Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: To negotiate with TransLink on their ticketing systems with the aim to allow other routes that enter and depart the Noosa Shire to be included, and D, advocate to the State Government of Queensland Minister for Transport that Noosa Shire Council local government area is a future trial site for fully subsidised public transport. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Chair, can we just get subsidised correctly spelt there? Subsided means it's going to fall apart. That's subsidised. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if we're playing around with words, should it be as a future trial site rather than is a future trial site? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Thank you, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So after government area as? Councillor Wilkie: Future trial site for a fully subsidised. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As a future trial site. Councillor Lorentson: Future trial site for a fully subsidised public transport. For a fully. No.
00:01:00 For a fully subsidised. For a fully subsidised. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: We need a seconder, please. I'll second it. Seconded Mayor Stewart. Okay. I'll speak. Councillor Lorentson: Great. I'm going to start with some interesting facts that we've provided quite recently from our Go Noosa transport officers in a workshop to all the councillors. Noosa has approximately 20,000 workers. Of the 20,000 workers a day, only 180,000 are new. The numbers given to us that workshop also told us that there are approximately 13,500 cars on the road each and every day driven by our residents to get to work. So add to this number, cars on the road used to transport 8,284 school kids to and fro work.
00:02:00 You do the numbers, you see we've got a problem. The amendment that I've put together, we've got a problem. I request radical action because radical action is the only way we will see radical behaviour change. Zero fare policy or free buses, it's not a new idea. There is already 100 cities across the world in US, Europe, Korea, Taiwan that have made public transport free. Like Noosa, these cities are tackling the same issues of traffic, congestion, clearing air and keeping climate targets on track. What they have found and what we already know through our free weekend bus trial is that free buses is not a silver bullet and to maximise its impact it needs to be part of a broader policy mix that rewards public transport use and disincentivises car use. And it also needs to be part of a broader policy mix which rewards public transport use and disincentivises car use. We have a broader transport strategy that includes infrastructural changes such as priority bus lanes and paid parking.
00:03:00 The amendment in front of us requests that we write to the Queensland Minister for Transport and request that Noosa is considered as a future trial for fully subsidised public transport. We are Queensland's first council to trial the initiative of free buses every weekend. So let's extend that initiative to every day to take our workers and school kids and our visitors out of cars and on public transport. And further, let's request that the trial be fully subsidised by the State and request that the State make good of their promise to take action on climate change. The data from the trial would provide, in my opinion, insightful and useful resident trends and visitor trends that would feed into a broader transport strategy for both the State and Noosa. I ask that you support the amendment. In front of you. Councillor Wilkie: Just another wording.
00:04:00 I think it doesn't, to my way of reading, it doesn't seem to make sense, I think. Advocate the State Government of Queensland Minister for Transport at Noosa Shire Council local government area be considered as a future trial site for fully subsidised public transport. Do we need the words be considered in there? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, that was rushed. Thank you very much. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I will reiterate that it's not an amendment, it's the motion before us in whole, just to clarify that, with point D added from this recommendation as the motion moved by the council. Yeah, so that I've always been one to fully to advocate for subsidised or free public
00:05:00 transport. I think our trials are showing how well it works, particularly during those holiday periods and now in weekend periods. The opportunities that it presents for not only the tourists and trying to discourage them from taking their vehicles to the high tourism areas, but also for locals the opportunity to get around the area free, for kids and the like to unburden mum and dad to some degree to allow them that freedom that they're not chatteled to a motor vehicle and as we used to when we were kids, getting around and using buses and the like. Free public transport could be subsidised by a reduction in the need to continually maintain or upgrade the road system to cater for more and more vehicles. If that makes sense? If we had a good, well facilitated public transport system in Queensland, which I believe is one of the lesser public transport systems in this country, particularly in the CBD areas
00:06:00 and the regional connections that go with it, I believe that public transport would be more fully utilised and I'd advocate that in any way, shape or form. What we have before us from the staff recommendation is the success of the free weekend bus services. And I believe that we should continue these free weekend bus services. They're proving to be popular. They're proving to be successful. The challenge for us in the future will be how we continue to fund them. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to speak to it. Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm happy to support the staff recommendation of the increase in the free weekend bus trial extension. The uptake has been excellent. We saw it from our reports, 50%. Similarly, the feedback was excellent. 94% of respondents very satisfied with the service and 6% satisfied. So that's 100% satisfied across the board. And 100% of people would recommend free buses, weekend buses, to others.
00:07:00 The feedback from our hinterland was incredibly positive as well. So it's clear that this has support from right across the Shire. The Pomona District Chamber of Commerce indicated that the free weekend buses trial was helping to counter socialising the spread of COVID-19 across the Shire. It's also been popular with young people in the hinterland, facilitating access to attractions on the coast. As well as this, the free weekend buses have also encouraged travel into the hinterland, including Pomona markets and access to hiking trails. Hastings Street indicated the same positive support, with one business owner stating, there are so many positives to this continuing and that it's for everyone, all ages, locals, tourists, staff and day trippers. 30 to 60 people on a bus conservatively reduces 20 vehicles a day in a precinct or Shire, and so it's good for the environment. That was some of the feedback. So it's clear that this is very popular and I'm really supportive of it extending.
00:08:00 I'm also supportive of advocating to the state government and Councillor Lorentson's initiative to Noosa be considered as a future trial site, a fully subsidised public transport. The answer's always no, unless you ask. So it doesn't hurt to ask and I'm certainly happy to advocate to the minister in that regard as well. So fully supportive of this recommendation. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question to staff. Is it true that the state is already paying close attention to the work being done by nursing council in regards to free public transport? Councillor Jurisevic: I'd have to take that on notice and that's for you. That's fine. That's my understanding, absolutely. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: It's great. Anything to look at this reduction in congestion and providing equity across the Shire for
00:09:00 free movement. I'm just wondering, is this a good opportunity to find out where we sit, and this may be a question to the Chair's CEO, around councillors who have been in the business for a long time and the council's own policy in looking at how we can be leaders in getting our own staff to work using public transport or other means. Where are we at with that? Speaker 3: Through the Chair in response to Councillor Finzel, that would be something that we'd enshrine in the certified agreement. It's currently not within the certified agreement. Negotiations around that will start in the next 12 to 18 months. I've worked in previous councils where there is subsidised carpooling, there's a specific car parking arrangements. There's the ability to be able to subsidise fully or partly public transport to work for council offices. But ultimately that needs to be fully costed as to what the impact would be overall. But that would be provided as a benefit to the employee's employment with council.
00:10:00 The starting point is the certified agreement, and then you could expand that further into the managerial roles that are on contract. But, yeah, there are opportunities to do that. The certified agreement is the best way to go ahead with that, and that everybody agrees that that is a benefit. It can also be simply doubled by a policy. But I prefer to be able to follow a clear process, and that we have had unit consultation, and that expectations are known, and that I wouldn't mandate that staff have to use a particular form of transport. Everybody has different needs and requirements. But if we can do our bit in subsidising or providing carpooling options, that would be more than happy to be able to look at that as we go through that process in the future. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I think that would be fantastic. If we're reaching out to State to, you know, look at us as a trial site, it would be really good to say that we can match that with what we're doing in our own back yard. So thank you.
00:11:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, so I was thinking about this over the weekend when Councillor Lorentson indicated that she was going to add D. And it occurred to me that we probably had been strategically remiss in our free bus scheme, because everyone calls it the Noosa Council free bus scheme. But probably the highest level of subsidy for those free buses comes from the Queensland Government. That not only do public transport across the whole state get a high level of subsidy, but the deals that they offer, they get a high level of subsidy. So I think that the fact that they offer us to offer free bus is also quite an attractive deal. It's not full cost. And therefore, I'm going to move a slight amendment. And that is, in D, to start with, thank the State Government of Queensland Minister for
00:12:00 Transport. So take out the words, advocate to. So if you just copy D, it's largely going to be the same. Thank you. So instead of advocate to, just put thank. And after the words, Queensland Minister for Transport. So thank the Queensland, the State Government of Queensland Minister for Transport for his Government's ongoing support. I think it is important to understand that
00:13:00 we are working with the state government. We'd like to go faster than TransLink, but we're one small shire. So fully subsidised public transport is probably a fairly big ask if it sets a precedent for the state. I actually think fully subsidised transport where there's a local participation or funding, perhaps funded from paid car parking by tourists or congestion taxation or whatever, I think we first have to recognise that we're in partnership in delivering this free bus service and rather than just keeping on saying this is what we want, this is what we want, we have to say thanks for coming on the ride with us, pun not intended. It really is. We, in all the meetings I'm aware of, the political support has been there for the sustainable
00:14:00 transport initiatives we've put in. I think what Councillor Lorentson is suggesting is a good next step. Councillor Lorentson: Can I request just a change in wording? Instead of thank the state government, acknowledge. So it's an acknowledge and advocate. That's just a preferred word. Okay. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: If that's all right. I want to just speak to the amendment. Councillor Wegener: Just a question to the CEO. I mean, these amendments are nice, but is it, would you already do anything? Or, wouldn't you be doing this as a matter of course, as good business anyway?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 3: Through the J Council, yes. We're going to, absolutely, but it's delivered at an officer-to-officer level with the state government, so our advocacy, our acknowledgement, our thanks, the relationships that we have with TransLink, Trans Water Main Roads, at an officer level is very sound, it's quite solid, and we have that mutual respect. As amendments and a resolution of the council coming from the council table, it then takes that to that next level, and gives it the ability for this council to communicate directly with the minister, and gets that on the minister's priority list, and understanding that correspondence has been resolved upon by this council table, it's going to the minister, and the minister can understand how important it is for Noosa Shire. When we advocate, I advocate from a CEO level to the... The director general of transport, or the general manager of TransLink, but it would stay at those levels within Trans Water Main Roads, and very rarely get up into the political space.
00:16:00 This provides that extra level of gravitas to what the council's wanting to achieve, and a really great way of communicating at a ministerial level. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Just on this point, the question of subsidies being raised, I believe I heard in previous discussions that TransLink... It's subsidised public transport, it's either on the Sunshine Coast or Noosa to the tune of $11 million a year, and you have to clarify whether that $11 million is a subsidy given to the Noosa network alone, or whether it's Sunshine Coast-wide. I can't answer that question, I'd have to take that on notice, apologies. Thank you. I'll speak in support of the amendment, because it does... It makes it clear that public transport, free initiatives aren't really free, someone pays for it through our sustainable transport levy, on top of the heavy subsidies that the state government already provide, and that also the Noosa, the Noosa Shire Council local government area is already considered a trial site per se, and I think that's a good thing.
00:17:00 My understanding is TransLink staff, working very closely with the Noosa Council staff, are watching very closely the way subsidised public transport plays out here, and the results that it delivers in terms of passenger numbers, who the passengers are, and the numbers of cars that would otherwise be on the road, and if I had to bet on it, as the Mayor said, there's no harm in asking, that's what good advocates do for fully subsidised public transport in the area. But if I had to bet on it, I would say that, given that Noosa Council is already offering free public transport a full year, every weekend, as well as the major holidays, Christmas and Easter, that we would, and we're considering other ways to provide, extend the free public transport network in Noosa, via paid parking for visitors, as suggested, that we may even be able to fully subsidise public transport in Noosa, as well as the major holidays, Christmas and Easter, and we're considering other ways to provide, extend the free public transport network in Noosa, via paid
00:18:00 parking for people, and as I've said, and I'll have the level of backing from the emergency краadelphie in Noosa Council ourselves, before the state would come on board with something like that, and, as I said, there's Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reiterate all those points made, particularly Brian's point about the fact that public transport
00:19:00 is heavily subsidised by the state government and the ongoing support of the TransLink and the department in allowing us to have those free weekend buses and those free holiday buses for those that use the service. Of course, nothing's free, it's all paid for by somebody somewhere. And the concept of a future trial site for fully subsidised public transport may be the catalyst for a formula by which all of Queensland can come up with a system of fully free use public transport for everybody. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell used to close. Okay. I'll put the amendment does in favour. That's unanimous. I just need to now go back to the original motion to which one, two. Everyone has spoken to except for Councillor Wegener and myself. Councillor Wegener has
00:20:00 Councillor Wegener: I'm just down on Hastings Street and watched so many happy people get off the free buses. I was so impressed. It's just working a treat. And to think that two or three of those people were in a car and not coming in is phenomenal. So yeah, congratulations. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I would just like to say that this motion really is about the success of the free weekend bus trial, and it's a compliment to staff who have been driving this process as a message there's been very, very good feedback from people across the Shire, especially the Hinterland. It provides access for them out there as well, and I'm really encouraged by the feedback and looking forward to expanding the program in the future. Councillor Lorentson, Mr Clarkson. Councillor Lorentson: I will just add, which I didn't add in my question.
00:21:00 When I made the motion, I referenced school kids, our workers, didn't reference our domestic visitors, 1.2 million of them every year, and I also didn't reference our most vulnerable. In the United States, one of the reasons that they're introducing in places like Washington and through legislation, free public transport for ferries, trains, and buses. Is to address the issue of homelessness and to allow equity for those that live on the streets that need access to services. So I would just like to include that as part of my reasons for wanting to advocate to the state and thank the state, agree with you, Brian, that there is a need for public transport,
00:22:00 beyond just our visitors, our workers, our school kids. It's also an issue of social equity. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Grae. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Larry. Thanks, Grae. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is the contract award for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement software licensing. Welcome, Justin. And there's a new recommended, recommendation. Please, Alinda, if you could bring that up. Okay. Trendle, Justin, you wish to talk us through what we're looking at and any changes since this last statement before the council, please. Speaker 1: Thank you. So I came last week to have approvals for the Microsoft licensing procurement. I need to tell you I'd just been advised there was an error with the quotation.
00:23:00 We have resolved that with Microsoft and Data 3. They resubmitted the quotation. And we also had to include 20 new licences for the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. This is for Microsoft project management software for infrastructure services. So the new figure is $3,389.79 higher than the one I gave you last week because of those extra Microsoft licences. The original problem was resolved with a $40.05 decrease in the original quote. But because we've added that project licensing, it's now $3,389 higher. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: John. Question for the CEO. CEO, given that these figures have changed and they're not actually documented in recommendations in any way, shape or form, how will we, apart from clarifying the amount here in either in the recommendation or in some other way, shape or form, how will we record those changes
00:24:00 so the public are aware of what those figures are? Speaker 3: To the Chair, Councillor Jurisevic, we could look at an amendment. And officers might be able to offer what an amendment may look like to the Council table to ensure that that transparency is there. So we could very briefly provide some advice to you on that. And I think that's appropriate. That while we do have a report before you, there has been some work that's occurred between the Service and Organisations Committee and the Council. And there's a report by the Service and Organisations Committee and the General Committee today, which is where we have a revised recommendation from Council offices for the Council. But if we could revise that. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm suggesting, do we have a C here with the correct clarification on the- Speaker 3: I think that would be fine. And while it hasn't been moved and seconded, we may seek an administer, the Chair may be able to administer the change now at the table, if you like.
00:25:00 Councillor Wilkie: But perhaps authorise the CEO to negotiate the final annual fees and schedule upgrades with data three and provide these to the ordinary meeting. Speaker 11: Just through the Chair, just another point of clarification for people to understand. This isn't a fixed fee contract. Obviously, the number of staff we have in the organisation will change the fee because obviously more staff means more licences. Also, as we move through the three-year term of this licence, we might take on more niche or specialised services. So, if we could revise software offerings from Microsoft. An example is the amendment that Justin alluded to, which is Microsoft Project. So, if the infrastructure team further progress using a product like Project for their project management, we'll need more licences. So, we can provide a revised fee, which is based on, in the recommendation, based on today's licensing and user requirements.
00:26:00 And then, obviously, we can provide a revised fee, which is based on, in the recommendation, I think we did suggest in beta the schedule of rates is what will determine in this case. Councillor Jurisevic: No. That means the original recommendation with fixed figures in there is not actually correct with regard to what the cost of this will be. It will be based on the licences. So I think we need to look at the wording of the recommendation to actually reflect the methodology in which this is calculated. The figures quoted gave a three year term of $1.6 million which could vary. I understand that varies but it suggests that it's a fixed price contract in the recommendation by the figures that are quoted. I think there needs to be some rewording of the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: It's been suggested that it just be referred to ordinary. Councillor Jurisevic: If we could look at the wording of that and refer it. My motion here would be to refer this to the ordering meeting.
00:27:00 To give staff a chance to re-look at the wording to clarify that it's not a fixed price contract. It is a variable contract based on licences. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe staff did circulate an alternative recommendation which is in front of us that does not include the fees that Councillor Jurisevic is concerned about. It appears to me that that would cover those concerns if we adopt what's put up there as committee recommendations. Is that right? Councillor Wilkie: I think you are saying something different. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm saying the original recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's very different to the original recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: It is very different to the original recommendation. The original recommendation actually had the figures quoted. This recommendation doesn't. I think the disparity between the two needs to be a little more clearly reiterated. I'm not happy with this recommendation. I think we need to bring in what the figures are that it's not a fixed price contract. It's based on user licences and the like. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Refer to the ordinary meeting of parents. Councillor Wilkie: So is seconded Councillor Stockwell.
00:28:00 Mayor Stewart: Can I just ask a question? Yes, please. What's the actual quantum we're looking at here, Mr CEO? What's the discrepancy? Through the Chair, $3,300. Okay. And so we're moving this on $3,300? That's what we're moving? No. That's not correct. Speaker 3: No. Madam Mayor, I think through the Chair, Councillor Jurisevic is concerned is that on further advice from council officers that this can be somewhat a floating contract. Yes, sure. Depending on licences and headcount, the types of products that we take on board within that licence. What we'll do is with the move in the second and now having this motion on the floor to refer to ordinary, we'll make that a little bit more clear for the council. So that we have some advice as to what the quantum we believe is now and potentially if there is some further impact, what that may look like. Councillor Jurisevic: And what may cause our variation, i.e. additional lot.
00:29:00 This is based on this many licences or whatever. Mayor Stewart: I guess the question is, what choice do we have? We don't. Councillor Jurisevic: It's just a matter of getting the wording right so that it's understood not only by ourselves, but also by the public as to the costs associated with this going forward. And that it's not a fixed rate, schedule of rate, it's actually a variable schedule of rates. Councillor Wilkie: That's fine. Do you want to take that as your question? Councillor Jurisevic: My communication, yeah. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add to that? On page 16 of the services and organisation committee, is that enough information? It looks like it does. It says if additional users are employed during the term of the agreement, individual licences for those users are added from that year. So I guess we just need to clarify, where do you show us? Where does that show up in our budget? That would be through the chair. Speaker 11: That would be updated through our annual budget deliberations, using our building base approach with our budget, where we deal with just volumes and pricing for all of our contracts
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 through the process. Mayor Stewart: And on that trend, it's difficult too for you to give, I mean you can give a guesstimate, but you don't know if we're going to be up 20 staff in 12 months or down 20 staff or we might have a hundred. You know, it's hard to give that figure because you don't know what our staffing numbers will be in 6 or 12, 18 months. None of us do. Do you look in the budget? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, but it's recorded nearly through the budget. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, but he doesn't, but for Thursday night, that's my point. He doesn't know. Speaker 3: Okay. And then the other thing is, as we've seen in the council's motion before us, just seeking that extra information, we won't be able to give absolute. There's no ability to do that, but I think council and the community, through the resolution of council, need to be clear that there is a cost. There is also the potential for that cost to flow and we can look at some variable amounts that sit around that for you to resolve upon.
00:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr. CEO. And that's what I'm reflecting on. In the Services and Organisation Committee, figures were quoted. In this recommendation, there are no figures quoted. It doesn't explain the reason for the changes. What I would like is something along the lines of what was in the original, with the correct figures in there, with the understanding that it can vary. I think the recommendation was better in the Services and Organisation Committee, it's just the figures weren't correct. Councillor Wilkie: Point taken, Councillor Jurisdict. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion to refer this to the ordinary? Put the motion to those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Justin. Thank you, Justin. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Tren. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is item three, reports of the Director of the General Committee, application for minor change to develop and approval for home-based business, small-scale and reprocessing, at 82 Patterson Drive, Tim Bewar. Welcome, Lisa, Patrick and Leah. Hello, Lisa. Are you speaking to this report, giving us an overview of what we're looking at?
00:32:00 Speaker 7: We can definitely give you a summary, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. Proposals for a minor change to an existing approval for a home-based business, which is a small-scale meat processing facility. The applicant proposes to increase the processing from five carcasses to ten, and allow the collection of meat. The application will select either large-scale meat, large-scale meat, or large-scale meat products once per week. We're currently, there's no collections. The recommendation in the report actually supports this request, as the operations remain consistent with home-based business parameters. Further, the applicant is seeking to delete commission 21 that specifies the currency period until the 17th of December this year, unless extended otherwise by council. And provided there's no complaints received from nearby residents concerning breaches of the development conditions. In this regard, over the last 12 months, there's been one residence primarily complained. Upon the investigation, compliance officers did not find there was a breach of the Development Conditions or the Environmental Protection Act.
00:33:00 Notwithstanding this, the report recommends to change Condition 21 to extend the currency period for a further two years, until 17 December 2024. Councillor Wilkie: Question, what's the purpose of extending the currency period? Speaker 7: The operator has indicated that they intend to move operations off-site, so the original suggestion was between about 18 and 24 months is what he's moving towards. So we thought that it was prudent to include that, but also to give him the flexibility to investigate options and move him off-site in the future. Councillor Wilkie: Questions for staff, or anyone like to move a recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: I have questions. Five carcasses to ten, sorry, five carcasses to ten carcasses, the report indicates that that equates to 15 tonnes per annum.
00:34:00 My question is, 15 tonnes per annum is, in my calculations, I worked out... Um... Um... 15 tonnes is 15,000 kilos, or just to put it in, like, you know, so we all understand what 15,000 kilos looks like, if you look at 500 gram packets of, say, mince, and there's venison mince, there's venison meat, 500 grams, we're looking at 30,000 packs of 500 grams of venison meat, there's venison sausages, venison leg, venison shoulders. Um... And if you divide that by the number of days he's allowed to operate, that's 115 packs a day, or 575 packs of 500 grams of mince per week. My question is, how is that considered domestic in scale?
00:35:00 Speaker 7: Um... Speaker 9: Well, I think the, um, the home-based business is operating in a small building. They're bringing in the material on one account. Um... The, there's no requirement in the planning scheme under the code that the facility can't operate each day. Um... So... I think that it is, in terms of its impact, it's not, it's not like an industrial operation in terms of its noise, um, in terms of the equipment that's coming to the site. The size of the shed is quite small. Um... Um... Councillor Lorentson: Our planning scheme says that on properties less than four hectares, um, that the home business only includes operations that are low impact industry.
00:36:00 Um... This property... The business is operating on a property that is... Less than one hectare. 7,822 square metres. So, according to our NUSA plan, medium impact industry should not be on a property of this size. Um... The report states the same, that it doesn't comply with that benchmark. Um... Why is it allowed to operate given that it is defined under the NUSA plan as a medium industry impact, uh, medium industry business? Um... And it's located on a property that is less than one hectare, um, in area.
00:37:00 Speaker 9: Our scheme at the moment currently terms all food processing operations as medium industry. So, if someone's essentially processing jams, putting together spice packs or anything like that, it automatically brings it in as medium impact industry. My understanding is that this will be looked at through the planning scheme amendments process. So, it doesn't... The scheme at the moment doesn't give recognition or doesn't really appreciate or show where those medium impact industries that should be, um, excluded from those residential areas. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? Our planning scheme says that noise-generating machinery or mechanical plant used for the home business is enclosed within a building and not located within a hundred metres of a sensitive land use, including a dwelling house on an adjoining property.
00:38:00 The proposed activity includes noise-generating machinery, compressors for mechanical cooling, bandsaw and minces. It's located 50 metres, within 50 metres of an adjoining dwelling house on an adjoining property. Why are we allowing this business to operate within a hundred metres of a sensitive land use? Because it's not... 50 metres of the adjoining property. Speaker 9: It's notable that the, um, the operator's premise is in closer proximity of the shed than any adjoining dwelling. It's located, as you'll see through the report, um, within very close proximity of the house.
00:39:00 Um, I've been to the site. Um, Lisa's been to the site, and Leo has been to the site, and we've had the operator We have here a generator operating the machinery. We've stood inside the shed while it was on and could hear how loud it was in the shed. This has got very significant insulation on this shed to enable it to operate as a cool room. It's also hermetically sealed, which is a pressure seal, and that limits noise capacity to leave the building. And when he was operating the bandsaw, I walked outside the building and I couldn't hear anything. I closed the door and straight away I could not hear anything. And I'm comfortable that the separation that's provided is suitable in relation to the noise from this operation.
00:40:00 Mayor Stewart: So just looking at the home based business code and talking about the business as such, how many employees is there in this business do we know? Speaker 7: None, it's just the operator. Mayor Stewart: Okay, and how big is the shed that he's working out of? Is it 57 square metres? 51 metres. Okay, and how often are deliveries allowed per week? Or how often is he allowed to harvest? Speaker 7: So currently once a week he harvests, and in our condition we've included. Mayor Stewart: And in the additional condition you're asking us to look at, condition 14? Is it that he's allowed a small van to obtain deliveries between 8 and 4, once a week, to pick up? That's correct. Right. So in looking at that, those statements and what you've just said, and those requirements, the fact that there's one person, 57 square metres, allowed to harvest once a week, and allowed to pick up deliveries between 9 and 4, one day a week.
00:41:00 Okay. So would that be considered very much a home-based business, in line with other home-based businesses you have seen? Speaker 9: Definitely. And would, I would say, would even have less impact than other home-based businesses, with other provisions allowing, say, yoga classes, I think four times a day, up to four people per class, you know, those kind of activities. So you'd have a lot of people coming and going on a rural residential property, so there's very limited impact in terms of the operation and vehicles coming and going. Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Question of context. In your report, you mentioned about 18 acceptable outcomes of the planning scheme, regarding this, 15 of them, five, and there were three that, a couple of them, two or three of them, some of which Councillor Lorentson had mentioned, they make reference to being subservient to a performance outcome.
00:42:00 Can you explain what that performance outcome seems to achieve, and why that overrides the performance of the planning scheme? Speaker 7: The acceptable outcomes are basically a measure and a way to achieve the performance outcomes, so where they don't meet the acceptable outcomes, which is a measure, we then go and assess it against the performance outcomes. So there is some acknowledgement that there is some non-compliance against the acceptable outcomes, and therefore we've assessed it against the performance outcomes, and that's our point of view. Okay. And what is the pattern that's going to come to stick to the POP09? P-O-I-K-Z-O-9. Councillor Wilkie: Makes reference to impacts from dust and noise and vibration and sound. Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah, so it's really about those particular impacts and how they can be mitigated.
00:43:00 So we've done that through the assessment. We've determined that that noise is, um, very improbable in terms of, um, external to the shed. Um, the other noise, I guess, that can be acknowledged is the vehicles coming and going. There's restriction of just one suggestion, one collection per week, uh, and then one harvest per week. Uh, so that keeps down those, um, those impacts in terms of the vehicle movements. Um, so I guess, yeah, we've talked about odour before. We've had no evidence that there's been any, any, um, odour. So where the compliance officers have gone out, there's been no evidence of odour. So, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: The other question I have is, um, part of the one-year trial permit was, uh, complaints
00:44:00 would be considered seriously assessed. Can you, um, tell us what the name of the permit is? What's the notion of the complaints? How many people complained? And the notion of the complaints and what you're assessing of those complaints were, please. Speaker 7: Okay. So in the 12 months, we've had a series of complaints from one complainant, um, and one other complaint. Um, since... So that's over the 12 months. Uh, we've had a complaint. Two compliance officers go out and, and review that. Um, they haven't found any breach of the conditions of the approval or the Environmental Protection Act. Um, yeah. So I guess in terms of, um... Yeah, sorry. What... Yeah. Um... Speaker 9: So there has been... Councillor Wilkie: So the complaints weren't validated... Speaker 9: No. Councillor Wilkie: ...in terms of noise impacts? Speaker 9: That's correct. Yeah. So there's been, uh, quite a lot of complaints...
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Complaints. ...over time, and they have been investigated and, and quite thoroughly, and it's been demonstrated that those complaints haven't been substantiated. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: In regard to, um, one of the things, one of the things that was mentioned when this came before us, uh, originally, was, uh, uh, the amount of waste that this process would, uh, potentially generate and, uh, be over through, um, pump out to the light. Do we know how many times the, uh, the sewage system has had to be pumped out during that 12-month period at all? And, uh, whether that's any more or less than, uh, would be expected from a normal use of a, of a residential property on, uh, on such a, such a landholding? Speaker 9: Not specifically. Um, when we were on site, the, the operator, uh, showed us how much waste had been accumulated in a period of, I think it was a week, a week and a half. Yeah. And it was probably half a bucket of material. It was a very low amount of waste. Councillor Jurisevic: Which is in keeping with what he suggested would be the outcome. Speaker 9: That's right. Because they're so productive in how they use the base when it comes to their property
00:46:00 in terms of using the skins and, and other elements of the base, they really, they use it all, um, in terms of going to market. Um, the report does note that the waste water treatment system, um, was, their final inspection was issued in December 2021 and then since that time there'd been three month, there'd been regular three monthly compliance inspections, um, with no issues found. Councillor Jurisevic: And the, my understanding is the reason for there being minimal waste is that the animals are actually slaughtered offsite and so the processing of the meat on site. Speaker 9: That's correct. And, and, and. So he leaves part of the beast in the field and he brings back, um, that part of the animal that he would be seeking to harvest. Thank you. Speaker 5: So he indicated, Councillor, that originally the hooves were being brought back. That's no longer the case. So yeah, the, you're only really getting just the carcass. So no head, no hooves. Uh, insides are left onsite.
00:47:00 Uh, the rest of the, rest of the beast is pretty much utilised. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: Um, you mentioned there's been quite a lot of complaints. Um, what are, what is the number? Speaker 7: In the last 12 months from the one complaint, uh, we've had round about between 20 and 8, 28 and 30 complaints. Councillor Lorentson: So from the one complainant, 28 to 30 complaints. Yeah. How many people are impacted by the facility? Directly impacted by the facility. Is it that one complainant? Speaker 9: Well, we don't think that they've actually been impacted. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So the complaints have come from the adjoining property owner. Speaker 9: That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: Mm-hmm. Speaker 9: And there are other adjoining properties? And there's been no complaints from those properties? Councillor Lorentson: So where the facility is located, 15 metres away from the adjoining property owner.
00:48:00 And the adjoining property owner, um, is the adjoining boundary, the complainant. Um. The one that's located 15 metres from the processing facility. Speaker 9: Maybe I'll show you page seven of the report. Um, the property is accessed via Battleaxe driveway. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. I've been to the property. Speaker 9: Yeah. Which goes past an adjoining neighbour. Yep. And that's where the complaints have been coming from. Um, along that driveway, that sort of, the long boundary of that driveway is obviously another property with the dwelling. There has been no complaints received from that property. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is that because that's a Battleaxe property, as the vehicle goes up, most of the complaints have been about the lights and the lights shining into the property. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. I've got a question. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that the most significant complaint? Speaker 9: There's been a range of complaints. There's been a range of complaints about... Sorry, Jo. Councillor Wilkie: Can I just... Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Sorry. So just talking on those range of complaints, if we look at them, one of the complaints was operating with additional persons.
00:49:00 And please, and correct me, I'm going to ask this. Was that, um, that it was found that that was friends attending the property at the time? Speaker 5: That's correct. Okay. There's been a... Madam Mayor, there's been... Through the Chair, there's been a number of complaints along those lines about employees, but they've all been unsubstantiated through our investigations. Mayor Stewart: Right. The next one was vehicle noise during the night and light pollution upon entry. This is one vehicle, one night a week. Is that correct? That's correct. And we have proof on camera of dimming lights of the car on video. Is that correct? Speaker 9: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: And there's presence of... I've been... Both properties. Is it correct in that there's presentation of... Presence of vegetation and screening between the properties was also noted? Is that correct? Speaker 8: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Allegations of noise emissions at night that, um, the report states that after investigation and in accordance with EPA, Environmental Protection Act, this would not constitute a breach as defined by... As an environmental nuisance. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Complaints about odour. In accordance with report and investigations done, there was no odour present at the facility
00:50:00 at the time of the inspections and this was despite the fact that the meat products were in storage. Is that correct? Okay. Odour from the septic tank. Septic tank has undergone regularly three monthly compliance inspections by a qualified person and no issues found in this regard. No odour has been observed according to our report. Is that correct? That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Stewart, if we're just reading from the report, I think... Mayor Stewart: I just want clarification on camera that this is the... People who may not have the... The ability to read the report or interest. Okay. Got it. Yeah. The last one. And it's the last one. Thank you for the latitude, Mr Chair. The wastewater treatment system similarly does not constitute a breach as defined as an environmental nuisance. Is that correct? Thank you. Speaker 11: Can I ask a question? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Griswold. Thank you. I did go out last year on more than one occasion and spoke to neighbours. The complaint here is about a comment that the businesses were likely insuited to the municipal, industrial, commercial state. How, moving forward, does Council measure?
00:51:00 Does Council measure the growth and expansion of the business? You've said that the business owner has stated that he thinks that's, what, 18,000 months away. How does the plan measure the growth and expansion of the business indicates that it's time to move aside from what the business owner tells us? Speaker 9: It'll be reflective in the intensity of the operations that are occurring on site. So if he's needing to go out into the field and harvest more beasts and he's got more visits coming back to the site. If he needs more area to store the beasts, if he's got more people wanting to come to the site to take orders, that would be an example obviously of the building of the business growing and that at some point that it may not be suitable. The business operator's certainly got plans to grow the business and some of those plans are quite innovative and he certainly acknowledges that he would need to move off site to fulfil those. Thank you.
00:52:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Jurisdict, you've moved the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I haven't moved the motion yet actually. So given that that's the situation, why extend a further two years as opposed to an additional one to give the operator time? Seeing as the growth in operations going forward looks to have been successful in the first 12 months, why have we given another 12 months? I don't know. Another two years. Speaker 9: Because who's looking at 18 months for two years to grow the business to a point that these plans are successful? Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. In that case, I will move the staff recommendation but I'll add a point, amend condition 19 to read. The access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screed of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residents. The landscape garden bed along the southern boundary adjacent lot 61RP86676 pool area must
00:53:00 be enhanced with supplementary planting B8 and I believe the spelling needs to be corrected here. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Australia. Australia. Councillor Jurisevic: Australia should be Australia. With a minimum stock size of 45 litres of density of one plant per metre, all supplementary planting works must be undertaken at one month's notice. Just to clarify the elements of that, I've asked staff to look at what the gaps are with regard to impact from car lights and or noise on the site. This is what the staff and the head of planning has advised would be sufficient additional planting to create density and or minimise the impact of lights from car lights.
00:54:00 So just a question of staff. Councillor Wilkie: The original report last year required landscaping. How does this fit with what has been required and implemented already? Speaker 5: So the original garden bed has been planted out. The condition probably in the permit that had been issued probably wasn't specific enough with the planning. So it was deemed to be densely planted, but upon looking at the concerns raised, continued with respect to the spill of the headlight or the light going up the driveway as such, it was pertinent that this is a supplementary planting and larger plants to be put into that. There's a, I suppose it's about a six to eight metre gap in the landscape. Most of the landscape is quite high, except there's one portion there.
00:55:00 Which probably, it just needs the supplementary planting to fill that gap. Councillor Wilkie: So how many vehicle movements are there a week due specifically to the business? Speaker 9: Where light would be an issue? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 9: Well, there's one once a week where he's harvesting the bees and that's where he comes back at night. He does go to the markets on the weekend and that's where he comes back at night. And that would be during the day, maybe early in the morning. And then he, through this approval that they're now seeking the change, there'd be an additional vehicle that would come to the site. But that's between 8 and 4pm. Councillor Wilkie: For collections? Speaker 9: For a collection. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So basically two movements or one bringing the carcasses in, one taking material away, and his vehicle going to mine. Speaker 10: That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Okay.
00:56:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to hit my bets in case I had to amend something, but I'll do a second. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell's second. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: Look, I don't do this lightly. I do this on the basis of the fact that 12 months ago we acknowledged that this met the planning scheme. And it was done with conditions to see what the impact would be. Staff have assessed the impacts and the complaints made. And one of the significant ones that I've got, and reading from the email I've received, was that lights are still impacting on the residents. Now, it may or may not be from the business operation. It may be just vehicles coming and going because the driveway serves several properties, not just that. So an additional, I believe some additional planning here may impact, may in fact help minimise or reduce the issue of light impact upon the adjoining property and may alleviate
00:57:00 the problem. The approval is for another two years. One of the concepts of small based business on a property is that as it grows and expands, the opportunity to present itself through the planning scheme is for businesses to start up as a home based business, grow and expand to the point where they become a commercial operation. And once they're commercially viable, they can move into a commercial precinct. That's what the operator has asked for in this instance. He suggested that as he grows and expands, beyond anything, beyond anything, beyond the number of units, beyond what this has requested, is what he needs to move into a viable commercial premises. I'm supporting a local small business trying to get to that standard in approving this. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stramford? Councillor Stramford? Councillor Stramford? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just had a question about the amendment to Commission 21. It isn't unusual in these circumstances to put a year on the first time around, but it is pretty unusual then to put another period after that. If the use is suitable, the use is suitable. Did the applicant actually request only two years, or is that something that staff have suggested because there's a political campaign underway?
00:58:00 Speaker 9: The applicant sought to delete the condition. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order. A political campaign? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. There is no point of order. She uses it to disrupt my line of questioning, and I'd like her to be sanctioned. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: What's the point of order? When he said he made reference that this was political. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my point of order stands. That is not a point of order. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Chair, continue on uninterruptedly, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 9: So, yeah. Yeah. The applicant sought to delete the condition. We acknowledge that we have a business that we're receiving complaints from.
00:59:00 We have been to the site, and we feel that the approval, the operation complies with approval. Notwithstanding, there are, he's changing his operation. He's going to bring more beasts back. So we would like to give ourselves the opportunity for further review. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I will just make a general note, for councillors, that we cannot impugn improper motives to fellow councillors at the table. That's just a general note. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll talk then. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Stockwell. I don't know if other coun... I'm the only one, but I've certainly, as a political representative, been lobbied on this. That's a political campaign. There was no imputation whatsoever on any other councillor. I'm just saying, this matter is political. I wasn't saying you should have joined that. And I do object to now, two and nearly three years in, that councillors still don't know the standing orders.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Okay. So, going to the point at hand, we had this debate last year. There has been a minor increase. I support the addition of some extra landscaping. Because there's two ways to create nuisance. One is real and one is perceived. Having a visual buffer will help. And it's always good to have a real reason to plant more trees. Never not support a condition that requires the developer to plant more trees. It is consistent with what we're trying to achieve in the rural zone and the rural residential zone. It is about building small-scale niche food-based manufacturing, that builds on local produce. In this case, builds on a pest animal in nearby council areas, and turns it into a food product that is being sold at local markets.
01:01:00 It is, by definition, a sustainable local value chain. It is what we recommended being included as part of the current regional statutory plan, as well as our own planning scheme for what should occur in these areas. We've had years' worth of experience, and that experience suggests there's been no validated complaints. The upside of suggesting seducing Australian and seducing Lumini is they have edible fruits, so maybe we can have deer in a rye berry marinade in the future. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. I don't know what Seducium Australia and Seducium, the names of the plants... I have a very hard time supporting the motion
01:02:00 when I don't actually know the plants that I'm supporting. We can have someone advise you on that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They're both local lily-pillies. They're lily-pillies? Yeah. So, if you look at the deadly native fruit plant, a lot of Lumini and some Australian. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding also, Leo, you may be able to reiterate, there's a limit to the height that these will grow, which was a concern of the neighbours regarding the potential... Speaker 5: Yeah, I think the 1.8, 2, 2.5 metres thereabouts, but they're a quicker-growing species as well. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I've got a question about the trees. Yeah, I hear what Councillor Tom is saying. What about the root system of these trees? We have a lot of issues regarding driveways and roots of the plants. How has he recommended these trees? Speaker 5: Our environmental officer through the chair has recommended these species.
01:03:00 Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. So just on 18C, that is a new, is that right? It just says to amend the existing condition at 18 new point C. That was a new point, is that right? Speaker 9: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, okay. And that's just to ensure that only one day a week? Speaker 9: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: Okay. I'll put it, oh, okay. I'll speak to this. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. This is a very emotive issue and I appreciate the concerns outlined by Neighbouring Property. This matter came before us exactly one year ago. It's not an easy decision. There's still much emotion around it. But the issues that were at play one year ago are still very much at play now. This morning we have before us an application for minor change to an impact accessible application. We have a recommendation by staff which asks us to change condition five to allow from five to 10 carcasses being processed per week.
01:04:00 Permission of collection of food products will occur once per week by a small refrigerated van one day from 9am to 4pm to amend condition 21 to read that the permit lapses on the 17th of December 2024, which is in two years, and then the addition of 18C to ensure that the delivery of the harvested animals only occurs one day per week. No other changes. In relation to condition five and the request for change to include the five to 10 carcasses, there'll be no increase in movement of cars, only allowed one night per week to harvest, no increase to hours allowed to trade, no change to requirements to dim lights, no changes to requirements of any noise associated with the trailer to occur, no change to delivery time of occurrence of harvested animals to site. In relation to condition 14, a request for change. Permission of collection of food products is once per week by a small refrigerated van during nine to the hours of nine to four over the past 12 months, the applicant has had to adhere to a stringent conditions of approval, and according to our report, he has he has complied in full of that there is no dispute our report states that Council has received from one complainant raising concerns and a number of times and on one other occasion, another single complainant, according to our report, all complaints have been made.
01:05:00 Investigated and Council's Development Compliance Officer Environmental Health Coordinator have concluded that the business is operating in compliance with all developmental approval conditions and no environmental nuisance is occurring under the Environmental Protection Act of 1994, we've talked about snapshot of complaints of dealt with them individually, I have been attended both properties, I did so last year, and for me, and this is my opinion, but when I was standing on the property, I did so last year, and for me, and this is my opinion, but when I was standing on the property, I did so last year, and for me, and this
01:06:00 There was no visual impacts, no smells and no noise emitting from the property in question in regard to the concerns raised. In my opinion, there was no impact on residential amenity that was visible or tangible. The extension of the permit of time for another two years, which staff have put on, will fairly allow this small home business to transition into an off-site operation. Just as any small business grows and transitions, the neighbours should take comfort in the fact that in this case, the same will occur. The business is growing and the addition of two more years will ensure that the business owners continue to prove the concept and value of the business, that expansion is planned, and with every confidence it will occur and the premises will be relocated. I said before that this is an emotive issue and I appreciate and understand concerns raised, but I must make a decision based on compliance with the Noosa Plan. I must make a decision on the facts that I had in front of me. The evidence before me.
01:07:00 I must make a decision on what I saw, what I heard and what I smelt one year ago, and the evidence and facts outlined in the report before us today, one year on, with evidence gathered over the past 12 months. However unpopular my decision is, and I appreciate the neighbours' angst, this is not a pretty topic, a pretty subject. I accept and understand that. Sometimes it's best to do what feels safe and sometimes it's better to do what you consider is right, even though the costs may be high. The cost of my decision today may be high, but at the end of the day I would not be doing what I believe is the right thing. I could not look at myself in the mirror without knowing it. I could not, in all good conscience, not support this stark recommendation based on the evidence before me, and based on what I have seen and experienced personally. It's with this in mind, with a deep belief that however unpopular this decision is, it is the right one, and weighing up the evidence before us, and in view of our own endorsed plan, I believe it to be the right one at this point in time. It's balanced, it complies, and it's evidence based. I support the staff recommendation.
01:08:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Mayor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: The proposed home business at 82 Paterson Drive, Tinbeerwah, does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes of the home business code. Acceptable outcome 9.1, acceptable outcome 9.2, and acceptable outcome 9.5, and can therefore not be supported. Acceptable outcome 9.1 states that a home business does not include an operation that would be otherwise defined as medium impact industry or high impact industry. A meat processing facility is defined as a medium impact industry, and therefore this business does not comply with the Noosa plan. Acceptable outcome 9.2 states that a home based business that is located in an area less than four hectares,
01:09:00 that is 14,000 square metres, must not include an operation that would otherwise be defined as low impact industry. The property is, the business is located on a property that's 7,800 square metres, less than one hectare. A meat processing facility is a medium impact industry, not a low impact industry, therefore again the home business does not comply to the Noosa plan. Acceptable outcome 9.5 states that noise generating machinery or mechanical plant used for the home business is enclosed within a building and not located within 100 metres of a sensitive land use, including a dwelling on an adjoining property. The proposed activity includes noise generating machineries and is located 50 metres from adjoining dwelling. Again, it does not comply with the Noosa plan. The Noosa plan is intended to guide development in Noosa
01:10:00 in a way that achieves the will of the community. So why are we sticking to it? A medium impact industry cannot be located in a rural residential zone, Noosa plan 2020. A medium impact industry is not domestic in scale, Noosa plan 2020. A medium impact industry is not compatible with the preferred character of the area, Noosa plan 2020. Paterson Drive is a rural residential estate. It's made up of small rural blocks, most under one hectare. Where neighbours live, shoulder to shoulder. This is not a location that's appropriate for a business of this nature or scale. The plan says so, and so did almost 500 residents who signed a petition that I presented to council 12 months ago.
01:11:00 So why aren't we listening to the residents who live in Paterson Drive? Why aren't we listening to the residents who live within that local area? And why aren't we sticking to the plan? And why? Why isn't the mental health and wellbeing of the people most impacted by this decision, the adjoining neighbours, enough to justify a refusal? Development approvals have an impact well... Councillor Wilkie: Mr Morrison, could you direct your comments to me? Sorry. Oh, I wasn't looking at staff. Councillor Lorentson: Development approvals have an impact well beyond the date of the decision notice. When we leave this room today, someone's going to be living with the decision we make today for the next two years. That someone is the adjoining neighbours. I'm going to read one of the letters that we have received from the neighbours to remind you of the impact that the decision that we made 12 months ago has on this young family.
01:12:00 Quote, I can't enjoy my backyard, my pool, my amenity for myself, with family or friends. I want to move from this area, but we didn't move from New South Wales to Noosa just because. We moved to Noosa because it's the only place in Australia that is surrounded by national parks. It's a beautiful place with amazing people. The sports, the culture and the diversity is what we moved here for. We bought in Timbewa because of its land, the peace, the quiet and the neighbourhood. If we knew we would be living next to a potential meat processing plant, we would never have even considered buying in this area. The last year has been an emotional rollercoaster. 12 months ago, we approved by majority a home business that has caused much stress, anguish and anxiety to the adjoining neighbour.
01:13:00 The conditions we imposed on the approval 12 months ago failed to protect the adjoining neighbours. Mental health and wellbeing. What will two more years do? And why are we willing to accept this risk and tolerate an activity that we know will compromise the mental health and wellbeing of a young family? The applicant has already been given his break. He sought a retrospective approval 12 months ago. He got it. He's built his business. And he's doubled his production. He's built his business. We have two choices today. One, to do the right thing, or two, to do what's right. I'm asking everyone, let's do what's right and put people before business.
01:14:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I've got a question of staff. It's related to the answer you've already given in relation to Councillor Wilkie's question, but it's only a yes or no. There was a range of times where Councillor Lorentson suggested that because the development didn't meet an acceptable outcome, it didn't comply with the Noosa plan. Is that a correct statement? Speaker 4: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's an opening statement before all the acceptable outcomes were listed that it doesn't comply with the overall... ...outcomes sought from home-based businesses, which are listed in 2A to H. In your opinion, does it meet the overall outcomes of the home-based business code? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, please? Yes. Is the Noosa plan... Is there an element of discretion applied to interpretation of the benchmarks?
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 9: Well, the benchmarks... ...themselves are generally not discretionary. So, it normally has a performance element to it. So, if you don't meet it, that's an acceptable outcome, then you need to go to the performance outcome. So, and in this instance, the performance outcome 9 talks about the nature and operation of the home-based business, not resulting in noise, vibration, odor, dust, and other pollutants likely or radio that can be experienced outside the property boundary. So, it's quite clear in terms of its compliance or otherwise. So, it's quite clear in terms of its compliance or otherwise. So, it's quite clear in terms of its compliance or otherwise. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: Tom. I would like to note that I really support rural residential. The zoning brings enormous opportunities for home-based businesses.
01:16:00 These opportunities that the zoning brings... ...are not just for residential. They are also opportunities for Shire by supporting innovative businesses and fostering a resilient economy. And, I live in rural residential, and I love it. It's noisy. The dog barks all day long next door. Early in the morning the cockatoos are going. At sunset, the cockatoos are going all night long. From time of the year, the bats are flying around, making a racket. Snakes and foxes wreak havoc on my chickens. Rural residential is a wild place. I believe this is a place for businesses and animals, and it's hectic. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to the motion. I support it. I support it because this application does comply with the planning scheme.
01:17:00 It provides the acceptable outcomes that are required to be met. There are about 18 listed for home-based businesses. I support it. Of the 18 conditions required under the planning scheme, the home-based business complies with 15 of them. And three of the don't are covered by the overriding consideration that the business does not result in noise, dust, vibration, odour, light or glare impacting the outside of the property. I too visited the neighbouring property and heard from them firsthand their heartfelt pleas that the business not go ahead for a variety of reasons. They were genuinely concerned about the impact it would have in terms of the noise, the odour, the noise. They were concerned about the impact it would have in terms of the noise and the glare. Alternatively, I also visited the site to see for myself how it would be operating and specifically what noise would be emanating from the shed when the bone saw was operating. And when it was, I could not hear it outside the shed.
01:18:00 So I satisfied myself that there was no noise impacts. The driveway was required to be screened with vegetation. And it has been. I support Councillor Jurisevic's amendment to this that we'll see even more planting take place along the driveway so that when the two vehicle movements a week that occur for collection and deliveries occurs, if that occurs at night time and they're dipping their lights, in combination with the dipping of the lights, there's less chance of any impact on the neighbour in terms of vehicle glare. Of course, we sympathise. And we seek to help everybody. The acceptable outcomes that were met required to ensure that no employees, clients or customers will attend the site. The activity is operated by the landowner solely who resides on the site. Another acceptable outcome is the activity does not occupy more than 40% of the dwelling
01:19:00 floor area. The home-based business is proposed to occur wholly within an existing small shed, which is 51.7 square metres. The maximum number of persons on site for business purposes is one person, being the owner, and one person per collection each week. Instead of the limit of two deliveries a day allowed under a home-based business, one commercial collection per week is requested by the applicant. While goods can be sold on site, no goods are proposed to be sold on site. It is not anticipated that the home-based business will generate any noise audible beyond the property boundaries outside the area. And if the bandsaw is operating, I satisfy myself, it can't even be heard outside the shed itself. It is not anticipated that the home-based business will generate noise which exceeds five decibels at the site boundaries. Inspections by councillors reveal virtually no sound could be heard outside the shed or the bandsaw is operating. The home-based business has not been found to produce dust, fumes, smoke or rota beyond
01:20:00 the site boundaries. Vehicle parking for the sole operator is wholly within the site boundaries. The operator can enter and leave the site in forward gear, no sound from noisy vehicles reversing with any beepers reversing. The activity does not involve the use of heavy vehicles, and the site has access to a sealed residential road that is not a 90 km per hour road. The three aspects that don't meet the acceptable outcomes as mentioned earlier are the lack of noise generating machinery. The type of industry, size of the lot and presence of noise generating machinery do meet the overarching performance outcome which requires there to be no noise, dust, odour, vibration and light or glare impacts and that the operation remains domestic in scale. This application is being approved because it is consistent with the sort of local food production we are seeking to encourage through the planning scheme. We don't wish to see this sort of activity in rural residential areas.
01:21:00 We ought to change the planning scheme, not reject each compliant application until the scheme is changed. It is permitted to operate lapses in two years in December 2024 and it is running light that complaints are able to be, continue to be lodged and assessed on their minutes. Councillor Drissipi, please close. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, look, thank you. There are three councillors. Both councillors have demonstrated the reasons why they acknowledge and acknowledge that they accept what is before us. We don't approve these things lightly. We don't approve these things easily. We do go in to look at it. Every councillor went on site and heard the, heard for themselves the potential impacts. And whilst this is considered a medium impact industry, meat processing, the operator, excuse me, of this business has shown that it's small in scale, it can be contained, the noise
01:22:00 elements are contained within a hermetically sealed shed and we've all satisfied ourselves that the noise doesn't emanate outside of that shed. So whilst 9.2 is the one that refers to medium impact industry and as well as 9.1, it shows that even a medium impact industry being meat processing can be managed in such a way that it minimises the impacts. Thank you. The additional number of carcasses are going to be processed in exactly the same manner which the current five carcasses are. No more, no less with regards to transport to a prompt site apart from a daytime operation of collection by commercial vehicle once a week via a small refrigerated van. Now to suggest that those impacts are any more onerous on neighbours or on the neighbourhood, I can't see that, I see that as a very, very minimal impact.
01:23:00 In fact, it has been suggested that something like a yoga studio with four people coming would have four vehicles parked, could operate day in, day out and would have a far greater impact with regard to vehicle transport movements to and from the site. So I've satisfied myself. That this operation is small scale. Has, from what I've heard from the staff, like the other councillors have said, satisfied that they have met all the conditions that have been placed upon them. That the noise is contained within and that one of the most significant impacts that I have understood from the neighbours is the lights. By adding additional planting of a mature nature, I hope that that will help with that. It will facilitate any light impacts on the adjoining site for the neighbours.
01:24:00 So I support the staff recommendation that this continues. I acknowledge that it continues for two years and I think that's a good thing seeing as that the operator envisions that within two years this small scale operation will have grown sufficiently with market opportunities and the like to then proceed to a commercial premises. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion as in favour. Councillor Finzel, Wegener, Jurisevic, Stockwell, Stewart, Wilkie, Anna Geist, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
90 minutes in ¶
01:41:00 Okay, welcome back to the general committee meeting. We're up to item four, which is the Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 368, 2022 Application for Operational Works, Described Title Works at Canterbury Brake and Road Drive, Noosa Heads. Page 22 of the general committee meeting agenda, and we've got Patrick and Leo here. Patrick and Leo, could you give us an overview of what we're looking at? Speaker 9: As councillors may recall, in April of this year, there was a refusal of an application, a retrospective application for a jetty and also a jet ski dry storage pontoon. That jetty had been constructed some time ago, and it had been constructed, well, it wasn't constructed in accordance with the approval at that time.
01:42:00 So it was refused and subsequently appealed. Now, throughout the course of the early stages of the appeal, we've received advice that council is unlikely to be successful in the matter if we proceed, primarily due to the amount of time since the jetty. The property has been constructed and the refusal of the application on the basis, I think it was 27 years, and also at the time, there was an inspection by a council officer, and it's also noted that the properties have changed hands. So it's been recommended that we settle the appeal and a set of conditions have been prepared between the parties, notably the conditions include a requirement for the jet ski dock to be wholly removed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh yeah, it was always a difficult decision to make.
01:43:00 It was about the rights of one landowner versus the rights of the other. On the time, we, the majority of us went for the rights of the landholder that, whose access was being inhibited. But as you say, the legal advice is defending that, that particular landowner. This position is unlikely to be successful, so it is wise to resolve it without additional costs. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisevic. Happy to support the staff recommendation, as we said at the time. This has been a jetty that's been in place for a long time, probably 30 years. It did have a piece of paper that said it was approved. At the time I said, when this came before us, I said this wouldn't pass the public test, and I'm glad we're at the point where the public test would actually win. So I'm happy to support staff recommendation to settle this and allow the structure. Councillor Lorentson. I'm sorry, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a question really. Did you have a question? Oh, just a quick one. In terms of cost, do we have an idea of how much we've spent in legals in defending this?
01:44:00 Speaker 9: If it's okay if I can send you an email about that, Councillor, if that's okay. Councillor Lorentson: And can I also ask for consideration that we include, in the reports, legal cost? Okay. Just to get an idea of what this is costing rate pays. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Just a question. On the 21st of April, this was a 4-3 vote. It was very close. Now we're at a point where we have to settle an appeal, or we're asked to. Is there an opportunity to circumvent where we are now? It's happened before. I can name three separate occurrences. Is there an opportunity to ... When these issues are at play, and it may not be possible, it might be a question to the CEO, can we have some preliminary legal advice so we don't
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 get to this point that ... Guys, it says here in this little chance of success, that's little chance prospects. So there's the ability to have that earlier so that we haven't come this one step forward. We're now five, six, seven, eight months down the track. Is there that ability? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Mayor, it is difficult. Each refusal, the applicant always has the right to be able to then challenge that refusal, and the recommendation, and ultimately the decision that the Council has made. I think for us, and something that we can workshop with the Council overall, that if we are looking at a refusal, that there is a legal brief that's provided to the Council around that. As always, it does come with costs, but we also want to ensure that our officers are supported in their views and their actions and their undertaking. So I think it is worthwhile that we workshop this as a way forward in terms of what we're
01:46:00 going to do in the future, that if there is a refusal and we do see risk, so maybe a first step would actually be to be able to look at what a risk rating would be around this, and if it reaches the threshold of a risk rating, because there are those applications that are just an outright refusal. They are what they are. Those, though, that do have a degree of risk, that we put that to Council, and Council has its ability to gauge its own risk appetite based on the information provided. I think I'll take a note for that. Yeah. Thank you. It's something we can put forward in a workshop into the next year. Mayor Stewart: Because if we look at that triple bottom line, social, environmental and economic, that would surely, legal implications would form part of the economic. Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I'll take that as that. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: If there was an element of legal advice predetermined in a situation like this, would that mean that we may have to go into confidential sessions to review that legal advice every time one
01:47:00 of these decisions to defend or to refuse an application goes forward? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, absolutely, Councillor Jurisic. And that's why just thinking out loud at the moment that whether a risk rating is maybe a better way to work on that, and Council can understand, we can provide our advice as to risk, but there is some thought that I think is required around this approach. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, one would think that would facilitate the position of someone wanting to appeal a decision, knowing Council's position on it prior to actually undergoing an appeal process. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, absolutely. Absolutely correct, Councillor Jurisic. You've written your opposition before. You had the chance to make a decision on the matter. There's some work to be done. Something to think about, I think. But as we always say, this is a loss. I don't want to circumvent that.
01:48:00 Something for us to work on. I think that and get it formed on our way forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Chair. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Just to close, Councillor Stockwell, put the motion out of favour. That is unanimous. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Next up, we have the Noosa Health Monitoring Programme, page 27. And we have Cheyenne here. Hello, Cheyenne. Speaker 2: Hello, councillors. Hello, Mayor. Hello, Cheyenne. Councillor Wilkie: Hi, Scott. Thank you. Do you wish to give us a briefing on this, please, Cheyenne? Speaker 2: Yes. I'll start just by saying that I'm filling in for our principal environment officer, Amy Kimber, because she's away at the moment on holiday. I also have a conflict of interest. I used to be a climate change ambassador for Reef Check Australia, and so I wasn't part of the decision-making process to bring Reef Check on or to engage them. I'm just supporting because I have knowledge of the work that they do and what they propose
01:49:00 the council to be doing in the future. Councillor Wilkie: So what does it propose? Speaker 2: Okay. So Reef Check proposes to take surveys of our offshore coral reefs once every 24 months. They've identified five sites on three reefs that they have monitored in 2011, 12 and 13, and then again in 2018 with council support. Every year, they do monitoring of the coral reefs around Southeast Queensland for various councils such as Sunshine Coast Council, and they prepare a Southeast Queensland monitoring report, which we have been part of in the past, but we have not monitored since 2018. The benefit of monitoring is that we get to understand our coral reef ecosystems better. We know how important they are from a biodiversity perspective, from a fisheries perspective, from a recreation perspective. There's also the coastal protection perspective for protecting our coastlines from climate
01:50:00 change hazards, coastal hazards, and that's one that we have not yet valued, but that's one of the reasons why I think it's important to engage them is to understand what value our reefs are providing in terms of coastal protection. And so yeah, the other reasons that it's important to monitor our reefs is that they can provide an early indication of algal blooms and unhealthy waters in the Noosa River, and I think that's one of the bases that Amy decided this is an important project. They can also give us an indication of coral bleaching and marine debris, as well as impact from anchors from boats. And so I think it's an important project to monitor our reefs. And I think it's important that it's outside of the grant process because it aligns with our environment strategy very closely on environmental monitoring. And it is a core technical service. So I think it's important that it's outside of the grant process because it aligns with that, to my understanding, only ReefCheck provides in southeast Queensland.
01:51:00 And they use citizen science and a peer-reviewed methodology for surveying the reefs. Councillor Wilkie: Just a general question. Councils normally concern themselves with land-based activities. Are there other bodies, state bodies, that have a responsibility for monitoring this sort of... Good question. ...these sort of features, natural features? Speaker 2: Yeah. That's an excellent question. The best... Councillor Wilkie: Is there a knowledge bank we can already draw on? Is this work being done by the state government? Speaker 2: Yeah. Not to my knowledge. I don't think that the state government undertakes ongoing monitoring of offshore coral reefs, even though it would fall under their remit, certain government bodies. But my understanding is it's mostly left to councils. And I think that Noosa Council, we pride ourselves on best practice land conservation approaches. And we should replicate that offshore. And we should make sure that our ocean ecosystems are also kept up to best practice as we have
01:52:00 done on land. Councillor Wilkie: Joe, then Brian. Councillor Jurisevic: So, yeah. Given from what you said earlier, I would have suggested, along the lines of what Frank asked was the first question that came to my mind, but suggested this is perhaps a litmus test of what happens on land, flows into the waterways, and then out into the ocean. So this is an area where we can have a check-in. A test that facilitates our understanding of whether our practices on land are being well facilitated or whether there are things that we can still do better. Speaker 2: That's our idea. Yeah. And when we discussed it amongst the coordinators, the leadership team within the environment branch, that's what we landed on as being a key value for us. Yeah. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I've got some of the questions I think Cheyenne will be able to answer, but some that I think I'm going to have to get answered before Thursday and may not be able to before Thursday. The first one is, in terms of the environment strategy, it talks about using reef surveys
01:53:00 once every five years, not once every two. Does the climate hazard adaptation plan or climate response plan suggest a more frequent level of surveying is required to the once in five years that the environment strategy suggests? Speaker 2: Not specifically, but my understanding is that that has been reviewed by the leadership within the environment branch, and they believe that that was misguided. It should be once every two years. And Craig Doolin, who was the previous environment manager in one of his assessment reports for a previous reef check survey, noted that once every five years is not sufficient. It should be once every two years. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A range of the criteria that they do assess. We'll talk to Gary. Thank you. So, if you're here to measure levels of ocean acidification, is that something you're aware of, or is that something we need to get clarity on before Thursday?
01:54:00 Speaker 2: I've spoken to them in the past about this. I think having a spot sample of the acidity in one location doesn't provide an overall picture of acidifying oceans. It'd be like taking a sea level rise measurement in one location. And so, I believe they rely on CSIRO and the Department of Environment and Environment to gather that data. But I can follow up with them and ask them whether that's something that they can add to their program in the future if it's methodologically sound. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. From a climate change perspective, there are significant differences between nearshore, inshore shallow reefs and deeper reefs. Is that correct? And you'd want to see the trends in both those sort of locations if you could. Speaker 2: Is that right? To my understanding, yes, that's right. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, in the 2018-2019 project we funded, they made a comment in their acquittal report that was, despite the coastline appearing similar to conditions down to the length
01:55:00 of the Sunshine Coast region, many shallow areas of the coastline do not host easily acceptable reef areas. Many of the most well-known Noosa reefs within the fishing and boating community are too deep to conduct ReefCheck Australia survey activities due to our strategic and environmental protocols, i.e. reefs are often deeper than 25 metres. And I note that the same reefs less one is what's proposed here. So, we're not actually going to be monitoring the reefs where most of the fishing activity is occurring and most of the people see as the reefs. Is that your understanding? Speaker 2: I have to get back to you on that one. Sorry, Brian, I don't. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Speaker 2: I've not yet reviewed that. Councillor Wilkie: Just on that Halls Reef, the Little Halls Reef is... There's one of them. ...most of the fishing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: But... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Jute Shoal. Jute Shoal. Councillor Wilkie: Jute Shoal. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm just saying this is what they said is most surveyed. Speaker 2: Most. I'll have to clarify with ReefCheck and get back to you on that. I know Jute Shoal is a popular recreation and boating area for sure.
01:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. I'll say. Speaker 2: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's what I... I just want to make sure that there's enough thought put into what's being funded as... Because it's both building on the baseline but it's also establishing the criteria that we'll have to use and making sure, you know, things like level of algal growth and bleaching and, you know, whether it's good enough to determine whether this is linked to climate change impacts and it's...or is more likely to result from land-based... Pollution. ...fue source pollution. Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. That's a good question. Thank you, Brian. I'll take that on board. Councillor Wegener: Other questions? Tom? Can you tell me about the citizen science aspect of the program? Speaker 2: Yeah. So this is where they specialize really is that the methodology that they use is extremely rigorous. So they ask for volunteers, anyone who enjoys recreational diving, to come on board and
01:57:00 undergo a stringent training process over four weeks to teach them the methodology of surveying the reefs. And they then take them into the field and ensure they do five to six surveys within a level of accuracy of how much a qualified surveyor would be getting in terms of their survey on, you know, things from reef composition to fish abundance. And then they give them the qualification to progress and to continue surveying. And so it's really...it's led by volunteers from the community and anyone who's a recreational diver can join and be certified to be a reef check surveyor and go on these surveys. So it's a really good way to monitor the health of our reefs. And the methodology has been peer-reviewed and it is used by CSIRO and Australia Institute of Marine Science as one of the only citizen science data collection programs that they
01:58:00 use to indicate the health of their reefs. That's my understanding. Councillor Wegener: And do they have a problem getting volunteers? Do you think? Or...yeah. Speaker 2: That's a good question. I think... I think they do, yes. I think sometimes they... Bless you. Bless you. I think they do, but not to the point where it affects the ability for them to execute the works, because they still have a certain amount of staff that are based on the Sunshine Coast that can undertake the surveys if needed. That's my understanding at least, but I think that they...every year they run trainings for surveyors. And for ambassadors. But the surveyor training always seems to be quite well attended. But yeah, in terms of getting them out into the field, actually, on making sure it aligns with the tides and the days that people are available is always a challenge with citizen
01:59:00 science data collection programs. Councillor Wegener: I fancy myself as a potential volunteer, but I think I'm greatly exaggerating my ability. Speaker 9: I think you'd be a welcome addition, Tom. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Firstly, yeah, thank you for the report. It was good. I like the idea that it's targeting our themes, the climate change we want to head. So that's great. The other thing that I really want to commend is that there's going to be further community or consultation with community services and infrastructure services department. I love the idea we're bringing down those silos and there's going to be internal collaboration. It's really exciting as we move towards a culture where it's inclusive, respectful, and we work together for these outcomes. I just want to raise a question around the comments made. There's risk associated with not having the supplier identified from the specialised list that does, in fact, reduce Council's risk of breaching regulations.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 How have we mitigated the risk? Speaker 2: Good question again. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. So, engaging Reef Check Australia, it looks like they weren't on our supplier list. It has been noticed as a risk. Speaker 2: That they're not on our suppliers list. Yeah. I think I'll take that one on notice if that's all right. Councillor Finzel, actually. Dave. Speaker 10: Well, I'd probably make a comment. Previously, Reef Check had been funded out of the environment grant. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. Speaker 10: So, this is the first time it's been approved for service of arrangement, Councillor. Councillor Finzel: Okay. And then, so through the CGO then, how do we address that? Do they get put on this preferred provider list moving forward or are you happy for them to remain where they sit? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, Councillor Finzel, the most appropriate procurement will go through the environment team with advice from corporate services at this stage. If it's funded the way it has been traditionally funded, more and more than happy with that. However, if there is a more full requirement for procurement, we'll have our procurement
02:01:00 advisers provide that advice to the department. Councillor Finzel: Fantastic. I appreciate that. We want to mitigate risk as much as we can. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Councillor Finzel. Now, Amelia. Hi, Cheyenne. Hi. Question. So, one every two years, this survey's going to be conducted. Great. As everyone knows, I so support that we start identifying our oceans and waterways as one of our priority natural assets. My question is that there's a lot of local knowledge. We've got local fishermen and surfers who probably know those reefs better than anyone else. It would be great to collate that information or get them involved in any reef check type monitoring. I'm certain that they'll be able to add a lot of value. Speaker 2: I agree. I think they definitely will.
02:02:00 I know that Reef Check integrates well with the surfing community, hosting a number of events of the day with Surfrider Foundation, but in terms of local fishermen, I will let them know, definitely. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. Second, Councillor Jurisdict. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. Councillor Stockwell. Well, I still have some queries about how we're going to ensure that what they meter and monitor is the best value for us and whether we do augment it. I note that the recommendation's only to include them on the Council's specialised supplier list. Like our officer, I've had something to do with Reef Check before in 2009 when the community was trying to get the Labor Government to honour its pledge to do a marine conservation plan on the coast of Sunshine Coast as its next priority, the Noosa Residence and Rate Payers. The President organised a forum around marine conservation.
02:03:00 Reef Check was one of the first people to get involved with that. We then started the Sunshine Coast Marine Conservation Alliance, and what might be worth working out, whether they're 2010, 2011 surveys, we're individual. I'm not sure. Whether it was part of a project that actually ran auspice through NICA, so NICA actually got some philanthropic funding to do a survey of reefs all along the Sunshine Coast. Catherine Chung, from memory, was the project officer in NICA. Her husband was an internationally recognised coral ecologist. We also got fish biologists from JCU. Josh Jensen did a video of it, so there's quite a lot of data there, which also would help us if we're trying to compare our Shire with other reefs in similar locations. But as you say, the Reef Check methodology and the fact that they do train and upgrade divers to become fully fled, fully okay with their process, means that it both is a capacity
02:04:00 building, but also a useful tool to gauge impacts. What I would hope we can do in terms of looking at this criteria, as one of the criteria we're measuring performance of our whole environment strategy against, is ensure that all the criteria that we do capture feed into answering the sort of impacts that we'd like to assess, i.e., whether it's land-based, whether it's broader climate-based, whether there's a mix of both, whether it's, you know, like in the reef survey I talked about on the Sunshine Coast, one of the biggest things there was not the diversity of fish, but the abundance of fish. They identified that the species that were most absent were those fish that both the commercial and recreational fishes target. One snapper being one of them, very shortly after then there was a closed season announced on snapper. So they're the sort of things we have to think about, is how do we combine all the different data sources to provide us with good information about how well our environment strategies
02:05:00 and actions are doing in terms of achieving the desired outcomes. Good point. Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: Any further discussion? Okay. We'll put the motion to have some favour. That is carried unanimously. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, Shire. Have a nice day. Thank you. Have a nice day. Councillor Wilkie: Next item. Item six is a Northern North Shore Aircraft Landing Ground Reserve Request for Relinquished Council Trusteeship. We've got Clint, Dennis. Excuse me. I have a conflict. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as Mr. David Cookman, Vice President of Sunshine Coast Aviators. I'm not sure if he still is the Vice President, but anyway, who has submitted to this issue, donated $500 on the 17th of March 2020 to my 2020 election campaign and also put up core flutes for me during this campaign. Mr. Cookman receives a small financial benefit for the club's use of the fields in his capacity
02:06:00 as one of their paid part-time trainers for club members. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll now leave the meeting room while this matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as Mr. David Cookman, Vice President of Sunshine Coast Aviators. Mr. Cookman approached me after a meet with Candidates Night and asked for some election campaign posters to advertise on his properties. I did not know Mr. Cookman or have any relationship with him prior to the meeting, meeting him that night. Although I have heard from Mr. Cookman that Mr. Cookman has a relationship with Mr. Cookman, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not consider
02:07:00 that I have a close personal relationship with Mr. Cookman and I believe Mr. Cookman does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. 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. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I have a question for the CEO. The Mayor's declaration makes it clear that Mr. Cookman does stand to benefit one way or the other. I am wondering if Councillor Lorentson would be prepared to amend that aspect of the declaration. Councillor Lorentson: I would agree. This is an I. I totally agree. So, can I request that we admit and I believe Mr. Cookman does not stand to receive. I believe that Mr. Cookman does not. He will not come forward.
02:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that the Council made the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lawrenson and determined that 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 Mr. Cookman and that Mr. Cookman's activities during the election are consistent with general participation in the election.
02:09:00 The value of which is less than the statutory benchmark of $500. And therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. I do so if all Mr. Cookman did was to ask for some election material and put up a board. There's been no donation, there's been no, it's a, you know, if you charge a volunteer who's at $25 an hour, it probably took him five minutes to put up the, put up the sign. It's just part of democracy, it shouldn't be something that excludes a councillor from participating in,
02:10:00 participating in a society. Subsequent, you think, or vote. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, please have the upvote. Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a question for the CEO. Both councillors have declared Mr. Cookman is vice-president of the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators. My understanding to this point is that he has not held an executive position on the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators and as a result wouldn't require, just as an ordinary member wouldn't require that. Also, Councillor Stewart has highlighted something that I had not considered before in his capacity as a part-time trainer that there may be some financial benefit. I wouldn't, I now believe I may have to also make a declaration in that regard because some new information has come to light with regard to his position. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, Councillor Stewart, thank you for that and we'll deal with Councillor Lorentson in a second.
02:11:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Oh sorry, we haven't dealt with that yet, my apologies. That may mean I have to be precluded from voting on the matter, that's why I raise it. Thank you, Councillor Jurisdict. Councillor Wilkie: Alright, will anyone else want to speak to Councillor Stockwell's motion about Councillor Lorentson? Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That is Councillor Finzel, Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. Note that Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Jurisdict did not vote on the matter. And Councillor Jurisdict, you should make a statement. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, no, not so much of the mayor's because he wasn't, he wasn't a donator to my campaign, but he did represent me, I believe. And I've looked through my records and I can't, I can't find evidence of it. But my recollection is that he did represent me at the Pomona booth during the 2016 campaign.
02:12:00 There was no handing out of election material. But he stood there with my campaign paraphernalia on. So I'll have to make a declaration similar to Councillor Lorentson's, but also include the mayor's point about. Can I just go back to what the declaration by Councillor Lorentson was? Yeah, I'll, I'll, I said, I, Councillor Jurisdict, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to David Cookman, Vice President, well, if he's the Vice President, I'll say Vice President of Social and Coast Sports, if he does, submit us to this report. Mr. Cookman assisted with my 2016 campaign.
02:13:00 Thank you. Pomona booth. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe the person, well, I don't know, how did, you had election period. No, I think I'll do what Councillor Stewart has said. I, as a result of this, I'll leave the meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. I'll leave the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll put it to the Councillors. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I don't believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because I don't believe, to consider that I have a close personal relationship with Mr. Cookman, therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will restrict the decision in the meeting whether I can remain and participate in the decision.
02:14:00 Councillor Wilkie: Are you going to mention Mr. Cookman's potential benefit? Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. Mayor has. Well, the Mayor has that up there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can have the second last sentence from the Mayor's. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Actually, given what the Mayor has stated there, I think I'll follow the Mayor's line, that Mr. Cookman receives a small financial benefit. Speaker 5: And I will leave the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: It is my understanding that Mr. Cookman may receive a small financial benefit from that. It is now my understanding, yes. May receive.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Yes. May I receive a small financial input? Speaker 5: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Frank, Dennis and Clint. Clint, could you give us an overview of the report and the request that we're considering here today, please? Speaker 4: Yes, happy to. The Department of Resources wrote to us some time ago now about the Department of Environment and Science was wishing to acquire the landing ground reserve ultimately into National Park. And the request really relates to requesting Council basically if they're open to relinquishing trusteeship of the reserve
02:16:00 to allow DES to become, that's the Department of Environment and Science, to become the trustee of the reserve. So ultimately transition to National Park. There's been a number of documents provided with the report. Probably the important ones are the legal advice provided by King & Co. and the Department of Environment and Science's Summary of Natural Values and Risk Report to support their request. We did go out to both the groups out there, which is the Sunshine Coast Sports Aviators and the Noosa Model Flyers, to advise them of the proposal to transfer the trusteeship. Both of those groups are in favour of the status quo remaining, that is Council staying as the trustee. And it's noted in the executive summary there based on the unfamiliarity, if you like,
02:17:00 with the Department of Environment and Science and concerns over the future use of the reserve. The report, though, looks at a couple of options in terms of not supporting the State Government request and also supporting the request. And it's the latter that this report seeks to support. And the reasons for that is the overall better land management outcomes of the land transferring to trusteeship with the State. Notwithstanding that, it's also an important part of the report, too, where the State has advised it will undertake consultation on future use of the reserve if the Council votes for the trusteeship to transfer. And that's an important part of the report. So it's recommended that Council follow Option 2 in the report and also provide the feedback provided by all groups,
02:18:00 which includes the groups I mentioned and also McDermott Aviation. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to leave that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. May I have a seconder, please? A seconder. A seconder, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel, would you speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I just think that, yes, we'll make a formal request from the Department of Resource. We've got a Department of Involvement in SOCS's desire to form an Involvement Law. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. You're welcome. And the Council's first statement. Councillor Walton. Do you have questions? Speaker 7: Yeah. Yes. Councillor Wegener: The regulation, like with the planes taking off and so forth out of the landing strip there, do they deal with State regulations more with that or Council regulations? Because I would suspect it would be States. It's concerning fuel, airplanes, all the different regulations concerning aircraft. Speaker 4: Oh, well, the management of the land comes under the Land Act and the associated conditions
02:19:00 under the lease. There may be some crossover into the CASA-type regulation there in terms of the above-the-ground and the flight, but the Council's primary responsibility is about the land and what happens on the land. So I couldn't answer that question fully, Councillor, in terms of what happens in the air. But my understanding is CASA. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. The reason I bring that up is they say that they're not familiar with DES or State regulations, where they may well be in constant compliance with other State regulations concerning flying and safety and things. Speaker 4: Yeah. Through the Chair, Councillor, that's primarily a comment in there, I suspect, from the group. It's pretty clear. It's primarily about the tenure-related matters. Yeah, it is. I'm going to move an amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And it's a long one.
02:20:00 Five minutes doesn't start until I finish the motions. So it's to keep item A as per the recommendation, but be more specific in item B. And I'll read that out. Authorise the CEO to write to the Department of Resources, advising them that they are not familiar with the requirements of section 16 of the Land Act 1994 as part of its recent planning scheme review. As a result of this evaluation, Council has zoned the property for environmental management and conservation. It is noted that, A, the overall desired outcomes for this zone include land identified as ecologically important areas, water catchments, beach protection or coastal management areas, or natural areas with historical cultural values are protected from development. Two. Development avoids and mitigates against adverse impacts of the values and processes in ecologically important areas. Three. Where a demonstrated community need exists, low-scale, low-impact structures with the
02:21:00 small building footprints, such as viewing decks, shelters and environmental facilities that provide for appreciation, conservation, interpretation of ecologically important areas or areas of cultural heritage value may develop, or be consistent with the management intent or plan for the area. Four. Low-impact outdoor sport and recreation activities such as walking trails, canoe trails and the like may develop where a demonstrated community need exists, and such activities do not adversely affect the ecological values of the area. If you could scroll down please, Elinda. Ah, you're not scrolling down on that screen for some reason. Okay. Five. Low-impact telecommunications facilities and utility installations occur only where they cannot locate another appropriate zone or are compatible with and do not impact on the values of processes within their ecologically important areas and are designed to minimise the visual impacts on the scenic amenity of the area. Six. Buildings and structures are designed to maximise energy efficiency and water conservation.
02:22:00 Seven. Activities undertaken by recognised traditional owners in accordance with traditional owner custom and practice may be considered. Eight. Development responds to land constraints including topography, bushfire and flooding. B. If you could scroll up again please. Scroll down. In the light of this evaluation, Council adopted a position in section 3.36, Transport and Movement of the Strategic Framework of the Noosa Plan wherein it states that the use of the North Shore airstrip will not be expanded and the airstrip will be ultimately closed. Two. That Council a has already adopted the position that the highest and best use of the site is for conservation and b considers the most efficient and effective management and protection regime to achieve the outcomes desired by the Noosa Plan 2020 is to add the lot to the
02:23:00 broader conservation estate. C. Therefore supports the relinquishment of its trusteeship of lot 7 on MCH4562 to allow the Department of Environment and Science to be appointed as the new trustee of the new project. All remnant vegetation, wetlands, fauna habitats and areas of cultural significance are added to the adjacent National Park or protected under a similar tenure. The rest of the recommendation of the motion is the current motion. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that please. I'll second the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. Staff suggested their recommendation was consistent with support although it didn't say support. Staff suggested their recommendation was consistent with support although it didn't say support. I reflected on what the decision in front of us was and I had to reflect back 20 years ago to when I was actually both a senior then principal state land planner and I reflected on what the Land Act actually requires us, what will require the department to do to make a decision.
02:24:00 We've been asked for our views on a change of tenure or of trustee which will lead to a change of tenure most likely under the Land Act. The Land Act is quite different to a number of acts in that it really specifies a couple of key things, it says the land, the following principles apply, sustainability, sustainable resource use and development to ensure existing needs are met and the state resources are conserved for the benefit of future generations. It does overtly say that your decisions should be intergenerational, you should be thinking the long term. It also talks about in the objects of the Act that evaluation is based on appraisal of land capabilities. It also talks about in the objects of the Act that evaluation is based on appraisal of land capabilities. There is no question that the vast majority of this property has exceptional environmental,
02:25:00 culturally valuable and sensitive areas. The information supplied as attachments clearly shows a range of habitats, of fauna, of values. I think, and I haven't double checked it, looking at the overheads, that it's probably the most southern extent of a patent fend in the world. No one knew they existed in the southern hemisphere until we had the Ramsar Convention here in the 90s, I think. But it's important also to say, well, what would the department have to evaluate? In section 16, which I referred to, it talks about before land is allocated under this Act, and while it might be allocating it in temporary to a different reserve status, or it might be just changing who is the trustee, they must assess the most appropriate tenure and use for the land.
02:26:00 We did that in the planning scheme. So when conducting the evaluation, the Chief Executive of the Department of Resources takes into account of state, regional and local planning strategies and policies and the object of this Act. That's why I detailed what our local planning plan said, is because they must take that into consideration when they make their decision. And it's clear from that what that decision supports, the change in trustees. It also says, B, take account of commitments of and undertakings given by the state in relation to the land. And it's really clear under the Great Sandy Management Plan for decades now, there's been commitment to add this to the National Park. And this Council's always supported that part of the Great Sandy Management Plan. What I do want to say is that my recommendation is really specific about what we think is clear, and that is about the remnant vegetation wetlands. It is still suggesting, not saying anything about the areas that don't have those values,
02:27:00 and that goes back for the Department to make a decision in terms of the other parts of this motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Any questions? Question. Question, Councillor Legend. Councillor Wegener: At the very bottom of the amendment, the very last sentence, there are four relinquishes from the trustee. The trustee should have a lot settling number to allow the Department of Environment and Science to be appointed as the new trustee, providing all remnant vegetation wetland fauna habitats. Also, significance are added to the adjacent National Park, protected under similar tenure. When it says, so long. Okay, sorry. I thought it said, so long as. There's kind of a condition that it's not.
02:28:00 I just misread that. My apologies. Councillor Lorentson: My question is, the amendment came late last night. In fact, I read it this morning. I would love, in between now and Thursday's meeting, to understand from Council officers and the CEO whether it is supported and the intent and interpretation is correct. I don't think it is. I just need that information before I make a decision on this amendment. Speaker 3: To further, through the Chair, to further ordinary is what you're asking? Council wise? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Just to get some context and an understanding that, again, the interpretation is correct. Speaker 3: Council officers wouldn't have placed that. I think it's the, we wouldn't have stated. Councillor Wilkie: Well, can I ask, well, we've got some Council officers here. Has, has what you've, you've read in the amendment there, is that consistent with Council, Council's understanding of the uses of the land?
02:29:00 Is there anything in that amendment that is incorrect or inconsistent? Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 4: I might, I might defer to Dennis or Dave on this one. Speaker 10: To Dave, to the Chair, I'll talk about the environmental things the Councillor has articulated. It's spot on, basically 100%. It is? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. That's correct. I'll just add one thing that probably wasn't articulated before. That a lot of those particular systems contain peat as a substrate. Peat is really, really significant in the global sense. It locks up, even though it's only 5% of the world's surface area, it locks up 30% of the carbon, soil based carbon. So, in terms of really protecting those areas from, like, fire events we had in the region in 2019, which burned through peat and liberated a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, it sets a, that's a thing that hasn't really been mentioned to date with any of the attachments that we only found out about, about a month ago. So, just the importance of those ecosystems. Councillor Wilkie: So, just to clarify, it's spot on in terms of its accuracy? Correct. Thank you. Speaker 8: Sorry, Dennis? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Speaker 8: Through the Chair, I might just ask a question of Brian, similar to Tom's query. Just that word, providing. What do you mean by that? Is that in that it would facilitate, or are you providing it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm suggesting we're bringing it over in the expectation that it gets a protected conservation estate, whether it's a national park or a conservation reserve under the land act. Good. Speaker 8: Because the only thing we would say is that, you know, we don't have a statutory role, so we're not providing an additional... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, on the understanding, I'm happy to change that, if that's... On the understanding it would facilitate... Yes. Yes. Or acknowledging or something. Yes. So, I'm happy to, if the room's happy, I'm to, instead of the words providing, use the, on the understanding that, yes, that the purpose is, understanding that the purpose of this transfer is... Or that it could facilitate. Oh, that it could, okay, that it, that should. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, so would it...
02:31:00 Understand... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, no, I think that, that's how I'll go. You trust me on the understanding that this should facilitate. There. There you go. We're not, we're not setting conditions in that way here. I see what Councillor... Councillor Wilkie: That was my question. No matter what we hope for the future of the land, it's the State's fault. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. It's not conditional. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: We're not, we're not in a position to demand conditions. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, you had a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Well, I want to go down the same road, because I want some feedback on this, because I don't think it aligns with what the initial recommendation was. I want to be absolutely certain that this is not conditional, because in my opinion, I think that negates CND, which requests the Department of Science to engage with the consultation with the community when we say we're supporting an elinquishment in the understanding
02:32:00 it should facilitate the environmental things. So, yeah, I'd like to move this forward, to bring that back with some clarification of that. Thank you. I'm not comfortable with that ruling as it stands. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So you're against the amendment? Councillor Finzel: I'm against it, yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Any other people who speak to the, councillors who speak to the amendment? I'll put it to the vote. Yep. Call the roll call. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Just digest it. It's a big amendment. I'm just digesting it. Yes. Councillor Finzel: I think it's too much. I don't see that coming with the recommendation from the staff. It could not quite align with where we want to go. I just want to make sure, given the short amount of time frame, and it is an extensive
02:33:00 amendment, I don't even know where Councillor Stockwell has drawn this information from. I would just feel more comfortable if we had more time to address this. Councillor Wilkie: And if this amendment is passed today, as the CEO, and becomes part of the motion which is passed, councillors have the opportunity between now and Thursday to get further information from staff? Absolutely. And satisfy themselves that, as we've been advised, that it's consistent entirely with the thinking that's justified this amendment in the first place? Speaker 3: Chair, absolutely. There is that ability. The final decision is our own. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Any other councillors to speak to the motion? Please come in. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: No, I would like to just digest it.
02:34:00 Does that make sense? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to move a procedural motion? Councillor Wilkie: If you're not comfortable with the amendment, it can be lost now, and vote against it. We go back to the original motion, moved by Councillor Finzel. Thank you. And then between now and Thursday night, we can go and see staff about the content of Councillor Stockwell's amendment. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. What she said has triggered me. She just said, look, I want to read it now while we do it all. So, yeah. Councillor Finzel: Well, I don't know where all this information has come from. I haven't had time to drill down on that. So, I think, yeah, go. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Well, I think perhaps all our staff, where does this...these clauses in the settlement
02:35:00 come from? Are they drawn from the council documents and strategies? Speaker 10: Through the chair, the environmental aspects that the councillor mentions is mostly in the attachments with the report, in terms of enunciating the environmental values. So, it's probably already there. In terms of... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to shortcut it. I'll move to the matter we referred to ordinary meeting. We've had three councillors who say they want to get their head around it. I'm not going to push it. They do have to be satisfied that what I'm saying is consistent with what's in the planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: So you're moving to proceed with your motion? Yeah. Okay. I'll second it. Councillor Stockwell is going to proceed with her motion to make the matter we referred to the ordinary meeting.
02:36:00 Do we need to give a reason, Mr CEO, or just further information? Councillor Wegener, any discussion about or questions about the procedure of the motion? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Well, yeah, I just think that, you know, I want to make sure that we are not restricting the response back from CEO or limit it in any way through, you know, actually locking them in. Without further consideration. Councillor Wilkie: There's a question for the CEO. Does this limit you in any way in the response to this? Speaker 3: In enacting what would be a future resolution of council, those points have been asked. It would be part of the correspondence that we would provide to the state government for that consideration. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the procedural motion to the vote. All those in favour? That is to refer it to the general, the ordinary meeting on Thursday night. And that is unanimous. Thank you, staff. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
02:37:00 We're coming out to the last item on the agenda, which is the financial performance report. We're going to have Mayor Stewart and, well, Councillor Jurisevic back in the room. Financial performance report, October 5th, November 5th. Welcome, Pauline. Welcome, Trent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Pauline and Trent, for your welcome, and could you give us an overview of the monthly financial report for November, please? Speaker 6: Thank you. Good afternoon, councillors. Financial performance for November continues to be strong, with operating revenues continuing
02:38:00 to outperform forecast, with operating expenditures slightly under forecast year-to-date. Operating revenues are $2.7 million above budget, and this is comprised of $405,000 from general rates and waste and utility charges, $297,000 from fees and charges, $1.1 million from interest revenue, $590,000 from capital gains, and $1.2 million from capital gains. Operating revenues are $412,000 from sales of goods and services, and $412,000 from operating grant revenue. Operating expenditures are $120,000 over budget, with materials and services $714,000 over budget, with the majority relating to civil operations. This has been offset marginally by lower than budgeted employee costs of $496,000. Tourism and economic development expenditure remains on track year-to-date, and overall council's operating position at the end of November is $2.6 million above budget.
02:39:00 Capital revenue is above budget by $11 million, and this is due to the advance payment of the QRA Disaster Funding for Black Mountain, and capital expenditure is $5.9 million behind budget due to the timing of project group delivery around the landfill, Brutus Heads Dogs Beach, the Trail 5 upgrade and Beckman Road intersection. Council's current cash holding at the end of November is $2.6 million above budget, with $60 million of these funds currently invested in higher-yielding term deposits and maximised returns to ratepayers. As per council's request at the previous committee meeting, the December quarter financial report will include an analysis of this cash holding, and also a deep dive into short-stay and transit review rating. Any questions? I was actually absent, but apparently there was a request for a deep dive into short-stay and transit review rating. Any questions? So that will come through. It will come through in the December report, because I've been on leave. Councillor Wilkie: Questions of staff?
02:40:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You mentioned the figure was prepaid. Was it the sizeable one? Speaker 6: The QRA one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah, that was $11 million that was prepaid in relation to Black Mountain. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In terms of the contractual agreement around that sort of early payment, is there a requirement for any interest to be added? No. Speaker 6: There's no requirement under the agreement for grant funding that the funds that are earned on the investment of those funds go back towards that project. They just become part of council's general funds. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly it's something that I think we should look at in terms of these, particularly a large one like that. But to me, ethically, it would be good to have some way of saying, well, we've got $11 million this month. We've earned this much interest. Let's put it in a bucket for preparing for the next disaster. Let's say that, you know, all these sort of things that we weren't expecting to get
02:41:00 in this budget, how do we actually use that to create a fund that we can start doing in our own way of reducing the potential future impact of the next disaster? So it's just one thing to think about. Speaker 11: Through the chair, I can probably assist with that. Council currently does have a budget of $11 million. We've got $11 million in reserves and restricted cash policy. So one of the things we can do is to review that to consider how we deal with the interest associated with those funds held in reserve and restricted cash. And clearly, because since we've got a prepayment here of QRA for disaster funds, we also earlier in the year had a prepayment for the waste levy subsidy that's unwinding over the next five years. We can do a bit of work between now and in the final two years. We adopt that to understand what is the best use of funds if those interest is in it. Because obviously, if we have project variations in costs that aren't funded by QRA, even though
02:42:00 the initial scope might be funded, we want to make sure we've got, that could be a sufficient funding source for that. And the same with obviously funds for waste. So I'm happy to take that on notice if that's . Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So along the lines of what Councilor Stockwell's suggesting there, we know that we're having price blowouts on . We know that not everything that we have encountered is covered under the funding opportunity. So yeah, my, along the lines of what Brian's suggesting there, my first consideration for the interest would be to cover the shortfall of funds in those areas and the waste example that you've given, perhaps to other waste initiatives or, because we are going to be progressing forward with the changes in the waste community. So is that an opportunity that we can look at with regard to knowing what the interest is on those, knowing what the expenditure is on those elements, and whether that's a
02:43:00 priority that we can do when the budget considerations come forward? Speaker 11: Sure. Through the Chair, definitely. It helps. A piece of what we're bringing to the table is that we're going to be looking at the The report on breaking down what our cash is comprised of is a foundational piece of work that will help us break down that interest revenue into different components. And your point about items of work that are unfunded through disaster recovery is a very valid one because in our recent plan we did have an element of work, $200,000, that was not considered eligible under funding, so this would be the interest that would cover that in that report. Mayor Stewart: We've seen 10 interest rate rises in a row, I think, from the Reserve Bank, so unprecedented. I guess coming into next year, into the budget, I ask it every month, any concerns?
02:44:00 Finishing off the year, are we in a good position going into budget discussions for next year? Speaker 6: Yeah, so in terms of where we're heading for the rest of the remaining of the year, we're on track to achieve budget, or do better at this stage, with the quarantine of unforeseen circumstances. In terms of CPI and increases, we're eagerly looking forward to December CPI. That will help inform the increases for salaries for staff as well, as they're tied to CPI. We anticipate that could be 8%. Our budget currently increased provision to 5%, so there could be a further impact, and that could be several hundred thousand dollars. Speaker 11: I suppose to add to that, through the Chair, it's important to remember that a lot of the goods and services that we procure as a Council are very different to what is the mix for CPI. Remembering that CPI is about average household spend, it includes groceries and food, standard
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 insurances. Our mix of expenditures as an organisation is very different. We're procuring large amounts of asphalt, gravel, concrete, consultants, and other things. So often you'll find that the price index on those is significantly higher than what would be your otherwise average CPI for the State. So this is one of the pressures that we'll work through, through the budget deliberations for next year, is that whilst we might be facing nationally a 7% or an 8% CPI, some of the cost pressures that we see internally in our contracts face different pressures. Diesel is a great example of that, for example, or electric vehicles. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question. I may not have noticed it before, but you've got a sentence that says tourism and economic development activities funded through the general rate, and the 5.8% of the annual general rate committed towards tourism and economic development. Forgive me, I haven't noticed that in there before. What does the 5.8% of the general annual general rate actually translate to in dollar terms?
02:46:00 Speaker 6: Off the top of my head, I don't have to calculate it for you, but I can take it on notice, but it stemmed from when the tourism and economic levy ceased to be a separate levy and went into general rates to ensure that we maintain the same level of funding. And that's always been in that sentence? Yes, correct. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, that 5.8%? Yep. Speaker 11: For this financial year, obviously, with each year, next year as we go through budget deliberations, that mix may change, but it's also about funding mixes. We invest in new initiatives and other programs. Councillor Wilkie: So on page 66, Statement of Income and Expenditure, it's got rates, levies and charges for the year of $82,499. The annual general rate is less than that. Speaker 6: Correct. That's $69,000. $69,000. $65,000. 5.8% of $69,000. But I can provide that information.
02:47:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Isn't the information in the table? If you're saying that 5.8% is... ...allocated, then the annual budget is $3.85. Speaker 6: Oh, in terms of the tourism and economic development levy, yes. There are several low-cost centres that don't get included relating to Digital Hub as well. Where do you get $3.85 from? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The table above, Payment, Tourism, OUSA and the Economic Development, total $3.85. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll just check. If you put the two together? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So that includes staff time, projects and the grants? Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to move it, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Move, Councillor Stewart. Segment, Councillor Lorentson. Ms Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you again, once again. I say that every month, but there's a huge amount of work that goes into these reports. Coming into the end of the year, I appreciate there has been a lot of trials and tribulations with rising costs and concerns over staff shortages, labour. So you guys are really at the grassroots of that. So we appreciate all the hard work you do.
02:48:00 And unprecedented, as I said, 10 times in a row, interest rate rises and record inflation. These really are across the board, unprecedented times financially. So I want to thank you both for steadying the ship and our CEO, because you guys do a great job and we really appreciate it. And I think it's a great initiative of it. And you enable us to be able to make sound decisions. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: And the councillors, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It's always really useful to have this month on month. Always really impressive how the new accountant is getting so much better interest rate. But having said that, now's the easy time. How well we set the next budget is going to be critical because the modelling I've heard is that they're expecting the peak to occur around about June next year. That's going to be the peak of the impact of the rate rises.
02:49:00 If they achieve that, then the rates will either stationary or whatever. I reckon the most important report you've got to produce that's on budget is February 2024. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Good timing. Councillor Wilkie: Any other discussion? Councillor Lyons. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to note that the reports get better and better and really appreciate the transparency and openness and your commitment and council's commitment to the community that we're held to be accountable. And thank you for the report. Look forward to the deep dive in short term accommodation. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to reiterate that question, that confidence regard to being able to understand that element of interest or additional interest that's being garnered by those prepayments
02:50:00 for waste and for disaster management being insulated in a sense so that when it comes to budget deliberations next year and in future years, we understand that that's going to Thank you very much for your time and I hope that this is not something that's there every year and that we don't become used to it, that we understand that this is a one-off parcel of interest and financial management that is outside the realms of the normal nature of council business. Just so that we're clear in our understanding of what we can, how it's come about and I guess our understanding for future budgets. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I have a question. On page 59, the materials is slightly more than the budget. Are they leveling out now? Through COVID we had this incredible spike on materials and costs and panic buying and hard to get here. Is that leveling out now or is it just continuing to get more and more difficult to get the materials?
02:51:00 Speaker 6: Are you talking in supply chain? Yes. Councillor Wegener: Supply chain in general, you know, the bridges, the making things. Speaker 6: Well, we still have supply chain issues. However, they are tending to improve. They are on the improve. However, we also have CPI and inflationary pressures. So the cost escalations are increasing. So that's why it's part of the capital work program that we look at that quite closely to monitor the variations on capital projects and manage scope creep and those sorts of things. So there are fluctuations that can manage delivery of programs or identify. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I think scope creep, I worry about that. But we've always said that you actually can't keep pushing back the projects, or they're not very competitive.
02:52:00 Speaker 6: No, you can't push back for infrastructure projects that are needed. But you can sort of, I say, re-prioritize those that are less needed at the time. And hopefully we don't need to do that. At this stage, we aren't delaying projects. Project delays are usually around increased work or things that have been discovered on the projects. Or procurement of supplies and contract services. So at this stage, there's a couple of projects that have been delayed, but they should be completed in the next 12 months. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I'd also like to thank you for the transparent and extensive financial reporting. It's much appreciated. Since this council was de-analgamated, there's been the minority voices of all sorts of councilors struggling financially. They're bankrupt, which is totally untruthful. And anyone who's been interested enough to check the validity of those claims, I think needs to look at one of those monthly financial reports to understand the truth of those. Mm-hmm.
02:53:00 So thank you for the report. It serves everyone well. With motion not in favor?