Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 7: So there was no grounds not to accept this particular deputation and it was a process that was being utilised by the submitter to be able to get before the council on a more formalised basis. But it might be something that we review in the future. They have indicated that when the actual item comes on the council agenda that they would like to have that deputation and that opportunity to use that before the council. But I think we'll have a further discussion about that as to deputations and how they're being utilised through the standing orders. But that has been withdrawn for today's meeting. Councillor Wegener: Okay, thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Okay, let's go to the reports. And number one is Newsy Council Flying Fox Statement of Management of Intent. And we have Dave here to tell us a little bit about what's happening. Speaker 1: Okay, great. So council's been working on the Flying Fox Statement of Management of Intent, SOMI for short.
00:01:00 For the past four or so months. Basically, it's a policy and planning document for the management of flying foxes that we want to have there so that we can clearly communicate to all the different stakeholders, council staff, contractors on how council approaches the management of flying foxes. Now, this is particularly important into locations where we do see human wildlife conflicts with flying foxes. We have a number of permanent flying fox roosts around the Shire. Where we do get some interactions between residents and general park users and whatnot in relation to flying foxes. And we can get issues like noise from flying foxes, odours, droppings on people's assets and property and whatnot. So yeah, council's obviously managed flying foxes for a number of years and performed that quite successfully. But moving forward, yeah, I think it's really great if we can get a policy and planning document out.
00:02:00 There for the general public to be able to view. So when they do have conflicts with flying foxes, they can look at that document first on our website, then come back to council with any questions or, yeah, I guess, progress any management actions that may be warranted in terms of flying foxes. So flying foxes are heavily protected under state and federal legislation. So basically, this flying fox statement of management intent is predominantly based. Off that legislation that I just mentioned. So council is limited to what we can do in terms of flying fox management. Obviously, the priority of Noosa Council is to maintain our ecological values and flying foxes form a very important part in that role for seed dispersal and they are protected species as well. So where we're at with this document is we've had a number of consultation, like internal consultation processes. Already. So back in April, we held an executive team briefing regarding the flying fox statement of management intent, and we just sort of talked around the room about what's what we wanted the document to look like, what were the important factors that we need the document to address and whatnot.
00:03:00 So it was really helpful. We also held a council of flying fox management workshop. I think that was in May. So shortly after the executive team briefing. And that was in May. So shortly after the executive team briefing. And that was really beneficial to catch up with the councils, because obviously they're at the forefront of, I guess, the community interaction in terms of flying foxes and impacts on properties and whatnot. So we got some really good feedback there. And I must, I must admit, though, like in terms of management options for flying foxes, as I said before, a lot of it is driven by state and federal environmental legislation. So moving forward with how council will manage that. I think one of the things that I think we need to focus on as we approach flying foxes under this statement of management intent is this document forms, as I said, the overall Shire-wide approach to flying foxes, what council values, what we want to maintain in terms of, you know, public amenity, reducing those impacts on properties and whatnot.
00:04:00 That's sort of just like it's the overall document. It sort of identifies what a low conflict side is and medium conflict side is. A high conflict side. And obviously from there down, that will trigger different management approaches. At the end of the day, council does not disperse flying fox colonies. Historically, different councils have approached flying fox management in that way. And if you can get around the state and federal legislation, yeah, it is possible, theoretically, to look at dispersing some populations of flying foxes. So, for example. Most people will be aware of Wallace Park situation where we have, at times, really large numbers of flying foxes will come in there and put pressure on surrounding residents in terms of odor and smell and whatnot.
00:05:00 But, yeah, I guess it's scientifically proven now that if we go and disperse colonies, as in, you know, go in there and move them on, generally what happens is it will just split the colony and then you'll see all these pop-up flying fox roosts all around the region and effectively, yeah, you're creating a lot more issues for eventually a lot more residents as well. So, I guess it's important to note that. In terms of other management approaches, council has an existing flying fox subsidy program. So, that basically provides residents impacted by flying foxes with a financial contribution to purchase items such as car covers, air fresheners for their houses, in some circumstances, pressure cleaner, hire for things like solar panels, or we've actually got a flying fox camp up at Kin Kin where we're going to support residents with water filtration devices.
00:06:00 Because they're relying on rainwater, so they're not connected to town water. So, that's the way council's looking at assisting those residents. Moving up the scale of management options, we also occasionally look at vegetation trimming. So, what we'll do is we'll actually create more of a buffer. So, think of a fire break that you have between houses and, you know, native bushland for whatever reason. There are options under legislation to actually clear a portion of vegetation, like I'm only talking sort of 10 metres or so, just to create that buffer so the impacts aren't right on the residents. We also have a large sprinkler system installed at Wallace Park. Again, that goes around the perimeter of the flying fox camp when the flying foxes are there, and it pushes the flying foxes further into the vegetation. So, just creating that buffer a little bit further.
00:07:00 So, as I said, flying fox statement of management is our Shire-wide overarching, overarching policy and planning approach for the management of flying foxes. When we run into certain situations like Wallace Park, where we have flying foxes set up at a roost permanently, we then, as council, come in and create flying fox management plans. So, they sit under this flying fox statement of management intent. And those management plans basically articulate site-specific management options that are appropriate, whether it be under the legislation or the constraints of the site, in terms of things like tree height and what vegetation is there and what the impacts are on the properties. So, we actually have three flying fox management plans underway. One of them is for Wallace Park. That's actually an updated version of the flying fox management plan that already exists for that one. We have a site out at Kin Kin, which I mentioned earlier. We are actually quite close to finalising that management plan.
00:08:00 We're having a community meeting with the impacted residents. We'll have residents out there next week, actually, just to get their feedback on the proposed management options. And we also recently secured some grant funding again for a site out at Cooroy. That's a bit of a different situation there. The flying fox colony is actually on state lands and it's impacting an aged care facility. But council, again, while it's not technically our jurisdiction to go in there and manage the flying foxes, it's on state land, that's not what we do. We do offer residents and businesses, organisations, healthcare facilities, information and advice. And in that situation, we're using Department of Environment and Science grant funding to go in there and create a management plan alongside consultants and provide them as that form of assistance and advice. So, yeah. So basically, yeah, statement of management intent. Next process is to put it out to wider community consultation.
00:09:00 As I mentioned, we do. Apply this to site-specific sites. So with the Kin Kin example, the residents have already been provided the flying fox management statement intent, the draft document, along with their management plan. And we're using that as a little bit of a trial to make sure that the residents can understand where the legislation sits and how both documents apply to them and how this is the overarching document. So we're proposing, if endorsed by council, to put this statement of management intent out to, I think, your say Noosa publication website. And also try to target a bit of a broader audience through, you know, local newspapers and some media outlets and whatnot. So hopefully I have that all wrapped up in the next month or two. And then it'll be finalised document on the Noosa Council website. And, yeah, provide a really good guidance for all stakeholders. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Any questions? Speaker 8: Any question? I've got a question for the Chair.
00:10:00 David, thank you. It was really great and thorough. And the statement of management intent. My only question, I put it, first thing, I think we get all emails, we get emails a lot about, you know, certain areas with the flying foxes. And I just wanted to, and I think you have reassured me that this, you know, this statement and the management going forward will address one of those concerns that have been raised from the emails that we've received from residents who are impacted by flying foxes. Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. So I see that in my position. Obviously, I do get customer requests regarding flying foxes. And, you know, not just at this council, but other councils, it's been very difficult to actually communicate what the management options are for residents and council. And obviously, you know, if you are having a conversation with an impacted resident, it's, yeah, it's just very difficult to communicate that in a phone call or even subsequent emails with information. Being able to provide this document as the first point of contact is really good because it allows that individual or organisation, whatever it might be, to actually look at the document, understand where it all sits.
00:11:00 And then moving forward, that can come back to council. And we can provide that further assistance in terms of that. In terms of site-specific management options, yeah. Thank you. No worries. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you, David. It was a really comprehensive report. Certainly, it's good on the workshops that we did, which were really back to councillors. You mentioned certain sites. I didn't hear you mention Pinneroo Park. Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. So I haven't quite mentioned Pinneroo Park. We had a, I guess, a few interactions there earlier in the year when the numbers of flying foxes swelled to larger than normal, normal numbers. We have applied the subsidy program, which I mentioned before, to a couple of residents there this year. I've just, my computer's on downstairs. I'm actually doing a grant application to generate a management plan for that site this year. So as I said, we were successful with three other grants for management plans, so I don't see why not.
00:12:00 Probably won't be for this one. So yeah, creating a management plan for that site, and that'll pretty much round out. Yeah, we've basically got about six flying fox colonies or camps around the region, and we're seeing some conflict at about four of those sites. So that'll finish off that piece of work. Councillor Finzel: Oh, that's good news to hear that, the opportunity to do that management plan for that site. Yeah. I just want to say thank you. I think it's really good. It's good for us to be seen to be taking a leadership role in this and addressing it, and engaging the community. It's a really good body of work, because when I first came off the campaign, I got called out to Kin Kin, and it was, you know, there was nothing. Council officers were great to get out there and do that, and I think this addition now, this extra life strategy around it is going to be really welcomed by councillors, staff, and the community alike. So yeah, a big thank you to all the team. Speaker 1: That's right. And I think it's really important, because it can demonstrate to residents that council
00:13:00 is doing everything they can under the legislation. Let's face it, we are bound by certain constraints there. So I think the community will feel a little bit more reassured that council is doing everything that we can in that space. And I should also note that with those management plans that I noted before, basically a lot of the recommendations that will come out of them is actually a bit of an expansion of the subsidy program, because basically if we can mitigate some of the impacts on residents, that means that we can actually maintain the functioning ecosystem with the flying foxes and all the ecosystem services they provide. So there will be a little bit of an expansion of that subsidy program. But yeah, I've sort of crunched the numbers, and that's fine within our current budget arrangements. And again, I am applying for a grant to actually cover some of the costs for the Kin Kin subsidy programs, which is looking at some water filtration devices and whatnot. Speaker 8: So yeah, I'll leave it there. Speaker 1: Fantastic. Speaker 8: Thank you.
00:14:00 Councillor Wegener: Brian, do you have any questions? No, I'm fine. Thanks. Colin? Speaker 8: Okay. I'll move it. I'm having to move the staff recommendation, Councillor. Councillor Wegener: Would you like to speak to that? Speaker 8: No, no. I think it's a terrific plan, because we certainly have had a number of emails, all of us, for a number of months, years probably. So this will go a long way to addressing that, and being able to have a direct plan for each area is really important, as you say. So thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah. No worries. Sweet talk. Councillor Wegener: And I suspect that the subsidy offsets will more than pay for themselves by giving the people a break in saying, well, don't take it in your own hands, you know, don't cut down trees or don't do these other things. We'll work with you on this. It gives them some sort of leverage, some leeway. Exactly. Speaker 1: And they also protect council in a way of potentially going down the route of things like sprinkler systems, which can be very expensive.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 So if we can, you know, contribute a little bit financially to the subsidy program and reducing those impacts, it, I guess, at the end of the day, will help council, you know, I mean, sorry, not help, but it will mitigate the need to, you know, do those more drastic management options like subsidy, but like sprinkler systems and vegetation management and whatnot. So yeah, it's good. Councillor Wegener: Anybody else like to speak? Any questions? Amelia or Frank, any questions? Councillor Wilkie: No. It's a wonderful continuation of the work that was commenced many years ago when the council was here as well. It was a model based on advice from Euro Fidelis Shire down in Noosavville, the subsidy program that they had going there. And it's worked well here. And thank you. Well, this isn't a question. It's a statement. And continuing. Yeah. Speaker 7: The chair offered Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wilkie the opportunity to speak
00:16:00 to the motion. Speaker 8: Is that? Yeah, I would have said to the motion. Speaker 7: Well, adding comment. Ultimately, the decision is being made here at the table by those that are part of the committee. But the chair has offered the opportunity for those not on the table to be able to provide comment or question. Matter to the chair. But yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Just one last thing. Well, okay. No more comments. But I just wish that there was a, you know, we gave a little bit of a positive voice to the fox, maybe to a team being named the flying foxes or something, you know, to give away a little bit of a positive energy instead of being too negative. Anyways, should we vote on it? I won't. No. Speaker 8: I'll claim my right of reply. Oh, yeah. Councillor Wegener: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Would you like to? Would you like to use your? Would you like to speak? What's it? The right of reply? No, I'm fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 8: So if you'd like to put the matter to a vote, we can all vote here.
00:17:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay. Would you like to vote? Let's all put the matter to vote. All in favor? Thank you. Speaker 8: Well done, Mr. Chair. This is your first one. I think you're doing a good job. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I was going to say, there's no apologies, except that might be doing an apology. No, you're doing a good job. Speaker 8: It's not easy to be in the hot seat, actually. So you're doing a good job. Councillor Wegener: No, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Item number two. Thank you very much. Thank you, Lee. Speaker 8: Thank you, David. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, David. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. Speaker 6: Thank you, todos. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, David. Councillor Wegener: So this is Application for Material Change of Use for Short-Term Accommodation at 401 Sunshine Road, Timbirua. We have Jada Lyons. Could you give us a little information?
00:18:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, this one's coming from Material Change of Use out at 401 Sunrise Road. The proposed use is within the existing dwelling. There's no additions or alterations proposed. The applicant has provided sufficient parking and access via a driveway off Sunrise Road. The application is generally consistent with the planning scheme and, as such, is recommended for approval. Not much more to say. Councillor Wegener: Right, any questions? Mayor? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'm just taking clarification around what you said, like, generally consistent. And I think the inconsistency was with around... Sorry, I can't find it. The hectare size that normally goes to these blocks. Can you tell us a little bit of information around that, please?
00:19:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, I'll just find that and look for it. Councillor Finzel: That's on page 21 of the report. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. In the rural zone or rural residential zone, the site used for nature-based tourism or short-term accommodation has a minimum area of four hectares. It goes under stated proposal, does not comply with AO 2.3, as the subject site is 1.9 hectares in size. Can I have some clarification on that? Speaker 5: Sure. So, exactly right. The acceptable outcome of the scheme for short-term accommodation is four hectares. In the rural residential, this site is not four hectares, it's less, it's a 1.9 hectares.
00:20:00 When something does not meet the acceptable outcomes of the scheme, it needs to demonstrate compliance with the performance outcome, which is located just above the acceptable outcome. And it talks about developments located on site with an area sufficient to accommodate the use without detracting from the character and amenity of the area. So, that's what council has to consider as to whether they consider, you know, it's an appropriate use for the site. Now, having a look at it, as Jada indicated, they're using the existing house. It's a four-bedroom house, so looking at eight people on site, there is quite a bit of separation between the nearest house, I think it's 50 metres away from the nearest house, that gives quite a good separation from neighbours. The living areas, the outdoor living areas are also orientated away from neighbours. And so, for that reason, officers have concluded that it meets the performance outcome of the planning scheme. Councillor Finzel: I did go for a drive out there, and I noticed also there was a problem made submission with regards to the access and the driveway.
00:21:00 Can you tell us a little bit about how that's going to give compliance to that, to the access and property in that? Speaker 4: It was suggested by the applicant and also concluded in the assessment that the driveway is currently being used for residential purposes, and it is up to a standard that can be used by the guests. So, it was decided that the current access driveway is compliant, and there's no reason to refuse it due to the access. Speaker 5: Yeah. The approval requires some sealing. There's a section that's not sealed appropriately, so there's a little bit of an upgrade required to ensure the driveway is appropriate and doesn't, over time, become further degraded from the use of that driveway. Speaker 8: I've got a question. I'm just struggling with the consistency, because this is recommended for approval, and then we turn to the next item on the agenda that's recommended for refusal.
00:22:00 And on page 19, it says the proposed use is consistent with this strategic instruction. We intend to suppose short-term accommodation supports Moosa's tourism industry in the rural area and provides visitor accommodation in the same location, close proximity to both the coastal area and the hinterland. I understand that. But the argument has been, when we look at short-term accommodation in medium density, that we're in a housing crisis, and it has always been recommended, or has over the last number of months, by staff recommended for refusal on the basis that we're in a housing crisis and short-term accommodation is affecting that. How do you then turn around and say, we're not in a housing crisis in the hinterland, and this is actually taking stock from our long-term market, potentially, and providing short-term accommodation? Like, I just grappled with the fact that this was up for approval, and then the following one was up for refusal. Speaker 5: Yeah, sure. So, officers still believe that short-term accommodation in the Shire is contributing to our housing crisis.
00:23:00 It is impacting the supply of housing that's available for permanent residents. So, that is officers' position around short-term accommodation. But the assessment needs to be made against the planning scheme. And the planning scheme has very different requirements for our rural zoned land and our rural residential zoned land compared to our land that's zoned medium residential and high density residential. So, it has quite different requirements. So, notwithstanding, we consider this. Because it's contributing to our housing crisis, the assessment is that it actually meets the requirements of the planning scheme for the rural residential, where it's been officers' conclusion around the medium residential that those applications do not meet the scheme requirements. So, the difference really, and the reason for the difference in recommendation, is there are different requirements in the scheme that apply. Speaker 8: So, it's not a holistic approach on this one?
00:24:00 Speaker 5: No, no. Well, it is a holistic approach. So, we have to consider whether it meets the scheme or not. And we're saying it does. We do not have the grounds to recommend refusal on this one, unlike the ones in the medium density residential. So, you recall in the medium density zone, the overall outcome is about maintaining that zone for predominantly permanent residential. There's no such statement in the scheme for rural residential. So, that's really the primary difference. We don't have the grounds under the current scheme. Okay. So, you know, as part of the housing strategy, based on feedback, Council can have a look at that. You know, if they wish to change the requirements in the scheme around rural residential and rural. But that will be for Council to have a look at. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So, I just have a question. The clarification around the rural rent zone, can you just give us a bit of an understanding of what is the difference then between your assessment on a, down here in the medium density zone,
00:25:00 and what's the difference when you're doing the assessment? What allows us in the rural rent zone to approve this? Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, I guess it comes back to that statement I've just referred to. The medium density zone is about maintaining it for predominantly permanent residential. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 5: That statement is not included in the rural residential zone. Instead, it talks about just maintaining the residential amenity. So, there are really different requirements. And, I think, you know, there are some differences in the Shire. We don't see the extent of short-term accommodation in our rural areas or our rural residential as that we're seeing in our coastal areas and our urban areas. But, as I said, that's something Council may wish to look at as part of the housing strategy and make some scheme amendments. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I think it's a good idea we look at that moving forward because, in my opinion, I just think
00:26:00 we've really got to drill down to that. I live in the hinterland and the housing issues out there, you know, are big impacts. Yeah. So, I think that's a rather blanket statement and that we look at it as a blanket statement and we have not drilled down to real specifics. And especially, you know, I'm a concern around here with the AO2 with the size of the hectares and I know that it's supported through the plan, as you've stated in your report. But, moving forward, you know, I think we've seen a lot of, in the two years I've been here, a lot of struggle with the ratification of the new plan and then drilling down on how we're meeting the balance between short-term accommodation, you know, residential accommodation, housing for workers. I just want to make sure that we're on the front foot of taking leadership counsellors and through the Chair as well that, you know, we don't want to find ourselves drilling down somewhere, opening up the hinterland and then finding we had opportunity in the scheme to drill down further because this is something that we've got to really look at
00:27:00 and manage, not just our Shire, the region and across the globe. So, you know, perhaps this is an opportunity. Fantastic. We have to look at it. And I know that's not specific to this site, but it's come up, you know, in regards to Speaker 5: the response. It is a balance. Like, I think it's important that we have some tourist accommodation in the Shire, but we just need to consider the extent of tourist accommodation and the type of accommodation that we want to provide in the Shire while still maintaining for our permanent residents. So, it would be a good discussion for council to have. Yeah. Speaker 8: I was going to move it to general, Mr Chair, just on the basis that all councillors can actually have an input. I think that's important. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'll second that. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. So, due to the significance? Yes, I think so. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Oh, Councillor Stuffler. Have you voted? Yep. Yeah. It's a move.
00:28:00 Mayor Stewart. Seconded councillor. Seconded councillor. Mm-hmm. Speaker 8: And the vote's been put. I think, Karen? Yep. Councillor Wegener: And of course, would you like to add? Speaker 8: No. I just think it's important that, you know, these are really big discussions to have. We're in the middle of a draft housing strategy. It's just come back now. This is all part of it. But I think all councillors need to have an opportunity to really deep dive into this. Speaker 7: I think Councillor Stockwell has indicated that he agrees with the matter being moved to general. But I think just for purposes of making sure that we all put the vote, that maybe we just put the vote and we all vote again to ensure that's carried. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Let's vote. Put the vote. Put it to vote. Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Unanimously. It's carried. It's carried. It's carried and moved to general. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: But does anybody else? And councillor? Um, Amelia? Speaker 7: The matter's been voted upon now. Councillor Wegener: The matter's been voted upon now. Moved to the next item. Okay. Yep. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
00:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Item 3, other change to a development approval for multiple dwellings and operational works to include short-term accommodation at 30 and 32 James Street, Noosaville. And we have Patrick Murphy. Speaker 2: Okay, so this relates to a property at 30 and 32 James Street, as you said, which is zoned medium density residential. In September 2017, there was an approval on the site for the development of four multiple dwelling units. We've now got another change application to use one of those units, which is the front unit, for the purpose of short-term accommodation. The other change is impact accessible. There was notification, there was two submissions that were made in relation to the application on the basis of amenity and also on the basis of car parking impacts.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 For me, with our assessment of the short-term accommodation in the medium density residential zone, this is consistent with that assessment that we are seeking to refuse the application on the basis of eroding that housing supply that we've spoken about. That there's not the need for the visitor accommodation. In those areas, with 27% of the area being used for short-term accommodation, and there's also an issue around car parking on this one, it just doesn't have the specific car park for the visitor of the short-term accommodation use, and that will certainly result in some amenity impacts. And just one point to add, I suppose, is that this is a three-bedroom dwelling proposed to have six persons accommodated. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Patrick.
00:31:00 Speaker 2: Thank you very much. The application was originally approved, four dwellings approved and there's one visitor space. So the multiple dwelling units needs to maintain that visitor space for that use. But there's also an additional visitor space required for the short term accommodation use. And therefore it results in a deficiency of one car parking space. And we consider that the use of this premise for short term accommodation for up to six people across three bedrooms, that the provision of two spaces within the garage wouldn't be sufficient. On all occasions it would be likely that there'd be more than those two cars that would come
00:32:00 and then that would result in car parking on the street, which would impact. Speaker 8: So it's non-compliant with car parking? Speaker 2: That's correct, it's non-compliant. Councillor Wegener: I'll move the staff recommendation. Speaker 5: Mr Scott and Brian second it. Councillor Wegener: I'll second it. And the reason is, well, we've refused several applications on the basis of car parking. And it would just be a consistent decision with what's gone before. Councillor Stockwell would you like to speak? No, I think the grounds that the staff is consistent with the approach we've been taking so much and is the correct way ahead. Speaker 8: I'll support the staff recommendation too, I agree. I have, you know, car parking has always been an issue for me and I've always been consistent with that. And so I'm happy to support the staff recommendation in regards to this.
00:33:00 Councillor Finzel: Yes, of course, thank you to the staff for the report, it was comprehensive. I support the staff recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons listed in the report, especially around the areas of amenity and car parking and also, you know, housing, we're in a crisis and, you know, we need to be really mindful of the decision we're making moving forward as we're all aware, so thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, I don't need to close, shall we vote on the matter? All in favour? Ryan, that's unanimous. Thank you Patrick. Speaker 8: Thank you Patrick. See you later. Thank you. Speaker 1: Please, please. Councillor Finzel: I don't know. Speaker 5: I thought it was a good show. OK, I don't know.
00:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: Forever more in the office. Councillor Finzel: Step one full. Step on paper. I've been a big day yesterday. Councillor Wegener: I wasn't in the meeting with the housing people. Speaker 8: It was good, it was great. OK. Councillor Wegener: We're at item four, Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 3296 of 2021, application for an other change to a development approval for multiple dwelling units and eight shops at 30 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads. And we have Kerry Coyle to tell us about this. Speaker 5: Yeah, so councillors may recall when this application came to council a little while ago, it was an application to demolish two of the Hastings unit and rebuild one unit. There was quite a number of submitters at the time opposed to that proposal for a variety of reasons. A number of the submitters appealed council's decision to approve the application.
00:35:00 So there was a mediation held with the registrar, court registrar, and some agreement reached around some minor changes to the plans. So through that process, the plans have been amended. Essentially, the amendments relate to the increasing the setback from the internal driveway from the upper floor slightly, which was some of the submitters' concerns. The submitters have indicated they are agreeable to settle. And this report is recommending that council also agree to settle the appeal, given the amended plans are not substantially different to what was originally proposed. Councillor Wegener: Did the appeal by the submitters actually have an effect on the end design of the house? Speaker 5: Well, some amendments were agreed to by the applicant. So as I said, the upper floor has been set back slightly more than the original proposal.
00:36:00 The submitters were looking for a lot more changes to the plans, but that wasn't agreed to by the applicant at mediation. The submitters and the applicant have obviously received their own legal advice about their prospects, and there's now an agreement to settle the appeal. Councillor Wegener: That's the first time since we've been here that submitters have appealed one of our decisions. Is that right? Speaker 5: It's not very common. But, you know, councillors were recalling, submitters were very concerned about this proposal at the time, they weren't happy with the proposal. Staff at the time did recommend approval of the application, because they found to be compliant with the planning scheme, notwithstanding the extent of submissions. But through negotiations, there's been some agreement to amend the plans. Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to make further comment on that, around the submitters, and just to cast our mind back.
00:37:00 I mean, this site, the Hastings, in 1984, Strata Tuttle and Shops Design, was delivered at Mesa Heads. The payments airlifted into the site, and, you know, Gabriel Pearl was involved, and of course he's iconic in the Shire, through Eurotage, his commitment to the design. He also was awarded, in 1988, the AIA Gold Medal for Lifetime Services to Architecture. So this community, those designs that were embedded in this Shire, and wrapped around, you know, some of their design principles, are really characteristics and things that this community values and favours. And I think, you know, we really need to acknowledge that. And although, you know, there's been a negotiation reached, I think the submitters, as you say, that doesn't often happen. That's a true reflection of how this community feels about those architectural designs. And the forefront in architecture of Gabriel Pearl in this area to deliver designs, not unlike what we want to see today.
00:38:00 I mean, if he was here now, in the middle of this climate response, and us looking at building and dwellings to meet our climate response plan, we'd be calling him around the table. And I think that shows where this community, how they really strongly feel about that. So I think, yeah, it's good that the negotiations have been reached. But I think we really need to consider moving forward. You know, we're faced with a myriad of challenges. Our economic security, it's an ecological emergency, public health threats, and political polarisation. And we need to be able to have a future together. So I think this is a good opportunity to really listen to our community and hear what they have to say around the importance of our design. Especially when we're looking at housing crisis and looking at model of design and what we're going to bring to the table. So I just wanted to say that point because I'm also on the Heritage Committee, and I know that caused a lot of heartache at the time. So I just think it's a reflection of this community and how we value those designs that are embedded in this community.
00:39:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah, would you say that it's almost a litmus test to see how the community feels? Absolutely, yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I do agree that the community feel very strongly about the building. And I'm keen to maintain, you know, recognise that the built form really contributes to the character of places and the streetscape. That it is a very important consideration. You know, so when we look at the scheme requirements, we want to make sure that we maintain those going forward in design. Absolutely. Councillor Wegener: I know that Karen's very interested in heritage listing and maintaining the heritage of our town. And of course, this is a key piece. Councillor Finzel: Yes, absolutely. It's a key piece, but it's also strongly tied in, you know, climate response. If you look at our plan, we want to adopt a proactive approach regarding climate risk to help build the adaptive capacity in our Shire.
00:40:00 And that's our role here. So we've got to take a really strong leadership role and really take notice of, you know, like you said, the litmus test and what is our community conveying back to us. Councillor Wegener: Would you like to move the staff recommendation? Oh, wait. Speaker 8: I was actually considering. Brian's put his hand up. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Speaker 9: I was just going to move or second, whatever. Speaker 7: I'll second. I had, I had Fenzel Stewart. Fenzel Stewart. Move Fenzel Stewart. Move Fenzel Stewart. Move Fenzel Stewart. Move Fenzel Stewart. Speaker 9: Move Fenzel Stewart. Councillor Wegener: Fenzel, move to the recommendation, and then I...
00:41:00 Do I need to move this? No. Speaker 7: It's been... Hold it. So they... . Councillor Wegener: That's a good way to do it. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. But it was moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Stewart. Motion's now on the table for either to speak for or against the motion. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: So I think I've said a lot. I'd just like to, just to get acknowledged, the importance of, you know, the built form as Kerry said, moving forward and how we, you know, look at the plan and how we respond through it. And there's a plan that we're working on. We're working on the climate response plan and use the climate response plan and other policies at our hands to make good decisions that reflect the community and engender trust in the community that we're hearing what they have to say. Councillor Wegener: Sorry.
00:42:00 Brian, do you want any further comments and any comments from Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: Or questions? Oh, I actually have a question. Through the Chair. So Council, the application was made by the submitters and Council was a model litigant. In regards to costs, did Council incur any cost as a model litigant to disappear? Speaker 5: Yes. Of course we incurred costs and I can provide those, provide those costs to date to Councils. I don't have them here today. But there is a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's certainly costs in, to Council in joining the appeal. Attending mediation. And obviously responding to the different court orders that are lodged in the court. This matter hasn't been a protracted, drawn out matter, so I wouldn't expect that to be great. But I can provide those costs to Council. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: That would be great.
00:43:00 Thanks Kerry. Just out of interest, how many of the six submitters were owners of property in the . Speaker 5: All of them. Councillor Lorentson: All of them. Yep. And were, did they reside in Noosa or were they invested as Kerry? Speaker 5: Oh, I don't know that. I'd have to have a look for you. Would you like me to find out? Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Council Finzel, would you like to close? Councillor Finzel: No. I'm, I'm fine. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Do we have a vote on the matter? All in favour? Okay. Is that unanimous? And then we're off onto item five, where we have a conflict. Well, first, I should read what it is. Oh, no, sorry. Speaker 8: I don't. Next one. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wegener: Mr. Chair. Item five, Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D97 of 2022, application for short-stay
00:44:00 letting under Local Law Number 1 and subordinate to Local Law Number 1 Administration 2015, Unit 1, 1217 Street, 12 Stephen Street, Sunshine Beach. And we have Kerry Coyle. Okay. Walk us through this. Speaker 5: So, this is our first appeal against a refusal of a short-stay letting application under our local law. So, the application at Stephen Street was refused. Because we say the duplex approval that it has does not commit short-term accommodation use of it, only permanent occupation. So, under the 2006 scheme, uses were separately defined, visitor accommodation compared to multiple dwellings and allowed for permanent occupation. So, we say that the property cannot be used for short-term letting. So, it is going to be a fairly legal appeal.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And that interpretation of the 2006 scheme definition and what it actually means. So, for that reason, a fairly confined appeal. But obviously, it has implications for a number of other sites throughout the Shire. So, it's an important one that we remain a party to in the appeal. It's only just been lodged. So, we're talking with our solicitors around the best approach that we should be taking. It may be, you know, it may not be the best approach that we should be taking. It may be that we raise a preliminary point in the court rather than it proceeding to full trial. But we're just selling days here. Councillor Wegener: To start, it is a very narrow appeal. Very narrow. It's just a point of law, isn't it, whether this duplex can be used as an SPA. So, it doesn't reflect the local laws, does it? It's just that it's a narrower appeal than that. Speaker 5: That's right. There's no challenge against the local law.
00:46:00 In the appeal at this stage, it's a very narrow one coming down to what that definition of a duplex permits under the 2006 scheme. So, quite narrow in scope. Speaker 8: Do we have any questions? Yeah, I do. Who's council representing us in this one? Do we have someone here? Speaker 5: We only have a solicitor, and that's... Can you call it what this one is? Yeah, Troy Webb. Troy, okay. Yeah, we haven't... At this stage, engaged. Will we engage? Yes, we will. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Brian? Any questions? Nothing from me. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, does the applicant have existing use rights? And is the legal challenge also about existing use rights, whether that overrides the definition? Is there any issue in regards to that or not? Speaker 5: No. No. That's just my understanding. No. Yeah. That hasn't been raised in the appeal. You know, essentially, they sought approval for a duplex, I think, in 2015.
00:47:00 That was under the 2006 scheme. That duplex was built, and it's about whether that duplex can be permitted for short-term accommodation or not. Speaker 8: It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the court case, because, yeah, very interesting. Yeah. Speaker 5: Obviously... It's a free space in one way or the other. Obviously, the applicant thinks there's a case to be made, so we have, obviously, in the lead-up to the local law, had advice around this, so we're not acting without any legal advice. So we feel we have a position around it that doesn't permit short-term accommodation. Okay. Speaker 8: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: So when the approval is given to build this, and they said it will not be used for short-term accommodation, it is in a medium density zone, or is it... They do. So it sort of overrides the definition of the medium density zone, does it? Speaker 5: Well, they have one approval for a duplex under the 2006 scheme, so they could make
00:48:00 an application under the 2020 scheme for short-term accommodation. They haven't done so. They're just relying on the 2015 approval to say that they can use it for short-term accommodation. Does that answer your question? Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So there are existing short-term accommodations in Sunshine Beach duplex sites. Will this case then say that gross ones are unlawful? Is that the outcome? I'm just curious. Sorry, I'm sort of running with where Tom's going with this. It's, you know... Yeah. It is a definition and a legal matter. Yeah. And I think that's the clarity we're wanting. Yeah. I think that's the clarity we're wanting. But does it open indoors box? Speaker 5: Well, it does have implications for other properties in the Shire because we, this is not the
00:49:00 first application that we've refused under the locals. We felt that they could operate short-term accommodation in their duplex notwithstanding the definition of a duplex under the 2006 scheme. Councillor Wegener: All right. Any questions? All right. Would somebody like to move the staff recommendation? Speaker 8: I'll second it. Councillor Wegener: Well, I'll move the staff recommendation. Mayor Clare seconded it. I think this is a really interesting case. It's something that's really interesting. I mean, again, it's kind of the second time that we've kind of been, a new sort of appeal has been laid on our lap and we've got to get our heads around it. It's sort of an appeal, a board appeal. So I'll definitely look forward to finding out what happens in this and support the staff
00:50:00 recommendation. Speaker 8: Yeah. I think it's a litmus test. I think it'll be very interesting instead of precedent going forward. So I too will be very interested to see the outcome. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councillor Wegener: Do we vote on this? All in favour? All in favour of the staff recommendation? Yeah. All in favour of the staff recommendation? That's unanimous. Speaker 8: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Which brings us to item seven, update 66. Oh, I'm sorry. Item 66. Item 66. Planning and Environment and Court Appeal D100 of 2022, enforcement in the notice of an operation of an airstrip without a development approval at Lake Weyba Drive, Missville. And we have a conflict of interest. Speaker 8: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to this matter as Kirsty Miller, the ex-wife of Mr. Bob Link, Director of Link and Link Surveys, PTY LTD, the applicant, donated $5,000 on the 12th of the 2nd of 2020,
00:51:00 $5,000 on the 6th of the 3rd of 2020, $1,900 on the 27th of the 2nd of 2020, and $1,900 on the 27th of the 2nd of 2020 to my 2020 election campaign. 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. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Wegener: And we have the Kerry Coyle to walk us through this case. Speaker 5: Yeah. So this property has a considerable amount of history around it. The current owner wasn't the original owner. And there was an approval given for an airstrip over the site in the 1990s. The approval was given and it was only a 10 year approval with the option to extend that by council. But the extension was never given by council. There then was a rezoning application approved by council. But there were some conditions of the rezoning approval that were never met. So consequently council never applied to the minister at the
00:52:00 time to amend the planning scheme to put in effect the rezoning approval. So one of the conditions was about... Obtaining a legal right of access to the airstrip. Because there was no legal right of access to that airstrip. There was no easement in place at the time. So this airstrip has been operating for some time without an approval that staff were unaware of. We became first aware of it in 2016-17 where there were some illegal works undertaken on the site. There was some clearing that occurred of some riparian vegetation as well as some... extensive fill placed in the man-made waterway on the site. So through that process we became aware that there was in fact no approval. And since that time we've been corresponding with the owner about rectifying that. Because our planning scheme does envisage an airstrip
00:53:00 on the site going forward. And so we've been trying to encourage the landowner to lodge a development application to rectify that matter. That hasn't been forthcoming. And in fact the owner has been using a re-delay tactic, I would say, to not progress that matter in any way. Now being an airstrip I consider it a significant safety issue to operate without an approval. We've also been receiving complaints from residents nearby during 2020 about the increase in the use of that airstrip, creating a noise nuisance. So I understood that there's been some training aircraft happening there. So a lot more activity over the airstrip than has been previously experienced by residents. So formal notices were issued under the Planning Act to the operator. With very...with not a satisfactory response received, the applicant
00:54:00 or the owner has opted to appeal the enforcement notice to the Planning and Environment Court. That's provided for by the legislation. So my recommendation to Council is that we join this appeal in order to address this matter and have it sorted out. Councillor Wegener: That's right. I'm sure there's a lot of questions about this, because this is a really heavy issue. I mean, my gosh, you know, a landing strip here. Anyway, question. Well, yeah, I have a... Speaker 9: Yeah, I think some appeals, you can understand the applicant's motivations and understand there's a genuine argument. When I read through the grounds they've made this appeal on, basically
00:55:00 they're claiming squatters' rights. They're basically saying because you haven't taken enforcement action before now, you shouldn't do it now because we've been here a long time. I would encourage... I would encourage the applicant and his legal team to take a more community-focused approach to this appeal. Make the...what everyone else who has got a development that has got approval Speaker 9: has the option to do, and that is apply for it, rather than waste ratepayers' money seeking to defer the inevitable. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. It seems, though, this is...this falls into a really deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep dangerous category where council could wind up being liable for allowing a landing strip plane taking off and doing incredibly dangerous activity, not to mention, you know, all the other rescue work that can go on there. And to allow it to go forward and be used without
00:56:00 an approval, to me, smells of a potential liability against us if something happens, you know. You know, if a plane crashes and people are injured, they can say, well, this field is obviously dangerous and council didn't even, you know, do...fulfill its job as regulators. Are we regulated? Is there...is there more to this? Speaker 5: Well, I certainly agree that given the nature of the use, it's important for council to follow this up and ensure that there's an appropriate approval in place. You know, air strips obviously have certain safety issues around them. And so I think it's important that we follow this up and see it through to the end. Obviously, you know, I don't want to talk about prospects in an open forum like this, and we certainly haven't had any advice around that. But in proceeding with the formal notices, we've taken legal advice around this to ensure that we're acting appropriately, to review
00:57:00 the history of the site and the development, and to review the fact that it has been sitting some time there without an approval. Council hasn't acted on it to date. So we have been taking advice all the way along to ensure that we're acting appropriately. But the legal advice is suggesting that, you know, the notices are appropriate, but we do need to address this because of the nature of the use. We've also got residents complaining about it. But yeah, an airstrip is also regulated not just by council, it is regulated by other legislation as well. But the starting point is to have an appropriate approval. So, you know, we're going to have to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to operate the use from the site. Councillor Wegener: Do you think that this appeal could be just another delaying tactic, as you mentioned that he's an expert at such things? Speaker 5: Possibly. Yeah, possibly. Certainly, you know, the action we took against the owner for the clearing of significant veg and fill was also appealed to the Planning and Environment Court.
00:58:00 But through the mediation process with the court, we reached agreement and a suitable outcome where there was rehabilitation undertaken. So I'm hopeful that we will get to that point again and the applicant or the owner will agree to lodge an application with council. Councillor Lorentson: It just seems like an expensive delay. Councillor Finzel: I get to speak because I'm at your table. Councillor Wegener: Sorry. Councillor Finzel has a question. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Look, my concern here, and especially, you know, in terms of, you know, in terms of with my administration background and keeping of records and things like that, I'm just a little bit, like, confused about the process around the request to state to approve an airfield. How has that been overlooked in an organisation? Speaker 5: Well, I can't answer exactly what happened in the 1990s, but there was, the onus was
00:59:00 on the applicant to meet the conditions of the procurement. There was a rezoning approval before an application was made to the state. One of those was around securing an access easement to have a legal right of access. That was not met by the owners at the time, and so the rezoning was not, didn't proceed. We couldn't, we didn't make application to the minister. Now, I can't answer to what happened in the 1990s as to why nothing further occurred. It's before my time. Councillor Finzel: So just for clarification. Since 1990. Yeah. Sometime in that time through till today. Yep. This airstrip has operated as such, as an airstrip, is that correct? Speaker 5: Yes, yes. Councillor Finzel: And at no point was there no other process available to council apart from getting the person to put the access in correctly to, I'm just not understanding, how does an airfield operate through the chair without approval?
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I'm just confused. Speaker 7: Confused about the process. Chair, I may be able to provide assistance. Yes. In my previous roles within local government, I've managed the Rockhampton Regional Airport, and then also the Whitsunday Coast Airport, and also Whitsunday Regional Council owns four separate aerodromes as well too. They're all classified at different levels under the regulations that CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, have in place. I believe that this isn't a registered aerodrome. So from where it's currently sitting, landing area, and I think what's best is that this particular motion before the council and this report is requesting that legal action be undertaken and further legal advice be taken by the officers. I would recommend that that report, the recommendation by officers, is taken by the council. As to finding out why and historically and where the aerodrome is either not delivering
01:01:00 to the requirements of whether that be CASA or otherwise, it is going to be a matter that we all need to understand from a legal perspective to start with. But the base order here in relation to the airfield is that it's going to be a matter of whether or not it's going to deliver to the operation of a landing area or an aerodrome as such, is that there isn't a planning approval that's currently in place. And that's the basis from which council is coming from as to what's actually happening on the ground. You then have all of the different other regulating bodies that are managing the movement of aircraft in and out of that aerodrome and a whole range of other matters. So our request as officers to the council is to first and foremost be authorised to undertake this action and undertake the legal advice that we need. And then on the back of that we can provide a more full brief to the council. But how and why it's been operating is for us to be able to come and provide more information to the council.
01:02:00 What we need to be able to do is have that authorisation move forward and that's what the planning team is requesting. Speaker 8: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Well, I'd just like to respond to that because I think, you know, to inform the decision today, that background would have been helpful to me because, you know, it looks like the appeal is going through based on, you know, amenity, noise, environmental impacts. I don't know, that sort of seems around the back to front way to me, but that's what we've left with today. Through the chair, can you, I don't know. Was there opportunity to have a workshop? Why didn't we not have a workshop on this? It seems quite significant. Given this airstrip is used through flood and disaster and training, which is really important given the climate events, I don't know, it seems quite significant and it comes to us as a report to an appeal around environmental and amenity uses.
01:03:00 That's what they say about people complaining about noise and noise. And aircraft activity from the airstrip. I'm just wondering how the environmental took the focus. We didn't get a workshop prior to this. Speaker 7: Through you, Chair. Councillor, we aren't the regulator as such of aviation and aircraft movements. As a council, our role is very much to be able to manage, as I said, those on ground requirements. So the planning team is correct and they are looking at the tools that are available to the planning team to be able to assess whether that this is a use that is relevant to that land and the requirement of that land and ensuring that it is legally approved to be able to be undertaken on that particular land. Other elements in relation to aircraft use, pilot training, disaster management, that all sits at a higher order, a higher level above what the base is, which is ultimately
01:04:00 to add the development of curriculum for the use of the land. Then all the other regulatory elements then sit within other element departments at varying levels between state and federal government. So Air Services Australia, you know, there would need to be a range of matters that would be looked at and, you know, if there was a development approval in place, I think it would be prudent for the council to ask for the owner to put forward some sort of a master plan to be able to demonstrate how they're going to develop the site in the future, how they deal with noise and amenity and all of those broader issues that we know that can occur around aviation facilities. But as to a wire workshop, this seems to be quite a historical issue and officers are just asking for that ability to take this next step. We do take some comments on board, though, councillor, and what we made is once we have those legal facts before us, that we can have a further workshop to the council. Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: It sounds like this is just the step one.
01:05:00 Speaker 5: It is. Councillor Wegener: And you can tell that the councillors are wondering, you know, obviously there's going to be quite a few more steps and we really would like to be briefed because this is moving forward towards the Olympics. This, the use of this aerodrome or airstrip will be, it'll get busier and busier and bigger and more and more important. Speaker 5: Yeah. And really, as I've indicated, what we have here is a use that's not lawful. It is operating in breach of the planning act because there is no approval. The planning scheme does support an airstrip on the site. So we're really seeking the applicant to make an appropriate application and come in and provide that plan for their site. So the goal isn't to shut the airstrip down, it's to ask them to make the application and regularise their use. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So that raises another question through the Chair. If it gets a development approval through this process, what other than an airstrip could the owners potentially use this block for?
01:06:00 Councillor Wegener: Well, actually. Councillor Finzel: Or is the DA just for a... Councillor Wegener: Is it a development approval or is this... Councillor Finzel: Today's an appeal. I'm just trying to just... Councillor Wegener: We're defending the appeal. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So if the appeal goes through to, you know, move the process along, what apart from an aerodrome, airfield, could the land be potentially used for once this approval has been given? Does it mean it will just be an airstrip or can something else be developed there? Speaker 5: So essentially we'll be looking for the court to confirm our request in the enforcement notice, which gives them the option to either cease the use or lodge an appropriate development application. Okay. So that's what we'll be seeking from the court. Yeah. So it'll be then up to them what they actually apply for to council, whether they just apply for a simple air landing strip or they apply for additional hangers or whatever activity is on the site. So at this stage, you know, there's only a basic airstrip with some hangers on the site.
01:07:00 There's not a lot of other activity and that's really for the applicant to decide what they wish to lodge. Councillor Wegener: Could you... Thank you. Councillor Stockwell asked a question about necessarily squatters rights and that's their defence and basically they can keep doing it because they've been doing it for so long. Okay. I mean, we can't ask for a legal opinion, but to me that's a bit weak. Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. It just... It is not unknown for the court to do that, where the court doesn't consider it a significant matter if something has been operating for a long time without an approval. Even though the council may be right that there's no approval, they may be reluctant to issue an order in some cases. We don't expect that to occur on this one because of the nature of the use and because we're getting those complaints from residents. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Thornton. Councillor Lorentson: So in 1990s, a 10 year approval was granted for the airstrip.
01:08:00 Speaker 5: Oh, I think the actual approval might have been the 80s, but it ran out in the 90s. Councillor Lorentson: So the... Part of the conditions of approval was there a noise management plan. So this... Was there a noise management plan, Kerri? First question. Speaker 5: I'll have to go back. Speaker 7: Through the Chair. Councillor Lorentson. The Australian noise requirements around airports were not brought in until the Australian Airports Act around 1996. So it's known as an ANEF. And that's a specific study that gets delivered around an aerogun. Do now then. Depending on the different types of aircraft, the way they're landing. And yeah, ultimately, the side of the engine, there's a whole range of things to be able to take into account. Whether it's rotary operations with helicopters. So an ANEF study would need to be done to ensure that noise was appropriate within the area. And then that would be incorporated into a planning scheme. Once that's incorporated into the planning scheme, then that starts to limit the development
01:09:00 around the aircraft. But it really wasn't until we saw major issues around our larger airports in the early to mid-90s of aircraft noise and aircraft movements that that legislation had been brought in. And it is now part of all airport master plans and generally would be part of planning schemes as well. So this is one that we need to get all of our details in place and then make a decision with the council as to how we move forward and the type of planning that we need to take into account to ensure that they were in place if we are going to have this move forward in the future. Speaker 5: Yeah. Even if there was a condition on the old approval given in the 80s, it's not enforceable because the approval has lapsed. Because the approval has lapsed. It doesn't exist. So we aren't able to enforce anything. What we can enforce is our planning scheme that requires a development approval. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question to go back to.
01:10:00 A comment was made earlier. Can you confirm that there's nothing in this report or the council's case that suggests that the airport is dangerous? Speaker 5: No. There's nothing in that at all. Councillor Wilkie: No. I didn't think so. Speaker 5: No. No. I'm just saying given the nature of use, fairly significant use, we should make sure that it has an appropriate approval. Councillor Wilkie: And is it, should an application eventually be lodged, are you able to comment on the likelihood of it being approved or not? Speaker 5: The scheme does support an airstrip on the site, but obviously can't, it is subject to an impact assessment process. So we'd need to make the assessment at that time and consider submissions from residents in the area as well. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. This issue seems to be really significant. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Is there a way we can expedite the court process? I know that you can be in a case and ask for it to come up the ladder because if it's not, there's no significance. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yes, you can.
01:11:00 And look, our solicitor, Tim, is ready to go with some orders in court, but I asked him to hold off until council had considered the matter and not progress it until we'd have this discussion. So yes, we can push things faster through the court, but we are subject to the court's timetable as well. Councillor Wegener: Could councillors help if we bring an amendment to the bill? To suggest that? To suggest that we recommend that we ask our solicitor to push this forward to expedite it? Speaker 5: Yeah, if council feels that it's a priority, yeah, we can have, I can draft an amendment to the resolution or motion for you. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Obviously, you're aware of airplanes and so forth, but I lose sleep over this stuff. I mean, why are you losing sleep over the fact that this, that the plane's landing here without an approval? Speaker 7: I, I, the regulation of the aircraft is not a matter for the council, the safe operation
01:12:00 of the aircraft is not a matter for the council, the use of the land is a, is a matter for the council. So I don't believe that the council is exposed in any way, but we do need to ensure that the appropriate approvals are in place. If there was to be an accident or an incident at the airstrip, that would then have CASA approval. Um, and then a whole range of other bodies would then go and investigate that. Um, that there may be an issue for, for the operator. But, but this is purely, um, speculation hypothetical. Um, you know, council officers aren't saying that there, there is a danger or an issue there at the airstrip as such. Um, but what we do say is that it is appropriate that it is approved, um, under our, um, planning scheme and has the appropriate conditions to ensure the humanity and the environment of the community is upheld. Um, and, and that's what we're seeking. But, uh, the regulation of the aircraft and their movements there, there as such is, is
01:13:00 not a matter for, for, for the council. Um, but the approval of what's happening on the ground, um, is, uh, and the council officers and the planning team are making the appropriate steps. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, and, and I understand this is a first step. But it would be great to understand the process, how this did go unnoticed for five, six years. Um, I don't know in what process. Um, but that understanding would be important, I think, to all the councils. Um, we're talking 2016, 2017, the approval lapsed. That's a significant amount of time. Yeah. Between then and now. Um, and something could have happened during that period which would have exposed council to liability. And my question is, did the audit and risk community pick it up? Yeah, it was. Or did governments pick it up?
01:14:00 Or was it just not picked up at all? Speaker 5: As I said, um, it was identified when we took action against the owner for the illegal clearing and fill that they did in 2016, 17. Um, we identified that the approval had lapsed at that point. Um, so those are the dates. Um, so we've been having discussions with the owner since that time. So, um, prior to then, officers were unaware. I, I can certainly document the history of the approvals for council, because we've had to do that for the solicitor. Um, but it doesn't sort of give you, I guess, answer your question fully, because I just don't know the answer. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Council, given that this is a legal matter and, and we are just requesting your approval to be able to proceed, um, could we have, um, those further questions in a workshop, um, with the council? Um, and, um, we, we, we do need to take our legal advice and council officers to be able
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 to provide the information for you and not prejudice any future, um, cases that we may be putting forward. Um, but, uh, it, it is a matter for the council. We're always here to, to answer your questions. Um, but at the same time, you know, we, we are just asking whether we can move forward from a legal perspective. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Scottwell. Your question. The other one. Yes. Speaker 9: I agree with the CEO. We have to be careful, which I probably wasn't, I suppose. Um, the question I had is, um, would it be appropriate to, um, advise CASA of this action? Or is that something staff would like to be included in a, um, resolution of council? Speaker 5: Uh, staff have already advised CASA, um, that the approval has lapsed and that we consider their site has no development approval and ask them to take what they consider appropriate
01:16:00 action. Okay. Um, their response has been that's for council to address, um, given we managed the land under our planning scheme. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Um, through the chair. Yeah. Well, a couple of things. Firstly, I'd like this, um, move forward to the next meeting. I'd like to request that. My concern. . Well, I want to speak a little bit further first. Look, the significance of this. Councillor Wegener: Just a little bit. I'll second that then you can. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. But can we keep talking? Yeah. Or is that just going to move it forward then? So I'll just hold off on that for a minute. Speaker 7: Um. Hm? We. So we don't have a move or a seconder. We're currently in, um. Well. In, in questions of officers at this point in time. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So I have a question then. I am really concerned about the significance of this coming today. And it's one page. You know, there's not even a timeline in this report.
01:17:00 You know, I don't know what questions to ask if I haven't got, you know, one page report to, you know, get further information to inform my decision making. Um, I think this is really significant at so many levels. For this Shire. For. And for everyone. And for, you know, everything discussed today. Um. I. I need more information. And I think just to go answer questions today was just significant. But if I don't have enough information to ask the question that I feel are necessary on such a significant issue. Um. You know. I know you've taken on notice that I'm not happy about the administrative process. But I also think a report of one page around this. And I did not go and speak to officers. Because I did not realise the significant or the, the um, far reaching ramifications of this until I've sat at the table today. So. I don't know how, what's the process to proceed forward.
01:18:00 Because I don't want to just make a decision today to rush this through. Because I don't feel I'm well enough informed. Speaker 7: Um. Through the Shire Councillor. Um. Um. Understanding how you're feeling and taking your comments on board. Um. Would you like to move procedural motion to table the matter. Um. Um. For a further workshop by council officers. Um. To be able to provide the information that you're seeking. And um. To be able to answer any other questions that we may have. We can then bring that back to um. If we are able to schedule that sooner rather than later this round of meetings. Um. Or with that tabling motion we can bring it to the next round of meetings. But um. If you're seeking further information um. Rather than move it to the general committee where you'll just have the continued debate again. Um. Um. From what I hear that you're saying is that, that you're looking for more information. You're looking to sit down with officers. Um. Absolutely. Maybe a tabling motion could be um. A way forward for you. Um. And if it's supported um.
01:19:00 By the members of the committee. Um. It can be tabled for a workshop. And if it's tabled for a workshop um. We'll then be able to sit down and have a further discussion around that. Councillor Finzel: Well thank you Mr CEO for that good feedback. Um. Just a question then to the CEO. Through the chair. Will that impact any way timelines around this legal situation that's happening? I'll just. I'll just explain. Yeah. Speaker 6: Sure. My, my recommendation would be to proceed with the recommendation with the subject of a further workshop. By putting this through at XBOT oh it's the time and we can continue provide instructions to ourselves that are continued. I think having a workshop nonetheless appreciate where you're at councillor. I don't think that's going to change the outcome of this recommendation. This, this recommendation is seeking to continue with the enforcement action. And I think from what I'm getting around the table we're going to continue with that action.
01:20:00 It's just you require that further information. I, I'd be recommending we proceed with the enforcement subject to we bring further information back to the table to help inform the process and the legal matter before us. Speaker 5: Yeah. We are subject to the court's time frame so essentially the court will not let matters sit there for more than three months. Okay. Because we've issued the enforcement notice we're obliged to take the action first. Sure. So how far along are we? I can find out the date of the appeal but I would say it's been in a couple of weeks already. Okay. So that gives some time. Councillor Finzel: So through the chair I'd like to actually put that to the vote to see if anyone's interested in the CEO's first suggestion that we table it and we come back to the table to see if there's any appetite for that. Councillor Wegener: So that, so that we, we're going to, we're going to support the, the motion and then. No. No. Councillor Finzel: No. Prior to supporting this recommendation. Yeah.
01:21:00 As per the CEO's suggestion that we could table this and bring it back, have a workshop, get more information. Speaker 7: The, the, the tabling motion just, just to assist Chair and Councillor Finzel. So do you want it to be a procedural motion to table the matter until the workshop can be held? That would be held as soon as possible. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Speaker 7: That would be the wording that you may, may look for that. And then once that has been held, we then have the ability to be able to bring that back onto an agenda. Yeah. And that may even be the general committee if we're able to have a workshop earlier. Yep. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 7: Essentially Thursday morning probably. There's a gap. Speaker 5: Sounds good. Speaker 7: Yep. Speaker 5: And if. There's a gap. But let me know what further details you'd like. That would be great. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. And we'll, I, one of the things particularly is a timeline and further information. Speaker 7: Let's have a discussion. Yeah. So Councillor Finzel's moving a, a motion to, to table the report.
01:22:00 Speaker 6: Tabling the report. Speaker 7: Tabling the report for a workshop. To provide more information for Councillor consideration. Okay. So, Mr Chair, I'm not going to second because I don't believe it's the right way ahead. There's a couple of things that help me make the decision to support the staff recommendation. And firstly, I've received several briefings on this, of which I think at least one has been in this term of Council. Speaker 9: And secondly, Council set up a process where Councillors are appointed to the case study working group. We're the details of these matters are addressed and I think it's good process to understand that not all councillors are on every different working group but that group's the one that has been given the responsibility to look at these issues and decide whether to proceed in the way that staff are recommending and this has gone through that due process.
01:23:00 I think it's that the problem we have is that it's dragged on for so long such that resident concerns aren't being met and I believe the information that's required could easily be obtained from sitting across the desk with a staff member before either the ordinary or the general committee. Speaker 7: So we do have a motion to move by Councillor Finzel. Chair is there a seconder to Councillor Finzel's take on the motion? Yeah, I'll second the motion. Okay, so that's been seconded by Councillor Wegener, so I think we should debate. Councillor Finzel: Can I have a question? Yeah, because with regard to this case study workshop, who was set on that? With reference to Councillor Stockwell's comment about a case study workshop. Speaker 5: So there's a case management working group which meets generally monthly.
01:24:00 Yeah, last week. Yeah, we met last week to go through all the planning appeals that are currently. with Council. At that meeting in attendance is the Mayor and Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell has just recently joined previously, it was Councillor Lorentson on that group. The CEO attends as well as myself and the Director and at times the Director of Finance also attends. So that is attended by our planning solicitors involved in our appeals to give advice on where we're going to move forward. So that's where the appeals are up to and also it's about strategising how we might address these appeals and go through those appeals in detail. There's not a decision making forum that is for Council, it's really a discussion around the appeals. So I have a question, a case study workshop then. Speaker 7: Sorry, through the Chair, the motion before the committee is a tabling motion, you should be debating the merits of the tabling motion that you have, either before or again.
01:25:00 Okay. The construct of the workshop and other elements, they can be dealt with at another time, but you need to do a promotion on the floor before you do that. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to the motion and I'll support the motion because looking around I think that other councillors in the room would actually like that. Second, this is such a big issue that I think we need all the councillors behind it and not doing it in front of the cameras, but behind it. Discussing legal matters and where to go. The big picture, because this looks like it's going to take a very long time. It's not going to go away anytime soon. So I'd like, yeah, I'll support that. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Tom. May I ask a question at this point, please? A procedural question. This is the first time in my experience where this committee is committing a whole council to a workshop,
01:26:00 which they may or may not wish to attend or even think is necessary. I'm suggesting that the general committee, if this was referred to the general committee, then that decision could more appropriately be made. That's my comment at this stage. Mr Chair? Yes. Speaker 9: It's probably one of those things you can't get from the standing orders about how these meetings have worked historically. And so while I understand the CEO's motivations, Councillor Frank is correct. Basically, the agreement we have on these meetings is if we agree with the staff recommendation, it goes through to ordinary. Speaker 6: If there's any variation from the staff recommendation, it is practised to send it to the general committee.
01:27:00 Speaker 9: It's not practised to vary the motions here. We generally only have a motion that either refers it or just wants to go straight through. Councillor Finzel: Well, I'd just like to respond to that because we just don't do things because of status quo. If it's in the standing orders that we can do it, we don't just default to status quo. Councillor Wegener: Is there an urgency to this matter? Speaker 7: Officers have advised councillors that the court won't wait for full counsel on this particular matter. But hearing the historical background in relation to committee to general, there is a motion before that needs to be dealt with first. But now having that context, that may help councillors in making that decision and then voting either for or against.
01:28:00 The motion that's before you. And now having that more full information, you can deal with that motion that you had and then move forward with what the recommendation, which has still been for the council to make that decision upon if it's not successful. So question, if this motion is lost, there's an opportunity for it to be referred to general? Councillor Wilkie: Absolutely. Speaker 7: Or the whole council can decide on the workshop? That's exactly right, councillor. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I'll take it to the vote then. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Yeah. Let's vote on this. All in favor? Okay. None in favor? Speaker 7: So vote. Okay. Motion is lost. So the timing of the motion is being lost. So I narrowed this back. So the motion is being lost.
01:29:00 Speaker 9: I'm happy to move that if you refer to the general committee for the purposes of further information, the first consideration of further information, something like that, whatever the standard one is. Yep. Further consideration. I don't want the further report. I don't think I just... Just make it for further consideration. And if there can be the outline of the background provided to councillors before, then that would help. Councillor Finzel: So I have a question. Through the chair. Oh, we've got a mover. Councillor Wegener: Oh. Second. Can I second both of those? Yeah. There's not three of us. You don't have to second. Yeah, you can second. Okay. Okay. Can I ask a gentle question? Councillor Finzel: So just how, then, is the process going to move forward if we're now putting this to the general? Does that mean what?
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 I make an appointment to come and see staff between here and the general? Or how does that work? Speaker 7: You can do that, Councillor Finzel. And council officers will provide further information to the whole of council. This will now move to the general committee agenda. And council officers will provide further information to the whole of council. And council officers will provide further information to the council to help satisfy some of the information that you need. Understanding that this decision is just asking the council to give authority to move forward with local action. Nothing more. So if there is further information that you need, I know that the planning team will be happy to provide. Councillor Finzel: Sure. Thank you. And then I have another question. This case study workshop that's been referred to, what group is that exactly? Is that the planning group? Speaker 7: That's the Standing Committee of Council, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: The case study workshop? Speaker 7: That is the workshop for all legal matters from a planning perspective that council is either defending or working on.
01:31:00 Councillor Finzel: And what's that called? Case Management Working Group. Case Management Working Group. And what's the process about how that feeds back to the councils? Speaker 7: It's a process that has councillors on that particular committee. And council provides a degree of guidance. Not direction, but a degree of guidance around legal matters that council officers are currently working with a number of different legal providers on. And that's specifically within the planning space. If we require further authorisation, a report such as this is brought to the council seeking authorisation. Councillor Finzel: So it's only through a report that I would hear about this around what happens in a case management. Is there another process? Or that's it? Speaker 7: Through the... Councillor Finzel, there is the ability for you to be able to caucus with your council
01:32:00 colleagues. To be able to discuss any matters. The governance that's provided around this is that it is the development, the manager of development, the manager of development, the manager of development, the manager of development assessment. Who is leading all of our legal work in relation to appeals and different pieces of legal work that's being undertaken. Myself as the CEO sit on that committee. I understand it's a long standing committee there as well. Corporate services will sit there. And then we have the mayor who is a member of all committees of council. But not for this particular matter. Due to the CLI that's already been spoken about. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell sit on that matter. So if you'd like an update about what occurs in that, please either... For most matters you can discuss directly with the mayor. But if the mayor is unavailable or any of the other members are unavailable due to the CLIs, you have the ability to talk to council where you know Councillor Stockwell on those matters as well.
01:33:00 Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Are there any other questions before I speak to the motion? Yeah. Well, I think bringing this to the general is... The proper procedure. Because this is obviously a real hot topic. And Joe's not in the room. I think that this is such a giant issue for council that it actually fits into the much broader planning scheme. I think that all of, you know, we should be discussing the vision of what is going to be there in the future. What Noosa needs. The... There's already complaints about noise. So how far can it grow concerning noise? There's just two things. There's a lot of elements here that council really needs to think about. I'll support the motion. Councillor Stockwell, would you like to speak to the motion? Speaker 9: Yeah. Well, I sort of waived my rights without waiving them for the opening. But if no one else...
01:34:00 I'll close. And I'll close by saying I don't think what we do on Monday is what you just said. I think we have to be careful that what we do on Monday is what you just said. I think what we're doing is making a decision to proceed to enforce a matter of non-compliance with the planning scheme. Speaker 9: And the decision about what it looks like in the future would be one we'd have if the operator or landowner decided to do the... What we think is the right thing, which is to apply for a use of the site as an airfield. Speaker 9: There are two separate matters. One is... One is saying, are we going to stand up for the enforcement order, which we've issued? The other is, you know, what, if they do apply, what would we do with that application? Councillor Wegener: Okay. All in favour?
01:35:00 That's Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel: Is this in favour to refer it to the general committee? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Sorry. Oh. And... That's... That's... That's... That's... That's... Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Good. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: We have Item 7, Update to Infrastructure Charges Resolution, and we have... Speaker 3: You can just call me Ludd. That's what everyone does, always. Okay, Council's Charges Resolution sets the level of infrastructure charges that's issued
01:36:00 on development, and that's for collecting funds to assist with paying for upgrades and new infrastructure that's brought about due to new development. It's also governed by the Planning Act, and particularly the Planning Regulation as to the quantity of the charges, or maximum amounts. Every year, the charges are indexed, and this is simply an administrative amendment to bring Council's current charges resolution from last year up to this financial year, as set by the Planning Regulation, Schedule 16. So it's the same as what happened last year, we just updated. The charges get indexed anyway, it's just it makes it a lot simpler by using the current
01:37:00 legislation and more transparent when we issue the charges, calculate it and issue it to the applicant. So... You know, they're actually issued and calculated on today's, or this financial year's rate, rather than calculating it under the previous financial year, and then using the indexation process that's governed by the legislation. Councillor Wegener: Okay, so this is just, this is updating, a regular annual update? Speaker 3: This is a regular annual update, yeah. Speaker 8: Any changes, though? Speaker 3: No changes, other than the quantum amounts. Okay. All the charges that Council had previously reduced are at the same levels, the percentages are exactly the same. So you'll see, and a lot of, most of the Councils, particularly in the South East, use all maximum charge rates. Council has a number of uses, or classifications, which we have reduced the charge, particularly
01:38:00 with dwelling units and retirement homes. Where the demand is considered to be less or we can have always considered it to be less so it doesn't seem right to charge a one bedroom dwelling the same as a two bedroom dwelling. Whereas the maximums you can charge the same but yeah there's no there's no changes in the percentages that previously been approved. Speaker 5: I don't have any questions. Thank you for the report. So this is a fairly procedural one that happens every year. You would have seen the reports before. I contemplated whether Council may wish to delegate this to officers in the track, given we're really just implementing the state's changes to the charges. But we didn't put it in the recommendation this time, but it's something to consider.
01:39:00 Speaker 8: I'm happy to move it. Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm happy to second. Councillor Wegener: Okay, Clare, do you have a second? Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you. This is, as Kerry said, this is procedural. No great changes. The reductions that the community received last year continue. Speaker 3: All the rights. You'll see. We're very up front with the reductions we've applied, and those percentages are identical to those. So the amounts go up, obviously, but the proportion is less. Speaker 8: Yeah, and thank you for bringing it, Kerry, to the table. You know, it is potentially one we could discuss in the future about delegating, but I think it's good at the moment for the community. You know, this is on the agenda. They can see it and do it, have the information that we have in front of them. Yeah, we think that's good. Yeah, thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Any comments, questions?
01:40:00 Councillor Lubbocko? Okay. We'll take it to the vote. Close? No, thank you. Okay. Let's put the motion to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous? Speaker 8: Thank you, Luke. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: We have the last item, planning applications divided, presided by delegated authority. Do we have any conflicts of interest? We usually do. No. Councillor Lorentson: Page 5. Councillor Wegener: No. Speaker 8: Page 5.
01:41:00 Which number? Page 5. Page 5. Page 5. Oh, hang on. Which number? Let me see. Page 5. Speaker 8: No, no, all good, thank you, thank you, Councillor Lorentson for looking out for me, I appreciate it. Councillor Wegener: So it's good that we look out for each other again. Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely, yeah, because you can miss it, you know, I went through twice, but you can miss things, but no, no, no conflicts there. Speaker 5: Alright, so this little report is just listing all the applications that were decided for the month of June. During that time there were 36 applications decided. Um, by officers, so, um, I just have a question.
01:42:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just, um, around the material change of use on page 98 for the Pomona Country Markets. Speaker 5: What's, what's actually gone on there? Uh, the Pomona Country Markets has never had a development approval. Um, they were wishing to, um, increase the number of times they operate, if they came in with the appropriate approval. Um, I'd have to go back exactly the number of times, come back to you with some more detail on that. But essentially, they were ratifying their current approval, or their current use of the site, because there's never been a development approval. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Is one muted? Speaker 5: Yes, yes. Councillor Wegener: Does the development approval have a, uh, a cap on how many stalls can be set up there? Speaker 5: Yeah, yep, so we ask, um, the market operators to give us a plan of their layout, and also specifying the number of stalls. Which goes to, sort of, the scale of, of the markets, and how often they wish to operate, and, um, general timing.
01:43:00 So I can, I can send around the delegated reports, if councillors would like to have a look at that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, yeah, thank you, I'd appreciate that. Um, given to, like, you know, if we're looking at the development of Stan Topper Park, you know, just an indication to know how big the stall's gonna be, and how much land use that'll take up, because, you know, there's design process around how we're gonna manage that park in the centre of town, so I think this is quite significant. Um, so yeah, I'd appreciate that, thank you. Sure. Councillor Wegener: Um, one, a slightly different topic is, um, the Kin Kin market. So it's becoming more and more popular. Speaker 5: Oh, great. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, they, they, um, do, they, they have a development up? Speaker 5: Yeah, they have a recent development approval for, for, uh, the market stock rate, yep. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. I heard when I, did it go up to 70 stalls? Do you know? I don't know. Speaker 5: I'd have to check. Councillor Wegener: I just get very excited about it. Yeah, I think we all do. Yeah.
01:44:00 Councillor Finzel: 129. Operational works. Speaker 5: I'll have to look at that one for you, Councillor, so I'm not sure. It is fairly common for dredging works to be undertaken in the river with, obviously, piles. But, yeah, I'm not familiar with the details on this one, so I'll need to come back to you. OK, thank you. Councillor Wegener: Because it's an use of wood, would that be something that the mayor's been promoting, which is dredging for the dock, the ferry and the plot terminal? No, I've never seen this before. Speaker 8: Yeah, that's why I raised it. And the applicant's the state of Queensland, the government. The state government's the applicant. Speaker 7: Could it be the seat? It's not the same. Oh, I wonder what it is. It's a government application. But they're maintaining their land. They're maintaining their land.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 They're maintaining their land. Yeah, OK. Speaker 5: Yeah, so the dredging is obviously occurring in the river. The property there is just the nearest... It's the nearest property in order to assign the application to it. But I'll get you further details on that. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'll move the report. Speaker 5: I'll second it. Councillor Wegener: OK, I don't need to speak to it. All in favour? Speak unanimous. That brings us to the end of the meeting.