Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 I actually held a public forum in Pomona regarding development, had a sense of the community and also then made a submission after that information request was received from the applicant and the updated plan so that I could give the most current submission. That was given to the planning department on the 28th of July with addendum on the 1st of August, which I believe at that time it was supposed to be, the report was supposed to be handed out on the 30th of August and it was going to be referred to the September round of council meetings. However, a few days after my submission, council requested an extension of the application on the 4th of August, which went to the 20th of October and then two days before that, on the 18th of October, the applicant sought the decision making process. Some time I can't remember exactly when in there, but the applicant actually submitted revised plans for 16 units and 15 units, but it's my understanding that they weren't included in the assessment because no formal change to the application was made. Um, and so it had to be assessed for 20 units.
00:01:00 Basically, um, yeah, on the 23rd of December it was rejected for those branch reasons that you, uh, mentioned. So, basically, I wanted to discuss today issues with not only the co-assessment process but issues that will not, will reply to future applications. Um, there's no point in getting bogged down in all the other, uh, contraventions that are specific to that one because it's been rejected. But there will be things that follow on. Uh, particularly the biodiversity significance of the lot. Um, it's quite detailed. A lot of, a lot of, um, issues here, like Queensland State Planning Policy talks about the biodiversity state interest. Um, and it requires the state, uh, sustainable long-term development of biodiversity is supported. Significant impacts on matters of national or state environmental significance, which this block has voiced, uh, are, are avoided. Uh, which they weren't. Um. Although this cannot be reasonably achieved, impacts are minimised or residual impacts are offset.
00:02:00 Which I don't believe that had occurred either. Specifically, we have matters of the state and environmental significance, uh, categorisation category are endangered regional ecosystem which is 93.3% of the site. Um, MSES, so, matters of state, environmental significance, região vegetation, intersecting with workhorse. There's three workhorses, or waterways, identified on the biodiversity overlay map, local. The Queensland Department of Environment Design's Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Method, which is the AQUABAN, which talks about river-leaning wetlands. It breaks down the aquatic nature and actually 100% of the site is classed very high conservation significance for river-leaning wetlands. And it further breaks it down and talks about the percentage of the site. 100% of the site, natural aquaticness, 100% of the site for diversity and richness, very high rating for threatened species and ecosystems, 100% of the site. Priority species and ecosystems, 100% of the site, very high. And special features, 100%.
00:03:00 So it's got quite high biodiversity in regards to wetlands and river-leaning wetlands. And then we also have EPBC Act identified threatened ecological communities which include coastal swamp, squirrel or fool forest of New South Wales and South East Queensland, which is endangered, and lowland rainforest of subtropical Australia, which is critically endangered. On top of that, we have at least 221 known fauna and flora species within the area of interest in the one kilometre buffer. And that's under Wild Net Species List, which includes at least 14 conservation significant species under the Nature Conservation Act. And that's important because it will apply to ecologically important areas under the planning scheme. Also, on top of that, we have 51 threatened species and 15 migratory species potentially occurring within the site of the five kilometre buffer area. And that is under the EPBC Act. And that's also relevant to the ecologically important areas under the planning scheme as well.
00:04:00 I could keep going on about biodiversity for so long, but I won't. There's other areas like koala habitat, koala priority area, sorry. And below that. Overlay. What was not identified in the original information request was the setback. There's only overlay, there's a 10 metre setback prohibition from development and clearing of vegetation. And then 10 metres of the centre line of waterways identified along the log. There's three of those. And so I would have thought it would have been identified right at the beginning back in March, but it wasn't. It was identified as... encroachment on the riparian zone. But that was not the only issue there. I believe that this was a glaring contravention of that biodiversity overlay, which should have been identified. And I identified it in my submission. And I thought there might have been an information request following my submission that there wasn't as well.
00:05:00 But I was pleased to see that in the final rejection letter it was noted that the setback wasn't met. But I want to bring it up because it's going to have to be applied adequately to future applications. Particularly there's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, possibly 15 native species within that 10 metre setback, which needs to be protected. So it actually precludes development and clearing for most of the section of the front of the block. If I had a picture of the block it would be good. But those revised plans of 16 to 15 units still had units in that front area. So they're still not regarding those areas. And then on top of that, beyond the overlay, I believe that there's a big tree there, Eucalyptus Pileolaris, 22 metres, which should be classed as a quality habitat tree under the planning scheme, which wasn't identified either. Under the planning scheme it has to meet two food trees.
00:06:00 So it meets Eucalyptus genera and a preferred shelter species, which from my research it is. I found a report from the Australian University to the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, and they identified it as an auxiliary habitat tree. So it should be protected on those grounds as well. But it's marked for clearing and development. So beyond that, there was encroaching on the riparian zone, which was identified. And then that moves me on to the need to regard the entire lot as an ecologically important area, which I don't believe it was in the final rejection. Why does it need to be the whole lot the ecologically important area? Because I believe it needs nine of the planning scheme definitions for it. Some of the most interesting ones are A, an area which contains or is likely to contain listed threatened species or ecological communities, which it did, I went further at the start. A listed migratory species, which it does, as defined by the EBPCA, which I said at the start.
00:07:00 And also endangered or concerned regional ecosystems, under the Management Act, which it does. And this is the majority of the site, not just those areas of the waterways. And finally, the likely habitat for endangered, vulnerable, or new threatened species under the Nature Conservation Act. So it hits all of those, plus seven other ones, which I won't bother going through, but they're there. And so I wanted to really highlight that to ensure that future applications regard the entire lot, because there's multiple areas in the planning scheme that talk about ecologically important areas, and it basically adds more codes that need to be satisfied, and they weren't identified. And I believe they should. Like, for example, medium-density residential zone code, performance outcome 12, protects the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, such as national parks, waterways, and wetlands. Even in the hinterland villages overlay code, well, the code says the site should be designed to protect ecologically important areas.
00:08:00 There's a couple in there, talking about changes to natural drainage, changes to fauna, habitat, and behaviour. So if that's adequately applied, there'll be more, more, it'd be harder to apply a life-scale development to this plot. Thank you. Furthermore, I identified issues with the site coverage of the lot, of the development, sorry. The applicant identified as 32%, but I don't believe it's correct because of definitions of site cover and site. So the site, the definition of the planning scheme of site cover is the portion of the site expresses a percentage that will be covered by a building structure, blah, blah, blah. But it says the portion of the site, so what's the site? Well, the site is the land that the development is going to carry out. Not necessarily the launch, but the land is to be carried out on. And they give an example. If the development is to be carried on part of that lot, which this is, the site is that part of the lot.
00:09:00 So not the entire seven, what was it, 0.75 hectares. I believe in creating that 32% percentage, they've included that whole area where they should actually remove the whole riparian zone and anything south of that. And they should also remove any areas regarding the protected waterway. And by doing that, it actually pushes up the site coverage. I don't know exactly because I don't know the exact square meter each of those riparian areas and stuff. But I do know that there's a 40% maximum allowable site coverage and they're at 32%. And so you remove all of that, it is potentially over 40%. That wasn't identified. And it probably should be and it needs to be in future applications because already they're in those revised plans for 15 and 16 units. They've given, I think it's 28% site coverage. But again, they've used the exact same calculations. So I believe it's incorrect. So 11 minutes.
00:10:00 Thought I'd quickly talk about the Queensland Villagers Code, the character and identity. In particular, Pomona. Pomona has no median density housing complexes of this scale and intensity. And the proposed development would not be in line with the existing build form character and identity of the town, which I believe was actually recognised in the final refusal. The development footprint was not minimised, which would not only result in a net loss of ecologically important areas, but negatively impact the character and identity of the town, including the established vegetative character of the neighbourhood. And the code says the development within each village must be consistent with the identified character and that of the particular community. It must retain and enhance the small scale rural character and natural environment values. Be consistent with the traditional build form of low rise and low density buildings. And be protected, protect the ecologically important areas. So there's the ecologically important area yet again. They also must retain heritage character and the identity of the small country town.
00:11:00 And be sympathetic to buildings that contribute to the character of the village and the landscape setting. So the other overlays on it were flood, landslide, bushfire. There were issues with some of the units with bushfire. Being close to severe threat vegetation. Being offensive residential code. Local villagers code. Dual occupancy multiple dwelling code. So lots of codes on it. And I had gone into it in detail with multiple contraventions of it. But it's not worth raising now. But I will raise them for future applications when they come before council. And possibly do a deputation on that one as well. Because I'm sure there will be more applications on this lot. Lastly, I wanted to quickly address potential undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding applicant. I raised this in my submission to the planning department as when I held that public forum back in April.
00:12:00 The applicant or town planner came and addressed the community. Introduced herself and her partner as herself was the principal town planner. And her partner was the environmental scientist. Who did the ecological assessment. That was never disclosed. That potential personal relationship in any of the reports. And the report author appears to be related to them. So I believe that council should be investigating that to the fullest extent before relying on any information provided by them. And I actually believe that that would be required under the Public Sector Ethics Act. Particularly regarding integrity, objectivity, impartiality and transparency of the assessment. So that will also apply to future applications from this applicant. And then finally just to summarise what I basically wanted to see out of this deputation and any future applications. Would be for council to overall recognise the extent of the biodiversity values of the lot.
00:13:00 Which I've gone over. For council to recognise the entire lot as an ecologically important area. And apply the requirements therein of the planning scheme. Particularly minimisation impacts the scaling and the clearing. And I actually didn't talk about the verge clearing. But there's a lot of native vegetation on the verge. Which was updated later on. Wasn't in the original application. Which are within that 10 metre setback. Because the waterways actually extend onto the street. Council to recognise the 22 metre eucalyptus pillar as a wild habitat tree. Council to ensure adequate application of the planning scheme into the future for future applications. Especially that biodiversity overlay. Council to conduct a review of this code assessment. And require oversight of future applications for the lot. Considering the pitfalls with this current code assessment. Council to ensure accurate calculation of the site coverage percentage for future applications. And council to adequately investigate potential conflicts of interest regarding the applicant. So that's pretty much my time now.
00:14:00 So in conclusion I'd just like to thank everyone for listening to me. And thank the CEO as well for approving my deputation. The Mayor's assistant for organising it. And the Planning Department as well for actually ultimately rejecting the inappropriate development. Thank you. Thank you Nick. Would you be able to provide an electronic copy of your deputation. So we can have regard to those issues. I can. It won't be word for word. That's alright. And also if you did make some unconfirmed statements about undeclared confidence and interest. Could you be put that in writing. So that can be investigated with police. Rather than just hanging out there in public. It has been put in writing. My submission was actually sent to the Planning Department and all councillors. It has been. With the names? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Is that something you can clarify? I don't know Patrick. Well. In specific about the conflict of interest? Yes. Well they're professionals.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 So who are they? Are they the. So we've got a planning consultant. The applicant. And her husband is the ecologist. They happen to be married and they submitted their own reports and. On behalf of the applicant. On behalf of the applicant. So they're not a councillor. They've got nothing to do with council. Okay. So the assessment of those reports is undertaken by council offices and associated experts. My mistake. I thought you were inferring a link between a council employee and an applicant's consultant. No. Thank you. Thank you Nick. Thanks Nick. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you. Okay. We now go to the Reports Director General Committee. Which first item is Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority. Report November 2022. Councillor Stewart. I can just do it for me. I have a terrible conflict of interest from the delegated authority. I've been to the Delegated Authority report due to my close personal relationship with
00:16:00 applicants Jane and Cameron Black. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll leave the meeting room on that. It's considered unvoteable. Thank you. Thank you. That's good. Councillor Lorentson. I'm Councillor Lorentson. We've attended social events together and our children have attended school together. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room on that. It's considered unvoteable. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillors, some can move the motion. Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. I just have a general question for Patrick. Patrick, can I let it go? Alright, so on the subject of the plans that we discussed earlier, there are issues raised, for example setbacks to boundaries and waterway, biodiversity and landslide height,
00:17:00 boundary setbacks, they often refer to relaxations granted. Could you just talk to the scale and significance of those? When we have an application for a new dwelling that comes before council, it's seeking to And, and construct their dwelling. So what you see, what you see on the report are those applications, the percentage, you know, might be, I'm not, I couldn't actually give you the percentage of total dwellings and what we approve, but it's not all the dwellings that get constructed within the, within the Shire come through planning. So, so they come to us with the, the variations that are proposed and that's what you see on this list.
00:18:00 Um, and what you see on the list is what's been applied for. So if we didn't approve the height, but we approved the setback, you actually still going to see height and setback on this list. So I think going forward, it's identified that what we need to do is at the back end of the system update when we approve, if it's different to what's been applied for, and then what comes through on the report is actually reflective of that. Having said that, I think it's likely that what you see on the report is actually reflective of what was approved. And, and sometimes you'll see. The height setback site cover, but the variations might be quite minor. It might be 8.1 meters, it might be 1.9 or 1.8 meter setback as opposed to two meters. And now the new scheme talks about with setbacks out of most projection. So it picks up Eves, whereas the old scheme didn't include Eves. So you might have some instance where the setback might only relate to Eves.
00:19:00 So, you know, these are all, these variations are scrutinized when there's an application for them and, and when they're approved, we're confident that it's suitable to approve them. Similarly, when you're looking at landslide or biodiversity, it's reflective of, of our scheme in terms of the scheme calls up for approval for any development within the moderate and high landslide areas. The previous scheme actually had a provision within it that said, if there's a geotechnical report that's been provided, so long as the certifier includes those recommendations in their approval, that part of the scheme wouldn't trigger. We've generally been doing exemption certificates where landslide is the only trigger on the basis that there is a geotechnical report that is provided to us with recommendations. But where there's more than one trigger, landslide and something else, we'll bring it in. And in terms of biodiversity. You'll find that there are some lots within the Shire, which are completely vegetated and the biodiversity overlay applies to the whole site.
00:20:00 And it's reasonable for there to be a dwelling constructed on, on, on these lots, if rural residential lots and the like. And, and when we're doing our assessment, we're looking to make sure that the extended vegetation removal is, is minimized. And, and to some degree, the regulations around koala protection give some real guidance around that. Ensuring that the, the exemptions that are allowed, are allowed under that regulation are the limit of what's approved, but you often have bushfire is going to be another implication when you've got a biodiversity overlay that the, the dwelling needs to have a defendable space around it. So. Thank you. So perhaps more detail about. Well, I think. Exemptions possible. I think in, in, in terms of what's actually approved, in terms of what's different, when it's different to what's been applied for, we can clarify that better in this report going forward. So just to clarify on that, within what we, what we see here is essentially what would be minor, minor issues.
00:21:00 Anything more major than that would come before council? Well, we haven't been bringing dwellings to council. The dwellings that have been coming to council are those, for example, along Seaview Terrace, where the geotechnical. That's something more major, more major concerns. That's correct. That's correct. Any questions or comments for staff? I will close. I think it's time to review why these things come to a council meeting. At the time we did it, there was a lack of understanding of what was happening in the organisation. Quite often they take a long time just through conflicts of interest. I think the matters dealt with are up and low. What a council should be involved with largely. I think it'd be much better just to have it as a regular email, just like we get for what applications have been received. Because I don't think it's, the matters are of such significance that it warrants debate in the council meeting. I put the motion to the vote. Has it failed? Oh, it's out. I've got one. Not the two. Can we note the report? Not the two. Sorry.
00:22:00 Can we note the report? Thank you. No, I was just. Thanks to the planners. There'll be arguments against that, but you had final say. Yeah. Thanks to the planners. I only did it for a few extra questions. Sorry. Okay. Item two, representation. Oh, yes. Item two is representation to decision notice, the dwelling house at 66 Scissoroo Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Patrick, your item again. Councillor Lorentson has got another question. Oh, yes. Councillor Lorentson has informed the media that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. Deborah Reed, a senior to the application, is a personal friend. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not have a personal friend. I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Ms. Reed. Therefore, I would choose to remain in my room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate
00:23:00 in the decision. Councillor. Just a question. So it raises the question that the Act specifies the level of the relationship, and they call it a close personal relationship. What you're declaring is you don't believe that you have something that's picked by the Act. It's not to that extent. In fact, we're doing it as a courtesy. That was an interesting one. You said conference, as you were saying. It doesn't mean the Act is locked. Just in my recent events, I'm just exercising abundance of caution. Sorry. So just a question. It seems paradoxical. I'm not able to say. Deborah is a personal friend. But you don't have a close personal relationship in the paper yet. So that would raise many of those questions. Can you outline the nature of the relationship as a personal friend, as a close personal relationship? I know Deborah.
00:24:00 Our children attended the same school. And I know her to speak on the beach, sit and say hello, and have a discussion with her. And I know her to speak on the beach, sit and say hello, and have a discussion with her. I've never been inside her house with attending social events through school. But I'm friendly with her, as I am with a lot of parents that my children attend the school with. And she's a submit to the application. Again, exercising abundance of caution. I wouldn't necessarily have made the submission otherwise. I'm going to have to move, but that's what I was going to say earlier. I'll second it. Can I stop by? Yes. Patrick, could you give us an overview of the application? Okay. So councillors may recall some time ago this application was, well, the application for the dwelling was reported to council, at which time it was approved.
00:25:00 There was a condition requiring the deletion of the rooftop terrace. There were some concerns that were raised in terms of overlooking and the bulk attributed to the rooftop terrace. So the applicant has now made representations where they're seeking to have condition for deleted and have submitted amended plans which amend the form of the rooftop deck. You may also recall that a scaffold was erected on this site to give some guidance to myself and to the designer and the planning consultant as to the extent of overlooking. That was arising from the previously approved plans. And it was quite evident at that time that overlooking was an issue. They have gone away and amended the plans as I said. The plans have managed to deal with the overlooking by addressing the setback of the rooftop terrace
00:26:00 and the extent of screening. However, there are concerns with the form of the rooftop terrace in terms of its impact upon the streetscape, surrounding properties, and the impact that it will have on some viewers. So it's recommended that the application be refused. My recommendation, I have erroneously incorporated the Coastal Communities Local Plan Code into the grounds of refusal. And there's a comment in there in the report about some provisions. That actually is not relevant in this case. It's not a code that is applicable to the assessment of this application. So I apologise for that. I've also sought to improve or improve the application. I've also included the ground of refusal in relation to the low density residential zone code because the rooftop terrace will have an impact on the view lines of premises on the other side of Seaview Terrace and surrounding properties.
00:27:00 And so I've included that in the grounds of refusal as well. Now, throughout the process or towards the end of the process, the applicant has seen the report. They've identified that the plans that I provided to you included one render. They sought that all of the renders that were provided in relation to the streetscape be provided to you. And I did that on Friday last week. I sent an email to councillors with that information. They've also identified some properties that they consider warrant justification of the rooftop terrace in terms of the streetscape. And I've been through those. And I have prepared a little addendum, Cathy, if it's okay to go to that at this point. So the properties commence with 46 Seaview Terrace. And what I've got before you is just a comment in italics that was taken from the planner's
00:28:00 report at that time. That was an application that was made in 2005. And it notes that a small portion of the southwestern corner of the proposed garage and upper level balcony is located within the six metre front setback. It's considered that the minor intrusion of 0.7 of a metre is acceptable, given the topography of the site and the location of the existing carport. That plan there is the ground floor plan. And you'll see that dotted line that's running parallel to the front boundary. That's the six metre setback. And you'll see that minor intrusion there on the right hand side, that's in relation to the ground floor. And if you go to the next page, you'll see there again, there's just a very minor intrusion on the upper level. So again, that's a six metre line with that very minor intrusion. The scenario we've got in the current application is that the built form is at 3.5 metres from the front boundary. So it's much, much closer and it's for a considerable expanse as compared to this development. If you could please go to the next page, 50 Seaview Terrace, this is a plan of the upper
00:29:00 level. You'll see the six metre line to the corner of the bathroom and also to the guest room. It's showing that the building at the upper level is set back six metres. The report made reference to a beam at 4.6 metres. Having a look at the plans, it was quite difficult to determine where that beam was, but it also did appear that there was a bit of a roof overhang into the setback. Again, nothing to the extent that we're talking about in terms of the current application. And if you could please, Cathy, go to the next page. So this is 54 Seaview Terrace. Now this design is one where, if I could just stand up. The front wall was... The front wall of the building is actually back at six metres. This is just a measuring tool, so there's an element of error. So that's six metres where the front wall of the building is. And then there's like a wrap that just goes like a beam overhang and then down the sides
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 of the building. And that's what extends into the six metres. So that's about 1.2 metres, I think it says, into the setback. So again, the building, the face of the building's at six metres, and then you've got these lighter elements that protrude 1.2 metres into the setback. So again, significantly less dominant than what is proposed in the current application. Questions or... I wouldn't have to ask the question. So you mentioned that the scaffolding was erected to try and assess the request to vary the conditions of the building. Is that sort of the top of the scaffolding? Was that equivalent to roof height, deck height? What was that equivalent to? Yeah. So the same floor level of the deck, which is the roof of the dwelling, and there was
00:31:00 some material, some board that was placed up to reflect what would be the screening that was proposed. And that obviously took it up higher, but the base of the scaffold was the roof level. So that's the images we're seeing on page 29 of the report, image two and three? That's correct. So, yeah. I'm happy to move to amended recommendation as occurs on the screen there. Some of the people who are listening, watching, that deletes item one in the published recommendation and adds an item D into what is now the new item one to read, will obstruct
00:32:00 the views of dwellings, maybe, if it is, within proximity of the site. Yeah. Yeah. I'd second that, please. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell? I do so. As councillors may recall, I actually thought there were sufficient breaches of performance outcomes of the original development to refuse this whole development. I still believe that to be the case. And when you look at the picture on page 29 of that scaffolding, recognising that the provisions related to cantilevered awnings will have actually built-in rooms to that height, I think is the clearly there's a need for that to happen. There will already be an impact in terms of the scenic amenity and overlooking. I think making that worse by putting a rooftop terrace on is unconscionable. Thank you. Other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Just a question. Tom? On top of the rooftop terrace, would there be a possibility of putting up umbrellas and things, therefore even going higher?
00:33:00 Well, the rooftop terrace does ... It has a roof on it at the moment. Yes. They certainly could put umbrellas in other areas of the roof, which I suppose I don't think would be probably higher than the roof that's proposed, but it would extend to areas of visual intrusion and potential view line blockages. Any councillors who would speak to the motion for councillor Stockwell to close this? Rightly so. The motion goes in favour. It's carried. Any ... Unanimously. Next item, page 32. Planning environment court deal on ... 174 of 2022, application to short sale a land in support in the Local Law No. 1, 215 for 52 Duncan Plain, Noosa North Shore.
00:34:00 In the report, it mentions Noosaville, but it's actually Noosa North Shore. That is correct so this is an application under the short stay local law. An approval was issued for this application and standard conditions were applied. Subsequent to that approval being issued the officer realized that the building approval had actually lapsed for the development so it meant that it was actually in contravention of the requirements for the areas or the dwelling to have the appropriate approvals in place and then they issued a refusal notice. This application that the applicants made to go to the court is against the conditions of the approval. They've also sought for the refusal to be reviewed and their position is that council wasn't able to
00:35:00 issue a refusal after issuing an approval and that there was a process that should have been gone through in terms of a show cause notice that it have been issued. Through engaging our legal representatives to represent us in the appeal or to put them on notice they've given advice around the review to advise that the applicant is correct that we didn't have the capacity to just issue a refusal that there would have been it there is a process that we need to go through from the approval in terms of a show cause notice so we're going to follow that process through but notwithstanding this appeal around the conditions of the original approval still stands and as you read by the report it recommends that it's in order for council to defend that appeal. This is the first type of appeal we've had against approval conditions as well. Question, if approval is given to a dwelling, how can it lapse? A building
00:36:00 approval it was so the building approval was issued and the works were carried out whilst the approval was current and then the final sign-off didn't occur until an approval had lapsed and then the certified disengaged themselves from the process. So unapproved building so they would need to go back through a certifier to get approval for the works and it's and it may be the case that they can obtain. So on that basis what was the time frame of the application being made, the works being undertaken, the lapse period? I think it was four years off the top of my head Joe. So the approval was back in the process? In? 2013, 2014. I don't recall that being mentioned here.
00:37:00 So just to clarify, the reason why the building approval is relevant or the failure to get a final certificate to say it's built in accordance with the approval is because this establishment was operating under an existing lawful use right provision, is that right? That's correct. So not having a final building certificate means they didn't have a lawful use because you shouldn't be lawfully using it. That's correct. Okay. That's right. Okay. Fair enough. We have a motion before us, councillors. Council member Redford. Moved by Councillor Stewart. Seconded by Councillor Lauritsen. Councillor Stewart is the speaker. The councillors wish to speak to the motion. The motion is in favour. That's unanimous. Next item four, representation for development of permanent material changes. A short term accommodation at 401 Sunrise Road in Biwa.
00:38:00 So a report for this application was presented to council at the general committee meeting in October 2022 regarding change representations made to the original development approval for a material change of use for short term accommodation. The applicant has made change representations to four conditions of the decision notice around the total number of guests that can be accommodated, the use times of outdoor areas, the ceiling of the shared access driveway and then, pardon, sorry me, I'm sorry, I have a little bit of a cough at the moment. And then providing a potable water supply. The applicant stopped the decision making period after the general committee meeting to further
00:39:00 discuss issues around the ceiling of the driveway with council staff and then the decision period has been extended out until the 19th of January. It's recommended that conditions 5 and 15 be amended generally as requested by the applicant regarding the total number of guests that can be accommodated and the provision of a potable water supply. It's recommended that condition 12 regarding the ceiling of the driveway be amended generally to include the ceiling of the crossover from Sunrise Road to the existing unsealed portion of the shared access driveway. And then it's recommended that condition 6, sorry, not be supported.
00:40:00 We didn't vote on this, so this is the actual, the fact that, because we argued up and down, but then it was pulled off. That's right. So we didn't finish voting on it, so this is the actual. That's right. And you may recall at the time there was a query around the number of car spaces that were available and you'll find in the report that JADA has assessed that component and determined that there's significant areas around the dwelling also capable of accommodating car parking as well as the garage. So the applicant has to seal the portion of the driveway? That's correct. So from the crossover through to the existing sealed portion of the driveway, which I think is a distance of 34 metres. Correct. Is required to be sealed. Can you clarify, it seems to be the same amount of water provided, just a different consideration? Yes. So it's just a condition of the decision notice that a potable water supply is provided
00:41:00 and the applicant has just asked for, I guess, some different wording around that condition, which we agree to. Okay. And can you clarify the discrepancy between the eight, I guess, and 10 beds? The approved plans were for five bedrooms? Correct. The number of two bedrooms? Four bedrooms. Four bedrooms. Approved . Yeah. It was four bedrooms and the plans showed bunks in one of the rooms. So it showed 10 beds on the approval. Okay. And so that's what they're seeking. And it was conditioned for eight. Yes. And they're seeking that it be allowed to be 10 because they're saying it's consistent with what was shown on the plans. But notwithstanding, I think the report picks up that the scheme does allow for five bedrooms in the low density residential zone to be used for short term accommodation. So I think using that as a litmus test.
00:42:00 Did you say that again, Patrick? The low density residential zone has a provision that for short term accommodation, the amount of bedrooms be limited to five. Yes. Now this is in the rural residential zone. So we're on a more expansive property, generally a larger home. Yes. So five bedrooms would generally equate to 10 people in the low density residential zone. So our thinking is it's reasonable for 10 people to also be accommodated on this site. And you also disagreed with the request to strike out the condition that preventive information is in the outside areas after 9pm. So they can't use the outside areas after 9pm? That's correct. Does it impact on neighbours? That's correct. But when the owners are staying there, that's okay? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Can I just say, thank you. With the 10 people must not exceed. So we could potentially, in this property, if it is short term accommodation, it could potentially be five lots of five couples. That's correct. Yeah. And with five cars.
00:43:00 That's correct. And there's sufficient room on site to accommodate those five cars. Yeah. Joe, my question relates around the 10 versus 8, with regard to the number of people. That fourth bedroom has bunks. Is there a provision to, or capacity to provide a condition that it must contain four bunks? So that the 10 are contained within the four bedrooms and it doesn't, because otherwise, how do we ensure that it's being occupied in the manner in which it was approved? Well, the limit of 10 people would ... Yeah, 10 people doesn't mean they stay in the four bedrooms, and the way the property has been approved is four bedrooms with capacity for sleeping 10 within those four bedrooms, not outside of those four bedrooms. You put a requirement in, I'll be sleeping in the bedroom. And that's along the lines of what I'm looking for. Well, yeah, are you worried that more than 10 people might inhabit the premise? Potentially. Well, I would have thought the condition for the 10 people is sufficient to prevent that.
00:44:00 Yeah, I was, we would, you know, the discussion originally was sort of to wait because of the four bedrooms. Yeah. Okay. What's being allowed here, or provision for here, is the fact that the fourth bedroom showed bunks. Which means, or two of the bedrooms showed bunks, so that there's capacity for, one would think, children and a family group, as opposed to 10 adults. So, how do we provision that bunks are the bedding feature in that additional, in those last two bedrooms, to ensure that the capacity remains at 10 within the bedrooms? I might be pulling, it might be clutching on you. But I'm just trying to, if that was what was approved with drawings and bunks were there, then one would think that that's the, where the sleeping accommodation is provided, and
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 that's the type of bedding that's required to be provided for approval. Well, perhaps condition five, if councillors were agreeable, could be amended to read the number of guests accommodated and the associated number of beds at any one time must not exceed 10. I don't think it's needed. We're not going to get on in there working out if we've finished, are we? Sorry. I might be clutching the straws. I'm just trying to see how the approval aligns with the application of the plans that were submitted. I think if they had one double bed and then eight children in bunks, or four people in double beds and six people in bunks, we wouldn't be concerned, as long as the number didn't exceed 10. Yeah. Just a question. The applicant has raised a, suggested there is a similar case where we've allowed MPN, and they cite an application.
00:46:00 Just a question. Do we have a consistent process of determining what the operating hours are? I seem to recall that previously it was in, we used nine for pool areas and urban areas. But I'm just wondering, is there a consistent approach we've got to do? Well, the matter that the applicant refers to is actually in the rural zone. And so we have been consistent in applying the nine PM to areas outside the rural zones and being open to 10 PM in the rural zones, as long as sufficient separation is provided. And we did have an application, sorry, that came before council, the first application in the rural zone. And it was at that time that we decided that 10 PM was reasonable on that side. That was the one in Kin Kin. Yeah. Pomona or Kin Kin. Yeah. Joe, my recollection also is that we had some discussion around the minimum size allotment being four hectares where short term accommodation was allowed in the rural residential zone.
00:47:00 This one's under four hectares. It's a trigger within the scheme. It's the type of assessment that's required. So where it's under four hectares, it goes to impact assessment, and four hectares and above. So that would then support, I would suggest supports having more of an urban consideration than a rural consideration. I think so. Yes. Thank you. I've got a motion before it. Councillor Morrison. Just a quick question. We're in a housing crisis, and there are issues of housing supply. My question, Patrick, is three of these applications for short term accommodation have been in effect, not approved on that basis. Why is this one different? The areas where we've got a high percentage of short term accommodation occurring along the coastal areas, I think we're up above 27%, we've certainly identified the housing
00:48:00 crisis as being quite significant. I take the point this is potentially taking a house at time away from full time occupation, notwithstanding, I think, is a percentage. The provision of rural accommodations and rural dwellings, it's at this stage a very, very small percentage that are being used for short term accommodation. Is there a danger then, by approving this application, that there's the potential to open the floodgates for further STA applications in the hinterland region? Well, with the scheme at the moment, it certainly, it does encourage, it doesn't have the predominant residential component to it. When you're talking about the rural areas, those provisions won't, they apply in those more urban areas, so at the moment, the scheme actually doesn't say that the rural areas should be predominantly residential. So that was a key reason why we've refused short term accommodation in the high density
00:49:00 residential zones and the medium density residential zones. So at the moment, with it being consistent use and not having that provision, there certainly is the capacity for future applications to be made that would be consistent with the scheme. Again, if councillors were mindful or of the opinion that they, that was an issue in terms of housing supplies, there's an opportunity through planning scheme amendments to change that. Question. In terms of approving maximum number of residents to 10 people, one of the things that I've seen, one of the continual, but the main issue in the S2A is one of the, one of the many issues in the S2A is the issue of noise and party houses. I took out the Planning Act 2016 Section 276 to get my head around the definition of party houses, and I don't think the definition is wide enough or, my question is, by approving
00:50:00 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people to 10 people in a home, are we, in fact, approving a party house? The potential of having one more families or 10 adults, to me, is concern, and are we failing to mitigate the misuse of an S2A property? Was that part of your consideration when approving 10 residents? I'll certainly look, but note that these properties are quite large, and that there is some, some But a party house, it could be three bedrooms with six people in it, or I don't think the number of people on site necessarily determines whether it's going to be a party house or not. Certainly it facilitates more people being there, but it comes down to I think how people are going to behave and, you know, if a party house, if they're going to invite other friends over and the like. So, I mean, that's something I think we need to regulate separately.
00:51:00 Excuse me, Patrick, won't this house be subject to the local law? And it also will be subject to the local law. That's right. It'll need to get a local law. That impacts from STAs. That's correct. As well as the conditions on the approval. Patrick, I have a question. You just said that there's a small amount being used in hinterlands, you know, unlike what we're seeing in our coastal regions, and that's certainly a consideration. We're seeing, you know, far more proliferation of STAs along the eastern beaches and in our more city suburbs, you know, dwelling areas. Is, I mean, coming back to what Amelia said, is this opening the floodgates for the hinterland and could potentially now, with the, if this is approved, then, I mean, it does, does it open that precedent and we could then see more problems in the hinterlands that we're now, I mean, if this opens the floodgates, we have that potential problems that the hinterland faces, that our coastal towns are facing now, is that correct?
00:52:00 Well, this application has been approved for the use of this premise for short-time accommodation. We're obviously now talking about the increase of the number of people from 8 to 10, and we're talking about issues around the driveway. So, at the moment, the scheme has said it doesn't have those provisions around predominantly permanent residential. So, if everyone in the hinterland obviously was of the mind to do it, then yes, it would become an issue. But there are provisions within the scheme that also encourage cabins and short-term accommodation to facilitate more tourism and more economic development. Within the rural areas as well. So, certainly there is a need for it to facilitate that demand. But, in terms of how far it goes, again, that might be something we need to look at through the planning scheme. These are non-miscarriage, though, isn't it? Well, how broad scale it could become, that's correct. Brian? Yes. Yeah, it's a little bit in there. Secretary of Council of Jurisevic, Mayor of Council Stockwell.
00:53:00 I do so, Patrick has just clarified, we are only looking at representations from the community of the existing appraisal. When we assess development applications we must put our statutory hat on to their policy. With our statutory hat on we have to take the advice of our planners as to the level of compliance with the planning scheme, performance outcomes, etc. And I think the logic they provide to us in the report justifies their recommendations. In terms of the way ahead, councillors, we have already adopted the housing strategy. And the housing strategy has already indicated our policy is to make short stay accommodation in the rural residential zone consistent. So it won't lead to a flood anymore. And we are going to be looking at those scheme amendments in the coming weeks. So we've already made the policy decision that we do think we should tighten it out on short stays. But at this stage, the scheme was written at Tottenham where we were encouraging to spread the load of tourism and to take advantage of our natural assets in the hinterland.
00:54:00 We're still going to do that, but we're just saying if you want to build accommodation on your property, it's done as part of a home hosting arrangement. Where you're living on there and having a cabin or two or whatever. So we are in this period between making a decision to change our policy approach and getting and receiving accommodation. Because we must by law consider against the scheme requirements as only our seat depends. The key difference here between this site and sites in medium density and high density residential is, as Patrick pointed out, there is no code that requires, there used to be predominantly residential in nature. And even if it was, the very low numbers of short stay accommodation in the rural residential zone means that this, that particular criteria we had in those two zones would not be triggered by this application.
00:55:00 Now I do know there are some suggesting differently on social media, but I wouldn't suggest we listen to social media too much. Tom? Let's go back. So it says here, I assume that we had voted on this and that they do have a right for use as a short term accommodation. Yes. It says here, the report for application was presented to council at the general meeting. Was it, did it go through the ordinary meeting vote? So the application was originally approved through the ordinary meeting vote. And then they came back and made representations and JADA wrote a report and presented that to council. And through the presentation of that report, a number of issues were raised, including some by itself around car parking. So it was deferred. The decision was deferred. JADA negotiated with the applicant to extend the decision making period. It met the applicant on site. And now we're finalizing the representations component. So this didn't go through the ordinary meeting yet. We have not actually given this through an ordinary meeting vote.
00:56:00 We have not given this STA approval. We have. We gave the STA approval with conditions back in August of 2022. Yes. And then after that, they made an application for representations to some of the conditions. Yeah. That came to council. Wasn't resolved at council. It's now come back to council to resolve. Okay. Groovy. That's what I thought happened. Yeah. I just, I got totally thrown by that. So I don't need to make my long, my long speech here. So you're going to miss out. I'll be like, I'm sorry. . . . . . . . So, yeah, again, I will, as Amelia and the Mayor have said, you know, have we learned nothing? Are we just taking what went wrong over there and bringing it out to the hinterland? And I think we are because, but that's not of issue right now. We're just looking at these particular points. And so, yeah, I actually support. It's hard to, but, yeah.
00:57:00 Well, I'll speak in favour of the motion. I think the staff recommended the right approach to these representations to conditions. It is right that outdoor use, use of the outdoor area should be restricted to 9pm at the latest. It is right that the driveway be sealed, so as to minimise the impact of dust on neighbouring properties and noise, I'd imagine. It is right that the people that own the property are able to use the outdoor areas after 9pm, like any of us can in our own homes. And I, as it is going to be subject to the short-term accommodation of local walls, so the negative impacts that were on neighbourhoods or party houses, that's not.
00:58:00 It's not going to be an issue, or if it does be, on the occasion that that does occur, there'll be phone calls made and action taken, and the accommodation of 10 in a house of that size, four headrooms, is reasonable, and the SDA local law will manage any of the impacts that should have occurred, and, as has also been said, this is an entirely, you know, consistent use for this property under the Planning Scheme as it stands, and if we don't like that use in the rural residential zone, we have the option of changing the Planning Scheme through amendments, which is something that might very well happen. So I'm in favour of this motion. Now the Council's received the motion. That last question. Christian Thomas.
00:59:00 It's great. So if we, if we vote to not support this motion, it'll go, it'll just go back to the original motion. It'll go back to the original specification, to the original one of the conditions. The original, that's correct. Yeah, the original. Just go, just revert back to the original conditions. That's correct. The original conditions didn't actually specify exactly how much of the driveway had to be sealed, but now it is specified. Is that right? That's right. Yeah. So it is a, that's a, it's a 34 metres up the road as to going to where it's dirt right now so that this is a business and they probably should have a sealed road so that it's all going to be sealed from Sunrise Road all the way in. Is that correct? That's correct. 30 more, 34 metres, I think, consists of 13 metres within the road reserve and 21 metres within the property. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell used to close. Yeah, I will. We all know that the online booking platform has created a really problematic social tension in our community and I'm not, in my comments about social being, I'm not downplaying those concerns, but I am saying so.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I believe my position on this development has been misrepresented in social media. The clear fact is that the Planning Act defines short term accommodation and it defines parking out. Unfortunately, for regulation. Just holding parties in short term accommodation doesn't constitute party house. You have to advertise it. So come here for your bucks party. Come here and actually have organised events. So the hurdle to get to a, to a party house definition under the Act is quite high. They are prohibited. You know, they're inconsistent everywhere in our Shire. But to get to, to go from a short, short stay accommodation which regularly has large groups of party when they're there to meeting that definition is where we would need legislative reform if we wanted to really crack down on this. And I think it is something that we might consider.
01:01:00 But it might make a representation to the government on it in terms of can that party house definition be broadened. But as it stands, that whole day families coming up, staying in a house in rural residential development, maybe bringing their mountain bikes to go to the nearby trails is quite an acceptable point. And I think that's a good example of, of use of this option. The motion goes in favour. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Jurisevic, Wilkie against. Wegener, Lawrence and Stewart. The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you, Yara. Next item five, Sunshine Coast and this regional climate action roadmap. Cheyenne. Hello councillors. Hi. Hi. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. Thank you for having me. Quick overview. Yes, please. Yes. Okay. So this report is a summary on the completion of a collaborative project with Sunshine Coast
01:02:00 Council on the regional climate action roadmap. This was a pilot project of phase one of LGAQ and Department of Environment and Science climate risk management framework for local governments. We were chosen as one of two areas within the state to pilot. This new climate risk management framework, which is good. It shows we're a leader in this space. And now we finished this one year project with Sunshine Coast Council. The benefits have been vast for both us and our community. I've listed them in the report and can go into further detail if needed. But this project included internal and community surveys, governance assessment, scenario workshops with both internal and external stakeholders, a community stakeholder map and development of the project website. And the regional climate action roadmap. This roadmap is significant because it outlines our commitment to collaborate at the regional level with Sunshine Coast Council, our community, key sectors and stakeholders and other levels
01:03:00 of government to build a shared vision of a climate ready region. The roadmap outlines three strategic priorities, which you guys can see that are at the back of the report. The first is building climate ready councils, recognizing that we must first get our own house in order. In order to be able to continue to provide essential services to our community, particularly given the amount of disruptions and disasters that are increasing in frequency and intensity. The second strategic priority is empowering climate ready communities, recognizing that council can and should play an important leadership role in helping our communities address their climate risks through emissions reduction and climate change adaptation. The third strategic area or strategic priority is advocating for a climate ready region, recognizing that the depth and the breadth of climate change is so vast and it affects everyone in and everything in our society.
01:04:00 It means that council cannot address this problem on its own. We need to build partnerships and we need to recognize that it's a shared responsibility that necessitates that collaborative approach, advocating to the right levels of government and society. The fourth is to provide assistance, funding resources, and participation in this common goal. So the next steps are for us to where we've applied for a grant through Queensland Reconstruction Authority, which you all may have heard about. It's a cascading risks due to critical infrastructure failure projects. So one of the outcomes of this one year project was that we recognize that when our critical infrastructure such as water, power, transport and telecommunications, especially the water, Thank you.
01:05:00 And so we don't have very good understanding of our regional heat risks and also adaptation actions towards it. But that is something that we would like to investigate further this year. We'll continue to engage with indigenous groups so that Janabara and the Kabi Kabi at a regional level and the regional youth climate leadership group, which was established during this regional climate action roadmap project. We'll engage with LGAQ and other stakeholders to seek further funding for phase two and phase three of the climate risk framework. And one of the bigger items is we'll hopefully develop an embedding program to improve internal capability and capacity to address climate risks within council and for our communities.
01:06:00 Sorry, that was a very long overview. Sorry. Thank you. Any questions for Shane? Yeah, Shane, I noticed on page 49 of the report there was some, I think a lot of things to do with regards to the total disaster losses from 1970 to 2019 in billions versus, in figure two, the cost of weather-related disasters in Australia in billions. Are the costs, do the costs incorporate the losses? Yes, they do. To my understanding, they do. So it was interesting to look at the figures there. In that respect then, so there's a difference of $22 billion over those 50 years, which is $44 million a year in additional weather-related disaster costs over the disaster losses, which is an interesting statistic that I've dragged out of that. That is a good insight.
01:07:00 Thank you for sharing that. And to clarify, it comes from Climate Council and they normally use the Insurance Council. So it's actually the losses as recorded by Consumers Plan, so it's likely to be higher. But the losses, the losses come to 70.98 million in losses, but the costs actually come to over $93 billion. So now I can't tell what that is. I'm cooperating the losses are still, you know, you need a lot more money to overcome the losses as well. Shane, I have a question for you. Yes. It comes from the last paragraph in your report. It says, in your internal consultation, I can read the sentence, it's a long one, I don't think they're relevant, so stop to me. We're doing a constitutional initiative workshop, seeing staff and executives were procedurally asked to reflect on and identify whether they have appropriate knowledge to make climate risk management decisions to address the identified risks, whether the risk is under their control to manage, and whether they have appropriate capacity, capability, and supporting organizational structures, culture, policies, procedures, and processes to allow them to identify and manage the risks.
01:08:00 My question is, do they have the capacity to manage the risks? After that reflective process, what was revealed? I can tell you my understanding, but the directors that are in the room and Scott might be able to reflect better than I can. My understanding coming away from that was we need a lot more work in this space. We do need support. We need to increase our resources and capability to address climate risks. Would you say perhaps the most rearing risk is that we haven't worked how it is? I think the critical infrastructure failure, the risk of critical infrastructure failure and cascading and compounding impacts on community and council is really important, and that's why we applied for a grant through Queensland Reconstruction Authority to advance that work as soon as possible. Now, just to put it in simple language, could you explain what cascading infrastructure failure means? Yeah, so, well, when infrastructure fails,
01:09:00 let's say there's a flood and a road cannot be traversed, or let's say the power grid goes out. Yeah, Black Mountain, yeah, perfect. So that's critical infrastructure failing or telecommunications going out. Cascading risks is when one risk interacts with another risk to create a snowball effect of interaction, so it just perpetuates further risks from occurring, basically, or impacts, yeah. So Black Mountain's a perfect example because of the traffic risks that are associated with people having to travel on a dirt road or on a detour, for example. Exactly, exactly, yeah. So global risk report from the World Economic Forum, they use a term, I'm trying to think of the term, is it polling crisis or something like that? Is that the same thing, Shania? It is very similar, yeah. It's referring to, because risks can cascade, they can compound, and they can aggregate, so it's sort of looking at that from a... Sergeant, are you filming this? No. Oh.
01:10:00 He's got blue tape on his cameras. We both do. Well, thank you. Plus, isn't it recorded for YouTube? It's recorded for YouTube, right? That's the official channel, yeah, thank you. Sorry, Shania. And so, yeah, poly crisis is referring to, yeah, it's referring to the aggregate of all that, particularly aggregate risks. For example, COVID-19 restrictions at the same time as the flood event, so. No, it's just looking at it in simple language. Yeah, this is risk management, it does not use simple language, I apologize. It's just an event for the people watching. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just gonna follow on from your question about the paragraph, first off, it's a sentence. Apologies. Yeah, you did mention, it's a rant about our governance. Now, the LGAQ, quite a few years ago, brought out a consultant, I forget what his name was. Dorian Donovan? Donovan. Yeah, Donovan. Yeah, Donovan. He did an assessment and identified where we could improve
01:11:00 and what we were working on. Did we redo that assessment as part of this project and track where we are? Because at that stage, we were sort of getting close to as good as anyone. But what I'm saying is, have we kept up our progress in terms of doing the right things in terms of having the organizational governance reflect the risks, or are we falling behind the pack? So, yes, as part of this project, we did do another governance assessment using the same methodology, but we amended it a little bit to improve it. Yes, we have improved as an organization in terms of climate risk management across our policies, plans, and procedures. We have further detailed risk assessment work to do, though, to fully understand where we're at, yeah. So, it might have been mentioned before that the global risk report's just been circulated, and it lists behind cost of living crisis in the two-year horizon, natural disasters and extreme weather events, for failure to mitigate climate change
01:12:00 and the 10-year horizon, number one, failure to mitigate perhaps climate change, and two, failure of climate change adaptation. Yeah. Yeah, those two go hand-in-hand, mitigation and adaptation. Yeah. I had another question there. Earlier in the report, you mentioned there was this collaboration provides opportunities for council to work together for better outcomes. Can you just give us an example of one of the projects that you're joining, and try writing on it, and have no outcomes? Together with Sunshine Coast Council? So, well, outside of the one that we've applied for grant funding from, we're looking at regional heat risks together. We have a meeting with LGAQ to advance the advocacy in that space, possibly a motion for the next LGAQ conference, a joint motion again. But other projects that we're working on is, well,
01:13:00 we continue to advance our engagement with the regional youth climate leadership group, and the indigenous community, but specific projects, other than that, we're still identifying. The heat risk one, does that? Yeah. Well, you mentioned something about when it involves measuring temperatures, getting a baseline for temperatures across the Shire, for example, at various locations. Yeah, looking at it, we've seen how tree plants can affect that. Correct. Urban greening. Yeah, so. The real outcomes on the ground. Yeah. Help us work. Yes, definitely. On drawing it. That's, yes, definitely. Yes. That's our intention. And yeah, we're looking at using satellites for regional heat distribution. So where are our hottest urban areas across the region? Yeah. You want to get rid of the question? I'll move it. Tom? I'll move the recommendation. I support this report.
01:14:00 I think that page 48 really sums up everything, where it says analysis of the Insurance Council of Australia. The Productivity Commission and Deloitte show that for every dollar invested in resilience measures that better protected communities from extreme weather, $10 are returned in avoided damage and recovery costs. So it's a 10 to 1. Yeah. So I think that's a great advantage here to spend on this now. And I look at some things like the emergency dashboard that we have. And that could be something we could work with the Sunshine Coast Council on. Because that's it. You know, that helps us so much. Cross-council coordination. And along with Gympie as well. And second, I was really taken with Elaine Bradley, who was the Mary River growers, with the phone tree. So during the beginning of the pandemic, so many people there are elderly, and they'd go to the Pomona markets to buy their food.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Well, they realized that they didn't want to go to the Pomona markets anymore. So they didn't know how to get their food. So they quickly set up a phone tree so that everybody had to call five other people. And these five people had to call another five people to make sure that everybody in the entire network was called every week. And so that was their micro-response to climate change. And listening to them, I think that's just a fantastic way. To me, that is an example of grassroots up resiliency. And so I've noted in the report, it says you're starting a council, but you're also really looking at supporting the community groups. And one thing is just to listen to the community groups and see how they're actually acting. And then really supporting those community groups in their grassroots attempts at maintaining communication amongst us. Because really, the communication side, the dashboard, these phone trees, these are the ways that people communicate from council down, but also amongst the community themselves. It's super, super, super important. Completely agree, Councillor.
01:16:00 Yeah. Thank you. One of the RFS leaders in our region told me the best resilience is self-resilience. And that's a great example of community resilience right there. I'll speak. Amelia. I'll speak to the motion. My question is, are we doing it enough? Are we, as a region, drought-proof? Are we, as a region, flood-proof? Are we, as a region, fire-proof? And are we running out of time? We need significant policy changes. We need significant investment. And we need commitment from our leaders and our community. This roadmap must progress quickly because time is not enough. And we have to get on our side. A key warning from the World Economic Forum's latest global risk reports identify, as Frank mentioned before, the three risks as being the cost of living crisis, natural disasters, and extreme weather
01:17:00 as the top risk over the next two years. You know, the triple anemia. It's over? We're about to enter a seven, eight year drought period. There is going to be more frequent and severe weather events, We've got a lot of things like flooding, like droughts, like heatwaves and storms that will impact, as we've already witnessed, our regional economy as well as human health and safety and our environment. We as leaders, we've got a duty of care to act because doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing, in fact, is a liability. I want to thank Cheyenne, Sunshine Coast Council, the work to date. Totally agree, together we're stronger. And I'd also like to encourage Cheyenne, I had a look at the video that the Sunshine Coast have posted on this collaboration. It would be great to share it on our socials because it really captures the impact of heatwaves, even with our volunteers. Our volunteers who are there to mitigate the impacts of climate change, our bush care workers.
01:18:00 And how heatwaves impact those numbers. So we're going to lose volunteers. This is something on a people, business and environment level that is huge. So thanks for the work today. Let's get it happening. Planning's done. We know the risk. Let's just do it. Thank you, Councillor. I couldn't agree more. Good for you, Steve. Cheyenne, thank you for your work and it's great to see you collaborating with the April councils. It's important. Yeah, climate change and natural disasters, they don't have boundaries. We saw that with the Pembrokeshire disaster on the eastern beaches in the February flood event last year. So when we have those natural disasters, we do rely on each other for support and also the impact is on everyone's infrastructure and natural assets. So I think this roadmap is a really important piece of work and I thank you and commend you on it. Thank you, Mayor. It was also Rebecca and the rest of the climate change team.
01:19:00 Annie and Sally had a big role as well. And yes, we'll do a joint media release in the next month. That's what we're aiming for. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's an interesting test case in that we haven't done many regional projects since the amalgamation. But the argument always was that whether a problem or an issue is one that's best dealt with, the regional level that Noosa and Sunny Coast would work together. And this is a good example. This is obviously a problem where the local scale, you can have very intensive programs, but your impacts are better at the larger scale. And the risks associated with climate change are no different between our two councils. You know, there is a range of risks. And I actually had a quick look and I thought the picture on page 62 told a story, a very nice picture.
01:20:00 I think I might have taken it. It was at a scout camp. Sunrise, we were teaching young children how to sail. Well, that probably has occurred for most of this history. Probably without sails for the First Nations people. And why we have to look at this risk is we want people in 100 years' time to have the same river, the same recreation we have. We don't want to be pulling them off for three hours during the middle of the day because it's too hot and too dangerous to be out there. And we want the local businesses to continue to benefit from having sails like that. And we want to make sure that our campground, our council campground, isn't continually drawing money because of the excessive flooding that's occurring on a more regular basis as a result of climate change. So these are all these big picture risks and it's so easy to put them off. And the Saturday lesson I learned was I think last year when LGAQ presented
01:21:00 the last global risk report, which clearly has climate change high. And then they did, gave us results of a survey of CEOs, I think it was across Australia, maybe just Queensland, and climate change didn't make it to their risk register in terms of most biggest risks at local government bases. That's where the capacity building is required. It's not just how we design infrastructure, it's about realising at every level of the organisation that this is probably the biggest risk that we'll have to address within our working careers. Yeah. Agreed. Now the council has received a motion before Tom closes. Tom, you were supposed to close. Yes, please. One concept of a cascading effect that I worry about. Everybody knows that I worry about food and agriculture here. But that is an example where there's a drought, when the drought does come to us, it eventually will. And all of a sudden we have limited food here, and as the chain, as our supply chains collapse around us,
01:22:00 and we go into that mode of panic, which is foreseeable. Well, there's things we can do now. And I'm just using that as an example because I'm so passionate about that. But I think that a part of it and a suggestion is really focusing on connecting the dots from the big picture risks to the individual. You know what's going to come. What can you do today? What can you do to vote with your money, to vote with your feet, to make things better for ourselves? And I think that's something that, well, the connection between councils and the big ideas and community groups really needs to focus on. So I suggest really working on that, the community side of the roadmap. Yeah, we need to connect the dots from the big picture to our individual actions. And I think that's a focus. That's going to be a focus for me this year. I agree. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, as well. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillors.
01:23:00 Thank you. Nice to see you. Have a good day. Next item is Item 6, Financial Performance Report. We've got our Acting Financial Services Manager, Pauline Coles, and Trent, the Acting Corporate Services Director. Is that A for A? A for A. A for A. Yes. Pauline, are you giving us the overview first? I am. Yes. Good afternoon, councillors. We are halfway through the financial performance report. Thank you. We're in the financial year, and financial performance continues to be strong, with operating revenues outperforming our forecast. Our operating expenditures are slightly under forecast year to date, however. Operating revenue is $2.9 million over budget, and this is driven by $421,000 from general rates and waste charges, $292,000 from fees and charges. Interest income is $1.4 million over budget.
01:24:00 However, this is likely to be closer to $2 million by the end of the year, due to the pandemic. Sales of goods and services are $700,000 over budget, which is predominantly from holiday park revenue and waste disposal fees. And operating grant revenue is $400,000 over budget. Operating expenditure is $52,000 under budget, with materials and services $596,000 over, and being offset by lower than budgeted employee costs of $670,000. Tourism and economic development expenditure remains on track year to date, which is good Again, we've included a quarterly legal fees update, which shows that legal fees are tracking below budget year to date. However, it should be noted that the timing of legal fees is dependent on the timing of development appeals and other legal matters that are being dealt with by Council. Overall Council's operating position at December is $3.4 million above budget. However, there's a couple of things I'd like to bring to your attention.
01:25:00 It should be noted that this position may be impacted by the increased employee costs that may result when we get the December quarter CPI. Our current budget includes provision for a 5% CPI increase, however we expect that it will be closer to 7% to 8%, and that will quantify as about another $500,000 to $600,000 to the bottom line. The other thing to note is, in relation to the financial assistance grants, we have been notified that Noosa will receive a reduced amount of financial assistance grant. And last year, well this year, we received 6% less than the prior year. We also received 75% up-fund last year of our financial assistance grant, whereas we normally would receive 50%. That could impact us to between $500,000 to $700,000 this financial year, but we won't know that until we get closer to the end of the financial year. Capital revenue is above budget $11 million, again due largely to the advance payment of
01:26:00 the QRA disaster funding, and capital expenditure is showing $4.7 million behind budget year to date. However, there are several projects that have cost overruns, which are being masked by budget and timing on other projects. Council's current cash holding at the end of December was $95 million, with $55 million of these funds currently invested in term deposits. And as requested at the November meeting, we have included a quarterly dissection of Council's cash holding, which breaks down those segments of what makes up that $95 million. We've also included in this month's report some information on the transity rating categories and short-stay local laws. And I'll leave it there and I'll wait for your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we have several projects that are running over budget, but are offset by some budget
01:27:00 prep and timing of other projects in the program. Okay, so basically for accounting purposes, that's where it's coming in. Correct, correct. So it's more the fact that I'm just simply highlighting that there are several projects that are running over budget, but it's not showing through that consolidated line item just to highlight it to you. Okay, and the $55 million that we've got in term deposits, which banks, I know you said they're across a number that you invest in? We currently hold term deposits with Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and National Australia Bank. And QTC? QTC is not technically a term deposit, but yes, we invest funds with QTC. Okay. Strong cash expense cover as always, but this potentially, I mean this is very much above the normal, isn't it, or the average? Correct. So if you were to look at the dissection that we've provided, because of the way that the cash cover is calculated, it's calculated on the whole cash balance, so it sort of exacerbates our monthly cash cover. But if you look at the dissection, that's showing you... On page 71, councillors. Yeah. Yeah. So what Pauline's alluding to is that our cash cover ratio is quite high, but we've
01:28:00 received, and you'll see that with the allocation of cash balances, where we receive grants in advance, it could be money in advance for the Black Mountain Remediation Capital Works or the waste levy in advance, that's restricted cash. Yeah. So whilst we have a cash cover balance, the vast majority of our cash balances are restricted for a specific purpose, and that's what we're presenting there in the report to demonstrate that whilst there is $95 billion in the bank, you'll notice that the vast majority of that is restricted or committed for a specific purpose, and what's left in terms of free cash and working capital is under $10 million. Correct. And it will be depleted as the months go by. I'll follow up on that one because the dot point straight above figure 7, I just want to clarify too, it's gone down, you say, from 12, so it's gone down to $7 million. Correct. That's both through the budgeted works plus overruns, that's not $7 million worth of overruns.
01:29:00 No. Correct. So of our total cash balance, we obviously have an amount that we can fund through revenue each year through us committing through the budget process for a higher capital works program. We are eroding into that long-term surplus cash, and the more that we commit through project variations, the more that erodes during the year. The only thing that tops that up in the long term is surpluses or low capital works programs. Yeah. I'll just add to that point there, the point raised a couple of points above that, is the $21 million in committed capital works comprising $12 million of current year projects, $6 million future. And $4 million in project variations, I'm assuming that's $4 million in project variations, a part of that year back there. Correct. Correct. And you'll see those come through budget review too, which will come through the March
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 or April round of council meetings. Please question, not year to year. No, I don't think you're conservatively right there. I think that's another $4 million of variations that haven't already been spent, and it's already been spent, the ones that have already been spent are in the bottom. So the $7 million, the decrease in the unrestricted, is $4 million worth of capital project variations. The other part is actually relating to the fact that we're in December, so we actually have to fund January before we get our rates, so we actually allow some funding for that month to cover the cost of operations. That's why it's decreased in December as well. So that takes you up to the $7 million. I know what I'm going to ask. Thank you, firstly. I requested information on the transit rate rating, just so that we had an understanding how much money has actually been collected in short-term accommodation. Really detailed and really great. Thank you, guys. I know that took a lot of effort. Can I explain to you how I've read this, and can you come back to me and say whether
01:31:00 I've read this? So I'm going to really try to simplify what's been written, but my understanding is that we've got 31,000, just over $31,000, 31,000 properties in the Shire, and the unimproved land value of those properties equals just over $13 billion. Transitory properties, we have $4,300. There's some of their land valuation and improved value is just over $1.5 billion. So transitory accommodation is generated in terms of general rates, $15.2 million, of which $2.78 million we take out to pay tourist and visa.
01:32:00 Great. I eat it. Okay. Just to clarify, tourism, Noosa, and economic development, LEP implementation. So that was in the old tourism levy. Tourism and economic levy. So in terms of our short-stay letting and local law, the cost of that is, in this chart, we've generated to date $45,000, but it's cost $220,000, just over $220,000. Okay. So there's a net shortfall of $173,000. Year to date? Yes. Which we're taking out of the $15.2 million that's been generated from rates from transitory rate? No. Okay. That's where I'm confused. So through the Chair to clarify, that's been funded through general rate. So as such, any activity, whether that's the short-stay local law, funding shortfall, roads, libraries, any of our broad sector activities, it's funded generally, so it's gathered from not just the short-stay, but residential, non-PPR residential, commercial and industrial, agricultural properties, it's not targeted to a particular category of land use, it's funded across the board.
01:33:00 So you're seeing that at the table of, the last table at the bottom of page 72, where the shortfall is split based on, based on revenue and valuation mix, so that's where it actually is, there's probably more of that shortfall funding coming out of residential, PPR and non-PPR, than there is out of other land uses because it's a general, because it's a general fund. So my question is, if we were to reinstate, say, the tourism economic levy, would that provide more clarity as to where the funds are being spent? I don't know, I can't go on that.
01:34:00 I think, through the Chair, I think the primary question that needs to be addressed for Council through the budget process is more about the application of short-stay local law, fees and charges processes, which you will obviously address. And what the full cost is moving forward as we come through implementation into steady state operation mode as well because the resourcing impact as you'll see through future discussions is higher on implementation of something like a local law in the first year, then it will be long term as we operate that. Just to clarify, I actually think the table on page 72 is contrary to due process. You've made assumptions and hypotheticals to say if we were to split the cost across the revenue sources, but general revenue is general revenue, you don't rent tables, these people pay for it.
01:35:00 I think that's actually a really constant and problematic approach. I think you've actually done something that's incorrect because no one's made a decision where the money comes from. What you're saying, if it was apportioned equally from the source of the revenue, then this is what it looks like. Through the Chair, in terms of the tourism and economic development levy application, we have the workings backward from the unwinding of the TEL back to the rating categories. In terms of the short stay, like any activity, it's a general rating pool. So all we can do in any instance is to say this is the general rating mix. We don't break it down. I'm quite happy if you would have made a statement like that, but the table, I think, misrepresents it. It's questionable. So the next question... Make him debate if you want to make a point. Good point. I do apologise. I was debating. So the next question is, another way to look at it is that when you compare a short stay
01:36:00 accommodation premises with a residential premises next door that doesn't have that pride, there is a different rate in the dollar. Does the charge be sufficient to pay for the total tourism and economic contribution plus out of the scheme? Would that extra premium be in excess of the $2.x million? I'll make a comment in terms of that. I think that the difference in your transit rating categories above a residential is not just to reflect tourism and economic activity as well. I understand that, yes. So yes, it's actually going to be, like, if you look at... I think it's the table on page. You'll see that transitory rating on the average general rate per property is 2,800, which is closer to commercial, which was, I think, the original intent of why the transitory categories were bought in. So it's not just tourism and levy stuff. Yeah, to achieve what you all, what Ry's gone on to achieve here, to take those 2,000, how many property were there? I'm sorry, I'll pause the video and compare what they would pay if they were PPR versus non-PPR, and then actually do a tally to come up with a total figure of what the...
01:37:00 1,200 difference between PPRT and transitory, so multiply that by 4,376, and I think it would generate more than the tourism and economic levy. I have a question about the number of transitory accommodation properties, you've got 4376 and the housing strategy that we recently approved, sorry, the short-term monitoring report that we recently approved, you mentioned a figure of 5265, could you put that discrepancy in perspective please? Sure, through the Chair, so you have what is currently rated, so what you're seeing in front of you is per our rating system what is currently rated, what you will see through any updates or reports through our short stay and accommodation letting team is information on the current number of identified properties that fall under the local law, not all of those have followed through the application submission.
01:38:00 and assessment process to then be levied accordingly, so long term once we get through that process, you will have alignment between the two. Is that under the local law or currently under the rating structure that are rated in that fashion? Because not all of those under the local law have that been registered as yet. Correct, that's right, that's why there's a difference. Which is why you'll see that revenue discrepancy in that other table, because they're not all. And what we've got there is those that we know and we're rating accordingly. Correct. Different subject. You mentioned that we've been advised that our federal assistance grants can go down, can you explain, is that a result of a change in policy strats formula to how it's distributed, or is it a result of the previous payments or something else?
01:39:00 No, it's a rate in relation to the department's methodology in terms of determining how much is allocated to each council, and because Noosa generally is quite financially sustainable and financially sound, our allocation, all the assets that we look after as well, is a lot less than some of the more regional assets that we look after. So it's a lot less than some of the more regional areas, our allocation has gone down. Just to round through the Chair, I think it was this time last year the State commenced a methodology review, which changed the outcome of that grant allocation to different regions. So whilst we have received a decrease, other areas like some of our neighbours may have received an increase. And in percentage terms, that decrease equates to? So we were advised we could expect a 14% increase. We actually got a 6.3% decrease. We were advised through a letter that we would get 14%, but the actual rate decrease was about 6%.
01:40:00 And there's no explanation to that, is there? Well, it's dependent on how much the Federal Government allocates to financial assistance grants, and so that sort of flows through as well. So the pot might be larger to allocate, so that reduces our reduction when it gets allocated out as well. So that's a 20% decrease, from 14% positive to 6%. No, no, so it was, we were advised it was going to be a 14% decrease. We got a 6%, sorry, my apologies, 6% decrease, my apologies, yeah. Great, Joe. Yeah, I always look at these tables that we've put together, we can't read the summary and the comments, operating revenue and expenses, and one that just sprung out of me this month was waste management royalties, 34 points carried by the year-to-date budget. For those online, and probably just around the table, what are waste management royalties? Because it's not something that appears very often as a line item anywhere, particularly if I highlight an item anywhere, and why are they all here?
01:41:00 You can go. Through the Chair. So, in the complex operations of our waste management program is included there, we have a contract in place for extraction and treatment of gas. And so, we have an outsourced contractor. And so, a part of that contract is obviously, there's a contract payment back to Council for the operation of that. So, from an accounting perspective, we call it a royalty, we call it a commission, or a share of that recovery. But what you're seeing there is that, is that payment back to Council for that, which is well above you doing. Do you always have a royalty from the day it started, or is it? Yes, through the Chair, yes. So, we have, this year is higher than previous years. There is an adjustment or a catch-up payment.
01:42:00 Still working through, because that just came through last month. Still working through the quantum of how far that correction payment goes back for. But it's not large, as you see, the variation year to date was $150,000. Well, it's going to increase on what the budget is, isn't it? Correct. It is, correct. It's going to increase the budget halfway through the year. Yes. So. The additional length of lines and the additional work that we did in enhancing the gas capture, is that a factor in this? I'd have to take that on notice, Councillor. I'm unsure what's driving it. That's why we're going to do some work to sort of just make sure we're clear about what's driving that. That royalty has been the initial capture date. Whether it's a correction or whether it's a result of improved process is what we're looking for. I'd like to thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. Also, you were the only last minute for royalty in this. Tom. Question. It could be, the royalty could be from the sale of 2,000 cubic metres of double grind as well. Through the Chair, no, it's to do with, it's purely to do with the. Just purely gas, okay. I have some questions.
01:43:00 Page 66, expenditure, mentioned similar operations of $479 over the year to date budget. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are doing further investigations and we're looking at whether or not some of that actually related to. It's predominantly relating to gravel roads and whether some of that costing should have related to flood projects that are funded by grants. So we're still in. Correct. So we're in the process of. So it could have funded elsewhere. But it's been captured in this. Yeah. We just, we just. So we're working hard. Pulling it apart. No, we're pulling it apart now because it's actually being accounted through our normal system, whereas it actually should be accounted through the QRA. Yeah, so the money, the money's, yeah, sorry. So it's showing up in these books and it should be showing up in the disaster management books. Okay. As such. Right. The insurance costs $50,000 over the budget.
01:44:00 Is that due to disaster response as well? Are we making more claims? No, that's just an increase in the premiums based on the whole of the, like the council, so council will contribute to the same generally as insurance premium. It's just the insurance premium increase. And we have historically had some larger claims alert should peter off his time. So this will be council statewide? Correct. So just to clarify. So we, through the budget process, obviously we're about to start our budget process for next year. Like all our cost increases and CPI, we make an, we make an assumption or an assessment on what we think our insurance premiums will increase by back in February. But we don't get notification of that until after the financial year has commenced. So it's increased higher than what we had assumed it would. And obviously a whole range of economic conditions are driving that broader insurance pool increase as Pauline alludes to. Final question. Page 78, the statement financial position. Our total assets or.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Total community equity from the end of 2022 is dropping from 1.3 million to 1.19, dropped to 174 million in the name of the assets. There's been an asset re-evaluation done. Could you just put that drop into context, please? What's, what's going on there? So in terms of the forecast, are you, sorry, just. Year end. So from the end of 2022 assets, total community equity, 1.3 billion, dropping down to 1.19 billion. So the difference of forecast. Yeah, this is forecast. Why is there regulation? Why are we predicting to lose about 170 million? I'm guessing that it would generally be around the revaluation of assets. At the end of the year, we did the re-evaluation at June. And when we were doing budget forecasts, that was through the April, May period. So the large, most of that should be relating to the fact that we had re-evaluations coming through for land and land.
01:46:00 And you also find the cash balances forecast as that 30th of June in the statement in front of you cashes to 98 million at the start of the year. We'll be down to 64 million by the end. And that's us using up all those. We talked about that restricted cash and grants and levies and loan funds. So it's us working back through that, that cash balance that we've. From cash in advance. So dropping cash, asset re-evaluations. There's some debt balances that are clearing up by the end of the year. When you build new assets, doesn't that top that figure up? It depends on how much are new and how much is renewal. Every year that figure gets reduced by the quarter of the year as well. So how's our depreciation going to be affected? I know that it's currently about 9.8 for half the year, 9.8 million.
01:47:00 So expecting 19.6 million in depreciation this year. Correct. So we would expect from a re-evaluation or the majority of last year's re-evaluation related to land, which doesn't have depreciation, that there would be an element of flow through for depreciation impact through the forecast. The biggest challenge for this year, councillors, will be that we are undertaking our roads and bridges. Comprehensive valuation at present. It's our biggest class of asset and it's probably the biggest in terms of materials, cost increases in the industry over the last 12 to 18 months. Concrete, Richmond asphalt, steel for the bridges. That's where we've seen the biggest price pressure. So it'll be, it's a watch the space as we go through the valuation exercise over the next few months. When is it last bound due to Trent? 2018, I think.
01:48:00 And how, that's, that's five years ago, how often is that, is that standard industry practice? So according to the accounting standards, it's up to, up to five years maximum. But what we do is every year we do what we call a desktop assessment. So we still look, so whilst we won't go through the entire asset base every year, put it at every five years, every year in the intervening, we will just look at what the price indices do every year and adjust the whole asset base up, valuation up accordingly. So to keep our assets in good nick, that means we like to spend at least the day of depreciation in renewals. Correct. So that means we'll be spending more on asset renewal this coming year. Correct. And that would be aligned to the fact that we're seeing price increases in our capital works program as well. You, the two should, the two should flow hand in hand. The higher the depreciation, the higher the value of your assets go up. That level of increase should then reflect in what you invest in your renewal and your assets. Yeah, just a question.
01:49:00 So that would suggest that the valuation of assets is, is based on replacement value, isn't it? Or is it just that they say, well, at a hundred percent of it, if it was built now and it was new, it would be this much and it's at seven years of depreciation, so it's that might be the combination of, of new replacement, but also based on current. Legislative standards. Like if you needed to bring it up to compliance and it wasn't, you'd need to adjust the value for that as well. In current methodology. So you might not replace this type of bridge and I've got, you might not replace a timber bridge with a timber bridge. You might use a concrete bridge as a replacement. So when we would value a timber bridge, if the intent was we'd replace that at the end of the year, we would value it and depreciate it accordingly so that we generated sufficient funds to replace that in 80 years time. So we'll pump the line. That's a great example. Yeah. Yep. We also take into account condition. Yeah. So every five years when we do that exercise of the revaluation, whilst we might have
01:50:00 a theoretical 80 year life on a bridge, um, we look at the actual condition of the bridge to understand whilst on paper, it might have an average of an 80 year life. It might well be that it can last 120 or 70 given its condition is so close to the coastline and there's, there's salt intrusion, et cetera. Yes. Um, thank you for the report. Given the conversation we've had around the table and the report on the climate change roadmap, where are we looking at, um, mitigating the shortfalls and the impacts of the cash, you know, holdings from the rebuild zone infrastructure from, you know, um, you know, the floods and fire and all that. How are we going to mitigate that and where are we measuring or projecting those costs that have come back to us that we may not currently have? How are we measuring that moving forward for that risk?
01:51:00 And that council is probably one of the biggest challenges we've faced with financial sustainability as a local government is. We can, we build cash reserves aside for immediate disaster requirements. So you'll see in our restricted cash, we do keep a few million dollars aside for immediate recovery. That's for the element of work. For example, from last year's March 22 flood recovery, there's an element that may not be covered by state. We fund that, but in terms of the broader issue of, um, long-term, um, intervention infrastructure, um, and the cost of mitigating impacts, that's where the, the important focus on financial sustainability is to be on the long-term, you look at your long-term financial planning and making sure you're identifying that need over 10, 20, 50 year term so that we can start building funding mechanisms for that now. And that could be grant funding. The vast majority, I imagine, would be looking at grant funding for those opportunities.
01:52:00 And, you know, second, probably last option would be borrowing to fund, which we, Ted, we don't, we don't use as our first option in general. Yeah. Um, I'm going to backtrack a little bit, Pauline. Um, you identified two extra potential risk that may impact cash flow, and that was the increase to CPIs, um, for 500, 600,000 intact. Yep. For this financial year. This financial year. And also a federal assistance grant, possibly another five, 600,000. Two questions, um, where are we going to get that money and will there be any changes made to budget spending to mitigate or resolve this loss? So one of the reasons it was highlighted is we're currently showing you a $3.4 million upside at this point in the year. Um, two million of our revenue will be from interest and a large particular proportion of that, uh, will go to fund those overruns that we expect to see.
01:53:00 So it'll be offset by the interest upside, which will be about $2 million for the year. And in terms of CPI, um, what is the forecast? Um, it's not expected to go up higher. Is that the information you're getting, Pauline, on that? We believe that December will most likely be at the height. It could be March, but it will start to decline after that. It will start to decline. But we're all waiting for the 25th of January to see what December quarter is. And while we've got you, can you give us an outline of the consultation process that we're proposing? Sure. Um, through, through the Chair, we're kicking the budget off. There's no rest for budget time. It seems to roll around sooner than you realise. Um, so we are commencing the budget process over the next month. So we'll be starting, obviously, internally with yourselves in terms of agreeing the process next week at a workshop. Um, we will have a live stream, um, on the key budget matters in March, um, which will
01:54:00 obviously, um, outline for yourselves and officers. And for the broader public, um, all key matters to take into account in the budget. We're aiming to have a draft budget together, aligned with your priorities coming out of the new corporate plan in April. Um, and similar to previous years, we'll use the, the back fortnight of April and the first few weeks of May to engage the community again in terms of the consultation process. It will involve a mix of, um, online survey, a face-to-face session. Um, and obviously a workshop for the public who want to attend as well. So we'll do some refining on the, on the process from last year in terms of the forums. But the general concept we're trying to achieve, achieve some reach through a couple of different mechanisms. We'll continue with that this year as well. Thank you again.
01:55:00 You will hear these every month and they're always, um. Very comprehensive, um, and thank you for aligning the concerns and, and the reasons and all, all of the, um, the questions that you have, um, I'm, I'm really comfortable when I'm at the table are with the explanations and the answers, um, going forward. Uh, there are some, there'll be some hard decisions going into budget. You talked about, you know, the, the increased costs of the resales and the renewals. So that potentially then impacts upon the new budget initiatives if, you know, um, so there will be some hard decisions to make. Um, and we obviously want to keep our, um, general rate and our rates as low as possible for our community. So thank you, um, because we'll be guided by this information over the next couple of months. Okay. That's right. I'll put it to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Pauline and Trent. Thank you. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, we now, uh, have some confidential matters that need to be discussed. I'd like to issue the emotional and confidential nature of the discussions
01:56:00 regarding an environmental limit proposed and proposed. Budget negotiations for the final, uh, property, the commercial property upgrade. And also, um, office administration steps. So if somebody wants to make a comment. Thank you, thank you.
120 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
135 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
150 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
165 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
180 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
195 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
210 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
225 minutes in ¶
03:51:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The meeting is now reopened to the public. We have some confidential items. We've got some motions that have come from that Council Jurisdict.
03:52:00 I'd like to move item 7 with an additional clause, item F, to investigate the opportunity of providing a public space for a public recreational space on the cleared land. And Joe perhaps could you read the entire motion? The entire motion is that Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer to the General Committee meeting dated 16 January 2023 and authorise the CEO to A, commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding the purchase of the property as detailed in the report. B, seek an independent valuation of the property reflecting current market price. C, if purchased by Council, place a nature refuge over the vegetative areas of the property. D, undertake rehabilitation actions on the land including removal and or demolition of unapproved structures. E, investigate resale of the property as a revolving fund following gazette of the nature refuge. A. Commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding the purchase of the property as detailed in the report. B. Seek an independent valuation of the property reflecting current market price. C. If purchased by Council, place a nature refuge over the vegetative areas of the property. D. Undertake rehabilitation actions on the land including removal and or demolition of unapproved structures.
03:53:00 And F, investigate the opportunity of providing public recreational space on the cleared land. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. No discussion on that. No discussion on that. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Next item please. This is the contract for Noosa Parade Corridor Upgrade Final Budget Approval. Councillor Lauritsen. I, Councillor Lauritsen, inform the meeting that I have declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I own the property on Noosa Parade. As a result of my conflict of interest I'll now leave the meeting room. While the matter is considered to be voted on. Councillor Lauritsen. It would be also appropriate to note at this stage that Councillor Lauritsen left the meeting in committee. In confidential. In confidential session. E. Investigate resale of the property as a revolving fund following gazette of the nature refuge. And F. Investigate the opportunity of providing public recreational space on the cleared land. And seconded by Councillor Stewart, no discussion on that. No discussion on that. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Next item please. This is the contract for Noosa Parade Corridor Upgrade Final Budget Approval. Councillor Lorentson. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I own the property on Noosa Parade. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Mr. Portman. It would be also appropriate to note at this stage that Councillor Lorentson has left the meeting in committee in confidential session as soon as he became aware of the conflict.
03:54:00 As soon as you have a word of conflict. In confidential session. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. We have a mover and a seconder please. I'm happy to leave. That's that. I'm happy to leave. Secretary of Council Jurisevic. No discussion? All in favour? Carried unanimously. We have a procedural motion that the finally done Office of Administration space procurement of the land will take up for the ordinary meeting dated 9th of January 2022. Three. Three. Three. All in favour? In confidential session. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No discussion? All in favour? Carried unanimously. We have a procedural motion that the finally done Office of Administration space could be turned off. The lane will take up to the ordinary meeting date of 9th of January 2023. I'm happy to move that. Seconded by the councillor.
03:55:00 Carried. That's the last item of today. Thank you, councillors, for your attendance. Thank you, Larry, thank you Speaker. That's carried. That's the last item for today. Thank you councillors for your attendance.