Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: The opportunity here to provide facilitation of something that an agency just can't see how to be managed is not a good enough excuse for me. The opportunity to have an emergency access area is sufficient in my mind to warrant having a gate there. In fact, two gates have existed for as long as I've lived here and probably well and beyond for as long as those blocks have been in existence. They don't get used, but they are there in the event that they're required. So, provided that they can be facilitated and remain, I see that as an advantage in the event of any situation that occurs there. The other element that I'm still unhappy with, even though it meets with the planning scheme and the requirements of the planning scheme, is a flood of causeway to access these properties. I see the provision and the request to raise that causeway so that people do have flood-free access in there, or at least. An additional element of flood-free access to their properties in something that I think is a floodway, more so than a number of other properties out there that way, to be something that I would see as beneficial to the residents.
00:01:00 So, whilst I appreciate and support the staff's view on this and all the rest of it, there are two elements there that I see are worthy of, have merit, and should be considered. I won't be supporting the development, the application without those two elements being included. Councillor Wilkie: Question. What are the gates there for? Speaker 6: Currently, the applicant has some sheds and buildings along that line, and they utilise that access. It has no approval. Councillor Wilkie: The applicant put the gates there. Speaker 6: Yes. Yes. So, the house is actually here on Glenridge Drive, where basically Lot 8 is,
00:02:00 and they've got some farm machinery and sheds along McKinnon Drive, and just casually utilise that access. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a point of clarification, the applicant or the current landowner? Oh, sorry. Speaker 6: Thank you. The current landowner. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to receive the motion? Speaker 3: No. Councillor Wilkie: Do you wish to close Brian? No. Councillor Stewart, Stockwell, Wegener, Finzel, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Storyski. Motion's carried. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. It's been a while. Environment Ranks, Round 17. Thank you.
00:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll start with the question I had is, with so many applications scoring highly, if there was more available funds for environment grants, it would have been a bit more difficult for the staff to view that these projects may warrant reconsideration in terms of those ones which have been reduced. Speaker 2: If there was more funding available, there's certainly projects that had merit to be funded.
00:04:00 It's a very challenging round, you know, having $474,000 worth of funding requests but only $118,000 worth of funding availability. And the scoring is correct. The only reason that a number of the applications weren't funded or only partially funded is because of the limited bucket of money available. And, you know, I do note that natural environment management is, you know, scored number one in terms of the mobility survey and the scope and the number of funding requests we've received sort of reflects that general sentiment in the community. Mayor Stewart: I would imagine, and probably it's a question for the staff, but I would imagine that the CEO, our CEO, that limited funding available, we have caps on all our grants, so our community grants, our art grants, our sporting grants, so unfortunately we don't have that unlimited
00:05:00 bucket. So this isn't just special to the environment grants, is that it's across the board that we have those limited funds available. And some good projects do miss out. Speaker 5: Through the Chair, Madam Mayor, absolutely correct. That there's always worthy projects for Council to be able to fund is why we go through the scoring and the matrix process to be able to deliver funding to those that need a broad matrix. And unfortunately we just couldn't fund all of those projects. A matter for Council, though, coming into future budgets, if there's to be more funding allocated. If there is, Council can then broaden the program that we have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the follow up question is, this is allocation of funds, right? We haven't finalised the next year's budget and we haven't finalised next year's budget. And we're currently considering the response to the community in next year's budget. And one of the key outcomes of that response is people think we should be investing more in the environment.
00:06:00 So is there an opportunity to consider next year's budget for environmental grants before determining this matter on Thursday? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, Councillor Stockwell, yes, I think at the workshop tomorrow, that's an important discussion for Council to be able to have across all funding grants, but particularly in Byron. The feedback has been very clear around that. Is there an ability to be able to just make some changes to add some additional projects? Council does have that ability to be able to give that direction and make that change. And if we can, and that happens, then we can have another look at those that were unsuccessful. Councillor Jurisevic: Would that be an opportunity through BR1 as well? Rather than through the budget process? If we hold these over as an opportunity at BR1, if there's more funds available to then allocate more funds on grants? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, just to be aware that with the Organisation Alliance grants, that underpins the financial activity for those organisations for the year. It's not like a project. So in terms of financial clarity for organisations, having clarity, you know, towards the, you
00:07:00 know, beginning of the financial year, would probably be beneficial than, you know, in terms of having clarity halfway through the year. Councillor Jurisevic: The only element we're looking at reviewing here, Sean, is the environmental project grants, not BR1's grants. It's the only item, as far as I can see. So it's only the projects that we'd be potentially holding off for a shorter period, or allocating that, or the scope of potentially allocating the second allocation or further allocation too. Speaker 2: I'm unaware of any deliberations in the budget workshops. I haven't been party to those discussions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move a procedural motion. The man will be deferred for consideration to the ordinary meeting. I'll second that. I've identified where I think we have to make decisions. And then we'll see after we look at the, what we might be responding to in the draft budget
00:08:00 and the submissions, we can make our determination on Thursday. Speaker 4: So is it for further discussion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Oh. No, no. It's just a, it's just a procedural motion. So just deferred. Deferred. Deferred the motion for, for, um, to defer the motion until the, uh, the, um, ordinary meeting on Thursday. Whatever the date is. Speaker 3: Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not referred. Deferred. So it's not, it's a specific procedural motion. Sixth. Um. I think that gets further consideration in the analysis survey. Speaker 9: I'll fix that later. Mayor Stewart: Okay, staff have a question for Sean.
00:09:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just while we're waiting. Sean, given there were several applications that scored highly, between 99 and 100, that's quite significant, and these organisations are working to support Council in reaching our goals in reducing emissions and things like that, how can we support them? Is there extra staff in Council to be allocated to support these organisations or...? Speaker 2: Probably I'll answer it more generally. Council's environment strategy and its practice in the past is geared up towards... ..externalising a lot of delivery of services, so rather than actually internal to Council, it's delivered externally. As an example, some of the wildlife rescue services, we don't have staff that are able to do wildlife rescues, so we actually almost contract them through the grant process for them to do it on our behalf, and Council refers to the wildlife rescue groups in our customer service group. So I think that the thought process
00:10:00 that there's staff available in house to be able to do that service is a false sort of expectation, because there's not. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors have any questions, or... Speak to the... Speak to the motion. Speak to the motion. Okay. We'll put the motion as a favour. Carried unanimously. Okay. Next item is the... Thank you, Sean. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Henny Creek Road, Noosaville. Welcome back, Kerry, and hello, Patrick. Morning. Speaker 10: Hello, Patrick. Councillor Wilkie: This is the report of the Director-General. Page five of the agenda.
00:11:00 Question is councillors. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Kerry and Patrick, as you're aware, a number of conditions which the applicant was questioning and somewhat concerned about, and I appreciate that you have worked very closely with the applicant over many months, probably years, in regard to this application. There are a number of conditions which they don't agree to. Can you explain the process in regard to those? I think it was seven conditions and where we joked them here, and have they been discussed with the applicant and just the process of why? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Chair, perhaps in the intro we can get the overview first and then the response to those. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Speaker 10: Okay. Next item. Thank you. I presume councillors are fairly familiar with this location, being part of Noosa Civic. You should be aware there was a reconfiguration of the site undertaken
00:12:00 back in 2018, 2019. The subject site relates to three of those lots. The planned seal hasn't been completed on those lots yet, so it's all still one big lot. And those three lots are contained within the major centre zone and specifically they're within the high density residential precinct. So the proposed use on this site is consistent with the planning scheme and even further in its provision of small dwelling units, or 90 of the dwelling units being small dwelling units, that being that they have a gross floor area of less than 100 square metres. As I said, 90 dwellings that are proposed, 37 are one bedroom, 41 are two bedroom and 12 are three bedroom. Throughout the process we had some initial concerns with the design of the development and there's been an extensive review of the design with Council's consulting architect, Noel Robinson. A number of meetings that have taken place between the applicant
00:13:00 and Noel to revise the, to refine the design to a point where it's considered appropriate. There's some elements of the proposal that don't comply with the planning scheme in relation to the height minus variation to the front setback, the number of car spaces proposed and then how plot ratio has been applied to the development. There's also an intrusion into the environmental management and conservation zone to the rear of the site, a minor intrusion there. But on balance we're satisfied with the proposal in terms of it being able to be supported subject to appropriate conditions. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question Patrick, about car parking. It's often a problem when they provide not enough car parking. This is a good situation where they're providing more than required car parking. Why is that considered a difficulty? Speaker 10: Just to clarify, the planning scheme has a requirement for car parking as you know throughout the Shire
00:14:00 in relation to a centre zone or a tourist accommodation zone. It actually provides a maximum number of car spaces. So the minimum is also the maximum. So in terms of the number of bedrooms you're providing and there's an equation obviously that determines the appropriate number of car spaces and in this instance that's 102 car spaces. At the pre-lodgement meeting it was advised that it would be suitable to provide some additional car spaces at a ratio of one to four which is consistent with the application of the visitor spaces. So that would equate to 125 spaces and they're providing 134 which is in excess of that number. So that's sorry. Speaker 5: Well Speaker 10: the rationale behind having a maximum number of car spaces is that when you're in an area such as a centre zone or a tourist accommodation zone that you can avail of pedestrian
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 connectivity or access to services that it's suitable to put a limit on the number of car spaces and to reduce that reliance on vehicles and the number of vehicles within the area. In this instance as part of the reconfiguration there was extensive pedestrian connectivity that was provided and as you're aware we've also got land for a future transit hub. Also understanding that the buses circulate through Noosa Civic at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: So those additional car spaces could be converted to green space for example become part of the landscaping? Speaker 10: Well we're recommending that it is converted to landscaping and that there'd be landscaping that come from the basement level through to the podium level of the development. Councillor Wilkie: And I didn't quite understand Speaker 10: if you were to go to the site plan I think probably the relevant plan to go to and that's in the attachment.
00:16:00 I'm not sure what number it is it's DA100 it's after the renders. Mayor Stewart: DA100 is it? Yeah. That's on queue. Thank you. Speaker 10: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. So as you're aware there's a basement level beneath the ground floor footprint of the building. We'd always envisage some deep planting. So when you've got a podium level you can be limited in terms of the depth of your soil and the kind of planting that can be provided. Councillor Wilkie: Because it has Speaker 10: a basement there's obviously a roof to the basement and therefore it's not a natural ground surface in which you'd be planting. Yes you can have beds I suppose within
00:17:00 that on top of that level to provide planting but you're actually not going into natural ground and so you're getting that deep rooted planting. Councillor Wilkie: So the roof of the basement is what you refer to as the podium. Speaker 10: That is correct. So the idea would be that with the reduction of the number of car spaces by nine in the basement that would provide an area for which you could have landscaping between buildings A and B and for that landscaping to come up through that podium level. Councillor Jurisevic: Can you clarify is there any on the street parking available on Hoppin Drive? Speaker 10: Well Hoppin Drive in frontage there will be a bike lane. Councillor Jurisevic: I disagree I think Hoppin Drive is completely Speaker 10: Is it? Is it? I haven't been to that location so Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is with these with these there's a vision for on street parking I mean there's there's an element more like a cycle lane than a parking area Speaker 3: Yeah I think
00:18:00 you're right Councillor Joe but I think we'll have to come back to you and clarify Can you clarify this? Yeah Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand the rationale in terms of maximum and in a typical business centre that's quite legitimate this is somewhat a unique site with the other couple of lots in that it's in a high density residential precinct which could easily be in a high density residential zone so the question is in a high density residential would a similar maximum limit be applied in a high density residential precinct rather than a zone? Speaker 3: Yeah to answer your question I think no and I think this is something council may wish to consider is this site a little bit different to other sites in our centres where we are seeking to support our public transport strategy by limiting the maximum number of car parking spaces that a development provides so that's what we're really going to decide whether this is a bit different to other sites
00:19:00 in our centres now there are some differences you know most of our sites in the centres will have sort of a mixed use development commercial and residential would be expected and this is fully residential so there is a bit of difference but for offices given its proximity to the centre and the availability of public transport and pedestrian connectivity we didn't think there was any reason to differentiate for this site and for that reason we made the recommendations in accordance with the scheme and what it's trying to achieve but that's really for council to decide because there are some differences between this site and what we will see in other places Mayor Stewart: Kerry just coming back to those the question I originally asked with the seven conditions that we were sent through and one of them does refer to car parking and that an application was submitted for 134 car parks which was nine additional to what we're talking about and was supported by a traffic report
00:20:00 has the 125 have there been any communication of this isn't this isn't feasible this isn't palatable we're going for 125 or what was I understand what you're saying but has that been in any way communicated with the applicant Speaker 3: yeah well certainly council's approach is clear in the scheme it says maximum that's what the scheme indicates and there was a pre-lodgement meeting held with the applicant where this was raised and the rate in the scheme was actually considered a little bit low because it didn't provide for visitor spaces and there wasn't necessarily lots of available on street parking so in discussions with strategic planning we did look at a slightly higher rate which is what we recommended to the applicant during the pre-lodgement process okay so just to clarify Councillor Jurisevic: the ratio of car parks to units at 125 where there's
00:21:00 maybe 1.5 car parks beginning of the year Deputy Mayor Stockwell: is there a ratio Councillor Jurisevic: rationale that goes towards the facilitation of the number of rooms or the number of units for the number of car parks to be provided yes it's Speaker 10: for one and two bedroom units I think it's one car space and then Councillor Jurisevic: the three bedrooms are two Councillor Lorentson: three is two the 18 one bedroom is one Councillor Jurisevic: three bedroom is two okay so that explains how the numbers will reach but as far as visitor car parks and given where the visitor car parking spaces are between buildings A and B sorry B and C and there are no visitor car parks adjacent to building A what's the what's the number of car parks for visitors in relation to the number of units how is that calculated Speaker 10: well the scheme's
00:22:00 not seeking for any visitor car parking spaces at all it's only it's only applying the ratio for the number of bedrooms and limiting that to a maximum so we're actually seeking to go above that and yes there is provision of car parking on that podium level which is recommended by our traffic consultant to have that car parking in that area so as to have some car parking available for visitors across the site Councillor Wilkie: one of the conditions that was questioned by that was the condition five study rooms must not be used as a bedroom use rooms that have at least one wall and maximum height of 1.5 metres study rooms are the rooms which are on the page of 2.3 of room and furnishings could you explain the reasons why that condition is so important Speaker 10: yeah so the those rooms are identified as being problematic for being used
00:23:00 as a bedroom because they didn't have access to natural light and ventilation they are contained within the building so to speak one of the walls is adjacent to an internal walkway and then another of the walls is internal to develop the room itself sorry the dwelling itself so it was always recommended that they wouldn't be used for the purpose of a bedroom to have the wall height of 1.5 metres upon reflection is probably more of a historical approach that we've taken to those types of rooms where we've had density provisions and we had also there was flow on effects for chucks and charges as well so it was quite critical that there was no capacity at all for them to be used as a bedroom notwithstanding in this instance it may be possible or probably likely that we could amend that condition to allow for those rooms to have so concertina doors or the like and a window
00:24:00 internally so we could look at that Councillor Jurisevic: so in the provision I'm assuming there are 37 of those being 37 one bedroom joining units or all the 37 one bedroom joining units study units Speaker 10: no so how many study units Councillor Jurisevic: are there Speaker 10: it's probably off the top of my head I'm not too sure but it's probably around a half a dozen or so okay Councillor Jurisevic: if I could get a number out of what I was reading Councillor Lorentson: so Patrick I think my understanding is they've already taken the project to market I've seen it advertised everywhere and there is a question coming Frank so is it is that normal for a development application once you have approval and pre-sales have already commenced unfortunately Speaker 10: it happens from time to time
00:25:00 and we end up in this situation where we're advised that our conditions will impact upon contracts of sale and in this instance the applicants did advise me that they were looking to go to market and they didn't want it to be a surprise and they didn't want us to be offended by it but the conversation at that time I made it clear that that was a risk that they were taking that we were still in a process of working through the design elements of the development and that we would have conditions that would need to be applied that could be problematic for them so they went into fully aware Speaker 3: frankly it's a significant risk because at that time we had major still had major concerns about the bill of form and presentation so absolutely it's the applicants risk in doing that Councillor Lorentson: and really Speaker 3: not relevant to our decision making within my position Councillor Lorentson: but it just seems like a pressing issue yeah with the information they've sent out to all the councillors Speaker 3: yeah well remember that the planning act says someone's personal circumstances which really a contract is not relevant to decision making
00:26:00 so I would encourage council to put that element aside in deciding this application Deputy Mayor Stockwell: so question the scheme requirements for a bedroom is there anything is there something we can hang our head on to say that if you haven't got a window to the outdoors that it's can't be used is there anything like that or is it a general provision yeah Speaker 3: so we have our sustainability code yeah which has requirements and they're fairly general but they do ask to ensure that rooms are adequately ventilated and receive natural light you know so this study room is sort of at the back of the unit away from balcony areas it has no window to the outside it's an internal room essentially and that's why we've we've had a close look at it okay Councillor Jurisevic: so further than that is something like a concertina door over there or a provision of a of a temporary bed one of those ones that sits into the wall maybe could be brought down
00:27:00 could be considered in that would that rather than a permanent bedroom as a visitor accommodation you know a guest accommodation anyway where anybody would have the expectation of throwing out a bed or a divan or a pull out bed or something along those lines would that be prevented from being able to be had in that study type arrangement Speaker 3: well the recommendation is that you know for a condition that it can't be used as a bedroom but it could be used through a multi-purpose room it might be quite appropriate as a study where you can get at least some natural light and ventilation to the room Councillor Jurisevic: so more open plan rather than a closed room i.e. that's why you suggested one and a half metre wall or possibly a concertina door but temporary closure or something like that or even open plan it would be more acceptable yes Speaker 3: and I agree that we could make the condition a little bit more flexible to provide the applicant with some options and how they achieve that Mayor Stewart: Kerry given that this is just one of seven that you said there's potential to work on it is it prudent to request that this be held over
00:28:00 until Thursday where there's an opportunity for you and Patrick to look at these conditions and to provide further advice to us otherwise we're just going to go round in circles we've got seven of these to talk about is that more prudent Speaker 3: yes I think given there's not a lot of conditions that they're proposing and asking for changes it would be appropriate that we do a further report for the ordinary meeting we have to probably hold the matter over yes the concerns have been raised because there is a process under the planning act to request a negotiated decision notice yes rather than go through this sort of negotiation at the time the application's being decided but given there are a limited number we could do a further report I'd probably encourage the council just to have ask some basic questions about each of them before the ordinary meeting
00:29:00 Mayor Stewart: yes Councillor Lorentson: I'll second that Mayor Stewart: seconded by Councillor Lorentson Deputy Mayor Stockwell: so in terms of yes happy for me to go through I think I'll proceed no no we need to vote on it Mayor Stewart: no no I'll proceed to it proceed to it proceed to it yes look I'll yes look I mean I've this is obviously this is a good opportunity for us to to I guess to ask these questions which will form the basis I think it is prudent, based on the fact that some councillors may not have seen all of this and had the opportunity to study it, and there are sort of seven conditions, so it's not too onerous on staff. We're not looking at 30, 40 conditions that you have to go through. It's an opportunity if you bring that report, potentially talk to the applicant. I'm not sure if you'll do that. But there's that. Certainly we'll be more fully informed, I guess, coming into Thursday night. So I think it's better. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. I'll ask some questions, Kerry. Condition 14 is also a question of performance bonds, requiring some of the $100,000 to be submitted, and the applicant submits that they do not feel this condition is reasonable or specific enough to allow it to be considered an administration satisfaction. Could you speak to the reason why that $100,000 is going to fall into the standard price?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 10: Performance bond is, for a development of this type, is certainly a standard. Condition and it is standard wording that has been used in that condition. The amount of the bond would generally relate to, I suppose, the scale of the works that are somewhat of a risk, I suppose, or, you know, if there was extensive frontage works required or there was protection of vegetation that is required is also referenced in another condition, I believe, that has been raised. It's the reason why we apply those conditions. In this instance, it might be suitable that we actually look at the amount to see whether we've got the amount right, but I certainly would consider that a performance bond is required to ensure that Council can ensure that the works are completed in accordance with the approval.
00:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I think the question that was raised by the applicant was the conditions for release of that. They weren't specific enough. The words of release were around being specific enough. So that's a standard. Is there a clause, as you said there, that we use on all applications? Councillor Wegener: That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Another condition, oh, sorry. Councillor Wegener: No, no, you guys can keep going. I've got big questions, but I don't. Councillor Wilkie: 20 is each, it requires each dwelling unit to have to be divided in half, so it's going to have to be a clothesline that's going on top of you, and the applicant's clarity on this, when they're providing an outward clothesline for every dwelling, is impractical responses. The reason why we've imposed that condition is... Speaker 10: Again, it's a standard condition that we would apply for a multiple dwelling development. I don't agree with that one. It doesn't mean that...
00:32:00 I don't agree with that one. The clothesline has to be provided at the physical location of each dwelling unit. So access to an outward clothesline could be a shared clothesline. That is correct. So whether we need to provide some clarity in writing to the applicant in relation to that, and what that would mean, would resolve that, I believe. Councillor Wilkie: That doesn't mean a clothesline on every dwelling. Speaker 10: No, that's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: But access. Yeah. Clarity could be provided there, but that doesn't appear clear to me either. The way I read it was that it was every unit had to have a clothesline out in the yard, out the back, or on their balconies, and there are several, many, many examples of multiple units that don't have that. Yeah, that's correct. Councillor Lorentson: So I'm confused. I understood that as the condition that we imposed was that each dwelling unit must have access to an outdoor clothesline, which is screened from the public view, and what the applicant has requested is opposite.
00:33:00 They want that outdoor clothesline in the common area, which is public view. That's very different. That's very uncommon. Councillor Jurisevic: If it was behind the building, you wouldn't have public view. You'd have to sit on the street. You'd have to use a screener. Councillor Lorentson: It's so common. I'm assuming the common area is a barbecue area or an area of shared facilities, not necessarily outside balconies. So what I'm concerned with, and I think that, again, so my question, Kerry, is have I understood that correctly? Speaker 3: Well, the intent is really just to have a common area for clotheslines. It's not intended that every unit have their own separate clothesline. So I think we can clarify that. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Okay. There's one disabled parking space. Is that all that's required under legislation out of 125?
00:34:00 It says B, one disabled parking space from the total. Which? That's in the visitor car park. Or is that in the visitor car park? I'm just wondering if that's... Is that in the visitor or is that... That's in the visitor car park. Or is that... Is there disabled parking for residents as well? Speaker 3: So disabled parking is set by the building code. Yeah. So and that's... Our engineer usually checks that for us. So we'll have to go back and just ask that question. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: I'm just wondering because often there would be... I imagine there would be... There's often in most buildings that I know there's disabled parking for the residents as well. It's because of visitors. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming that the... That each building has its own lift well as well. Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. It just wasn't clear from the diagrams. I just assumed the X near the stairs was a lift well. So it does actually go from the basement to... Yeah. It's on... So there is full disabled access.
00:35:00 Speaker 10: That's correct. You're right. There is a lift well in... From the three lift wells in the basement servicing each building. Councillor Jurisevic: I assume that it wasn't... It wasn't clearly articulated in the information. Councillor Lorentson: And then only right next to the lift. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a question not in relation to the email that was sent to us, Kerry. This is just more general question and I think the answer would be just for anyone listening out of the community. You know, there's a perception that property development is normally focused on bottom line. I don't think so. This development, I don't believe, does that. And I just wanted some sort of detail or explanation to community on how we've ensured, as a council, that the development goes beyond bottom line and that we actually... In terms of planning and design and that we actually maybe... Or aligning this development with what the community needs and we're actually building
00:36:00 a community, not just the general community. Not just, you know, a 90-dwelling, three-storey, that may be interpreted, four-storey precinct. There's a lot of green space and there's a lot of work that's gone into this development and I just think that the community... It sounds like... Oh, okay. So my question... I'll go back to the question. How have we ensured that this development goes beyond the terms, beyond bricks and mortar in terms of... In terms of design and planning? Speaker 3: Well, I think this development will deliver a lot to the community. I think that the design is reflective of the built form that we're looking for, the Noosa style, if you like. Look, to begin with, I would have called the building really ordinary and it didn't achieve that, but it's come a long way and the applicant's been prepared to make changes to the built
00:37:00 form. So it really reflects that Noosa style. What it also does is we're delivering some units or Stockwell are delivering some units that are 50 to 100 square metres and that's a real need in this community. A lot of our units are a lot larger. It includes one and two bedroom units. A lot of our units around the Shire are three bedroom and very large units, over 100 square metres. So we haven't seen very many developments in Noosa built that are less than 100 square metres. We're starting to see that a little bit more. We've got one happening on Eumundi Vista Road under construction now by the developers of Parkridge, but this is also delivering a lot of units that way. And so I think it's really meeting a real need in the community that we've been missing because we really had very large scale apartments and people were choosing to actually build less units than the scheme allowed. In this one, we're actually achieving a large number of units and there's smaller units which will meet a real need that's missing in the community.
00:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: In terms of affordability, I think there's always been a concern, you know, once the product, once the development's approved, then what we perceive as affordable today is not going to be affordable in two months when it's built. Do we know for sure that this product is being sold at an affordable level? Speaker 3: I probably can't answer that. I would have liked to have seen that. I would have liked to have seen this developer go a little bit further and actually work with a social housing provider to, you know, identify some of the units for social housing. The developer hasn't done that. They're indicating they will do it on other sites potentially, but not this site. I would have liked them to go that step further. So, you know, the price of the units will be based on what the market is looking for. Councillor Lorentson: The market at the moment, I think, because I know they're selling quite a few, 470,000.
00:39:00 Excuse me. Councillor Wilkie: I'll continue working to the conditions that I know. In condition five, requiring the provision of mature landscaping within the basement as a consequence of the dilution of animal and child parking spaces, which protrudes from opening at the pavement levels between buildings A and B, and the applicant has expressed concern for the negative design and unsafe design outcome of the building. So, I'm going to proceed and open our cavity to the basement to expose the basement to the weather. . Mayor Stewart: It's condition 47. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we see that on the diagram? Patrick put that out on the diagram exactly where that is. Councillor Wilkie: I couldn't quite understand where that sat. So, I guess the question is, has the applicant understood the condition properly and will it result in this? . I was in this. Okay. I'm generally in the orientation of the same building here. Councillor Jurisevic: So, where is the access through which for where this painting is supposed to take place?
00:40:00 Speaker 3: Is it saying it's in the car park? . It's actually in the car park? Councillor Jurisevic: So, from the basement level. . Oh, it's above the . So, you're saying it's above the . . It will come from the basement and come up through. . So, that's an open void to the basement. . Okay. That wasn't immediately clear. . Is that the only void to the basement floor? That would be, yes. . Okay. . So, it would mean removing those car parks in that vicinity. . That's correct. . Thank you. That clarifies it because it wasn't clear . . Councillor Wilkie: So, thanks to the top of the trees growing from the basement up through. . Speaker 3: Obviously, they'll be. They look amazing. . I think it would look amazing. And you obviously need a balustrade to make it safe. . Yeah. . It certainly will mean some cost to the developer in doing this. . I'm sure it's a lesser construction cost to do what they're doing. . But I think it would be a very nice achievement. . Because if council goes with the maximum number of spaces we're suggesting, you do
00:41:00 not want to lose the at grade car parking spaces. . They absolutely need to remain. . So, the only option really is to remove some parking spaces in the basement. . Councillor Jurisevic: So, just to clarify, that void is part of the developer's plan for the development. That's not something we've added to allow trees to come through. That void to see through to the basement below is in the developer's. . Speaker 3: No, it's not there at the moment. They've got car parking. Councillor Jurisevic: . So, it's one way of proposing. Speaker 3: . We're recommending that to achieve the maximum number of car parking, nine spaces need to be lost. . And those spaces come from that area between buildings A and B. Kerry, Noel Robinson, coming back to a Moosa point of view question. Mayor Stewart: Noel Robinson did a big review for council on this. Two questions in regards to that. A, could you talk us through some of the changes he suggested and the applicant implemented to make it more of a look and feel of Moosa, as you said.
00:42:00 And secondly, was this basement car park with the trees coming up, was that part of his recommendation? Speaker 10: . If you go to, let me just find it. It's early in the report, there is a comparison of the original proposal. Mayor Stewart: . I've read it. . Just for those of you who are listening at home who may not have actually read the report, could you? . Speaker 10: Yeah. . Mayor Stewart: Just some major areas. . Speaker 10: Okay. So, we were seeking, just broadly speaking, some modification to the roof pitch. It was a very flat form roof pitch. Some greater separation between buildings A and B. Some changes to the appearance of building C, where it fronts Hofmann Drive. Similarly, some changes to buildings A and B. We were looking for buildings that they all didn't look the same, that it was possible to have distinguished between the buildings
00:43:00 to look and to feel of the buildings. . So, adding in some horizontal and vertical elements to the building and bringing in some sort of softer materials, some wooden materials and, yeah, sort of the buildings. . Speaker 4: Rotating them. Mayor Stewart: . Speaker 10: Yeah. Well, that was rotating them to create that greater separation there between the buildings. . Mayor Stewart: And the roof pitch, a higher roof pitch. Speaker 10: . That's right. So, it was a rather flat in its appearance originally. . Certainly, the roof was quite uniform and flat and that's been modified in response to the issues that Noel's raised. Speaker 3: . Noel wasn't asked to look at car parking numbers and whatsoever. Mayor Stewart: . Oh, but he wasn't, you know, he said this will make it look really great. It'll be great. He, that wasn't. . Speaker 3: No. He acknowledged that there's quite a large setback to Hofmann Drive and we should be able to achieve some good planting in front of that. So, it wasn't his recommendation. It's the office's recommendation because if we're going to go with the maximum number
00:44:00 of parking spaces, they need to remove nine. . And we thought that was the most appropriate location. Councillor Jurisevic: . Okay. Yeah, further to that, I'm just looking at the figures that have been, the diagrams that have been presented. So, the original design had a flatter roof. If I look at page 23 and 24, Figure 9 shows a perspective of Building A with a pitched roof. And Figure 10 appears to show a perspective of Building A without a pitched roof. Although it's a slightly different perspective. Can you just clarify which is the correct perspective or are they both correct and just looking at a different perspective? Speaker 10: . They're both the same building. I asked the question myself to the applicant as to why. Councillor Jurisevic: . Figure 8 and Figure 10 relates to Figure 9 with regard to . Yeah. Speaker 10: It's using the same model, but it's from a lower angle and sort of with a stretched view. So, it gives the building a, the roof a flatter appearance, whereas the render for Figure
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 9, you're more elevated and almost looking down on the building a bit more. . But that's certainly, as I said, that's certainly been a question asked of the applicants whose designer came back and explained. . Councillor Jurisevic: So, the perspective that there is a pitched roof form and which 10 and 11, Figures 10 and 11 date necessarily show from the perspective of . Speaker 10: It's a 12 degree roof pitch on Building A. Councillor Jurisevic: . And that's the question I was going to ask. So, what is the, at the ultimate, what did they have originally? So, 5 degrees is my understanding is the minimum and this has gone to 12 degrees. . Speaker 10: It's gone to 12 degrees. . Councillor Jurisevic: Which then takes it over the overall height. Speaker 10: . That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. The original roof pitch, I'm sorry, I can't recall it, but it was quite flat. It was probably likely around 3 degrees or something like that. . What was proposed, sorry, what was proposed, Joe?
00:46:00 . Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to ask a silly question. What would be the minimum roof pitch to keep it and delete the maximum building height? . Speaker 3: Probably the flat roof they previously had. Councillor Jurisevic: . Well, it's not, the pitch roof that's proposed here is protruding by a lot. . Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: . And from what I can see, it's only the pitch. . It's only the pitch. Yeah. So, the question is, it's at, what did you say, 12 degrees at the moment. . Mayor Stewart: Yeah. . Councillor Jurisevic: The original was 3. . Speaker 10: Yeah. But I think if you look at... . Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just wondering why Noel didn't sort of see if there was an opportunity to go to a pitch that took it under the scheme, which would still enable a pitched roof, which was far more... Speaker 3: . Well, Noel and I both recommended that they exceed the height in order to achieve a greater pitch to articulate the building better.
00:47:00 Because this is a large scale building and it's appropriate that the roof pitch be greater to assist in articulating the building. . So, we actually encouraged them to go beyond their height limit. Councillor Jurisevic: . So, it's in the design element. . Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Yeah. . Can I ask a question? . What we're talking about is quite significant, a change to original design. So, with that, I'm envisaging there's a significant cost to the change. How did the applicant respond? Were they willing to change the designs, just to sort of try and understand the relationship? . Speaker 3: I think we probably had four meetings with the applicant and Noel and their architect to achieve where we are today. . So, it was quite a process, but there was certainly a willingness from Stockwell to do that. . Yeah, I'm not sure how to stand that one. . Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: . Kerry, what... . . Mr. President, you've made a statement about the permanent chain wire fence that
00:48:00 is 1.8 metres high and is constructed on an entire length of canopy, blot 17, adjacent to Government J, along the course center of the southern edge of the Environmental Management & Conservation Zone. The applicant was asked, could the same result be achieved if they had flexibility to choose their own sort of treatment of the fence? Does it have to be chain wire or could they use another material? . Speaker 10: We've been provided no information as to what an alternate material would be. We'd be willing to have a look at it, certainly. Councillor Jurisevic: Could the condition read chain wire or approved equivalent? Is the height the key factor there? What are you trying to achieve with that? Speaker 10: Well, we want separation between the Covenant area and the development site. We don't want people who are occupying the development to be wandering into the Covenant area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask you to have a review of other conditions that are identified as potential restrictions on cats because of wildlife?
00:49:00 We might want to look at our fencing recommendations with that in mind as well. Oh yeah, they can look at the fencing recommendations in light of the desirability of having some wildlife access that's really, really solid. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions, councillors? Tom, you were waiting passionately. Councillor Wegener: First question. First, building A faces pretty much due west. Is it going to get way, it's going to be hot. When I look at this picture of it, the sun is just going to go straight in there in the afternoon. And is there, and on some of the diagrams, it says there's trees in front of it, but it doesn't look to me though that there's enough room for trees to block that brutal westerly sun, especially during the summer.
00:50:00 Building A? Building A, yeah, it sounds. Speaker 3: It will get the western sun, the afternoon sun. And we spent quite a bit of time working with the applicant on that, with Noel, looking at the screens and the depth of balconies as to whether that would be adequately shaded. It was sufficient. It would have been, it would have been our preference to orientate the building differently. But nevertheless, they've employed some measures that will ensure the units will be liveable and usable and will have some shading from the western sun. The building is also set back quite substantially from Hofmann Drive. You know, you're looking at six to eight metres in most of it. So you will get some, there is an opportunity to achieve some large trees in front, which over time will also grow up and help shade. And there's conditions specifically asking for some trees to be planted along that frontage.
00:51:00 Councillor Jurisevic: There's another lofty side of it as well, on the western side, which has yet to be developed, which might provide some shading, is there? Councillor Wegener: It's mostly already developed, that's what that development is. Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't expect that development to assist in shading. Councillor Wegener: A question is, we've knocked back a lot of, applications on plot ratio, height, front set back, and maximum car parks. And this application, we're not. I'm just on a very stepping back level. Big question. It appears as though there's one set of rules for the rest of the Shire, one different set of rules for this. Councillor Wilkie: That's contrary. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, okay. Is there, is there, can I speak to the motion? Councillor Wilkie: No. No. It's crazy. It's a procedural. It's a procedural. Okay. That's, there's an opportunity to speak about on the application generally. Okay. But starting to answer your questions about, do they have the consent of the .
00:52:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, so why have we allowed so many variations to the town plan when we've come down hard regularly on other applicants? Speaker 10: Just as a, I suppose, a point of clarity, with the plot ratio, the site, as I said at the beginning, there was an approval for three lots, for this area to be graded into three lots. And those lots are approximately about 3,500 square metres each. And there's a provision in the scheme that says when you're developing a lot of less than 7,000 square metres in area, and providing small dwelling units in this zone, you can have a plot ratio of 0.75. This development has a plot ratio of 0.75. The difference here is that that reconfiguration hasn't occurred yet.
00:53:00 So it's a lot of over 7,000 square metres, which the planning scheme says you have a plot ratio of 0.7. So we consider that this site could be developed with three individuals. So we have three individual buildings on those lots, each having a plot ratio of 0.75. In this instance, building B partially goes over the boundary, but the other buildings are fully contained within the lot. So what's occurring in terms of the development scale is consistent with what the scheme would be expecting if the site was three lots. And just, I suppose, just further to your point that you made, you say we've knocked back a lot of developments that don't comply with plot ratio and height and whatnot. Certainly plot ratio is something that we've held firm on. But there are other developments which have exceeded height.
00:54:00 Some of our dwelling applications and some of our other commercial development applications. It's not been something from my mind that has been required a refusal solely on height. Does that answer your question? Speaker 3: And setbacks, you know, they're very minor variations in the scheme of things. And certainly regularly we face duplexes and unit developments with minor variations to setbacks. So I wouldn't say this is unusual in supporting this. I'd actually say it's consistent with our practice. Councillor Wegener: And we've also had a lot of talk about disability and really working to make sure that there's disability accommodation. How come we're not mandating that in this application as well? Speaker 10: Well, there's a provision in the scheme around dwellings having step-free access into the dwellings and then having facilities provided on the ground floor level of those dwellings.
00:55:00 In this instance, all the dwelling units can be accessed via a lift to their relevant floor and have step-free access to the dwelling itself. And they're all single level dwellings. So they would comply with our scheme requirements surrounding accessibility. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element of that, that would rely on the building code for disability compliance, not necessarily the planning scheme. Speaker 3: Our scheme includes basic requirements, but it's the building code Australia that sets the requirements. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: And what about water tanks? Is there any provision for other, I didn't see any in the scheme. Speaker 10: Well, there's no requirement, sorry. There's no requirement in the planning scheme for the provision of water tanks. But there would be, there will be on-site detention, but only for the purpose of controlling flow. Speaker 3: Yeah. So some of these requirements, they're good things, but some of these requirements, the State stipulates what Council can and can't put in a planning scheme.
00:56:00 And they will not allow things that are regulated by the building code of Australia to be put into a planning scheme. And tanks is one of them. Disabled access is another. Some of the climate design requirements are things that won't allow us to put in the planning scheme because they're stipulated by the building code. So because our scheme has to be signed off by the State, we are limited in what we can include in the scheme, notwithstanding the merits around some of these things. Water tanks is one of those things we cannot put in the scheme. Councillor Jurisevic: So we did propose some of those things in the 2020 planning scheme to the State due to the rejection of the science thing. Speaker 3: Certainly, our strategic planning option raised it with the State. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. I've got a question. Go on. I believe there's a condition in regard to fencing off the natural area behind the, between the units and the shopping complex. Thinking behind that condition and whether it'd be something you'd go for.
00:57:00 As an alternative, is controlling its management through condition 22, which is where you stipulate some of the potential community management scheme by-laws? I just think there's an opportunity there to make the body corporate responsible for maintenance rather than... Are you saying, is there an option? That's the question is can you have a look at it. A, what's the, the question birthed up is what's the thinking behind fencing it off? And secondly, is there... Do you for Thursday ever think about is it something that might be, could be handled through a condition, additional drop point in condition 22? Councillor Jurisevic: And I'd ask a question along a similar line. I mean, given that we've got natural area and we want maybe border access through there. I mean, is creating fences that are six foot high or chain wire fences and all the rest actually preventing some of that access?
00:58:00 Is that something we can look at in how that condition is applied? Speaker 10: Well, the rationale behind the condition was that we were seeking to protect that area. There's a lot of activity occurring to the rear of the buildings. You know, notably there's an off leash dog area. So it was envisaged that the fencing would provide suitable protection, people encroaching in that area and degrading that area over time. So that was the rationale. And also, yeah, recognise that there could be some connectivity that's provided through that area into the covenant area. So I'm not sure whether fencing would actually limit that, limit that connectivity. It'd probably just more provide more definition to... Councillor Jurisevic: And that's my next question with regard to the dog off leash area. Is that a fully fenced dog off leash area? And is that something that we could consider as a condition to consider? Speaker 10: I wasn't aware of any fencing to the off leash dog area. But I think the communication that's come through to councillors may suggest that it was to be fenced.
00:59:00 I'm not too sure if that's the case. I can clarify that with the applicants. Councillor Wegener: Looking at it, there's a lot of units. And in my opinion, there's not that much space. Do you feel as though there's going to be kids in these units, that there's enough, there's adequate space for the kids to have a yard on that place? Because you have the civic on one side. You have a big road. Then you have another development on the other side of the street. Is there enough recreational space? Speaker 10: The scheme has requirements in terms of the amount of private open space that should be provided to each dwelling unit. And it's not a lot. I think for upper levels, it might be nine square metres of a balcony or the like. So all of the units except for two provide sufficient area.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I think the non-compliant units provide 18 metres of private open space in the 20 square metres that was required for those units. There is quite a large area to the rear of this site. That is open space area. It's got a communal recreation area. It's got a pool. It's got the off leash dog area. So some people would be finding that amount of space. That's not sufficient. But other people that are moving into units, that's the choice that they make. And they're happy to live in that amount of space. Councillor Wegener: Just when we were talking about the clothesline, where are we going to put the clothesline in the common space? Where is it? It just looks like a very small space. And if there's going to be clotheslines in that little bit of space there, it looks very congested. It doesn't seem to... Councillor Wilkie: Where is the clothesline going? Speaker 10: Just for some... Well, we don't know at this point because it's only becoming, I suppose, suggested now that it'll be communal.
01:01:00 But just for context, the area... From that area, the rear boundary to the perimeter, to the edge of the conservation zone is 10 metres. So it is actually quite a substantial amount of space that is... That must be... 20 to 30 metres. 20 to 30 metres at its broadest, narrowing down to probably, you know, 5 metres. So I'd say that it's actually quite a significant area. And to put in a clothesline to accommodate... A communal clothesline wouldn't intrude too much into that area. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that something we can have for Thursday night? The actual dimensions, shade of that recreational area, the rear there and the green space available? Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify the actual area that is available. Mayor Stewart: And is this... I guess this is a question, Kerry, that is this for us or the market to determine some of these... I mean, these questions that are being asked, if there's enough space or can people... I mean, that's really a question, in my opinion, I'm asking you,
01:02:00 for the market to determine, isn't it? Rather than necessarily us as a council. Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, the development, as Patrick has indicated, meets the scheme's requirements for landscaping, except for the two units Patrick's mentioned. So it is... Because it's not in the scheme, it is really for the marketplace now to determine. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I ask the question? Short-term accommodation is a consistent use in medium density and high density zoning. Can you explain the situation in this precinct? Are we or are we not going to be considering applications for short-term accommodation as a housing option use for any buyers? And if we're not, should we be conditioning it? I'm just trying to understand, have you discussed this with the applicant? Speaker 3: Well, they are two different uses under the planning scheme.
01:03:00 So today, if we would approve it this week at the ordinary meeting, it is just for a multiple dwelling. It doesn't allow short-term accommodation. They would have to make another application to council for it specifically. It would be... And I'd need to check exactly what the scheme says around... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That the scheme says... This site? But there's an inconsistent use in this location. Oh, same thing. This location. Councillor Wilkie: Let's make it based around the question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's two sites. There's high-density residential zones in this location and also over... And this comes as high-density. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Just wanted clarity on that so... Speaker 3: But such a high number of units, I think it would be difficult on this site to do. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Any other questions? Gail Jones? There was... I'm referring to the report and not the questions raised by the applicant. There was mention of the swale. And I wasn't quite clear on where the swale exactly was.
01:04:00 Let me just go back to the... Sorry, Greg. Because all... A swale is normally a provision for Stormwater Ralph or Stormlight. Yeah. And I would have assumed that plenty could have been acquired in the swale. You have since clarified. Thank you, Patrick. But it wasn't clear to me initially. I thought the other council might better... That's the swale. So that's the swale drain there. So that's right up against the back of the property. So you buy a basin and that'll put it into the swale, which is quite minor. Speaker 10: Minor works required for that swale there. Councillor Jurisevic: So the only incursion of the swale in the... Would go into that environmental lock was behind building C? Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Yep. And plenty could be undertaken within a swale drain. Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: And as far as noise in the civic loading dock, I understand that there's talk of barriers being introduced and that there was some retrospective consideration by sound engineer brought in to address the noise impact of the loading dock area on future residential
01:05:00 developments on the site. I ask the question, did the engineer include any time constraints or what other changes did he make? Can you give us a bit of an overview on what changes were made? Did they apply to this development or to the civic development retrospectively? Speaker 10: It was a application to amend the approval at the Noosa Civic. It's a separate approval. Yep. And there is a condition that requires those works to be completed before the use on this site commences. So on this application, we're seeking a condition that says you can't use the dwelling units until the works have been completed on the Noosa Civic. Councillor Jurisevic: So how do we apply further conditions on the civic development, which has already been amended? It's already been undertaken and is already complete. How does that work? Speaker 10: We've already had that application come through and be assessed. Councillor Jurisevic: So they've made an application to make those amendments as part of the ownership being
01:06:00 under Stockwells and Stockwells having that understanding? Speaker 10: That's correct. So we've had an application to undertake those works and acoustic reports provided, reviewed by an acoustic engineer. And then we've approved that and we've provided a suite of conditions reflective of those recommendations. That's right. And they include limits to the hours that the loading dock can be used. Monday to Saturday, 5am to 9pm. Sunday, 8am to 6pm. Insulation and maintenance of the gate to the loading dock area. Erection of signage. Limiting trolley collection in external areas. Limiting the times that that can be undertaken. Councillor Jurisevic: I've seen the list and other Councils probably haven't. But I was just wondering how a new development application could enforce restrictions on an existing development application. So it's just the fact that the ownership is under the same developer that they've come
01:07:00 forward to put those forward. Speaker 3: Yeah. It was also a condition of the subdivision to do those acoustic reclinements too. Perfect. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank Clare for that. Councillor Wegener: Patrick, where's the chain link fence? On the back here. Is it? Councillor Wilkie: Proposed. Proposed. Is it here? Or is it here? Speaker 10: No. It's where you first pointed? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's here. Speaker 4: So there's going to be an acoustic fence that's constructed along the rear boundary? Mm-hmm. Speaker 10: And then there's dotted orange line, which is the perimeter of the design. And then it would go up and around the slide. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to request, I want to walk it, if that's okay. Is there any way that a representative could help me see how big that common area is by going to the site and walking it? Because it just looks so small. I want to see how big it actually is. Speaker 10: Well, it's currently vegetated. The front portion of the site has been cleared, but that area is vegetated, so that might
01:08:00 be challenging. It also falls away from the road, so it could be complicated. It could be quite damp at the moment. Speaker 3: I don't think it's practical. Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 3: Because of the vegetation there at the moment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian. So, we've mentioned that because of an arcade Queensland rule on not being able to put things in a planning scheme that are planning matters and having them in a building instead, we can't require solar panels as a condition. Can we look at our waste management conditions to, at the moment, look at our waste management conditions that might require a green waste management system that doesn't mean that the red-top buildings are going to be used for green waste? So, can we have a look at those conditions? I noticed the conditions there only took about recycling. Nothing overt about provision for green waste and, you know, on-site facilities. I just think it might be something we have a look at in Stanford. This is quite a large development, so there is a number of opportunities to look at effective
01:09:00 green waste management that don't lead to carbon dioxide. Councillor Jurisevic: No. It depends on whether they've got... My understanding is it depends on whether they've got on-site maintenance, garden maintenance. If there's a contractor, they can actually request an exemption to the green wind system. So, I don't know what we can and can't provision. So, I was thinking... I was heading back to the point where I was saying, you know, I don't know what we can and can't look at that. There wasn't a lot of information with regard to the waste management facilitation other than the standards. And I wasn't sure how green waste came into being with a development like this, whether there was scope to override that or to look at, you know, provision of green bins because of the nature of the contracting of the garden maintenance services for the thing is really the guiding...
01:10:00 My understanding is the guiding factor. So, I'd... I'd ask you... We can look at that as well as to... As to what provisions can... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Enhance them to the current conditions that would facilitate... Speaker 3: We can have a look at it for you. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Can I throw in the next thing? Can we also ask if there's an opportunity for them to put in electric vehicle charging stations given where we're heading in the future? Speaker 3: No. We can't do that because there's nothing in the planning scheme that supports that. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be a good selling point for anyone who has solar power and electric charging stations. What would think a developer would start to be thinking on those funds? Yeah. Excuse me, Tom. Councillor Wilkie: We had an answer to your question before. Speaker 5: Just to see if... Yes. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Wegener, you did ask if somebody could walk the site with you. Given that we are looking at additional reports to Council, the diaries are tight in time frames. If we can provide an officer to give you some assistance, we will. But just noting that between now and Thursday evening, diaries will be tight in time frames.
01:11:00 But if we can, I just wanted to ensure that we responded, because you didn't get that response. So we will do our best to assist. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 5: I have another question. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. That's good. So this appears to be, will this set a precedent for the way we deal with applications for the rest of the new Civic? Speaker 3: Well, what sort of precedent? Because every site is looked at, and every development we approve and decide influences other developments to come, and what Council is prepared to accept. So what do you mean by precedent for this one? Councillor Wegener: Plot ratio, height, front end. Setback. Parking spots. Spaces. Very limited time for Councilors to get our head around it and to make a decision. I think this is rushed a little bit. This is a whopping, huge development. But there's just, there's so many issues. And, yeah, so the precedence is many things.
01:12:00 But this is, there's this. Councillor Wilkie: Question is, will it set a precedent? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Will it set a precedent? Speaker 3: As I said, every development we approve or refuse does influence going forward. You know, I've talked to you before about consistent decision making. So we do need to look carefully at all these issues. Some officers are happy to sit and talk this through with you between now and the ordering meeting, if that will assist you. It is a major scale development. The matter has been with Council for some time, and that's why it's being reported to a general committee rather than to the City Council. So I think it's important to look at that and hold it over another month. It just means more time for the applicant. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of being rushed, how long has it taken to get to this position? Speaker 10: I think we got the application in August last year. Councillor Lorentson: August last year, yeah. Speaker 10: Late August. And they, the applicant responded to the information request in early November.
01:13:00 And there's been a lot of work that's gone on since that date in terms of refining the design. It's been primarily what's held things up until this point. Speaker 3: So ultimately, if Council feel it's rushed and need more time, the matter is an impact assessable application. So it won't be deemed approved if Council doesn't decide the matter on Thursday. The applicant can lodge something with the court with a deemed refusal. Obviously, there'd be some frustration from the applicant because it's been approved and it's been with us a long time. So yeah, but that is Council's option not to make a decision on Thursday if they feel, if you feel you need more time to go through it. But the offer's there for staff to meet with councillors between now and the ordinary meeting as well. Councillor Wegener: I guess when we're, when we've been talking about, the question is, did we talk about this when we were talking about the rest of the Civic site? Because we were talking about lots of other lots over the last couple of months.
01:14:00 But I don't remember this, this application coming in as a part of all the other discussions. Speaker 3: I'm not sure I've been present for all those discussions, but certainly there wasn't a lot of focus on this one. This one is consistent with the scheme in terms that intends high density residential and that's what's proposed. It has, you know, a few little variations which officers are recommending, saying it is consistent with the scheme. But yeah, I don't think we've focused on this one in any workshops with councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: As far as Shire Business Centre plans that have been in place for over 20 years, high density residential, a residential component was always a consideration within the Shire Business Centre? Speaker 3: It was, but the new scheme in 2020 introduced a greater allowance for more residential into the Shire Business Centre. This site was actually previously nominated. And it was the same for the University or TAFE sort of centre, Education.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 So there has been a bit of a change in direction between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme to introduce more residential. Councillor Wilkie: If you could be a bit more holistic, is there an estimated number of people that would be housed within this development? Speaker 10: I'd have to do some quick maths. Councillor Lorentson: Because the planning... I did those maths. What did I work out? I worked out 310 people. 41... Speaker 10: I think there's 157 beds, which if you were saying two people to a bedroom would be what, 314? Councillor Jurisevic: That's assuming every bed has a two. That's correct. So that's probably maximum. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, this is what I've understood the first of its type, small dwellings, half ridge development.
01:16:00 How many units, and what's the comparison, how many one bedders, two bedders, they were larger units weren't they? Speaker 3: Yeah, none of those are small dwelling units from memory. I'd have to go back to know the numbers. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, small dwellings have been built earlier. Councillor Lorentson: But in terms of green space and I think the issues that have been raised by council, should we be referencing what was allowed there just by way of comparison? Speaker 3: I think it's difficult to compare the two because that development, the development was approved under the 1990 scheme a long time ago. Yeah, so very different, so I don't think we can compare. Councillor Wilkie: Cassis, I think we've had a good question. Speaker 3: Can I just ask a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just to clarify the deep planting extending through the openings. Will that create then some type of amendment or, you know, given there's the landscape palette and the trees that's been provided,
01:17:00 what then has to be done around this given this has been raised now to, you know, with relation to the car parking, how is this going to work? Is it an amendment to the plan that's been put in or how does this work with this deep planting? Speaker 3: Is it an additional condition? It's a condition, it's a recommendation to council that if the condition be imposed to require it, and as the applicant develops their plans further, they will need to factor and cater for that in their plans. So there'll be some amendments required, a little bit of re-planning by the applicant's part to achieve that. Councillor Jurisevic: As is the case with any development application before us, if there are conditions to change, those conditions have to be met and submitted in the drawings and the documents for development before the development proceeds.
01:18:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, fairly common practice that there's, you know, the conditions may call for amendments to plan. So they would obtain an approval, but that approval is conditional that they amend their plans. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I do have a question. In terms of $100,000 performance bond, I want to understand how, whether or not it is onerous as the applicant is sort of suggesting. My question is, if we remove that condition, how else would we guarantee that the conditions of the approval have been met? Is it like a case of a building that I need a certificate of completion and that ensures that all the development conditions have been approved? Is it that simple with something out on this scale? Speaker 3: So the performance condition or bond stems from a planning scheme policy that's part of the planning scheme.
01:19:00 So it envisages all developments will have a performance-based bond placed on them. And the bond should relate to the extent of works required and I guess the risk involved in development. Not being careful. In undertaking their development. And I think I would recommend to Council that we do propose a performance bond because it is included on all developments. I think if you are concerned about it, we look at the amount as to whether that's reasonable. And we look at the extent of works required. Because it's about, it's just an encouragement to achieve conditions of approval. Now, alternatively, you know, the applicant, I think, has suggested that that process will happen through a building format plan. We don't need to seal the plans. And whilst the applicant's indicating they're going to sell them off to market. And so we'll have a building format plan.
01:20:00 There's no reason why they have to have a building format plan. Some developments are owned by all the same owner. So there's no guarantee around that process. Councillor Lorentson: So the currency period of this application expires June 2028. Development approval conditions. Where, is there, is once the building's complete, is that when that's, okay, so conditions, for instance, if we put in green waste, et cetera, we don't have to wait five years? No. No, okay. Speaker 3: So the bond is returned on completion and fulfilment of those conditions. Councillor Lorentson: And given that completion is estimated, I think 2024, two years holding down period is reasonable, in your opinion. Speaker 3: They're not, they're not required to pay the bond until their operational works approval prior to actual starting the works, really. So, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: That flexibility and the amount you would consider.
01:21:00 Speaker 3: And people either pay a cash bond or a bank guarantee. There's a number of options in which to satisfy the condition. Councillor Jurisevic: Just for clarity, defined completion, is that certificates of occupancy for all units that are there? Is it another check that staff go out and actually physically walk them? Walk the site and see that the fencing is there and that all of the requirements are there? Does somebody have to go up and measure questionable elements? And so what does completion mean for when the bond is released? Speaker 3: Yeah. For the bond release, exactly that. There's an inspection done by an officer who walks the site, or several officers, to ensure all of the conditions have been met. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask one question, sir? Yeah. Can I ask one question, sir? Yeah. My question is about the small dwellings. These are obviously small dwellings. Where else in the Shire is this currently being undertaken? Other developments? Speaker 3: Yeah. We have one that's currently under construction on New Munday, Noosa Road, by the same developer
01:22:00 of Park Ridge, Altum, doing that one. That's under construction. We have one other that's being built in Corrigian, on Davidlow Way, adjacent to the village. And it's just a small unit development. I think it's about nine units. And it's been built, been there for quite a long time now. But not very many others. Speaker 10: The corner of Moorindil Street and Toowah Street was another one. Six or eight dwelling units there. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Would there be any historical unit conflicts that may also fit in under the size of these sort of units? Yes. I mean, there are some small unit conflicts that I'm aware of around, although it's not sure of the exact dimensions of the units. Speaker 3: No. I think going back in the 80s and 90s, there were some smaller ones built. Yeah. But in more recent times, there will have been fairly large. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyway. Katie, would you close the motion? No. Thank you. We'll put the motion as a waiver. Carried unanimously. Thank you. That's the end. It's a good decision making.
01:23:00 We're going to have a comfort break now. We'll come back in five minutes. See you next week. No, I'm kidding. Bye. Bye. Bye.
90 minutes in ¶
01:35:00 All right, welcome back everybody. We're up to the report, second report, Director General Committee, page 37, the tender consideration plan, district dredging and beach nourishment. And we have Cody Johnston here. Give us a bit of an overview. Welcome, Cody.
01:36:00 Speaker 7: Okay, thank you. So, quick overview is the item of the report is we're requesting for a resolution and the adoption of the prepared tender consideration plan, which is provided as attachment. The tender consideration plan is for the procurement of the dredging services for the Noosa Spit Dredging and Beach Nourishing Works. So, the item of... I should also say is that the tender consideration plan also, sorry, is a quick overview of the tender consideration plan is for under section 230 of local government registration of regulations of 2012, allows council to procure services of the contractor or service under a certain, you know,
01:37:00 special circumstances, really. The item of what we're asking for this to be brought forward and approved is that an infrastructure services team has gained the environmental permits required to do the dredging works of the Noosa Spit and the beach re-nourishment of, say, Dog Beach, as we locally call it. The dredging works is part of the broader, I believe, is it the shore and erosion management? To try and help with the erosion of the beaches as they're going along, going along, sorry. The reason why we're bringing the tender consideration plan forward is that under the permit, excuse me, under the permit, we have a very small window or timeframe to procure a contractor and to also complete the dredging works before the end of the environmental permit.
01:38:00 So essentially when we would have to cease works and stop the nourishing works. Councillor Wilkie: And that was around September? Speaker 7: Correct. September 30. No, 30th of September is the date we have. So under a typical, typical scenario, we would put such works through a normal tender process, which it goes out to the open market and we get responses from local and broader suppliers on, on the tender works. However, due to the small window we have under the permit, which is limiting our duration, which we can dredge the works and also the time it takes under a normal tender process, we have a very small construction window to do the works. And we're asking for approval of the tender consideration, consideration plan to allow us to essentially tender the works under a quote-sense.
01:39:00 And then we would also ask for delegation of authority to approve the works and award the works under the CEO, under Scott, and then having to then not wait for the ordinary meeting to approve the works to commence construction. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Cody. Councillor Jurisevic: Questions? Joe. Yeah, Kabi. Yeah. When did the State provide approval for the direct, for the works to commence? Speaker 7: So the State provided, or SARA, provided the environmental approval towards mid-April, I believe. 19th of April. 19th of April. Correct. So that would be the first date at which we get their, their approval and their conditions, and then following of which Council endorses it with the decision notice, which we believe.
01:40:00 Councillor Jurisevic: How long is the approval for? We've only got six months. Six months. Do you want to take this one? From the date of the 19th of April? Speaker 7: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So basically by the 19th of October it has to be completed. Speaker 7: The 30th of September it has to be completed. And the reason why the, that date has been specified due to, I believe it's- Councillor Jurisevic: That's the next question. Thank you. You're pre-empting my question. Speaker 7: Yes. And the date's been specified due to, call it, I think, I believe it's birds and also fish management. It's all around the environmental ecosystem around there. So we're trying to complete the works before we disturb any of that. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That was what I was alluding to. Speaker 7: Leading into, yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Brian. It might be something outside your expertise remit. We adopted a shoreline erosion management plan and since then the estuary and the river mouth changed significantly. We did, we were working on a management that intervention was triggered by certain levels of risk. Are we currently experiencing the same level of risk in terms of the role of the beach
01:41:00 as a coastal protection structure? Or has that changed? And is there a necessity to do this work? I might jump in there, Brian. I think we need to take that one on notice, Brian, and get back to you on that one. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure if I'm about to ask the same question, but maybe in simple layman terms. But, sorry. My question is, so back to the 30th of April. So that's when we've got the environmental permit. Does that date also consider potential erosive events? So my concern is one of the risks that hasn't been identified in the report. Is there a risk that there's a risk that there's a risk that there's a risk that there's
01:42:00 Speaker 7: I would say we can't really predict or guess when the storm events may happen. Erosion is something that's constantly happening. So the risk is constantly there. It's really based around the severity of the nourishing works is really a preventative measure to take and to minimise the damage of when such events happen. Speaker 4: So I could probably jump in there as well and add what we're trying to achieve here is to create a sand buffer for the future. So if and when storm events come, we have a buffer in place to, I suppose, create a Councillor Wilkie: So, Craig, another follow-up question. The reason why the shoreline erosion management plan was done was because it was noticed that the erosion was occurring on that spit, and there was a danger of there being a breakthrough of the ocean, negatively affecting the properties on Oostersound. Is that correct?
01:43:00 That's correct. And this work will, as you say, provide a buffer against any storm events that may be happening in the La Nina period, where low-pressure storms are more prevalent? Speaker 4: Yes, that's right, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jurisevic: So, given the response, and I don't know that you've got the answer to this, Cody, we get a one-off permit to do some dredging. But erosion is ongoing. Storm events come and go. Do we have to apply for a permit every time we've got an eroding issue here, or is there an option here to get an ongoing permit to dredge under certain conditions?
01:44:00 Speaker 7: That's a good question. I don't have the answer for it. I didn't think you did. So, can you take that question on notice? Speaker 4: We'll take that on notice, Joe. Thank you, Craig. So, Cody's really attentive. He's been in today as the project manager, and he's facilitating the quote process. So, Oscar's the actual officer working on the shoreline erosion management plan. Speaker 4: And any questions, we can take back to Oscar and respond accordingly. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Yeah, no, I take that question on notice is what I was expecting, Craig. It only just came as a result of what Amelia said. It made me think of it. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the cost, sorry, in terms of the tender process, on page 46, Cody, can you just talk us through, there were four people that, four specialty contractors of which, and I'll let you talk to this, there was a summary of the feedback from the contractors,
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 and it was just interesting that, you know, one went out of business, one didn't have the machinery big enough. I think the question that I want to ask you is the two that remained. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are we going to ensure that, A, they're going to stay in business, and in terms of machinery, long-term, is this something that, as a council, we should be thinking of maybe purchasing? Because it just seems like it was a really difficult task, looking for specialty contractors to do this job. Speaker 4: Cody, if I could just jump in there. I'll allow Cody to respond to the first part around the contractor viability, but responding to the... the second part around council purchasing a dredger, in the past, we did have a council dredge, but it's become more and more difficult to dredge. And it's not, we used to be able to get large windows of permits to enable dredging,
01:46:00 but it's become more and more difficult because of the impacts on the environment and the flora and the fauna. So, I'm thinking that it's probably going to get more difficult to dredge into the future. So, there'd need to be an assessment of whether there's value for money in purchasing a dredge Speaker 4: against the ability to get permits. Councillor Jurisevic: The challenge there, therefore, Craig, sounds like, and I think this is what Amelia's asking, if there isn't sufficient dredging, we don't have a viability of dredging services, and then you won't have a dredging contractor when you need one. That does make us at the, what's the word, availability of any contractor to do that work. Speaker 4: But that's generally the industry that we work in. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, the only alternative to that will be, I can only imagine, will be to seek services further and wider where your dredging contractors aren't locally available.
01:47:00 Speaker 4: I suppose the thing is that we do live in a large coastal area, and Sunshine Coast Council is carrying out dredging in Gold Coast, so there is that availability of contractors probably broader. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Tom. About three years ago, I was down there, and they were dredging and adding sand to the Dog Beach area, that exact area there. Did that do any good, or what was the, did that work? And are we, I don't know. Are we going to just do the same thing over again? Speaker 4: I'm not aware of any dredging three years ago, but with sand and the river now, when there's erosion and currents, sand will move. This is only a temporary fix. It's a bit like our sand shifter on main beach. What we try and do is we try and create a buffer during the seasons when, say winter, when we're not getting those large cyclones.
01:48:00 And so the buffer acts as a protection. And so the purpose of this is to create a temporary buffer, which is low impact on the community. And the idea is to provide some protection into the future. Speaker 4: Katie, you're going to answer that second part of the question around the viability of the contract. Speaker 7: Correct. So basing on that item, so you did mention about some of the contractors were reproached, didn't say they were undervalued. They weren't able to do the works. That's focused around the short window of timeframe we have to do the works, plus the sheer volume of material which we need to move has a specialty machine. So, you know, larger machines can move high volumes within a shorter period. That was part of one of why some contractors weren't able to complete the works, just to the sheer volume of works within the small window. In terms of the stability of the contractors themselves, we've gone to, I would say, local viable contractors, which we feel can handle the works and have the capability to.
01:49:00 Same with any other contractor we go in, there is always the potential risk of they could go, what's it called, they could go bust in that situation. Thank you. So that risk still remains, but we'll have to review that as we review the tender responses from each supplier. Councillor Jurisevic: Have you done any research into how many contractors there are within a geographical range from our area, just to understand the capabilities or the extent of contractors there are? Speaker 7: The way in which we did our sourcing of contractors are those which we've known have primarily worked on the coast. When I say the coast, let's talk about Noosa and the Sunshine Coast. So we went to resident contractors who have worked here, hence why we went a little bit broader than just the Sunshine Coast.
01:50:00 The information available, I'm not too sure, sorry, Jay. It's something that we could pull together. Councillor Jurisevic: It depends on body weight, just to see how far we'd have to go with it. Mayor Stewart: Cody, just on that, just going back to capability, it's only, it's weighted at 20%. Can you, because there obviously has been, you know, it's very specialised. Based on feedback from a number of companies, they can't do it or there's reasons they can't, you know, be involved. Can you tell me why 20% was chosen for capability and not an increased number there? Speaker 7: Without capability, it's one of those things that kind of weigh together with capability methodology. Councillor Lorentson: And quality. I added quality in that group as well. Speaker 7: Yeah, so it's, we do, it will be primary if they aren't able to do that works. It'll be a quick highlight. Hard, you know, incapable, hence it's not really a conforming response.
01:51:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 7: But at the same time, they do kind of both blend to each other. Someone might have a different kind of methodology that shows how they're capable to do the works. Councillor Wegener: This might be a question for Oscar, but are you going to be sucking the sand from where you want the channel to be and then dumping it over to Dog Beach where you don't want the erosion? So it's just going to, so it's going to be a dredge that's going to be anchored there. It's not going to be the sand pump on the spit. Speaker 7: Yeah, correct. So we're, the efficiency in works is all about short, short dredging distances. So there's a body of sand locally to it. And considering we'll be removing the sand, it'll be introducing a channel. So it's logical to put the channel in the middle of the river mouth where it currently is. Short distance to pump and re-nourish the beachfront. Councillor Lorentson: So what are the ecological impacts of that? Are we going to be disrupting any fish breeding, nesting, like, you know, we're talking middle of a river?
01:52:00 Speaker 7: Correct. So I don't have the answers to those. However, Council did engage a consultant to do a, to prepare a dredge management plan which addressed all those environmental, ecological issues. So all that work has been pre-done. And it's been pre-done in, that was used to advise the environmental permit application process. Speaker 4: And Cody, Cody, you also, just adding to that, the buffer of the period when we have to pump is when the, the creatures or the river species aren't breeding. So this is the critical period when we have to pump. Hence why we have this timeframe. Hence why we're bringing this tender. Because we have an end date and, and we have the permits in place, which means that the management plan has been reviewed and signed off. And we have this window of opportunity where the fish and the prawns aren't breeding.
01:53:00 Speaker 4: And so there's less impact. Councillor Wilkie: We've got the Acting Environment Manager here who would like to contribute. Sean. Speaker 2: Thanks, Chair. So the infrastructure services involved me in the preparations. We've reviewed the construction of the dredge management plan and reviewed the documentation, which we really appreciate it. The consultants also have coastal engineers and environmental engineers on board in the preparation of those documents. And in summary, that's correct that the most impact that this dredging operation would have is in particularly shorebirds, which are migratory. They're also resident shorebirds. And to undertake the activities in winter is certainly beneficial to the local environment. It's worth noting that the Noosa River is a highly modified river environment. The channel has been in the middle of the river before. So it's recreating what's been there in the past. And, you know, this spit is also an artificial environment, you know, designed to protect Noosa Sandy.
01:54:00 I just also wanted to note that the licence is subject to review by the Department of Environment Science, who have a very rigorous approach to the assessment and the environmental impacts and the actual approval to actually have this done. So take the dredging works. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian, just a follow-up. The question is, is the approval of all our management systems got any water quality testing as part of it? Because when we had the large, the initial large hints here at Bloom, one of the hypotheses put forward by the investigating scientists was that it was perhaps the increased nutrients generated by disturbing the benthos from dredging. That drove the initial balloon within the estuary that then got washed out onto the beach. It may be worse, even out of interest, to see if there is that effect. Councillor Wilkie: So you're asking if it's water monitoring? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, whether it includes water quality monitoring or whether we could look at using our relationship with the University of Sunshine Coast.
01:55:00 Speaker 7: I can respond to that saying the dredge management plan, which we provided the contractors, which is part of their specification of works, does include water monitoring. Councillor Lorentson: Water quality monitoring is part of their works. Does it include, Cody, testing the sand to see if it's contaminated? There's always been sort of issues raised about, you know, I can't think of a big toxic... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: TCD. Councillor Lorentson: TCD, et cetera. But that might be an opportunity, again, to have a look at sand contamination if it's... Speaker 7: I was going to say the management plan has already done testing and does require re-testing before operations start as well. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question? Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question, please, Mr Chair? You can still ask a question, Councillor Finzel.
01:56:00 I'm happy to second. Well, Councillor Finzel is going to be the second to say a count. Councillor Finzel: You can ask a question. Just the dredge management plan, is that done every time at procurement or is that the only time it's undertaken? Speaker 7: The dredge management plan is a specific document just for this operation of works and that's provided to the contractor and they also provide their own management plan for the works as well with reference on their hours. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I would have just liked to have seen, and this could be for the CEO with regards to your reviews of things, I noticed no one from the environment and sustainable development had been ticked here on the departments or sections consulted. I would have liked to have seen some of that to accompany this report to give me a fuller understanding around the impacts, especially around the CHAP and all the work we're doing around beach nourishment. And so then just to inform my decision around this to check and balance that we're moving forward in the right direction
01:57:00 and we're just not sticking to status quo when it comes to sand dredging. I'd like, please Mr CEO, some further information, especially on these environmental impacts. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question, has the environment department had any input into this? Speaker 2: So we have been involved through the preparation of the dredge management plan and I would expect that we'd be on the panel for the selection of the contractor. For instance, we're on the panel for the selection of the contractor for the recent use of the River Plains for Works. We have a good relationship with the infrastructure service. So I don't see this as a report about the environmental impact. It's a report about setting up the procurement mechanism. Councillor Wilkie: The tender process. Thank you. Right, seconder, Councillor Lorentson. Look, I'm thankful. Thank you, Cody, for the report. It's clear we have the opportunity now. Permits have been gained to move quickly and engage with local suppliers to procure these services
01:58:00 and make sure the work is done according to the environmental permits in the allowed time. The shoreline management plan has been a piece of work that the Council has been aware of and has commissioned for several years now. It has been delayed due to other budget considerations. I'm glad that we're finally able to get going on this. It is a concern for a section of the community who like to use that area for recreation. Not only that, it provides essential protection for nature. So I'm hoping the tender process can get underway as quickly as possible and procure an appropriate and competent service provider. Can the Councillor just speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, yeah, I'm happy with item A of the recommendation. I'm not going to vote for the motion, though, until I've got advice that the conditions still exist that this is required work.
01:59:00 So I have a long standing. I have a long standing view about how we manage the river map. I agree with the triggers that we put in place in the shoreline erosion management plan. I just want to be sure that this is currently a requirement that meets those triggers that we agreed to. Councillor Wilkie: Question. Councillor Wegener: Have they ever done this? Has Noosa done this before? To take in sand and put it on the dog beach like this? Speaker 4: I can jump in there. Yes. So as mentioned earlier, Council loaned a dredger and it was set up permanently and Council dredged when it had permits to dredge in that area. So yes, it has been used before to dredge channels and it has been used before to create sand buffers in the dog beach area.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So further than that, Craig, I'm assuming this will be more orientated towards the simp than the issue before us with the current dredging. Sunshine Coast Council went down the path of doing some investigations here and put in geotextile bags and sand and all the rest of it, which was supposed to facilitate sand nourishment in this area. And clearly conditions have created a challenge there. Within the simp, are we looking at what other means or how effective those geotextile bags were and whether there's more work that needs to be done in that sphere? Speaker 4: So the plan that Sunshine Coast came up with had two stages. And what we're seeing there today is stage one. And a report was brought back to Council after the amalgamation looking at stage two. And it involved hard infrastructure. And that report wasn't supported.
02:01:00 And so we've gone down this path of developing the simp. I can't really comment on the details in the simp. I'm just not aware at this stage. So I'd have to take that on notice. Councillor Jurisevic: If you could, that would be good, just to get back and just clarify what I said. I can't recall either at the moment. I'm sitting on the spot and just trying to think. But just let me down that path. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Tom. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to the motion. It is a tricky one. I mean, you know, the history is that we moved the river mouth to where it is now, quite a ways from where it was in the 70s. The sand, the river winds and moves, creating different pathways. The sand moves. This is something that has to be done, obviously. We do not want that to break through. We don't want to lose the dog beach or else it may well be a very deep channel all the way to the Shire. What is the Sofitel?
02:02:00 You know, we can't have that. That would be terribly expensive. And the erosion, we just keep going and going. So we've got to try to curb this erosion now by doing something that we're not all that confident of because we voted against hard structures. Don't want hard structures because they just fall into the ocean, fall in as well. So we're just going to try to move the soft structure, which is sand, which is very expensive. But we have to do it. And nobody's positive that we're going to get the outcome that we want. But it seems as though we're stuck between a rock and a hard place or just sand, really. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, the challenge here, as we mentioned, is we no longer have a natural forest. There's a formation there over years. And historically, yeah, development has occurred on Hastings Street. Development of the spit has been put in to protect the development of Noosa Sound.
02:03:00 And as a result of this, the riverbanks have been impacted and affected. And unfortunately, I can't see any way other than giving intervention on an ongoing basis to facilitate a channel. And or nourishment when required. So I'm happy to support this. I think it's one of those legacy projects that we're, legacy issues that we're left with as a result of development over time. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll speak to it. Councillor Lorentson: I think the Noosa Spit dredging and beach nourishment is overdue. I'm, you know, if you look at what other councils are doing, particularly the Gold Coast, you know, I think we should be looking at potentially building a sand recycling pipeline.
02:04:00 Beach nourishment is a possible protection for coastal hazards. I, you know, I don't even discount grey infrastructure. It is, you know, a combination. We can see around the corner at Dold Beach that we've got a stone wall and geofabric sandbanks. And it's the stone wall, the stone rock wall that's actually working. The geofabric bags are falling apart. So, you know, this is, this is a must do. It's overdue. So I'm happy to support this, this motion. Councillor Wilkie: May I just speak to the motion? Look, I respect that some councillors would like to inform themselves better about the shoreline erosion management plan and the need for it at this stage.
02:05:00 We've got two, three days between now and Thursday night, which provides ample opportunity for them. Either councillors to meet with staff or for staff to provide an update to all councillors via email or call us together for a briefing or a workshop, which is great. In the meantime, I'm happy to support this recommendation to move forward to Thursday night's ordinary meeting where we can discuss it again if we're all in favour. Councillor Stewart, Lorentson, Wegener, Finzel, Jurisevic and Wilkie. Gates, Councillor Stockwell. That's carried. Next item. Thank you. Thank you, Cody. Thank you. Next item. Thank you. Thank you. Item three is the Noosa Environment Strategy Monitoring Report. This is a report direct to the general committee. Welcome back, Sean.
02:06:00 Speaker 2: Good afternoon, councillors. The environmental monitoring report shows, was intended to show the progress of our environment strategy. It's meant to be a long-term view about capturing data, which you then monitor over time, whether it's five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. It's the first time it's been attempted. It certainly shows that we've got some data, which is really useful. An example of that, land under secure conservation tenure. It's shown that we've increased from 34% in 2018 up to 2021. Sorry, up to 40% in 2021, which is really great data to assess how we're going as a shire. It also provides really good benchmark data. For instance, the woody vegetation extent shows that 70% of the shire is actually covered by vegetation, which is really significant in the South East Queensland context and the like. And that's certainly something that's really valuable to monitor over time. And it also has value in terms of things of bushfire planning and also carbon offsets
02:07:00 and carbon emissions calculations and the like. It also shows some areas where data is not particularly good. Particularly if you look at the sustainable building elements and water consumption shows that we're well above the South East Queensland average in terms of water consumption. And water consumption contributes significantly to carbon emissions as a community. And that's something that we should definitely be tracking on a more regular basis to see if we can assist Unity Water in reducing our residents' potable water consumption. The other also thing it shows, there's lots of holes, for instance, threatened species monitoring. You know, we've begun, you know, some monitoring programs, but there's nothing that we can measure over time. And ideally, we'd have specific numbers put into the report so that we can monitor over time. Now, for instance, since the date of this report or the data that's working towards the work that's been undertaken on New Ul Forest and koala monitoring shows we've actually got increasing koala numbers in Noosa Shire, which is actually at odds with what's happening
02:08:00 in the South East Queensland overall. Presuming that's one of the species we select, then we've got to put that data in here and shows that Noosa Shire is increasing its koala population over time. But it's a, we think, believe it's a good start. That shows where we're succeeding, perhaps where we're not so succeeding, and also where we need to continue to work to get data to show our success as an environmentally strong organisation. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I've got a question. I've got a question. Page 10, Sean. Healthy Land Water Report Card Rating for Noosa River. Yes. Since 2015, we've maintained, right up until last year, an A- in our report card. It's probably one of the highest, if not the highest, across Queensland. That says to me that we're doing pretty well. And I guess my follow-up question today is we're putting a lot of money into projects now.
02:09:00 Do we need to be based on that? And what do we hope to achieve going forward? Speaker 2: It's a really good question. Noosa River's water quality, and the reason we received such a good rating, is because the vast majority of the flows actually come from the river. So if we look at the water quality in our Noosa River, which is National Park. But if we actually look at the catchments we manage, such as Kin Kin Creek, and also the urban catchments around Lake Wyver, perhaps Eni Creek, which has got urban industrial pollution, their ratings are probably more like a D, you know, or an E, and up to an F. And we're actually not necessarily, in our urban catchments, doing any better than anywhere else in southeast Queensland. We benefit from our pollution being diluted by the beautiful fresh water from Noosa National Park. So the Kooloola section of the Great Sandia National Park, I should say. So with the water program that we've proposed to roll out for 22-23, it's about actually setting up report card ratings for each of those sub-catchments, so that we should be not just reporting on the overall report card rating for the Noosa River.
02:10:00 We should also be reporting at the same time, how is Kin Kin Creek going? How is Eni Creek going? Where should we be prioritising our investment? Because at the moment, we, you know, we are getting lots of data, but we've been quite poor at actually assembling that data and actually doing something really useful to actually inform and prioritise our investment. Mayor Stewart: So looking at whether or not we take, I guess, priority away from Noosa River, what you're saying, and focus on these specific catchment areas. Speaker 2: Catchments, yeah. And we already know that Kin Kin is a major contributor to sediment in the Noosa River system. And that leads to, you know, our turbidity in the water, nutrient release, and also problems with visual quality. So it links, you know, to our tourism and our economy when we have major sediment releases coming through the Noosa River system. So the program that Council already invests in, the Keep It In Kin Kin project, which is, you know, sediment management, we know it's a good project, but should we be investing more in it, you know, as a high priority?
02:11:00 Because we know that that actually is one of the major, well, if we had better data, that would actually help quantify whether we know it's the major contributor. And how does it relate to perhaps pollutants coming from the urban catchments such as, you know, Ernie Creek, you know, behind Noosaville? Maybe they're a small contributor, and it helps us distinguish where our priority should be in the future. The other thing I want to bear in mind is that our report card rating doesn't address the Merri River catchment at all, and 34% of Noosa Shire is in the Merri River. And if we're very interested in, you know, regional biosphere and ecosystems, it discharges into the Southern Barrier Reef, which is a great icon for Queensland. And I'll also note that the, you know, the Southern Barrier Reef attracts a lot of funding from the federal government, and, you know, MRCCC do, Merri River Catchment Coordinating Committee do a great job at actually tapping into that funding, but Noosa Council doesn't necessarily, because our focus is, you know, traditionally, historically being on the Noosa River, not necessarily the Merri River.
02:12:00 Mayor Stewart: On the question short, just from page 15, our water duff, our water usage, am I right in assuming that we in Noosa here use over 100 litres more per day than the rest of South East Queensland? Speaker 2: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: And if so, what can we do about that, and how can we message that? Speaker 2: It's a really good point, and by putting it into this report allows those sorts of questions to be asked. So, it would need to be a strategy rolled out with Unity Water, who are responsible for Potable Water. Yeah, it's astounding. And we know that we have, I've been working with the CEO and scheduling a meeting with Unity Water, and I know the new CEO, the CEO, our CEO has a meeting with them in the future. And I think it should be rolled into our messaging under climate change and, you know, environmental education. So we don't just say it's a Unity Water responsibility, it's actually our combined responsibility as a Shire. Mayor Stewart: I think our residents, if that was, I mean it obviously is public now, but if really
02:13:00 that was well publicised they'd be quite shocked. Yeah. Yeah. I was when I read it. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not, and we could have probably put it into a graph to even show it even more dramatically. Yeah. So, but it's not a good figure. Councillor Jurisevic: There's been a good estimate of the sediment coming down from Kin Kin Creek and or any industrial pollutants coming out of there. One of the things about the report card rating for the Noosa River is it doesn't then monitor the impacts of that i.e. we've had a study for the benthic layer, we don't, the Noosa report card doesn't look at the benthic layer as a, as an on, to see whether it's ongoing improvement or not. Are those other elements that within our reporting we could be looking at the quality of the initial river with regard to how that sediment impacts upon the lower reaches of the river? Speaker 2: Yeah, but since we started working on this report, which was based on data from last financial year,
02:14:00 we've obviously had the seagrass study released, which has shown a significant change in seagrass. So I'd suspect that a report like that could make its way into the next version of the monitoring report. And then over time, whether it's five years, 10 years, 15 years, then we're tracking, well, how is seagrass performing in the Noosa River? Because it's a great indicator of, you know, whether we're managing the waterway health appropriately. Councillor Jurisevic: And I imagine that brings itself up to the opportunities for revegetating elements that have been lost. I mean, seagrass, oysters and a lot. Speaker 2: Yeah. And, you know, the leakage in all of that is that, you know, we don't know why the seagrass is in decline. And, you know, if we're starting to... If we're starting to look at causes, having a good understanding of water quality data, both during normal operating but also events, and having live reporting, is a fundamental knowledge block that we need to actually help understand what's happening in our waterways. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it's nice.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Am I understanding the Hilton Land Water Report, that also talks about the social benefits and the recreational benefits of the river, not just the actual drop-off. Speaker 2: That's right. It's a very coarse assessment. Is it superficial? Not superficial. They do use modelling as much as results. So, they say, you know, this much of urban catchments traditionally releases this much, you know, pollutants. So, they plug that into their model and then they do verification testing. I think we need to look beyond what Healthy Land Water provide us with to come up with a better grain that suits our needs better to, you know, have a really high standard of management. We have to remember Healthy Land Water are a really important advocacy model, linked in regionally, and they have a really valuable role. I'm not saying about discounting their reporting, I think we need to supplement it with better grain. Yeah, I didn't mean to demographise it, but it just doesn't go down to into the layers of the granularity, is a good word. Councillor Lorentson: The plan outlines all the strategies, and it sets the goal of achieving these strategies,
02:16:00 by 2030. Is this ambitious, and does it align with our other strategies, including our waste strategies? Speaker 2: So, this report actually comes directly from the objectives set up in the 2019 Environment Strategy. So, it actually just responds to that. But I do note that the Environment Strategy has a three-year implementation plan, which is coming to a conclusion later this year. So, and talking to my predecessor, Rebecca, one of her priorities will be to come up back to Council with, you know, how has our three-year implementation plan tracked, and what changes do we need to make, to see whether it's realistic or not. Noting that, you know, obviously there's lots of learnings to be made from the existing Environment Strategy. Councillor Lorentson: My only other question is in regards to the environment levy expenditure.
02:17:00 I note that projects include restoration of the river, and also just conservation or forest sort of restoration sort of programs. Why isn't restoration of our beaches and dunes, like for instance what I just raised before the previous meeting, a sand replenishment project? Why are our beaches not identified as a priority spending under our environment levy? Is that got to do with the criteria for the levy? And should we be revisiting that criteria so that our beaches and coastal dunes are identified as a priority? Speaker 2: So, this is a historical record of the way Council has, you know, invested. In particular, by the way, by the way, by the way, by the way, by the way, by the way.
02:18:00 I'd say the update of the Noosa Environment Strategy implementation plan, remember I talked about that three year plan, would be the best opportunity for you to reset priorities for the organisation and respond to more recent events such as the flooding and the impact on our coast. So, if, sorry, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Just asking a question, it's a very good question about the value you've placed on the beaches. My understanding is one of the largest amounts given out on the environmental levy program, which is funded by the Levee is 75 million, is that right? That is correct. Speaker 2: And that could be an additional dot point that we could have put under there. There are three community bushland care groups, which have three year funding under the MEC program to, supported by Council staff, to roll out ongoing revegetation and rehabilitation on our eastern beaches. Councillor Jurisevic: That's only been facilitated through recent changes to the how we spend the environment levy, which in the past has been primarily an acquisition.
02:19:00 Land acquisition. A land acquisition levy. Speaker 2: I understand that. Yeah, that was, that MEC program was awarded in 2020. So, as a result of changes to the environment levy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So, I'm going to move the motion. I'll second it. I do so. There's been some really good questions, and what this report does is track the performance against the environment strategy. And we just, the last conversation just highlighted that, based on the environment strategy, we, and it was three years in the making. It was when, in 2016, the community environment and anchor groups were all saying, we don't know what council priorities are, so we don't know what to put into the grant application. So, when we got the strategy, we said, here's what the priorities are, and this is what can be used, the environment that we forward to do this. So, the beaches are valued. The target is, by 2030, to maintain the extent of dictator buses and improve diversity of
02:20:00 coastal ecosystems. That's the, that's the, that's the target for the, for the beaches. We've talked about the results of the environmental health monitoring plan by Healthy Waterways. And it's a very well researched set of indicators about water quality and the health of the, of the water stream. It's not meant to be an indicator of, you know, the quality of the water. It's meant to be an indicator of quality, biodiversity and abundance. And that's, I suppose, for both the Noosa River and the Mary River, it is quality, biodiversity and abundance, which are the priority issues. Yeah, we, we do feed into the, the, the re-encashments, but the, because we have 70% of cover, we don't have the huge sediment issues that we see in the main Mary with the huge eroded banks that have come out of the Six Mile Creek. But we do have excellent, uh, remnant habitat of the endangered Mary River Koi. Um, people might have in the eighties, visiting overseas piquant trees and high profile environmentalists used to come behind the, the Lake McDonnell Dam wall because we had a resident lungfish
02:21:00 there. So we've got all these, these values. I think what is really good is both identifying where we've made progress and, and, and the acting manager highlighted that, you know, we've got a really ambitious target of having 50% of the Shire covered by some form of, uh, protection for conservation values. And we've managed to increase that, uh, by roughly a percent a year. So we should get pretty close to that, um, on current trends, um, by the target date of 2030. Um, it also shows where we haven't got enough information to establish, and that's where we need to look at. So while it was mentioned that we, you know, Healthy Waterways has got a, a system, uh, for, um, water quality, uh, benchmarking. The Mayor of Cashman also do that, but it's based on volunteers. And so what we have to work out is, is that the core business, uh, of Council that we need to know these things, and therefore do we need to invest in that, that network? And I think there might have been a project last time around that, that funded it.
02:22:00 Speaker 2: It's actually a new initiative for 22, 23. Yeah. Uh, to, to look at all of that. And it looks like it's got favourable support subject to the, the, the end budget outcomes. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So in terms of this, it's, it's something that we've looked at for a long time now, the bi-, back in the early stages of being advised about how we're going to measure, um, how we're managing the biosphere. These are the, the environmental attributes of that particular aspect. Um, we've also got a very nice photo, I presume it's a local orchid. Um, and I would reckon that we should actually put, this is this orchid then, at first here in the, in the, um, in Noosa, if that's the case. But it happens not to be a local orchid. You might want to look at that. Speaker 2: I'll do that. That's a good point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, but finally, I, um, I think this probably will be our last opportunity to thank the Acting Manager for the environment. And, um, Sean came in having, um, uh, uh, decided to have a lifestyle change, moved back to the Shire after having highfalutin jobs in the big city. And, um, started a couple of days a week and moved into this acting role.
02:23:00 And I know the feedback, um, both from my colleagues, but also, uh, the staff throughout the building is one of the great appreciation for the professionalism that Sean's brought to the role. And so just, you know, I'd like to thank him for his time and, and helping, uh, with his bit of, you know, he, he was, the last time I worked with Sean, he was this young, uh, urban planner who had just got out of uni in the 80s and 90s that he first joined the council. And so it was quite good to see him again and to see how he has developed in the, and the level of knowledge and, and as I said, the managerial and professionalism that he brought to the organisation. Councillor Wilkie: Three cheers for Sean. Hooray! Hooray! Speaker 2: Hooray! Hooray! Thank you. Thanks, Sean. I'll still be up at Blackmount. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll, I'll come and, to the tavern, I'll come. I'd like to speak to the motion. Yes, to start the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, just to start the recommendation. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Okay. Um, Tom. Um, very happy and congratulations, Sean. You're the man. Thank you for your hard work. Um, just, uh, one thing that wasn't, didn't get a lot of, um, oxygen here, of course,
02:24:00 is the adoptable, sustainable agriculture practices. And, um, because there's still, it's still a work in progress, isn't it? Yeah. Um, one thing that it says by 2030, 80% of all grazing land achieves best practice management for agriculture. And there is so much going on in the regenerative space, but the 80% is mostly, um, private land. So we're gonna have to go and induce the, these private landowners to make better use of their land. Again, because as of right now, it's continually degrading. That's our Keep It in Kin Kin project. You know, when, when they, um, celebrated, you know, a success with the Keep It in Kin Kin project, I asked, is it time to, to pop the champagne bottles? And they said, no, we've, we've gone 4% of the way. So we have, we need, we need to go another 96%. And so with our Keep It in Kin Kin, the, the silt is largely, um, the cattle grazing. We need, we want to get 80% of it, but that's on private land. So that's something we really got to work on. And as I've been carrying on about, um, the, um, the, the, the rates not going through
02:25:00 and so forth, that, that we, that land is, it's just being land banked. It's not, it's not being, um, used well, that it's not, it's not part of the Man in Biosphere principles where you, people are making money and making a nice living off of the, off of the land and off the environment. And actually it's not giving the land to the next generation better or the same as it is that was given to us because it's continually degrading. So it's so important that we do that, get that 80%. Um, and then of course you look at Bryant ushers and you've all, you have all met Bryant. You could look at his land where his cows are, are, are regeneratively moved. They're moving from paddock to paddock to paddock. They're never in a paddock more than 24 hours before they move to the next paddock. Well, it just looks totally different. It's just a, it's a different looking paddock than the one next door where you have 20 or 30 cows just going along and you can see the, as, as Bryant said the other day, you can see the hoof marks in the mud where on his paddock the grass is this long. You can't see the hoof marks because the cows don't eat what they want to eat.
02:26:00 They eat what they have to eat and then they move into the next paddock where on, on this paddock they eat what they want to eat, they eat the, that's all they eat and then the rest of it just, it, it, it doesn't work very well. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Um, and then we're going to be talking about our economic strategy coming up and our economic development. Well, I think our economic development is more koalas. I mean that, that is our economic advantage is the fact that our numbers of koalas are going up while they're also becoming a vulnerable species and going down every place else. So in my opinion, our economic strategy, our environmental strategy, our environmental strategy is our economic strategy in so many ways. The overlap is, is just, is thorough. So congratulations for more koalas that, that together, that's, that's just such a giant piece for us and for our future economy at Noosa. That's it. Thank you Tom. Councillor Lorentson: Um. Amelia. Uh, just quickly. It, it hasn't been mentioned and I just want to mention it on page 48.
02:27:00 Um, this is the first time Council's actually ever published such a comprehensive environmental monitoring report and it provides a key benchmark for long-term performance and change in the Noosa biosphere. Um, I just want to congratulate you, Sean, for that and I know you will be leaving, but I think that this is going to be your legacy, all these great templates that, um, you've provided for this Council and for this community. Speaker 2: Thank you. If I could just acknowledge the efforts of, uh, Environment Officer Ryan Heaney, who actually did all the work. So. . . . When Craig Doolan left, he'd already been appointed as the project officer. Oh, okay. And we sat, the next day we sat next to each other and we said, we're supposed to be doing this monitoring report. And I said, do you know what you're doing? He said, no. I said, do I know? He said, no. Go on, let's get on with it. So we've, we've thrown this together since October. Fantastic. But with the assistance of a lot of staff across the organisation to extract data. Councillor Lorentson: It's just fantastic. This is what we pride ourselves on, that we're green and can I also stress, we're also blue.
02:28:00 Um, our oceans can't be neglected. Um, so yeah, it's a priority. Thank you. Speaker 2: I think it's something like, well, we don't meet the national standard, do we, which I deceptively speak, 8%. I think that's the goal for other areas. Can you, I'm just looking at it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All I know is when the last of the data that I saw comparing us against the rest of South East Queensland, we're miles ahead. We're miles ahead. There's one other, it could be Redlands, I think, because we've got a strip road that might be at a higher percentage as well. If you're able to find it in the... Speaker 2: I know it's... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You've seen it through by email? Speaker 2: It's certainly published for the Queensland, but that publishes national parks and conservation reserves. It doesn't necessarily account for the reserves under council management.
02:29:00 But it'll give you a reasonable standard of what area is protected by state government. Councillor Wilkie: And also the statewide land cover trees, area under wood, vegetation, our percentage is 70%. Is there a statewide average for that as well? Speaker 2: There would be actually. Yeah. So I can certainly distribute that if you need to. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors receive the motion? Yeah, I'd like to. Charlie. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you, Brian, for us. I'm well put together. A report, a great starting point. Heading forward. It shows areas we are doing well, but it also shows, highlights the fact that there's work to be done. And we can't rest on our laurels and the environment doesn't stop needing our attention and our work. And there is lots of areas where we can certainly do more and continue to thrive and make sure that the environment is first and foremost the thing that council looks to protect for
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 not only current generation, but future generations going forward. I think there's, again, a work in progress. And I look forward to highlighting the areas that we need to spend more money and more time on, like the areas that you've spoken about, particularly with regards to erosion and the Noosa River, and monitoring and management, beaches, and all the areas of concern. It's great to see that there are some positive results coming through, and that's again, to provide the numbers. But an element of that may be increased koala monitoring and better koala monitoring, as we, as technology facilitates. So it helps us to gather better data and actually have a better understanding. So the more that we put into this, hopefully the more of an understanding we will have about the environment and what we need to do to continue to protect it for future generations. Thank you. Brian, do you want to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will close.
02:31:00 It's been an excellent discussion around the table. I think we should have one indicator here, the number of surfboard manufacturers can be a good one. Which, interestingly, the benchmark you mentioned is actually one that I would recommend, because it's what, at the time, was part of the Craco area reef management practice target, was to get the 80 per cent best practice. And we have, I think, invested in environment grant projects to address it. There's one we also mentioned about the things that are missing. We've got one big zero here, and that's the number of tonnes diverted from the land. That's the number of tonnes diverted from the landfill of food waste. Now, the next time we come to this monitoring project, we want the care to be half eaten. We want there to be a lot more. And there's zero. It does highlight also the big challenges, you know. Sixty per cent of our emissions for this organisation come out of the landfill. And it's transformation of our waste management and our resource usage. It's transformation that's going to have to take in the whole community to drive change, you know.
02:32:00 While it's great to see the increase in conservation, and we've been doing that since the 80s, in this day and age, it's one of the easiest environmental issues to address. This is one of the hardest, because it talks about change and consumption. So it does give us a really nice, clear snapshot about where we're going well and where the challenges are ahead. And, yeah, it'll be useful going forward to plot, as it's suggested, our long-term progression towards 2030 targets. Put the motioners in favour? Councillor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you very much, Sean. Thank you. Speaker 2: It was a pleasure. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Sean. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, Leo. They've noticed the order. Next item is the financial performance report. What do you call the report? You're welcome.
02:33:00 We have Trent and Pauline with us for the financial performance report. Can you give us a bit of an overview of what the council is tracking? Speaker 9: Sure. Good afternoon, councillors. So we're almost at the end of the financial year, and council's operating performance year to date to May is still tracking above budget. With our operating result about $5.9 million. This is driven predominantly by revenue, so fees and charges and sales of goods and services are still tracking upwards, which equates to about $2.4 million of that upside. But operational grants is also contributing quite a substantial amount, and that's $1.4 million of disaster recovery funding, of which we've spent $704,000 on the disaster works year to date, and there's ongoing works going on with that. We've also received $392,000 for the Black Summer bushfire recovery grant, and we've also been paid 75% upfront of our financial assistance grant, so $860,000 is being contributed to that surplus as a result of that.
02:34:00 We're not exactly sure how that's going to impact and flow through in the next financial year, given that we've received the update, because we don't know the full amount as yet of what the financial assistance grants will be. Councillor Wilkie: That means it could be a loss next year? Speaker 9: It could reduce the amount that we get. We haven't been advised the final amount for next year, depending on the changes in the methodology. Councillor Wilkie: If we've received it this year but quit it next year, does that mean it's a loss? Speaker 9: The financial assistance grant, we don't necessarily acquit. It's a general grant, so we use it towards some operational and capital things, but we usually get 50% upfront. It's just this year, because of the disaster recovery and the floods, they've paid 75%. So how that impacts us next year when we won't receive 50%, we're not quite sure yet, because we haven't got the actual amount that they've attributed to 2023. So we'll let you know when we know that bit. In terms of operational expenditures, tracking below budget, about $489,000. It's comprised of a lower than budget employee cost of nearly $800,000. This is offset by materials and services, which are currently over budget by $232,000.
02:35:00 But you should note that some of that flood works is flying through that line item as well. So the flood works, so the disaster recovery works are flying through that materials and services line, so it's sort of offsetting some of that line item. Capital revenue remains on track, however capital expenditure is currently tracking almost $14 million below budget year to date. As we know, that's due to time issues because of the flood events, the rain events, and supply chain issues. We are looking at, at this stage, we think about $16 million of the capital program that we'll carry over into the next year. However, it should be noted that a lot of that work is actually committed. So contracts are in place, the work's in, it's just a matter of delivery. So we're hoping that that will roll out in an early stage. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, you've run through such as we can throw in there. Speaker 9: Yeah, correct. So overall, Council continues to be in a strong financial position this year. So any questions? Pauline, I've got a couple. Mayor Stewart: Just on page 58, our cash expense cover, it's always going to be greater than three months.
02:36:00 And ideally, six months. Currently, we're at 12.4 months. That's a lot of cash cover. Correct. Is that, and I noticed your comment here, it's saying that businesses' usual expenses, that will dissipate over the cash cover. Speaker 9: So one of the things to keep in mind is that we've got delays in our capital program. So that funds are sitting there to fund that, as well as some of those grant funds. So it's kind of pushing the balance of cash up. So over time, it will calm down. Mayor Stewart: Because there'll be those saying they've got so much money in the bank, why is potentially rates going up or what's going on? Speaker 9: Correct. So those funds are committed. It's just that the timing of spending those funds has been now pushed out. Those works are still committed to. So they'll still occur. It's just a matter of timing. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other element of that? Sorry. We've repeated the rates. Speaker 9: Sorry. Speaker 8: No, it's just through the Chair. Just to also add to that, there is an element of our cash that isn't, if you like, free cash. It's restricted cash.
02:37:00 It's where we've generated revenue from levies, and we haven't expended those levies yet. So whilst it's sitting in our cash cover, there's an element above the three months that we can't spend. Yeah. Yeah. Which reduces what we would otherwise call our surplus cash. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Pauline, on page 63 in our statement of cash flows, can you just explain the bottom three numbers? The cash and cash equivalents, the end of the reporting period, there's quite a big differentiation. Could you just explain that? Speaker 9: In terms of the 65 versus 91. Yeah. So like I said, we've got nearly $20 million that we haven't spent on a capital program. We've got $5 million extra revenue. So that's what ... That's what that accounts for. So it's kind of pushing your cash balance up. Mayor Stewart: So there's some timing around that. And with the capital, the $16 million that we're going to take forward in the capital, I mean, it's probably a question for our infrastructure director. Will we catch that up? Speaker 8: Whilst I know the infrastructure director isn't here, through the chair, obviously those
02:38:00 works ... Oh, Larry. Oh, Larry is here. Oh, there he is. Speaker 7: He's listening quietly in the background. Councillor Jurisevic: Larry, you're on mute. Speaker 1: Sorry, I didn't know that you were mentioned. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I was just saying, we're currently at $14 million with the unspent capital, but a lot is committed, potentially going into $16 million for next year. Will ... and I understand that there's so many supply chain issues, costs of delivery, costs of resources, staffing. Will we catch that up, I guess, is my question, over the next 12, 18 months? Speaker 1: That's the plan. So that's the plan. And again, as Pauline said, a number of those projects are already in train. So they're already not requiring a huge amount of resource from us, but it's more about just getting the work done and having ... we had to carry it through because of various delays from weather events as well as the supply chain and contractor availability.
02:39:00 But it's going to be a challenge. There's no question about that. It's not just a matter of adding more resource or adding more staff. It's a matter of just trying to work a bit more efficiently and getting some of these things done. It is a big program, and we've got a big program next year. But again, a lot of our obligations are through grant funding and a lot of external funding that we've been able to be successful with. So we've got obligations to deliver those as well. So again, it's not something we could just reduce the work, because we've got obligations. So we've got obligations to deliver those as well. So we're just going to have to work as well as we can to get through it. And it's a challenge, but it's more of a timing issue than a cash flow or anything else issue. It's really just getting on and doing it. Speaker 1: We've got people in place, and we've got the works being planned and being delivered. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Larry. Thank you.
02:40:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to clarify something about the capital program that you said there, Paul. Sure. At the moment, I'm seeing $29.5 million excluding commitments spent year-to-date. With a budget of $43.4 million, that means a variance of $13 million. Commitments for the month of June, or the month that haven't been included here, have we got any figure on commitments at all? Speaker 9: I'd have to take that on notice and get it checked for you. But based on what we've done, we worked on if we spent $4 million a month on capital works. And today, we haven't achieved that. Councillor Jurisevic: If I take $4 million off the $13.9 million variance, we'd probably get $9 million carryovers, not $19 million. No. Speaker 8: Just to clarify, Councillor, they're the year-to-date figures, if you use the budget. So in terms of what our carryover will be, it'll be our $29 million spend against our total full-year capital works program. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is $43.4 million. Which is $13.9 million, less $4 million expected for the month, and it leaves me a variation
02:41:00 of $9 million for carryovers. I heard $19 million. Speaker 9: I think I said $16 million at the time. That was when I was there the other day. So my apologies. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all right. So somewhere around less than $13.9 million with a month to go. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: On page 59 and 60, there's a list of risk. A risk that I haven't seen before in one of your reports is a prolonged IT system failure, affecting Council's ability to deliver services or issue rates notices. How real is that risk, and why has it been identified in this report? And I could be wrong, but it's the first time I've noticed it. Speaker 8: Through the Chair. Thank you. So cybersecurity risk is a significant issue for any Council. It's actually on one of our strategic risk registers. A cybersecurity incident, if serious, and our system was compromised, could put our
02:42:00 access to our system down for one to two weeks. Now, if that happened during the year, that would obviously impact our day-to-day operations. But if it would have happened in July, or January when we do our rates issue, that could delay our rates issue by a month or two, depending how long it is. Now, remembering that's half of our annual revenue comes through, or nearly half comes through one rates issue. So that does reach a point, we talked about us having significant cash in the bank in terms of our cash cover ratio, and we talk about having generally the minimum hits about nine months' worth of cash cover. If we had a cybersecurity incident, for example, during a rate run, and it was two months before we could issue the rates, we would need that cash in the bank in order to continue to operate until such time as we resolve the system issue. So that's where I guess, in terms of the cybersecurity incident, and we just talked about cash, the
02:43:00 two actually come hand in hand. This would be the worst time. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. That's a great explanation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And hopefully no one in Russia is listening just now. Councillor Jurisevic: And that was the other element that I wanted to do with regard to the cash. I mean, we've not long had a rates notice go out, so the funds have come in as a result of that rates notice, and they dwindle over the 15 months, and then they rise all over Speaker 8: that period. So we are in the mid-cycle of our cash cover, as it goes up and down before funds start to come in in August, inflated by that capital works delay. Councillor Jurisevic: Great. It's something we don't often talk about, because it always appears in the same manner with regard to Unity Water. The distributions are fixed each year, so little variance in the budget. Does that come up for review sometime soon? Speaker 9: I believe there has been a review where they've actually increased it by $300,000 for next year.
02:44:00 So it's not a formal review process. It was this that was actually instigated by Unity Water this year. Councillor Jurisevic: So how often does that come up for review now? Is that an annual review, or is that a five-year review? Do we have a... Speaker 8: I'd have to take that one. There had been a review when I saw that . Councillor Jurisevic: Didn't we just have a review somewhere? Yeah. Speaker 8: Obviously, Unity Water review their financial position on an annual basis, and their forward pricing and revenue and return projections are then obviously then reviewed by Queensland Water. That would then in turn inform the distributions back to their shareholders. Councillor Jurisevic: We do for our annual report from then in September again anyway. So I'm just wondering if that original box of it is fixed in... It's not so fixed that we don't get a variation on that. We've just got to look at when the reviews come up, and how often that occurs, and what frequency is that? We'll take that notice and give you some background. Councillor Wilkie: It might be interesting to actually have a look at that in... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, I think it's...
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 We just had this conversation about needing to include water education. And perhaps we can link the return on the investment in water services directly to our strategy to try and reduce demand on water and reduce impacts from water and sewage on waterways. Councillor Jurisevic: I know with that annual review that Unity Water are looking at water consumption and flagged out as an issue and education that's here. How much are they doing? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a nice little virtuous loop. We can create a good one. This isn't going to consolidate revenue and pay for roads. I'm like... Councillor Lorentson: Just as a matter of consistency, I'm going to just raise the issue of legal expenses. I note every time a report comes, it just keeps escalating and escalating. And in fact, I've just done a quick calculation. When we look at what we're spending on legals on a weekly basis, I've just done a quick calculation of $28,000 a week on my calculations.
02:46:00 So again, just for consistency, I just want to put on the table, I think it's an urgent issue that we need to address. We've got to find a better way to at least mitigate that in-house council. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll play my favourite one that is back on the agenda again. Thanks, Lynne. Trading costs. $119,000. We need to make sure that staff have got time and the resources to undergo the training necessary, at this point in time to be, I do question the 41.7% or 138k of the 332k budget or 119 below, that we do ensure that we spend our training budget year in year out.
02:47:00 Speaker 9: Can I just touch on, Amelia, we do look forward to the update on legal, so there will be a legal update in the June reports for you as well. Councillor Wilkie: I look forward to it, thanks Paula. And there's work being done to see whether an in-house leader is actually going to be getting council money or not. Speaker 9: I believe that's with Scott, I think, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And that's been done, I think, for the last four or five months, I just, we need the reports soon and not later. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, can I? Yeah, just in relation to that. Given that legal expenses doesn't sit in the top three of our key materials and services expenditure, are we going to get a report on the top one at communications and IT at 123%? Speaker 9: Some of that's built into telecommunication, but as we roll out new software and IT stuff across the organisation, that flows into that line item. So, we've got new software going in at the Waste Station.
02:48:00 We've got new software looked at at, what is it? Waste Spite as well, so that will kind of feed into those line items as well. But we can certainly do a bit more of analysis for you if you'd like. Thank you. Speaker 8: And just to clarify that, we just talked about cyber security risks. Some of that software implementation has been coming out of actions from the orders that we've had done on our system and our network. And we talked about those new software upgrades. It's about moving those software installations into the cloud, so it does further reduce our risk. So, that's where you're seeing those costs come through. Councillor Wilkie: Are you still getting about 500 attacks each week from Russia? Speaker 8: I'm not sure, Councillor. I do believe it wouldn't have declined. If anything, it's probably a further increase. So, if it was at that level per previous advice 12 months ago, it's probably half again at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: It continues to escalate. How have you managed to get, I mean, nurturing greater funds is a very important responsibility that you have.
02:49:00 How have you managed to get 107% of the annual budget for interest before the end of the year and 717,000 interest? Speaker 8: Councillor, I probably can't take credit for that. I could probably say that's due to the movements in the Reserve Bank with their interest rates increasing. That's a good side of it. It's probably one of the minor upsides to the situation we currently face with the economy and the contractual measures introduced by the RBA with interest rates increasing. That, in turn, increases the interest we earn on the money in our bank accounts. Councillor Wilkie: So, the important part about that is that's equivalent to 1.5% of a regular asset we didn't have to find somewhere else. Because you've got that money in the bank. Speaker 9: It's also the result of the high cash balances that we would have projected to the LA as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, can I follow up on that one? Because from memory, last month was the lowest dip.
02:50:00 In terms of above the average. Yes. The blue-blue index. I think we got down pretty close into the yellow and we've come back up. And you described some of the current economic situation. Do we have a sort of a strategic lens across if inflation starts to go, then we have rapid rise. Is our investment strategy, does it need to change? Like, if I couldn't have a treasury corporation, is there at some point if we were pretty confident we've got a big cash balance that, you know, if the long-term investment in our conventional banks is sort of factoring in, it's going to keep going? Do we have this sort of strategic view that we look at every month or every time? Speaker 8: Through the chair, maybe something we do periodically, primarily would be every budget review would be when we do a more formal review. Obviously, it's something we keep an eye on every month generally and thankfully it's going to change. We've had to face down over the last five to 10 years with very stable debt and equity
02:51:00 and inflation rates. That's something we will continue to monitor. It will definitely change if we continue on this trajectory for the next 12 to 18 months. We start having a broader discussion about opportunity cost of money invested in the bank versus debt rates versus what yield we're getting off other investments such as investment properties. Definitely be a conversation we may need to have in the next 12 to 18 months. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to flag another one for the CEO under employee costs and one that always concerns me. The year-to-date 100% of the permanent staff salaries are wages. The CEO, that tells me that we either don't have enough permanent staff in place and we've got big vacancies there because we're not paying those salaries or that we haven't actually got people in, people acting in vacant positions and we're filling it with labour hire and the like. I think we need to, as part of your ongoing task going forward, ensure that we're not in a situation where we've got a significant under-expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages and that we're actually filling the voids and that we don't have gaps.
02:52:00 Thanks, Councillor Juris. How we attended that, whether it's why we're losing staff or why we're not returning staff or why we're not filling the positions that we've got. Speaker 5: Yeah, and through the chair in response, we're working very hard to arrest that attrition rate that we are seeing. But yeah, your analysis is absolutely correct. They're due to staff vacancies. Well, that's been increasing a bit of late. Look, yeah, and we will work through that. But our executive team, we recognise that as one of the key factors that we need through people and culture to be able to ensure not only this is a great place to work but we have the ability to attract great people as well. And what can we do more apart from the monetary benefits that we receive from working in the Noosa Council? What are the extra tangible pieces that we can provide to be able to entice those employees in a really competitive market? Well, they'll retain those employees. Absolutely. And coming out of COVID, there are difficulties across all sectors and local government is
02:53:00 not immune to that. Councillor Wilkie: I'm going to read the recommendation. I'll second it. I'll second it, Mayor Stewart. Thank you, Trent and Pauline. We're very well served by your reporting, financial reporting. The council's in a strong financial position. I appreciate the detail that you go into, very clear. I'm sure councillors may have some ideas about whatever graphics they may like to see to help simplify what can be a very complex situation. But I thank you for your reporting. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to follow up those remarks. I mean, there is a tremendous amount of work that goes in through the financial team. And it's a credit to you and your team, Trent, and all the managers and directors in this place. We do retain that sound financial position that we're in. Your efforts are appreciated. I know you put in a, you both put in a tremendous amount of time, particularly your budget
02:54:00 time, to keep this functioning, keep this going. And I just want to go acknowledge the work, the tremendous work that you do in keeping us in the position that we're in. Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you, Pauline. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to, yeah, I will. You started a joke. But I just want to acknowledge that it's great to have Pauline present the report today and breaking the stereotype that only men are good at maths. Thanks, Pauline. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, brilliant. Councillor Lorentson: No, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sex is a race of words. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Pauline. I never said that. Sorry. No, I just want to say thank you for your support. Thank you, Pauline and Trent. Great report. It's all been said, and especially coming into budget. I know we are absolutely flat chapped for the next couple of weeks, none more so than the two of you. So every month, month in, month out, you produce these great reports for us. You make it easy. You make it simple. The graphs are good. And especially the last couple of months, I don't know how busy you've been.
02:55:00 So thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As often and as openly as we do here, the transparency and the odds and all approach that we give out on a monthly basis is something that sets us a little bit apart. And I think that's a really underpinned culture that this council has had. For me it's always really interesting to read it. As much as I'm not a finance person, I think it does provide me with the information I need as a board member that things are going well. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Do councillors wish to close? Anything else? I'll close. I agree with Brian. There's an openness in the reporting which serves us and the community very well.
02:56:00 He said wards and all, but there's not too many wards, which we can all be assured by at this stage. But anything can change, and if it does, at least we have the zeniths there to do all of that. Put the motion on the favour. Carried anonymously. Thank you Trans. Thank you. Thanks guys. Councillor Lorentson: When waiting. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we knew it, our councilors. Councillor Wilkie: Like we have a confidential item. Is that the order? Ah, yeah. Mayor Stewart, moved. Moved to second by Councillor Finzel. Put the motion on the favour. The motion is carried unanimously. Want to file? This is carried unanimously.
180 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
195 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
210 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
225 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
240 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
255 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
270 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
285 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
300 minutes in ¶
05:06:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. It is that Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee meeting dated 13 June 2022 and that A. Matters raised regarding organisational renewal will be the subject of a Councillor Executive Team Workshop to collectively develop a change management program that seeks to drive the organisation towards a more sustainable, high-performing, agile and teacher-focused Council. And, B. The identified opportunities for policy reform be considered as part of the development of a new corporate plan. And, C. The CEO provide a further report back to the Council on any non-compliance matters identified in the Moat Report in the Tewantin Administration Building as soon as possible.
05:07:00 And, D. Summary of the incoming CEO report be provided to the community. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. I'd like to thank the CEO for this very detailed positive report. It is a deep dive into the organisation and very much needed and warranted. It is greatly appreciated and valued and can't come at a better time as we take this organisation forward. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank our tremendously talented and hard-working Executive Team and the Manager of People and Culture for their input, advice and support of this report. Values that this report alludes to and includes are authentic, passionate, supportive, respectful and committed. It should be noted, as our CEO says, that the commentary, recommendations and outcomes of this report are viewed through the lens of improvement and evolution of the Noosa Shire Council. Legacy and sacrifices of de-amalgamation are acknowledged and appreciated. The foundation of this ensures that Noosa remains a special place that is protected with the principles of the past upheld going into the future.
05:08:00 This report, however, builds on that and outlines the principles and steps needed to take to deliver a modern Council that internally and externally communicates, collaborates and cooperates for the future of Noosa. Different by nature must be continued and celebrated at Noosa Shire Council, but it must be also modernised to deliver an organisation that is sustainable, high-performing, agile and future-focused. The report reviews 17 specific elements of the Council via a set methodology that provides recommendations of which there are 64. It is focused primarily on culture, organisational construct, internal and external service delivery with recommendations and outcomes that will lead to improved service delivery to the community. The document has been greatly anticipated, much needed, a huge step forward for the betterment of the organisation and the community and I thank again our CEO for his in-depth thought, analysis, positivity, collaboration, foresight and leadership.
05:09:00 The organisation and the community will be better off because of this document. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councilers wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. Yes, Madam Chair. I'll reiterate the thoughts of the Mayor there and I'll just add that thank you for the time that you've put in. You came in at a very difficult time when we're going into a flood situation and all the rest of it. But it's always refreshing to have a fresh pair of eyes, look at any aspect or element of the way we function. And I think that's what we've got. It's a welcome report and I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, John. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. And the councillors wish to speak. Councillor Tom. Councillor Wegener: I really think that you've come in and embraced Noosa. You seem to have really come in with an open eyes, open heart, open mind and absorbed so much in such a short time.
05:10:00 And you've come up with some, I think, fantastic plans to go forward. Not everything's perfect, but it's very, very good. And I just think everybody will look at it differently. But gosh, it's just so nice that you've come in with this attitude and with all that experience that you have as well. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Do you want to go? Do you want to go? Do you want to go? Do you want to go? Oh, so yeah. Thank you, Scott. It was a really great report. I really like the way that you've really imbibed the different by nature and that you've been really respectful of where we've been, where we are and where we're going. And I think the report has given us a great framework as we, you know, we're on this precipice towards a bright and sustainable future. And I think confidently we can move forward. We may not have it all right, but this idea of collaboration, communication, you know, and moving forward is really inspiring.
05:11:00 And I hope that we can all, you know, just be really enthusiastic and take our community by the hand and the staff and the organisation and really, you know, move forward together with a really aspirational ideas for a future, but with a framework that gives us, you know, recommendations and actual timeframes that we can meet and assess where we're going on this journey together. So thank you for your input. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, thank you, Scott, for taking the leap coming from Darwin to this, thank you. This council is going to be navigating some really challenging times ahead. Climate change, worker housing crisis, and a recession that no one I believe is ready for. So we need to be ready for action. We need to be. As you clearly state in your report, high performing, agile, and future focused.
05:12:00 And most importantly, we need strong leadership, leadership that's committed to continuous improvement and community participation, and leadership that respects the work of our predecessors. Last three months, that's what I've seen, strong leadership. And I think that's what we need to do. So I look forward to supporting you and this community. And I want to add, Noosa, we are different by nature. But we are also different by our people. And I'm, you know, proud sitting at this table with some really good people that really care about this community. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's me. I'm going to start at Dee. I'm going to start by Dane. I'm going to start by Dane.
05:13:00 I think it was a confidential session. And there was issues there as the, for the reason we moved into it that aren't appropriate to share with the community. There's certain aspects that you have to do behind the scenes. But I think when the community sees that summary report, they'll understand A. And A is probably very typical of what a new CEO would do coming into an organisation, any organisation. As you look at it and you say, I think these areas to work on, I think I'd like to move us in this direction and bring my executive team and ask the board to go with it. I think it's really important that that's a process that we do together. And that the community sees that it's both the political and the administrative arm of council that identify those opportunities to be more sustainable, more high performing, future focused. I suppose what's a little bit different is B. And B is about coming in with a little bit of experience and saying, well, I think this is where we're at. I think this is where we should be. And these are the things we might want to review to get there.
05:14:00 And these are, I don't think it's confidential, I said. He's a bit younger than the last bloke, so he's a bit more geeky. But it's no doubt that. It's a good thing. It's good. The future is digital. The future is the internet of things. The future. And we've got a range of projects that are looking at destination management. The technology to solve some of the impacts we currently see in our community start with where we prioritise our effort. And that's some of the things you've been able to bring from your experience in Darwin, which is really important. And so we look forward to the issues that are confidential being resolved in the next 10 years. And the ones that are about how we go forward, that we bring both staff together and on those aspects like the policy reform and the corporate plan that we bring our community together
315 minutes in ¶
05:15:00 to. So we all are part of that challenge of the next 10 years being one more difficult in human history. It's not the most difficult in human history. Councillor Wilkie: Scott, I want to compliment you on your capacity to listen and understand the diversity of views, not just around this table, but also amongst the executive team. And also within our community. And also your work ethic. You've produced a 35-page report full of your observations and ideas, which reflect the fact that you have listened and worked hard to understand Noosa's unique position as a community. And as other councillors have said, you are respecting where this community has come from, where this council has come from, that you're wanting to help us move forward into the future with that. So thank you very much. One of your strengths being an understanding of innovative technology, use of innovative technologies. And I think that will hold us in good stead as we move forward together. And your willingness to have your work further workshopped through a councillor executive
05:16:00 team meeting. I'm really heartened by that. And we look forward to the summary of the report. I'll finish with a question. The summary of the report that you provide to the community, is that, are you intending to move forward with that? Mayor Stewart: I think it's all been said, but again, I just want to reiterate and thank you, Scott. Great report. But thank you for your friendship and leadership to all of the team, and especially to me. I've really appreciated it. It's great working with you. I think you're a breath of fresh air. I think you're just what this organisation needed. And I think I'm excited. I think this is a wonderful document and a great blueprint going forward. So thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the motion those in favour? That's unanimous. That is the last item on the agenda. Are there further meetings opposed?