Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: May we have someone to confirm the Minutes from the General Committee meeting on the 13th of June. Mayor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried. We have no presentations and no deputations. The first item on the agenda is an MCU, change of representations for development approval for multiple dwelling and office and road work, drainage work, landscaping, storm water, earthworks, 245 go below Euclidian Beach, referred from the Environment Committee. Councillor Stewart. Thank you Mr Chair. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Ultram Properties Group. I have a friendship with Liam Rob McCready who are associated with the applicant. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Fensel. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Fensel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the applicant by Ultram Properties Group.
00:01:00 I have known Liam McCready who is associated with the applicant in a volunteer capacity who is involved with the 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Councillor Fensel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's my turn. I wish to inform the meeting that I have declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Pelton Prop News Group on the 24th February 2020 I saw reviewed by the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of Future News Team, of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have the perception of bias. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jo.
00:02:00 I'll vote that Councillor... You need to stand, Jo. Oh, OK. I'll sit there. I've got to say, I thought you'd... Where were we? I'll vote that Councillor Stockwell remains in the room. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Moved by Councillor Jo Jurisevic. Seconded by Councillor Tom Wegener. For the reasons noted in the... Councillor Jurisevic: For the reasons noted and that it's consistent with the past dealings with matters of this notion, with that contract. Councillor Wilkie: For those who may be listening in, Councillor Jurisevic, are you happy to read out that... Councillor Jurisevic: That Council notes the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the I.C.E.O. review was advisory service, not a statutory process. And Councillor Stockwell's queries at the time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
00:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Jo. Any other councillors wish to speak to attend a motion? If the motion goes in favour, that's carried unanimously. Councillor Stockwell will then mark the vote. Okay. Welcome Patrick, Kerry and Leo. Could you give us a bit of an overview of this application? Speaker 2: So this report relates to some change representations that have been made regarding a property at 245 David Lowe Way in Peregian Beach. In April of this year, a preliminary approval was issued for multiple dwellings, three units and an office. And also some operational works. The reason the preliminary approval was issued was due to the non-compliance associated with the Duloc Embassy and the multiple dwelling use code regarding accessibility requirements. The reduced front setback and the presentation of the building to the street and some unresolved landscaping matters.
00:04:00 We've also received representations in relation to all those matters that I've just raised. It's recommended that the front boundary setback representations and the landscaping conditions be resolved, generally as stipulated by the applicant. However, the matter relating the accessibility requirements hasn't been satisfied and it's recommended that the preliminary approval be maintained. Councillor Wilkie: We received subsequent correspondence from the representative department. Have you received that also? Speaker 5: Yes, we received it this morning from one of the councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, I've heard it this morning. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Are you able to talk to the condition regarding the bathroom on the entry level that the applicant's made? Continue.
00:05:00 Speaker 2: So, as you're aware, there's a provision in the scheme that has a requirement for accessibility requirements and step-free access into the building for their bathroom on that ground floor level. The applicant maintains that that provision, they've got a number of issues with that decision or that provision and in part there's a claim about affordability. This has not been proposed to be an affordable housing development and notwithstanding the financial matters of an applicant are not relevant in the assessment of an application. They're also maintaining that the provision is not lawful. Within the scheme, it's noted that the provisions that they're referring to in the National Construction Code talk about disability access. This is about access for all people. It's not refined or confined to disability and also that this provision as part of the
00:06:00 new scheme review was written by the minister and there was no issue with this provision being included. Councillor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, when they talk about containing the development, the condition requiring bathroom on the entry level, are you talking about toilet? Speaker 2: That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: To ensure that people with limited mobility can at least access a toilet? Speaker 2: A toilet wash basin. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming if that's the living quarters, they'll be talking about bathroom and toilet facility, not just bathroom, not just toilet facility. It's for a person. Yeah. If it's the upper level, the only place that they could go to the bathroom to wash and bathe would be on the lower level. If there's an office. Councillor Wilkie: Assuming that people who are using the office have access to a toilet. Speaker 2: No, this relates to the dwelling. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right, the dwelling. Speaker 2: It relates to someone being able to access a dwelling, step free from the car park and
00:07:00 having access to those facilities. Councillor Jurisevic: That was my understanding as well. Speaker 2: That's right. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question, Patrick. A lot is zoned median density and it can accommodate a mixed use development. Can you explain? Does that mean that it has to have an office or health services in the building or can it be used solely as dual occupancy? Speaker 5: We might have to come back to you on that question. Yeah. Yeah. So certainly the area's identified for small scale sort of domestic offices with an allowance for residential. I'd just like to check the new scheme wording as to whether you can just do purely residential. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that it has to be mixed use. Yeah. You could do. If you comply with the mixed use. Speaker 5: Yeah. I'll have to come back and check that requirement. And that's what my view is too, Jane. Councillor Jurisevic: I think we've asked a question elsewhere. Councillor Lorentson: So that leads to my next question.
00:08:00 So I'm going to the email that was given to all the councillors. It seems like the applicant has explored options with council in regards to meeting that compliance issue about access to a wider section of the community and the three options, compliant ramp, the chair lived in, and the applicant has not. It seems like the lift is the only option. And that's where I sort of ask the question. The applicant has made a submission that to install a lift means that there's going to be a loss of a unit and the new use is going to be dual occupancy, which the NUSA plan does not require. It should be designed for people with limited mobility, which I agree with. And that's where I come back to the question. And that's where I come back to the question. Is it a requirement that that site be developed as mixed use?
00:09:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. So I think we need to check the planning scheme. Certainly there is a development along Davidlow Way, which is just commercial. It has no residential and was approved under a previous planning scheme. But whether the new scheme insists that it's mixed, I'm not quite sure. I see no reason for them. They could do commercial downstairs in a duplex. That would meet the scheme requirements. That would certainly be a mixed use development. And the scheme doesn't require that all accessible for a duplex. And I imagine just because the imposition, there's only two units, they're not looking for all accessibility for the units. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can I follow up? Because I was just researching this. I think the way it appears to be in the new scheme is that specific use in the tables of assessment for medium density residential have got code assessable if in conjunction with residential uses in a mixed use. So it's actually in the table of development on their specific use.
00:10:00 Because the question I had was, there doesn't appear to be a limit on the number of offices. So the other alternate solution would be to have two residential and two offices. Is that correct? That would still be it? Yes. Speaker 5: That would still meet the requirements. That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. And then if we only had two residential, we wouldn't have two offices. We wouldn't have the trigger for a disability access or all abilities access. Speaker 5: That's right. It doesn't require for a duplex given there's only two units and considered to be too much of an imposition for the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just the zoning in that location was discussed at great length in the formation of the planning scheme. And we, without any confidentialities, I don't think, being breached. It was. It was. The option of going into the business centre was one of the options.
00:11:00 This was another. And there was a further one of linking it into the innovation zone as well. And this was considered to be the medium option of keeping it residential but realising that we do want to have some commercial uses along that street frontage. So to me, if I was looking at giving any variation, it would be about reducing the amount of residential rather than office. Because you'd want... That precinct between the digital hub and the business centre to have that semi-commercial feel about it, but allowing people to work and live in the same place. Speaker 5: Yeah, it certainly wasn't put in a commercial zone. We were flagging that we wanted to see something different, so it was included in a medium residential zone. And that was really flagging that we wanted something different to actually see in the village. More of a domestic scale, residential in nature, but could allow some small-scale offices on
00:12:00 the site. Councillor Lorentson: So for purposes of clarity, Kerry, it is possible for the applicant to achieve compliance. It's a matter of redesigning by the sound of it, just going back to the drawing board and exploring just different design options. Speaker 5: No, I think it's a good point. I think the applicant has indicated that they could do a duplex and make it work. It just... And I see no reason why they couldn't explore putting lift there and looking at the three units. It's not a simple solution, but they have to redesign and have a look. I think there's options open to the applicant. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, one would suggest that the other... What the scheme says to have level access in, if one of the dwellings was actually on the lower floor, it would comply with that, comply with disability access and not need a lift. So an office could be on both floors and dwellings on both floors to some degree.
00:13:00 Speaker 5: They could do potentially one unit below in the commercial. I think the site's pretty small and constrained. Yeah, it is constrained. It is constrained. So I think that would be difficult to achieve. But certainly, you know, the option is the two units above, commercial below. Whether they can do three units above, commercial below, that's where they'd have to go back to the drawing board and have a good look. Councillor Wegener: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: And in the letter from the applicant again, they then contest that the requirement of performance outcome nine, paper 10, is not a reasonable or valid. And that, for those who may be listening, that requirement is that... Well, the performance outcome is that multiple dwellings can be accommodated and visited by a wide crowd. It's a cross-section of the community, including with limited mobility. Just in response to that, could you talk about the frameworks, any frameworks that support the inclusion of performance outcome nine or adherence to performance outcome
00:14:00 nine as part of the conditions? Yeah? Speaker 5: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Well, they're saying that performance outcome nine is neither reasonable nor valid. Can you explain why it is? Yeah. Speaker 5: We consider it is valid. Obviously, we haven't obtained legal advice, and nor has the applicant. But we consider it is valid. And to... We do so because, one, the minister has signed off on our planning scheme. So, there is quite a stringent review by the minister and the different departments to make sure it meets the state requirements. And they're very strict on what we can put in our planning scheme. Obviously, we've wanted to introduce more systemic changes to our planning scheme. But they won't permit us to do that because they say it conflicts with the building code. We've checked with our building department as well to see whether it conflicts with the building requirements.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 They see it as an additional requirement, that it doesn't conflict with the building requirements. Looking at the wording in the guideline, the reference is to disabled, disability access, whereas this is limited mobility. So, it's coming at it from a different approach. But obviously, you know, a legal answer is really the only way to ensure the validity of it. Councillor Wilkie: So, is limited mobility, that term, more of a catch-all than, say, disabled? Speaker 5: Yeah. I think it's a broader term in terms of disabled. Councillor Wilkie: That's right. Perhaps the elderly. Speaker 5: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question. I don't think... In the report... In the report, it's identified the size of the units. Are they what we define as small units in the... Yes. They are. Speaker 5: They're under 100 square metres. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Have we worked, Kerry, with the applicant, or negotiated, tried to negotiate this outcome
00:16:00 by offering relaxations? You know, is there opportunity to talk easements and relaxations? Do you think there's a need for that? Speaker 5: I'm not aware of all the discussions that we've had with the applicant. Speaker 2: So, the applicant was aware before the decision was made on... Originally, that this was an issue. And the applicant has generally been not supportive of putting in a lift and probably hasn't really pursued to great detail a design to enable any real conversation around what it might look like. And what variations might be sought. So, it's fairly limited, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor, do we have a motion before us? I'll move. Move. Councillor Jurisevic, seconded by Councillor Whitton.
00:17:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy with what I've read and what I've heard from the planning staff with regards to the matters here, and if there's any further result that the applicant needs. So, I have the means by which to question that. The outcomes. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I also support the staff recommendation. And I... It's an additional requirement, what we're asking. I support that as well. There's a huge demographic... When we talk about... Sorry. Performance outcome line, that ensures a wide section of the community, including people with limited access. So, we have the elderly. And I think our recent consensus sort of blew me away that how many people actually live with mobility issues.
00:18:00 I think the number was about 3,700, from memory. So, anything that supports... Anything that removes or relaxes this requirement, and I'm quoting from your report, is going to be a significant change in the mobility issues. It unfairly excludes the demographic of the community, so that's something I will not support. I was challenged a little bit with this one, and I was walking through the National Park for a run yesterday, as I do to clear my head. And I don't know whether my answers come to me, but there was a lady, probably in her late 20s, in a wheelchair, using our waterfall boardwalk, and the answer there, and in the distance, the access speech mat, which for 12 months I fought really hard to get council on board with that initiative, gave me my answer.
00:19:00 This is something that's non-negotiable. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Robertson. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is an interesting one. In that we're balancing the need of the nature of residential accommodation we need to meet a particular demographic, which is all abilities. It's in a location where there's, and a size, where there's another demographic that is also in great need of housing. And that demographic probably doesn't own a car. Now, I think there's an option on this side to do a more innovative design, which actually looks at the options of how do we provide mobility to the people who are going to live there,
00:20:00 and get three residential units and one business unit, and get three residential units and one business unit, by being more relaxed about car parking. It's slightly different to the junction context because we don't have the level of public transport we do in the Sunshine Beach to Tewantin. But it is so close to the facilities. And I'm thinking in terms of the transformation thinking we need around our business centres, that we look at, say, Nightingale, the development that was energy efficient, The city's most efficient carbon nutrient, reduced cost of living, sustainable transport, had no parking. Train, tram, car share was nearby and bike parking. It looks like there's about 10 units. 3,000 people submitted their names for that particular development to high-intuit.
00:21:00 Obviously that was in a city so there's a lot more people. But that's the sort of thinking I think we need our developers to do. If they're going to come to us and ask for relaxation on the fact that it doesn't meet the scheme requirements in terms of one demographic, they're going to have to convince me as a councillor that they're actually creating one that's suitable for another key demographic and that meets what we encourage in our planning scheme in terms of designs that are suitable to our climate and designs that do meet our target of zero emissions. It can't just be a standard one saying we can't afford to put a lift in. It can't be a development that you could look at and see 100 of them if we want to get this level of relaxation. So that's, I suppose to me, putting it out that I'm willing to look at relaxation on this side because we do want a mixed-use development.
00:22:00 We do want it for people who may not have a car because it is close to all services. So that's the challenge I suppose. If the developer doesn't want to comply with the all abilities then they're going to have to look at what else can they do that meets the scheme requirements that would make people like me change my mind about any realizations. Councillor Wegener: Council Member. I agree wholeheartedly with Amelia. We talked about maintaining the standards that we have set here in our town plan and that they're for a very, very good reason. Councillor Wilkie: Do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: No, nothing further. Councillor Wilkie: All right. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Mr. Simeon, Nina and Councillor Finzel can come back. Thank you Patrick. Councillor Jurisevic: I was going to say it's a 40-mile drive.
00:23:00 Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We now move to item 2. Welcome back, Mayor Kinzer. Thank you. MCU might have changed to development approval for commercial business type 1 office, commercial business type 2 vehicle and ancillary growing unit and reconfiguration of the lot. Access easement at 36 Houghton Drive, Noosaville. May I have a bit of an overview, please, Lisa, and also if there's any developments in this? Sure. Speaker 6: Okay, the application seeks to make a minor change to an existing material change of use application for an office, medical and ancillary dwelling unit. The application is for Council today because it was originally approved by Council in 2019. The application seeks to increase the approved building height from 10.2 metres to 12.1 metres with a lift overrun at just over 13 metres.
00:24:00 It's in a zone where the maximum height limit is 10 metres. An increase of height in the approved three-storey building where there is a limit of two storeys by approximately 2 metres is not supported as it does not result in an improved architectural outcome and it does not comply with the performance outcomes in Noosa planning. The proposal also seeks some front facade changes and although the front entry canopy complements the existing building, other changes requested are considered to diminish an approved architecture. Proposed changes to the gross floor area and motorcycle parking are supported and recommendations are outlined in the report accordingly. So we did receive some correspondence this morning that was sent, I believe, to Councillors last night. Seven pages.
00:25:00 I had a quick overview of it. In there, it looks like the applicant is wishing to move to the new building. In there, it looks like the applicant is wishing to not proceed with the gross floor area reduction that has been supported in the report if their proposed height is not supported. And yeah, there's a few representations there around discussions through the process and the grab to height and other changes. Councillor Wilkie: So are they still requiring a decision in this round? Speaker 6: So, yes. So this morning, I did bring the applicant's consultant. Unfortunately, I couldn't get to speak with him. I did leave a message. There was a, I'm not privy to the full email, I'm sorry, I think, was sent from, yeah, another. So I'm really just not sure in terms of how the applicant intends to proceed. Yeah. Speaker 5: So the applicant would like to make a presentation to Councillors on their proposal so they can
00:26:00 put forward, I guess, their point of view and their reasons why Council should support the increased height. That's gone to all the Councillors. Or they're asking for a bit of an in-person discussion, I guess, as occurs on all items. So we haven't been able to contact the applicant. We tried this morning. We phoned several times last week and they haven't returned our calls. So we're unclear whether the applicant is happy to defer the matter to a future round or they want the matter decided now. Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask if this is deferred to a future round without a stop on the assessment? Is there a deemed approval or a refusal? Speaker 5: Refusal. A deemed refusal. Refusal. So they would have to lodge something in the Planning and Environment Court to enact that to happen. So it's not automatically refused. They'd have to lodge an appeal in the court. Yeah. Talented.
00:27:00 Talented. Mayor Stewart: Talented. They can't make a decision about it. This came to us very late in the meeting. Late last night. Some councilor have already said it. It's a long thing. And they said that they had requested to meet with us. The Councillors, well myself, and our Councilor and Student Jurisdict response saying we hadn't been advised of that. And I would actually, I don't feel that I can make an informed decision with that information coming so late in the piece. We are a deem to refusal but my concern is if we defer it at the table, we are a deem to refusal. Is there any opportunity to put this towards the end of the meeting, come back to it and try and get in touch with them again Mr CEO to see if they are prepared to do that so we actually can make some decisions here at the table today? Councillor Jurisevic: We still have until Thursday anyway. Speaker 7: Through the Chair, that's correct. This isn't a decision to make before an ordinary meeting, it's a decision to make before. So two options there. Pass through today as the Office of Recommendations make an amendment to the Office of Recommendation and that you be seeking further information before the ordinary meeting.
00:28:00 And potentially the third option, which is probably one that I don't think I'd recommend given that we've got until Thursday, is laying on the table for further advice by the end of this meeting. I think let's just count that and it would be allow the processes to occur through until Thursday and see then come Thursday's ordinary meeting if that additional information has been satisfied. And if there's further options to discuss further with the applicant post then. Yeah. If that's required, there's the opportunity for Council to do so from there. Mayor Stewart: So they have the ability then between now and Thursday to defer it themselves and then we can look at it, you know, and have that meeting with them before the next general ordinary meeting. Speaker 7: My recommendation is you move an amendment with the recommendation that we had before you and that we're seeking further information.
00:29:00 Would that be helpful for the planning team? It's fairly standard procedure to be able to wait until the ordinary meeting because that's the decision making forum there. Yeah. But to give clarity to officers, would that help in that? Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. I think today we need the discussion. Yeah. And then if we let it go through the ordinary, we'll keep trying to contact the applicant to see what they would like to do. Yeah. You know, it's our, as officers, we would probably recommend that it's not deferred because there's been so many discussions with the applicant about height, but that's for Council to decide, yeah. Mm-hmm. Speaker 7: Fine. Presentation between now and Thursday will be difficult given the alignment of diaries. Yes. So it, through the Chair, would be a matter for each individual councillor to satisfy yourselves with information from the applicant sliding in a presentation at this late stage would be difficult. Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: So you're suggesting that the matter go through as further recommendation for the ordinary meeting, and in the meantime, councillors seek the meetings and further information from the applicant?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 7: Yeah. Or also, Chair, that there's the ability to amend saying that you are seeking additional information. But if that's known by the table and that's your intent, I think we're pretty clear as to what we're trying to achieve. Yeah. That decision won't be made until Thursday evening on the ordinary. Mm-hmm. But if there is some concern about the recommendation before you, you may want to add that little amendment in there that you would be seeking some further information. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 7: Okay. Depending on if you agree with the recommendation before you. You do absolutely have that ability throughout the ordinary to amend what's before you before you make that decision. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask a few questions? Sure. Thank you. I wasn't at the P&E meeting. I was an apology. But I did watch it online. But I just had a few questions that didn't actually come up in that meeting.
00:31:00 So just in regard to the major centre zone, you can have up to 12 metres as per page 52. That's right, isn't it, Kerry? You can have up to 12 metres in height, major centre zone. Speaker 5: The height for the Shire Business Centre or the Noosa Business Centre varies across the business centre depending on which precinct you are in. There is a statement in the scheme that would allow for a mixed use development on the site to go to 12 metres. Yeah. We don't have a mixed use development. This is commercial. And so it's otherwise 10 metres on this site. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So this incorporates medical office use and one ancillary dwelling unit, which is caretaker's accommodation. You're saying that's ancillary use and that doesn't then fit into the requirement. Yeah. Speaker 5: I wouldn't consider it a mixed use development. What Council were looking to do when they adopted the scheme was to encourage some sort of shop top housing in amongst it. And so they were willing to vary the height to encourage that to occur. Yeah. This is far from shop top sort of housing with its one caretaker's residence.
00:32:00 Mayor Stewart: In regard to page 52, given the proposal does not comply with conceptual outcomes AO16 of the major centres. Sorry, this is on the P&E agenda. The proposal is assessed against corresponding performance outcomes. And it says here that following maximum height for Noosa Junction, three storeys. And this was approved, wasn't it? It was approved. It was approved. It should be two, but it was approved for three. Is that right? Or are you using that same acceptable outcome? Can you just tell us what page you're reading from? Speaker 5: Page 53. 52-53. Yeah. So the development, it's in a two storey area. Yes. So that is the maximum height for the area. And it's been two storeys under the 2020 scheme as well as the 2006 scheme for some time. Officers recommended approval for the third floor given it was set back from that frontage. And a very high standard of design was being offered.
00:33:00 We consider that there was merit in that proposal. But also the height remained at the 10 metre maximum that was sought for the area. It was generally the same height commensurate. So even that had an additional third floor, it was 10 metres, which was the maximum height in metres for the area. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So that was a justification for it. Speaker 5: That was the justification for the three, yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So we've expressed discretion to go to three storeys. And now the core argument for one of the rises is about that it's difficult to get three storeys with the modern medical machinery, which is higher in one storey, which was previously 2,400 and wants to go to 2,700 plus the rest. My question is, if it was a mixed-use development, and the 2,400 storey was put at the top for
00:34:00 residential purposes or mainly residential purposes, would that then comply with the intent of the scheme? The argument is that it can't fit in three levels of modern medical machinery because of its height. Our argument is, when they're away, are we going to get three storeys? Are we going to extend to two metres above the maximum height for pure commercial? We've already done relaxation. Well, that's my argument. The staff's argument too. My question is, if the first two levels were medical, the top level was residential or mainly residential, it would become a mixed-use site. Would that then allow the roof height, you said 12 metres? Is that right? Yeah. So part, if there's a substantial amount of housing, maybe if the developer was to contact a local community housing cooperative or whatever and say, what if I did six here and I still had three storeys perhaps part of it for medical machinery, that would be something that would
00:35:00 justify looking at a height that he's proposing? Speaker 5: Yeah. Certainly at the moment, the scheme allows that additional height for the residential on the top floor. We don't have residential on the top floor. We have commercial. I would suspect if they did two floors of commercial and then residential, we still wouldn't be anywhere near the 12, 13 metres that they're proposing, be much closer to the 10 metres. So I don't know. Councillor Jurisevic: Do you have a question? Councillor Wegener: With these applications and bringing this before council, they're not extending the time that they have to begin building the project. They're not extending the time that they have to begin building the project. I mean, they still have that deadline from the original approvals again. Speaker 5: That's right. They haven't asked for a change to the currency period. Remembering, though, that the minister has given a number of extensions to the currency period over the last few years, so a total of two years, and this development would enjoy
00:36:00 that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did have one. Am I right in recalling we may have had another application in the municipal business centre for a medical precinct office? Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. So we have a current application by Stockwell, the adjoining landowners, for a site just on the other side of the road. They're looking at the option of either offices or medical, depending what they wish to do. Councillor Jurisevic: The entry end of the current showroom. Speaker 5: That's right. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. And what I would be right in suggesting is that if we were to relax, we would have to have some provisions to the extent wanted by the applicant here instead of precincts would then have to be looked at for the rest of that site? Speaker 5: Yeah. I think it would create difficulties if we start varying the scheme provisions. It will have implications for the other sites in the business centre.
00:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: We have a choice of two motions before us, councillors. One to defer to the format of the ordinary meeting, and one to refuse that. And the other is to request, sort of, and both allow you to seek the information you need between now and Thursday night from the applicant. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Tom. I don't see the big difference between the two because the ordinary meeting is when we actually do it. So, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The only difference is that the applicant will get an indication of how many councillors support the staff position if we go. Councillor Jurisevic: Either way, so we've still got three days to discuss. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I'll move the staff decision. Okay. I'll second it. We're going to second it. Councillor Jurisevic. And this just seems like a pretty clear-cut situation where if they wanted to go higher,
00:38:00 and we have lots of reasons in Noosa why we have that height cap. One of the many is that it's our whole idea of looking at Noosa and seeing trees and not seeing buildings together. And that's a huge point of difference for us. It's part of who we are. It's part of our culture. It's part of our identity. And it's probably a big part of why our property values keep going up. So, I support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener. May the councillors respect the motion before we put it to the vote? All right. All in favour? Councillor Jurisevic, Wegener, Stockwell. Wilkie, Ergannist. Lawrence. Stewart and Finzel. Vote for Cary. Next item is reports for the general committee. Thank you. There's a thank you, Cary. Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
00:39:00 Councillor Wilkie: The application for material coming to use for the growing house of 666 Seed Meacher of Sunshine Beach. Patrick, is there a development in this? Speaker 2: There is. The applicant has stopped the clock on this matter. They've stopped it until the next round of council meetings. We'll be seeking that that's modified to an extension to enable it to go on an agenda. They're in some discussions with the adjoining neighbour around the design of the rooftop terrace. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is there anything preventing us from discussing this item, even though the clock is stopped? Not making a decision on it, but can we discuss it? Speaker 5: No, there's no reason why we can't have a discussion. We just can't make a decision today. That's the effect of stopping the clock. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so I've got one question. So, in the Noosa claim 2020,
00:40:00 the performance outcome is counter-leaving for balconies. That's the performance outcome. It's not an acceptable solution. It's about the... What we've got in this development is not a balcony, but a counter-leaving bedroom, bathroom and living room. Am I correct? Speaker 2: The scheme allows for development at the ground level to the coastal building line, and then it allows for a counter-leaver beyond that coastal building line for an extent of three metres, but it seeks for that to be un-enclosed and un-roofed. And in this instance, they are enclosing and roofing it. It's part of the internal element of the dwelling. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so the actual wording is...
00:41:00 What I was looking at was the coastal protection and seating amenity overlay, and it's performance outcome three with no acceptable outcome. It says, where a coastal building line exists on a lot, all building structures and training walls do not extend seaward of coastal building line to the site other than uncovered and un-enclosed counter-leaved balconies that do not extend greater than three metres. Seaward of the coastal building line. So it does not comply with the performance outcome of the coastal building overlay. Is that correct? That's correct. And then we go up to the higher level and we look at the purpose and overall outcome. And the outcome of... Purpose and overall outcome is... The purpose of the coastal protection and seating amenity overlay code is to ensure development is designed and sited to protect the nature, natural beach experience and seating amenity of the coastal area enjoyed by Noosa Shire residents and visitors. In the planning environment, you sought to interpret that
00:42:00 as it was meant to protect the neighbours' view, but it's clearly about the community view. It's purely about the senior community. So do we have to be satisfied that building a bedroom, bathroom and living room where it's meant to be a balcony complies with the overall purpose and outcome? Yes. OK, that's my questions. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move whatever deferral motion is needed. Councillor Wilkie: I'll take them. Move, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded, Councillor Jurisdict. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so, but I do want to make it clear that if the development comes back in the current form, I am of the view that the level of discretion suggested in the recommendation is unwarranted and inconsiderable. It is consistent with the Noosa Plan 2020 and won't be supported. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion?
00:43:00 Is the motion in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you, Patrick. It is carried unanimously. Next is a report directed to the general committee to contract the register of pre-qualified suppliers or provision of fire-tech services from our director of the Fridgham Regional Hub, Chris Bowden. We welcome Chris. Thank you. Chris, could you just give us an overview of what this report is seeking a decision on, please? Speaker 4: Morning, councillors. As I think you're all aware, we are in a phase of our fire-tech programme where we will be conducting a series of technology trials over the next couple of years in four categories, predicting bushfires where and when they might happen, detecting bushfires when they start,
00:44:00 developing solutions for more situational intelligence to help us deal with fires when they're occurring, and using uncrewed firefighting technology to move first responders further away from situations of danger. In order to execute on those charges, trials, or deliver them, we obviously need to work with technology companies, and we have just concluded a tender process to assemble a register of preferred suppliers, and what you have before you today is the conclusion of that process where we'll be awarding a contract to 12 companies who we will then separately work with on a project-by-project basis as the details of these trials start to emerge.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Councillor Wegener: Is this unusual for an arm of council to have the same thing that the council has, the regular list, the pre-qualified list? Speaker 4: Is it an unusual thing? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, yeah. Maybe I should ask the CEO. Sorry, just put that against the council. Look, here we have 12 people on a preferred list, and a council of that goes through the process. And it does take a body that's not council, very close to council, an arm of council, so to speak, to have the same ability to do that. Speaker 7: Through the chair, it's still managed through our procurement team. So any council funds that are extended must follow the procurement process. What this does, it provides certainly for the team and the digital hardware as to who they can work with and those suppliers that are pre-qualified.
00:46:00 That doesn't stop the requirements that we have around procurement and ensuring that the different dates and levels of procurement follow, whether it's three quotes or a tender, that still needs to happen. It's just that these tenders or these companies are qualified to be able to be organised by the council. So while the digital hub is an entity of the council, it's not separate to, and it still has the same requirements for procurement as any other part of the business. Okay. Councillor Wegener: And this just makes the process easier, quicker for it? Speaker 7: Absolutely. It demonstrates that those particular suppliers have met the minimum requirements that council needs to be able to deliver these services. And then that gives us a greater ability and then some flexibility around procurement. But that doesn't take away the procurement requirements that we have overall.
00:47:00 Thank you. Mr Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think CEO got there, but I was just going to question some of the fundamental assumptions of council witnesses. My understanding, the Peregian Beach Digital Hub is just as much council as the good ladies and men who fill the potholes and plant the trees and the engineers who make the roads. Is that correct? Speaker 7: That's correct. It's not a separate business unit of the council or a corporatised entity. It is part of council, yes. Councillor Wilkie: And these companies are from around the globe? Chris? They are. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be my question. How many are Australian based? Speaker 4: Do you have any idea? Yeah, we do. Councillor Jurisevic: I was actually surprised by the number of them. Was that a pleasant surprise or were you expecting more? Speaker 4: No, that's about what we were hoping for. Otherwise, it does become a little unwieldy. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, given the technology is as new as it is and that we're in that frontier space
00:48:00 to some degree, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the number. Speaker 4: That's right. And you'll note in the documentation here that there's no guarantee of engagement following this appointment to the panel. So it's really on a case-by-case basis, but the answer to the question is the majority of those are Australian. Councillor Wilkie: Excellent. Thank you. Any questions, councillors? Move, Councillor Stewart. Second, Councillor Wilkie. Go ahead. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Chris. This is incredible. Thank you. This is a very important work. Bushfire prediction, bushfire detection, aerial operations and uncrewed firefighting solutions. FireTech Connect is the nursing council initiative and one which we are incredibly proud of. It is designed to speed up the adoption of innovative technology solutions for building fire, bushfire, resilience in regional communities. New technology solutions face a significant burden of proof to establish that they are safe and effective before they can be widely adopted. This innovative platform that is being adopted by council's FireTech Connect program, which
00:49:00 will be offered to emergency services, LGAs and enterprises, will assist in providing a global network of solution providers and a living lab which can be deployed. I greatly support the candid works that FireTech are doing and I thank and congratulate Chris for all the hard work that he's doing in this space. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks, Matt. Speaker 4: I'll speak to it. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of entities here. We were at the forefront of some new technology and the fact that there are this many entities that are registered to be pre-qualified suppliers to work with council and FireTech services in expanding and growing the new technology around fire services is pleasantly surprising and I look forward to seeing the results that occur as a result over the next 12 months and into the future. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pearson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, sir. Yeah, I will speak. I think the perception that somehow this business is separate to local government is a good
00:50:00 one to explore because what we're finding right now with the community is when we're going out with new ideas, people are thinking the world hasn't moved since the 1990s. So this is part of implementing the smart biosphere economic development strategy. Local government has to keep its community ready and the future's not a place where somewhere we're going to is what we're creating and this is helping us to create a safer future for our community because we know that the fire threat will enhance for at least another 50 years and that's only if we have dramatic global scale change in terms of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere. So it's really important to understand that this is just business as usual now. It's business as usual to have pre-qualified concrete suppliers for footpaths and to have
00:51:00 a global supplied expertise in digital economy and smart biosphere that will help our community adapt to what is a challenging future ahead of us. I didn't think I'd get to that. I didn't think I'd get that out of a pre-qualified supplier list but I did. Councillor Lorentson: Just a quick question. I might have my dates wrong but my understanding is we're going to be in like a La Nina until about 2026 and there's possibly 10 more years, 10 years of drought expected after. Is that, do you have any numbers? I don't. Any clarity? Okay. So as I'm sitting here, all I think of is preparation for long-term. And I am so happy we are in this space. Thank you. But I think my, it's about like 2026, 10 years. So the threat, it's funny how we forget yesterday's news, but the threat doesn't seem real and
00:52:00 immediate. Yeah, that's right. Speaker 4: Nothing like six months worth of rain too, Craig. Councillor Jurisevic: But again, that's an assumption that this only happens in the Southern Hemisphere. Fires happen in the Northern Hemisphere as well and the technology and that associated here will enhance the opportunities in the Northern Hemisphere as well, I would imagine. Speaker 4: Okay. Thanks very much. The hope. Councillor Wegener: Tom. First, I'm just so happy to reiterate what the Mayor says about what you're doing with fire tech and the smart biosphere and the measuring because my thought, we are in the middle of this time of change. And now that the ground is really wet, it's probably a great time to put in the sensors so that we could monitor, as Amelia says, going into the drought and how long things and figure out where it dries up faster than other places and get an idea of preparation and share that information with the world.
00:53:00 But also, I think that the digital hub fits in with the CEO's concept of where council is going. And the word that keeps coming up is nimble. And the digital hub is exactly that. It's moving. So I see it as a semi-decentralized version of council where you have people who are nimble and can react quickly to situations like the digital hub. It is fantastic and it's a model, it's a way of looking at council where it's not one silo but rather more of an octopus with arms stretching out. And so when you say that the digital hub is as much of a part of council as any other part, well, I didn't actually see it that way. But actually, that's something I want to explore with the new corporate plan coming out. Councillor Finzel: Fantastic. Well, I better make a comment. Everyone else has. I think it was fantastic. I first got to head over to FireTech when we came up with the campaign and got elected.
00:54:00 And it was fantastic to see the innovation and what was happening in that space at that time. And I strongly supported that, as I still do today. So I think it's fantastic that we can continue to have excellence as council. This decision shows that we are prepared to take those steps required at a time when strong leadership's needed and our community's looking to us to go, how do we mitigate these risks? How do we move forward with the future where we can feel we've done everything possible to try and look at a future where we can be efficient, agile and nimble in the space? So I thank you, Chris. I think it's really timely. And especially sending that message back to community that we are on the job. And also the CEO and staff. I think anything that we can implement that creates efficiency in this space, that demands rapid response to these disasters that we're having, I think is well supported. And I think our community will benefit from good collaboration, good solid decision making
00:55:00 with supported evidence to drive a future forward where we look after and secure our community. So thank you, Chris. Thank you, Kelsey. Thank you, Karen. Councillor Wilkie: All I'll say is it is typical of the sort of forward thinking innovation. You expect one to regenerate. I do want to regenerate. Councillor Finzel: Pack it up. Please. Please. Please. Can I ask a favour? Councillor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Thank you, Chris. Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Kelsey. Thanks, Chris. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, everyone. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is the Destination Management Project Control Group page nine. Welcome, Lynne. Good morning. How are you? Good. Councillor Finzel: Morning, Lynne. Councillor Wilkie: And Kim. Hello. Good morning, Councillors. So, Lynne or Kim, could you give us a bit of an overview about the Destination Management
00:56:00 Project Control Group? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. Sure. Councillor Wilkie. So, today, Councillors, there's a report in front of you to recommend a project control group be established to help guide and advise on the Destination Management Plan. Council has funded the development of a Destination Management Plan, which is about looking at Noosa and managing our success, I guess, in terms of Noosa as a destination, and looking at a process that is needed. It engages the whole community in that. There are a number of projects across Council that are guided by project control groups, and that's why we think there's a project control group. But this important project will be – will add to the governance and help guide and advise on both the process and methodology and how we engage our community in this important project. Councillor Wilkie: Questions, Councillors, if you have any?
00:57:00 No. No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. I'm happy to move to a slightly different motion. I'll read it out, because there's a few changes. The Council note the report by – oh, I don't have to stand up. Councillor Wilkie: You don't have to stand up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The Council note the report by Manager Economic Development to the General Committee meeting 18th of July, 2022, and A, establish governance around the project that embeds a whole of Council – A. A. A whole of Council and whole of community. A. Approach to the development of the plan. Approve the formation of a destination management plan internal and an external project control group that internally meet on a monthly basis and jointly on a bi-monthly basis. C.
00:58:00 Approve an EOI process commencing 25 July to 18 April, 2022. I. To appoint up to three community members with relevant community and industry experience as well as co-locations and request a report recommending appointment of up to three community members to be invited to the next general committee meeting on the 15th of August. Request a joint internal and external project control group at its first meeting to develop a participative approach to the guidance of the planned process. Approve the terms of reference for the DNP PCG approved at attachment one as... I haven't got my... With the changes above it was I accept it's otherwise varied I think is the word I had. Councillor Wegener: I'll find it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep and if councillors are happy that we're going to just repeat that. And appoint Councillor Stewart Mayor as a Chair. Council, I'm going to try to and I know there's been three people who expressed interest.
00:59:00 Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell as representatives on DNP PCG. I'll second that. And I couldn't work out how to do it without nominating people. Sorry Councillor Finzel but we'll have a discussion on that. So councillors... Is that a genuine apology? The DNP is a... A confidential body of work and I think it's important to understand why we've decided to have a project control group. I think that the number A that I've added in there is meant to send really clear to the community and to staff that this is across all of our organisations. But it's also not just an industry development plan, it's not even an industry development plan. It is what the Director said, it is about managing our success and I'm just waiting, Cathy, when you finish that, could you bring up the first diagram?
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 No, the other one. Yeah. So recently I went out and asked people on social media and it's only 220 of our residents, it's not representative, it is a snapshot. But one of the questions I asked is to nominate the top three issues that they felt would be impactful to the community. In fact, on Noosa's reputation, if further growth happens with our better management and infrastructure. And the three that came back was traffic congestion, parking in tourist precincts, too many cars on Teewah Beach and congestion conflicts on the Noosa River. So they're classical destination management issues. They're all a result of overuse. And it's not just overuse by visitors, it's a combination of used visitors and locals. So the destination management plan is meant to avoid that continuing and getting worse.
01:01:00 It's meant to draw that back. So if I could have the next one, Cathy. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Is that okay? Through the chair? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm talking. It's not okay. Yeah. So what we're doing here is establishing the governance around this project. And I've done up this. It's a very broad program logic. And you can see what the destination management plan. Why is it whole of council? Why is it whole community? Because it actually implements specific criteria out of the Noosa Plan 2020. But the Noosa Plan 2020, what it asks for is that protection and enhancement of natural environment, the scenic community and the landscape character of Shire remains attractive, contributes to the lifestyle qualities valued by the community. Within the hinterland, it focuses as direct towards high quality nature-based rural tourism and events to diversify and balance the visitor experience across Noosa Shire. It goes to a few more. But it can only achieve that by assessing development applications.
01:02:00 So the destination management had to try and achieve that and the other areas outside of it. So we can't just have it seen as a Noosa plan. That's why the economic strategy sings from the same hymn sheet. The economic strategy does have a section which is entitled Place Managing Success. And it talks about us attracting a million visitors and spend just under $1 billion. And it talks about the areas that are attracting it, which is, you know, and it's what the economic development strategy is. Visitors are drawn to our pristine beaches, our national parks, lack of city symbols and low key development and enjoy the high level amenities and services provided by Noosa business. And it encourages to take a holistic approach. But it talks about the success of Noosa being reliant on clear plans that define stakeholder roles and the allocation of resources. Well managed destinations that preserve its assets, attract its investment, meet workforce needs and have levels of innovation.
01:03:00 So you can see here, I suggest those two strategies drive down through that threat of overuse of landscapes. And I won't go into the detail of what the potential action is. These are just my thoughts. You look at the environment strategy. And it also talks about the impact of human use to protect ecosystem health and visual amenity, as well as to ensure sustainable use of our waterways and our foreshores for residents, visitors and commercial operators. And it talks about protecting environmental values and the transport options. So it drives that whole area there that the other threat we're looking at is the lack of management on some of these areas. We've got the management of development applications. We haven't really put our mind to apply the same principles of carrying capacity and well managed development into all those uses that don't require any approval under the planning scheme. That's why the destination management is important. But it's also about culture and transport. And you can see here, the outcome I've suggested here is we want people to come here and live
01:04:00 here to experience nature and culture, not congestion and clutter. And the cultural plan's got really clear things. It says, provide a diverse range of cultural venues, experiences, activities that reflect local needs and interests. It talks about enhancing the unique creative character, livability and aesthetic appeal of Noosa villages. Council will also support local indigenous community in respectfully and sensitively sharing their knowledge and stories to residents and visitors. And events and festivals will continue to be an important part of the Noosa calendar. And it's for both residents and visitors. So the cultural plan. And how we get people to these cultural plans. So that's what the destination management has to bring together. And finally, the transport strategy. Is we need to get there with ease and access. Now, what most people see is that congested road. But it's just a symptom. If we don't come back and get a great body of work to justify changes. And it does mean council will have to move into some of those areas of smart technology.
01:05:00 And it does mean if we think the major threats come from the transport strategy. It's coming from, say, increased day use. Our day trippers. That they should be expected to contribute to the solution. So there is some hard decisions about setting price signals. But I think what we want to get to is, A, we want to do this so that we see ourselves once again in the headlines as being an internationally recognised sustainable destination. That's resilient. And if we do do that, and it is a difficult task, and it will mean moving forward, it will mean moving into areas that we haven't previously been into. The benefits will be that we'll have those quality experiences for locals and visitors. It will mean there's long term jobs for tourism. And it will mean that we'll start to regenerate some of those ecosystems that are currently being impacted. And those scenic amenities. So I think it's important to put that framework and say, that's why we need this PCG. That's why we need to engage some key thinkers.
01:06:00 Speaker 4: We're not asking for a representative mob. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're marking people who've got the knowledge, who've got the experience. So I'm not saying the two that were suggested originally aren't going to be the right sort of people. I'm just saying we need to open up. We need to make sure that communities have the opportunity also to put their hand up. But also to acknowledge that the next step is, once we've got that information, to engage the community in a meaningful way that can see how we make Noosa as a destination that world class place that we'd like it to see it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Questions or anyone who'd like to speak? Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair, I have a question for Councillor Bryan. Yes. How many people did he survey? And what expertise has he got in that area of drawing his own data to inform this decision? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Last one first. Multiple university degrees and postgraduate research qualifications.
01:07:00 And I teach people how to do social surveys in the past. The next one, it was a 220. And if you're looking at, if that was one per household, that, even though it wasn't, I don't seek to represent it as representative, that's enough to say that you could have 90% competency built plus or minus 5%. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Through the Chair, how many people did you actually survey? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 220. Councillor Finzel: 220. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I have a question. The project control group terms of reference talks about goals, enriching the lives of, sorry, without the future focus and sustainable destination plan that enriches the lives of those people, supports the thriving and sustainable Shire, restores and protects and champions Noosa's natural environment and vice-versa credentials. I'm wondering, is there any regard to the protection and the championing of the value that Noosa community places on public space?
01:08:00 Because one of the other goals is improved tourism sector productivity. And I'm wondering, how are we going to balance? I know this probably goes to the heart of what the DNP seeks to do. How do we balance out the increasing demand for events on public land, the commercial land? And the value that the Noosa community puts on preserving public open space for public use? Does that need to be explicit as a goal? The value that the community places on its public open space? Speaker 3: Look, I think, you know, we can, the PCG could review this at its first meeting and add and refine the objectives. Councillor Wilkie, that would be, I think that would be fine and an appropriate process. I think, you know, we can, the PCG could review this at its first meeting and add Some of these statements about maintaining and building Noosa as a brand, improving, protecting natural environment and biosphere, all of those things I guess was trying to encompass what you're talking about.
01:09:00 That's the exact sort of conversation and challenge that the process needs to address. Councillor Wilkie: I think it's a very good start. Councillor Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: I'm wondering if I want to add an amendment, but I'll talk to it first, Kim, and just work on your advice. The composition, the project control group comprises the following members, Mayor, Councillors, Chairman, CEO of Earth Check Noosa Council and Director of Economic Development. I think that the Noosa World Servant Reserve, there should be a representative. As part of that control group, and I think I will move an amendment and talk to it. Kim, maybe just have a discussion around the table.
01:10:00 It's something that I sort of mention in my talking, but I think it's important enough for me to throw an amendment in. So, through the Chair, can I make an amendment? Speaker 7: Can I provide a point of clarification for the Councillor? Councillor, the amendment that Councillor Stockwell has on the floor, does change the elements of the report. So, what this now provides is that it would be Mayor and two Councillors. We will go on a whole community basis through an EOI process to appoint up to three community members. So, while the report was descriptive at that point in time, the amendment and now the motion we have before us does change that and it provides a more broad and open process and we would absolutely welcome not only those that have been known, within the report and originally discussed, but the likes of the World Surfing Reserve and others to please participate in the EOI and that's something that officers can assess and bring to the next General Committee meeting in August.
01:11:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay, so approved in terms of reference, except as amended above, okay, so that comes as excellent. I'm happy with that, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, can I seek some clarification with regard to B, internal and external project control group, and then EF, which talks about the Councillors and the Mayor as representatives on the DMP project control group. I'm assuming that's the external control group that you're referring to, Councillor Stockwell? Both. They'd be on both the internal and external? Yes. So, the three community members with relevant community experience, would they be on the external control group? Because it's not clear here on which group, who is intended to sit, in my mind. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's true. That was the... The intent, I had assistance in writing that part, the intent was that yes, so that we had a group and every second month we would have people with expertise and knowledge coming in to provide that community industry perspective.
01:12:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So, it would sit there as one group, but just meeting on a different basis with the external members coming in to... So, it's only one project control group, but with a different meeting schedule, okay, that clarifies for me. Councillor Wilkie: Clarifying question, the Councillors have an open invitation to attend both groups, as observers? Mayor Stewart: Yes, they would. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, thank you. Okay. Mayor Stewart: It's my understanding that there are, Councillor Finzel does also wish to be on that group, and we've put it out that not the other Councillors are. So, my recommendation, or my suggestion to all Councillors is that, like we've done with the Housing Action Group, like we've done with the University of Tap, potentially, it's a rotational basis for the Councillors, with that open, obviously, invitation to be an observer. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to move an amendment? I can't move an amendment. Mayor Stewart: Oh, no. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, you can. You haven't moved or seconded or anything, and there's not been no amendments. Mayor Stewart: I think...
01:13:00 Councillor Jurisevic: This is a substantive motion. Mayor Stewart: Well, yeah, I'm still not sure that everyone who wants to go gets to go. So, this is one's time for the Councillor to research what I want to do. But, potentially, a point, as we have there, and then... Speaker 7: So, I'm changing this one. No. Councillor Wilkie: No, no, no. Councillor Jurisevic: It's an amendment. Councillor Lorentson: No, but I'm saying that we're changing item F. Speaker 7: No, no. No, add... Yeah, just... Actually, to item F, just... That Council of Memberss should be reviewed after six months. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The continuation of our status, you know.
01:14:00 Councillor Jurisevic: After six months or on an ongoing six-monthly basis? Because that means one review after six months. It doesn't mean it gets reviewed again. Councillor Wilkie: Every six months? Reviewed on a six-monthly basis. Every six months? Happy with that then? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, that's fine. I just need a second. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that, please? I think we have a seconder for Councillor Wegener. We're going to... Mayor Stewart: I'll be very quick. This is... We always open it up to everyone. If you want to have a say and be on the table with everyone, then we've done this. As I said, we've done this prior to the university with our memorandum of understanding. We're doing this with the Housing Reference Group. I think everyone obviously has an opportunity to be an observer, but I think if they want to sit at the table and have a voice, then it's a great opportunity for all councillors to be involved,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 and that's what this amendment does. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to speak against it because I think we've got the wrong conception of what a councillor's role in a project control group is. It's not to sit there and have a say and go away. It's to help drive the project. And you're not going to drive this project in six months. It's not that every child winner gets a... you know, every child player gets a prize. It is about committing to a project and providing your knowledge of the community, and this one's going to take more than six months to make a difference. I've been working on it for two and a half years behind the scenes to get to this point. I don't think it's the right model to continue to change councils over, because it's also about building relationships with the key members on the project control group to get a group working together effectively to help chart a course for the future. It's not something we just come and throw some ideas in. It's about working together in a strategic, meaningful way. And it's the opportunity for elected representatives
01:16:00 to hear the voice of their community and influence that and bring their own interests. I'm not saying that every six months is not a good idea to review it. I'm saying that, from what I've heard, the approach and the justification fundamentally changes what the councillor's role is on these groups. If it is just a representative group where you're there, maybe it is six months. If it's not, if it is a process to go through, like when we did the cycling and walking strategy, we had a very similar set-up. And the councillors stayed through for the whole of the process because they built relationships and they started to understand and get a deeper understanding and brought that in to develop a better project at the end. Now, I think it's a good idea that all councillors can observe. I think it's important we don't get to a cast of thousands of the totally always rotating crew in there because it won't get the outcomes. So I'm going to raise my hand again. And the other thing I'll just say, at the moment, in terms of committee representation,
01:17:00 it sits at the moment, the Mayor, which obviously gets more, 12, Deputy Mayor, once again, obviously more, 10, Councillor Deroosley, Quagmire, Finzel, Lawrence and all those seven committees are on, and I'm at four. So I don't want to move out in six months. I want to drive this project from my place, with staff and with the community ministry group, for probably the two years that it will take to get it over the line. It might be a draft within a year, but I don't want to move in six months. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel: Well, I'd like to speak to that, please. Look, I hear what you say and I acknowledge the work you've done. It's an opportunity to bring a different view. Each of us have our own skills and abilities and we're not diminishing what you've brought to this project behind the scenes. But I think there should be wider diversity at the table. My experience in conflict resolution shows that greater diversity at the table actually leads to more efficient and better outcomes,
01:18:00 not that I want to diminish the work you've done. But I think it's fair to rotate different councillors around the table. And I believe that we can strengthen partnerships and relationships, whether we're sitting at the table and move in and out of that space. People understand that. But through business and industry, people move in and out of spaces. As long as we have, you know, clear guidelines as to where we're heading, as long as we have clear tactical timeframes that we share openly and outwardly and transparently with community, I don't see the need that there's an issue on councillors who represent the broader Shire move in and out of the spaces at the table. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener: I was just going to ask, does he know what he thinks, actually? No, that's just a word of conversation. OK.
01:19:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't remember that. Councillor Wegener: Oh, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Wegener: Have you had experiences with... Councillor Wilkie: Well, no, I'll leave it to you. I can't speak for you. I'll leave it... Please ask the question and see who chooses to answer it. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, it's a tough question to ask and I probably shouldn't be asking it. In your vast experience, relative to my experience, you know, having councillors get into a position where they can drive something forward, which is probably more efficient, but at the same time, perhaps losing track and in traction with the rest of the councillors and whether it's better to have them smooth move through, in general, in your experience. Councillor Wilkie: I think that's the question that we are being asked to answer now, Tom, so I'm not... Yeah. Mr CEO, with respect to you, Speaker 7: I'm going to leave you out of this one. No, thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I think the issue... Yeah. Look, Tom... Councillor Wimber has the floor. Do you finish answering or...? No, I didn't answer. Councillor Wegener: I was asking the question. Sorry. Do you wish to speak to the motion, Tom? Do you wish to hear some more debate?
01:20:00 I'd like to hear some more debate, yeah. OK. That was a question and I'd like to hear more debate before speaking. Sure. That was a wrong answer. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. I'm thinking middle ground. Can observers be invited by the Chair to ask any questions during the internal and external groups, meetings? And would that be an opportunity to allow any councillors who want to partake in the process, that opportunity? Speaker 7: Through the Chair? Yes. It is a slippery slope, though, Councillor Lorentson, in that Council has appointed Chair, two councillors and community members. Asking questions can then start to skew. That observer should very much be observing. So, my advice would be is asking questions, yes. What do those answers glean for you, though,
01:21:00 in relation to that? Noting that the internal and external PCG would mean that there's a possibility of a meeting bimonthly. But, yeah, I think it's a matter that once we sit down with the terms of reference, that we put some rules of engagement, for want of a better term, around that. And, you know, what would you achieve beyond the current process by asking the questions? So, I think there's a little bit to think about there. And that Council has appointed members. They have, through, I don't know, a resolution of the Council, have that authority of the Council to make those decisions and directions on behalf, in line with the terms of reference. If the Chair at the time saw it fit that it was valuable, what was being added, and extra experience, the Chair can make that decision at the time. But if it is maybe disagreeing where the PCG is going, or it's not conducive
01:22:00 to the PCG making good decisions, I think the Chair may rule that in and out. So, maybe one to be left to the Chair at that point in time. But, you know, I think it's great that Council has the ability, well, Council always have the ability to be observers, and to be able to come in and listen. But, live with that participation. Allow the PCG to get about its work, would be the advice I'd provide. Councillor Jurisevic: Having said that, there'd be nothing to recruit a councillor that's an observer, raising a question through one of the councillors on the thing, to have raised at the meeting. So, it's a moot point. Speaker 7: And absolutely. And the Chair, being the Mayor, has that ability to be able to allow or not allow those questions to come through as well. Exactly, Councillor Jurisevic. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can I? Yes. Yes. Councillor Finzel, you've got a question? Councillor Finzel: Well, yeah, I do have a question, because I just wonder how Councillor Stockwell gets the position to appoint the other councillor.
01:23:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'll answer that for you as a procedural question. Councillor Stockwell has put a motion forward for debate. That's the process. Any other councillor around this table have the ability to move a motion. Um, with all these items attached to it, including their belief on their understanding of who would be best suited for as the appointees. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, if we vote all of this, without putting up another amendment on F, to appoint other councillors in the position, what's the process for that? Councillor Wilkie: Well, if we approve... We're talking about the amendment at the moment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Point of order. We're talking about the amendment, so the question's out of order. Councillor Wilkie: So, but on... For the sake of helping Councillor Finzel understand where we're at, we're talking about the amendment at the moment.
01:24:00 If we approve this amendment, that becomes the motion, then you would be free to move an amendment to change the names of the council appointees, Councillor Finzel: if you wish. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Another one, if you want. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Or add another one. Yeah. So, I'll... If it's helpful, I'll speak to the amendment. I'm going to be supporting the amendment for a reason that hasn't been mentioned previously, and that is that all this amendment asks us to do, consider, is that the council membership on the PCG be reviewed on a six-monthly basis. That does not automatically mean that the councillors will be rotated off that committee. If the councillors at that six-monthly review, which is a healthy thing to do to check in on how the process is going, hear from the councillors themselves who are our appointees there, how the work is going,
01:25:00 if they are still feeling fully committed and they're adding value to that process and the other councillors are adjusting, attending as observers, I would flag that I will probably support their continued appointment. If there are strong arguments put to the contrary, I'll personally be considering that. But I think the point that Councillor Stockwell makes is a good one. Also, the point made about being open to change and having other viewpoints is also valid. But if we approve this amendment, it doesn't commit us to rotating the councillors on that, but then again, it also doesn't mean that they'll stay there forever. So I like the open-ended nature of it and I also respect that Councillor Stockwell has driven this process behind the centre for two years and Councillor Lorentson is our current council representative
01:26:00 on the tourism and support. So in that sense, they are very good choices and, of course, the mayor, as the chair, is also very important. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting the amendment. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jurisevic: Likewise, I'll be supporting the amendment for all the reasons outlined by Councillor Wilkie. It doesn't refute anybody from... It's a review process. It may be that someone who's a reserver determines that they don't want to sit on the PCG or it could be that the person that's on the PCG goes, this isn't what I thought it was and wants to get off. So it gives options available to all. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it. I'm happy to support the recommendation that seeks to review the options of who's going to sit at the DMP PCG. I do want to note that I am the council representative of Tourism Noosa. I also chair the Noosa Serving Community lines.
01:27:00 I also sit on the Noosa World Serving Reserve. I sit in the stage of beach management and surf management. It's an area that I don't just sit in, but something that I'm passionate about and driving other things behind council in that context. And given that the destination management plan is all about determining what type of tourism that we would like to see, I think I'm actually a very, very good candidate to be sitting in this space. It's an area, again, that I have some expertise in. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Whittaker. I'll speak to this and I'll support the motion. But this, we're going to go back and vote after this on Brian's original motion, right? Yeah, okay. I have, if this works, it's like a full council job
01:28:00 to the destination management. If it actually works and begins to have success, it's a huge responsibility put on two people and the mayor and not all of the councillors. So I have a bit of trouble with even the whole process overall because it is such an important piece. But I'll support this because after six months we should be able to vote and see if people change on the committee. Yeah, I'll finish. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I'll finish. Yeah, thank you. I'm glad everyone's going to support this. When I read what the project control group does, on page 10 it says, critical of the destination management process and therefore in terms of reference. And so that will guide the PCG is a genuine commitment to ensuring that people and their place are at the forefront of any recommendations or actions being tabled. That's not mutually exclusive to any councillor. We are all on the same page in that regard. Everyone can contribute. Everyone brings a different aspect of the community
01:29:00 to the table when they contribute. In regard to the destination management plan, develop a future focused and sustainable destination management plan that reaches the lives of the most people, supports a thriving, sustainable, shy and improved tourism sector productivity. All of these things, all councillors are passionate about. And as I said, we're all driven by these specifics. And so I think it's a really healthy thing that everyone, if they choose, has the option to be, and this is, as you said, councillor Wilkie, just a review. But then at that time, as councillor Wegener said, you know, some people may not call council Jurisevic. They may choose to stand off it. In fact, we might have an observer who is a councillor who's very involved and they may wish to step up. So this gives us flexibility and it gives opportunity. And that's what this council prides itself on, everyone having that opportunity to be involved. So thank you for supporting it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the amendment those in favour. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, Frank convinced me, Cathy. Councillor Wilkie: All right, so that's unanimous.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 So that's, the amendment becomes part of the motion. And so far, councillors Stockwell and councillor Lorentson have spoken to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: No, I haven't spoken to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a question then? Oh, you're asking, excuse me. Wait a second. Did you ask a question before on the other half there? I thought you'd spoken to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: No, I haven't spoken to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: I didn't even ask any questions. It was a question that led to whether you wanted to add a certain result. That's correct, yeah. So it was a question. Excuse me. So just councillor Stockwell has spoken to the motion. Any other councillors wish to speak to it? Oh, I just wanted a question. Councillor Wegener: Question. A, established governance around the project that invents the whole council. What is the meaning of established governance? Is that a project, a big project before the big project?
01:31:00 What do you actually mean by that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Basically that the risk would be, would be that this was perceived to be an economic development project. So what that says when you form your internal groups and there'll be a group that already has established below this one, that it's all, you know, it's of that diagram I had, it's the people who have got responsibilities under the transport strategy, the environment strategy, the culture strategy, the economic plan and the movement plan. So the people who produce a plan are embedded in the framework to in the development of the plan. That it's whole of council and they, and their voice is heard just like our voice, everyone here wants to be heard. So that the governance, the framework which feeds into implementing this plan embeds that as a principle. It's like our placemaking. In the old terms we call it matrix management, that you might have one project officer, but
01:32:00 their role is to, to bring together a team of cross-jurisdictional people. Councillor Wegener: But what is the established governance? Is that a paper or is it a? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, it's just how you, the governance is just how we're going to operate. Speaker 3: Councillor Wegener, so we, the governance is the, the, the, the groups or the oversight that guide the project. So the internal governance group already exists. So we've, we've, the, the one that Brian just talked about. We've got an internal reference group that has representatives from environment, transport, economic development, strategic planning already established. So that's part of the governance. The second part of the governance is the PCG, which you're talking about today. So I feel confident that there is internal governance around it in terms of a whole of council approach. That group's established an internal reference group. The PCG now compliments that with councillor representatives.
01:33:00 And potentially external representative. So that. Okay. Councillor Wegener: So it's not a new body of work that could be undertaken? No. Councillor Jurisevic: In the terms of reference of those. Speaker 3: It's a new body of work to administer, but not, no, not to be established that the PCG and the internal reference group do that. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. But the terms of reference of which that internal group and that external group will look at in reference to project destination management is entrenched or clearly established, or they've got scope to. Speaker 3: There's definitely scope, Joe. The PCG, this, this recommendation provides a process and opportunity for the PCG to help shape that. That would then flow to the internal reference group. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. The councillor seeks the motion. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I'd like to just have a comment. With regards to the PCG, I think it's good that we can get this project group established moving forward with a holistic approach, which does provide overarching strategies and
01:34:00 clear development and directions for the entire Shire. With regards to looking at the Shire, I think we've got to look at it as a whole of Shire. I take on board what councillor Amelia said with her expertise and experience in the coastal groups, but we have to also make sure that no one misses out and everyone has a say at that. You know, we look at the coastal, the central bit of the Shire and the hinterland, and all of that, you know, is very much part of our destination management and how we manage that. History, culture, heritage, you know, if you're looking at destination management, are very big opportunities and experience that people who come here want to participate and be a part of that. And it's, you know, we've got a lot of work to do. We've got to look at our environmental, social and economic responsibility.
01:35:00 We need to look at future Noosa in terms of priority projects and other opportunities and leverage our strengths and our environment. So I think we do have to look at our whole of Shire as districts, you know, coastal, central and the hinterland. And I just think that we need to have fair representation across that. I acknowledge and understand the, you know, experience Councillor Stockwell brings to the table over two years' work, but I would also like to strongly make sure that no voice is missed at the table. I understand this has been ongoing for a while. You know, with the previous mayor, there were on groups around this. From what I read, it appears that, like, that no resolution was reached, that the work's being parked. What we want to make sure is that whoever sits at this table is that there is fair representation
01:36:00 of the broader community of visitors to the region and residents alike. We are in challenging times and we need to, you know, put really clear timeline where we're heading. And we want to have outcomes that benefit this community. And we want to make sure that we don't invest more time and energy to come to no resolution. So I'm happy that we're doing that. I'm happy that everyone has appetite today at the table to get this underway. But let's make sure we're clearly communicating back to the whole of Shire geographically and our specialist groups and our specialist area and people that want to be part of that conversation, including finding the balance for our visitors and residents who live here on a day-to-day basis. And also broaden out, like, tourism is one sector of our economy. You know, we're struggling across the sectors. We've got small business. We were up the hinterland the other day with the landslip people that live up there and hearing one-on-one personal stories of, you know, people's challenges that they're faced
01:37:00 with every day. It's up to us now to find strong leadership and put good governance in place and frameworks that deliver outcomes. So I just want to say that, you know, we've got to take a look at the whole of Shire, make sure no voice is missed at the table. But I'm happy that we can find a resolution agreement today to be able to, you know, engender trust in this community and show strong leadership with really targeted outcomes to bring trust in this community that we're working as excellence in Council to deliver on what we say we're going to do. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Tewarys. I've got another question. Yes. It's regard to C. Appoint three community members with relevant community and industry experience as well as qualifications. In the original staff report and the staff recommendation, the composition was fairly
01:38:00 Council-centric but included Tourism Noosa and EarthJet representatives. Are they included in those three community members from, as far as you're concerned, Council Stockwell, are you all moving in this motion? Or are they in addition to the composition that was already thought out? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I had a collaborator in drafting it. My view was the three would be on top of those two. But they would, that I think, I think Eco Check is a consultancy that's, that's, that's provide expert advice, which is probably outside the community process. I think it's, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's logical that, you know, you don't have to, that with the Chair of Tourism Noosa. And I think just having three different perspex from a community. That's why I was asking the question to clarify.
01:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Do all councils have that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was, I wasn't, I must admit, I hadn't gone that way. Initially, you know, you would have seen the first draft of this where I suggested another name. So, you know, but then I, I thought, no, it's better to go away from a representative model to more an expertise based model. Councillor Jurisevic: Just for the sake of this recommendation, I wanted to see that everybody had the same, the same understanding, the same perspective with regard to this being three additional community members from the original composition put forward by staff. Mayor Stewart: How does mine stand? It was Mayor Council, one Council, two Chairman of Tourism Noosa, CEO of Earth Check, CEO of Nursing Council, Director of, um, yourself, environment sustainability, and three, and so that's seven plus three additional community members that we put out the AOI. Speaker 3: Is that correct? Mayor Stewart: Or ten in total? That's good. Speaker 3: That's good to get clarification. Yeah. Because I. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm seeking that clarification. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's, yeah. I'm asking the question right now. Would, would, would everyone be happy if we said three additional. Additional community members. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I think that. Yeah, that was. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Otherwise it might be a little bit limiting. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's good. So, so everybody's happy with that?
01:40:00 Thanks, Joe. Good question. Thank you. Um, yeah, I'll speak to it. Okay. Um, yeah, with that word, that additional wording, I'm, I'm much happy with how it breathes. Uh, I see that, uh, all of the parameters there, uh, will deliver the, uh, uh, the opportunities for the PCG to, uh, to undertake the process, uh, as is necessary. And I thank the staff for their time and effort up until this point. And for the future work that they're going to put in to, uh, ensure that this comes to fruition. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: One, just a quick question. Just to quickly answer. This is, it seems to be a unique program and a unique thing for the council to be doing. Do you have a history of doing similar projects like this? Speaker 3: Um, we often put a PCG together, um, around projects. So that's, that's not a unique model. Um, and there is examples of where we've had, um, industry representatives, um, in projects or we've sought peer review.
01:41:00 Um. Through, at, at different points in the project. So, I mean, this is a significant project and, uh, you know, to me, this sort of, uh, it warrants this sort of governance. So, um, you know, we're completely comfortable with this, this approach to it. Okay. I have a question. Councillor Lorentson: I'm sorry. . Oh, I'll speak to it. Um, first I think there needs to be some clarity because there's a confusion that hinterland are going to be left out and not all voices and this is about coastal. Firstly, destination management is about destination. The destination is Noosa. Secondly, just to clarify again, probably a little bit of confusion around the table, tourism Noosa, um, in my opinion, should be credited for dispersing tourism away from coastal regions into the hinterland. In fact, it's been the biggest driver.
01:42:00 Um, and, um, as a representative of, of, of tourism Noosa sitting in that space now for over two years, I am part of that conversation. So, um, representative of whole of Shire. Um. Destination management. And I said this before, allows us to determine what type of tourism we as a Shire would like to have and the, and the benefits that we as a Shire would like to receive. It's simple as that. The community, the whole of community, coastal and hinterland are a core part of our destination brand, who we are. People come to Noosa, not to go to the beach, not to go to the beach, not to go to the beach, not to go to the hinterland. They want local experiences. This is new tourism. Um, they want to engage with locals. They want a real local experience. And that's why this piece of work is so critical.
01:43:00 It's critical because we need our community to welcome visit, the visitors and support tourism. There's concern that in some places, tourism is negatively affected. It's affecting our natural environment. This is concerning community that tourism in some places is impacting on neighbourhood amenity. And this is our real opportunity to change that. It allows everyone in community, the tourism industry, our community and government, local, state, federal, to create a united vision on what Australia is going to look like in the future. Um, Noosa is going to be, um, you know, Brian alludes to the targets and actions, um, that
01:44:00 the DMP is striving towards. Targets and actions that align with our strategies. Bodies and bodies of work that involved a lot of community consultation. The local economic plan, the social strategy, the transport strategy, the environment strategy, and most importantly, our Noosa planning strategy. Um, also, we have to, um, rely on resources that, and work that's already been done through our industry experts like Tourism Noosa. Um, this is what's going to guide our future planning and development. And further, you know, I, I see the DMP like a business plan. It's our opportunity to gain access to tourism and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, You know, let's work out what our united vision is and what we as a community want to see in place. Infrastructure services that are going to benefit our residents, not just
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 our visitors. In regard to our beaches, yes I am so passionate about water quality and our environment. And yes I think our beaches are neglected and need to be prioritised. So to me, I am excited to be sitting on the PCG group because I will be advocating strong for this council to recognise our beaches as one of our most valuable and precious natural assets. We need to understand and recognise the importance of surf breaks to our local community. And why it is critical to maintain surf amenity with proper management and community, whole of community input. Residents in the hinterland surf, not just people in the coastal area, whole of Shire surf. The DMP is going to help us develop plans and strategies to manage
01:46:00 our ocean beaches with the aim of sharing, preserving and protecting this natural asset. In 2020, Noosa was voted the 20th world surfing reserve status and for that reason I am going to push hard for a member of the Noosa World Surfing Reserve to have a seat or at least put an expression of interest for the PCG. We have world class surf breaks, we've got world class surfers. Our beaches are home to surf lures, we've got world class surfers, we've got world class surfers, we've got And the DNP is going to help us build again a business case to capitalise on any funding opportunities that's going to help us protect and enhance our beaches. So I feel privileged and excited to be invited to sit on the PCG and I think this piece of work is vital.
01:47:00 Ten year planning for the Olympics and, you know, forget the Olympics, it's our residents. That's who I'm concerned about, how our residents are going to become the beneficiaries of tourism. Councillor Wegener: I look forward to this PCG exceeding my expectations and hopes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm a very dull boy. I'll be very quick. Mayor Stewart: Look, I'm really heartened by the words whole. Whole of council, whole of community.
01:48:00 This is a very large piece of work. It will be one of our most substantive. It's been an ongoing piece. It's been one that we're picking up the baton with and it's been an important piece of work. I'm really heartened when I read the project control group. We've got great representation from council. But we also have our leading tourism body, Tourism Noosa, on this control group which is fundamental and vital. We have an independent organisation in Earth Check. And we have now the potential to have three community members who will be, if any of our other applications or groups have gone by, incredibly well qualified and resourced in this space. So I'm looking forward to their input as well. This is something that council, we can't do alone. And by collaborating with everyone mentioned and with the addition of the community members, I think it will be a really worthwhile piece of work.
01:49:00 And one we will be really proud of. And fundamentally to our residents. And 2032 is on that doorstep. What does that mean for our residents? What does that mean for our legacy items? And this is something that can assist with that. So yeah, it's a great piece of work and let's get started. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Stewart, put it to the right place. Did I get the close? You do get the close. So I'm very excited. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it is important I close. But firstly, I'm of two minds whether me being deliberately adversarial on the amendment was a good thing or a bad thing. The good thing was it actually brought out the passion and the emotion in the debate and brought out some good questions. And it showed that why people wanted to be on it rather than just the process of who was on it. The bad thing I think is it might have distracted from item D. So really clearly why I put item D in is request to join internal and external PCG at its first meeting, as in the high priority, develop a participative approach to the guidance of the planned process.
01:50:00 I think it's essential that all councillors feel like they are part of the planned process, as I think it's important that industry and community feel that they're part of the planned process. I see this as an excellent opportunity to do some of the better quality consultation in terms of engagement. Across the Shire that we've got on board, we've got a budget item to bring on a consultation specialist. This might be the project that we actually ask that person to focus on and say, look, if we were to do this really well, what would it look like? Because it's important that some of these things, to address the problem, there needs to be broad scale behaviour change. And you can't do that by saying council having a bright idea. You have to do it so people understand where we're going to, that they agree with it, and this is the process we need to either transition. But in most of the things we're going to deal with over the next few years, it's going to transform. And I understand Councillor Finzel's concern. I was particularly uncomfortable about putting names in there.
01:51:00 Normally we have that adjusted, agreed beforehand. It is unusual for one councillor to put it up. I understand that concern. And I also agree with what she said in terms of the voices at the table. I think that is an important aspect of any planning process, that you do need to do that. My point in terms of the PCG is you want the length and it's a knowledge building process within a group, any group like this. And if you can get into a point where you're building momentum, changing personnel on a six-monthly basis, may be counterproductive. I'm not saying it will be, I'm just saying it may be in my experience. So we've got there. I think it's really important that if all councillors do want more engagement, that one of those participatory approaches could be very well an open public agenda item on a
01:52:00 six-monthly basis, where the progress is reported and we can start talking about what's happened, what's coming out. So this is the forum where we do our best work. In terms of our decision making power. So to me, I don't discount any of that. I do think it has to be, it has to model a process to get an outcome as meaningful as the 1997 strategic plan. The 1997 strategic plan consultation process hasn't been bettered since in this Shire. But what it did, it's established now what is part of the culture of Noosa. It's established so that when you put out housing strategy, people are saying, but this doesn't go with the plan because it's part of what we think is there's a set of principles that were embedded, but they're embedded in a very good quality consultation. We have to have the same thing that in 10 years' time, people are saying, this doesn't comply with the destination management plan. And to do that, it has to be very participative, very engaged, and that everyone feels like
01:53:00 the future that it plots is where they'd like to be. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Somerville. I'll put it to the vote, those in favour? That is unanimous. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
120 minutes in ¶
02:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Welcome back, everybody. We're now at item six, which is application of national competition policy reform. We have our acting manager of financial services Apply telephone here to give us a bit of an overview. Thanks, Pauline. Speaker 1: Thank you. Good afternoon, councillors. So, each year, we've got a lot of great news, lots of good news, lots of great news, lots of great news. This year, Council is required to decide whether to apply National Competition Policy Reforms to its identified business activities. National Competition Policy Reform provides greater transparency over Council businesses and assists with removing any anti-competitive conduct and ensures the best allocation of energy and resources.
02:06:00 Council has historically adopted NCP reforms with respect to its waste management and holiday park business activities and this is proposed to continue in 2023 with a review in the following years. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move it, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: I move it, Councillor Jurisevic. Seconded by Councillor Lauritsen. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that this is standard practice of Council, that we've adopted full cost pricing reform option with waste management business and the competitive code of conduct with holiday parks. It's business as usual. It's a formality to approve this as far as I'm concerned, so I'll accept the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Any other councillors wish to speak? Tom. Councillor Wegener: It seems when it comes to cost pricing to waste management, it's really a moving target. Speaker 1: Well, yes, it is in a way, but it's dependent on the inputs that we have in our modelling.
02:07:00 So we can only go based on what we know and what we can forecast and obviously the actual results may or may not vary from that depending on how good we are at forecasting. But in terms of setting pricing, we build it based on the information that we have and historical data and any changes that we might foresee coming through or any capital works that we might have coming up for the landfill that gets incorporated as well. Councillor Wegener: First, I'm very in favour of doing everything we can to improve the landfill and that's going to cost a lot. So this looks like a great way for you to hide behind this policy when the election comes. Is that? Speaker 1: It's not necessarily intended, I suppose, that way. It's more around making sure that we're competitive in the pricing that we set, that we're not having monopoly, that we are making sure that we can profiteer from this. But we have to take into account competitive neutrality adjustments. Council is not open to having to pay certain things that other normal businesses is. So it's about trying to keep that balance between what's competition and what's not. Councillor Wegener: And one of the things, we have these contracts that go out for a long term with Clean Away and so forth.
02:08:00 Yeah. Do we, in a way, can they be our competitor? Because they work with the Sunshine Coast Council, they work with different places. Building that into the price structure must be kind of tricky. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, obviously, every contract negotiation is, I suppose, commercial and each council will have their own process. So that's why it goes through a tender process and we look at what the pricing is around those and what the fluctuations are, what the services are that we need to deliver. We obviously can't control what other councils are doing and what providers they go with, but we can only go who submits a tender when we're going out for tendering. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to it. Sorry. It just doesn't look like a question. You know when it comes to this policy, but also when it comes to your pricing for the waste and things coming into the resource recovery century, a.k.a. the TIP. You know, you have the Sunshine Coast Council. It's actually a competitive situation and people will drive a long ways to dump their
02:09:00 waste at your place, your TIP, if it's less expensive than doing it over there. So that's something to be very conscious of to make sure that our TIP fees are there or maybe even, you know, competitive. So that we're not subsidizing councils around us or places around us or ways of dealing with things. We don't want to be subsidizing. So I'm very in favour of this policy. Brian, you had a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So questions about what our full cost recovery model includes. Now, many leading businesses are including the cost of greenhouse gas pollution. Do we include the cost of that pollution, which might be estimated by the relative value of buying an offset? Speaker 1: I would take it on those, but my understanding is no, we don't. We don't. We don't currently do that, but I can certainly confirm that with you after the meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move an amendment.
02:10:00 Tell me whether you think it's good enough. Councillor Jurisevic: Adding a C. That's a whole other body of water. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the C would read that staff bring back a report. Could staff bring back a report? Prior to the commencement of the 2023-24 budget, which looks at the cost implications
02:11:00 of including an offset value for greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill, with the potential. Okay. So phase in a process leading to zero emissions by 2026.
02:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Process leading to offset emissions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, potential to phase in a process leading to? Councillor Wilkie: Zero net emissions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Zero net emissions from by 2026. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Is this, when we're dealing with the application for national competition policy reform, is this outside, I guess, our jurisdiction of what we're being asked to look at in this actual legislation? Speaker 1: Partially, yes. Speaker 7: That's nothing to do with competition policy. What it will do, through the Chair, Mayor, is that it will help inform future costs. So this is dealing with our current policy, but this is somewhat aligned.
02:13:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It may impact our full-cost pricing with regard to waste management. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The link is full-cost pricing, but I agree it is on the fuzzy end of marginals. Speaker 7: But look, as CEO, I hold no concerns with providing a report like that. And it is calling on a report. It will come at us at any stage anyway. I'm sure this will come as part of the waste strategy as well, too. But it will be a cost, and it will be about zero net emissions, but we're offsetting. The land bill will, unfortunately, always be contributed to greenhouse gases. Just the nature of waste and its decomposition will always do that. We will need to offset. Mayor Stewart: It's our way forward. I guess, is this... This amendment then served its purpose, then, under when the waste strategy or the waste
02:14:00 update is brought to us, rather than on the back of national competition policy? Speaker 7: Look, I don't hold a view either way. Either way, it will be something that is required by officers to provide to the Council. It is somewhat aligned, though, in that we would need to have in consideration any offset costs as part of our full pricing model in the future. So, there is alignment there. All of it somewhat, and a touch fuzzy. It's still there. And, look, I think it's prudent that we provide a report as such, whether it's through the waste strategy or as a result of the motion becoming a resolution. It will need to be provided at a point in time, and then taken account for the full cost recovery of the management of the landfill that we have it in. Councillor Jurisevic: It would be relevant with regard to full cost pricing of waste management business activities, if that was a cost associated with waste management, which it ultimately is, so I can see the relevance
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 on it. Councillor Wilkie: I can't second it. Go on. I'll second it. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll do it briefly. Yeah. My mind went straight away when we talked about full cost recovery, and I said, no, we don't. I think we need to do something. And so, you know, old Brian would have said, no, let's change it now, but it is, and it's also a link to the national competition policy reform in that the competition laws tend to adopt a very narrow view in many ways of what costs. And I think it's important when we consider what a national competition policy means is that we should say, look, if it's full cost recovery that we're after, we should, as a government, lead by example, and emissions is full cost recovery, bearing in mind that
02:16:00 I don't want to scare everyone off, is that the full cost recovery can only relate to the new emissions, not the legacy ones, which are sitting there, but it is something that we should be, if we're accepting something, it should be the, not just the cost to dig the hole. It should be the cost to manage, manage the emissions. And if we haven't got technology that can do it at the tip, then we'll have to buy offsets. And so that, I think, should start next year's budget. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. On page 15 of the report, it says that in the 2022-23 financial year, council officers will undertake a broader review of council operations to identify any other business activities that need to be considered under these reforms. Would this be considered other business activities or not? Speaker 1: No. So that's more just looking at all of the businesses that council provided, maybe like the respite centre or those commercial sort of types of businesses that may be bought
02:17:00 under the national competition policy reform. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: It could be the properties that we own as a property owner, if they were sufficient in value to trigger the... Correct. Because there are triggers to each of these. I think it's 250,000 off the top of my head. There are. There are very few that trigger having to get work in this space and providing reports and... Speaker 1: It's 340,000. 340,000. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to the amendment. We are going to be doing a lot of work about reducing the greenhouse emissions from the landfill and looking at it with an open mind as to the sheer volume of work, the sheer enormity of the transport. I think it's a very important task that we face. There is the civil, the greatest level of greenhouse emissions in council operations. We do have a responsibility for that.
02:18:00 We are unlikely to be able to reduce totally the amount of emissions coming from the landfill, so offsets will be involved and they come at a cost, a purchase price. So if that's going to be absorbed into the operational cost of running the landfill, then that may have an implication for the prices charged in the operations at the landfill. And I'm very interested in understanding that. And I think this amendment goes to the heart of that. And it would be very... This report would be very interesting reading for all councillors, I think. I'll be supporting the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll speak to it. I'll support it as well. There are far greater implications. We've got to get your waste tilled from the landfill. You've got to get it tilled from the recycling centre.
02:19:00 If we have retail solutions for our organics, we haven't determined where that solution may lie as yet. So there are a whole lot of ramifications for the future. And I think it's pertinent that we have a greater and fuller understanding of the emissions that each of those activities have. And that we do end up factoring that into the overall operations of council in not just waste management, but across most of what we do in council activities. Councillor Wilkie: So I'm happy to support this. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it takes us... Starts us looking in the right direction. We have had a lot of discussion around this, and the waste strategy will identify a lot more of this. But I think it signals a target and a point within the waste strategy going forward of the things that we have to consider. And I guess other procurement processes beyond that, with regard to greenhouse emissions of all council activities.
02:20:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I'll speak to it. First, it just always seems that we're always requesting the CEO to bring a report, you know. And it's almost a knee jerk reaction that it feels like to me to do that. Okay, we'll bring a report. You're pretty busy. But... You're pretty busy. We're up to our ears in planning for the waste strategy going forward. It's about the same size of the destination management strategy. I mean we have these two colossally giant and when it comes to the emissions from the tip, that goes straight back to Hastings Street
02:21:00 and when somebody takes a half of an ice cream and throws it into the bin, well that is the emissions going into the tip or it's how well people use the green waste bin and so forth. So there's just, there's so much that a report on this, on the offset value of green, is just such a tiny little piece of a puzzle. It's one piece of a very big puzzle. So I support this. Of course we want to have more, you know, to look more at, you know, that and we'd love another report back but is it actually doing anything? Is it just giving us a report on one piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle, I guess is what I'm trying to say. I want, and Brian if you will respond to that, yeah, but it, to me, yeah, I just, it's just kind of a request that doesn't help. It just kind of, it doesn't, you know, that is not really furthering the cause. I think Chiron down there has got two new people coming on board. I mean, he's really moving down this track but we don't quite know where
02:22:00 the track is going to go and we have this black cloud over our head where, paying for offsets while our emissions may actually be going up despite all of our best efforts, is something that is going to be a ridiculously difficult thing to, to, bridge to cross. I think that's something that, it's almost like Voldemort. It's, it's something you don't talk about. So, it's something very scary coming up amongst many other very scary things on the horizon. So, I don't, at this point, I don't want to, I can't support this because Councillor Wilkie: I don't think it's actually helpful. Question, just to see, I want to be fair and say, Landy Nolan will be doing a lot of his work in terms of how we do reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill, the auctions, the decostings. So, in a sense, that some of this work will be coming out of the way already. So, it wouldn't necessarily mean a whole new body of work
02:23:00 Speaker 7: will be done. Well, look, Chair, I'm, I'm comfortable with what's being put forward and, you know, it's work that will be done and it will be cross department. So, so not just the waste team, but you're exactly right, it will be the climate change team that will be working on this. It will all feed through each of the strategy. But, as we see alignment with what we're talking about today with competition and pricing policy, it will help inform that future pricing, which is really important. And that gives us the whole on life cost. So, the whole, whole cost model for the landfill. So, I'm comfortable with what it is. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Richard. Look, I think I like the intent, which is to embed our net to zero emission targets in operations, all our operations. I like where that's coming from. But I think I'm sitting a little bit with Tom, where I actually don't understand what's been requested.
02:24:00 And, yeah, I'm just confused with the amendment. So, unless you give me a little bit more clarity, Brian, before now in our voting, I will be voting against this. Only because I, I just understand, I don't understand what the aim of this is. But I like the intent, the intent. And I would love to see, you know, that just reminding me where are we up to with our net zero emission. So, I love that reminder. And I think we need to do more of that. But I don't know whether that's specific or clear enough for me to vote for at this stage. Mayor Stewart: I'm with Tom and Amelia in that I think it's a really long vote. Potentially, there is some correlation to what we're deciding here today. Again, yeah, the intent is good. But I mean, our net zero emissions by 2026, where's our process? What worksheets do we have around
02:25:00 that? How are we going to achieve it? This is part of a huge picture that I think we really need to look at as a council. And we need to work on that. And I think we need to work towards, I just think tacking it on to application national competition policy reform, good in theory, but, you know, it's part of a bigger picture of broader discussion, more policy work, more framework. So, I'm not prepared to, you know, if this was, again, if it formed part of our waste strategy or something pertaining specifically to net zero emissions that Annie was bringing towards us, I just think it's out of place in regard to what we have, we've been asked, you know, the council recommendation before us. We need to let someone out of place. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Finzel: Yes, I will. Look, I think we've done a lot of tacking on today. I think one more tack on isn't going to hurt us. I think anything that, you know, continues to bring to the table the target of zero emissions before us, anything that can help keep that going,
02:26:00 keep that conversation rolling and keeping us on track, I warmly welcome. I think, you know, we've got this whole dug, we've got to manage the emissions, we've got high expectations in our community as to what our response is going to be. I think for good leadership and governance, I support this and I think we've just got to make the decisions and move on with it. Get this data to the table, inform our decisions and remind the organisation and the councillors ourselves that this is the highest priority before us, and we've got to tackle these issues and I support the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I have to convince. We've already done. Mayor Stewart: I've got to think about Brian today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Got the windbag out there. The context is A. The context is full cost pricing, which is underpinned. That's what we're here about, is that we've got a business that adopts full cost pricing, but it doesn't. So it's addressing a gap in our current approach. I think we are 100% sure. That's the trigger to say it is relevant and reasonable to this motion. And councillor, Tom, do you have anything to add?
02:27:00 It's exactly right. It's only a piece in the puzzle. But it's the one that's been under the table and you can't find it. It's also probably the biggest piece in the puzzle in terms of behaviour change. No, I won't put it that way. It is a, and why do I think it's best to do it now? Because it sends a signal. So when commercial users, big generators of green house gas stations, big generators of green house gas stations, big generators of green house gas stations, big generators of green house gas stations, big generators of green house They're going into the waste strategy, they're going to say, oh, if next year I start to pay more to reflect that, then they will perhaps engage more in the behaviour change required to reduce the total mental landfill.
02:28:00 So it's deliberately in there now to send the signal to say that this council is going to take this seriously. We're not going to sweep the externality of waste under the table that created the climate emergency. We're going to bring it front and centre to every decision we make. So if we're going to have a motion that says full cost price reform, I'm going to reform the full cost price to make sure it includes the externality. That's what this is about. It's about doing it the right way. It's about sending a signal. And it is also giving staff an indication about phasing it in. Starting next budget, because it is going to be a large cost, and it's much better for that cost to be met by the people contributing the emissions than it is spread across the whole rate pay.
02:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Right, next financial performance report. Councillor Jurisevic: No, that was the amendment. No, that was only the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. That becomes the amendment, becomes the motion. And we've only had Councillor Jurisevic and Councillor Wegener speak to the motion. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion as it stands now in the three-part motion? Joe, you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll just tack on to what Brian said. I'll just add to what Brian said at the end there, with regard to that amendment. He's right. There's an element of full cost pricing that we don't cover in this. And when you do tack on greenhouse gas emissions, you then have a lever to make people understand the educational process of change and why you inform change.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 And one of the reasons for change is that you can actually recover the costs that you're putting in through other means. Or that you can drive behaviour change and things like that to inform that full cost pricing. So that people understand the implications of not doing the right thing and how we manage it better going forward. So I'm in favour of that amendment, but I'm also in favour of supporting full cost pricing with waste management and competitive conduct code with holiday park business. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Chair. The motion goes in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you. Now we move on to item six. Sorry, item seven, which is financial performance report. And we have Pauline here again to talk us through all the main points of this report.
02:31:00 Speaker 1: So while Council is reporting an interim $9 million surplus for the 2022 financial year, it is important to note that this is a draft position. We are still in the process of finalising our expense accruals and end of year accounting adjustments, which will likely reduce this down by a several year period. The drafts have been driven by several factors. Operating revenue is $4.9 million above budget, which is comprised of $600,000 relating to fees and charges, $1.8 million relating to the sales of goods and service, which is principally holiday parks and the sales of recyclables, and $2.5 million from operating grant subsidies, which is $860,000 relating to the prepayment of the 2023 financial assistance grant, and $1.4 million relating to the disaster resilience funding. Thank you. Operating expenditure is $4.7 million underspent, with $960,000 of this relating to employee expenses. As like many businesses, Council continues to face challenges with staff shortages and difficulty attracting staff to fill vacancies.
02:32:00 Materials and services are $3.8 million underspent, with almost $2 million of this relating to levy funded programs, with the largest being the environmental levy. These funds are specifically set aside for activities such as the environment. They can also be used for other activities. Economic development, sustainable transport, heritage, precincts in Noosa Junction, Hastings Street and Noosa Waters, and so cannot be used for other purposes, so will carry forward and be utilised in future years. The remainder of the budget underspent relates to, again, environment, $491,000 relating to development services, which is predominantly legal fees in the timing of some of the appeals that are in process at the moment. $351,000 relates to community development. And $305,000 relates to strategic planning. There are a number of key projects in these areas and initiatives in 2022 that are still underway and are yet to be finalised, and these will carry over into 2023 with the surplus funds used to fund them.
02:33:00 This month we have also included a quarterly update on the legal expenses, which is showing legals and associated costs $321,000 below budget, which is due to timing of development assessment appeals and also the Kin Kin Quarry decision. Capital revenue is $6.1 million below budget, and this is the timing around when Council receives grant funds for the projects as they complete. So some of those projects that were completed late in July will complete late in June or early in July, so will receive the funds in the new financial year. Capital expenditure is $13.6 million below budget, and this is due, again, to the timing issues around project delivery from the rain events and supply chain issues. And these projects will receive the funds in the new financial year. Council is currently holding $97 million in cash reserve, which is the equivalent of 13 months cash cover.
02:34:00 I just wanted you to note that $12 million of this was received in June and relates to a prepayment of four years' worth of the waste levy subsidy. So that's lifted the cash reserve as well. Okay. And with reserve banks lifting interest rates, we're going to see a significant increase in cash reserves. We've also seen investment rates starting to climb, so management are looking at investing in surplus funds into high-yielding term deposits, so that will come through in the following months. And these funds will be invested in line with Council's investments of surplus fund policy. While it is a draft four-year position, Council has continued to meet all its target ratios and remains in a strong financial position. Furthermore, it is expected that once all of the adjustments have been processed, Council will still continue to report a surplus for the 2022 financial year. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. I have a question. I'm calling. Does the State Government, why have it decided to prepay four years' worth of the waste levy subsidy? This seems very generous.
02:35:00 Is it in reality? Speaker 1: I think it's to, well, it was all around the State Government's waste strategy, and to allow Councils to pre-plan and future plan to use those funds. The upside is that we actually use the funds to subsidise the levy to domestic uses. So while we do have funds now, and I suppose they are available, we, over time, as the waste levies change and the amounts will pass on to users, will help to fund, I suppose, the levy that we pay to the Government at the moment. Speaker 7: And Chair, the LGAQ is seeking further clarification from the Environment Minister on this, but we do believe it is a signal from the State Government that those subsidies, past the amount that's just been paid over the four years, will not continue to be levied to Councillor Jurisevic: Is there an expectation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It might be a parting gift. Councillor Jurisevic: I would think that's the end of it. Is there an expectation also to spend that with regard to new procedures and new methodology with regard to waste practices? Speaker 7: No, no.
02:36:00 So no additional conditions were put forward, just prepayment in advance. But what we are taking as a signal is there will be no further payments. Councillor Jurisevic: That will be the end of it? Yep. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question that may go to wording. On page 25, we talked about the asset sustainability ratio. Correct. The target says we aim to hit 90% of the depreciation budget spent on the newest animals. What is our depreciation budget currently? Is it about 19 million? Nineteen million. Nineteen? Yep. Nineteen? So if we've spent 34 million, how will we, 34 million on capital works, how will we below budget in terms of achieving our target? The target is 90% of the depreciation budget, which is only 19 million. Speaker 1: Correct. So while we have hit our target, so Council sets a target of 90%, however in previous years we've missed that target, so our actual budget was 130%. So we are below what we had budgeted to hit, and that's essentially due to the delay in
02:37:00 the projects being completed in this financial year. So while we've hit our target, which is 90%, we did not hit our budget, which was 130%. Councillor Wilkie: So we've achieved our asset sustainability ratio target. Speaker 1: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: And that's still below the budget. Speaker 1: The budget that we had forecasted. Understood. Councillor Jurisevic: But correct me if I'm wrong, that asset sustainability ratio only relies, only relates to items. Speaker 1: For renewals. Councillor Jurisevic: For renewals, that's right. Correct. Not new items. So there's two elements within the capital expenditure, renewals and new. Yep. Correct. Or upgrades. Correct. So it's only that we're spending at least 90% of the 19 million. So once we spend that on renewals, and that has been completed, and those renewals have been completed, then we achieve that. Correct. The 34 million is irrelevant. It's that piece within the 34 million that relates specifically to renewals. Councillor Wilkie: The depreciation funds are spent on renewals. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Jurisevic: And the asset sustainability ratio only relates to renewals as well. Councillor Wilkie: So some people can read that and think, well, have we achieved our asset sustainability ratio?
02:38:00 We actually have. We have. Not with the loan budget. Speaker 1: Not with the loan budget, yeah. Any other questions? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, move. I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Juristic. Mayor Stewart: All right. Thank you very much. I actually got asked in-depth questions about the potential $9 million draft surplus on the ABC this morning. And I'm going to reiterate to them now what I said to them. But that $9 million surplus, even though it seems a lot, is made up of $2 million relating to levies. So these funds, as we all know, are set aside for environment, sustainable transport, heritage, and our precincts. We also received an early advance payment of $2.3 million in disaster recovery. And this will be spent in the next six to 12 months. There are a number of key projects and initiatives from 2022 going into 2023 that are still underway and not finished. And this will, some of this surplus will be used to fund those projects. We also want, interestingly, we are $1 million under spent on salaries. And that is obviously because we are facing, as a Council, the same challenges that many
02:39:00 of our local businesses are with staff shortages and the different, the difficulty in attracting and retaining staff. Part of which is our low vacancy rates, housing affordability, economic uncertainty, and the like. So once you take all of this into account, there's about $1 million to $2 million surplus, which of an operating budget of, or of a budget of $110 million from last year, means we've spent 98% to 99% of our budget we've committed in Council operations, which is actually really, really great. It's a great achievement. So, and then they said to me, well, if you've got this great operating budget and surplus, why are your rates at 5%? So that, after we broke that $9 million, and it's really not $9 million, and these are all the reasons why. The 5%, you know, we are, like everyone else, facing rising costs. We hear it all the time in our capital work. So, you know, and everything's been delayed, increased costs, we're not immune. So that 5% doesn't actually have anything to do with the surplus. It's all about the costs going forward.
02:40:00 So, you know, from a capital perspective, we've delivered, as you said, Pauline, 34 out of the 48 million. That, and the remaining 14 million are all for projects that are currently underway. So, and then we finished over the next few months. And then, of course, we've got the disaster and the potential impacts of that. We've seen what Black Mountain will be, you know, tens of millions of dollars, potentially. So, it is very prudent to have some, certainly monies in surplus because that rainy day has come and it might come again. And we're coming into the bi-season and I don't know if that will transfer into either. So, anyway, thank you. Thank you very sound and appreciate, you know, the great work that you and Trent and all the team have done. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a question. And it was something that was raised on Saturday at our pop-up in Black Mountain, Pauline. A lot of the residents have asked for a reduction in rates, given that their properties, some have been directly impacted by the landslip.
02:41:00 Discussion was had maybe there's an opportunity for them to apply for a revaluation of their land value. And the question that I throw to you, can Council, if anyone is requesting a revaluation of land value, will Council allow those residents to apply for a revaluation of land value? And if not, will Council allow those residents to suspend payments of rates until that re-evaluation comes? Speaker 1: I would have to refer to what our policy and rates and revenue deferral is. I know there is a hardship provision, so they may be able to apply under that and defer some of it at the time. But I would have to go to the rates manager and revenue to do that. Councillor Lorentson: Could I have some information on that, please? Yeah, sure. Before I go back to community and give them any information. Sure. That would be great. Thank you, Pauline.
02:42:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Another question would be, would ratepayers who have been affected by a road having been washed away through a landslip qualify for hardship? Correct. That's... I would... Speaker 1: Just to clarify, is your question around whether or not we would not require them to pay the rates or to defer the payment of the rate? Councillor Lorentson: No. Not until the re-evaluation because, you know, I've now watched the increases at the moment, but that surely can't be supported given current events. Speaker 7: And through the chair councillor, if the individuals notify our rates team that they are undertaking a process with the value in general, our policy will dictate where we go. We'll get that extra advice. But for me, that would... Waste advice. So we'll get the advice. But, you know, we would urge any resident out there that feels that they've had a significant change in their valuation and circumstances. Black Mountain's a good example. Contact the value in general. Ask to get a re-evaluation undertaken.
02:43:00 As a result of that, that could see an adjustment in the rates depending on where they sit with minimum rate and a whole range of other variables. We'll take that into consideration. And definitely, I think if they're not close to hardship, I'm sure there's a few things that we can do to be able to help out there, particularly with those up in Black Mountain. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So put it on notice for you guys to come back with correct information. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Speaker 7: Any request to further reform, Mr CEO? Or just... No. We will administratively deal with that at the council office. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, one more question? Yeah. One more question. In regards to Tourism Noosa funding, the report states that the renewal is at 30 June 2022. It's been extended for a further 12 months. Have we started negotiations with Tourism Noosa and is it prudent to get that going?
02:44:00 Speaker 7: Through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson, no. Not at this time. We would need a council workshop before we commence. So we will schedule that over the coming weeks and sit down with the council, some examples of regional tourism organisation, key performance indicator documents, really understanding what the council is wanting to be able to achieve out of the negotiation, getting that direction from the council, and then once that direction is received, commence negotiations. Cognizant we're now in the new financial year. So we would need a council workshop before we commence. But this quarter, I would expect we'd be up and running and do understand the team at Tourism Noosa do need some certainty. So it's one within this quarter. We'll absolutely have a workshop direction from the council. Then that gives the basis to commence negotiations. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question following on from that. With regards to the Tourism Noosa seeking security around that and wanting the council
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 to look at that and make a decision. Can you tell me how much information from the destination management work feeds into that decision making process? Is there an element of the DMP that will guide or influence that decision? Speaker 7: Through the Shire Council, Finzel, I think it's best that we review that as part of the workshop. Whether council as a whole would like DMP outcomes to be part of the decision making process based on what funding Tourism Noosa receive. So I would probably defer that to a workshop and then get further advice from the council as a whole at that time. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the motion in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you for that. Thanks Paul. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Now I'd like to make a point for the Planning and Environment Committee Chair. Speaker 7: Mr Waters. Yes. Thank you.
02:46:00 Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks to you, Deputy Mayor. We have Councillor Stockwell who has served the Planning and Environment Committee as chair for just over the first half of this term. We are looking at reviewing our committees and the role that we have with our committees at the moment, in line with some recommendations that are made as part of my upcoming report. We will address that within the first quarter. However, Councillor Stockwell has accepted a role with University of Sunshine Coast, or UESC, as part of the document. I think they're now calling themselves, they've changed their name recently, and as a result we aren't able to commit as a chair to planning environment due to the schedule at the university. We for the next round of particularly council committees for planning environment need to appoint a new chair and the report before you and the recommendation deals with that. I've put it to the council to be able to have members of that committee nominate.
02:47:00 Or I also understand that if there was a rotational discussion to be had, it would matter for the council to decide, but the recommendation that we had before you is for appointing a new chair. And I'm remiss not to also thank Councillor Stockwell for all of his guidance as chair of the planning environment committee over just over the first half of this term. Thank you. And the council for your decision on the recommendation report. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Yes. Thank you. On page 32 it said that Councillor Stockwell would like to remain on the committee. Is that a mandatory attendance when you're on a committee or is that just for the chair? Speaker 7: No, ordinary meetings are mandatory. So not mandatory as such, we can accept apologies for that. But Councillor Stockwell may not be in, without speaking of art, Council of Stockwell may need to leave a little bit earlier from time to time depending on how long the committee goes for. So the recommendation would be to retain Council of Stockwell on that particular committee. What we'll be looking at is appointing a chair as such.
02:48:00 Councillor Jurisevic: We'll just change it to being asked on their committee to start sitting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, then I'll go over to the services and organisation and I'll sit there. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question on Council Wiggins and Council Finzel. Council Finzel, would you like to be chair of this committee? Would you accept chairing this committee? Councillor Finzel: I think at this point, I think at the moment I'd like to defer that. Yeah, I've got other things that I have my focus at the moment, so I'd prefer not to be appointed to that position today. Thank you. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Looks like it's up to you, Tom. Councillor Wegener: I'd be happy to be appointed that way. All right, well, I'll move the recommendation. I'll sit there.
02:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: Secondly, Councillor Stewart, that the council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee meeting in David Bayton for 2022. I'd appoint Councillor Wegener as the chairperson for the Planning and Environment Committee. Mayor Stewart: My only question is, are you both interested in a rotational position? Councillor Wegener: I called Karen and said, if you're happy to. If you're happy for a rotational thing, I'm happy for a rotational thing, if you want to do that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'm just not sure around the table today how anyone sits with rotation. For continuity, perhaps we just don't consider that at this point, but I'm open to it. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that there's only 18 months to go, and it's only a relatively short period, Tom, just out there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just clarifying, there is a process, CEO, to look at the community structure as part of that, what's the one you call it, Project 2.0? Councillor Wegener: Incoming review. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, the incoming review. So yeah, it might be only a short period anyway.
02:50:00 Yeah, that's true. Yeah, and yeah, just, I'm happy to support the recommendation, yeah. Yeah, so the committee rarely goes past the time where I'd have to leave, but if it did, I wouldn't have wanted to be in the committee, in the chair role, or in general, so, and it is an afternoon session that I have to attend, so. Councillor Wilkie: Look, MSA councillors would speak to the motion, or put it to the vote. Tom, you're free to answer. Councillor Wegener: I'll be very nervous. It has not been my forte, as you've noticed. Chair. I'm very nervous about chairing these meetings, but I look forward to the opportunity to be a good chair, and learn how to do it much better. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the informal nature of those meetings, I think you'll be a more than adequate chair. Thank you, Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'm sure to give you an induct, don't I, sir? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure to give you a lot. Councillor Stockwell will remind you.
02:51:00 Councillor Wilkie: The chair's job is made really, really easily, really easy in this particular council, because of the self-discipline shown by all the councillors. They're very helpful in participating in the meetings. UCL have been given a fair bit of advice during this meeting, which has been very helpful. And I'll have to step back and decide the proper procedure. In terms of who's next to speak and whatnot. So I'm sure you'll get the support you need. Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You just have to know the standing orders by section number. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: That's a favourite. That's unanimous. Okay. Item nine, LGAQ annual confidence motion. Good. Speaker 7: Scott. Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much.
02:52:00 Thank you. Council, the recommendation that we have before you today is broken up into three parts, because they pertain to three separate motions that will be put before the LGAQ general meeting being held in Cairns in October of this year. Item A has been put forward by the staff within the environment and climate change team. Items B and C have been put forward by Councillor Stockwell as well. Staff have also worked with Councillor Stockwell in finessing and being able to ensure that the intent of those motions that are being put absolutely aligns to not only ours, but then also state policy for the executive to consider from there. If you give me one moment, I'll just read through each of those motions that we have before you. I'll talk to motion A, which is the staff motion that's being put. And then I'll talk to motion C, which is the staff motion that's being put. And then also I'll refer to Councillor Stockwell for B and C, just to provide some additional information there.
02:53:00 To be able to have a motion put before the Local Government Association's general assembly and general meeting, which is resolved upon by Council, and then also delivered within a specific format for the template. They aren't due until the 10th of August, but given our meeting cycle, this is the meeting cycle to be able to go to our ordinary and get that resolution. Send the details through to the LGAQ and that will then form part of the motions that are put forward at the general meeting in Cairns later this year. So the first motion, the one that the staff have put together, is that the LGAQ calls on the state government to make changes to the relevant legislation being the Local Government Act 2009 and the City of Brisbane Act 2010 that would enable local governments to offer environmental upgrade agreements throughout Queensland. Thank you. This item has gone through ratification within the executive leadership team.
02:54:00 Environmental upgrade agreements are utilised within the New South Wales and the Victorian jurisdictions where local governments have the ability to assist and assess with homeowners how they can provide a more carbon neutral, carbon friendly environment to their homes. So whether that be through solar panels, whether that be through water tanks. Essentially council can become the bank on this. Our question at an executive, back to the climate change team, was what is the risk to the council in that if we are holding these funds and we're hoping to subsidise these environmental agreements, where is the risk transferred? Look, that's still somewhat unclear coming from the team, that they weren't able to provide that full detail. However, as an executive, given that the New South Wales and the Victorian jurisdictions are utilising these schemes, we believe it's worthy to be able to put forward as a motion to the
02:55:00 LGAQ. The climate change team will do more work leading into that so that we can clearly articulate that on the floor at the General Assembly and to be able to have that considered by all at the LGAQ conference. From there, if that becomes a motion, that then will then be part of the policy. It is supported by the LGAQ. And the LGAQ had requested that Noosa Council put this forward as a motion for consideration as well. So there's a number of parts to there, which is why we don't have this before the council. And having this before council gives the ability to get that resolution and put that forward. And any questions around that? Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding, Mr CEO, is that what this does is if loans are provided for environmental upgrades, such as water tanks, solar power and all the rest of it, that there's the capacity for council to receive those funds back on the rates notice or actually apply them on the
02:56:00 rates notice and take that payment on behalf of whoever the funder is so that it can be repaid through that. It stays on the rates notice and if the property is sold, it's not completely paid, that it becomes the notice then passes on to the next owner. Speaker 7: That's absolutely correct. Through the Chair, Councillor Jurisevic. It passes through. Our question was one of a technical nature within the executive team as to how then this sits as debt on our balance sheet with QTC and if this has the potential to affect our capacity to borrow in the future. We believe that that's one of the questions that we asked and our view was let's have the LGAQ do that work because we're looking at amendments to the Local Government Act, the City of Brisbane Act. Let them work through that process. So, whether QTC would then see this as further debt sitting on the council balance sheet. At the very least though, it's not an unsecured debt. It's secured to the property and on an ongoing basis.
02:57:00 So, those are the questions that were somewhat technical and the team weren't able to answer but for us, we still feel it's worthy to move through. Councillor Jurisevic: I wouldn't say it's that different from the state fire levy for example that we collect on behalf of the state. Does it actually go on our books? I don't believe it does. I believe it's set aside as specifically for. Speaker 7: It's set aside. This though is, we are nearly acting as a bank. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. Speaker 7: We're acting as a conduit for which those payments must. Yeah, yeah. So, it's just that additional debt but we believe, let's leave that to the LGAQ policy executive to pick that up and look at what the risks are, work with QTC and see where we go from there. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure there are examples in Victoria and New South Wales seeing if those two states have got that to have a look at how they manage it. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, absolutely. The other question I'm not quite clear on is why is it an advantage to the business owner to have the payments go through the council to the financial institution rather
02:58:00 than direct to the financial institution? Am I missing something? Speaker 7: The local government area gets the uplift in the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Oh yeah, sure. Yes. Why is it an advantage to the business owner? Councillor Wilkie: Why is it an incentive to the business owner to pay by their rates to the council then to them rather than direct to them? Speaker 7: They may not necessarily receive finance for these types of modifications. So, the council is helping to enable further green emissions. So, we're acting as the guarantor for this particular work to be undertaken. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I could add, it's not just business. Yes. It could be a pensioner. It's residential as well. And when council acts as a broker, it provides access to lower rate because of what we're offering because we secure it against the rates, so it makes the cost of finance becomes right down. Councillor Jurisevic: It becomes a financial incentive with a lower rate.
02:59:00 Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So, can you talk me through the process? So, we agreed to this. Yes. Then it gets debated on the floor at the LGAQ conference. Councillor Wilkie: I believe there's a step before that. Oh, okay. That the LGAQ executive then consider it for inclusion. So, they'll have a... Oh, okay. They'll consider it, see whether there's duplication, whether it's something they're willing to consider supporting or not. Then it will get included as those motions to the debate. Mayor Stewart: There's hundreds of motions. And the debate is that we just get up and say the motion and then someone else might speak to it, but often it's just the person creating the motion. They say that and everyone just waits on it, has a buzzer, presses it, and that's it. Because there's hundreds of motions. Councillor Jurisevic: But having said that, all councils get these motions ahead of time. Correct. Yes. They're not the first time they've seen them at an LGAQ conference. Councillor Lorentson: So, they can share before the conference.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: It's not a question. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. It will make the agenda. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: We need to get some of the councils to the LGAQ conference that haven't attended. Yes. Speaker 7: So, Council, that's all to make. From the offices, I'm also supported by Zero Emissions Minister as well too. But we believe that that is a motion that's worthy to go to the conference. And yes, we believe we also have capacity to be able to deliver that should that become policy and change. And we're talking longer time, amendments to acts. Yes. That takes time. But that's all the policy work that we need to be doing. My computer battery just died. So, just excuse me. I'll read from what we had before us on the screen. Item B, Council Stockwell's motion. The first one is that the LGAQ calls on the State Government to abandon that position that prevents councils from codifying requirements for energy efficiency, solar power and other emissions reduction and adaptation provisions relevant to new development and planning
03:01:00 schemes. And item C, that the LGAQ calls on the State and Federal Governments to approve the Australian Building Code for recommended updated energy provisions for new high energy systems. At the next Building for Ministers forum, through the Chair, I might ask for Councillor Stockwell to speak to those two particular motions that has gone through our staff process and support as well, and the staff are very supportive of those two motions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, while they come from two different angles, they're very linked. Item B is the result of our experience putting forward the first draft of the Noosa Plan 2020, where we had built in what we think our community expects into development provisions to have a requirement in terms of new development for high levels of energy efficiency, solar power, other efficiencies to bring down the footprint of development.
03:02:00 And yet the State Government planners have a position, and I've asked staff, and there is no policy. They're saying it's a position. It's there. I believe it may be their legal interpretation that you can't have matters in there that conflict with the National Construction Code. We had that debate this morning in relation to all abilities access. I believe that is something that needs to change, and as do staff. I believe that a planning scheme should reflect the sentiments and aspirations of a community, and that the National Construction Code only sets the minimums. It doesn't set the standards, it doesn't set the desirable standards for each community. I think it is something that other states certainly allow their planning schemes to include these provisions, and it's the National Construction Code. So if there is some legal impediment, then the state should just take that legal impediment away if the legislation has some trick. We know from other, like when we had the climate change response plan, that one of the advocates or lobbying groups that oppose these provisions, we've got a letter from the State Government.
03:03:00 The Secretary of Defense looked at the UDIA, the contrary argument is that some urban developers think that it will increase the cost of the house. In the next motion there's been significant work done on this, particularly in southern states, which show that over a 10 year period, these things actually reduce the cost of living in southern states by over $100,000 over 10 years. So that's where the debate is. And as I've quoted- trouble it, but couldn't do much with this for it. There's a likelihood that why we get this position may be as a result of advocacy from other sectors other than local government. The second one is part of a process as Council's representative on the Common Emergency Australia. We have, as a Council, been part of a program to... The process on this, the recommendation of the Australian Building Code Board was stalled under the last federal government.
03:04:00 It's unclear whether it's going to go to the next round, but if it doesn't, it's likely that this motion would be relevant. The issue here is that, for the reasons I just outlined in terms of why you put in the planning scheme, it's also, this one suggests that the National Construction Code needs to up its game as well. They're not mutually exclusive. And just to give you an idea about the campaign to try and get this to happen, we have signed two joint statements, the last one I had a look at was over 25 other Councils and a range of different community and government organisations, community and not-for-profit organisations. To give you an idea who's involved in supporting this approach, it includes the Australian Council of Social Services, Energy Consumers Australia, Climate Council, Energy Efficiency Council, Property Council and Renew, which is a not-for-profit that's in this area.
03:05:00 It's a range of regional organisations. So it's about saying, let's lift our game in terms of achieving climate, and let's embed it within all new development, from a planning perspective, but also from a construction perspective. Councillor Wilkie: Does it mean that those two bodies are in conflict, the National Construction Code and the Australian Building Code? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, the Australian Building Code is the board responsible for making recommendations to change the National Construction Code. They've made recommendations to up the... At a level, you might have heard it in eight days, in the southern states it's from six to seven, in our state we don't go that high because of different climates, I believe. Well, I think we're one level below. So it's their recommendation, but at a political level, because we understand our pressure from other interests, other than local government interests, that decision on that has been stalled. So they went through a three-year engaged process to come up with their recommendations.
03:06:00 As the write-up on this policy shows, it makes sense from a cost perspective, from a livability perspective, and for our future. It's just about having the political will, hence the need for local government association to advocate for both levels of government, because both levels have to change. Councillor Jurisevic: You fear to say there's a lack of alignment between the states in that regard? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I haven't been up to date for probably three months. The last I heard is the level of support varied from state to state. Some states were very keen, some states weren't. Councillor Jurisevic: But there's a lack of alignment there, particularly in B. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh yeah, in B, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So the states that allow codes, sort of building requirements higher than the codes in the national construction code, are likely to be in favour of this as well. Do you know which states they are? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, I know Victoria's one of them. I won't quote others without going back to look at the source I was referring to.
03:07:00 Speaker 7: All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to move? Oh, it hasn't been moved. I'm happy to move it. I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: Second it, Councillor Stockwell. Second it, Councillor Jurisevic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be good if I could second my own vote, because I get a lot of them. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but then you've got to vote seven times. Oh, that's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I don't think we need to talk. I think A, we've been talking about it for quite a number of times. B and C, they're all saying the same thing, is hopefully what we get is an advocacy position from local government associations that is really clear on climate action in this regard. They have got some climate action. It's mainly about adaptation and risk at the moment in their advocacy documents. And this would just show that we really need to look at the mitigation options as well.
03:08:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay. Question six. Does this give, to Brian, does this give councils, especially ours, more autonomy to make, to imply conditions upon builders? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly in B. Yeah. More conditions to increase it above what the National Construction Code minimum is. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: It's certainly the element that we tried in the last planning scheme that was knocked back by the State. So it's- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Things like water tanks that they say you can't- Councillor Jurisevic: Burnt in half the support of the other councils to advocate for the state. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was done at a time where there's a strong focus on infrastructure charges and all this sort of stuff. And there was a big lobby about the people can't afford to build the house with the water tank and the solar panel on it. Without putting too sharp a point, it may reduce developers' profits. It certainly is a cheaper 10 year cost of living option. Councillor Wegener: Is there any way we could run this through before Stockwell puts the next application in?
03:09:00 Councillor Jurisevic: No comment. Off you go. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add a comment there too? Look, I think given our aging population and the impact on families when home modifications have to be made. Discharge from hospital and different things. And it's quite a huge social impact. Having worked in the industry, I have seen that first hand. So I think it's really important that we do raise these issues, especially for the initial build to have all accessibility. Because when those moments come that are often crisis, that home modification is something that's already done in the initial build. And it takes a whole lot of angst off families. And even holding up hospital beds. Yeah. To get modifications done before a person can discharge to home. So I think this is really important to advocate in the space. And create long lasting change in an area that really at the start of the build to me is
03:10:00 an easy fix and forward planning. And at so many levels it brings benefit to our community. Councillor Jurisevic: Sure. The other element of that, I mean with regard to cost. When it's a one off and a builder's applying, costs on a one off cost. Yes, it's an additional cost. But when it's across the board, and this is the standard, the costs come down. Because you've got access to the type of things you need. And it's on a bulk basis. Because everything's applied on a bulk basis as opposed to a one off basis. So once it's better understood, better applied, better cost of living, implications for everybody. And that's what chooses the budget at the end of the day. I mean you want to reduce your energy bills. Have a more efficient house that doesn't need to rely on air conditioning. And that doesn't need to rely on heating. And that actually has good solar orientation and things like that. They're fairly simple things to help facilitate. And it's down to developers on how they situate their blocks and things like that.
03:11:00 As to where their blocks go. And a bit of forethought actually has a long lasting and a long financial impact. And some of the things that Karen's talked about there, well if all doorways were made to, if your doorways were made to take a wheelchair, and one of the ones in the house was made to take a wheelchair, you'd have one example. It's not setting the world on fire. You don't have to have every doorway made to that provision. But then again, if council makes it, any commercial building wants to make a change, all those things come into being. But it doesn't apply in the domestic sense. So, you know, there's opportunities there for all sorts of things to be considered, to be more of a standard, which keeps and lowers a builder's cost in implementing those things. But it has long term implications for the owner of the property. Councillor Finzel: And it's interesting to note with the last week a report went on about housing in Queensland and how we're not built to sustain these cold winters.
03:12:00 And they've done reports on that. Councillor Jurisevic: We're now speaking out of turn into it. Not into open forum. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Can I? Amelia. I'll just speak to this, but add a bit of commentary. But 100% support these motions, even though they're not possibly the details that's required. That's stuff that can happen after, between now and the LGAQ is what I'm sort of guessing. Yeah. Speaker 7: And for the LGAQ policies, executive, do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah. So really getting them to do the lobbying. If this becomes policy, they'll then do the groundwork with Queensland Treasury Corporation, state government, all of the different departments. But we have these on the floor. And yeah, we'll go through that process. Councillor Lorentson: So my own commentary is lots of discussion about cost to developers, increased costs. Are they sustainable? Does it make the development economically viable?
03:13:00 Is it sustainable? Part of the lobbying, whether it's you, Brian, that's going to present this on the floor, or for me, or the CEO, but we need to change the language. It's rethinking development. In New South Wales, it's actually a competitive advantage. It's like tourism. The new tourist is after experience. You know, they're after an eco experience. They're after a local experience. And the same in this space. It's a competitive advantage. There are buyers out there that seek good, sustainable buildings. Buildings that, you know, match their values. So I'd love, as part of this motion, let's have a discussion about the competitive advantages of mandating requirements for energy efficiency, solar power, and other emissions, about best practice, and how that aligns with who we are as a country.
03:14:00 As far as a state, in particular, you know, we're advocating for a net zero Olympic Games. So competitive advantage. And let's drop the word cost. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll start right in. I'll start right in. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. Look, I think, Brian, this will be taken up very well, because we have to be the first carbon positive of the Games in 2032. And they're talking about, we've heard about it, about green concrete and all these sort of things. So these are the exact kind of amendments and, I guess, policies that all of South East Queensland are going to adopt to achieve that very ambitious target. So I think that they will go really well at the conference. That's it. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Tom, do you wish to speak? Tom, do you wish to close? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's been... I think it's been...
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Well discussed. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion. It's carried unanimously. And that is the last item on the agenda. And I declare the meeting to close. Thank you.