Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Today the Kabi Kabi people pay respects to Elders past, present and emerging. I'd also like to take a minute to acknowledge the passing of Maya Queen Elizabeth II, who had the respect and admiration of many in our Shire. Flags our side, Council chambers here at Tewantin applying a half mask. And at Thursday's ordinary meeting, the Mayor will be passing a Mayoral Minute, which will contain the formal condolences of this Council. May we have a confirmation of the minutes from the General Committee meeting held on the 15th of August. Councillor Lorentson, have a seconder please. Councillor Stewart, all in favour? Carried. We have no presentations, we have no deputations. And we have some items referred from committees. The first being the application for material change of use for an office at 2 Emerald Street, Cooroy. And we have Nadine back here. Nadine, for those who have come late, she talked about... the application of the development.
00:01:00 Certainly. And also some of the changes which are reflected in a suggested new recommendation. Pleasure. Speaker 10: This application is for material change of use for a two-storey office building out at number 2 Emerald Street, Cooroy. The site has frontage to both Emerald Street and to Women's Lane at the rear. The two-storey building... was considered to be consistent with the character, presenting a parapet to Emerald Street, which reflects sort of the existing character to the east, and there was a small height encroachment of about half a metre due to that parapet. The proposal didn't comply with height, but also didn't comply with car parking requirements. However, due to a dedication of two metres to the Women's Laneway, which is required by Council, and also a... pathway, a cycle and pedestrian pathway for the full length of the eastern side of the site,
00:02:00 which is indicated in Council's planning scheme, that reduced car parking rate was considered acceptable by staff. The application was referred to the committee meeting at the request of Councillor Stockwell, because there were some issues with the design of the building. In discussions with Councillor Stockwell, there were concerns in terms of the parapet presentation, to the street, as well as the... the street awning, and the presentation of that street awning, and no posts. So, an alternative motion has been put up in terms of requesting removal of the parapet, and the installation of a hip roof to the street, and as well as a slope on the street awning, and the provision of posts. Councillor Wilkie: Now, Councillors, we have staff here for questions, and that's questions to Elizabeth.
00:03:00 So, does anyone have any formal questions of staff to elicit information? Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to the parapet, I went up and had a look at Cooroy, had another good look at Cooroy, and I noticed that parapets are the exception, rather than the world in Cooroy. There tend to be more... I don't know what to describe it, but, you know, with posts coming into the ground in the public space. Is there no... And that was based on... Council Stockwell's comments. Is there no provision in the planning scheme to have that as the standard in Cooroy? Speaker 10: The locality plan talks about development being consistent with the character of the street. So, definitely, staff looked at this site, and to the area directly to the east, and that was all parapets, and that was all awnings without posts.
00:04:00 So, when you look at that site, there is definitely that character. Which this building has reflected, in which the applicant looked at the character, and that's what they surmised it was as well. When you look opposite, yes, there's a different character. There's the traditional, or more traditional, pitched roof and awnings with posts, and plus a range of other interpretations on that, on the opposite side, as you can see with street view there. Councillor Jurisevic: So... I don't agree. I believe the... Excuse me. You're only debating stuff? I'm just questioning the comment coming back. There are... Councillor Wilkie: Could you not question the comment? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm confirming the response, Frank. Can I confirm the response? Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I'd like to speak here at this moment. There's concern being raised that councillors are debating the advice given by staff, and I respectfully again request that we do not do that, and we use question time to elicit information, not debate...
00:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not debating, Frank. I'm just confirming the response. The information given, I don't agree with, and I'm just confirming whether that's correct or not. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Well, I don't think staff need to hear that we don't agree with the advice. When you're questioning the staff, please go. They're here to give their opinion. They give it. We don't need to... You can save your opinions or... Councillor Jurisevic: It's not an opinion, Frank. I'm asking a question in relation to the response that I just got. Councillor Wilkie: Do you understand what I'm saying? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I do. Do you understand what I'm saying? Councillor Wilkie: I'll see whether you understood what I said or not. Well, if I can ask the question... May I ask a question, Joe? Thank you. You can save the commentary. It's not commentary, Frank. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a question. With regard to what you've just said, I see a parapet on the property next door, but on the adjoining property, there's only three properties, two properties beside there. One is the Gelignite Jacks, $2 shop, that has a parapet.
00:06:00 The one next door is Jamaica Blue, which has an awning at the front and posts to the street. Beyond that is the brick building. I'm not sure about Jamaica Blue. I know you've posted photos. That is parapet, because with that awning at the front, you don't see that. You see posts. Speaker 10: The parapet, yes. The parapet is the structure. It's a flat structure. A parapet is... In my report, if you can... Maybe I've got one here. Speaker 4: A parapet is a structure that comes up and screens the roof. Yes. Thank you. You can't see the roof? Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Awning. Awning. Speaker 10: That's what we call the parapet. Councillor Jurisevic: That parapet, yes. Sorry. I'm referring to the awning. Sorry. I should be referring to the awning rather than the parapet. Parapet, I've got no issue with. They're suspended awnings as opposed to posts in the ground like there is on the other side. I said it's very difficult to tell that with the Jamaica Blue property.
00:07:00 Is that the case with the Jamaica Blue property as well? I thought it had posts. So I'm saying the only building that I can see that has an awning is the Jellignyte Jacks building, which is beside every other building in the street that I can see has posts. Has posts. Yes. Speaker 10: So there's the Jellignyte Jacks and there is also the little shop next to it as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I did miss the little shop there. Yes. So I thought it was one and the same. Sorry. Yes. Speaker 10: So there are some posts up in front of the Jamaica Blue. Councillor Jurisevic: So in reference to the entire street, there's only one other, there's only those adjoining properties that have. Speaker 10: On the. On that. Councillor Jurisevic: On that side. On the southern side. But on the street as a whole. On the other side. On the street as a whole. Yes. The majority of the street has posts. Has posts. That's correct. Thank you. That's all I had to clarify. Thank you. That was the clarification I was after. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. My question, Dean, is that this application is code accessible, which means it's assessed against the Cooroy Local Plan District Centre Zone Code, Business Activities Code, Works
00:08:00 Code. Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: So it's not a code that's being applied without this additional requirement. Speaker 10: No. My original report, I've indicated that I believed it did comply with the character of the street. And was it, it was acceptable. So that was my interpretation that yes, it did comply. Councillor Lorentson: The additional, or the proposed additional condition, will that have any financial implications? Is it reasonable in your opinion? And is it acceptable? Would the applicant incur any increase in costs? Speaker 10: Yes. I would assume they would. I have spoken to the applicant about it. And they would prefer not to change it. They are ready to proceed. They are very keen to start construction on the building. So they've indicated they.
00:09:00 Oh. Sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. They, so they wouldn't, they don't prefer to change. Okay. So they are not, they're not keen to change. I don't know if they've gone too far in terms of their process, but yes, it would require, the sloping of the awning will require some changes to the upper level balcony. I don't know that the removal of, I'm not quite sure what the removal of the parapet will do. There would be more design changes that would be required to be adjusted and that will cause some additional costs to them. Councillor Wilkie: Regarding the parapets, the parapets on the other properties in the street, do they exceed the 8-metre height? Speaker 10: No, they're all single-storey buildings. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, thank you. I just have a clarification. Under the Act, we can't consider the personal financial services under the Act. We're considering whether there's additional costs fall under that, or is that a permissible consideration?
00:10:00 Speaker 4: It's not a relevant consideration under the Planning Act. But it's relevant for us to consider that, you know, officers are saying that it's a proposal that complies. I think that's the point. Councillor Lorentson: And can I ask that if it was challenged, would a court in past experience, for instance, would consider additional cost or reasonableness of a new cause as having any influence? Would they consider that as important? Speaker 4: The court is bound by the same rules as we are under the Planning Act, that we can't give consideration to a person's personal financial circumstances. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone care to move a recommendation? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move an alternate motion. I think Cathy's just bringing it up. Speaker 9: Not the requested one.
00:11:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The one that I said. No. And that's Council note the further report by the Development Committee to the General Committee meeting dated 12th September 2012, and the report to the Planning Environment Committee dated 6th September 2022 regarding application MCUs 2262 for a development permit for an interior change use, or offices situated to Emerald Street, Cooroy, and A, vary the recommendation, from the recommendation of staff on the basis that the staff assessment has placed inadequate weight on the need for development to contribute to the achievement of A, the district centre's own overall outcomes 2G and H, B, the Cooroy local performance outcomes PO3, PO7, and P10. The staff assessment has placed limit weight on the standard and design of existing nearby development fair to the desired future character clearly outlined in the plan. B, does not agree to the proposed relaxation of pipe and car parking commas due to the failure of design to meet the outcomes listed above.
00:12:00 And C, advise the applicant that Council would consider relaxation of pipe requirements to ensure that one, the second storey parapet removed and replaced with a hip roof design to reflect the traditional character of two storey buildings in the business district, and two, that the counter-leaved awning be replaced with a street awning that generally reflects the design criteria outlined in figure 6.4.2.4, pedestrian environment, street awnings in Cooroy and Hintley. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it for the sake of argument. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Joe. I'll talk to it with graphics if I can, please, Cathy. So, the performance outcomes are fairly clear. The performance outcomes in the Noosa plan 2020 reflect 30 years of planning. The grounds I've talked about is, I'm going to outline what they say and use pictures to exemplify them.
00:13:00 The grounds itself have come from, if you look at Emerald Street, it is quite a varied street environment. I'm not arguing with that. What I'm arguing with is, for 30 years, we've tried to improve that every chance we've got. Particularly when I'll be in this building. So, PO7 says building structures and landscaping are consistent with and reflective of the traditional town country, Cooroy, in terms of form and, as we find out, there is no second storey parapets in Cooroy. Materials, obviously, Cooroy features a lot of timber. Proportion, composition and materials, okay? So, next, please, Cathy. All right. P10 says development in the district centre zone is sympathetic to the Cooroy town character and the identity of Cooroy. And you can see there that you've got some old 1930s with all the street verandas with the timber posts. And in general, if you look at the one on the left, there's sloping roofs and the parapets are all on the first storey.
00:14:00 Next, please. And that's what I believe are some of the key attributes of P10. In the 70s and 80s, you can see that the street, the top right-hand corner, looked a fair bit different to where it does now. And that's the result of specific advocacy by the community and value placed on the heritage. You can see the top left-hand side there, an old Cooroy Rag article talking about how to improve the heritage of the street. And then one of the first buildings that tried to reflect that, which is in Emerald Street, in Garnet Street, there looking at the verandas and the bullnose. So, it has been this process. It's been both a community process and a council process, but a planning process. As you see on the left, there was a streetscape that we could use if it was there now. We could argue you don't need to do anything about it because the existing development doesn't have all the things that the planning scheme says it needs to.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 And next. And 2H talks about development reinforces the traditional main street character and scale of development in the centre. And you can see that there's not much difference between the 80s and now. The new buildings on the right, you can see that with the few pitches on the roof, they were built straight after the Cooroy character was defined in the planning scheme, or the development control plan came out. And the owner, I think, was Fred Burnwell, who did a couple of nice little things. And you probably can't tell the difference between the modern development and the historic development in that end of the street. And I think that's where we're trying to get to. The new development just looks like it's been there for a while. If we go next. If we look at second story treatments, there's one of the old Cooroy hotels. The development has a high level of architectural merit and contributes positively to the activation of the street and the character of the centre. And to me, the design doesn't do that.
00:16:00 To me, the design has mismatched some elements of character. But certainly we don't have the cantilevered awnings as part of the Cooroy character. And we don't have the second story parapets. We do have some features, which, you know, one of the reasons that commercial development do like parapets, it's for the signage. But you see the old Cooroy hotel there, there's another treatment that may work, or as the motion says, the hip group. So to me, each step we get, we should be trying to build a Cooroy country town character. The motion and what I'm suggesting is not a major change to development. It's about trying to make it reflect. If we go next, I think might be the last one. PO3 starts building structures and landscaping are consistent with the reflective traditional country town character of Cooroy in terms of . If you look right next door, it's an old church reno. Okay. So we've got pictures of all the things that don't comply.
00:17:00 We haven't got pictures of how other people are actually doing their best to reflect Cooroy town character. And I think most importantly is we're pretty specific about what we want. And that street brand, it gives exactly what we want in this development. And that's what my motion suggests. And that might be something that they can agree to before Thursday. And we can go ahead and approve it. They won't hold up their timelines at all. Councillor Wilkie: Does any of the illustrations you've provided have included an example of a hip roof design? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, so, go back, whether we can see a hip roof design, I think probably the very first one of the Victory Hotel is a hip roof design. That one. Yeah, or sort of, because it goes around the corner, it's a bit more complex. So a hip roof is just that way. Speaker 10: The hip's almost like a pyramid, I think. The gable is the flat triangle, and then the hip is, you know, like your traditional Queensland,
00:18:00 like a pyramid. So that would be that end. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I just think it's something that, with the mind of men, that you can start to, well, continue on the good work that's been done by other developers and start getting Emerald Street as nice and... With an interaction with the public space like we have got, and it hasn't been, you know, it's been by one development at a time. In Maple Street, we can do the same thing in Emerald Street. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Councillor Stockwell, you mentioned the development control plan in Cooroy that spoke to development. Do you know what year that was? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I give you a... Yeah, roundabout. 89 to 91. And that was followed up by a set of design guidelines, which was done as a planning study leading up to the 2006 planning scheme.
00:19:00 Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Finzel: And through the chair to the staff, is anyone able to tell me around what year the IGA development went into Emerald Street? Speaker 10: The old one? Councillor Finzel: The one that's been provided in our side. Speaker 10: On the opposite side. Speaker 4: I think probably around 2007. 2007 to 10. 2007 to 10. Councillor Finzel: So the photograph provided in our notes, if you look at the front of the IGA there, how does that align then with this development control plan? Councillor Stockwell? I'm just trying to, like, find out, like, your idea. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On me? I'm not saying that every development since then hasn't applied, and it was in the sometime case council era. I'm just trying to, like, find out, like, your idea. I won't go any further. I'm just saying that it has been a planning outcome sought since that time. And the plan 2020 clearly identifies that within the development codes.
00:20:00 What we have to weigh it up in this question is how much we put on the existing surrounding development that doesn't comply with the planning guidelines, or the planning, I suppose, outcomes sought since either late 80s or early 90s. And how much we place on trying to get it to the aspiration that we've outlined for the community in this plan. Tom? Councillor Wegener: Well, you say that you're putting weight on the overall outcome, 2G and H, and the growing local plan performance outcomes. Do you have those up on the screen for us? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would if my, I brought my power phone with me. So, yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Speaker 10: It's probably the one you want to look at is PO10.
00:21:00 Can we bring up PO10? Cathy? Speaker 4: Just while Cathy's looking for this for us. I think it's important to understand this is a codicil qualification. So, I'm a little bit concerned about the motion as is. It's a weird one. We do not decide this matter by Thursday. It will go deemed approved. So, the motion doesn't really make a decision on the matter. So, we actually need to either come up with a refusal, an approval, or a conditioned approval. So, if we want to change the character and built form, I would encourage councillors to think about adding in the conditions that staff have drafted in the further report. Because the current motion just lets it sit on the table as it is. So, if we want to just go back through that, the current motion, we need to make a decision
00:22:00 by this Thursday. So, it needs to either be an approval, as staff have recommended, a refusal, which we can write, or an approval with additional conditions. Staff have drafted additional conditions based on Council Stockwell's request for some design changes. You just need to add those in. Councillor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, Kerry was saying, if we dispense with this one, because it's not prescriptive to the motion for local government, and then someone could move the staff recommendation which incorporates the suggested changes, or another motion, so that staff have a clear direction. Yes. Speaker 4: We need to make a decision by this Thursday. Councillor Wilkie: Just a question. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Just what we have in front of us, which is the further report with the additional conditions on page 10. They're the conditions that we discussed last week and included, and the ones that you're talking about. So, they've already been included? Yes. Yes. So, they're the ones that you've spoken to the applicant about?
00:23:00 Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Okay. Thank you. For the sake of expediting things, I'll speak to the motion. For the reasons just stated, we need a prescriptive and clear direction for staff. I won't be supporting this motion, and I urge councillors also to not support it, so we can discuss a motion that will give more clear direction for the staff. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockley, just to close. Councillor Wegener: Well, no. Just... Robert Thompson. I... Obviously, I'll speak to the motion. I spend a lot of time on the street, and envision the building, put it up, and I think it fits with... I don't agree with the aesthetics of the motion, and councillor Stockwell, I think the aesthetics are fine, and they actually do reflect the feel of Cooroy, especially the buildings next to it. It's just a different era, but Cooroy is an old town. It has different eras. We don't want to go back to... We'd love to go back to the old wood era, and back to the old hotels, but we can't.
00:24:00 But next door, we have Jell-O Night Jacks, and we have the Coyote, and the other buildings that actually have that sort of post-art deco look, and they're very functional. And so, yeah, I don't see any legal reason to go to support this, and I don't see any aesthetic reason to support it. Thank you. So... Councillor Wilkie: Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move. I'll move. I'll move. And the 2G and 2H for you, Councillor Wegener, it's 2G is development has a high level of architectural merit and contributes positively to the activation of the street and the character of the centre. 2H development reinforces a traditional, traditional, traditional main street character, not the BC character, but the traditional main street character and scale of development in the centre. But closing, when I wrote that motion, I was thinking of material change use, so I'm happy to have an alternate motion that has it as a condition of approval.
00:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: I put the motion next to the pail-up. No one against? That's unanimous. I'm going to go back to the staff recommendations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The alternate that the staff provided in response to the request. Speaker 10: The requested motion. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Stockwell. And I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Jurisdict. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Lord Gavis. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't speak any more other than to say that I think this is something that could be easily done. I do think, being quite accessible, that we can rely on the grounds for asking for this change, for the reasons I outlined before, in terms of meeting the performance outcomes. Particularly since the staff recommendation doesn't acknowledge, well, to my opinion, it relies on an overall outcome rather than meeting the performance outcome with respect to the street I want in.
00:26:00 I'd be really mindful of that, that the staff suggested that the street I want in acknowledges it doesn't meet that relevant performance outcome. I think that's a very minor change that is something that we'd be doing in Croy. For a long time, there's a request that they go to an awning that is not cantilevered, that is supported by wooden posts, and we have the diagram in the planning scheme to ask for it. Councillor Wegener: Is that accurate? Was that a mistake? Or was it just a different interpretation? Sorry, I don't want to debate. You're right. Sorry, I don't want to debate. Councillor Wilkie: Only that it's a bit of an unfair question to ask the staff when we are in debate, Tom. Yeah.
00:27:00 I want to speak in favour of the motion, mainly because other businesses in the town have gone to the trouble of putting in applications that do comply and do abide by the character aspirations of the town without exceeding the height limit. I would be perfectly in favour of a design that included a parapet and other nods to the design of the building. If they didn't exceed the height limit, as other parapet adorned buildings in the street do. I think a hip roof design will ensure that the building is, complies with the height limit, which is, Noos is pretty strong on the height of buildings across the Shire, and the reason for that is we want all development to be considered human scale and not overshadow the streets or be too imposing. So for that reason, I'm willing to support this motion.
00:28:00 And if they can incorporate a parapet in the design that brings the building design in under eight, at eight metres, I would support that as well. But the hip roof design seems to be the easiest solution at this point. Councillor Wegener: Is there? No. Question is, is it normal for councillors to come back and make such a, it's a substantial change going from the flat roof to a pointed roof, I would suspect, and taking away the parapet. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, I think it's a bit of an unpaid question. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just clarify something that was said there? My understanding is it's not a flat roof design, it is a pitched roof design? Speaker 10: Yes it is, behind the parapet it is a pitched roof. Councillor Jurisevic: It's just that it doesn't have a gable end, it's a gable end, so a hip end at the front, so just to clarify that. Speaker 10: And just on that, I have noticed that condition 14 would also have to be amended, because I've referred that I've kept the original condition in, which relates to the height of the parapet, must not exceed RL 118, I'll have to amend that.
00:29:00 It's changed from the original 14. Speaker 4: It must not exceed 8 metres? Speaker 10: Yes, must not exceed 8 metres. So yes, the maximum height of the development must not exceed 8 metres, and actually, and you can probably delete the rest, to the peak of the roof line. Councillor Lorentson: This has been moved and seconded. Speaker 10: Oh, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, we can amend it if the Committee agree. Councillor Wilkie: So the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if this is approved, the building height will not exceed 8 metres, as it would with the parapet. As it would with the parapet. That's correct, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And the only reason for this change here in point 14 is the fact that it was just an oversight review with the changes proposed by Council.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Yes, that's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. So would you consider it a technical amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Councillor Wegener: Now, let me, I think we have had the vote. Councillor Wilkie: Karen, have you got a question? Councillor Finzel: Well, I just have a question. Given the applicant agreed to improvements in the cycle walking strategy down the lane, will the applicant now have opportunity to withdraw from that agreement if they're now making, you know, having to comply to another set of rules, basically? Councillor Wilkie: What I want to do, Karen, is we'll just deal with, if we've got councillor consent for that technical change to this motion that we've got before us, then we'll have staff answer your question, if that's all right. So if we deal with the issue of, do all the councillors by a show of hands show that they're okay with that technical amendment for the person to make, thank you, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Well, that is my question, if we're now seeking to change what was initially in the report, we haven't got the applicant at the table with us,
00:31:00 is the applicant then able to withdraw from the agreement to do the upgrades or comply to the work being done in the laneway at the back? Councillor Wilkie: Will this affect the work in the laneway, is that what you're saying, Karen? Councillor Finzel: Well, there was an agreement negotiated that the height, I could have it wrong, that the height was negotiated in relation to the, what was it, the cycle strategy at the back. Speaker 10: The whole proposal is based around the provision of that cycleway? Yeah, that's correct. I don't, yes, the whole design is based with that cycleway and with that dedication at the back. I believe, it was never purported to be a trade-off, yeah, we accepted it on the basis that, you know, there were these other areas of non-compliance, but I don't believe it was a trade-off, no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just stop, I think the clarification, there was a trade-off though in suggesting we may, except we used car parking because of the dedication.
00:32:00 Speaker 10: Yes, yes, of the dedication, yes, not so much the height, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: One more question. I would think that that dedication in reducing the space available for car parking was a fair compromise to acknowledging you're losing car parking space because we've actually taken up space where car parking could go. That's correct, absolutely. Mayor Stewart: I have a question, if we, these changes are agreed to at this table, what would be the process, I mean, there's significant design changes, do you have any idea about the time frame, the extension of time that would, that the applicant would incur to have the car parked? Would that bring back change in design? Speaker 10: With these, these would be conditions, so they would have to provide a design to us prior to operational works or building works being issued, so the resolution and the conditions are not worded that those design changes would come back to Council.
00:33:00 So it would be. Mayor Stewart: But they would incur that time? Speaker 10: They would incur, my understanding is they would do them pretty quickly. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So essentially you'd be giving them approval to go ahead and do the thing. Speaker 10: And they'll do it. They'll do it straight away. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Switzer, do you have a motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll speak, I don't know what that is. Look, I must admit, initially I was puzzled by what Councillor Stockwell raised in relation, in particular in relation to parapets, because I knew parapets were quite prominent, particularly down, I forgot the street name. Mayfield Street. Thank you, Mayfield Street, I meant to walk. Particularly down Mayfield Street, but since he's pointed out in that two-storey arrangement, I see the point that he's trying to raise and the character elements that he's referring to, particularly when I walked around Cooroy again and went, hang on, there is a point that he raises and a number of posts that support the awnings that are a character element throughout Mayfield Street in particular and along along the street as well.
00:34:00 So I see the points that he raises. I think they're fair and legitimate points to character within the Cooroy Precinct and I'm happy to support the changes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? Councillor Wegener: I would, I'm very satisfied with the original approval that I don't think posts are important. I think that the height adjustment is slight. I think that the height adjustment is slight. And I think that it that is that the parapet on the top of the building really does fit with the Cooroy streetscape and the lack of posts is consistent with the second version of Cooroy streetscape as well. So I'm very satisfied that the original application was fine. So I don't know.
00:35:00 I don't think these are improvements. Thank you, Tom. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, yours to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I just wanted to reinforce that the outcomes sought from this planning scheme are the same as being used for the traditional character of Cooroy which is strongly those with the street brand as with wooden posts. And I think that is as required in the planning scheme. There is no not sufficient merit within the alternative design to warrant not achieving the performance outcomes in a co-accessible application to go to the next level which is an overall outcome. So I think that is what we are looking for in this case. The motion. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Put the motion those in favour? So we're voting on the second. The motion. Okay. And if we don't vote for this then it goes back to the original motion or? If it's lost, Tom, yes. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia, Joe, Karen, Clare, Brian, Frank against.
00:36:00 Tom, that means the motion is carried. Next item. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair, can I just clarify in the minutes there, I'm saying for and against. It's all right. That's all right. That's all right. I just wanted to clarify that before we move on. Thank you, Chair. Good point. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Applications that reconfigure a lot, one lot and two lots of 21-gerim of crescent woodland. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that the next one? Councillor Wilkie: And that is from the Environment Committee. Okay. Speaker 1: Next item. Councillor Finzel: That's no. It's page 63. It's item number two. It's Eany Creek Road, Noosaville. Mayor Stewart: It's not item number two. Councillor Lorentson: You did number three before. Speaker 7: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Number one was referred for further report to item three. Speaker 7: Yeah. It's page 22 of the Planning Environment Committee meeting agenda. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, but we're on the General Committee. We're on the General Committee. Page 16. And the General Committee agenda is the next point, next item is 66CV Terrace.
00:37:00 It's item number two. Is 66CV Terrace in my agenda? Mayor Stewart: No. Councillor Finzel: No, it's not. It's Eany Creek Road. No, it's not. It's MCU2100. No. No. Oh, sorry. Here. Sorry. I'm in the wrong. No. Councillor Jurisevic: I must have a different agenda, I'm sorry. Councillor Wilkie: I'm in the general committee agenda. Councillor Jurisevic: Item four. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're looking at number three. We're in item two. We did one and three together. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, sorry. Okay, okay, I see. Okay, sorry, because they were reports to the general committee. Sorry, my apologies. My apologies, sir. That means we've got to go back to their services. Hello, Patrick. That's what happens when you don't actually put the things into the planning agenda. Councillor Wilkie: For the benefit of us all, could you refresh us on the application that's before us in the general president's agenda?
00:38:00 Speaker 7: Okay, so we did have some discussion around this one at the Planning Environment Committee meeting relating to 21 Jura Crescent Corova. It's a reconfiguration of the site from one lot into two lot. It's proposed to create the new lot essentially to the rear of the site with an existing access easement to provide access through to that rear lot. There are a few issues with this one, something that we probably really didn't touch on in the planning environment meeting was the flooding issues associated with this site and the fact that the applicant hasn't demonstrated that access can be provided to the rear lot, which is above the 1%. Okay. And also, if access were to be provided, if there were works that were required to the culvert, what the impact of those works would be on the right period buffer, so that's a significant issue.
00:39:00 Furthermore, the applicant hasn't been agreeable to the proposed extent of rehabilitation that the council officers are seeking and the extent of the covenant that council officers are seeking for an outcome that was the same as the adjoining property, which can't be done. Council refused but was settled on appeal. So we're seeking a covenant area of the same size, which would be 10 metres to the eastern side of the waterway, and then I think it's 75 metres to the western side of the waterway. But the works that would occur in that covenant area would be 10 metres either side of the waterway to have some active regeneration and rehabilitation, and then for the remainder of the area to be planted out with koala. Koala trees at a ratio of about one to every 10 square metres, again, consistent with the outcome that was on the adjoining property. And then that leads itself into the bushfire risk that would be associated with that rehabbed area.
00:40:00 The applicants provided a bushfire report that doesn't consider the extent of rehab work that council is seeking, and that therefore we can't rely on that existing report to demonstrate that the proposed house site is adequate. Notwithstanding, they do propose there's quite a significant area around the house site of about 60 square metres. So that is something that we think with some further work by the applicant may be able to be resolved. But again, the key issue is around that access across the waterway. And just some comments and questions that have come up around that. The recent reconfiguration at Glenridge is different to this site. And the reason is because the road access was above the 1.5 metres. Sorry, above the 10% AEP on that site. And also they were seeking to rehab the covenant area. Rehab the riparian buffer area, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: So questions. With regard to the flood access, you mentioned Greenridge.
00:41:00 The difference being that Greenridge had a flood study and the access was provided above the 10% AEP mark. Is that correct? Speaker 7: There was a flood study. And they were able to demonstrate that. The access would be above that 10% AEP. Councillor Jurisevic: So what's missing here is a flood study to ascertain that the covenant access currently is or isn't above the 10% AEP or what would be required to raise it to above the 10% AEP to be consistent with what we're going to bring in. That's correct. Speaker 4: Based on the contours, the site contours, it looks like that crossing is below the 10% AEP. Councillor Jurisevic: So what's suggested is the crossing may require some raising or... That's right. ... some culvert work... Yeah. ... underneath to facilitate. Okay, thank you. But the extent of which we don't know because... That's right. That answers question one. Yeah. Question two. As far as a house lot actually being situated here and having sufficient fire buffer around the house lot, has that been up to be ascertained in the proposals that's been put forward?
00:42:00 I.e., Patrick has referred to 75 metres of replanting from the creek line in that wiperian buffer zone. But does that allow sufficient room for a house site with sufficient bushfire clearance around it to be constructed? Or is there more work to be done to ascertain where that house site may sit and the clearance around it and the planting that may... Whether the planting would or wouldn't come into that area? Speaker 7: There is more work that needs to be done by the applicant. Okay. ... by the applicant in that regard to demonstrate that the extent of rehabilitation works that we're seeking would not present a fire risk to a proposed house site. Councillor Jurisevic: And as far as rehabilitation works go, is there any scope for part of the rehabilitation works to actually be at the rear of the property, joining the Trunks Creek at the rear of the property to lessen that 75 metre wide planting area that you're suggesting?
00:43:00 Speaker 7: Well, we're seeking the 75 metre wide area to the western side of the waterway which would be consistent with the outcome on the adjoining property. And that's important because it creates that linkage. You know, we've got the koala trees on the adjoining property and that's really important to provide that consistent link, that same kind of linkage on this property. Councillor Jurisevic: But given that the performance outcome or acceptable outcome, sorry, in this case only refers to 10 metres, why are we seeking that 75 metres to re-establish ... I mean, this is a significantly cleared block in relation to the block next door. The block next door had a significant amount of vegetation being retained upon it. Why are we seeking such a large buffer? If it's been cleared, is any additional planting an environmental outcome? No. Speaker 7: Well, having some additional planting is certainly a positive environmental outcome.
00:44:00 But just as a point of clarity, the planning scheme refers to 10 metres either side of a waterway and it also refers to the riparian buffer as well. So by virtue of rehabbing 10 metres either side of the waterway doesn't give you a tick in terms of your rehab of the riparian buffer. That's still an issue that needs to be resolved. Councillor Jurisevic: So where did the 75 metres come up? Is that because of what was achieved on the block next door or is that a standard that Speaker 7: we have? Well, that's the width of the riparian buffer. The width of the riparian buffer currently? The mapped riparian buffer in the planning scheme. And that width of the riparian buffer will vary throughout the Shire and that will be determinate on the type of waterway, the level of the waterway, the stream water. Councillor Jurisevic: I think we had a bit of an argument on that in the previous one, but I'll refer to that in my arguments. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Joe. Councillor Lorentson: Any other questions for staff? One question, Patrick. So you're saying that there is still opportunity to subdivide the block, but not how it's presented
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 in this application? Speaker 7: Well, the level of detail, the level of material that's required for us to be satisfied with compliance with the scheme hasn't been provided at this point. But we would think with some further work by the applicant that it's likely that they would be able to get there. Speaker 4: So more work is required because we just don't know the extent of that flooding through that waterway and you don't want to create a lot that's continually cut off when we get some heavy rain. I'm not talking about a major event or 100, I'm just talking about some heavy rain for 10% AP, which occurs quite regularly. All our roads throughout the Shire, when we build new roads, they're designed to 10% AP. That's the general standard to get access to house blocks. Councillor Lorentson: So when I go through the tracking documents and the information request, I can't remember if I could be wrong, but did we request a hydraulic report or a flood report by the
00:46:00 applicant? Was that requested? Speaker 7: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I believe it was. I do recall rereading the information request recently and the first item certainly referred to the access. Councillor Lorentson: That was 12 months, about 11 or 10 months ago. It was nothing recent, I believe. Speaker 4: Yeah. The flood study didn't focus on the access. It focused on showing that there was an area for the house to be built that was above the PMF. So it hasn't focused on the access, which is what we're raising. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's not suggesting that a house block can't be achieved with a suitable crossing. It's just that flood study to ascertain at what level that crossing needs to be at to satisfy that, because the house block is above the flood. That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just a question. From the data required to identify the probable maximum flood, and that one's an AP, is it
00:47:00 a straight extrapolation or is it just an estimate? It's a straight extrapolation to what the level may be in a 10% AP, or is it likely to be more work required to ascertain that level? No. Speaker 4: No. I understand there's significant more work to work that out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But the problem is a one lot subdivision. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Look, it probably, based on discussions with our flood engineer, our hydrologist, it's probably going to cost another $5,000 for them to do that work. But that's probably irrelevant to this discussion. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that access is also an access to a tower at the rear of the site, were any thoughts put into the access when that tower was considered with regard to flood access? Speaker 4: Well, it was, but in so far as a tower, people only attend the site for maintenance purposes.
00:48:00 So, it's only attended on a regular, infrequent basis. So, very different to a house site where people need to get in and out of their house site on a daily basis. So, whilst the crossing may go under, and that would restrict access to the tower, I think that's regular, because they only need to attend it for maintenance purposes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. On the other side, though, what about roads into and out of Cooroy Bar itself? Are you accessing Tewantin or getting back into town? At what point would that be under compared to getting access to the town? So, is it relevant to the flood levels of the roads around and access out of the property in general? Speaker 4: For the tower or the house site? Councillor Jurisevic: No, no, for the house site. Speaker 4: We probably don't have that information to know whether all the roads, what level they're all built at. But generally, what's designed for roads is 10% A. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess that's the answer I'm getting to. The design of the road is around that 10%.
00:49:00 So, if this is the equivalent of that, it's equivalent to what will and won't be happening on access outside of the property. Yeah. Speaker 4: Look, there may be some roads that are built years ago that may be under that. Councillor Jurisevic: Under that. Speaker 4: But I don't have that information. Councillor Jurisevic: But if those roads were to be upgraded now, they'll have to be brought to the 10%. That's right. Councillor Lorentson: So, my understanding, and again, if you can just clarify it, Patrick, was that when there is a major flood event, and my understanding, again, was that that house site area was much more constrained by the maximum flood levels than this one, the outcome of that was that people were going to shelter in place, that access wasn't so important because, you know, you just stay at home until the water subsides, which can be 12 hours or 24 hours.
00:50:00 Same considerations given to this application, or you can't make that assessment without the hydraulic or flood reports? Speaker 7: Well, both the house sites were above the PMF. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 7: But it's the access into those lots that's different, that Glen Ridge would- As opposed to doing that. Well, in and out. In and out. So, for the owners of the property, occupiers of the property, or even emergency services, that road into Glen Ridge, into the site, achieves a 10% AEP, whereas this one doesn't. Well, this one hasn't demonstrated that it does, and what works to be required if it doesn't. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right. We have a motion before us. Anyone care to move it? Councillor Jurisevic: No, I'm going to move an alternate motion. I'd like to move a deferral motion to this until Thursday night's meeting, to give staff
00:51:00 time to go back to the applicant and look at the opportunities of negotiation with regard to where the house lot is, and whether the planning can be achieved and the fire outcomes can be negotiated, as well as an understanding of why the flood site is there. Should the flood site be built in a place that is a significant part of the study and the 10% AEP is required? Speaker 4: How much of that do you want me to put in there? Councillor Jurisevic: To allow staff to further negotiate with the applicant on the outcomes of flooding and flood mitigation. Raised in the report. Is that sufficient to say, Tim? Councillor Lorentson: On the outcomes of the- Councillor Wilkie: Is it issues of flood access? Of flood access. Of access? Yeah. No. Councillor Jurisevic: And fire. Speaker 4: So just to clarify for councillors, obviously between now and Thursday the applicant is not going to be able to prepare a flood study.
00:52:00 No, no, no. But at least it will allow us to have the discussion with the applicant to see if they'll extend out the time frame in order to address this additional information. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's what I'm referring to. Is that covered in what I've said in the wording there? Can it be worded better? Councillor Wilkie: Regarding the flood and fire issues? Councillor Jurisevic: Regarding flood and fire issues. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I ask would it be better to go to the applicant and ask if he wants to start the clock? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I think that's what I'm trying to achieve there. That's the intent of my motion. Mayor Stewart: Shouldn't it be regarding potential flood and fire issues? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, yes. Happy to see that word. I'll say flood and fire issues raised. Speaker 9: Through the Chair, Councillor Durris, I think that's broad enough. There's a bit of a catch-all, so that allows the discussion to be...
00:53:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. If nobody has any objection, then I'll put that forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can I have a seconder for that, please? Seconder, Brian Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? Look, having spoken to the applicant, I... I was challenged by some of the points that staff have raised with regard to other decisions that have been through the Council recently, but I now have a greater understanding. I believe that the applicant was fairly firm in his standing there, but I think that with the matters discussed here and that there's at least the opportunity to at least give the applicant a bit more time to consider the matters raised and to see if there is some... further compromise that can be reached with regard to achieving the outcomes of both from an environment perspective and from a subdivision perspective. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Possibly.
00:54:00 Cathy, could I bring up my... So, I think it would be good also to inform both those conversations and the decision of the applicant. If they have an indication of what Council's appetite is for the development of non-bus issues. So, in my view, the flooding issue, the 10% is that probably we can't go below that standard design. I do think there's room for negotiation in terms of the extent to which we seek rehabilitation enhancement as a result of the riparian buffer. After we had next door, I actually wrote a quote about it. I wrote a lengthy thing to staff about we need to review the planning scheme because although throughout the document we used terms like enhance and rehabilitate and there was one other. To restoration ecologists, they all have different means and what we ask, if it's just enhancing, then a small 10-metre may be enhancing.
00:55:00 I also think in this site, the creek that's separating the two proposed house sites or the wetland or whatever it might be, was previously, is highly degraded. It's a series of palm dams. So, the potential biodiversity benefit in this site is actually more to the rear of the site because that abuts a tributary of the Ringkau Creek, which is remnant vegetation, which is a quieter area. I actually think it's probably reasonable for a one-lot subdivision to try and make the link into next door, but also to look at allowing regeneration in the back area, which is where, any self-referencing, it's more likely to go anyway because of the level of remnant beside it. And if you go to the next one, I do think if we had slightly less requirements in the 75 metres up the front, that it does allow for significant potential bushfire buffer around the identified house site. So, to me, I'm willing to look at something like that.
00:56:00 You know, linking up on the eastern side with the boundary for the next level of development. And then, I think, you know, if you get the 70 metres, by skewing it like that, repeating to a bet, when I looked on site, that 70 metres is a bet where you've got a rise, which would be the, I think, you know, probably close to the proper maximum, probably close to the 100-year level or something. I think that is getting the enhancement that we want. And I suppose that looking at it from an outcome perspective, the way we've done it, that we've mapped the riparian buffers to try and improve those connectivity and improve the biodiversity. If we say no, because they can't get that in with bushfire, then we're not likely to get that benefit anyway. So, to me, I think I'm willing to go with a narrow rehabilitation revet area to the west of the farm dam waterway. But also identify, up to back, some regeneration area as well.
00:57:00 And... And providing there is a solution in terms of getting to an attempt at an AEP crossing, I'm happy to support the proposal. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, is the option proposed by Councillor Stockwell reasonable and doable? Speaker 4: I think it is reasonable. I think there is some scope to look at that 75 metres. You know, the advice I've always had from ecologists over the years is a wildlife corridor is around 50. So, you know, I'd be looking for somewhere around that. Which is less than the 75. So, there's certainly some scope to look at some options there with the applicant. Councillor Wegener: Tom? Cathy, could you go back to Brian's photo? Sorry for... Go to the one right above it. There's the lease A. So, I'm looking at where the lease A is right sort of in the middle of the left property there. That's where the tower is, I suspect.
00:58:00 Yeah. And then even the next slide. The next slide down, and it says house site area. Is that the same as where the tower is? Councillor Jurisevic: No, the house on the next little block. Our joining block. Councillor Wegener: Oh, right, right. Okay. In the triangle. Yeah, that's it. Thank you for that. Yeah. Speaker 7: Can I ask Brian a question? Did you... Do you not measurements you have there for those region areas? The width? The total width? Specific? No, as I... Just an indication. I just... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What looked like a reasonable thing based on... I did on imagery first. So, when I was on site, I thought 25 to 30 metres on the west was probably where you'd have it if you would get the slopes. We're not saying where there's a change of slope, but yeah. I wasn't going to be prescriptive in that. I just thought... If I was going to go in there as a waterway rehabilitation, I wouldn't be recommending any more than 25 probably, but if we're looking at it from waterway perspective, if you're
00:59:00 looking at getting some koala, you might go a little bit more to get the site sort of. Obviously, with that, the landlord's concerns about fire hazard in the middle of the block. Naturally, you'd find metal lucid would be coming back there, which do have a fire potential, but if you look at what should be in the understory there, it would tend to be far more fire suppressant understory than if you go to the right, then just along that exotic grass and some of these metal lucid. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: For the purpose of moving the debate along, I'll speak in favour of the motion. I'd certainly like to see more information from the applicant, because we just cannot approve a subdivision without knowing whether or not there's safe access to any of that information. No council would approve the subdivision without knowing whether the residents can get in and out safely. Generally, the building is being required for flood access.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Thank you. And of course I'll support the motion of the plan. Can I ask Mr Speaker before Joe closes? Councillor Joe, would you close? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, like Brian, when I visited the site I saw the potential for some revegetation. I saw the potential for revegetation at both ends of that block. I did see a highly degraded block that any revegetation, replanting would be of a significant environmental benefit. But I did see limits as to where I thought that could go and I think the sloping ground was an element of that. With the right understory planting of course it will help minimise the fire risks as Brian has alluded to. So I think with all those things I understand the flood risk now. Thank you to the staff for working through that issue with me and I see why the need for the flood study is required. So I think that if those things are explained there may be an opportunity here for the, for an outcome that benefits us all.
01:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: Those in favour? That's unanimous. Next item is further, item four which is further report application for material change of use of dwelling house 66 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. To report the Director-General on page 15 of the General Committee agenda. Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson Lee, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as Deborah Reid is submitted to the application as a personal friend. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Ms Reid. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I will ask a question of Councillor Lorentson if I may.
01:02:00 Yes, go on. Can you explain the nature of the relationship you have with Ms Reid please? Councillor Lorentson: Deborah's daughter went to the same school, not the same year as my daughter. She's younger than my daughter. And I've known Deborah just through school functions, social functions and copies that you've sent to me. That was some time ago. We pulled our children out a few years ago and they now attend Sunshine State High School. I, my daughter has, when she was five or six or seven, had a two, three hour play date with Deb's daughter. They both did dancing, ballet at ballet school. Deb, as you can see, she's a very good dancer. And her husband Brent once, maybe 15, 20 years ago, came to my house for dinner as part
01:03:00 of a big group of parents from St Andrews. And we've attended the normal coffee, lunches during my lunch days at St Andrews. But that was some time ago. Yep. Satisfied, gentlemen? Yep. Mayor Stewart: I'll move that. Councillor Lorentson, that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Laurenston and determine that it is in the public domain. It is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Lorentson does not have a close personal relationship with the submitter, Ms Reid, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Seconded. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Jo. Clare, do you wish to speak to it? No. Mayor Stewart: I think Amelia's, it's been very self-explanatory. Amelia's covered all areas. I'm very comfortable with Amelia staying in the room. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors would speak to this motion? All in favour? That's unanimous. Noting that we didn't vote. Noting that we didn't vote. Of course. Right.
01:04:00 Patrick, could you give us an overview of the application, especially in view of the investigation into the overlooking issue and how that affects the overall height in terms of stories of the application? Okay. Speaker 7: You may recall it was back in July that this matter was presented to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. There are a number of planning controls on the site, you know, particularly around landslides, and the site is also known to be erosion prone. So there were some geotechnical investigations. A hydraulic engineer was engaged and they've made their recommendations, which were included in the conditions of approval. There was also matters around the front setback, site cover, the development being three storeys, and the inclusion of the rooftop terrace. After some debate at the Planning and Environment meeting, the applicant stopped the clock, and has since then extended the decision making period with some amended plans.
01:05:00 And the purpose of those amended plans were to address some overlooking concerns that have been raised by a nearby property. On review of those plans, and on review of the potential overlooking to the nearby property, I form the opinion that the development does result in overlooking to the adjoining property, and that the proposed measures to mitigate the overlooking are not satisfactory, and that the rooftop terrace should be deleted. And just to confirm that the matters that were, the measures that were brought in, were proposed were a 1.4 metre high angled privacy screen, which sat back from a 1 metre wide planter. And it was also proposed to transplant an 8 metre high canopy tree into the area between the dwelling and the side boundary. So I thought whilst, you know, it's noted that the 1.4 metre high screen wouldn't be
01:06:00 suitable to address the overlooking, if the screen was to be increased in height, it would create some unreasonable bulk and cause the dwelling to go over 8 metres in height. So I didn't think it was reasonable to condition that outcome. As I said, therefore, it's been recommended that a condition be included requiring amended plans which delete the rooftop terrace. Councillor Wilkie: That would bring it to a two-storey dwelling? Speaker 7: Which would bring it to a two-storey dwelling, that's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Questions, Councillors, on any other aspects of the application? Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, a two-storey dwelling? You mean a three-storey dwelling? Speaker 7: It's currently proposed with the rooftop terrace, and that has a small element of three storeys because of that rooftop terrace. But with the condition recommending that the rooftop terrace be deleted, it would therefore be a two-storey dwelling. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, what we had before us in the planning committee included removal
01:07:00 of the rooftop terrace? No. Speaker 7: No. The initial recommendation? Yes. Did not include the removal of the rooftop terrace? Councillor Jurisevic: No. So how do we get to an application address in July that comes to us in September with the approval at the initial meeting, and then a change between the initial meeting and the general committee meeting? Speaker 7: So since that meeting, I've been able to go out to the adjoining property and reassess my evaluation of overlooking based upon that inspection. Okay. And it's my opinion that the rooftop terrace will result in overlooking. And that wasn't picked up previously? No, it wasn't. Councillor Jurisevic: The applicant's representative, I met them out on site, and they've shown me a set of drawings that suggest that there are no overlooking concerns, and they've been on site and actually done measurements on the adjoining property as well, according to what they've told me. How is it that you, that what they've presented, suggests that there are no overlooking concerns,
01:08:00 and yet what you're saying is that there are overlooking issues? Is it the height of the... Speaker 7: Well, the height of the rooftop terrace, it is quite high. Councillor Jurisevic: But the wall adjoining that was supposed to be the thing that prevented the overlooking? Speaker 7: Well, a 1.4 metre high screen is quite small. Generally, you'd be looking to 1.7, 1.8 metres in terms of a screen. The drawings that they've provided, I think, are based on an average height person of 1.65 square metres, so the view line that they've provided is, it underestimates the potential for overlooking for a range of people that would occupy the site or attend the site. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask the, so 1.4 is too low, 1.8 would exceed the height limit, is there a height in between there? Is there a maximum height at which a screen could be, could be achieved? That wouldn't, that wouldn't exceed the 8 metre height? Speaker 4: I think what would address it would be reducing the size of the rooftop terrace. So at the moment, you've got a landscape bed, 1 metre wide, which helps set the balustrading
01:09:00 where a person is standing on that edge. That helps to an extent to stop the immediate looking straight down into the neighbouring property. But it'd have to be set back, but you still see out into the neighbouring property's yard and use area. So what does it just... So you'd have to set that quite substantially back from that side boundary. So from that side boundary, set back from the side boundary to achieve... Or from that side of the house. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we have any idea of how much that would have to be achieved or is that something for Speaker 4: the applicant's designer to... It's really something for the applicant to design to. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? I've got a series of questions. I want to get clear in my head what level of discretion is being recommended for approval. So the first one is there's a statement in there that says, furthermore, the part of the building that's within 6 metres from the front setback, so from CB Terrace, is generally below the maximum 8 metre height for municipal. So generally below.
01:10:00 Does that mean there's elements of it that are above the 8 metres? Speaker 7: Probably the wording. I'm not sure the full context of the wording. I can't quite remember it, but what I was alluding to there was if you had a building that was fully compliant with the setback at 6 metres and then at no height going back from the front setback was it above 8 metres, so if you did that 8 metre height blanket with the land falling away, that that element at the front wouldn't be higher than anything in that area. So at the front, it's below 8 metres above the ground level. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And where it goes over is where you've got your basement cut in, going up through it. Speaker 7: It's really that structure, that flume, I think it is, in the corner of the building is the issue. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Another quote in here is, the Coastal Hazard Assessment has found that proposed house and pool are unlikely to be subject to erosion from the sea during expected lifespan, i.e.
01:11:00 60 years. Can we clarify the above statement? Speaker 7: I think that's a conversation that I would need to have with our consultants to give a probability. Speaker 4: Can I answer it this way? So we've had the same consultants look at this house as they did for a house down the road, which was subject to an appeal. I think it was 54 C3 Terrace. So the same consultants have looked at it for that appeal as they have for this one. So that house, and this one, is going to be designed, and it's going to be designed to deal with the 0.8 metre sea level rise, and deal with coastal erosion processes by 2100. So they're saying that it will withstand, the design foundation will withstand a 500 year RIA storm tide, a recession due to storm level. So they are satisfied that the design will withstand the coastal processes.
01:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so that means the piling process is going to be done by the end of the year. Yep. I say the same. They've got piles going down with the concrete straight over it, or whatever it rejoins, or whatever it's called. That'll be on the coastal building line. Is that right? Is that how it's being piled? And then the balcony, well, what should be a balcony comes out over that. So what it suggests to me is that in the mapping, by the 2070 mark, that in the life of this building, the beach could be underneath people's bedrooms, and their living room, and their lawn, and their kitchen. So people, if the 2070 mapping, there's a one in 100 year mapping goes further up the block. So the piling creates the edge to the beach. If the erosion occurs in a one in 100 year event, like 100 year flood, we'd have the bedroom, or the kitchen, and the living room over the top of the beach as one option. Speaker 4: Oh, it'll be far worse than that. If you have a look at the mapping that's done for the chap, they may not even get a drive
01:13:00 in the driveway. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's in 2100. Speaker 4: That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, 2070 I'm thinking about, because 2100's outside the life of the building, so 2070 line. Speaker 4: The 2070 line is still the whole property. So it'll be far worse. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's just one of my questions. It does establish some of the three stories we've covered. The other one is the view from the beach, and to a certain extent, the walkway. If we were to bring the development compliance, and I'm particularly thinking about the recommendation to have it covered and closed, three rooms, which the scheme suggests should just be an uncovered balcony or deck. If we went with the scheme with the coastal building on PO3, and, well, we're going with
01:14:00 rooftop terraces, that would have a reduced, would that have a reduced sense of bulk from the beach? I suppose the question is, what do you see from the beach? Do you see, do you see that bulky area projecting? Speaker 7: Yeah, I've been on to the beach to view the site, and I've looked at it in context of the surrounding area, and it's quite interesting when you're looking at a site that's fully, you know, got vegetation through it, and you're trying to imagine what's going to be there. But certainly I can see the scale and bulk and the size of the area, and the size of it, and the colour of buildings within the surrounding area are very, very dominant, and they come well beyond the coastal building line. I mean, if you're reducing the amount of built form in an area, you're obviously going to
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 see less, but you're still going to see the building behind it. So I think it's, it is difficult to say, you know, exactly, but I don't think, you know, as per my initial assessment, I don't think the scale and bulk of this as viewed from the beach is going to be, is a detrimental outcome. Speaker 4: And I'll just, sorry, go back to the chat mapping. That's the 2070 line. Yeah. So you can see that it takes out majority of the property by 2100. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And what the building design would do would be to actually stop at the point where the piles are. Speaker 4: Well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it might be in a bit of an island. It'd be the Malibu house sitting over the beach. Yes. Speaker 4: It will be the Malibu house. In 2100, there's probably no road there. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask the question? I've got in front of me the coastal hazard assessment report that was put together by Royal Husking. And there's a lot of really interesting stuff in that. And they talk about settlement transport, accretion of sand in that northern pocket.
01:16:00 And sort of what I've taken away from this is that, that every property has, you know, different sets of circumstances. And we've got to look at every property in that context. That possibly a blunt line or, you know, one rule doesn't fit all. So just for any of the other councillors who haven't had the opportunity, there's an incredible assessment report, coastal hazard assessment report, and there's also a really great geotechnical investigation report. Again, by the two external consultants that have been counselled and used in its planning and environment appeal. Yeah. Really great information. Speaker 4: Look, certainly, if I may comment, that it is a really significant issue that this council's going to have to have a look at. These properties are probably some of the worst affected in the Shire. And, you know, that's why we're putting this report to council for a decision.
01:17:00 But where we have got the best information, we've got the best information. We've got the best advice from our external experts around engineering and geotechnical to recommend how to address these coastal erosion processes. Because at the moment, the planning scheme allows a house to be built on this site. All the other properties along Seaview Terrace, well, just about all of them in this short strip, intrude into this coastal building line. The one at 54 that I referred to down the road with an appeal. Substantially intrudes into the coastal building line. So not just cantilever, it's got foundations in the coastal building line. Councillor Wilkie: This one doesn't. Speaker 4: This one doesn't. It's actually set back behind the coastal building line. Yes. And it cantilevers out. Yes, it's not consistent with our outcomes. But we have gone through a whole appeal process with 54.
01:18:00 And if we want to achieve a different outcome, we need to change the planning scheme. Yes. And change the words around it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a couple of questions that come out of that. And I understand where you're coming from. There's two things that have led to the substantial non-compliance with the current planning scheme. Is this a question? Yes. Am I correct that most of those would have been built at the time the State Government had a guideline that you could consider where your neighbour's property was when you built it? And therefore, there was this progressive creep. And the State Government no longer has that policy. Speaker 4: So the coastal building line comes back from the Beach Protection Authority, which I think goes back to the 80s. And it was based on the best science advice at the time. Now, when I started with Newsea Council, early 2000, the advice, the applications actually used to go to the Beach Protection Authority or the State for advice. And yes, they did have a varied approach when it came to that coastal building line.
01:19:00 So that's one of the reasons. And that's why we will see some houses in that coastal building line. Council, over time, was then asked, that was delegated to Council to make the decision. And Council had some respect for the coastal erosion processes. But they also used to very much look still at the visual amenity along the area and ensure houses coming forward were not going to impact on visual views of neighbouring property. So the requirements over time have changed. And yes, our planning scheme needs to change. It needs to put much more emphasis on coastal erosion processes than it has in the past. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then the second one, in terms of 54, my recollection is when we went to appeal on that one, one of the factors we had to consider was about the legal provisions around when you're upgrading an existing house. So they had an existing house on 54 that was substantially in support of the coastal building
01:20:00 line. And they were doing a development that was replaced. So it's not a consideration in this one because there's no existing house. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. You are correct. There is a different consideration for 54 because it had an existing house that also is in the coastal building line. So that weighed up in the minds of the solicitors and our experts. But what came strongly through to me is the building line, the coastal building line, they called it quite an arbitrary line because it's so old and not based on more recent science and specifics of the property. So they felt that they could not give weight, significant weight to making sure that house was back behind that coastal building line because it was so old. It was based on data from the 80s, but it wasn't up to date. And they called it an arbitrary line. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So let's argue with any of that. However, the current less arbitrary line is a long way further away from the link. Is that correct in terms of the erosion time? Yes.
01:21:00 That's right. Speaker 4: We need to work towards incorporating that in our scheme. And the plan was, when we did the 2020 scheme, to complete the CHAP and take the learnings from that CHAP process and make our planning scheme amendments. Now, that hasn't occurred. What we have today in the 2020 scheme is almost identical as the 2006 scheme. So it's a little different. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, the principal element of non-compliance is the enclosed cantilever veranda? Speaker 4: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: And with the rooftop deck removed, then we know to handle the issue of overlooking, it will be essentially compliant with the planning scheme as it sits? That's right. Speaker 4: It will be compliant with the scheme and consistent with the planning scheme. Consistent with the legal advice and the expert's opinion for 54 Seaview Terrace.
01:22:00 Councillor Wilkie: And one of the reasons for not having an enclosed veranda or a cantilevered balcony was to prevent issues of site blockage for neighbouring properties. Will this enclose... What's been your assessment of the impact of that on the neighbours views of the coastline? Speaker 7: The adjoining... There's so much vegetation on the adjoining property to the south. That it would not... I mean, they'll still be blocked by their own vegetation. So it won't impact on it. Councillor Wilkie: And property to the north? Speaker 7: Well, their house is set well back. Okay. So... Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: Yeah. Can I just maybe just make one point? You did talk about non-compliances. There is a front set back non-compliance, which has obviously been addressed in the original report and justified as well. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Question in terms of PO15 and Roof Terrace, were the neighbours contacted prior to the development application being lodged?
01:23:00 This is code accessible, not impact, so there is no time I know to notify, to go to public notification. Speaker 7: That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: What concerns me is, my question is, just reading PO15, quote, doesn't create opportunities for residents or building users to overlook the private open space or view into habitable windows or doors of neighbouring properties. When I read that, I would think that the only way you can reach a decision was actually going to the neighbours on both sides and asking or checking whether there is any intrusion or overlooking. So, if I put an application for a roof terrace, will you be knocking on my neighbour's doors?
01:24:00 Speaker 7: It's likely we would be, and if I had my time again, I probably would on this one, but just to fill in some gaps, we received a letter from a planning consultant representing the nearby neighbour and advised that they looked at the plans and were aware that we'd made an information request and would be reviewing that information request and would be in touch with us with any concerns. So, I hadn't heard anything back from that consultant through the assessment process. Yes, whilst I say it would have been ideal to have gone out and I should have looked at it myself, that did, to some degree, inform me as to the opinion of the neighbouring property around the reason for this application. Councillor Lorentson: Because I made the same inference of where it came to the planning environment. That it was okay by the neighbours, so I'm glad it was picked up. Councillor Wilkie: Do we have a motion before us? Anyone care to move this motion? Councillor Wegener: I actually have a question about the drainage and it simply says that the water that enters the property will be put up onto the public.
01:25:00 How will they do that? Is it a series of pumps or what is the mechanism? Speaker 7: It's through gravity. So, it's a charge line. So, from the roof that we support and the pressure of the water will push it up into the street. It means that there will always be some water in the charge line. But as I said, when it rains, the pressure of the water will push that out into the street system. Councillor Wegener: And what does that mean pushing it into the street system? So, there's obviously a drain that's going to come up into the street with gravity. The roof's up here, water goes down underground and then up onto the street like that. It'll be out into the gutter. Into the gutter? Speaker 7: Yep. I'd say into the gutter or there's operational works approvals that will be required because the applicant will need to ensure that the form of the road doesn't result in the water going into adjoining properties.
01:26:00 So, it generally would go into the gutter. But if that's going to cause some issues because of the canberra of the road, then they'll need to do some works within the road to alleviate that. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: It's a steep road. I don't see a way out, but the water now goes into the sand, it goes down into the property, down to the beach, through the nature area that's not undeveloped. But then when you put a house there, then you change the nature of how the water's going to... Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 7: So, on that, the hydraulic engineer has advised that there cannot be any infiltration pits to the rear of the site because it will impact on the stability of the site and that's why it has to go out to the road. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Sure. My understanding is that with reserves, road reserves and the like on a property, that if there wasn't a footpath there or it wasn't a gutter there within the road reserve,
01:27:00 the council could request that a developer or an applicant installs a footpath, a missing link of footpath, a missing link of curb and guttering in a road reserve. Is the same applicable to the reserve at the rear of the property where an environmental concern might be? The reason I raise it is because I notice a significant number of weeds upon this particular site and those weeds go down the slope into the reserve below. Is there any scope or any mechanism for council to require clearance of those weeds and maybe re-establishment of the environmental reserve? Speaker 7: The scheme does refer to the requirement for frontage works and footpaths and the like, but there's no requirement in the scheme to require rehabilitation of adjoining environmental lands, foreshore land. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Through the chair? Yeah, I just have a question with regards to that. How would that be made possible further down the track? Would that be via a scheme amendment or through the foreshore management plan? How could that be something that's considered when other applications come before us with reference to maintaining that foreshore?
01:28:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, being a code-assessable application, the application can only be assessed against the scheme codes that are nominated relevant for a house. So if Council wish to investigate the possibility of having house owners help weed or manage the adjacent reserve, it would need to be included in the planning scheme codes, and then we could apply it as conditions of approval. But again, conditions regardless have to be reasonable and relevant, so it would be fairly limited sort of frontage works, as you said. Councillor Jurisevic: I see we have something that has to come up in the foreshore management plan to proceed that. Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a foreshore management plan being developed for Eastern Beaches, and certainly that's some of the feedback officers gave to that foreshore management plan that's being drafted. But that foreshore management plan will come before Council down the track too.
01:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Karen, finish your question then. Councillor Finzel: It's just regarding another matter, something in reference to what Council Jurisevic said. In terms of the height of the, what is it, that pipe that comes up, that we must remove the rooftop terrace, and it has to be in compliance to the satisfaction of the manager development assessment. Is there no further negotiation to meet a middle ground on that height, or has that been already solicited? Speaker 7: I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. Speaker 4: Well, the applicant has indicated that they would like a rooftop terrace. Yeah. I think they've indicated that they would consider a condition requiring the balustrade come up. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 4: Yeah. So they've indicated they would accept a condition requiring a greater height of that screen between the neighbour and the property, so they could not be overlooking.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Officers are not recommending that, as previously advised, because of the bulk and the height issue. To me, the better solution would be to actually push back that roof terrace from the edge of the building. So they're... You don't get those overlooking opportunities. That requires further consideration by the applicant in working out where that might be placed on site. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, then you. Councillor Wegener: Could we put a condition in it, instead of saying no rooftop terrace, but a condition to say you just have to do exactly what you just said? Is that a condition that we could put in here instead of saying no rooftop terrace? Speaker 4: Well, that's an option for council. I wouldn't recommend that. It's not a strong position for council to take. I think, you know, this is a change of position. Speaker 7: No, this is a code accessible MCU. Speaker 4: So the applicant will have, through the process, an opportunity to negotiate conditions with the council so that those discussions can still occur with the applicant if they wish to do that.
01:31:00 Councillor Wegener: Overall, are there very many places that have rooftop terraces? Are they encouraged? Speaker 4: Well, the 2006 scheme first introduced a requirement for no rooftop terraces. We do support some rooftop terraces where they can demonstrate that there's no overlooking occurred. You know, because there was a strong amount of concern raised by the community prior to the 2006 scheme about the impact it was having from these roof terraces looking down onto Preeple, because they're up so high. But, you know, where they are located central to the house, set back from the edge of the dwelling, they can be... you know, they can be successful in demonstrating that there's no overlooking, so, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So my question was along the same lines. Given that the recommendation before us today is to accept the application without a rooftop terrace and the applicant had a rooftop terrace and you've suggested there may be some latitude there or compromise of where that rooftop terrace goes to prevent that overlooking,
01:32:00 what is that? What is the capacity from here for Council to negotiate the outcomes of that rooftop terrace? I think you just answered that in saying that because it's of the nature of the application, there is still scope for that roof, even though we've refused the element of the rooftop terrace in this, there's still room to negotiate. Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, they can go through the negotiated decision process, make representations to their conditions. Officers can also ask the question of the applicant. Yeah. And let you know the answer to that too. Councillor Jurisevic: So would that require a deferral motion again, like we did with the previous one, or is that something we can refuse and still get a response from the applicant before Thursday's meeting? Speaker 4: Yeah, I think either option would be valid for Council, that's, that's, that's your choice.
01:33:00 Speaker 2: Do we have something like today? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, look, we've got a staff recommendation before us, I'm going to move the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by, seconded by Councillor Morris. Mayor Stewart: Look, we've gone round and round on this, we've got hydraulic engineers report, a geotechnical expert report, this is compliant with the scheme, it's consistent with legal advice, it is prudent to, and I wholly support the staff in their recommendation of removing rooftop terrace, there's significant privacy issues in relation to the neighbours, and I think that it, and a rooftop terrace, when you're on the beach, my question would be, why do you need a rooftop terrace? Because your views are, are there anyway. But the main concern is the privacy and amenity of the surrounding properties, so I support that, and I support the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. And the Council will receive the motion. Councillor Stockwell? If you might then bring up the point again. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a very different view, and I did foreshadow I was going to seek further advice from staff, but I think because the advice we've got, that may be putting staff on a necessary time.
01:34:00 My view is that the level of non-compliance and discretion required with the performance outcomes is such that it shouldn't be supported. If you look there, the performance outcome clearly says that any protrusion into the coastal building line should be cantilevered deck, and uncovered, and it should be unencumbered and uncovered. What we've got here. Councillor Jurisevic: Contradictory. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. What we've got is a bedroom, a kitchen, and a living room, and we've heard that it may not have any structural impact, but the reason that we did that, I have clear memories when we put that provision in, it was very specifically debated, because we had to come back, because we hadn't finished the chapter, we were going to have some, but we had to come back, and we had to come back, and we had to come back, and we had to come back, and we had to come back, and we had to come back, and we had to come
01:35:00 to a different set of regulations and requirements that went out with the first advertised draft, and we said no, we'll need to finish the chapter and then redo it. The reason we did that was, if, as is probable, during the life of this time, we have a 100 year event, it will erode back to where the files are, and that's you're going to have a bedroom, a living room, and a kitchen, with the potential for public access beneath them. Is that what we want to encourage? Is the level of discretion where we're saying well the site's steep so we're going to let you forget about the front setbacks, oh it's sloping so we'll let you forget about the height limit, and historically we've let people do it down the road so we'll let you do it. Is that the precedent we want to set for the first application under the 2020 Noosa plan for treating coastal hazards?
01:36:00 For me, the answer's no. Now I respect the staff have done an assessment and said when they look at elsewhere that it's not even consistent. I can't argue with that. But with Croy, there are a lot of decisions in the past that I would not have supported. And we have a new plan which has specific requirements. One of them is that, forward of the coastal building line, you have an uncovered deck. Now what does that mean? Are we going to assess this from the view of the applicant? Are we going to assess it from the view of the community? If that was a deck rather than a building structure, would that look better or worse from the beach? And remember we did a really good bit of work around the deck. We did a cost-benefit analysis on this, and it was based on the value of the beach.
01:37:00 And you can remember the value that came back for the beach was incredibly high, and so the scenic amenity and the beach views are incredibly high. And what's more, this is right beside the public access way. So rather than having a deck for that part, that public access is always going to have an appearance of a block. So to me, the building is too large for the block. Plain and simple. Now we can argue that, yes, under previous schemes, previous state planning positions may be different, but we're not considering it under those previous schemes, we're considering it under the current scheme. And the current scheme says, forward of the building line, you have a deck. And while we don't have a lot of vacant blocks left with ocean-prone blocks, we have a lot of houses that could be redeveloped. And if this is a precinct you want to set for ocean-prone, you approve it.
01:38:00 If it's not the precinct you want to set, don't. Mayor Stewart: Mr Chair, is that, so do we have an alternate motion on the table, or is that speaking to mine? No, I'm speaking to yours. Councillor Finzel: No, yes. Mayor Stewart: Okay, I've got a question. Councillor Stockwell said that we let the people down the road get, have it, their plans approved. Well, we didn't, did we? We actually refused it, and then they took us to court. And can you speak to that, or your ability at least, and what you can say? Speaker 4: Yeah, so I think it's, it's relevant for us to consider the one down the road, 54 CV Terrace. Council did refuse it. Offices recommended refusal. We were concerned about this dwelling going in an area that was going to be subject to future coastal erosion processes. Now, that was under the. The 2006 scheme. This application is under the 2020 scheme. But the issue is we ended up settling the appeal for 54 CV Terrace based on the legal advice and the expert opinion at the time.
01:39:00 And that really was that the design, the footing, the extensive footings and the work they had done demonstrated that it addressed the issue of this coastal building line. That it was really only an arbitrary line. Yes, the 2006 scheme only ever envisaged a deck as well in the coastal building line. But the 54 CV Terrace had half the house in the coastal building line. Not just a cantilevered section, it had foundation in there. Now, we're recommending the Council agree to this one, essentially because the planning scheme requirements have not changed around this between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme. So, we're going to have to wait and see what happens. It's almost the exact same wording, certainly the same meaning. It still says the dwelling should be located outside the coastal building line with only a cantilevered deck. So, we're finding ourselves in a very similar, if not the same, position to 54 CV Terrace.
01:40:00 And I think we need to learn from those appeals we've had in the past. And that's why officers have recommended it. If we want a different outcome, we actually need to change the planning scheme, take what we've learnt through the chat process, and introduce new and additional requirements. And that's what will give us a different outcome, if that's what we're looking for. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe, I'll take that advice to heart. It seems that the use of the word coastal building line, which is an arbitrary line and not relevant in the current planning scheme, is something that we need to look at. It seems that the use of the word coastal building line, which is an arbitrary line and not relevant in the current planning scheme, is something that we need to address. We've done additional work with regard to 2040, 2070 and 2100 in the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan. We need to make that amendment. So, I'm not prepared to override the staff decision in this case. It comes well considered and well documented.
01:41:00 And the options there for the rooftop terrace have been noted. So, I'm prepared to support the staff recommendation in this case. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Joe. Just to clarify something, the coastal building line does have relevance. Can you explain what it is and what legalities sit around the coastal building line? Speaker 4: Okay, so the coastal building line is based on the Beach Protection Authority old line that was drawn in the 80s. And it's based on the best science at that time. So, our planning scheme is based on the Beach Protection Authority old line that was drawn in the 80s. So, our planning scheme, 2006 and the 2020 scheme, adopted that line because that's the best we had at the time in terms of trying to set a line to say buildings should be behind that line. So, that's really where it comes from. But we've got a lot more information now that we've finished the chat. And it's, I guess, suggesting there's a greater risk to these sites than the coastal building line.
01:42:00 Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support staff recommendation and support also the amended requirement which deletes the rooftop terrace. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. How does then removing the rooftop terrace play into the... coastal erosion plan? Like, how are those two marrying when the amendment today is that the plans must remove the rooftop terrace? How do those two speak to each other? Speaker 4: Well, the application is for a house in the coastal area. The rooftop terrace is just one element which we're asking the applicant to remove because of our concerns about overlooking.
01:43:00 The roof terrace really doesn't have any implications for coastal erosion processes. They're really unrelated. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'll be supporting the motion for us. I think some of the points raised by Councillor Stockwell speak to a debate that's yet to be had in the future. And maybe the subject of the debate concerning the future planning scheme amendments and what's not there yet. I respect and support the... I respect and support the... The change to the conditions at the rooftop terrace overlooking and privacy issues generally are an issue of genuine concern for residents across the Shire, not only the neighbours to the north of this property. I thank the staff for their diligence in going back and doing on-ground assessment of that. And I accept and respond to that, even though the scheme mentions a preference for unenclosed, cantilevered balconies,
01:44:00 and I accept and respond to that, even though the scheme mentions a preference for unenclosed, cantilevered balconies, the purpose, going to the intent of that, is to prevent the blockage of views on the neighbouring properties. And as we've heard from staff, the enclosed, cantilevered balconies do not impede on the views of the neighbours in any way. So for that reason, I'm happy to support this motion. Councillor Jurisevic: So the question, Joe, just in relation to that point. It may not impede on the views of the neighbours. It may not impede on the views of the neighbours as it currently stands. But does it potentially impact on the future development of the adjoining block, on the views that they could have? Speaker 7: Well, they'll always be able to see straight out to the rear. Councillor Jurisevic: But the element of the balconies being enclosed is about the side views. Speaker 7: Yeah, so in the current situation, no, they're not going to impact on views.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 But if the neighbours were to develop, I presume that they would seek to get a similar outcome to this. Councillor Jurisevic: So is there no consideration of the future needs of the adjoining block, with regard to that same consideration? Is there any potential to develop? Speaker 7: It's not particularly relevant to the planning scheme, because the current situation is such that there's no loss of views. Speaker 4: You've really got to consider what the current impacts are. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All right. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Just a clarifying question. Both Councillor Drizzyk and Councillor Wilkie have suggested that the counter-levering provisions in the scheme relate purely to the views from the neighbouring block. Does the scheme say that? Speaker 4: The counter-levering is about coastal erosion processes and views. But the expert reports have addressed the coastal erosion processes.
01:46:00 So that issue's been really dealt with. So then that leaves. That leaves the visual aspect to consider. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's not just from, not just from the neighbouring block, it's also from the beach? It is also from the beach. That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. I was going to speak to what Councillor Stewart closes. Mayor Stewart: I think. No. I think it's all been said. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. I think it's all been said. I think it's, we, as I said, we've got expert reports, hydraulic engineers, geotechnical experts. I think that the issues of privacy, which was a great concern, have been addressed with the removal of the roof terrace. And I'm happy to support staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? And that's Councillor Wegener, Lorentson, Jurisevic, Finzel, Stewart, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Stockwell. The motion's carried. The council's going to depart two hours. We're going to call the short agenda for pump play. Thank you.
120 minutes in ¶
02:01:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: There was a report presented to the Planning and Environment Committee recommending refusal of an application for a change to a development approval to allow increased height of an improved building to go essentially from 10 metres to around 12 metres. There were other design changes also made. There was a reduction in eaves and balcony widths and a few other bits and pieces that were proposed to change.
02:02:00 That application was recommended for refusal essentially because the increased height did not contribute to the building's building appearance and really there was no justification for the increased height. The scheme sets a maximum height of the area of 10 metres. Their building was going slightly over 12 metres. At the last round of Council meetings in July, Council wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to do a presentation today. They had a chance to step through the plans with Councillors and put forward their grounds as to why they thought there was some merit in the proposal. That's occurred. So the applicant was given that opportunity, their plans were stepped through and a chance for Councillors to ask some questions. One of those questions put forward by one of the Councillors was to have they considered providing staff accommodation on the site. Given the very real housing crisis we have and businesses struggling to attract staff because it's difficult to find affordable accommodation in Noosaville.
02:03:00 The applicant subsequently went away and considered that and they gave us some amended plans showing some staff accommodation which sat behind essentially the medical building on top of the car park at the rear. They were looking at a total of nine units. They then met with Officers to discuss that plan and Officers indicated that one, that sort of change to the approval would require a new application. It wasn't considered a minor change because they were introducing a new use on the site. Officers were also concerned about the location of the staff accommodation because it backs on two. And the design really provided no sort of private open space or amenity provisions for staff living in there.
02:04:00 The applicant through that process took that on board but also noted it's not something they really want to do anyway. They're not really interested in doing it. It creates operational issues for them in trying to get separate access to a staff quarters that are not coming in through the main entrance. It creates some security issues. It's not something they want to consider. So they've looked at it, come back and said no essentially. So this report really just details that process and recommends again that the application be refused because the increased height is really not warranted. The applicant did agree to make some design changes increasing the width of the balconies and the eaves somewhat. Not to the full extent of the original plans but did make some design changes which were an improvement to the plans that were seen in July's meeting.
02:05:00 The application is still recommended for refusal. The increased height is not warranted. It does not contribute to a better building form and it's not consistent with the scheme requirements. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Karen. Questions? Anyone care to move the motion? I'm happy to move the motion. Moved. Councillor Lorentson? Have a second please. Councillor Wegener? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I don't want to add any more to what Kerry said. I just support the staff recommendation for a refusal for the reasons already outlined. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any others? I'd like to say I'm against it just for consistency. But I'm not. Councillor Wilkie: No. No.
02:06:00 That's unanimous. Speaker 9: I think we've ... Councillor Wilkie: Re-incvate and Rochelle anyway. Speaker 4: Just to let councillors know, we've just received advice that an appeal by Sykes for Ross Crescent, it was a two lot subdivision, that came before council, a state directed refusal. The applicant has advised us that they're withdrawing the appeal. Was the coastal building loan an element there? No, the coastal building loan wasn't, but it was refused because the property is subject to coastal erosion processes. So it's not considered an appropriate property to create in the first instance because of those issues.
02:07:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Kerry. Yeah, they wanted to cut the property into two and make an extra, a new sellable lot right above the beach town. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just trying to remember the floor. Oh, that was right there. Right here. I remember. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Thank you. I couldn't remember it. We were directed by the state to refuse it. Councillor Wilkie: This next item is lifeguard services, request for quotation assessment on page 44. Page 44 of the general committee agenda. Welcome to the Senate. Okay. Hello. Yes, Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Waddington, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. As my daughter, Georgia Lawrenson, and my son, Ben Lawrenson, are employed by Surf Life Save in Queensland as casual lifeguards. It could be viewed that I have a conflict of interest. However, I do not believe in a reasonable person.
02:08:00 I have a perception of those as my daughter's and son's employment is of a casual nature and not exclusively bound to SOSQ. Therefore, there is no benefit nor for loss specific to my daughter and son from the outcome of this application. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I suggest you have the A as a casual lifeguards as it appears now because it says now to. It's now two. Okay. Mayor Stewart: I'll move. Councillor Stewart. I'll second. Yeah, I'll move that. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this matter. This council believes that a reasonable person would not have the perception of bias because
02:09:00 Councillor Lorentson nor her children stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. And therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All in favour? That is every councillor except Councillor Lorentson. So unanimous. But Councillor Lorentson did not vote. So that's carried. Thank you. Please. Welcome. Thank you. Just a bit of an overview of the elements of this report that we have before us please. Speaker 8: Yeah. You'll recall in June 2022 there was a report to council about a request for quotation for the provision of lifeguard services and that was for that RFQ to be issued to Surf Lifesaving Queensland on the basis that they were the only entity capable of providing the service. So that RFQ has since gone out to Surf Lifesaving Queensland.
02:10:00 They've provided responses to the RFQ. That was assessed under due diligence and probity and there's a number of options canvassed in the report. The one that the council officers at least are recommending is option three which is an increase to the current value of the contract which includes new service levels in that price as well. Part of the change is it was also recommended that the labour component of the new agreement is indexed to Fair Work Commission as opposed to CPI which the current contract is. So in effect there would be Fair Work, the labour and CPI still for equipment and consumables. So the report is recommending that we enter into a contract at the new price for 10 years,
02:11:00 for five years and a five year option I should say. Councillor Wilkie: Questions councillors? Otherwise. I'm happy to move it. Move councillor Stewart. Seconded by councillor Finzel. Cleared. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Look, thank you very much, Clare. Thank you for your hard work on this. I think the option that staff have proposed is an excellent one. It increases the current agreement value by 10% and is the preferred option because proposed service levels increase and they were developed collaboratively with SLSQ and it adopts a risk based approach while minimising rate payer impact as per page 44 of our agenda. I looked at the comparison of what the current contract has been negotiated under, i.e. increases in line with CPI. And if we stick to this model, we are incurring $134,670 increase in cost to our rate payer with no increase in service levels. However, if we renegotiate with annual increases indexed to Fair Work Commission wage rises
02:12:00 and service levels determined in collaboration with SLSQ, then our increase in cost is $151,188 to our rate payer. But we have an increase in service levels that has been agreed collaboratively. So for an extra $151,188. $16,000, $17,000, we're having a significant amount of increased services because we have changed the way we're negotiating and well done to the team on that. That's all correct, isn't it Chris? Yes. Yes. It also indexation of SLSQ wage rises to the Fair Work Commission model provides SLSQ with more business confidence and the ability to provide council with an initial $110,000 saving in comparison to indexation to CPI. But most significantly, what the service levels do is they provide more safety for our community, our residents, our tourists. The most important thing for us as a council is to keep our community safe and increase lifesavers and increase services in regard to lifesavers on our beaches for longer periods
02:13:00 will certainly assist with that. So I'm very happy to support the staff recommendation. Thank you, Ms. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have a couple of questions. In terms of increased services, I know that we had, you know, a few options where we could have provided more services. I'm referring to the annual report, the Australian Lifeguard Annual Report 2021-2022. And on page 16 is some really good stats. Rescues, 260. Total attendance on the beach, 3,636,000. Preventative actions, nearly 50,000. First aid treatments, 6,700. And local laws and public relations interactions, about 87,000. My question is, have we negotiated in collaboration with SOSQ, is 10% enough is really what I'm asking. Should we, given those numbers, have we provided enough in terms of services?
02:14:00 Speaker 8: Through the Chair, Councillor, that would include the lifeguards and clubs. No, that's separate. Just lifeguards, is it? That's just lifeguards. Councillor Lorentson: I have different stats for that. Speaker 8: Okay. So, look, as I've indicated there on page 49 of the report, I thought it was important. We went out with prescribed service levels there, but obviously when you go out and request for quote, you don't collaborate beforehand, agree on the service levels before you go out. So, where we've landed here, this option three, we went into quite a detailed process afterwards with the service providers, SOSQ, to determine the appropriate service levels. Now, and that was a pretty full on discussion, it was a very collegiate discussion, but we went through each beach, each season, each, you know, for each location, so I'm fairly
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 comfortable with that. Look, I think that, does it, can you say that it fully addresses every risk that you will, no, it won't account for a random drowning, it won't, you know, along the eastern beaches, for example, it may not account for or stop a drowning at Noosa main beach. But what we've gone through is the, we've looked at all the risk areas, and those, across every beach and across every season, they vary quite a lot, so, and you'll see, for example, Sunshine Beach, we identified, you know, a risk area there of more hours being required in the Christmas holidays. That risk does not exist at other beaches, so it's specific to each beach and seasonal. Now, I'm very happy with the process we went through with Surf Lifesaving Queensland, because it was the contract manager going through the service levels with the provider.
02:16:00 Now, I'm very happy with the process we went through with Surf Lifesaving Queensland, because at a personal level, I happen to know a fair bit about the service, so I'm very comfortable where we've gone there ticks two boxes in terms of mitigating as much as you can about future risk in a reasonable way, but also identifying that, you know, mitigating the impact to ratepayers financially as well. So, I'm, as a contract manager, I'm very comfortable with, you know, mitigating the impact to ratepayers financially as well. And it's also identified that every beach, and that identifies that every beach has picked up, has been tweaked, has picked up something, so I thought that that was quite important too. Councillor Lorentson: I think that's excellent. In terms of variations, do we have a bit of buffer that if high levels
02:17:00 of services are required on certain beaches, do we have a buffer that we can get the services Do you have the flexibility to increase those levels of services? Speaker 8: You mean on a seasonal basis? On a seasonal basis, yes. Well look, there is, and that's through our, if there was an emerging need, we would address that via the budget review process. So we have our monthly meetings, and we have a pretty close relationship, so if there was an emerging need where there was a problem, they would come to me with evidence, i.e. crowd stats, incidents, rescues, and whatever else. And then we would assess that evidence, and that would form part of a budget review process if it meant that there were further funds required. So that would be your normal process. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. In terms of every beach getting increased services, I think that's just, I think that's just terrific. In particular Noosa West again, when I looked at the stats.
02:18:00 Oh yeah, okay, questions. Keep that one for commentary. Question, in terms of the draft lifeguard agreement for the provision of lifeguard services, can you give an overview of what additional clauses, or what's different with this agreement compared to past agreements? Speaker 8: Yeah, I can, through the Chair. Councillor, the first agreement was mostly about a transitioning away from council run service to a contractor, being SLSQ. So it was a lot of transition clauses, a lot of industrial relations clauses, maintenance of wages and whatever else. All of that's been taken out, you know, because it no longer needs to be there. So the agreement now, and the agreement before was a very comprehensive document. This one's probably more so. It was a very good document the first time around, but you learn more as you go along. And SLSQ have more needs and things evolve.
02:19:00 So the document's more comprehensive. It also covers off on policy matters as well. So there's additional policies in terms of best practice around, that we're requiring from Surf Lifesaving Queensland around, you know, code of conduct, drugs and alcohol abuse, discouragement, zero tolerance, harassment and bullying. Domestic violence and human rights as well. So that's a contemporary approach. So, and all of those changes have been discussed with Surf Lifesaving. The document, the agreement was part of the RFQ that went out. So there's no real issues around that because it's contemporary and it's what you would expect from a modern workforce. The other aspects to that as well. So obviously those things are through inductions and regular training, as council officers would do, whether it be through take fives or periodic refresher training.
02:20:00 The parts that stay the same is still about the reporting that's required, the meetings, the amount of parameters that they need to abide by. But mostly it was around modernising the agreement and just making it fit, suit our needs. And the contractor's needs. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. And probably just one more matter in terms of lifeguard participation in community type round tables. Are there provisions in the agreement that encourage more involvement of lifeguards in community matters such as destination management, the World Surfing Reserve, the Surf Community Alliance? Looking at maybe division of local laws, bathing reserve. Does the agreement give our lifeguards the opportunity to participate in those sorts of discussions?
02:21:00 Speaker 8: Through the chair, councillor, it's a yes and no. Some of those things you would expect, I would expect as the contract manager for those things to occur. So if we're looking at the, the, lifeguards have an obligation to, to undertake local laws duties. So through our reporting process, if there are issues with local laws and whatever, we would, we would get that feedback and we would consult. Things like the, the surfing reserve, we know that that's happening anyway. It's not really a contractual matter in terms of sitting in this agreement. But Surf Life Saving Queensland, given that they're a key stakeholder on the beach, whether it be through the surf clubs, through the affiliated surf clubs, or just being as a good corporate citizen, will be involved in those things anyway. So some of those matters need not sit formally in here.
02:22:00 But there is a place, there is a place for them because this is about, this agreement is primarily about the services that ratepayers are funding. So it's feet in the sand, lifeguards and the associated, well the ancillary services that are provided and, and how via the equipment and whatever else. Does that answer your question? Councillor Wilkie: Just a quick, yeah. Secondary question, it's triggered by a, a series of questions. What powers do lifeguards have, if any, in relation to the local laws? Well, Can you give us some examples please? Can you, the local laws and the power of lifeguards in any regard? Speaker 8: Well, they're authorised, they authorised officers on behalf of council, but primarily local, local laws, like if there are local law breaches,
02:23:00 they have powers to undertake and, and do certain things. Generally when you've got a local law infringement issue, if it's, if it's, if it's a chronic matter, you would, you would get council officers to assist, local laws officers to assist. Councillor Wilkie: I'm thinking of dogs off leash on a beach for example. Speaker 8: Well, well, there is, there, you would expect that lifeguards would, would address, address that matter. Primarily, primarily though, councillor, their, their powers relate to the bathing reserve. Yeah. Which is the water based thing. So what, what we're also asking the agreement is that, if there are other local law matters that come up, that they don't sit idly by, if there is capacity, for example, what I wouldn't expect is if there's a drowning occurring, or whatever else, or major issues out in the water, that the lifeguards are not prioritising a dog off lead, when the bread and butter of the whole service is out on the water.
02:24:00 Right? So their bathing reserve is their main, is their main power. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I guess it would, I guess it would surprise some people that, that faces the question, do life, are lifeguards empowered to address issues such as dogs off lead on the beach? Speaker 8: My answer to that would be yes, to an extent, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Right. Councillor Stewart has spoken to the, the motion. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: I'll make it brief. Again, just quoting some stats, there were no lives lost between the SLSQ red and yellow flags this season. There was one drowning there in the Noosa region, and one beach related coastal drowning. Money spent on lifeguard services is money very well spent. I really look forward to the next five years, okay, on building our relationship with the people of Noosa. And I'd like to acknowledge SLSQ's commitment to continuous improvement.
02:25:00 And, and also for embracing best practice. And I'm going to talk about this because it's something dear to me. Domestic violence and family violence. SLSQ had employees, both male and female. They're also a really large organisation. And, I encourage that the contract provides recommendations regarding training for domestic and family violence programs. It's important that we in council play our part to create a society where violence has no place. So thank you, Clint, in your efforts in this space and everything else you do in this space. I think I first hand know your relationship with our lifeguards and how you've always got their back.
02:26:00 So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you as well as SLSQ. Our beaches are our most valuable assets and above that actually sits our people. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Our beaches are our most valuable assets. One of the reasons is that we've got a very good service that provides a service to our community and our business. And I've embraced the enhancements of this contract and the elements of new technology that SLSQ endeavour to do and for the quality of the service they deliver and the ongoing improvements that they're trying to adapt. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, everyone. Just to add on to that, I think it's fantastic, Clint and the team, the process, it's been rigorous and you've brought us out through the other side.
02:27:00 And it's fantastic and, yeah, we want to thank LSQ also for their collaboration in this and to provide, you know, service levels that are required. But also I love that it's indexed to the fair work. I think, you know, we want to project that we are a contemporary organisation and that we want to align ourselves with other organisations that also work towards a future where there's zero tolerance to violence. Where there's opportunity for workplaces to be able to firstly recognise there might be issues and they can come around that person and assist through good best work practice. I love the idea of good governance that we've used a leadership style that aligns with what's coming up in our next agenda item with enterprise risk and opportunity. And I think that's been really addressed. You've shown good governance and leadership around the table today. We've also, you know, agreed with that. And can recognise that this rigorous process aligned with a good collaborative approach
02:28:00 and a leadership style that's contemporary sets us in good stead for the next 10 years. I like the idea that you can come together and you'll revisit the contract and, you know, it's able to be flexible and adaptable. So I think this is a great collaborative approach where we'd like to see our leadership heading in the future. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'd just like to say, yeah, thanks to the team. I know that your reports to the council have been very good and we're just lucky to have you there. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was just going to say that, you know, we have moved away from the council model of to a more efficient cost effective. You know, some of those old council lifeguards have shown they've got management potential. Especially down the jail. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I thought you were talking about this one.
02:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: I thought you said what I was thinking. I'd just like to take the opportunity to recognise the work of the lifeguards. They're often the unsung heroes, the volunteer and lifesavers get a lot of focus and appreciation, and rightly so. But it's actually the lifeguards that are there every week of the year, not just during the season. So I'm just going to acknowledge the professional work that they do. Thank you. Thank you. Mm-hm. Councillor Stewart, would you like to say something? Mayor Stewart: No, just, again, thank you, Clint, and all the team, and SLSQ. This is a great report, and I really value all your hard work. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thanks. Thanks, Clint. Councillor Wilkie: The next item is Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management Policy. And we'll begin with our governance manager, Diana Stewart. Welcome, Diana. Hi. Hello.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Can you just give us a bit of an overview of this policy, the significance of this policy, and is it related to any recent awards that the Council has? Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, Dorothy Dixon. Bugger. No. Speaker 2: We're not allowed to talk about that. Councillor Finzel: Yes, yes. LGAQ. Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 2: Yeah. Sorry, let's begin. So today, we're presenting the new Enterprise Risk and Opportunity Management Policy. And essentially, managing risk and opportunity is all part of good leadership and governance for our Council, and I've been heartened to hear that you're all applying it today when you're talking in your discussions, so well done. So it's an important component of our culture here, where risks and opportunities are considered and managed consistently across Council, and this is what this will do. And just as a bit of background and context, we currently have a Council-adopted risk management policy that was created in 2014. And then since then, in 2019, an internal audit on risk management was completed, and that's where our journey started.
02:31:00 It identified areas of improvement, including that we need to align further to the ISO risk management standard of 31,000 on risk management. And so since then, since the audit, as a Council, we've been on this continuous improvement journey over a couple of years, basically. And you've all been a part of that journey at some stage, where we've undertaken extensive consultation, testing with teams on the ground, and amending the policies and frameworks and documents and tools to make sure that the changes we make are really fit for purpose for our Council. So this is included, just as a recap, you know, workshops with the executive team, and it's been numerous workshops to get to a level of comfort. Where we stand with our policy and our, especially our risk appetite tolerances and levels.
02:32:00 We also got expert advice through this process through Insura and other firms. We sought ideas as well from our network of risk and governance professionals across South East Queensland. So, you know, we didn't just do this in isolation. We actually tried to figure out what other areas and councils are doing and see what we can adjust to. And then we workshopped, obviously. We gave you guys the concepts as well. And you've been a part of that journey, which has been fantastic. And your feedback has been incorporated into this version. So the proposed policy is our end product of this. It's been recently also reviewed and endorsed just recently at our Audit and Risk Committee in August. And they've been quite comfortable and pleased with the final draft, too. So key changes in a nutshell include new risk management principles, which we didn't have before. We were really... Missing some of those kind of fundamental elements that shows to our community how we align to the ISO standard and how those risk principles apply to us and what they mean to our council.
02:33:00 So they're in this new version as well. And then you'll see a huge component of this is our strategic risk appetite and tolerance levels within the document. I must stress that this is a guide only at that strategic top level. But it gives our community and our staff a really good anchoring and foundation. To understand against each of the criteria, where are we comfortable, what do we tolerate, what do we not tolerate, and what are our key top level statements that we as a council endorse. So that's in there as well. And then finally, clearer roles and responsibilities as well that really carve out, especially for our staff, from the leadership level down to the council officer, what is everyone responsible for. And I guess in that, that's how we build. And embed risk and opportunity into our culture with our staff too, throughout, through all this.
02:34:00 So in a nutshell, this policy will help us get to the next level of maturity and compliance, and we're ready for it as an organisation. It will strengthen our governance practices. And importantly, it will guide our staff on the expectations and the active role and responsibility in this space. And to be honest, I've just been heartened today where I've been attending a couple of operational tests. And I've been in a number of team meetings where they're already starting to pilot this and grapple with it in teams and areas of work. So you will start to see the fruits of all this coming up to your level for consideration. And so finally, as part of that document, the report as well, how are we going to roll this out. So our future plans include further training and implementation of the policy across council. We're going to do that in a bit of a, I guess, a multifaceted approach. We're also going to get the support of our insurer to come on that journey with us to run some sessions with our staff. And to make sure that they understand how risks and opportunities are considered across council and how they can start to use it in their teams.
02:35:00 And all that will essentially, at the end of the day, help us deliver effective and efficient services to our community, which is what all this is about, really. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Donna. Thank you. Questions, councillors? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You just tweaked the thing there when you talked about with your insurers. So have we got the dialogue going with our insurers about how to reduce the premium because we're putting in place effective risk management? Speaker 2: Premiums is a separate discussion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've been involved in organisations where we've done just that. They put in a regular update and said, wait a minute, you said these are the risks, we've addressed these risks. And the premium came down quite a lot. I think it is part of that discussion. If we're going to prove that we're... Question. It is. It is. Amelia.
02:36:00 Speaker 2: Sorry. I was going to just add. We do get a rebate from our insurer for completing and showing that we are keeping our risks down and managed appropriately. So in a sense, they are rewarding us for, you know, ensuring that across council we're doing the right thing. And trying to keep the risks in control. Councillor Jurisevic: Did we not have an example of that with the OH&S, improvements in OH&S from the beginning? Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. That's right. Yeah. And they do work closely with us on these kinds of topics and they are aware of it. And every year they ask more and more questions. So, you know, they refine that with us and also pick up gaps too where we need to be aware. So, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And we have more and more answers. Speaker 2: It takes longer and longer to respond. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. In terms of reporting, the reports that come to council, Diana, is it possible...
02:37:00 It would be great to understand whether or not the risk functions that are coming forward are consistent with our risk appetite. Is there an opportunity maybe to include a government... Yeah. ...in this section where you guys just tick off or, you know... Yep. ...middle ground to none? Because it's part of the decision-making process. Yeah. Speaker 2: I think through the chair, we will be looking at that next. It's going to be part of our, I guess, report improvement. Yes. We do need to look at other elements of compliance and risk is one of them. So, we will be strengthening that part. Yeah. Prompting staff to have to do that as part of that decision-making and assessment process so you've got comfort. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anyone care to move the motion? Speaker 2: I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Have a second, please. Oh, that's okay. Councillor Stewart.
02:38:00 Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Well, I'm happy to support this. It's fantastic because it encapsulates everything we want to do and align with our corporate plan which we're going to be working on to, you know, specifically around engendering trust in our community. The report today, you know, is really exciting to think, you know, that we can align and move forward to a future where, you know, we can have excellence in council and I want to thank you and your team for your work that you've done. We want to proceed forward to strengthen and overcome, you know, those risks and prioritise and identify early so that we've got continuous improvement and a response and we also get then the benefit, like you said, back to, you know, insurance and different things like that. So, I think it's really great because it shows us that we are heading towards being efficient. We're trying to be, you know, projecting forward to the future, what does this organisation need and I love the idea of training and implementation and how that's going to be a guided process for the staff through the organisation.
02:39:00 So I think all of that builds continuity, builds confidence moving forward and I'm particularly interested as always in the human rights element of that and how that we carefully consider the rights of all and the people in our community and that we strive to be leaders in that space and we can have confidence that we are ticking all the boxes. Across a broad range of, you know, expectations for contemporary leadership. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Anyone else wish to speak? I'll hand it over to Jo. Councillor Lorentson: You go, Jo. Councillor Jurisevic: Continued improvements and good governance. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And mine will be just as fast. You know, every decision we make here in Council has, you know, I like the word risk, but I like the word opportunity better. So this is, as a Councillor, really supports or guides me in my decision making. Thank you.
02:40:00 Mayor Stewart: I see. Great. Ms Stewart. Thank you, Darren. I just want to reiterate what all my other fellow Councillors have said. It aligns with the corporate plan and continued good governance, easy to read, simple and self-explanatory. I like how you show the levels of risk that Councillor and councillors are prepared to undertake. In regard to number of activities, I think it demonstrates our value system and what are considered priorities for this Council. For example, safety of our staff must always come first. That's why we have an appetite level or risk in this area at zero when it comes to health and safety. Similarly, it is zero to minimal when it comes to legal issues and compliance, the environment and cyber security. So I think that was really well set out and easy to read. So thank you. And thank you for a great report. And all your hard work in this space. Speaker 2: Thank you, too. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'd like to thank you also, Darren, for taking on board the council feedback during the workshop. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Mr Chair. Hasn't the Mayor just... Sorry.
02:41:00 Councillor Finzel, my apologies. I thought it was Councillor Stewart who moved it. My apologies. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I read Councillor Stewart. Sorry. My apologies. Councillor Wilkie: How you took on board the council feedback in the workshop, and we were all grappling with the concept of risk appetite. And the final product reflects our understanding which needs to be simple. And I think if we can understand it, then staff certainly can understand it. So thank you for taking on board our feedback during the workshop. Councillor Jurisevic: My apologies, Chair. Thank you. Mr Chair, I thought you'd asked the Mayor to close. Councillor Wilkie: No, that's all. Councillor Jurisevic: My apologies. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Tom, did you wish to speak before the Mayor exercises her right to close? No, no. Councillor Finzel. Oh, sorry. Councillor Finzel. I swear he said close. Councillor Finzel: No, I think it's all been said. Yes, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Darren. Thank you.
02:42:00 Next item is item eight, Burgess Creek coastal erosion and water quality. And we have a staff member zooming in. Amy Kinberg is online. Amelia, do you have it? Councillor Lorentson: I'll move the motion if you're going to need it. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. We have a motion. Yes. A change of motion. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: A change of motion. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So Amelia's moving. I'm happy to second. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Perhaps you could read out the changes, please. Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Change to C. I'll just add some extra reporting. Request the CEO or delegate to liaise with Unity Water to provide Unity Water's receiving environment monitoring program and all routine monitoring reports, including water quality and concrete discharge. To Council Environment staff to support Council's Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Program, the Noosa Shire.
02:43:00 The reason I added that was that I've been told that this bit of information is quite difficult to ascertain and it's an important or critical bit of information that measures, from what I've understood and Rebecca you can step in, it measures the impact between the release point to the coastal waters. And it would be just great to have those reports to understand first hand is there any impact. So for councillors around the table, we in the board have a permit under the Environmental Authority and it's that permit that allows them to or controls what they can or can't do.
02:44:00 There's conditions attached to that. And part of the permit is a condition that Unity Water must design and conduct a receiving environment monitoring program that looks at the environmental impacts caused by the sewage treatment under the Environmental Authority. And that's what I'm just requesting if a CEO can liaise with Unity Water to provide that information. Councillor Jurisevic: Just a capital R there, capital R receiving? Councillor Lorentson: Capital R receiving. Councillor Wilkie: Just a clarifying question, is Council not even receiving that sort of information? Speaker 1: That's right, not at this stage. It's the early days in our conversations with Unity Water around sharing of water quality data. And we've now confirmed what information they receive and at their seven monitoring sites how often they do that and what parameters they're monitoring for. We also have been able to share with them what we record in terms of recreational water quality monitoring
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 and trying to develop a closer partnership around that information sharing. So yeah, we'll certainly make the request and it will be for them to decide what information they're able to disclose. And we'll be encouraging them to share what they can. Very good, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Excuse me, Mr Chair, we've gone into the specifics of one of the elements of what's proposed here. Can we get an overview from staff on the matter before us? Councillor Wilkie: Sure, we did jump in. Welcome Amy, can you hear us? Speaker 5: I don't, yes I can. Councillor Wilkie: Perhaps you could give us a bit of an overview of your report, please. Some of the key factors, please. Speaker 5: Sure. So as Rebecca alluded to, we've been undertaking a significant program of work trying to better engage Unity Water, understanding that there's been tensions, I think, in the past.
02:46:00 So we went out and visited all the different monitoring sites with Scott Lowe from Unity Water and obviously we've had the briefing to Council in recent months. We're undertaking an overall investigation of the catchment in collaboration with Infrastructure and Healthy Land and Water, providing advice as well. And we've got significant interest, I think, from our bush care program and Newstead Integrated Catchment Association in restoration points in the area. I'll defer to Larry to talk about the prioritisation project, which is proposed with regards to erosion. Councillor Wilkie: Larry, you've been summonsed. Please come and sit at the table, Larry.
02:47:00 Speaker 6: Okay, thanks Amy. So through you, Mr Chair, we have got a proposal from my infrastructure team to look at the erosion along all of the outlets and outflows of all of the creeks through our region, through our Shire. That has come to PCG, I think. I don't think it came to the CWE, but it's a $200,000 piece of work. What we've come to a position is that we're already doing work on a couple of these, or a number of these anyway. So barring what comes of the result of this piece of work, then we can bring this back to the table in terms of whether we want to continue and do some more work. So we're already doing the Adams Street Ross Crescent. We've got a fair bit of work going on there. We've done repair works and we're monitoring that. We're monitoring Burgess Creek to a degree in terms of the outflow and the beach.
02:48:00 And as to what we do there going forward, but that's really just the outflow and the erosion side of things. So it's an infrastructure really focused piece of work. And I think the other one, we're looking at the one at the north end of Sunshine as well. But it's the whole range that we are looking all through. But to do them in much more detail, the proposal is about $200,000 worth of work. So we've got that potentially there if we want to take it forward. But it's a piece of work that we haven't budgeted for in this particular year. So we're just holding that. And we're saying, well, let's look at this piece of work and see where we go. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, you mentioned creeks. What you're referring to is the stormwater outlets and how they enter the creek system and how that water is all impacting downstream, meaning environmental impacts that occur as a result of that. Yep. Speaker 1: Yeah, what complicates the creeks too and the outflow areas is pedestrian access.
02:49:00 And this is the case for a few of them, but in particular Burgess Creek. And where we have informal accesses as people are making their way down to the beach. We need to investigate that and understand how we can use nature-based solutions to minimise the impacts upon people. And that's what we've done on the dunes as a result of that, how we still allow for public access but at the same time protect environmental values. So that's a key component of the recommendation here as well to do that investigation. Councillor Jurisevic: My thoughts would have been that our eastern beaches management plan would have addressed all of those issues with access and consolidating access points and any other incursions. Isn't that what the eastern beaches management plan, the foreshore management plan, is supposed to address? Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's quite broad in its scope, but one component is the beach accesses.
02:50:00 And we've been able to secure some funding to do some standard drawings of the different types of beach accesses along the eastern beaches and then moving towards some recommendations for improvements. Councillor Jurisevic: So will this become an element of that foreshore management plan? Speaker 1: Yeah, that foreshore management plan provides some high-level guidance and helps to prioritise what management actions are required for eastern beaches. We then need to go to that extra level of determining what that looks like for each of the locations. So that's what the grant funding will help us do. Councillor Jurisevic: And this is the element that I'm getting to. So this is going to determine when man should intervene with actions as opposed to when nature is left to its own devices. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, there's some interesting science around Burgess Beach and Burgess Creek in the way that the creek mouth meanders to the north and the south, depending on what's happening with storm activity and the volume of water coming down Burgess Creek. So we've got some projects with our local universities
02:51:00 that are helping us with the monitoring of that creek behaviour and to, in particular, look at how different storm events, wave activity and volumes of stormwater down the creek influence the way the creek behaves, how that also contributes to the erodibility of that beach area as well. So that monitoring and investigation work will be really important for informing the management actions that come, because the works that we're doing at the moment are always only temporary. We can do a straightening of the creek alignment and that helps solve things for a couple of months and then we're finding that the creek meanders back to the north and starts eating into the dune again on the northern side. Councillor Jurisevic: So this will determine where and if more permanent infrastructure is required to continue to prevent erosion and or guide the outflows?
02:52:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we have to look at all the options that are available. The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan calls for nature-based solutions Councillor Jurisevic: to be used as much as possible. I should have said if in there, sorry, not dropped. Thank you. Because I was thinking of nature-based solutions. Thank you. That's what I'm actually after, is whether there's nature-based solutions being considered as part of this. Thank you. Yeah, that's the answer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? So in terms of when we're thinking about this, we've got the ONS doing the analysis of that behaviour. Our CHAP identifies the public infrastructure at the north of Burgess that is a very high risk. I think it's the first place in public infrastructure Speaker 7: that's likely to be impacted. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we looking at what we currently do in the light of that, as opposed to in the light of the temporary nature of, as you say, straightening? I suppose it's about how do we put in context, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: in terms of on-ground management,
02:53:00 the long-term risk of public infrastructure? Speaker 1: Yeah, we've learnt a lot through the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Project. It's helped to inform, priority actions around on-ground work, as well as what further information we need to find out about the way the beaches behave. So some of our actions are quite specific around where we need to start improving upon existing infrastructure, and then others are more in a monitoring sense or in that nature-based solution sense of trying to build the resilience of our dunes in a natural way, like through bush regeneration. So the CHAP's informing all parts of the Council's program, but in an infrastructure sense, we're liaising weekly with our infrastructure guys around what are appropriate solutions that consider the mapping and the risk assessments of the CHAP.
02:54:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move. I know you've moved. Yes, I've moved. I've spoken. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I'll speak to it. Councillor Lorentson: I haven't spoken to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, you were just explaining the... I was just explaining the... Oh, go to CHAP. I think you go first, Amanda. Oh, OK. Councillor Wegener: We choose. OK. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to be a little bit blunt. I waited three months for this report, and I've got to say I was a little bit disappointed. Through the CHAP, ladies and gentlemen. Through the CHAP, excuse me. A little bit disappointed. What's happening at Burgess Creek, and I really want to make this about Burgess Creek, not about, you know, eastern beaches. This is about Burgess Creek. My notified motion was raising an issue that I thought was an environmental matter that was happening over at Burgess Creek.
02:55:00 It's... I don't know. I was expecting, and maybe I was expecting too much, but I wanted this matter to be treated with urgency and real conviction, and I don't feel that the report, and this is my opinion, is supported by real conviction. The motion that I brought to Council on the 16th of June raised residents' concerns about the damage that was happening at Burgess Creek foreshore and concerns regarding the discoloration of the creek flow and their environmental impacts on our coastal systems, ecosystems. The residents believe that the treated wastewater and the stormwater flowing out of the creek is a health risk and is threatening public infrastructure. And when I go to the links that are provided in the report to Council's dedicated website, you know, Council's own links
02:56:00 actually sort of show that there's a lot of damage and there's a lot of damage to the creek. It's my opinion that the report understates the link between stormwater and constant sewerage treatment plant effluent discharge into Burgess Creek as the major cause of the erosion that's happening at Burgess Creek. It's my opinion that the report overstates foot traffic as a primary cause of erosion. The report fails to provide what I requested, which was data and information. Unity Water figures on the amount of wastewater discharge, the actual amount of stormwater being discharged into the creek, evidence and footage that the footage entering the creek is in fact naturally occurring tannins. I'm quoting this straight out of the report that I've brought to Council. The warning sign, creek water contains treated sewerage effluent. My question was how much effluent? What are acceptable levels? I accept that in the recommendation C
02:57:00 covers a lot of what I've asked. But I'm disappointed that I've now got to still wait maybe a month, another two months or three months to get that report. Where's this information? Why is it not being provided? Again, disappointed. To me, we can't think that we can fix a problem unless we understand or investigate the cause. How much controlled, treated wastewater and how much uncontrolled, untreated wastewater is flowing into Burgess Creek, into our oceans? What is permitted levels under the Environment Authority? And are these levels good enough or are they best practice? We've just heard from our Governance Director and we've just ratified our Council's report on Council's risk management appetite journey. And I'm going to quote on page 59 of our general report
02:58:00 in regards to Council's risk appetite statements in regards to the environment, it states, Council will not tolerate activities and practices that knowingly compromise the environment, are reasonably foreseeable and preventable. Yet, in my opinion, I feel that this is what we're doing. We're tolerating activities and practices that potentially are compromising the environment and that are reasonably foreseeable and preventable. And maybe the answer is because it's illegal and it's a permitted use. So let's just not stop at that. Maybe it shouldn't be illegal and permitted use. Maybe the environmental practice that was okay 20 years ago is no longer relevant. The issue at Burgess Creek has not gone away. I was there a week ago. I notified staff about a month and a half ago that it's starting all over again. Reprofiling the beach and sand,
02:59:00 that's a bandaid solution. It's not going to stop the problem. Foot traffic at the mouth of the creek and liaising with bush care volunteers, it's not going to stop the problem. Because the problem, in my opinion, is caused primarily by the constant discharge of treated wastewater and stormwater to Burgess Creek. Again, if what's happening is permitted, then we need to question, is it environmentally best practice? I will support the recommendation in front and I look forward to the information requested in C to be coming to Council as soon as possible. I just think as a Council, we should be working and we should be leading in environmental best practices and we should be doing what sets us apart from other local councils and that's been, that's been different by nature. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 Speaker 9: Maybe a point of clarification from Council. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Can, if I can just make some brief comments. Council staff do treat this very, matter, very seriously. It's taken some time to be able to gather together the information we think is important for informing an ongoing conversation on this. There's lots of interrelated issues around stormwater management, sewage treatment plant, erosion matters, infrastructure planning and delivery that all need to be carefully integrated and considered. The conversations we've been having with Unity Water have been really constructive. In the last three months we've come a long way in understanding some of the history and legacy issues related to the sewage, sewage treatment plant, the management processes and their ongoing planning. And the water matters process
03:01:00 that Unity Water is, is going through at the moment with their water matters plan is a really important first step towards future planning for, for Burgess Creek. It's helping to set some clear objectives and options and, and management actions for the future. They're well aware of community concerns around stormwater outflow, around water quality, around recreational swimming and concerns in that regard. And it's, we, it needs, it takes time to work through some of these things. But just so you know that council officers are, um, working with Unity Water closely every week. And that there will be a round of consultation around February next year where the community will be able to be involved in a, a discussion around the water matters process. What council staff had asked of Unity Water is that we slow the process of,
03:02:00 um, finalising an implementation plan for the water matters plan because we wanted there to be more fuller community engagement, um, um, through the process. So they've agreed to slow that, um, process until we've had some sort of a community forum established where there can be an input, um, back at the point of looking at a range of options. You alluded to some there. Um, that the community can be part of that conversation of talking through those options. So that's all still to come early in the new year. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Look, thank you for that Rebecca. And as a chair I need to apologise. There was a, a point of order I could have called as councillors cannot impugn proper motives to staff or councillors around the table. And the accusation of a lack of conviction does qualify as one. Is there anything you'd like to say Councillor Lorentson: at this point? Um, apologies. I'm, I'm frustrated. I, I want things to happen now. So I apologise Speaker 9: if that's how it came across, Rebecca. Okay. And through the chair, Councillor Lorentson,
03:03:00 but please note that the data that you're requesting is not council data. Um, we can't provide you something we don't have. Um, but we'll do everything we can to provide reporting. But, um, you're requesting specific information that council is not the holder thereof. We can only request. We can only ask for. But the team have in very much the, the highest level of, um, their professionalism and in good faith. Put this report to council with all available information that we have available and, um, we'll continue to work with you on this matter. Yes. Thank you. Through the chair, Speaker 5: through the chair, if I could just add to that. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. The request was made. The request was made to Unity Waters some weeks ago Speaker 5: for that data. Hence why we are elevating it to the council level, um, for, for a formal, um, process. Um, also, just wanted to add that we've, um, had a very constructive, um, workshop with our NRN stakeholders
03:04:00 regarding our integrated water quality monitoring program. And we've been working closely with environmental health staff as well to make sure we can get that, um, water quality data out there into the public domain in a more transparent fashion. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, you had a question or you wanted to speak? Councillor Wegener: Um, well, first of all, I, I congratulate, um, Councilor Lawrence on this because when it comes to pollution and comes to sewage and waste treatment, we have to be the squeaky wheel. Um, I guess I'm speaking to this, uh, second, uh, we're, we're 10%, oh, yeah, we're, we're a 10%, um, owner in Unity Water, University Council. Is that right? Mayor Stewart: 4.4, Councillor Wegener: 4.5. 4.5%. So we, oh, yeah, we, so we, yeah, so we're, and so my, my question to the, the CEO is, um, what, if Amelia feels this way, what can she do as a Councilor? What are the bounds that a Councilor can just step in and say, all right, this is what,
03:05:00 I, I want these answers, you know, the staff is busy. They got their own things going on and if it's a personal thing that they want to do, this, what are the bounds that, that the Councilor can do to get information from Unity Water as a Councilor, not as this? Speaker 9: Through, through the Chair Council, we're going to respond to exactly what Councilor Lawrence is doing now, um, bringing it to the Council table, um, to then have what can be resolved upon as a, as a whole Council position, that can be taken forward to Unity Water. Councilor Lawrence, though, as a, uh, as a, as a public citizen, um, can request information from Unity Water, as, as anybody can, um, but as a Councilor, unless it's a resolved position of the Council, the Council, Councilor could not go to Unity Water and say, um, because I am a Councilor, um, that, that is not the appropriate way to go about it.
03:06:00 So, um, Councilor Lawrence and the work that Councilor Lawrence is doing is the appropriate way to be able to request a report to be brought to the Council table. Council officers have provided a report. Councilor Lawrence and, and part of what officers have put forward is the recommendation with a slight amendment, um, is, is now the motion on the floor asking for further information is the appropriate mechanism to be able to undertake. And, and we will then continue to work with Unity Water. Um, but that is the process. The power of any individual councillor is on the resolved position of the entire table. Um, but to be a Councilor without a resolved position of the Council going and requesting information, um, that would not be appropriate. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Ryan, you had a question? I was going to talk to the motioner. Oh, you may speak to the motioner. Speaker 6: Can I just? Councillor Wilkie: Oh, Speaker 6: sorry. I'm sorry. Just as, as late as this morning I've met with my equivalent in Unity Water as well. So, to, to request these, these, um, this information and he's, he's agreed to do that.
03:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I think we do need to divorce the regulatory water quality controls from Council's responsibilities to broader catchment management. And, it's really important to understand that the State licences Unity Water for its discharge. And there is online resources to tell you what that licence says and if they've been breached, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Um, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: it, it's useful to get their monitoring data to inform, um, because, you know, it's, it's important to, um, not infer causality on the sewage treatment plant for a range of issues. And, you know,
03:08:00 I'm one of the few people that sit there and have a look at the app for, okay, this one, the, the, the, the chances of the level of volume of flow coming out of the sewage treatment having a geomorphic effect on coastal erosion is, in my experience, very small. Um, the, but, you know, having that as a consideration is quite legitimate. For me, when we look at our role, um, it is as staff are saying, building the relationship, so with what public information is available, we make available to the community. It's also building an advocacy role, because, um, I'll be honest, the, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the approach to total water cycle management, of course, behind closed doors, um, could have been a good start 30 years ago. Um, to me, what we should be advocating is, um, much more significant, um, policy or, or strategy to get as much water reuse as possible.
03:09:00 Um, because, obviously, the, the more you take the, the, um, the flow of treated water out of the creek, and back into productive yield reuse, uh, whether it be in landscaping or other uses, uh, the less that we're going to have the cumulative effect. And I think that's what we're seeing, is a cumulative effect of, even though the treatment process, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: uh, is highly effective, um, you, you get the cumulative effects of, of nutrient and, and, um, We need to understand climate change. We need to understand the impacts of our urban systems and the fact that, you know, we're all contributing to it. We need to understand that it's not just point source pollution, it's also the diffuse source from where we wash our cars. Do we do it on the driveway or do we do it on our front lawns? It makes a big difference in water quality.
03:10:00 So all these issues that will affect the whole catchment need to be considered and say, well, the best action to reduce that impact is this. And, yeah, we'll get there. And I think Councillor Lorentson has been saying she wants to get the best practice and I think that's the other point we should all hold up on, saying yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to follow on from what Councillor Lorentson has said and what Brian's alluded to to some degree. Why has this morphed into a northern, eastern beaches, creeks, high erosion? Chris Bock has come across this as being a prioritisation project. Again, that, to me, sounds like something should actually come out of the beach management plan going forward. We've discussed and we've looked at the catchment as a whole with regard to Burgess Creek and realised that there is more than just the end of Burgessa Creek. It's a large catchment. Why aren't we doing a Burgess Creek catchment management plan as a separate perspective?
03:11:00 We've begun that process but that doesn't say that here so what we should be saying here is that that's what we're doing the other project should we should be doing in Eastern Beaches Creek high erosion risk erosion project as part of the eastern beaches management plan I think we should also be doing a risk erosion and stormwater asset management plan and erosion all of our creeks and catchments we're still no I'm saying that there's more why the question is why has this morphed into something different from what was requested I believe what is we've got before us is part of a different element of council work that's currently underway and now understanding that there is a work around a Burgess Creek catchment management plan I believe there are
03:12:00 that there's scope to go even one step further is that something that we're looking into with regard to all of the potentials there and not specifically a Burgess Creek catchment plan because it started Speaker 1: yeah so the what the motion was calling for was a detail around four or five different management issues and council staff wanted to ensure that all all of those were addressed within the report including the various program areas that relate to each of them and so it crosses into various areas as I said before around council business in terms of that broader catchment management plan for Burgess Creek that is embedded within the water matters plan as something that will be developed in partnership with unity water we know there's management issues relating to the sports field relating to the way
03:13:00 that stormwater is managed across the catchment and the urban area and that needs to come before council as as a project as well for for budget for that linked in with that is some very specific areas that need close attention and design around the coastal creeks so this is really highlighting the first part of the recommendation is highlighting that there's a specific prioritization project that needs to be done in the short term to be able to address these immediate erosion issues but stepping back from that there's also a broader catchment management planning process that needs to be done in conjunction with unity water and that is embedded in the water matters process but if we're working through that process over the next few months so Councillor Jurisevic: that enabled one more step beyond that is to look at all catchments and all stormwater outflows into all creeks with regards to erosion management in the long in the longer term now I'm talking about the entire Shire
03:14:00 because the issue of erosion from stormwater and stormwater runoff as the urban area increases continues to be a problem not only there but as flood management and and flood mitigation measures as well absolutely so that's Speaker 6: the work that we're proposing my guys downstairs are proposing to do across all the creeks in terms of what erosion and what the what the damage and potential mitigation of that damage is but it all as Bec said it feeds into this whole much bigger exercise that's what I'm alluding to we're looking at a bigger body of work ultimately yeah we can do we can do thank you spot fixes but you know they're fixes Councillor Wilkie: this is a very complicated issue bring us up to speed with the work of the department of environment science doing some work about the mouth of Burgess Creek and working with humidity water and having it declared as a recreational value zone or something
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Speaker 1: There's water quality objectives that are being reviewed at the moment by the Department of Environmental and Science for each of the catchment. There's certain water quality standards that need to be met and that are aimed towards as part of catchment management activities. And so they are under review and Burgess Creek is one of those water quality objectives for that creek that's under review. Councillor Wilkie: And is there a time frame for when the results of that review will be? Speaker 1: Yeah, it has been delayed somewhat where staff are in contact regularly with DES asking for updates on that process. I understand that it's imminent but not yet available. Councillor Wilkie: Can I just ask a question? Councillor Finzel: When you're looking at water quality standards and the review across the Shire, does that also include out in Kin Kin and the issues around there with sediment and erosion?
03:16:00 Or is that completely different? Speaker 1: It's related. Yeah, is it related? I'm not sure if that review relates to, yeah, whether the, through the Chair, whether the water quality objectives review is linked with that particular matter you're talking about. When we sort of talk about rural sediment and erosion matters, it's broader than that. Councillor Finzel: Does it integrate into this review or not? Is that a separate conversation? Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't answer that. I'm just, I'm not 100% sure on that. Thank you. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My recollection of the change to the environmental value of water quality objectives were mainly down this end of the catchment. And it was mainly looking at what are the objectives for streams that are known to be not at the best, high standards. So in terms of Burgess Creek, I think that was one of the ones that was being changed. There were some comments about the stretch below Lake Coroy but from memory.
03:17:00 And our initial advocacy was we want to keep objectives as high as possible. But they were trying to make them real. It's because where they have teeth is, I suppose, is when you are conditioning developments to achieve those water quality objectives. And it's unlikely that a development could comply when you get in. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, that clarifies my question. The other question I have is, sorry if I've missed, but is there any reference in this report or on the new updated web page that confirms that the highest nutrient runoff coming out of Burgess Creek is due to storm water runoff rather than what's coming out of the sewage treatment treatment plant? Have you done it on that? Speaker 1: We would do. We would have to get more specifics to be able to. To provide you with a complete answer. Councillor Wilkie: So is that a starting point for a constructive discussion about where's the source of the, where's the highest source of nutrients?
03:18:00 Is it the wastewater treatment plant or is it the council's responsibility about managing storm water? Speaker 1: I think it's a bit of both. Yeah. I think it needs to come from both ends. I think that we can continue to have discussions with Unity Water about aiming towards best practice for management of the storm water treatment plant as part of future upgrades. And then also within our own remit to work towards better best practice for catchment management as well, whether it's relating to our bioretention basins, how we manage our storm water within our urban area, the sports fields and the like. So all those sort of diffuse pollutant sources that Councillor Stockwell talked about, we need to make sure that we're aiming high as well. So that we can manage it in combination with Unity Water and that we're informed about where these pollution sources are coming from. Councillor Wilkie: Can you talk a bit more about the work being done to identify the sources of storm water inflow into the Fertile Street catchment and some of the solutions that are likely to be implemented?
03:19:00 Speaker 5: Through the Chair, we did take a sample at the Cooyah Street biobasin. I'll have to circle back and check on the outcomes of that. It was only a one-off. But we are trying to, through developing this catchment action plan, understand where the point sources of pollution in the catchment might be. And obviously the Unity Water data is a key part of the puzzle there. Councillor Jurisevic: How long do we think it might take before we've got some further information with regard to progressing that catchment management plan? And Burgess, correct? We can... Speaker 5: Sorry. Go ahead, Bec. Speaker 1: Sorry, I was through the Chair. We're working with our infrastructure staff to develop up a scope at the moment to determine what elements need to be looked at in detail.
03:20:00 So I think it's a little bit early days. So work in progress just... Work in progress for the next couple of months until we're just a little bit firmer on what it will involve. We need to review our infrastructure within the area. We've got some upgrades that need to be done. We've got some upgrades that need to be done for our detention basins and look at what options are available for the sports field. Is this... Yeah, a little bit of that scoping is going to come... Councillor Jurisevic: So it's going to be all the elements and hang all those places for you to puzzle, yes. Speaker 1: And as Amy said, looking at the water quality data, now that we're working towards being able to share what water quality data is available across the agencies, that will be really important for informing the next steps. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Question from there. Yeah, so one of my questions, are we including the digital hub in this discussion or the memory was one of the data that was saying that the eastern tributy was having some problems with chlorophyll-8, which is a fairly common indicator.
03:21:00 And my memory is that chlorophyll-8 can be remotely sensed. And I'm wondering whether we actually conclude in this conversation the digital hub to say, well, is this part of our broader digital... ...monitoring network that we actually test this with the name, compare water sampling or digital remote sensing stuff in fire areas versus non-fire areas, for example, and see what happens there. Speaker 5: So through the Chair, yes, we have been discussing remote sensing stations with the digital hub and working closely with James Uliate to look at what a public dashboard might look like for those... ...results. So that is progressing and it was a key consideration as part of our water quality monitoring workshop that was held a couple of weeks ago. Very good. Councillor Lorentson: Amanda. So part of the previous report, I talked about a catchment committee and a catchment strategy.
03:22:00 Are you considering forming a Burgess Creek catchment committee? So while stocking in this space, I've come in contact with, like the DMP actually, just there is so much local expertise in this area, people that have worked from Bondi to Brisbane City Council to other councils, looking at the opportunity for external stakeholder committee, Burgess Creek committee, advisory group, and is that something that you're thinking of, Rebecca? Speaker 1: Yes, through the Chair. Thank you. I think it's a really good idea and I'm glad that you raised it in some recent discussions with Unity Water as well because they were really receptive to that idea and they had had something in mind as part of developing up the next phase of consultation for water matters to have a Burgess Creek specific advisory group committee.
03:23:00 So they're really keen to progress something like that early in the new year. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? No. Okay. I'd like to thank staff for the report. Thank you Councillor Lauritsen for bringing the notified motion which has provided a wealth of information about the complex nature of factors that are applying in regards to the Burgess Creek catchment. I'm particularly interested in things that are directly within council's control and that is the stormwater management and if we can do, better manage our stormwater and if we can get it flowing into the Burgess Creek, that's all for the better. I'm interested in getting more information, more facts so that we can have a, as a basis for a constructive discussion around what the problem is in the first place and if there
03:24:00 is a, and how we best address that. And also the results of this review that's underway with the Department of Environment and Science which I understand may require Unity Water. So thanks, I thank staff for the great report. I much rather have you take the time, self, take the time to provide a comprehensive and factual report than rush anything as important as this. So, again, thank you. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I agree with that, Frank. As I said, it does, the realisation that Burgess Creek catchment is quite a large catchment and has a significant number of elements and impacts that flow into it. I'm glad to hear that staff are saying that we are working with Unity Water on an overall catchment management or at least a review and a management plan to go forward because there's elements like tannins that flow in.
03:25:00 And that people see as, incorrectly, as a sewage outfall and the like and understanding the elements and the length and breadth of where these tannins can also flow in from. So, but, you know, an important element of this is also Unity Water, so it's good to have them on board as a partner in this. Remembering that we also get some water outflows from all across the residential area that flows into this, and including the commercial precinct of Noosa Junction. So, again, it's a large body of water and a lot of tributaries that flow in. So, it'll be a large body of work to get this all together. And I thank staff for their time on that. It wasn't quite understood coming through from the question that had been originally asked of Councillor Lorentson, and that we had focused on the beaches element of it.
03:26:00 So, I'm glad to see that we've got the remainder of the catchment in consideration for an action management plan. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Oh, can I just make a comment? I just think that any work that contributes to water quality is most beneficial. Water is life. And if we are not focused on the quality of our water, you know, where will we be without that? So, I want to thank the staff and for, you know, the collaborative approach, you know, throughout the Shire and the conversations we've had here today. I think we're all in agreement that this is a really important issue. So, I want to just thank everyone for their contribution. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I want to thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing this to the table. It's a very important issue. And also thank staff. There's a lot of work to this. It's breadth is wide and deep and it will be ongoing. There is the opportunity that I think Scott, you and myself have both met with the new CEO of Unity Water.
03:27:00 So, there's certainly and she was very supportive and our initial meetings were very positive. So, there is the ability to expedite this too at that level as well going forward. So, keep that in mind. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Very close. Do you want me to come in? Yes. Firstly, apologies. Thank you for clarifying. Like I said, when I got the report, I thought, you know, what I asked for hasn't been delivered. So, please accept my apologies. I think when I entered this space, I think the questions that I think need to be answered are two or three questions. Are we okay with Unity Water discharging stormwater-treated sewage in our communities? Are we okay with the current practice? Or is that environmental practice no longer relevant? Question two. And if it's okay, and the water quality has met recycled water quality criteria, then
03:28:00 we should really be having a serious conversation about reusing that water. In a few weeks, I'll be going to the LGAQ conference in Cairns. And hopefully presenting a motion that will help support what we're doing here in the New Surrey space at Burgess Creek. A motion is going to be presented that will lobby State into investing and investigating additional uses for treated or wastewater. So, again, environmental best practices. We need to be different by nature, and this may be a really great legacy or opportunity for us here in New Surrey Shire Council. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion out of favour. That's unanimous.
03:29:00 Thank you, Bec. Thanks, Ben. Thanks, Amy. Financial Report, August 2022. Thank you. Thanks, Bec. Okay. Pauline Coles, Acting Financial Services Manager. Welcome, Pauline. Thank you. Just an overview of where we are financially. Sure. Speaker 3: So, financial performance for the month of August, or year-to-date to August, is positive. We're operating revenues outperforming our forecast, and operating expenditures slightly under the forecast at this early stage of the financial year. So, we're going to have to wait and see. With the adoption of Budget Review 1 last month, that's now reflected in the August financial statements. Operating revenue is $968,000 above budget. This is comprised $269,000 from waste utility charges and general rates, with discounts
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 to allowed less than the forecast. $314,000 from interest revenue, which is higher due to the investment in high-yielding term deposits that we mentioned previously. $160,000 from waste utility charges and general rates. $131,000 from waste disposal fees. $131,000 from holiday park revenue, and $131,000 from operating grants. Our operating expenditure is $263,000 under spent year-to-date, with $21,000 of that relating to employee costs, and the balance $342,000 relating to materials and services. Our capital revenue remains on track at this stage. However, our capital expenditure is behind budget, and this is due to the profiling of the infrastructure program. So the team is still working on that, and ironing out exactly the timing of those projects. So that will probably improve in the next month or so. Council is currently holding $114 million in our cash reserves, and that's at its peak, given that we've just collected the rates run in August.
03:31:00 With interest rates continuing to rise, we have invested a further $10 million in high-yielding term deposits, so that's a total of $14 million in term deposits at this stage. Overall, we are continuing to track well, and a good start for the beginning of the year. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Pauline. Questions? Yeah, I've got some. Claire. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Pauline. Always a very good report. Thank you. And I know how busy you guys are, so we appreciate it. Just to confirm, and I think you've talked about it, the 14 months, page 78 of the agenda, we're well and truly over that three months. Correct. Requirement. Yep. Yep. But because of, I guess, upcoming expenses, ongoing expenses, that will come back? Correct. Yep. Yes. Speaker 3: I was just going to say, we are working on bringing you a dissection in future months reporting that will actually break that out, what we're holding in restricted reserves for disaster management, whether we're holding it for the waste levy subsidy.
03:32:00 So that will kind of provide a little bit more clarity around what's actually sitting in those reserves down the track. Mayor Stewart: Right. Thank you. Net financial liabilities ratio, negative 118%. Target's less than 60%. Can you just talk me through that? Speaker 3: So essentially, that means in terms of our financial position, we have quite a substantial borrowing capacity. The assets far outweigh our liabilities. So if we were needing to do a major project, then we were in a good position to approach the bank to fund that if we needed to. Mayor Stewart: Great. Thank you. And rates are in arrears. They're higher than projected, but that is normal for this time of year. Correct. Speaker 3: So we're at the highest point in the cycle. So we'll see that come down over the next few months. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: That's all I had. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? Now, our return on investment graph's gone over to the right far more than it has at any time in the last two years. I take it that's because we're investing back into one of the big four blocks. Speaker 1: Correct. Correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, I know we have to go there in terms of our financial sustainability risk type
03:33:00 appetite. A while back, we were looking at where we invested with a view to corporate social responsibility and many of the big four are actually doing the right thing in terms of their investment in things that might be adding to climate change, et cetera. How do we do that? Have we got that data? Are we still making our decisions? Speaker 3: Well, in terms of the decision making, we assess across a range of different institutions. That's not just the big four. We do approach lower levels as well and we look at the yield on those. There is not a robust form in terms of assessing the sustainability of the investments. I know that some of the big fours are doing work on there. We're not quite there in terms of what we ... I think the policy might allow for us to accept a slightly lower yield, but the products are limited in terms of where we're at at the moment. But the rates are starting to move at this stage, so we will do some more investigation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just think because it's going to be a competitive market going forward there now at the time, I presume still the majority of our $40 billion, all I know, is still with ...
03:34:00 QGC. QGC, which is obviously that ... Speaker 3: $40 million, yeah. Yeah. Well, the bulk of our funds is with QGC, but $40 million is split between CBA and NAB at the moment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so that's quite a substantial investment too. We should be exercising our ability to influence as much as possible. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, that was my question, that we are ... it's not just ... we're split over three, aren't we, Pauline? Speaker 3: Yeah, so QGC, CBA and NAB. We're doing that as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm pointing where you might seem like to us, but to a big bank it's a drop in the ocean. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, but ... Councillor Jurisevic: It depends on the borrowing capacity and ... I was going to raise the same point that Brian raised, the investment return, currently 2.63%. Correct. Keep going. Yeah. There's nothing wrong with interest rates rising on that side, with the ledger. Speaker 3: Yeah. We just need to manage our cash flow and our projections, given that we need to bring
03:35:00 those cash in, so that the last level of investment is on a shorter term, so that we make sure we have sufficient cash to fund our capital program and operation. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I have a question on page 73. You mentioned a four-year cost. Yeah. Year-to-date under-expenditure of the terminal staff salaries and running 354,000 unit vacancies. Do you have an idea of how many position vacancies there actually is? Speaker 3: I don't. I can take that on notice and bring that information back to you. But obviously a lot of that is filled with labour hire and some casual employees as well. Councillor Wilkie: Partial offset by ... Yeah. 117 for partial offset by labour hire. It would be good to know how many positions that is as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, they should know. That's sitting right next to you. Speaker 9: Yeah. We've just gone into market with 15 positions that we're recruiting to at the moment, based on what we would normally have. And it's a figure sitting between 80 to 100 vacant positions. And that's across casuals, temps, permanent contract.
03:36:00 So yeah, we are definitely recruiting as much as we can. We'll see a positive result on the side of the ledger. The negative is the extra pressure that puts on current staff within the business to be able to deliver that workload. Yeah. So there's ... Yeah. Well, it's positive in relation to expenditure. There is that other issue. We're working on that. But we're not alone. Yeah. It's a big message. In fact, local government across the country now attended the LBMA last week. All councils are struggling in this space. And it's something where we now really, as a sector, need to start to look at as to where our future plan is going to come from. Our parks and garden staff, our waste staff. There are extreme difficulties and pressure points. And there are parts of the local government make-up that are more difficult than others. Ageing population, particularly within the local government sector. We're seeing quite a large number, not just day-to-day executive ranks, all reaching retirement
03:37:00 age. So we will see some major changes across the sector, I think. We're working on it. Remuneration and benefits are key. Yeah. So that's a big component of the discussion with the executive. And we'll bring that back to the council. We can't just fix this with throwing more money at people. It's got to be all about the culture of where we work, what we stand for, what other non-monetary benefits that we can provide as a council to our staff. And then ultimately, of course, there's the cash component of remuneration. But our HR team are working on all of that now so that, you know, this is different by nature and a great place to work. What would be the... Sorry. No, no. Councillor Wilkie: What would be the current ideal full-time equivalent staff number? Is it 500? Oh, sorry. Sorry.
03:38:00 What's the staff number, including casuals, that we need? 500 plus. Speaker 9: 500. Just on 500 for us. That includes the casual component. FT is about 380. So about 120. And that's because of the diversity of business that we run across pools, galleries, libraries. So that casual component works for us in a way that we can provide a broader depth of services over outside that 9 to 5 period. So 380 is the full-time equivalent. That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: So what would be... So we're down 100 in terms of casuals and everything else. If you had to condense that into a full-time equivalent, how many are we down in terms of full-time equivalent? Speaker 9: I'd say probably about 50. Councillor Wilkie: 50. Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah. That's where we're at right now. Yeah. Starting with seeing a trend grow of jobs that did go to the market that we're getting very few of any applicants. We're seeing more applicants come through. That's good. So we think as well that there is still growth in the economy.
03:39:00 People are looking to save harder with their employment. And they know that government can provide that. So we are seeing more applicants coming through. A higher level of quality. Our difficulties in Noosa are going to be very much about affordability. So we might be able to attract through a degree of remuneration, benefits, culture, what would stand for if they can't find somewhere to live. That's correct. These are the issues that we're going to be facing. Councillor Wilkie: So I'm asked this and I feel this at the top of my head. So 50. Is that like a seven or eight percent? Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Yeah. Floating between that seven to 15 percent at any given time because it is fluid and moves. But yeah, that would be fair to say that we're averaging probably around about that percent mark that are sitting vacant. And while that works on the balance sheet, we want that provider services.
03:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to correct, 50 out of 380 is 13 percent. 13 percent. Councillor Jurisevic: 50 out of 500 was 10 percent. Speaker 9: But it's difficult. Councillor Jurisevic: The other side of that coin is the fact that backfield positions, permanent positions that aren't filled, have certainty for positions and the like, but also help facilitate staff retention. Yes. Staff retention is always in reserve. That's correct. Yes. So those, you know, expediting those, filling in those positions or particularly those positions that are gone would be a priority for you? Speaker 9: Yes. It is, through the Chair. October, the conversion of long-term casual and temporary employees will be put to the Council to be converting to full-time employees. So following on from the recent presentation by each of the Directors in that area, we will also address our structure as well too. Whether the structure is addressed in October or November, we will be doing that.
03:41:00 But we have a lot of high-level staff that are sitting in acting roles. Pauline, case in point. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm referring to. Speaker 9: So we will be correcting. Councillor Jurisevic: Trying to fix it, Pauline. It's okay. Speaker 9: Casuals and temps will go to the October round of meetings. So most probably we'll go straight to January on that, just because of the gravity that it has for the whole of Council. But we'll work with the temp. And whether it is the October round or the November round, each of the Directors are working on the structure overall. We'll bring that forward for Council. So I think we address casuals and temps first, then structure and the acting. And then that sets us for a really strong 2023. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. Thank you. Speaker 9: Anyone care to move things? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move it. Councillor Wilkie: Mayor Clare, seconder Jo. I have a question. We've got a seconder motion. So please go ahead. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Pauline. Look, everything's on track. I think just my eyes go to sort of those big differentiations, which was the issues
03:42:00 I raised. But there is an explanation for them, and there's certainly justification and reasoning behind it. But thank you for a very solid and informative report. And I appreciate that your job, at the moment, you're in staff and the resource. We've just heard that. So we really take our hats off to your team and all the hard work you do. So thank you very much. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Brilliant. A question and suggestion, Pauline. On page 84, there's a summary of key materials and services expenditure. It would be great to have a summary of key materials and services expenditure. And then there's a column with what was budgeted in 2021, 2022. So when I read these numbers, I always keep going, how much was it compared to last year in terms of legal expenses, in terms of grants paid to community organisations, to just get an idea how much more we're...
03:43:00 Speaker 3: So you're looking at budget, what we budgeted versus what we actually spent for last financial year? Just to clarify. Councillor Lorentson: Your recommendation. I think what actually was spent. Yeah. Speaker 3: I would probably suggest actuals. Actuals. But obviously, year on year can be different for different reasons. So just bear that in mind. Actuals. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: With a trend analysis. Speaker 9: A trend analysis. Just for a reference. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anybody else wish to speak? I just want to say that I'm looking forward to the opportunity to drag a finance manager over the coals, but wait until you go to Brisbane. Speaker 3: Feel free to do it now. It's fine. Councillor Wilkie: Mr. CEO, what sort of culture are we trying to create here on the council? Speaker 9: There's examples of behaviours. That's one example that we can utilise. That's exactly right. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. Councillor Stockwell will be dragged over the coals in about March. What would you do? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, that's right. You might use the coals?
03:44:00 No. Okay. Okay. Cooran Fiverr. That's unanimous. Okay.