Start of recording ¶
00:07:00 Speaker 3: It'll be landscaped, so the parkway will come past a landscaped area, and then, yes, then there's a small section that is going to be on the side of the building.
00:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, my main thing is I think we take every opportunity to try and get a finished look and feel in our laneways that isn't road concrete. Speaker 3: This one also, as you can see on the plan, there is also a landscape setback that they have provided. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'm more thinking about our space rather than their space. I'm thinking about... Speaker 3: In Women's Lane. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, in Women's Lane. Yeah. The area we're taking back, it would be good to have a design concept. Like we talked about this on the other side, too, is how do we design these lanes so that it does allow vehicle traffic, but when you're in there, you get the real feeling. I suppose in cycleway strategy, it's a bike street. Mm-hmm. Speaker 5: Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, Ryan. You are correct. We're waiting for the design piece to occur from our infrastructure team regarding the laneways. Yes. And the desired outcomes, and to make them more pedestrian-friendly, at the planning
00:09:00 scheme point of view, what we can do is get that two metres of dedication, which Nadine's done in this instance. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. And we're not getting them to construct anything at this stage? Speaker 5: In the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In the dedication? Speaker 5: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. No. Okay. I'm fine with that. Can I just add one? Yeah. Speaker 5: Can I just add one other point while I've interrupted? I do note the recommendation refers to number three as a street address. Is it actually number two? Speaker 3: It is number two. Thank you, Patrick. Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 1: Did you get that, Catherine? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to refer it to general. Mm-hmm. And we might, if you, we're going to have a chat, we're going to have a talk about what conditions or whatever might be added to get to a, just a slightly approved sign, if that's
00:10:00 okay. Speaker 5: So do you want us to have a look at that, Brian, to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, please. ...to prepare something? Yeah. Okay. So you can refer the report? So I refer the report. Yes, thanks. Councillor Wegener: Before we go to that, we, any other questions before we get to that? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Karen. Karen. Yeah. Thank you. I've just got a question then about the entry into the property, if it's going to be through the women's lane. What about, like, traffic if you're coming down there and the left, you know, just before the crossing if you're turning up there? Which way are you, like, thinking people will enter? Because that's the significant, you're coming off the roundabout, down past, you know, where the building is, you're going to turn left. There's a crossing there as well. How much of the hold-up of the traffic is there going to be with vehicles turning into women's lane? Has anyone done a traffic report on that? Speaker 3: The planning scheme is encouraging of access and utilising these laneways for vehicular
00:11:00 access. So, this is actually what we're wanting to achieve to provide, to reduce our number of conflict points on Emerald Street. So, no, I don't believe, well, I'm not aware of us having a council preparing sort of a traffic analysis, but the planning scheme supports access through the rear and that's what we've been promoting. The other lots down further from this have all access through the rear. Councillor Finzel: And so, your rationale is that you think this will help alleviate? Speaker 3: It reduces the conflict points and makes a more pedestrian area along Emerald Street. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 3: And the planning scheme is requesting that access be taken from the laneways. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I can see that can create a congestion point along there, but that's my opinion. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to follow on from that, the point of that being that the loading and unloading is to be at the rear of the property, not the front of the property? Speaker 3: That's correct as well.
00:12:00 Yes. There's a service, there's a service bay provided on site as well. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: And just to follow on, is Women's Lane one-way or two-way? It's only facilitators of one-way, one-way traffic? Actually, I'm not sure. I think, yeah. Gotcha. It's a hard scale. Councillor Lorentson: Imagine trucks in there. Councillor Jurisevic: So, when there are trucks in there at the end of the road. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It makes sense for it to be one-way. Councillor Jurisevic: And that would assist with the traffic issues as well, I would suspect. Councillor Finzel: Well, if you condition the entry from the other end. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: From Waddle Street. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's where most people access from. Councillor Finzel: And then make it one-way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Or even block off Waddle Street from Maple Street. Make that whole pedestrian access up that end. Councillor Lorentson: Is that familiar? Hi, Nadine. Thank you for your report. In terms of condition number 20, car parking, I note there that one disabled parking space
00:13:00 is required. Sort of just a question. I've been talking to residents in Cooroy and they're requesting, actually, more disabled car parking spaces. Does the planning scheme need to be changed? Does the planning scheme prescribe only one disabled car parking space? Or do we have the ability, in terms of conditions, to require two disabled car parking spaces? Speaker 3: The planning scheme actually only identifies the number of car parking spaces. So it's a rate of one car parking space per 20 square metres of floor area. The Australian standards dictates the requirements for pedestrian... For... For disabled spaces. So it's an Australian standard. So if we provide a...
00:14:00 They're actually... For a disabled space... I think they're... They're not called disabled spaces anymore. They're... Councillor Lorentson: All access. Speaker 3: All access. Yeah. So they're almost two car parking spaces wide. So you have one car parking space and then you're required an additional... Almost an additional car parking space. So they'd be... They could provide... Again, as I said, it's an Australian standard. So these guys would have provided as per the Australian standards. So we'd have to... We'd be asking beyond that. Now the planning scheme doesn't detail those requirements. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to discuss that further with you after the meeting, Nadine. Speaker 3: Yeah. No worries. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Thank you. So, Dean, following on, I mean, I think Amelia is right. I mean, one in five Queenslanders have a disability. So that would effectively mean there should be four disabled car parks in this space, but again, around 22 car parks. Yeah. So, I mean, maybe those... I know we're constrained with the standards we have to adhere to, but it might be worth
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 something to... Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. And there's actually a shortage of disabled car parking spaces in Cooroy, so this might be a good opportunity. Mayor Stewart: We did them well where the Hinsland Playground, there's a couple of, I mean, I've presented the ones that are right there, but they're great. So it might be an opportunity to discuss later. Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, we can have a look at it, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, following on from that, given that what's been, what's been provided in the drawing on the page nine, that the upper level could be office or medical centre and there could be medical uses there. Could the access for disabled people be more available given that there's a lift for disability compliance to access the second house on the upper level? Is that an opportunity? That we may be missing to provide an extra disabled parking space?
00:16:00 Speaker 3: Well, that's, as I said, if it complies with the Australian standards, that's what the applicant has provided and the disabled space is, is close to the lift as well, has easy access to the lift. Again, we'll be dropping another space, so, but it would, I'd have to have a, have to have a look into that further, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reframe the question. Is there an opportunity there to talk to our staff with regard to the car parking in front of, I'm assuming that's all council allocated car parking in front, whether there isn't a capacity for an additional disabled parking space out the front of the building? Yes, I'll, that's. Speaker 2: Chair, just, I suppose just to comment on the disabled parking, appreciate the, the sentiment in terms of the question about the all access bay or an additional, additional bay for this development. I suppose that needs to be looked at if, if, if you're indicating or there's communities indicating there's a shortage of spaces in that particular centre, that's probably something that needs to be looked at at a broader sort of, you know, in terms of work that's happening in terms of, you know, parking for that particular centre and then identifying some key locations where perhaps that access, those access bays can be provided.
00:17:00 We can certainly have a look at it, but if the applicant's complying with the standard and the planning scheme, we just need to bear that in mind in terms of whether we impose, they might be quite happy to do that, but if they come back and say, look, no, we've, we've, we've got one space and providing space that we just probably need to negotiate or have further discussions, but if there's issues across the centre where there's a. Councillor Lorentson: I've already put in some request for that. Speaker 2: Right, okay, yeah, yeah, so that's probably what we need to be, be looking at at a broader level. Councillor Jurisevic: But I would still love the opportunity to maybe go back to the applicant and ask the question if that's okay. So the opportunity may be within the place making or planning of the centre as a whole in the future to review parking and parking provisions and needs. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you, through the chair, I think this is a good opportunity then to, you know, widen out the conversation.
00:18:00 I guess Larry's stepping in for the CEO today, so through, through the chair and the CEO. Is there opportunity to request back to staff to look at this across the Shire, perhaps in a role of advocacy or changes to strategic planning around looking at the Australian standard for all access parking across the Shire? Speaker 4: Yeah, look, that's, that's, that's all easily possible. We've, we've only just recently done a car parking study for all of our centres. So we need to go back and have a look at that. See what, it should have identified the various types of parking available. I, off the top of my head, I don't know, but we can go back and look at that. And I agree, it's part of a place making exercise. That's what, that's what we should be looking at. Yeah. No question. I think this one is more the fact that it, Chair, this one meets the standards and that's where, that's where we're at right now.
00:19:00 It meets the standards. If we impose extra parking just on this particular one, then, you know, they have to meet the standards, which is 20 car parks for the size of the space, I'm assuming. 23. 23. Yep. And they meet those standards. So if we put an extra car park in, that's going to reduce that number, essentially, because it's two car parks per disabled park or access park. So we need to, we need to look at that. So that's the question that needs to be discussed and raised. If we want to impose that, that's, that's going to be the, the, the answer for that or the impact that that will have. But then we can look at a broader one and that's a bigger discussion that we need to have, I think. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Larry. I'm all good. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Is there a question for me? Councillor Frank? Any questions? No, thank you. Okay. So Brian has made a motion. Do we have a seconder to refer this to General? Yes. Okay. Councillor Finzel, second? All in favor? It's unanimous. Perfect.
00:20:00 Okay. Number two, Embassy View 21 slash 0146, Representations to a Development Permit for a Material Change of View, Multiple Dwellings, 90 Dwellings, at 2833 Road, Noosaville. And we have Patrick Murphy online. Speaker 5: Good morning, everyone. You probably recall this application, recently decided by Council for 90 small dwelling units on Hofmann Drive. And the applicant has now made representations to the decision notice requesting the review of three conditions. One of those relates to the condition regarding the requirement for the units with the study to only be used as a study. And then the other conditions relate to the performance bonds. There were two performance bonds. One of the issues there related to the wording within the condition for the $50,000 performance bond.
00:21:00 The applicant felt that it was unclear as to when the bond could be returned. They felt that it would potentially be maintained for the life of the development. And the other one related to the vegetation bond. Speaker 5: On review of the representations, we're agreeable to deleting conditions 5 and 53. Condition 5 relating. On the basis that the proposed design of the room complies with POA, the Sustainable Building Design Code. Also seeking to make a minor change to condition 14 to clarify as to when the bond could be released. And in relation to condition 53, agreeing to delete that condition because the condition 14 for the $50,000 bond adequately covers any risk that might be associated with the development of the building.
00:22:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay, do we have any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A sensible response. Councillor Wegener: Anybody? Yesterday we had a discussion of the differences between the acceptable outcomes, performance outcomes, and purpose and overall outcomes. And that there's a hierarchy amongst the way we think. And of course on top of that is the strategic outcome. And when I look at this, I think of what sort of places do we want people to live in, in itself. And a question, when I was looking at the question on page 17, there's a diagram of the space. And it appears to me though,
00:23:00 you have the bathroom on one side, and the living area on the other side, and the room is in between. Is that correct? Speaker 5: That's right. So you've got an entrance door. So one wall of the bedroom is up against an internal hallway. Then there is a wall that abuts a living kitchen area. And that wall has both a door, and a window. And then the other wall abuts the bathroom. And you'll even see, beside that floor plan, you'll see the image of the wall with the door and the window. And that, in our opinion, complies with the requirements of PO 8 of the Sustainable Building Design Code, which requires a minimum of two openings per habitable room. Council, Speaker 5: I take your point Tom, you might not be happy with that, but with the wording as it is, we do consider it complies.
00:24:00 If it had said something like it contains a minimum of two openings each to a different wall, then we would have been able to look at this one differently. Councillor Wegener: So apologies for my ignorance here, but is this a three bedroom proposal, or is it two bedrooms in the diagram? Speaker 5: This is a, sorry Tom, this is a two bedroom proposal. It was initially a one bedroom plus a study, and the condition required that the study could only be used as such. We're seeking to change, we're agreeing to the applicant's representation to change that condition to allow the room to be used as a bedroom on the basis of its compliance with PO 8. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Okay. Sorry, I thought that that little rectangle in the middle was the room in question, but it's not, that's the sink I guess.
00:25:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's laundry. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, laundry, okay. Obviously you see my concern. Thank you for that. Yep. Question, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, just to clarify that Patrick, I think the provision in the original was to be a half wall as opposed to a closed wall. What I see from page 17, the indication with the arrow on the window is that it's an opening window, so that creates two openings, a door and a window that can open to the one wall. Is that correct? That is correct, Joe. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: How do you move stuff? I think that Sean had the second one. Councillor Wegener: Okay. No more questions? Yeah. Should we go on? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I, oops. I'm sorry. I'll write it for you. Yeah, no worries. But to go to the highest point, the strategic intent in the scheme is that different housing types and styles are needed to provide choices, ensuring people's housing needs are catered for, regardless of age and mobility, household size and budget.
00:26:00 By providing housing choice in each local area, a greater mix of people and ages are accommodated, and this can provide a more diverse community. So these small two bedroom ones, a variety of uses, but the one that probably is under consideration is for single parents, particularly if there's shared care, that you have one main bedroom where the single parent is, and then when you have your children over, you've got another one that can be used for the children or as your office. And so this fits a need. We know there's other places where it occurs that haven't got planning approval for it to occur, so this is fitting that overarching strategic need of having housing choice. Councillor Finzel: I agree. Well said. Thank you. And don't forget the grandparents when the grandkids come. Okay. Councillor Wegener: So we've moved a seconder for the staff recommendation. I'll put it to the vote. All in favor? I see none of us.
00:27:00 Okay. We're off to Planning and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda Number 3, RAL21-0003. We have a motion to reconfigure a lot, one lot into two lots at 21 Girirrima Crescent, Kariba. We have Patrick Murphy to talk us through this. Do you want to mute, Patrick? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It never made so much sense. Speaker 5: Yeah. The best swap ever made. Thank you. Sorry for that. As you said, this is a... This is a rural residential lot in Kariba, which the applicant is seeking to reconfigure for one into two lots. The lot is constrained by flooding. The bushfire overlay has riparian buffer and vegetation protection in accordance with the Biodiversity Overlay Code.
00:28:00 The applicant has provided a site for the house, which is outside the probable maximum flood. However, they've not demonstrated that access. There's been some discussion with the applicant with regards to what the extent of ecological protection should be on the site through a covenant. Council officers have sought for that to reflect the covenant, which was required on the adjoining allotment, which you may recall was one that was originally refused, but an outcome was negotiated on appeal. Speaker 5: So as I said, we've sought that the covenant on this site and the vegetation protection reflect what was on the adjoining site. The applicant hasn't agreed to that.
00:29:00 They're just seeking for 10 metres either side of the waterway to just naturally regenerate. And because we're not in agreement on that issue, it's our position that there should be a broader covenant. But that also brings into light the impact of that greater vegetated area in terms of Speaker 5: bushfire risk and the suitability of that house site in relation to the bushfire risk. So we've got a number of issues that we feel that haven't been adequately addressed and resolved by the information provided by the applicant. And therefore, we are recommending that this application be refused. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Patrick. Questions starting with? I'm sorry, Joe. Go ahead. Councillor Wegener: Joe, it's the same thing. Brian, you probably have a couple of questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just getting my thoughts together at the moment.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Just with regard to the proposed covenant, Tom, the applicant's requesting 10 metres of revegetated buffer. What's the proposal from staff in the covenant as to what the buffer, the riparian buffer should be? Speaker 5: Well, as I said, to reflect the covenant on the adjoining allotment, which was 10 metres to the eastern side of the waterway and then the remaining extent of the riparian buffer on the western side. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is how wide? Speaker 5: I'd have to measure that for you. Fortunately, I'm in front of a computer, if you're happy to weigh. Councillor Jurisevic: Does 75 metres sound correct? Speaker 5: It would be. 75 metres? It's likely to be in the order of that distance. That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: The question raised by the applicant when I spoke to him yesterday was, in creating a 75 metre buffer, are we actually creating a bushfire hazard by revegetating to that extent?
00:31:00 Speaker 5: Well, that's part of the question that we're asking, Joe. We consider that the ecological outcomes are very important on this site and throughout the Shire, and certainly the scheme is pointing us that way. So seeking the revegetation in accordance with the scheme, it does require the proposed house site to be, you know, some science to go into whether that is suitable in terms of bushfire risk. And the applicant hasn't gone there. Councillor Jurisevic: We don't know at this point. I'll ask it in a different way. If we had a house, if we had a house on a lot, what are they allowed to create in the way of a buffer around the property to avoid bushfire risk? Speaker 5: The exemptions for bushfire relate to necessary clearing.
00:32:00 So that will often be determined by a bushfire consultant who will look at the misuse of materials of the house and the risk of the bushfire in terms of the vegetation type, the slope, the aspect of the vegetation in terms of the house, and determine what should be an area that is suitable to be cleared around the house. So that, you know, can relate to different bowel levels. But there's also an allowance in the scheme for one and a half times the height of the nearest vegetation. So a buffer to that area. But it has to be necessary clearing. It has to be for the purpose and only for the purpose of bushfire protection. Councillor Jurisevic: So the difference here in creating a house site and having to re-vegetate a riparian buffer is that the house site may not be sufficient for a house to exist without a bushfire risk. Is that the... That is correct.
00:33:00 Speaker 5: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Patrick, can I just... We all got some information from the applicant. We all got some information from the applicant. And there was a report prepared by Equilibrium Ecology. Speaker 5: Are you aware of that report? Yep. I'm familiar with the report. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So they say something a bit different. So I'm just wondering if you've actually had the opportunity to, I guess, go over that report and make some comments because the report... That report? Speaker 5: Yeah. My apologies. Sorry. Mayor Stewart: No, no. Please continue. Speaker 5: The report's certainly been reviewed by our environment officer. But I think the issue at play here is that we're not in agreement with the extent of the suitability of the re-vegetation in that riparian buffer area. Mayor Stewart: So just to Joe's point, though, it says it demonstrates that people and property will remain safe in the event of a bushfire.
00:34:00 These matters can all be conditioned. Speaker 5: Well... The report is based on a 10 metre wide natural regeneration, 10 metres each side of the waterway, which is less than the extent of vegetation enhancement that we're seeking in accordance with the scheme requirements. Speaker 5: So the report is not consistent or it doesn't address the potential extent of vegetation, which the scheme requires. Okay. Mayor Stewart: So potentially the report... So there's two different things then. What you're saying is the report says that... Sorry. You're probably having trouble hearing me. The report says it doesn't meet those ecological values. But then... But potentially then if we take away the... But it does then address the bushfire? Is that what we're saying? Speaker 5: Well, if we were to accept that 10 metres each side of the waterway was sufficient,
00:35:00 then that would be... Yeah. In terms of the ecological outcomes. Yeah. Then the report would be talking to that and has demonstrated that the risk from that Speaker 5: extent of vegetation enhancement is suitable, as seeking a 60 metre buffer. Mayor Stewart: So I... Okay. Speaker 5: So we don't consider that is acceptable in terms of the extent of ecological enhancement, and therefore it's not acceptable. Speaker 5: It's something that can't be conditioned because we don't know whether it can be achieved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thoughts together on this one. So the next door block was subject to a heated, a very well informed debate.
00:36:00 The difficulty we've got in this site... Upstream is quite good quality, what I think is a chain of fill wetland system, which our planning scheme has indicated they think it's a waterway. I think that's only since European settlement that it's become a waterway, just because of the nature of the landscape. The difference between this one and the one next door is immediately adjacent to this one is some... Yeah. ...eco systems, matters of state environmental significance. So it is desirable to extend that rehabilitation into it. Now the scheme adopts 100 metres. That's based on providing, trying to get these areas to be corridors for a range of wildlife, not just the aquatic habitats. So from an aquatic rehabilitation perspective, you don't need 100 metres to achieve the
00:37:00 ecosystem. One of the things I argued next door was there's actually more value considering the level of degradation, because this waterway is extensively damped. So you won't have a lot of natural values, except when you've got water flowing over the top, so you get connectivity that way. But the back of the block is a koala habitat, it's remnant vegetation. And to me, there is opportunity to refine what we want in the right period of time. So we're not saying what we're not requiring there. We want you to try and if you look at the site, if you bring up the map, Cathy, so we can see the back, how it's sort of a triangular... In the agenda. Yeah.
00:38:00 So you see the area... No, go down. Yeah. See the area that's... Speaker 5: Just like a shower for Patrick. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. You can see the area at the rear, I think that's flood mapping they've got shown in the... Or is that the... I'm not sure what the purple is. I think it is the flood mapping. The area to the rear of the block, if you've got these two blocks being vegetated up there, you're actually building on a larger remnant piece. So you're actually, you know, it's better conservation value by getting your larger
00:39:00 tracts to be bigger. And that's what, you know, actually transferring some of that rehab to the back of the block rather than to the creek would work. And then to me, I'm happy with trying to go away and find an outcome if there is any flexibility in the applicant in that regard. And then we just have to think about the flood prone access. And I suppose that would... I suppose the key question is it can't be any worse than Nextdoor that we only just approved. Speaker 5: Nextdoor is different, Brian, because the house site's to the front of the lot. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, have you... Is the negotiated settlement having a house at the front of that creek now, is it? Speaker 5: Yes. Well, because... Ah, okay. Because all... To the rear of that site... If you look on... In the report... I'll just... There's a... The... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On page 31 of the report, it details that covenant that was agreed to Nextdoor.
00:40:00 Okay. Speaker 5: And that's, you know, obviously informing our thinking. And when you talk about linkage, we're also seeking linkage into that covenant on the common boundary. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speaker 5: But as you'll see, there's a building on the right to the front of the lot. There are some differences. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that was... Yeah, sorry. That was... That's different to how they start their original approval, because they originally had their house on the black on that one. We obviously negotiated during the mediation process to have it up front. Speaker 5: Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Now, that makes sense. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Patrick. In relation to that block Nextdoor, where does the house lot sit in relation to the covenant? It's... Speaker 5: It's on the front. Lot 11. So the adjoining property? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See number 11? Yeah. Speaker 5: You'll see the hatched area on page 31. So the yellow area is the covenant. And sort of to the right of the number 11 on that is the building on the lot.
00:41:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So it's got... It has gone completely to the front of the property? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Interesting. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So... And if you had a similar level of re-vegetation to that, then you would definitely have bushfire issues on the nominated house side here. So, yeah. Okay. So it's something to think about, isn't it? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So is that an outcome that could be achieved on this property as well, if the applicant was willing to look at some dividing at the front in two halves rather than at the rear of the property? Or has that not been discussed with the applicant? Speaker 5: Okay. I'm just having a look at... Because I think the extent of flooding, if you go to...
00:42:00 If you go to page 27, the front of the site is significantly constructed. So that's showing my flooding. Speaker 5: So where the house site is at the moment is out of the flood area. So if... Again, if you go to page 27, you'll see that the PMF mapping on that page, which would also line up with the flood hazard overlay. Yeah. Okay. So the opportunity's not there, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all right. All right. I think there's a couple of other questions. Councillor Wegener: Would somebody like to move it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Refer to General for further consideration. Councillor Wegener: Thank you for that, Councilman, for a second. Put it to vote. All in favour? Thank you.
00:43:00 Item number four, Transport and Main Road Environmental Offset, page 34. Good morning. Speaker 1: Council, this report is basically doing two things. It's making aware that the fact that we're entering into negotiations with Transport and Main Road, so we're seeking to be saving sites to offset vegetation losses, a necessary result of their infrastructure projects. And the second thing we're doing is making aware that we're developing an offset. Environmental offset policy, which we'll be reporting to you in a future Council round, once we've gone through internal consultation. So how this basically came to light is about six months ago, we started to talk to Transport and Main Roads about the proposed six-mile creek bridge replacement project, because we actually, before that stage, we weren't consulted, so we made aware of it. So they sent us the Oricon report, which I sent you as an attachment.
00:44:00 We spoke to them about a number of issues we had with that, were able to resolve those issues as much as we can, bearing in mind that we're not... we're not really assessing the application that's being referred to the State and the Commonwealth for assessment under matters of national environment significance and state environment significance. So we don't actually have any assessment role, we're just basically in the server role. But as a result of those conversations, they advised us actually seeking receiving sites to offset vegetation loss from the infrastructure projects. And we suggested we may be able to accommodate that, bearing in mind that currently all those receiving sites are not being... offset in Noosa Shire, they're going to Sunshine Coast Council and elsewhere. So we're actually getting a net loss of biodiversity out of the Shire. So I guess it represents a bit of an opportunity for us for the... I mean, offsets, they're not perfect. You know, you can't replace a remnant forest with things sitting in tree guards. It takes a long, long time. It's got a lot of failings, but it's better than nothing.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And the second part about it is, as you see in the report, it could have some significant financial benefits for our community in terms of job creation for our hinterland economy. So that's pretty much where I'm coming from, in a lot of ways, with the financial benefits. Councillor Wegener: Question with the financial benefits, you know, you said that $20,000 per year, which over the next few years may be $1.2 million over coming into the Noosa Shire. That's a pretty significant amount of money. Well, it is. That mostly goes to labour and land care for growing and planting the trees, is that correct? Speaker 1: Correct, yeah. People grow nurseries, you know, sort of bush regeneration companies like Noosa Land Care or some of the other local companies. So it's going into our local economy, potentially. I mean, it could be more than $20,000 an hectare. We're just still having those negotiations with TMR. So basically it's getting, we've had about three or four meetings with them. So this report is basically to get basically whether you want us to proceed with that or from philosophical grounds, we don't want to have a bar of it.
00:46:00 So it's entirely up to you, really, if you want to keep going. I think it's beneficial myself. Councillor Wegener: Question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got questions here. I've put an email. Am I right the Oricon report isn't correct that they've listed the Mary MacCotter's Donald when it's endangered? Speaker 1: Yeah, the Oricon report had a number of inconsistencies in it, and that's one of them. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Am I right that we should be replacing the Lowland Rand Forest in the Six Mile Creek because it's actually quite habitat? Speaker 1: Correct. Now, the trouble we've got is most of the Six Mile Creek is mapped as remnant already. So again, you've got to look at council reserves that are on the Six Mile Creek. We actually haven't got any. We have got one in the Mary River catchment on Cooroy Creek up near Beong Drive. Beong Drive Environmental Reserve. And the Oricon hold? No. So we're not actually, the report doesn't require them to actually offset Mary River Cod.
00:47:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I mean the Yellow Belly hold, sorry. Speaker 1: It's all mapped as remnant, mate. That's it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Yeah, that's one of my, like, I think, I'm not sure if it's the scheme or the environment strategy, we embedded the principles of the mitigation hierarchy in it. It basically says you protect, you rehabilitate, and you know, when all else fails, you offset. So I think we, you know, it makes sense to have an offset policy. I'm just strongly of the view that if you're dealing with endangered species habitat, you have to replace like with like in habitat now. That might be that you do have to go outside the Shire to replace the cod habitat because it is known habitat. We've previously spent money removing an unapproved footpath through that reach of creek to allow biopassage to go through. And yeah, so to me, that's just one of the elements you could do is you'd be saying,
00:48:00 you know, it's all possible. Like for like. Looking at all the habitats, not just the tree species. And I'd hate for anything to go out of the Mary River into the Rod and Noosa ecosystems. See if I can get an answer for that. The stuff you, the site you mentioned doesn't have the same ecosystems. Speaker 6: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the site down at. Cullinan. Cullinan. That's a different ecosystem. It does have some koala values, but yeah. So that's, that's only my, and you're not asking us to commit to anything. I just think that the things we need to consider. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Dave, what are the opportunities here? I mean, we're talking about offsets, offset plantings, but for rehabilitation of degraded sites as an offset project, is there an opportunity here within an offset policy to facilitate more than just an offset planting and actually sort of along the lines of what Brian's saying and even more than that to, to look at a degraded site where it's prolific with weed species in particular and look at the cost of removal of those weed species and then rehabilitate
00:49:00 the site? Speaker 1: Definitely. Definitely. Councillor, that's going to be part of the process. In fact, what we're proposing with the Cullinan Nature Refuge, where the 60 hectares is, is actually regrowth of the old Joe Franz property, which 10 years ago was basically grazing land. So it's now regrowing to very much thick Malaluca, it needs some koala fruit trees planted in there. So it's very much along the lines of what you're talking about. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm thinking about some of the council reserves, maybe a bit closer to urban areas as well, that suffer the consequences of either garden escapees that need some more time and attention devoted to them to remove those garden escapees or a site in Butler street that has a significant number of slash pines. And probably not prolific, probably not category one weed species, but a significantly degraded site as a result of camp laurels and lots of areas where we have camp laurels and things like that, that probably aren't at the high grade of weed species that need to be attended
00:50:00 to, but lower grade species, but still significantly impacting on the native nature of the reserve. Speaker 1: Yes, I think so, Councillor. It comes down to two factors. Long term viability. One is the quality of urban bushland reserves, and the second thing is the protective status under the offset requirements. We have to actually put a protective mechanism over the property, whether it's a nature refuge like we've got with our larger council blocks or a voluntary declaration under the Vegetation Management Act. But it is all definitely possible. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah. Fit the koalas with hot hizbets. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just thinking in terms of your discussions, and you've got to understand the collusion side, we've also got a fair chunk of money sitting in there from a previous agreement on offsets for koala habitat. Would it be worth looking at that six mile creek catchment and saying, have we got some
00:51:00 blocks there that are completely flood prone that we should be buying and using? No. We've got to look at the environment levy and then using the offset money to revegetate. I think that's where we should be heading in this thinking is not just look where we're currently in, but can this provide an income stream to make the linkages along creek systems, Speaker 1: et cetera. Yes, I agree with that. The environment levy policy doesn't really address purchasing cleared land. It just talks about purchasing environmentally significant land, which I agree entirely. Yeah. It's always environmentally significant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's one six mile creek. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's a flood plain. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, we looked at a property there a couple of weeks ago at Graham's Road for the exact purpose. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia, did you have a question? Oh, I do. In the recommendation B, bring forward a report on council's environment offset policy and associated guideline. Can you talk to that, please? Have we an environment offset policy or is this a noting that we are too in the back
00:52:00 on putting together a policy? Because I can't find an offset policy in council. Speaker 1: No, there actually isn't one. That's the problem. Up to now, it's been very much an ad hoc approach. And bear in mind that Noosa Council probably had some of the first offsets in Queensland when it wanted to expand the Noosa Eumundi Noosa Landfill back in 2013. And they had to offset clearing of endangered regional ecosystems. So all that land was offset around Lake Macdonald, which was then owned by council. That offset's still going. That was probably one of the first offsets in Queensland. But there was never any policy since that. We have got a tree management on public land policy, which is owned by the infrastructure services team. But basically what our policy will be saying is these are the requirements when we need to, under council jobs, where we need to offset vegetation removed, and these are the governance procedures we'll have in place when we need to revegetate exactly what I'm talking
00:53:00 about now, heavy receiving sites. Councillor Lorentson: Will it also include opportunity for community to review, survey, monitoring, or mapping of offset sites? We've just got a lot of very knowledgeable people in the community that I think can provide a lot of input in this area. Speaker 1: We're actually going to be running the offset policy post Dr Jan Grant, who's at NICA. So we actually are doing that because we've got a lot of experience in that space, councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. And there's someone also that I've connected with, Rebecca, who's got a doctorate in all this, and has been working with the environment on ecological assessment reports and checklists. And that would be great to incorporate her work all into this. So I'm excited. Yeah, very good. Speaker 1: I'll just add, one of the things the offset policy won't be doing is talking about state
00:54:00 or federal government referrals, because the state and federal Commonwealth government have their own offset policy. So anything that involves clearing vegetation that's affected by the state or Commonwealth legislation gets referred to them. So we don't, exactly like this TMR report you saw, we can't actually influence that rather than just refer it to the appropriate authority for assessment. Councillor Lorentson: I just wanted to ask a question. In terms of the Colossies, my understanding, August 12th this year, the Australian Minister of the Environment and Water listed the Southern East Colossie black concrete tube as vulnerable under the national environment law. Does that mean it's now listed as endangered, or it's just been identified and has, and should we be aware of this listing? I don't know. Speaker 1: Well, that's the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It's now listed as vulnerable. Under the state, under the Nature Conservation Act, it's also listed as vulnerable. That's my understanding. Which species we're talking about?
00:55:00 Are you talking about the glossy black cockatoo or the southern species? Councillor Lorentson: I'm talking about the glossies, but here says the southeastern glossy black cockatoo. Yeah. No, I'd have to... Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure I noticed and get back to you on that, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It has been gone through the process of consultation on raising it to endangered. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, because that's... That hasn't been listed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In fact, I haven't seen anything come through that that disease has been made. Councillor Gisela. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to an offset policy, if we're going to that extent, if, for example, a rehabilitation site was across the road to add connectivity and there was a road involved, The policy includes things along the lines of rope bridges and that for facilitating wildlife moving across a roadway, for example. Speaker 1: I believe so, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: That'd be good, thank you, yes. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question then. So with regard to the offset policy, is there opportunity then for, you know, when we're talking about the destination management plan,
00:56:00 and, you know, people coming here and value adding, we talked yesterday in the DNP about values, of people who visit and people who live here. Will the offset policy provide opportunity where we're regenerating blocks that, you know, people travelling here could invest by, I don't know, planting out certain areas, and then, I don't know, earning points back for carbon offset or whatever's a contribution to our shire? Have you considered that? Or would that be covered in this policy? Speaker 1: The policy basically covers the circumstance where a person who's got to do a development that's going to involve clearing vegetation, has to pay to make sure they're not creating any biodiversity loss. So there's actually a financial arrangement. They actually pay their way to damage that vegetation by paying us money to actually rehabilitate that vegetation. A third party probably shouldn't have a role in that because it's almost like a, it's a legal requirement of that proponent to actually pay money to offset that vegetation.
00:57:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Can I add that I think Tories and Noosa will need a vote? It's working in this space. So Lady Elliot have opportunities for visitors to come and help re-vegetate ecological spaces. And they're actually working, and apparently it's hard work. And in return for their hard work, they're contributing to, you know, regenerating this beautiful space. And they get a holiday out of it. And it's something that Bonita is actually in the space doing the same sort of thing in Noosa. Thank you. Speaker 1: That's good, yeah. We've got a lot of other council properties where we can actually probably do that. And I believe Noosa Landcare does that with some of the Euro ringtail plantings. I've had visitors, you know, taking part in community tree planting days as well. Fantastic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers used to quite often come and do weed control in National Park. And they used to stay there in the scaffolding. And quite often they were, they were backpackers or whatever as part of their holiday.
00:58:00 Any more questions? I'm happy to move it. Mayor Stewart: Seconded. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I did raise the mitigation hierarchy. And I'm sure everyone knows, but I think it's really important when we look at offsets that the number one thing we try and do is avoid the clearing. In this case, it's obviously a high priority road corridor that has flooding here. So overall community benefit to clear the trees and that's, you know, you then minimise it, which obviously they are required to do in this case because they've got endangered or what they call a critically endangered lowland rainforest, which coincidentally doesn't even trigger a, the same level in the Queensland Digitation Management Act because there's more than 30% of it left. So then you minimise and then you restore. And then the final in the hierarchy is you offset to try and clear the trees. Make sure that your impacts are minimised.
00:59:00 That's what we should be doing. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Agenda Number 6. Reports for the community. Planning out, we'll call it the planning application. Planning out, we'll call it the planning application. Mayor Stewart: Mr Chair, I have a conflict of interest. I counsel Stewart in the form of a meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties No. 9, PL 5080, which is listed as item 18 in this report. I have a friendship with Mayor Rob McCready, who are associated with the applicant. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now let the meeting room on the matter is considered a vote of office.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a terrible conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties, number 9, PLTTE, which is listed as item 18 in this report. Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, was involved in a volunteer capacity for my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel is out of the room. And Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Third time lucky. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a terrible conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Properties, number 9, PLTTE,
01:01:00 which is listed... As item 18 on this report. On 24 February 2020, I saw a review by the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future Noosa team, of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a terrible conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting of a decision that has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of all of the other people in the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Wegener: We... this is a monthly occurrence. Um... I... I note that it's a terrible conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because the Council believes that a reasonable person is not allowed to participate in this matter,
01:02:00 and that the person should not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was invoked as advisory service, not statuatory process, and Councillor Stockwell's queries at that time were in the public interest, and neither he nor Mr. McCready should be personally gained or loosed from that advice, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Um... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then before you do... Oh, yes. I have a procedural question of the acting staff. It's the, um, um, considering the ability to continue the meeting despite a quorum, does it override the need within the standing orders to have a seconder for a motion? No. Speaker 4: No, but it's the... I wouldn't think so. Yeah, I know. You're putting it on the spot. I wouldn't... I wouldn't think so because of the... of the numbers. So I think as the Chair, you've got the right to protect the standing orders,
01:03:00 but my understanding is you'd have the right as the Chair to, to, to override that, to make that decision. Councillor Wegener: I don't know. I don't know. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: To be, to be careful, I, I think we should say the motion, um, lapses for one of a seconder, but then it's a procedural motion. You can make the matter referred to General Committee. Speaker 4: Okay, so that's what I'll do then. Councillor Wegener: I'll refer this to General Committee. Speaker 4: I, I think that's, I think that's the right course anyway, given the numbers, but it is, these, these matters have already been decided, so this is a, this is a report for noting, so if you take it through the general, it'll be noted by the, by the full group. Yeah. I think that's, that's fine to do that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just needed to find something to ask you that was difficult. Speaker 4: I know. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. That's very perceptive because, you know, you can't have one person, you know, really leading the charge and making the decision for this to go, you know, to, to not go to general, to not be voted on by, by a forum. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: It will be voted on by a forum once, once it goes to, once it goes to general, oh, no, once they come back to, no, Brian's staying in the room.
01:04:00 Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I, I just never thought of it, when, because I saw the NA up there, I never thought of it before that, about the lack of a seconder. It has been discussed before and this is how we're going to do it. Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, I don't think it's right. Councillor Lorentson: Do you want to make a decision? I, I think we've been in this position before and voted upon it, and I don't think it means to go to general. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think previously, where we got to was I could stay and just make it a procedural motion. This is exactly what we're doing right now. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm, I'm comfortable either way, I just, it was just when I saw NA, I thought, hmm. Councillor Wegener: So, the issue is my, my vote to, to, to have Brian stay in the room. Yeah. And, and I can do that, and that's the sole purpose. We don't need two people to do that. That's what Brian's attacking. That's my opinion. And then Brian. Colin, yeah, we'll get to him. Yeah. And we'll work it out later. Then we, then there's two of us that are from first and the seconder, and we could approve that.
01:05:00 Yeah. Speaker 2: No, you just have to report. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 4: And, and again, this is a report for noting. It's not, you're not making a decision. Yeah. It's not, no one's going to complain about it. No. So. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But if, we might just need to look at it from a. Yeah. A future point of view. Speaker 4: There is a. I think this is. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Speaker 4: There will be a quorum for the decision. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: On this report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. The, the act talks about the, you don't have to have a quorum. Yeah. But the, yeah, I never thought about this being, not having a seconder. Speaker 4: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We might have to just clarify that if we're going to review the standing orders. Speaker 4: Yeah. I think that's, in the, in the review of the standing orders and the, and the layout of, the, the rollout of the, of the process, I think that's going to be considered. But for now, this is a process we've done before. Yeah. I think we can go forward. And given that it is a, a, for noting, if this was a decision making, then I would say let's refer it to, to Joe Taylor. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay. I'm ready to say anything else.
01:06:00 We can, we can vote on the paper voting. Councillor Wilkie: Hang on. Okay. Before we do that, I, I have a question about the item. Oh, right, right. Right. You mentioned Blue Gate Operational Works, um, 109. Yep. What's, um, what's involved there, Patrick? What's, what, what's the approval actually? Um. And I. Speaker 5: It, it's for landscaping associated with, uh, the roadworks. Um, so there's a, uh, it's around, it's sort of around just the perimeter of the road. Speaker 5: So down to the, around the cul-de-sac head, along each side of that. Sort of street planting, um, Frank. And also out towards Davidlow Way where the road's being realigned as well. Okay. To landscape in that area. Councillor Wilkie: So nothing on lot nine. It's, it's just associated with that. Speaker 5: No. Okay. That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. And does that, does the street planting feature allocator ends?
01:07:00 Speaker 5: Um, I, I, I'd have to bring up the decision notice, Brian, but I, I do recall the officer at the time, um, seeking for, uh, the food trees to be included in the street planting. I might have to come back to you on that to be definitive. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just, just an email's fine. Just, we did move a motion to try and encourage it. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. No, I, as I said, I do recall this coming up with the officer at the time that was looking at it, but I, I'll, I'll send you an email. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Send that one an email. Councillor Wilkie: The other question I have, um, just, um, a technical question. Patrick, um, or, or Leo, a lot of these applications, for example, for dwelling houses, in and brackets, they have setbacks, length of wall, roof, pitch eaves, height, um, boundary setbacks. Does that mean the relaxations have been granted in those instances? Speaker 5: Um, I've actually picked up on another one.
01:08:00 I was looking at all this before and saw that there was a caretaker's unit included on one in an industrial area. And it, it. I just was curious. And I had a look at it and I note that the caretaker's dwelling was, um, removed from the application during the process as a response to the information request from the officer. Yeah. So I've got to, it leads me to believe that what this is pulling in is actually what was applied for. Um, it's, it, it, it's likely that, um, those variations may have been approved, but, um, Speaker 5: I think it's something we, we might have to have a look at, Leo. Yeah. In terms of the, the reporting. And to see, um, what we can do to make sure that what coming through actually reflects what's been approved and not what's been applied for. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So, for example, on page 48, or page 9 of 10 of the, the report, application 27, a dwelling house, and then in brackets it's got height, fence height and setbacks.
01:09:00 Um, just so I understand what you're saying, Patrick, does that mean that realizations in height, fence height and boundary setbacks have been granted in that instance? Speaker 5: It definitely means they were applied for, um, with, without knowing what was actually approved on that one. Speaker 5: Um, I'd be guessing, but I'd say it's likely that those, those were all approved. Um. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'll just make a comment then. Um. Relaxations granted on dwelling houses in residential areas is a source of huge concern and complaint for a lot of residents, the affected residents, and for these to be going through at a delegated authority level has the potential to create a lot of retrospective headaches and heartache. I'm just wondering if there are any applications requesting significant setbacks in height or boundary setbacks. Can we be given a heads up about that? Or is there any way that could be triggered to come before council?
01:10:00 Speaker 5: Well, everything that's going to come to us is going to be seeking a variation. So there's a lot of houses that are built in Noosa that might go through to a certifier. So you're only seeing the ones where they're seeking a variation. In terms of bringing them through to council, we are, for the ones, the item that you referred to, number 27, that's ARAP, where council is a referral agency. So we do have timeframes. ARAP does not go deemed approval, but the additional timeframe to get a matter to council really would elongate that assessment process. So I don't know whether that would be considered to be reasonable from an applicant's perspective.
01:11:00 Yes. And also noting the significant workload that that would add to officers. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So we've had reports come to council before about applications to extend dwellings that they, you know, involving, the redesigns have involved incursions in the boundary setbacks and height, exceeding height limits. What's the difference here? I get that certifiers are involved, but some things come before council regarding just dwelling houses, dwellings involving boundary setbacks and height relaxations. They're usually refused by council. Speaker 5: Recommendable refusal. Those matters might have gone before council at the request of an applicant.
01:12:00 I'm not too familiar with too many houses coming before council in my time here. I know that we've got the ones on Seaview Terrace at the moment because of the issues with coastal processes and geotechnical issues that they've been going before council and that was through negotiation with the applicants. Councillor Wilkie: There was one at Peregian Beach, Patrick, in Kingfisher recently. I think it was at Dupley. And I guess the one above that, number 26, is 33 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, dwelling house, it's got height and setback, I imagine relaxation is applied for and therefore granted. How is that different to the house at, say, 66 where there are similar contentious elements that came before the full council?
01:13:00 Speaker 5: I dare say that 33 Seaview Terrace may not have a coastal building line. Yep. And being another... Yeah. An odd number, actually, it would be on the non... Coastal side. ...foreshore side of the road. Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 5: So the ones that I've got is number 66, Seaview Terrace, so that's certainly on the beach side being an even number. So I'd say that that's the reason why that one hasn't had those same issues. Sure. Councillor Wilkie: So going back to application number 27, fence height relaxation, is there a standard height fences are meant to be in the Shire? Because I get a few questions about this. Is it one and a half metres? Speaker 5: A fence... Up to two metres. Up to two metres. For a front fence. Yeah. Now, you're talking Hilton Terrace, so you're talking areas where a new dwelling that are going to have to be filled.
01:14:00 Yeah. And then that creates the associated issues with the height and the fence heights. The setbacks is the consequence of those lots being filled. Yeah. A lot of those lots in that area can be quite narrow, so... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So you're also starting to take into account impact on the street front, so they're not going to be approving something that is overly high or likely to have a negative impact on the street front. Speaker 5: That's right. We've been looking for the building to be sufficiently set back, for it to be articulated. Yeah. And then if there was a height variation, then I'd say it may relate to a pitch of the roof. Yeah. But again, with the extent of filling that is required along Hilton Terrace, it does
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 give rise to many of the dwellings seeking some of the height variation. Councillor Wegener: Okay. No, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Frank, for those really good questions. And I think that's... I'm not... I'm learning as well. When do they come before council? Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: So maybe a workshop, Leo, so that we understand if it's code accessible and the reasons why they're approved, not approved. Maybe just a follow-up of today's conversation. Yeah. Speaker 2: I'm just thinking, as part of that conversation, maybe Patrick and I and a couple of others could go back and just sit down and go through some of those examples. Yeah. And perhaps, you know, take on that feedback that's been discussed today and then come back and say, yeah, this is what was applied for, what was approved, and we can just work through that with the councillors. Yeah. If you're happy with that.
01:16:00 Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Looking at 33C view, it looks like it was a covered awning going to a site boundary. It looks new on the image. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: One last question. Any other questions? 83 Butler Street, number 25. On page 48. Patrick, is that part of the old aged care there? Is that that property that's been cut up? Speaker 5: I'm just going to bring it up, if you don't mind. 83 Butler Street. No. No. It's... No. It was just one lot. It was just one residential lot with a house on it. Councillor Wegener: I'm not sure if you can hear me. Yeah. Yeah. So that... There is a big aged care. That's what we would have named, right? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. That's on McKinnon Drive.
01:17:00 Councillor Wegener: That's on McKinnon Drive. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 5: Oh, sorry. You're... Yes. Yes. You're referring to the one that hasn't been developed? Yeah. No. That's... It's not that lot. It... Speaker 5: It's some distance from that, 100 metres or so. And it's just a large residential lot. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. I used to buy hay there in the 80s. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Great. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Number 28 on page 49 has just triggered something. It mentions, in terms of relaxation, setbacks, side cover, roof pitch, eaves, and front fence. A resident of Sunshine Beach recently pointed out to me a neighbouring house which effectively looked like a large white concrete box. No eaves, no roof pitch, a large concrete box, and rightfully questioned what's happened to the Noosa site.
01:18:00 So, I'm wondering if this workshop we're going to be having about relaxations granted has some regard to the Noosa subtropical design that we're aspiring to encourage. Speaker 2: So... Councillor Wilkie: These relaxations, have that in mind. Speaker 2: Yeah. So, in response to... Speaker 5: Just for your information, Frank, the new scheme has removed the requirement for roof pitch and eaves through areas of the Shire. Yes. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: The coastal communities and, I believe, the Noosa heads area. So, it does change the allowable design outcomes where there's no roof or eaves requirement at all. Thank you for that. So, that's not an assessment determination. It's not an officer sort of assessment.
01:19:00 It's being constructed in compliance with the scheme. Yes. That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We had that conversation. We did. Yeah. I remember. People were building... They put the roof pitch and then they just put a box around it because for some reason architects don't think boxy houses look good. It'll be date very soon. Anyway. Speaker 4: No, no. Speaker 2: So, probably just to further add to that. So, I'd be working with Rebecca. We're just looking at putting together a bit of a parameter in terms of that review going forward. So, I'll be meeting with Rebecca in the next week or two just to discuss that and get that moving along, progressing as we've discussed previously. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. So, do we... We voted on it, but do we want an approval or do we... Just note it. Just note it. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We done that yet? Councillor Wegener: No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second your motion. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay. All in favor? Okay.
01:20:00 Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Can we get the other team? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Speaker 7: Okay, so basically we had our round table and most of the people here actually attended which was very successful I felt. We got a really really good range of recommendations from the round table. We pulled together information from a few people in the room plus also the
01:21:00 recordings and things like that so we pulled together the recommendations and they were very wide ranging which is fabulous and I guess we really focused on improving the information that was available through the dashboard during disaster situations and making sure that there was better information available to the community more generally and including information that prevented people accessing the beach in the morning. some cases and things like that. Other things that we looked at was improving the construction of the pontoons as well and the attachments and things like that and making sure that there was more effort putting into preventing the polystyrene in the first place. The other big thing was actually working with the community a lot better to facilitate the clean up and to progress that clean up and we've already started to
01:22:00 speak to Sunshine Coast Council. They've got a fantastic community clean up program that we're looking at. They've also invited us to the clean up the hatchlings event in February to actually host our own events in Noosa and we've got quite a lot of community interested in that and we're just exploring those options. We're not telling the community what to do. We're actually offering to support existing efforts pretty much and providing them a lot more support. So yeah, I feel that it was a really positive event and going forward we're already starting to implement quite a few of the items. Councillor Wegener: It was a fantastic morning. Speaker 7: Yeah, it really was and I've had quite a few conversations since then and that positivity seems to be going forward.
01:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was a really good example of what you want to achieve out of the round table process. You had the really well informed locals. Some of the volunteers were linked to international committees looking at the topic but you also had three different Shires because it was a regional problem and you also had the State there as well as someone from the polystyrene industry. So you had that whole systems perspective of both the problem and how it might be solved. And what the emergency response was there. A nice morning and very constructive critiques and suggestions. So well done. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for your report Melissa. I think it was really good. Just moving on from the conversation about the community input as well.
01:24:00 So I think it's really good that it provided such a great opportunity to demonstrate the influence of the community. And I think it was a really good example of citizen leadership. Moving forward, how are you proposing to engage further with the community groups that were represented? Speaker 7: We're looking at that Clean Up for Hatchlings event to be basically a launch event for an ongoing community coastal clean up program. And I've been speaking to a lot of people in the community on a casual basis because we're still working things out. I'm still in the process of talking to Sunshine Coast Council to see how they do it. And that kind of thing. But my impression is that there's a lot of these community clean ups going on already. And I think that probably our sort of collaboration with them will be in the line of providing a bit of support. Maybe providing a little bit of a framework. Maybe seeing if there's any gaps or any double ups. And the other big issue is actually getting data about the kind of litter that we're getting on our beds.
01:25:00 Because it can be quite different. I was really surprised talking to some of these groups saying this is what we're getting and this is what we're getting. And actually making sure that we've got that data that goes up into the larger programs. So I guess really we're talking to the community groups as partners. And basically looking at ways that we can facilitate pretty much what they're already doing. But give a bit more structure to it perhaps. And give quite a bit more council support. Councillor Finzel: Fantastic. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Ms Amelia. Hi Melissa. I would like for you to consider and maybe coming back to the general meeting with maybe recommendations to include an action plan. Or whether we could bring forward a report back to council with an action plan.
01:26:00 Which identifies all those recommendations and the community input that's been listed on page 61 of the report. It's just that this polystyrene meeting came about out of community frustration. And I think just to respect the valuable input and feedback. It would be great to have just a report with an implementation plan. Just identifying all those great recommendations. And with maybe a date. You know within 12 months this is what council endeavours to achieve. But I just think this is a known report. It would be great to be backed with also some type of report that identifies key recommendations. That we can act upon within the next 12 months.
01:27:00 We need to continue the conversation. And we need to value the community input by feeding it into a plan. Thank you Melissa. And I'll talk to you later about it. No worries. Speaker 2: Thanks Chair. I suppose just in response to Councillor Lorentson's suggestion. Great suggestion. I'd probably just a little word of caution in terms of I think it would be good to come up with a draft action plan. That might be something that you took back to a second round table perhaps. Or to the agencies that are around that table and the parties. Only from the perspective of there are different agencies responsible for different actions. And also comes at a cost and a financial and a resource side of things. So there might be some actions that you identify or that have been identified. That might be achieved through existing programs. Might be able to dovetail.
01:28:00 Or there might be some new initiatives also that we need to then probably put through the budgetary deliberation. As part of the forward budget and the planning. But great suggestions. So I think probably worth putting a draft action plan together. And maybe bringing it back maybe to the Council to go through. And then maybe you take it back to a second round table perhaps. Councillor Lorentson: Great recommendation. I think from a Council perspective though. We can sort of narrow it to what we can do. So I respect what you just said Leo. But there's some low hanging stuff that we can address almost immediately. It would be great again just to give some confidence to the community that we not just listen to them. But we're also going to be active with the recommendations. Speaker 2: And look some of those things are already happening. Some things are probably already happening. Fantastic. We've got some of the volunteer groups that are probably already out. And if we're working with them great. But yeah. Mayor Stewart: Great. And on that. Larry you might be the best person to ask this.
01:29:00 I know Melissa was talking about the disaster dashboard information up there. That's something that Larry, that James. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. So let's cross. That's here. Speaker 7: We've already been speaking to James about finding some opportunities. Now I guess the other thing that we're really exploring is incorporating environmental protection into emergency response a little bit better. Like recognising that it's primarily driven by light and limb. But you know with our clean ups that we better address the environmental protection. Councillor Wegener: And you've got your . Councillor Lorentson: And Melissa one last question. Will the people that attended the meeting, will they be given a copy of this report and notified? Oh yes. Speaker 4: This is our public knowledge. Yeah. Sorry. Three weeks. Yeah. I think what we need to do then is, given the workload as well it is, to bring an action plan back to council is a pretty big project to be honest.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Because as Leo said there's a whole lot of groups that need to be involved or considered anyway. Costs and things like that. So I think it's more about, my suggestion would be we come back as a workshop. We take this, this is a report for noting as a report of the round table. Which just brings everything back and says this is what we've captured. So it's basically minutes and that's terrific. It's a big piece of work in itself. I think the next piece is a workshop to consider all of these. Because we need to consider them as council as well before we even start to broaden it. Start to ask other groups. Because we need to have a resource for them as well. So I think a workshop and then we bring it back to council for some level of recommendation and then we bring around, you know, maybe, either or, but bring it back to the round table and bring it back to those groups. Mayor Stewart: You comfortable with that? Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Speaker 4: Rebecca? Speaker 6: Yeah, I was just going to make a few comments. So we've purposely developed up the minutes so we could share with the participants all that was discussed and to give them a sense of the actions going forward.
01:31:00 We'll be using the minutes as a way of being able to tick off on what we can do in terms of engaging with Maritime Safety Queensland and Department of Maritime Science on standards for jetties and for planning processes to be able to look at ways of coordinating volunteer efforts around climate change. There's a lot of things that we're doing underway at the moment that are documented in the minutes and we want to use that to keep ticking off progress as we go. It's going to take time for a lot of the things that require advocacy with the state. But we want to make sure that we're there at the table where we can to be able to share with them the experiences that we've had through this disaster. And we want to make sure that we're there at the table where we can to be able to share with them the experiences that we've had through this disaster. Coming out of the process, we will develop up a case study report.
01:32:00 Melissa was talking about avenues to make sure it's there, available at the ready. If someone was to do an internet search that was in a similar disaster that we were in, it would come to the top of the search engine and provide them with a resource so that the lessons we've learnt they can learn and use for their processes. Yeah, part of the process is developing up a case study report. We've also done a video on the Polisaurian disaster to show, you know, the challenges that we had, what it provided in terms of bringing volunteer effort together and how we can use that to develop some opportunities for future clean-ups. So I think there is that documentation process and to be able to bring to you the progress we've made on that in probably six months' time I think would be really valuable and then to see what's left from that. What works best for the community. What we can then pursue. Thanks.
01:33:00 Councillor Wilkie: I just have a question then. We're quite a while in here. Spring predicted. If we have another big flood event in that time, will our processes have changed in terms of how we respond to jetties washing up on the beach or are we still based on the same constraints? Speaker 6: In our emergency management meeting we talked about this with council staff about what process improvements we could make. But we'll always be challenged by resources. How many staff members are on the ground out there during the disaster that can respond. And when we have a flood situation, we have staff up in the hinterland and then they're dealing with responses on the coast as well. But I think what this disaster highlighted was that we have a lot of interest from the community to be involved. It's just the important part of being able to have a coordinating mechanism to be able to do that. And there's a real willingness there that where we're constrained by resources during
01:34:00 these disasters, we have many that can come in and provide assistance with that. So that's the bit that we're trying to work through at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: So we can have better communication with these groups as a result of the storm. Communication is key. And we can perhaps provide them with some sort of resource like bags or whatever. And have them provide quick, more... Yeah. Speaker 6: To provide some manpower. Where it's safe for them to be able to help out even post-disaster. Speaker 7: The other thing that we're doing is actually working with infrastructure services to identify beach accesses that we can use for emergency access. One of our big constraints was actually just getting onto the beach. So we're already starting to talk to design and infrastructure services about finding and modifying those beach accesses where we need to. Mayor Stewart: And also, for example, if there's a storm that comes in and there's a storm that comes Council too, and that collaboration, because we all share those pitches, you know, and it doesn't discriminate, you know, and floods don't discriminate, so, and Larry with the disaster management, James and the dashboard, I think they're all things that we can actually pretty quickly come where you get what we're faced with.
01:35:00 Speaker 4: And that's what we're missing. There's so many lessons learned, just anecdotally, just in the type of machinery, how big it needs to be, how to do it, how quickly we need to react, because this was all learning on the fly. Very much so, so we've now got a lot more of that lesson that we can now look at what needs to be prioritised and when and how, so, you know, it's already there, the fact that it's documented here, but then an action plan documentation is next phase, but it's a matter of, you know, that's a process we need to follow, and we just can't overload people. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, and also on that, Larry, now we have those point, those key people in the community who we know we can call on to, we can make things a lot easier. Speaker 7: Yeah, we're still really developing that relationship, which I think is going to be really cool, because we probably won't get another polystyrene event, but we will get another marine debris event.
01:36:00 Councillor Finzel: I think through the event, we recognise the inherent value of our community and the expertise that they bring to the table, so I think moving forward, these collaborations, certainly this is something we can bring through when we're doing our corporate plan, and, you know, bringing in more and more of disaster management into our everyday lives. We're all seeking in response to climate change and all that, so yeah, thank you, it's a great Mayor Stewart: report. And they've been carrying their willingness to be involved. Oh, absolutely. It was so great. They just stood up. Yeah, yeah. Great. Councillor Wegener: One thing is, we're all in a ferocious agreement here. There's a two-way street between what Council can do and what community can do, and this
01:37:00 roundtable and the whole event has helped us understand how we can work together and respect and give the autonomy to our community to act, and where the boundaries are, what we can do. So going forward, obviously, it appears that we're going to have plenty more emergencies like this, whether it's inland, fire, we're in for it all. So I think this is a really great number, so I look forward to finding out further report. Do we need to motion that now, or should we? Or can we just leave it? Speaker 4: No, I think just, for me, it's just noting this report. Councillor Wegener: The workshop is something that we can do as an operational exercise. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Larry. Councillor Wegener: And we don't need, probably don't need to move this to the general committee. No, no, no. And we've noted that had Councillor Stauffer left the room. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to move this. I'm happy to second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.