Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to also acknowledge we have our Mayor Clare Stewart online, live from New Plymouth, New Zealand, and for that reason I'll be stepping up as Chair by agreement for this meeting this evening. We have all other councillors in attendance. No apologies. May we have someone to confirm the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 19th of May 2022 please. We have Councillor Regan, second Councillor Finzel. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. We have no mayoral minutes. We have a petition from Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, do I have to read that? I want to read this. Yes. This gentleman has complained about this section of road and nothing has been done by council. We take our life in our hands every time we drive down our street and this is unacceptable. Or do we have to wait for a fatality to happen to get this problem resolved?
00:01:00 This would have to be the most dangerous street in Cooroy. Another problem is the intersection at Waddle and Garnet Streets. If you are driving from Emerald Street into Waddle Street and stop at the intersection, waiting to cross over, you cannot even see the oncoming traffic on your right for two trees planted right beside the road on the footpath, and it is even worse if there's cars parked there. The traffic going west is only visible if they are on top of the crest. This is a problem. This is an application, not an application, sorry, a petition of complaint to the Noosa Shire Council from the residents of Waddle Street, Cooroy. I'd like to submit that. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to remove the motion there. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Just read that, please. That the petition submitted by Cooroy residents and with 12 signatories regarding concerns about safety issues in Waddle Street and Garnet Street to be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the appropriate action. Seconded for that, please. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Stockwell.
00:02:00 Any, you wish to speak further to the motion? Councillor Finzel: No, thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. We'll have that considered. Mr Cesar, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Next item is a notified motion. We have a notified motion from Councillor Amelia Lorentson regarding Burgess Creek. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, I'd like to move. Move a motion that requests the CEO to provide a report to a future meeting outlining A, actions to be undertaken by Council to manage the Burgess Creek mouth, including erosion management. B, Council's current and future plans in relation to the management of outflows and water quality from the Unity Water Wastewater Treatment Plant discharging into Burgess Creek. C, Council's obligations. As a trustee, including but not limited to, one, Council's responsibilities and obligations with stormwater pipes, culverts and other infrastructure, which stormwater and treatment wastewater are channelled.
00:03:00 Two, Council's duties in respect of downstream erosion caused to dunes and beaches as a result of stormwater discharge and wastewater outflows from the Unity Water Wastewater Treatment Plant. And D, possible funding options and opportunities. From state and federal governments for long-term infrastructure solutions. Can we have a seconder for that, please? I'll have a seconder. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Finzel. Can you speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: The northern end of Sunshine Beach to Carver Street at Peregian is a reserve under the Queensland Land Act for recreational purposes, of which Council is a trustee. Under the Act, Noosa Council is bound as trustee over state land to exercise its duty of care for the land and the beaches under its control. The motion requests that Council resolve the matters addressed in the motion regarding Burgess Creek.
00:04:00 Over the last two months, I have been meeting with residents regarding the significant damage of the Burgess Creek foreshore and concerns regarding the discolouration of the Burgess Creek flow. They are concerned that the treated wastewater and stormwater flowing out of Burgess Creek will not be able to meet the needs of the residents. The Burgess Creek is causing possible pollution, possible health risk and significant erosion to our dunes and beaches. The forming of the drop from the dunes to the beach is a potential source of injury for beach users and the erosion is threatening public infrastructure, roads and the coastal ecosystem. Historically, Council has dug the creek and redirected the flow into the ocean. Residents have raised concerns that they had to have done so over recent months and the recent downpour that they believe is a risk to the people of Burgess. This has pushed all the stormwater into the creek, plus the treated wastewater from Unity Water, has resulted in significant foreshore damage. The treated wastewater and stormwater are flowing consistently, eroding dunes by what some residents estimate at two metres a day.
00:05:00 Over the last two months, the CEO and Council staff have met with residents and they have advised residents that action is underway to re-establish the river mouth of the Burgess Creek and redirect the creek to the beach. This motion seeks details of this commitment, including the following data and information. Unity Water figures on amount of wastewater discharged over the last 20 years. The actual amount of stormwater being discharged into the creek. Evidence that the footage entering the creek is in fact naturally occurring tannins. In regards to the warning sign, which says the creek water continuous water for 20 years.
00:06:00 This motion also seeks short-term and long-term strategies and solutions such as temporarily barricading portions of the beach where there is a risk of someone being hurt and other actions such as reprofiling the beaches and sand to stop the gene erosion. Long-term solutions such as armoured rock revetment systems at a creek mouth or the use of geofabric bags are also requested to be investigated. Further, this motion requests that Council investigates and explores potential partners and partnerships, opportunities and funding with the State and Federal Government to potentially develop a water management plan. I've used, in my report, an example from Bondi Beach. In 2012, Waverley Council, for example, built the Bondi Stormwater Scheme,
00:07:00 which diverted 50 million litres of stormwater from being discharged into the ocean every year, and they treat that water, the stormwater, so it can be reused for public cleaning, toilets and irrigation. I also want to make reference to an article that I only just read on the weekend about the Mary River rehabilitation, and I'll pass that around after the meeting. About 20 years ago, floods cut away thousands of cubic metres of farmland that released sediments in catchments swarming onto the Great Barrier Reef. I've got a picture of that river repair, which does not look actually dissimilar to, in my opinion, to Burgess Creek. In 2015, earth-moving equipment started reshaping those eroded sand cliffs and sections at the riverbank, and they drove six-metre-long timber piles,
00:08:00 and that had resulted in slowing down the flow of floodwater. Habitat was saved, and there was more than, I think, 45,000 seedlings were planted with the help of Lucid District Landcare, and that pile field has slowly disappeared. Simply, the project was a success because of political will, community will, and a long-term investment strategy. Noosa residents, and this is, again, just food for thought, Noosa residents pay stamp duty and land tax to the state government, and given the recent 36.5% increase in land valuations, there is, in my opinion, a strong case for Council to put together a funding package, or an investment, strategy for the state government. I've got down here a quote from the government website that gives us an overview of land valuations in the Noosa Shire Council.
00:09:00 On the 31st of March 2022, the Valuer General released land valuations for 22,183 properties, with a total value of just over $13 billion in the Noosa Shire Council area. The valuations reflect land values as of the 1st of October 2021, and show that Noosa Council has increased by 36.5% since the last valuation issued in 2019. There have been significant increases within the residential market sectors of existing well-located properties, specifically those located close to the beach. Thank you. Noosa beaches and our coastal dunes are one of our most important natural assets, and they must be prioritised. I take this opportunity also to remind Council that in 2020, Noosa officially became the 10th world surfing reserve.
00:10:00 We are therefore committed to preserving our natural reserves and surrounding areas. I would therefore like to see consideration of the following. I would therefore like to see consideration of the following. Possibly the inclusion of natural assets in our asset management system. A specific asset management plan, in my opinion, should be developed that allows us to monitor, maintain and renew our natural assets. Councillor Wilkie: A specific asset management plan, in my opinion, should be developed that allows us to monitor, maintain and renew our natural assets. Some Doars, some forest. Okay, No worries. Councillor Lorentson: So Noosa beaches and our coastal dunes are one of the most important natural assets and must be prioritised. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Lyons. Any other Councillor Wilkie: councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell. I'm going to a small amendment
00:11:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: and that's to item d to read possible funding opportunities options and opportunities from unity water yes comma state and federal governments so unity water before state and federal Speaker 1: okay so possible funding options from unity water comma Deputy Mayor Stockwell: for long term sorry sorry yeah and go down to for long term for long term integrated catchment and coastal management and infrastructure solutions i do so because on one thing i heard councillor um warrenton say is she wanted a water management
00:12:00 plan um what we need to consider is all the issues that have been raised here in an integrated context so there's a and and i agree that they're good to come together in fact i um look back on my new initiative for the budget in 2019 where i said undertake an urban catchment integrated catchment management project partnered with unit water the schools water industries in burgess creek catchment it's something that i've put up every budget since so there is obviously a need to address these issues and um what we've got here is that the link between the creeks and the coast and and while we have got a current issue driving it and the fact that the the erosion through the recent events has been more significant than normal um we also know the last time we did uh re-straighten a bit of creek and we had a lot of people concerned about the fish killer so there's a there's integrated approaches needed to make sure uh what is there we also know that i haven't
00:13:00 checked the water quality results um for some probably since 2019 but uh back then um you know the water quality in burgess creek was worse in the area servicing the urban catchment than the part coming from the syrian treatment plant so we need to realize that if we're looking at quality at the point of the receiving waters into the ocean we need to be addressing issues not just the point source pollution so and we know the the treatment train um at the syrian treatment plant produces a quality of effluent that probably a higher quality water going into the creek than in originally so it needs to be integrated it needs to be broad um but certainly looking at these options and certainly in terms of uh um doing a partnership approach as councillor uh lawrenson says arguably is the right way to go i think it's good to bring these things to our attention i i applaud councillor Lorentson for uh to bring it bring issues of concern to us in this fashion
00:14:00 Councillor Wilkie: anyone else like to speak to the amendment Councillor Stoke-Lewis to close Councillor Stoke-Lewis to close I know. Put the amendment in those in favour. It's carried unanimously. That becomes part of the motion. And only Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell are stuck in the motion. No, I haven't. Sorry, I spoke to the amendment. Anybody else like to speak to the motion now? No. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I've expected everyone to speak to this, so I'm not going to be repeating myself on this. So, over the past months, hundreds of tons of beach dunes at Regis Crete have been destroyed, and they really are going to continue to do so unless we do something. I've been at the beach now for the last two months.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Whether I'm picking up environmental pollution from the flooding spillage, poly-eukerine spillage, or whether I'm just talking to councils or getting my dog out of this brown river. In my opinion, we've got an environmental emergency, and we have an obligation, as a council that has declared a climate emergency, we have an obligation to respond. So, I hope you all support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion, those in favour? That's unanimous. Carried. Next item is, we have no presentations, we have no deputations. Next item is planning and environment committee meeting items. Application for material change of use, home-based business, bed and breakfast at 7 Berrima Row Road at Looser Heads. Item 2, MCU, planning and environment court appeal number D92.
00:16:00 8 of 2022, minor change to development approval for retail business type 5, vehicle uses, retail business type 2, shop and operational works, signage at 5254 Mary Street, Noosaville. Item 3, development application for the operation of a lot at Glenreach Drive, Coroida was referred to the general committee. Item 4, application for material change of use, untimed use, motorcycles, scooter sales and repairs situated at 16 Weenie Street, Noosaville. Next item, climate change response grants, round 1, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lions Football Club. I am the current president of the Noosa Lions Football Club and will be responsible for the grant applications currently before council. As a result of my conflict, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell.
00:17:00 Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder, please? Councillor Lorentson? No, we don't have a seconder. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? That doesn't include six. We're at number five on the bottom. Five, yeah. I'm five. I can share. We'll put the motion as a final. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. May Councillor Stockwell be invited to return the meeting, please. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Item six was referred to the general committee. Item seven, planning applications decided by delegated authority. May we have someone to move the resolution for... Moved. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded, please. Seconded, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried. We now move to the services and organisations committee recommendations.
00:18:00 Item one, contract number T, quadruple 067. Register of pre-qualified suppliers for provision of trade services. Item two, request for quotation for lifeguard services, Surf Life Saving Queensland. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my daughter, Georgia Laurison, is employed by Surf Life Saving Queensland as a casual lifeguard. It could be viewed that I have a conflict of interest. However, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias as my daughter's employment is of a casual nature and not exclusively bound to SLSQ. Therefore, there is no bearable loss specific to my daughter from the outcome of this application. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? Yes, I'm happy to move in that regard that we allow Councillor Lorentson to remain in
00:19:00 the room. We should tell you why. The reason is to... That a reasonable person would not have a perception of bias because Councillor Lorentson nor her daughter stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: That's seconded by Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Carried unanimously and Councillor Lorentson did not vote on that motion without her... Can we have someone to move the motion, please? So moved. Moved and seconded. Seconder please, Councillor Finzel is to repeat. Anyone wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: I believe it was all said at the previous meeting. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's carried. Right, we now come to item three, Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Round 1 and Three Year Agreements Overview.
00:20:00 Item four, Community Program Funding Community Project Grants Round 1 Events. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, form the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding and recommendation to Noosa Rugby Union Club Inc. My husband is a member and sponsor and my son plays for this club. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. I'm happy to move on the basis that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter because Councillor believes the reasonable person would not have a perception of bias because Councillor Stewart does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision
00:21:00 is made in the public interest. We have a seconder for that, please. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried. Councillor Stewart did not vote on the motion. Sorry. May we have a... Mayor Stewart: Sorry, sorry, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: That's all right. May we have a mover for the Council resolution about the Community Development Manager's report about the Round 1 ramps. Moved by Councillor Lorentson. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Now to Item 5, Community Program Funding. The Community Project Grants Round 1 Equipment. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Aye, Councillor Stockwell. We should report the meeting that I've described a conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the proposed funding allocation to Noosa Lions Football Club. I am the current President of the Noosa Lions Football Club and will be responsible for the grant applications currently before Council. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell.
00:22:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. Aye, Councillor Jurisdict will move the resolution for us. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, please. Give me a second. Councillor Finzel, put that in the box. All right. All in favour? That's carried. May Councillor Stockwell be informed of the meeting, please. Now up to Item 6, Community Program Funding, Community Project Grants Round 1 Infrastructure. Item 7, Community Program Funding, Community Program Grants Round 1 Program and Projects. Item 8, Community Grants, Three-Year Community Alliance Agreements. I, Councillor Wilkie, inform the meeting I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I am an Executive Member, the President of the Noosa Lions Football Club and the President of Noosa Lions Theatre, one of the recommended recipients of an Alliance grant. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
00:23:00 Thank you. Can I get a nomination? Yeah, I nominate Councillor, Councillor Wegener. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Wegener's been nominated by the Chair. I'll second that. It's been seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Wegener: Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Is that carried unanimously? Councillor Wegener: Oh, we have a vote again. I'll put the vote. Thank you. That would be cut out right now. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You just have to put the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor, I'll move. I'll move the Council's resolution on this one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second it. I'll let you say an answer. Okay. Councillor Wegener: You vote it? No, there's no discussion. No, there's no discussion. And put it to the vote. Put it to the vote. Put it to the vote. All those in favour. All those in favour. All those in favour. Hands up. That is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Well done. Okay. Unanimous. Chair back in the room again.
00:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: Quickly. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: We can't do that too loud, can we? Councillor Wilkie: That was item eight. Item nine, community grants program, three-year signature community event grants. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Aye, Councillor Stewart informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to Noosa Rugby Union Club. My husband is a member and sponsor and my son plays for this club. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person has the right to advise, because I believe that I don't stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain participating in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: We go round the Melbury Bush. I'll move the resolution that Councillor will know the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart.
00:25:00 I wish I hadn't got up to speak now, because I'm chilling. Declarement that it's in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates in both of these matters, because Councillor believes that a reasonable person would not have a perception of bias, because Councillor Stewart does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this funding. Oh, excuse me. And therefore, a reasonable person would trust the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, God. There's a second councilor that asks it all in favour. That's carried. Councillor Stewart did not make a motion. So I'll move the motion, please. So moved. Councillor Stewart. So moved. Councillor Stewart. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. And we're now on item 10. Community grants. Three-year festive season event grants from 1st of July 2022 to 30th of June 2025. Item 11. Regional Arts Development Fund RADF grant recommendations 2021-22. Like Councillor Wilkie informed the meeting, I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter, as I am an executive member, the president of the Noosa Arts Theatre, one of the recommended recipients of a RADF grant.
00:26:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room where the matter is considered and voted upon. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Do you want a second go, Tom? No, no, I don't. Councillor Wegener: I move that the council is stopped up. Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to second that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, we have a recommendation in front of us. Does anyone wish to move that recommendation? I'll move the recommendation. It was moved by Councillor, what's your name again? Jurisevic. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. Does anyone wish to discuss? No. All those in favour? Carried unanimously. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, item 12, further report council representation on various boards, external organisations and working groups.
00:27:00 And that's it. We have someone to move the resolution on page 16, please. I move. Councillor Jurisevic. I move. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried. Now I come to item report on the general committee which is the development application for reconfiguration of a lot, one lot into eight lots, at 60 Glenridge Drive, Corover. Have someone to move, I mean a conflict of interest. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a clearable conflict of interest in this matter due to my personal relationship with the applicant, Mark Bain, and the Bain family who are family friends, we've attended social events together, and our children have attended school together. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell.
00:28:00 Mayor Stewart is in favour and against was Councillor Jurisevic and that is the motion. May we please have Councillor Lorentson back in the room. Now up to item 2 of the General Committee, the Environment Grants Round 17 and Councillor Wegman would like to declare a conference meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Something's happened to the COI, just a moment. Councillor Wilkie: You can read the question. Councillor Wegener: That's decided, it's recorded. I'll do it again.
00:29:00 I, Councillor Wegman, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Country Noosa as I am a committee member of that association. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. I have stepped down from the board, but I will still leave the room. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Leung. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you for clarifying. Councillor Leung. I'll move a motion and it is slightly different to that which was in the original staff report. So I'll read through just the changes. I'll just wait for it once again. If you can just scroll down. Thank you, Elinda. So the changes are in regard to the amounts for a number of projects. The first one being that there's a number of projects that we're going to be moving forward with the Woody Weed Repair and Removal with a revised, well, the amount that will be offered in the grant is $29,695. The next one is a find a frog in February and water watch training and the revised motion
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 for the grant is $18,000. Noosa River Integrated Mapping, $3,580. Research Portal for Public Accessibility, $5,000. Sustainability, $5,000. Sustainability Forums for NRM Groups, $20,000. And if you keep scrolling down, please, Noosa Environmental Education Hub, $15,000. Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, $22,500. Hinterland Bush Links, $20,000. Nykaa Urban Wildlife Gardens, $7,500. Country Noosa, $3,300. Zero Emissions Noosa, $20,000. And is there another clause up the top that I didn't read out? And adding item C, which says, amend the allocation of grant funding for environment grants in
00:31:00 the draft 2022-2023 budget accordingly. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a second for that, please? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Councillor, we deferred this item to allow us to consider the submissions to the draft 2022-2023 budget accordingly. We've done that. And as a result of those draft submissions, we're all made aware of a potential additional that we may wish to respond to the responses which suggested we should put more into the environment. And we're all aware that we've come to a potential petition on the draft budget which would support the level of grants that I have recommended. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. May councillors respect the motion? If the motion goes in favour, it's carried. Thank you. And I invite councillor Wegener back to the meeting. Thank you, Leah. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. It was the COI.
00:32:00 Councillor Wilkie: Next is ISOE. Another item which was the application of material change to use multiple dwellings at 28 Eden Creek Road, Noosaville was deferred to, sorry, referred to the ordinary meeting. We'll deal with that later. Tender consideration plan. Nurses fit. Dredging. And beach nourishment. I'm with the Noosa Environment Strategy Monitoring Report for financial performance report. I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we can go back to the item two. Councillor Wilkie: Item two, which is the tender consideration plan. Nurses fit. Dredging. And beach nourishment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did ask for some information to come to the meeting in regard to the triggers. Was that forthcoming? I didn't know. I didn't see anything. Councillor Wilkie: Just being sure that no, that hasn't been provided to the meeting. Okay.
00:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I voted against it again at the committee, so I don't need to raise it again. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Item four was financial performance report. Item five, confidential not for public release. Incoming CEO report. The summary report has been circulated for some of the public as well. Item five, confidential not for public release. We have a council resolution that all the reports of the general committee be adopted. Please. We have a mover. Moved by Councillor Lorentson. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? This is carried unanimously. Ms Stewart online. We now have a report direct to the ordinary meeting, which is a further report on the development application for material change of use for multiple housing, 99 units at 28 Enid Creek Road, Noosaville. We have a manager of planning and development and also a planning development manager. So, councillor, do you have any questions for staff?
00:34:00 Can the councillors like to move the motion? We should start by making a question for Councillor Youssef. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Wegener and I took the opportunity to go and have a bit of a look at this site this morning. And we noticed a chain wire fence at, between the building and the building. I just wanted to clarify whether that chain wire fence, as it currently stands, defines the environmental area, the 10 metre environmental area buffer that currently exists, and if we could just see exactly where that sits up on the map. Speaker 1: Councillor, I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: We dropped it. I thought. Where did you get it from, Patrick? Speaker 1: Yeah. I understand you have spoken to the officer today about it. We can put the mapping up if you'd like to look at it a little bit further, but I don't know where that chain wire fence is. Councillor Wilkie: Okay.
00:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: My question is, have the traffic engineers considered the impacts of this development on busy intersections? There's going to be 300-plus residents in this precinct, and I'm concerned that there's going to be, that the roundabout in particular, one off Rennie Street, going to Yemundi Road, Beckmans, that intersection is already congested and busy. Have those impacts been considered? Are they even required? And are they required under our planning scheme? Speaker 1: Yeah. So, as part of the development of the planning scheme, 2020, who's the plan? Strategic Planning Department engaged an external traffic engineer to review some of the intersections and also assist them in developing that scheme. So, having a look at the zoning that they were considering for these sites and ensuring
00:36:00 that the intersections would work. So, the advice is, it will. And that the intersections will continue to function with this development. Thank you. As the Business Centre further progresses, and we are expecting potentially some larger-scale developments, we will need to review those larger-scale developments individually, particularly the commercial developments, because they generate a lot more traffic movement, typically, than residential. But for this development, those intersections will continue to function. Councillor Wilkie: Gary, on Monday, we discussed seven conditions that the Business Centre was considering. I think the applicant had questions about and made representations about. Could you point out any changes that have been made to the conditions as a result of your further consideration of their solution purposes? Speaker 1: Okay.
00:37:00 Sorry. So, just, it is in the further report to Council in the other meeting, but just to summarise those for Council and the community listening in tonight, the representations were in relation to Condition 5, which is the study rooms, and that is about making sure that room is not used as a bedroom, which the applicant is not proposing its use for a bedroom, but also, importantly, ensuring it has sufficient light and ventilation. So, the applicant requested some changes to that, and we have made some changes to give them some options around how they might ensure that it is not used as a bedroom. So, that is in the conditions. Then the applicant looked at the requested performance bond, seeking that condition to be deleted, and the officers are recommending that that condition remain, and it is consistent
00:38:00 with our planning scheme policy to have a performance bond on all developments. It provides a surety that those conditions would be fulfilled, and that is returned on completion of development. We have, though, looked at the amount. The amount of 100,000 was originally recommended to Council, and we have revised that down, and the reason we have done that is there is not a substantial amount of civil works required as part of the development, that is completed as part of the subdivision works, and there is a second bond required specifically in relation to trees, so we have reduced that bond down to 50,000 as the recommendation now. Councillor Jurisevic: Condition 14. Speaker 1: Condition 14. Condition 20. There was some concern by the applicant. It requires each of the units to have access to an outdoor clothesline. There was concern that it was the applicant's interpretation that that meant each unit had
00:39:00 to have its own separate clothesline, and I think we have clarified with the applicants that that is not required. Really, what is required is that each unit has to have its own separate clothesline, is that they just have access to a communal clothesline, so we are not expecting 90 clotheslines on the site. So there is no change to the condition. We think it deals with that adequately, and there is now a report on the table in public domain that clarifies exactly what is required. Condition 34. Condition 34 was in relation to car parking. So the condition at the moment calls for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the development. The scheme actually sets a maximum number of car parking spaces in our centre zones, and that is to try and reduce the reliance on private cars and encourage more use of public transport. So the applicant is concerned that that will not be sufficient for the development, and
00:40:00 we have made no change in relation to that, because it is consistent with those strategies. The next condition that was requested for consideration was Condition 47C, which was really around how the fencing requirements for protection of that environmental covenant area or that environmentally zoned land, environment management I think it is called, environment conservation zone. So the applicant did not support that, but we think we consider that required. And have I just got the right condition? So I'm just checking here. It's D. Yeah, sorry, to lead you astray there.
00:41:00 It's D. D required in line with that condition for nine parking spaces to be removed. We requested that to be removed. We've requested that to be removed from the basement and replaced essentially with some landscaping coming from the basement through the podium to achieve better separation between the buildings. The applicant is indicating that that's not economically, it's not desirable, and they would prefer to see that condition deleted. Officers have maintained that condition and are still recommending that. We think it's a good outcome visually and environmentally when viewed from population perspective. Condition 53 again was related to a bond for the trees. The condition currently requires a bond of 30,000. And that would be lost if there's damage to the trees. The applicant was seeking that to be removed.
00:42:00 We have not made any changes to that condition or recommended any changes. Condition 56 was in relation to a chain wire fence. And sorry, this is my confusion before. There's a requirement for a chain wire fence. We've made some minor changes to that. Just to clarify the options for the applicant and what sort of fencing could be provided along there. We've just clarified the objective really, suggesting that it should be a wildlife fence, fauna friendly fence to allow movement. But the style of fencing is up to the applicant there. Just needs to meet that objective. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So that was condition 56. And at the end of the report, you'll see there's an additional condition recommended in relation to waste management, green waste in particular. And that came from some questions on the floor by councillors and whether we've adequately
00:43:00 catered for that. So we've included an additional condition in relation to that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Claire. Brian? I wish to move a motion. It is... I'm sorry. I'm sorry. As within the agenda with some other changes. The other changes start condition 34. And that's to say a maximum of 134, rather than 125 car spaces. And in B below that, of three disabled parking spaces within the total. And if we keep going down to the next one, please. In 47, to reflect to the change in that car parking, rather than the landscaping protruding from the podium level where the nine spaces were removed from, it will now read, of very mature... Sorry.
00:44:00 The provision of mature landscaping of very mature heights between two metres and six metres was appropriately designed deep planter boxes at podium level between buildings A and B. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then addition of C. It's the grounds upon which... Find that there is sufficient reason to vary officer's recommendation in regard to maximum car parking for the development, given the desired residential outcomes sought within the high density residential precinct. Close second of second check. Can I just stop there? I do so. I want to talk to the changes... Start with... I'll talk to the substantive development. I'll talk to the substantial development. The substantive development achieves nine out of ten in terms of what we were looking for when we developed the first draft of the planning scheme. The one that doesn't do was the requirement in the planning scheme that the state government
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 put a line through that was an inclusionary zoning principle of having some social housing on the site. But in terms of the nature, the scale, the type of units being located, the size of all small units, the predominance of one and two bedroom units, the fact that the eventual outcome... And I thank staff for really holding the line in terms of ensuring that we do get a Noosa style... Because it is probably one of the larger unit developments that we've had around town for quite a while. Now, probably the ones at the Alton built down on Lake Wyver is probably of similar scale to this. So it is quite a large development. Thank you. It is meeting the housing crisis. And it's really important to understand that the type of accommodation provided in these units will suit the people who I find it gets most difficult to find a house or a unit that's
00:46:00 within their budget at the moment. And we have heard, and though it's not a consideration in planning, that there is a lot of market interest in these lots. I'll then go to the variations I've made in the planning scheme. I'm going to go back to the staff recommendation. And the key one there is regard to car parking. And it's important to understand that we use precincts in this particular location under a major centre zone to provide this council this opportunity, to provide it as an opportunity to have impact assessment so we could really look at it. We always wanted it to be a high-density residential development, whereas the maximum car parking provision was really aligned to the concept of shop-top housing in the commercial area. We didn't want mixed-use developments in our centre zones that were allocating the ground
00:47:00 floor to car parking rather than to the retail or whatever the mixed-use was. Other places on this site, in the village business type precinct on this site, we didn't want that. I think we should stick to the maximum. But in the precincts which are currently identified for high-density residential, I think it's totally appropriate to adopt standard high-density residential parking requirements. And the standard high-density residential parking requirements would allow for 134 car spaces. And what does that mean in reality? It means that one and two bedroom units will have one car space, and three bedroom units will have two. And that's probably a realistic requirement. Because if we're looking at 90 units with no on-street parking, and we want this all for permanent residence, the chances of people owning a three bedroom unit having mum and dad with a car is probably quite high, or having multiple adults living together
00:48:00 in the unit is quite high. So the concept of this area, as opposed to say if it was in the Noosa Junction where we want to limit the maximum, I think it would be counterproductive to limit the maximum and reduce those nine spaces. And the concept of trying to get a better vegetation buffer between A and B is achieved through other ways. For me, I think it is a good development. It meets the scheme in all, in most of the criteria with a few tweaks. The tweaks we talked about on Monday, but I think they're worth repeating. The tweaks in terms of height was to achieve a Noosa look and feel. And I always say that. We always support developments if the only thing that's over the height is because they want to increase the pitch of the roof and go, in this case, going to 12 degrees. That is a good design outcome. That is more in keeping with the planning intent than a flat roof that keeps it under the 12 metres. We're looking at minor variations to the maximum allowance in each block, because we asked
00:49:00 them to actually articulate and align the building so it didn't look like it reduced the sense of scale and bulk to the street. So once again, the minor variation is more achieving the intent of the scheme and what we want to achieve with development such as this. Now, for us, we call it high density residential development. Everywhere else calls it medium density. But for us, it's still below the tree height. And I think that's really important in terms of what the height. Noosa's planning scheme from the 80s have always had the concept that if you stand at Tewantin Bay or you stand at the lookout just over the Shire off Duke Road there in Panorama, when you look down to the beach, what you see is trees. And it's really important that these buildings won't protrude above the trees. And it'll be a continuation of this, getting more people, slightly higher density than what we used to see. But it is something that achieves what we set out to achieve, and that's to provide
00:50:00 more affordable, smaller dwellings that meet the democratic goals. Councillor Wegener: I would like to make an alternative motion, a motion to defer this decision to that. Is this? I guess this is right here. Procedural message. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. Moved by Councillor Whitman. I have a seconder. Councillor Lorentson: I have a seconder. Councillor Wilkie: So you're talking about the reasons for deferral. Councillor Wegener: The reasons for deferral are, I understand, basically, why this has been approved.
00:51:00 But I couldn't explain it to somebody that comes up to me and says, how could you possibly approve this? Because it doesn't seem to fit their concept of what Noosa is. It appears to me to be a very cramped inner city development, lifted up and dropped into Noosa. It's tight. The oval, when you look at the diagram, and you see it went over. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. He's talking about the merits of the application, not the deferral motion. Councillor Wilkie: The reasons for why you would like more further time for council review of the development case, Tom. What are you hoping to achieve with the deferral? Councillor Wegener: I'm hoping to understand this better. I do not understand why there aren't tanks, why there's giant roofs there, but there's no tank water. I don't understand why there's no social housing aspect, why there's no disabled... housing aspect, why there's no affordable housing,
00:52:00 because the mayor has made such a big deal of this. This has been a focus of this council, and we have this as a template, as a precedence. So with approving this, I want to understand why all of the Stockwell sites, all of the apartments that are going to be going in there, all of the units will not have social housing, not have disabled housing, not have affordable housing, not have water tanks. And not even have really room for clothes, for drying areas, for drying your clothes. I just see this as a non-new set, and maybe it is with the plan, but I need to be brought on the journey, I think the public needs to be brought on the journey. I need to be able to explain to the public if this is approved, why it was approved, when it just, and the Gestalt. When you, Joe and I walked around there today, and I was looking at it. Yeah, I need to be brought on, I need to be brought on the journey, because I just don't understand it, and I'm a council. Okay.
00:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question for, question for staff, if we were to defer this tonight, is this considered a deferred, oh sorry, a deemed refusal? You can have the right to deem it as a refusal. Speaker 1: So the application is impact accessible, which means it will not go deemed illegal. It's approved, if council does this, because the decision is due currently on the 16th of June, to go deemed refusal, the applicant would have to lodge an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court, us basically saying council has not decided this matter, it's deemed refused, and then ask the court to make that decision, go through that process. I wouldn't expect the, that's only happened once in my time, in the last 22 years. It is unusual for an applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm going to speak against the motion. The reason that the council gave the deferral says,
00:54:00 I haven't done enough work to fulfil my statutory responsibility as an assessment manager. He's employed as a councillor with requirements under the Queensland Planning Act. And the Queensland Planning Act makes it really clear that we must consider, and I think it's important that we consider this, and I'll talk to number section 60, must decide to approve, no, sorry, if an application is properly mined, it requires a code assessment for the assessment management to carry out the assessment. Oh, I've got the wrong thing, because that's code accessible. What it says is we, as an assessment manager, have to consider the planning scheme. Now, council having that listed, I don't know why it doesn't have all these things. It's really simple. The simple question is they don't have it because it's not in the planning scheme. So it's an irrelevant consideration. We can't defer it because Councillor Wegener wants to understand why things weren't put
00:55:00 in the planning scheme. Most of those things, we tried to put them in and the state said no. It's important to understand that we have a policy here about our role as councillors and others in assessment management. And that councillor responsibility goes to the responsibility on us as councillors. And us on councils, we have a policy that says it's up to us to make sure we've read all the material and we understand it. Now, I understand this case when things come to ordinary meeting. We've only had just over a week to come to grips with it. But I think that's enough time. Okay? It's up to us to understand this application by the time it gets to here. It's not up to us to say we've got a housing crisis. Here's the biggest lot of housing that's going to come here to meet the needs of people who might be, you know, they'll have flow-on effects all the way through to the homeless because the more you take out of other rental stock, it'll flow all the way down because
00:56:00 I don't understand it. That's not acceptable. That's not useful. That's not showing leadership. The fact you can't understand it or you think it might have a negative public reaction has nothing to do with your role as a statutory assessor of a development application. And that's the reason why no one should vote for this motion. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to be voting for this motion. But in defence of Councillor Wegener, I'd also like to mention our statutory duty in terms of our conduct. Part of our code of conduct is we need to commit to exercising proper diligence, care and attention. And I respect Councillor Wegener in his commitment to due diligence. I won't be supporting this motion, unfortunately. Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Wilkie: Likewise, I won't be supporting the motion.
00:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I do understand the intent and what the motion is. But what Councillor Wegener would like to see in developments of this. So at this time, we've had our assessment managers and our planners look over this. I've made my assessment of their assessment and I concur with it. With the changes that have been undertaken to this point, I think the applicant made some relevant points for change. And I concur that the changes that have been made, including what Councillor Stockwell has Councillor Wilkie: done, fulfils the needs. Councillor Jurisevic: And the elements of the planning scheme. And as such, I can't agree to defer the motion because I believe this application does what it was intended to do with regards to the planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: Ms Finzel? Ms Sweet? Councillor Finzel: No, I don't have to discuss it. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'm not going to support the motion either. It is up to us to do, to meet with staff, to have our questions answered.
00:58:00 If we do have any regarding the report and the decision. We've had this report since mid last week, when we first received it. And we received it at the same time as the rest of the public. That's sufficient time for us to meet one on one with the planners to ask the questions. We've had briefings, particularly around the reason why there is no social housing in there. I appreciate we all would have preferred to have seen that. And Councillor Wegener tonight asked a question. Why is there no social housing in there? We did try to make this an inclusionary housing zone. And mandate a percentage of the units to be given over to social housing as part of the planning scheme amendments. But they were refused by the state, state interest check. That's the reason why. Now, the council is quite within their right to vote against it if they have other objections.
00:59:00 But to defer it because there are unanswered questions. I can't support that as a sufficient reason for deferring the motion. And then putting it on the applicant. Or putting the applicant in a situation where they might have to go to the planning environment court. That's the reason why I won't support it. But I do appreciate that you really do. All councils do want to get their head around something and be able to explain it. Councillor Wegener, you were supposed to close? Councillor Wegener: Yes. I wish I had the preamble to our planning scheme. There's several pages there of wonderful, colourful language. But it guarantees a high level of livability and this development does not deliver a high level of livability. It is not to the standard. I don't believe it is. That's why I wanted to learn more. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener. Those against? Councillor Jurisevic, Lorentson, Stockwell, Stewart.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Finzel and Wilkie. The motion is lost. We go back to the original motion to which Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Any other councillors to speak to the motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. I concur with all of the points delivered by Councillor Stockwell. With regard to the parking, I support the change with regard to parking. There is no on-street parking on Hofmann Drive. As a result of that, I think it's pertinent that there are those additional parking spaces for not only residents but also visitors to the region. If there are no spaces, if there is no on-street parking, where are visitors going to park? There are nine above ground spaces, I believe, an additional nine below ground spaces gives that provision and allows a little bit more flexibility for the residents with regard to who can come and go and where they can stay. There are no other parking facilitations within the close proximity of this. So the changes to the parking area are one that I support.
01:01:00 I also support the clarification with regard to the fencing and all the other elements that were clarified there, in particular the perimeter of the dog-off-leash area to be fenced. I believe the applicant was happy to see that or was intending to do that. Anyway, I'm happy to see it here as a condition because I think that that, given that this planning application deals with an element of cat control, I think there's an element of dog control also required when a dog-off-leash area is fenced. I don't think there's any residential complex of this nature. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Can the councillor speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? No, I don't think so. Put the motion in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Lorentson, Stockwell, Stewart, Finzel and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Wegener, the motion is carried. We have no confidential sessions and no public question time. An extraordinary meeting will be held on the 21st of July 2022 at Council Chambers.