make that sort of application if council approves this application before them today. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, from what we've seen, the area footage, they're not blocked, are they? I mean, the photo up there, they can fit a pontoon boat in and out, and they can get in and out of their actual waterfront property with the jetty as it currently stands.
02:57:00 Speaker 5: The owners of 8 Ravenwood approached council some time ago. That's how we became aware of this. They wished to build a jetty out from their property. And through that process, we became aware that what was built next door was non-compliant with the approved plans. So it does prevent them from building a jetty directly out from their property. It's not really possible given the configuration of this jetty. They have chosen to share with the neighbour and build a shared jetty with the neighbour on the other side, but that's not what they wanted to do. And, you know, the email we've received from the owner for the purpose of this council meeting is their preference for the jetty to be modified, because they still wish to have their own jetty in front of their Deputy Mayor Stockwell: property. We're dealing with the refusal of Operational Works. The question is, can we
02:58:00 approve legally if councils want to, considering it's only an Operational Works approval that doesn't meet the performance outcome in the Waterways Work Code. So the Waterways Work Code under PO9, the two relevant conditions it's not meeting is prescribed type of works are designed inside to ensure, A, they are contained within the prolongation of the boundaries of the lot, and B, that when a vessel is burst, it does not encroach over the prolongation of the boundaries of the lot. If it doesn't meet the performance outcome, is there a higher level of application Speaker 5: required? If a development doesn't meet the specific outcome of the code, you go to the overall outcomes of the code and test it against those overall outcomes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you can still do that as an Operational Works? It doesn't respect the high level? Speaker 5: Yes. And the Planning Act allows for the code assessment for an application to be
02:59:00 approved despite some non-compliances with the code. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can you repeat that? I was trying to resolve. Speaker 5: The Planning Act for a code-assessable application allows council to approve an application, where there are some non-compliances with the code. So council is not prohibited legally from doing so. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, in terms of encroachment over boundary lines, how far does the jetty actually encroach in number 8 Raven Woods boundary? Speaker 5: Sorry, can we just get the image up as well? I'm not sure I have some measurements for you tonight, but we can have a look at on the area. Is it range? Councillor Lorentson: Range is probably where I'm going with it. My computer's shut down. I think I had that information somewhere. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Which area are you talking more about? The one we had in the picture. Speaker 5: In the Planning and Environment Agenda on page 75, there's an area.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Well, I think of it as quite major, because it prevents the people, the owners of 8 Ravenwood, from building a jetty directly from their property. So I would consider it major. I don't know the measurements though, Councillor Muriel. I'm gathering from the response from the Councillor Jurisevic: owners of 8 Ravenwood that the element of the jetty that they've constructed at the moment may not be the final outcome that they were trying to achieve in their original intake with the jetty. And this may be a compromise or maybe an interim jetty until this is resolved. Is that your understanding from speaking with the applicant? I'm sorry, the next one.
03:01:00 Speaker 5: Yes. It's not their first preference in what they wanted to construct on the site. Whether council refuses this application and the jetty is modified, they proceed to do a different jetty, well, I'm not sure. It's okay. Mayor Stewart: The jetty that we see where the grass is, that's a shared jetty between 8 and the neighbour on the left. That's correct. And so they constructed that, but that wasn't their first preference. That's right. Okay. And they constructed that after they had moved in and they knew the constraints and they, well, I guess that's a hard question for you to ask. But the jetty on the right that we're debating has been there since the early 90s and the owners of that, that is a more recently constructed jetty. So they, I guess, would have been aware of the jetty next door when they were purchasing the house and constructing. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, that's correct. So Kerry, on page 75, and I may be misreading this. I've got, it encroaches the boundary by
03:02:00 0.17. Is that correct? Am I reading that correctly? Speaker 5: Sorry, I'm just not sure where you are. Councillor Jurisevic: Have a look at the diagram there. It shows the 0.17. Councillor Lorentson: So is that the encroachment area, 0.17? Speaker 5: No. So that doesn't tell you the whole story. So typically the prolongation is measured from both boundaries. Oh yes, I'm sorry. This is number eight. So that is correct. That is correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's only when they park the boat on the boundary. Speaker 5: That's right. And that's the issue. By going so close to the boundary, then you have the boat on that side over in, I guess, that water space for number eight. Councillor Lorentson: But the actual encroachment is actually minor then, not major. Speaker 5: I would agree the actual encroachment is minor, but I think the impact is quite significant. Councillor Lorentson: Is that relevant, Kerry?
03:03:00 Speaker 5: It is. It is for me in that we have setbacks of, from that prolongation boundary for jetty. So the planning scheme seeks to have, you know, a 1.5 metre setback from that prolongation to allow, you know, to ensure there's not this conflict occurring and boats aren't crossing over in front of other properties. So whilst it says, you know, 0.17, which seems like a minor encroachment, the encroachment is, yeah, the standard of one and a half metre setback from that prolongation. Councillor Lorentson: So I'm confused. Why? Why did SARA then in their assessment approve the development application? And why did it say, so the reasons for its decision was that the structure allows for the safe navigation of other ships or restrict safe access to or from neighbouring structures. That's sort of, I don't know, I feel assured that maybe I've just, I've given a lot of weight to the
03:04:00 referral agency. Speaker 5: I think it becomes clearer if we have a look at the referral agency response and their advice in attachment two, because they are looking at the navigational corridor. So that's the corridor of the canal. They're not looking at the issues between individual properties and in their advice, they're actually pointing out this issue to council and saying, you should give it consideration because it's impacting, you know, the amenity for them. So they're looking at the bigger picture in terms of navigational corridor in the canal. They're not looking at individual property issues if they're leaving that to council. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, you weren't able to read out that element where you're saying that's what the referral agency said? Speaker 5: Yeah, we did have it ready to put up on the screen so we can just go to that if you don't want to copy it. Was that in that attachment? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Right the other day. Speaker 5: Yeah. I can read it, but you may wish to read it yourself.
03:05:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's getting too late. Speaker 5: Who, for me or you? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Probably like a big-time story you put us to sleep through. Speaker 5: That one, yeah, that there. So if we look at point three, they specifically make this point. So if you look particularly at the last two sentences, it says whilst this is clear of the navigation corridor. Yeah. It may impact current and future managing access to the adjoining property, which is what officers are raising, and recommend that this be considered by council, at least as a manager's council. Councillor Wilkie: Look, just to move this along, I'll speak to the motion. I'm going to support it. I think we really need to fix this problem. Now, the G is not compliant. Because there are flow-on effects in the future. It's already caused. The two adjoining properties. The two adjoining neighbours to come up with a sub-optimal solution.
03:06:00 What happens when they both sell, they've both got a shared jetty. The next occupant of eight, Ravenwood, may say this is not acceptable to me. I want to press their rights. Will this come back again to the council? The occupant of the adjacent place to number eight may also not be happy with the arrangement. They may want their own jetty as well. I just think unless the problem is solved at the source, for all time into the future, it could keep recurring. And if we don't do the right thing now, I'm not satisfied that the answer is going to be will council approve something that was not compliant. I think we should fix the problem at the source here now. I know there are, it's unfortunate for the current owner, but dredging is quite a common practice for jetty owners. In these canals and as is jetty upgrades.
03:07:00 And I think one is, one is needed here for the issue of, I mean, equity for the neighbours. Yeah, I think fix the problem now. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Finzel or Councillor Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sitting on the jetty on this one. Yeah, that document was the one document I was waiting, I have been waiting to see what approval was given in the past. I'm going to apply the pub test on this one. I understand the elements of the things, but something's been in place 28 years, it's probably due for renewal before too long, so there'll be an opportunity for staff to turn around
03:08:00 and if they come back and want to revise it, to revise it then. So there's still scope to, to pull it back into line when it reaches the end of its lifespan. Being in those canal waters, they're quite often, they're quite often undertaken. The element that I was waiting on was that, that piece of paper that said, okay, I think any reasonable person would expect as an owner of a property, that that was an approval by council and that the officer had done his due diligence and undertaken a reasonable, reasonable amount of work to ensure that he's doing his job properly. And whilst the, the notation is all we've got to go by in 28 years ago, I think it would hold up, I think, I think it's got the potential to hold up. Yeah. And so given those elements of it, and I understand the implications for the owner of number 8 Ravenwood, and I, I do, do empathise, there is something they have in place.
03:09:00 So they can utilise the canals and they have got, got capacity to, to, to work then. Even if it is only an interim, an interim solution for them, but the notation of okay on that paperwork to me turns around and says that someone did their due diligence and the owners can reasonably expect that they had approval and that that approval had they searched, done their searches and done their due diligence would have been, would have been approved. So I'm not going to support the refusal. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, Kerry? If my memory serves me right, in the Pelican hire case, did the judge not rely on notations from . . . Notations on council building reports? Why, why does that, your, your point, Jo, strikes a chord with me?
03:10:00 I think you're most right to call it a record, that's all I'm asking. Speaker 5: I, I don't recall that, primarily with the Pelican case that we lost. The judge found that despite council seeking, when they approved that jetty, there was no sufficient room for boats to be, to moor inside the, the lease area, we had to acknowledge that there were other size boats that wouldn't have fitted in the lease area, even if the jetty had been built in accordance with the group's plans. Mm-hmm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Speaker 5: So that seemed to be the primary finding, that the judge could, couldn't reconcile the fact that some boats would have been outside anyway council with the jetty that you've approved, if it had been built, and so found that it was, they couldn't exist to make someone re-modify a jetty when it wasn't going to achieve what council is seeking anyway in full. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
03:11:00 Council, things that have been spoken about. Councillor Finzel: Oh, this is a, a challenging one. Yeah. I just think, if I look at it objectively, I think each property, if you look at it objectively, should have the capacity to support the development of a jetty if the owners so desire now or into the future, without a major impact to the amenity of other users or neighbours. So I will be supporting the staff in their recommendation. Councillor Wegener: Can we go back to the photos? Go back to page 74 and 75, the two photos in the, yeah, there we go. Do you please go to page 74? When I look at that, that is, it's called the jetty, and I would suspect that when they did that design, there wasn't so much sand, and they actually, boats were designed to
03:12:00 actually line up with that jetty when they made that original drawing. I think that the sand has, has accretion, accretion? Accretion. Councillor Wilkie: Accretion. Councillor Wegener: Beneath the jetty, it actually, it's no longer a dock, it's a deck, and if the sand was at that time, there where it is now, back then, they would have just built a deck, wouldn't they, when it was not a dock at all. So it appears to me the sand has come up. And so in a way that their own real estate, with the sand accruing underneath the dock, they're just gaining real estate. Moving out into the water. So when they originally did the drawing, a boat was meant to be able to tie up to that dock. And so when they made the mistake, they just, they gave themselves that. I suggest that they will just have to remake the dock, pull it back, and do the dredging
03:13:00 like everybody else. They, um, and so I, I support the, uh, the refusal. Because they're just, they, they, everybody else has to do dredging, and if they had the dock set to the original standards, they would have had to do the dredging as well. But the dock has just moved, it is out, they've been able, have been able to get away with not doing dredging for a very long time, and now getting an extra three meters. That impacts other, uh, the neighbors. Mayor Stewart: I think that's a reasonable vote in favor. Councillor Finzel: Is that for the refusal? Mayor Stewart: Um, we have one report, report number two, yes, and we, um, we will return to that. That's a minor change from existing approval for dual occupancy at 1 slash 22 and 2 slash 22 Kingfisher Drive, Regia Beach, Townshore Wilkie.
03:14:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a, I'd like to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application in item 5-5-1-9-0-1. As the applicant, Sharon Morrie-Barnes, who are on my list of campaign volunteers for 2020 local government elections, um, I, uh, I have no opinion on whether I would like to stay in the room or not. I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Um, I'll move that Councillor Wilkie, that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Wilkie and determine that it is in the public interest of Councillor will participate in votes in this matter because Councillor believes that he does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and does not have a close personal relationship with Sharon and Morris, Morrie-Barnes and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest. Can I just, thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Oh, any questions for Councillor Wilkie?
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Oh, sorry. Councillor Finzel: You know, Karen? Mayor Stewart: Sorry, I was just trying to, sorry, what are we voting on? Um, we've just, Councillor Wilkie's stand in the room. Oh. I've moved it. Councillor Stockwell's seconded. Do you have any questions for Councillor Wilkie? Ah, no. Okay. All in favour? That's unanimous. Noting that Councillor... Now it's time. Oh, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic, I beg your pardon. Against Councillor Jurisevic, uh, I note that Councillor Wilkie did not vote on this. Thanks, Karen. No, this, this was a, or it's a bit confusing. This was just the General Committee agenda item referred to your page, so there was not a further form requested, so that is why it was somewhat confusing. So Kerry, thank you, I know it doesn't even... Ah, that's right. Yes. Deferred from the agenda. Deferred from the agenda. Deferred from the agenda. With no further report. So we have a staff recommendation on page 15. Page 15.
03:16:00 And that is for... Oh, thank you. Refuse the changes. Any questions? Any questions for Kerry? Would anyone like to move the staff recommendation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move it. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone like to second it? Oh, I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, the, um, we had, we talked around this one a lot on Tuesday. Got the day right the first time. Um, it boiled down to me that yes, you could argue, um, if you looked towards the shops in this site, that there may be some argument for a boundary setback relaxation. However, that is, um, for me, the lesser of the, um, relaxations that this particular
03:17:00 proposal, um, is proposing. I think the, um, increase in site cover plot ratio, I forgot to have that in front of me. The two other issues, uh, that were in non-compliance are ones that we don't want to vary. They're ones you don't want to set apart. Um, we have, uh, the most recent, um, uh, development application that I can recall where we did allow, um, a setback relaxation, didn't have those two issues. So that was in, um, Sunshine Beach, if you recall, a debt that extended it to a location somewhat less than what the existing building did. So to me, that, that's one that I, I do have a look at in the context of the site. But this whole thing of, but to get to that, you've had to push your boundaries from certain gross floor area, um, that's an un, unacceptable, uh, level of variation for me, and one that if it was approved would accept an unacceptable, um, precedent that would lead to bigger and
03:18:00 bigger houses on smaller and smaller lots. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to this? We'll put the, we'll put the, Councillor Stockwell and Judge Close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, no, I think all the arguments have been very successful. Mayor Stewart: If you do say so yourself. Alright. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Kerry. There are no confidential items. There are no submissions to public question time. The next meeting is on the 19th of May 2022. I declare the meeting closed. Thank you.