Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: I note that all councillors are in attendance, except Councillor Karen Finzel, who joins us online. Welcome, Karen. I also welcome all our guests in the gallery this evening. I'm going to have a number of minutes. Claire, we've just got to move that to Karen in attendance. I move that Karen attends. That includes the Section 254K, the Local Government Regulation. Councillor Finzel is approved to attend the meeting date 19 January 2023 via Microsoft Tennis. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. All in favour? Thank you. Thank you. In that case, thank you, Karen. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Item 2, minutes. Tonight, we need to ratify the two special meetings held in November last year, along with the December ordinary meeting. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting on 4 November? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Secondly, Councillor Wecklund. Thank you. All in favour? Amelia. All in favour? Yes. And Karen. Karen, do you know who that is? Yes. Karen. Karen, thank you. Can I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the special meeting held on 30 November 2022? Thank you, Councillor. All in favour? I'll second that.
00:01:00 All in favour? Karen. Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Carried unanimously. I have a mover for the confirmation of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 15 December 2022. Thank you, Councillor Wecklund. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Yes. Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you. Item 3. As noted in the agenda, I have a mayoral minute. After discussing with my colleagues, I'm going to move a different motion to that recorded in the agenda. Speaker 4: Can we have that up, please? Mayor Stewart: I move that Council request a report to be provided to the Council by Council's Infrastructure Department to the main ground of Council meetings in relation to the findings of the Maritime Safety Queensland Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study 2022, due for release in March 2023 by the State Government of Queensland pertaining to the New South Wales Regulatory Plan. Thank you, Councillor Wecklund. Thank you. Over the course of the last three to four months, most Councillors, if not all, have either met with or had discussions with representatives from the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance about their concerns surrounding a shortfall in boat ramps and in boat trailer parking across Noosa Shire.
00:02:00 The data that we have been provided with, which our boating alliance relies on, is the Maritime Safety Queensland Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study 2017. The study establishes demand. Based on boating registrations and population data, it makes informed suggestions as to how the established demand might be addressed. Our role at Council is to listen and to potentially advocate to the State Government for their support and funding for any future upgrades or renewals. This is a matter for Maritime Safety Queensland, but Council can play a supporting role regarding advocacy. We have done it before on many an occasion regarding various issues within our community. The Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Study. Coming up to six years old, shows that in 2017, we had 4,029 registered boat users in our Shire, 92.8% of these were trailer boats.
00:03:00 The study, which was particular to each LGA, cited key issues for Noosa Shire Council. The primary issues raised in the report by stakeholders around access to recreational boating facilities in the Noosa Shire Council centred on overcrowding and capacity, safety. It also noted the fact that Noosa Shire had a shortfall in boat ramp facilities and a lack of boat trailer parking was highlighted as an issue. During the past few months, most councillors, as I said, have met with or spoken with the Alliance and have heard the concerns raised by our boating and fishing community regarding the above. Added to those already stated, concerns around equity of access around boating infrastructure and ramps for our disabled and elderly and those with limited mobility have been relayed. Similarly, lack of boat trailer parking has been identified as a concern, not only from this group, but the community has also cited concerns. As recently as this week, we received an email from a resident regarding boat trailer parking taking up car spaces and creating congestion.
00:04:00 This is not uncommon feedback from our residents. The data that the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance is relying upon is from a 2017 report. Since that time, and only recently, another study has been completed. The Maritime Safety Queensland Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study 2022 has been completed and is due to come to our council around March 2023. This is crucial, updated and necessary data. I am also advised that when we receive the draft demand study report for Noosa Shire, we will not only be able to see the fresh demographic and statistical analysis for 2022, but also the forecast out for 10 and more years. From correspondence with MSQ over the past few days, data provided by Queensland Transport and Main Roads notes that boat registrations in Noosa Shire as of 31 December 2022 are at 4,732, which surpasses both the projected number for 2031 of 4,522 registrations and similarly the projected number for 2036 at 4,658 registrations,
00:05:00 thus increasing the current shortages cited. From email correspondence, data provided by Maritime Safety Queensland when requesting data, the following has been advised. What we do know is that for all of the major councils, like yours, the predictions for now from 2017 are not consistent. We know the reason. The COVID pandemic caused a huge increase in sales of new boats, and because many people took up boating for the first time, and boat is such a desirable leisure pastime, we expect many of those first-time COVID boaties to stay boating and to spread permanently its popularity. When published is a genuine resetting upwards of base community need for public boating facilities. That was on an email. It is imperative that we obtain the 2022 study and the data it contains to fully understand and appreciate the implications for our Shire. The best way to do this and through the appropriate channels is in a report to council from staff once the results of the study have been processed, qualified and evaluated.
00:06:00 We always say we need to make decisions based on data and facts and the most up-to-date information we have available. The report I'm requesting from council officers will provide just that. Once we receive it, we can then debate the best way forward. As I said, our role is one of advocacy. The decision of where, how and when is a matter for the state government, but we can, as I said, play, if we choose, a supporting role. Speaker 4: I'll just speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One of the things we can do is look at demand and respond to it. The other thing we can do is look at what we want the river to look like and plan for it. So the state government has the responsibility of looking at the demand for boating facilities.
00:07:00 Council has the role of actually identifying where those facilities go. They'll provide recommendations. But we have the responsibility of saying yes or no to some of those suggestions. For me, it's really important to understand, yes, there's been an increase in boat usage as a result of COVID. There's also been an increase in cars coming to Newstown. Are we saying that we should meet that demand? No, we're doing a destination management plan to say how do we stop all these cars? How do we stop the congestion? So what we need to look at when this report comes up, it's not how do we meet demand, it's how do we make the experience of boating a safer and more pleasant one for our locals, and whether that requires more regulation to ensure that facilities are first given to locals, and then whether the visitor demand is something we need to regulate more.
00:08:00 It's not about just meeting demand. It's about, is there sites away from the congested area of the river estuary, one of the most congested river estuaries in the state, that would be suitable for launching a boat by our locals? And do we make that purely for locals? It's not just about demand. And it's not just to say government. It is, at the end of the day, if it's going to occur in areas that require access across land that we have trusteeships, our call. Thanks, Councillor. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment. It reads, as is, but added to that after Noosa local government error it says... And as regard to...
00:09:00 That has regard to, and has regard to, community concerns and our loss of public space and increased traffic on the Noosa River. Councillor Lorentson: Is that on the Noosa River? On the Noosa River. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question of the mover. We're asking the staff to make a report and this has regard to, would it be better to say, which addresses community concerns and loss of public space?
00:10:00 Councillor Wilkie: So, the council has requested... So, the council has requested a report in relation to the findings of Maritime Safety Queensland Baiting Facilities Demand Forecast and Study 2022, but also, I want this report also to have regard to the community concerns, sorry, also have regard to the community concerns received about loss of public space and increased traffic on the Noosa River. I think we're both saying the same thing, but I just don't have regard to it. So, I'm talking about the report that the council's producing also has regard to these concerns that we've received. So, I'm talking about the report that the council's producing also has regard to these concerns that we've all received from the community about the loss of public space that may flow from increased infrastructure and infrastructure that may increase traffic on the Noosa River, or attract increased traffic to the Noosa River. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, in your view, that word does mean that the report will address those issues? Councillor Wilkie: I'm asking that the council report not just be about the findings of MSQ's study, but also has regard to the issues that the council has addressed.
00:11:00 Concerns that members of this community has expressed about loss of public space if infrastructure upgrades are proposed, and also the increase in boat traffic on the Noosa River, which may flow from increased infrastructure. Nice. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question. Mayor Stewart: The background to the mayoral minutes says the infrastructure is delivered and maintained by the state government, and while Noosa Council does not have an appetite for new facilities, which would then go to the fact that we're not actually looking at any impact on public space, it's actually just looking at the renewal upgrade of our current facilities. Does that negate that, or is that because the background says it does not have an appetite for new facilities, do you feel it should be undertaken to assess the most suitable upgrade sites, rather than infringing upon green space? Councillor Wilkie: I can answer that. The reason why I've done that is specifically because we've all received emails from the
00:12:00 community, from several community members, concerned that this whole review is going to result in new infrastructure being built, near Denella Bridge, for example, or an expansion of existing facilities, which may impinge on green space, public urban space. So we're not going to be telling MSQ what to do. This is a report on MSQ's findings, and also the feedback that we've received from the community for consideration. If it's going to be a council report, I believe it needs to also have regard to feedback received from this community about the impacts this infrastructure may have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll also take that down, because I think I understand what the Mayor's saying, but the amendment as moved is not a direct negative of the motion, so it's quite... Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, I'll speak to it. It would be good to get the report on MSQ's...
00:13:00 ...forecasting study, but also, just as a balance to that, so we get a complete picture about what the future might hold, also, if it's going to be a council document, I believe it should also have regard to the strong views expressed to all of us via many emails over the last few weeks about concerns about increased traffic on the Noosa River, and also what new infrastructure may be built, where it may be built. There's been a lot of discussion about that. There's strong concerns about preserving public open space, and not just expanding and taking away public open space. So, I'm not saying... I'm just saying that this amendment is intended to make sure that the information that comes before this council is not just focused on the findings of MSQ, but has a more balanced outlook and perspective.
00:14:00 Speaker 5: Can I ask... Madam Mayor, without willing to enter the debate, I would just like to ask you to say, just advising that it would be difficult for the council officers to go under the community concern without having a mechanism to take the report to them. So, through yourself, Madam Mayor, and Councillor Wilkie, for your consideration, would it be that... And that the council report also has regard to community concerns about the loss of public space and increased traffic on the Noosa River through the Have Your Say function? MSQ's... MSQ's website. It might just be one that we prepare the report, we put it on Have Your Say, and then we can understand those community concerns. It would just be difficult for the officers to prepare the report... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's...
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... Mayor Stewart: MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's, who use that as their segregate information. But you would understand that this is not present in our report right? MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... MSQ's... Councillor Wilkie: MSQ's... MSQ's... Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, all that I would just say is that look, it's in either or. We could prepare a report, understand community feedback, then council has all the information all at once to be able to make the decision, or we could prepare the report, provide to the council, and then council then, there is a recommendation for further consultation.
00:16:00 So really, it could be a two-step process, or it could be all-encompassing, really, for council to decide there, but I just think to get the information, we need a mechanism, would just be my advice. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, so the other way forward could also be the maritime safety, Queensland Repairation and Loading Facilities Demand Forecasting Study is put on the web page first, and we get feedback on that through the all-safe function. Then when the report comes to the council, we'll have regard to both the feedback on that report and the report itself. Would that be the final? Speaker 5: I think so, councillor Wilkie, through the chair. I think that is a good way as well, that that report is received in March and published publicly by the state government.
00:17:00 That's put on the have your say, and we have that for a period of time. We have some media and committee meetings. We have some community engagement around that to know that that's why that's there. We receive that information, and that then provides the background for the report to come at a future meeting of council. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question to the CEO? Just for purposes of clarity, I've understood that there has been some previous investigations in terms of suitable locations for trailer parks, under the Noosaville foreshore land use master plan 2018-2028. Would it be prudent if we're looking at community concerns, loss of space criteria, I'm imagining that that information was also considered as part of the Noosaville foreshore land use master plan 2018-2028.
00:18:00 Speaker 5: Through the mayor, council, absolutely it would be, but this is a very specific report that the state government has put together based on their future demand analysis. The other reports that we have as a council will absolutely provide a background and information. Speaker 5: It is important for the consideration that is before the council that the most up-to-date information is there, and I know that officers will look at previous work when they are preparing the report, but this will provide the most up-to-date information and be the best report for decision-making purposes, taking into consideration the work that council has already done. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand where the CEO is coming from, but in a second I wouldn't support the operationalisation of the motion,
00:19:00 mainly because the fact is that we have a wealth of, of community input on these topics that we can draw from. It may be appropriate to do some short-term input from the community to get a current gauge, but we have probably one to three thousand submissions on the Noosaville foreshore master plan and the Giraffes Noosa River plan, and we have previous history in this area that there is really clear issues to be addressed. But I'm not opposed to staff going and trying to get some more input, but I don't think how we do, how the staff do the report is necessary to be part of the motion, and as I'm sorry we've moved to seconds, I don't think it needs to be amended. Mayor Stewart: So you're not supporting this? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, I'm supporting the amendment. The CEO made a suggestion that the amendment could be, the wording of the amendment could be changed. I don't think there's a need to.
00:20:00 Okay. Speaker 5: And councillors, my advice is only for consideration of you at the table. Council makes the decision, so that advice is provided, but Councillor Stockwell absolutely correct and right. Council makes the decision on this matter. Speaker 5: Our officers will provide advice only. Councillor Lorentson: I'll switch to the amendment. I'm happy to support the amendment. I think as Councillor Wilkie indicated, we all have received quite a lot of support. A lot of emails from residents concerned and confused about recent media release. And I think in respect to their concerns, I think this just shows that we are listening and that we will follow due process and comprehensive community consultation that considers community concerns, including loss of public space and increased traffic on the Noosa River, addresses those concerns. So I'm happy to support.
00:21:00 Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Question, Councillor Wilkie. With the river plan, it's been going round and round for really quite some time. And because I think it's so big and vast, not much has really moved on it. And I was appreciative of the mayor's motion, because it's a small bite. It's just, it's a clear cut, small report, where then, you know, does your amendment kind of bring it into this much bigger report that's already been reported several times over, including the river plan, and then all this happened since then. Is it adding a much bigger layer to the smaller bite that that mayor proposes? Councillor Wilkie: I don't believe so at all. I believe it's, the mayor's motion focuses on the findings of the Maritime Safety Regulatory Completing Facility Samara Forecasting Service.
00:22:00 So there will be some recommendations that come from that, but the community opinion on those findings have to be taken into account when the council considers the report that comes before it on that. So that can't just be seen in isolation from the impacts that may flow from that in terms of how the community may respond. So it's basically saying just because MSQ may come up with certain findings doesn't mean that this council has to adopt them, that there are other considerations. So I don't believe it blows it out and do a broader piece of work. I think this community will be having its say on the findings of that study anyway, and if the council's going to consider a report about that, it's going to be a report that will come up with a possible way forward, or it needs to have the community concerns before us when we're discussing that, and that's what this intends it to do.
00:23:00 So the report that comes before us just won't be focused on MSQ's views, it'll be focused on the views of our community members as well. Speaker 4: Can we just get your time? Yeah. You can go. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, I was sort of trying to get my head around it. Councillor Jurisevic: That was all. What I've said, I'm happy to support the amendment as it stands, because I think it's I'm just reading here about what the Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecast Study will encompass and really it says that the outcomes of the 2022 study and associated community and agency engagement will provide a solid basis to guide investment of funding for recreational boating facilities over the next five to ten years. So that gives us an idea of where the state needs to spend, and this is across the entire state, so it would be interesting to see what sort of outcomes that report does suggest and I think it's perfect that we take in the community's views that we've already attained through various means over the past processes that we've put in place with regard to what feedback comes out of this data.
00:24:00 Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to support this. In fact, there's always the intention to consult the community. I mean, our boating and fishing alliance are all members of our community, our residents are members of our community, and it's a balance, and that's what we have to be really mindful of, a balance in everything we do. So the intention of this initial mayoral minute was to seek a report because, as you said, Tom, we can spend a lot of time on this, but if we take a small bite and we can expedite things and we can get that report, we can act on accurate and updated data. Now, absolutely, we should take into account our community's views, their opinions, but we need the data first, and that's all this is saying, let's get the data and then we can make those informed decisions and take into account everything, and as you said, Councillor Stockwell, this is our community, it's our decision, Maritime Queensland, though, if we do need the funding to upgrade and not impact further green space, we'll be asking them to save our ratepayer money, we'll be asking them to fund it, expand infrastructure, we'll be leading on them for that
00:25:00 funding, and that will be an advocacy role. That's a but, because we don't know what the findings of this report say, and we don't know what community sentiment ultimately will be, but this is a good first step, and I'm happy to support the amendment because it was always the intention to have all of the community, as I said, the whole Kitten Convertible, everyone here involved in this. Thank you. Frank, would you like to go next? No, thank you. Okay. We'll put the amendment, oh, Karen, sorry, I beg your pardon. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Look, I support the motion and the mayoral minute.
00:26:00 I think it's timely. We've got the data from council. I'm looking forward to the report. As always, we're very interested in what our community has to say and their voice matters, so I support this, and I think it's come in a timely manner to be able to address the concerns and issues and get the facts of the data, which, as always, informs their decision-making, so thank you to everyone who's brought this to the table tonight. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Karen. All right, we'll put it to a vote. Ellen Faber? Unanimous. Thanks, Karen. That brings us back. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. That forms part of the standard of the motion. I, myself and Councillor Stockwell, have spoken to this. Anyone else like to talk to it? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just follow up on what we were saying there? Any proposal that's put forward by MSQ, which would go to either new facilities or any upgrades, I would strongly advocate that those go out for community consultation anyway, to see what the feedback of our community is.
00:27:00 We know now that we get a lot of complaints about boat cable parking, whether that is a good idea or not. How that would be managed with any upgrades or any additional facilities would have to be a major consideration for this Council going forward, and for any Council going forward, because I've seen the complaints are fast and furious with regard to boat trailer parking now. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Councillor Joe. Speaker 4: Anyone else? Councillor Wilkie: I thank the Mayor for moving this motion. Even though it is a State Government issue, we as the Council are very concerned about this. I think it is important that the Council are perceived to be and will be a key stakeholder in this. So this puts it on the record that we are interested and we are prepared to play our part. So thank you, Mayor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, everyone, for the support. I think we've reached a really good place, and you're exactly right.
00:28:00 Our role in this is advocacy. It's to listen to our community. It's to get that feedback. And it's to really act and advocate on our most updated information in consultation with all of our community and all our stakeholders. So I think it's a good step. It brings it to light and brings it to the forefront. And we can look forward to the report from Council officers and appreciate their work in this space too and all that's being done. So thank you. Put the matter to a vote. All in favour? Announce. Thank you. Item four, petitions, councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. I have a petition from Noosa Waters residents. It's to Noosa Shire Council about the Seagull Park playground placement. The issue, we the petition signatories submit that the current playground siding against the back of the park, removed from easy observance and surrounded by trees and bushes, which provide hiding places for antisocial activities is inappropriate.
00:29:00 Siding unfairly discriminates against particular ratepayers where a fairer and more equitable solution exists. That siding is having an enormous social, emotional, physical and economic toll on the lifestyle and amenity of neighbouring residents. That our property's values are being severely negatively impacted by the proposed changes to the existing playground. The parks attracting increasingly large groups day and night. The drug paraphernalia, broken windows, public alcohol consumption and constant noise disturbance, public urination. I've got some of them. Resulting issues of its current placement away from public scrutiny. That no current or future impact survey was conducted or consultation of affected ratepayers occurred at any stage of the process prior to commencement of works on this future impact or current upgrade of the playground. We request that the Seagull Park playground and shelter be relocated to a central location within the park, taking advantage of existing street lighting and council bin. That the existing playground artificial mound behind affected properties be lowered, such as that it removes current overview of properties.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 That the original small bird habitat or medium to low shrubs removed from the playground and mound of creation be reinstated, thus providing a property buffer and restoring ratepayers lifestyle and amenity. And I ask that this be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Can I second that? Speaker 4: Thank you, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: No, I think it's seconded already. Mayor Stewart: All in favour? Anonymous. Yes, thank you. We have no notified motions, no presentations, and there are no deputations. We do have some of our community members here for public question time. We will be moving that forward now because the last item in our agenda is a confidential session, so just to ensure there's no waste of time for our public gallery and also the people who are presenting to us,
00:31:00 we'll move that forward now. So Spencer, I believe, would you like to come up? Well done. Speaker 1: Can someone video me, please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're on video. You're on video. He has got up to mission. Is the meeting happy? I don't have an objection. Mayor Stewart: I don't have an objection. Your objection is on video. Can our media officer do this? Our media officer can do this. I'll do it. So we have two submissions to public question time, and the first is from Maxine and Spencer Hitchin. Maxine and Spencer, welcome. You have been here before, so you know the lay of the land. If you'd like to use the lectern, our Director of Environment and Sustainable Development, Leo Jensen, is here to answer your questions. So thank you and welcome. Speaker 1: Hello, everyone. Okay. So this year, I have watched a number of presentations.
00:32:00 I have watched, along with kids like me and my community, the destruction of the Fussy Bum or Glossy Black Platoon Forest on Lot 6, which is almost 0.8 hectares of grass tree called Sunrise Beach. The glossies were meeting on this site before, during, and have returned to this site since the faded bee trees were destroyed, highlighting the significance of this habitat. Children like me and many adults are very sad that this habitat has been destroyed and do not want to see the 5 hectares, lot 9, glossy faded bee tree forest destroyed. My glossy friend, Fledge, was left at grass tree court by his parents, thinking that it was safe. And Glen Locke said, I'm sorry. The tree was destroyed. I watched him calling and calling for his trees.
00:33:00 Fledge kept coming to feed on his vapoured trees on Lot 6 and would dive down towards the ground, calling and calling for his trees. Mayor Stewart: Is there a question? Is there a question? Identification is really different. Yes. This is a question. This is a question. So is there a point... Speaker 4: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Normally, it's just a direct question. And that's what we have our staff here that are able to answer. So, Spencer, if you'd like to move straight to your question. Last time you did the... I think it may have been deputation last time. No, I think we deputated this. I said it back around to Ella and then we asked the question last time. Okay, well, I think that it's the end. Could we skip to the question? Can you finish the question? Speaker 4: Because it is almost finished. Mayor Stewart: Okay, sure. Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. On a rainy day, Bob found a pledge on a busy road near the trees he had been feeding on.
00:34:00 This is a direct impact on development. We have to save forests like Grass Tree Court, where our juveniles and fledglings are safe while their parents teach them how to survive and when they first set up on their own. I would like the youth like me to be listened to and not ignored. It makes us feel sad when we see so much habitat destroyed and no one is listening to our voices. I would like to appeal that the adult decision makers of the church and council who have my generations and beyond the future in their hands to revisit Grass Tree Court development approval now the bosses have been listed federally under the EPBC Act. I would like to ask... Noosa Council, on behalf of my generation, our community and almost now 75,000 people,
00:35:00 which is now 75,000 people who have signed my petition, the Noosa Council has still been prepared to enter into discussions with the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust Queensland about a land swap and if so, can you please contact them on our behalf for a meeting to... I would like to allow our voices to be heard. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Spencer. Mayor Stewart: And Leo will answer that question, Spencer. Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam Mayor. Spencer, thanks for your question. Council staff have previously contacted Uniting Care regarding the possible land swap. Uniting Care have advised Council that it's not practical given their significant investment into the current design and approvals that have been secured for the site. The lack of vegetation-free land available and the existing church congregation who are an important component of the precinct and who would be unfairly disrupted if they had to relocate.
00:36:00 Speaker 4: This is another question. Can you just give that one? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mayor Stewart: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The United Church in Australia property trust Queensland to provide evidence of how they can meet these conditions, which I can't explain now, and keep our community safe in a catastrophic fire like the fires in 2019 and 20 and the other one, the other condition, is related to the 568 glossy black cork 2b trees that have actually been planted. As part of the condition on lot 6 and lot 9, and we don't believe that they are able to do that when the offset site is 3 hectares and 500 trees in a batch on that offset site. So how 5.8 hectares can have 568 trees planted on there, we'd like to know how we can do that.
00:37:00 Speaker 6: Thanks Madam Mayor. Thanks Maxine for your question. Look, the concerns raised are noted. Council's willing to contact Uniting Care seeking a further response to your question at hand. I'd like to note and please note that the application for landscaping for lot 6 and lot 9 have not been lodged yet, to date. This is not a breach of the conditions, with the landscaping works required to be approved and undertaken prior to the commencement of the use. In terms of your concern that the developer may be unable to satisfy the ratio of planning on the site, this will be addressed at the time of the operation. This is an operational works application for landscaping. Timing of any future lodgement is unknown at the moment. Mayor Stewart: Thank you so much for coming in and Spencer as a mum, you are my son, Stephen like that I've been very proud, so well done.
00:38:00 Thank you very much. Peter Wilkinson is, good evening Peter, I believe you've got a couple of questions. Speaker 4: Peter Wilkinson is, good evening Peter, I believe you've got a couple of questions. Mayor Stewart: Yes you've got a couple of questions for us. Speaker 4: Welcome. Speaker 3: Sir, can we get straight to the question? Speaker 4: Yes please. Speaker 3: The new low energy LED towers installed as part of the Noosa Parade corridor upgrade look identical to the base model of the towers installed by ENE Hub at various locations across Queensland. Has Noosa Council partnered with ENE Hub, Brookfield infrastructure to installed smart Smart streetlights, a.k.a. smart poles, or smart nodes throughout the Noosa Parade Corridor operates in age one. Thanks, Peter. Larry, can you go to Larry here? Speaker 2: Sure. I can answer that question for you. It's been prepared for me. Council has installed energy-efficient LED streetlight luminaires, which are standard Energex-approved units and do not have smart capability.
00:39:00 These luminaires are installed on Energex standard light poles, which are painted black. Council has not partnered with E&E Hub. Speaker 3: Excellent. So my second question, which is just extended, is just asking, will the E&E Hub Brookfield infrastructure be contracted to install smart poles in stages two and three? I take that's not the case. Speaker 2: Yes, so Council has not contracted E&E Hub to install smart poles in stages two or three of the Noosa Parade Corridor upgrades. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. Thank you for that. Speaker 2: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Peter. Thank you for taking the time to come in. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Leo, for your assistance. We are now up to item eight on page five of the agenda, which is the consideration of committee reports. We've had no planning and environment or services and organisations for the meetings this month, so we go straight to the general committee recommendations to Council, which start on page five of our agenda.
00:40:00 Item one, planning applications decided by delegated authority report November 2022. Council aligns to move by first hearing. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, call the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in regards to item 11 of the delegated authority report due to my personal relationship with the African Bank and the Bank of Man League of our family of friends. We have 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 while the matter is considered and voted on.
00:41:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wilkie: So, of course, we have a seconder for that place and all the delegated authority decisions will be accepted. Seconded by Councillor Lecce. Councillor Jurisevic: On the point of referencing all the minutes of the meeting, do we need to note that the chair was handed over to Councillor Wilkie? It's noted there. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, all in favour? That's unanimous. That's carried. Thank you, Clare. Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stewart. Sorry, Councillor Stewart. No, I think I saw that that was the way you were going to say that, Clare.
00:42:00 Speaker 4: Thanks, Clare. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We are now to report to the General Committee on page 5 of the agenda. MCU 21 slash 0212, Representations Decision Notice for Dwelling House at 66 CU Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Councillor Lorentson: I'm Councillor. Councillor Lorentson and I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as Deborah Reid, a submitter to the application, is a personal friend. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Ms. Reid. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Stewart: I move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes in this matter because Councillor believes that Councillor Lorentson does not have a close personal relationship with the submitter, Ms. Reid, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
00:43:00 I'll second it. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Wait a minute. So, all in favour? Yes. Karen? Karen's hand's up. Yes, thank you. Can I have a mover for the recommendation on page 6 of the agenda, please? I'll move it. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, thank you. All in favour? Councillor Wilkie: I don't wish to speak. Mayor Stewart: I'm sorry, good luck. All in favour? Carrie Janisley. Karen's hand is up. Thank you, Karen. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think Councillor Finzel has to verify her voices. Mayor Stewart: Karen, could you verbally say your vote, please? Your mic is on, Councillor Finzel. Your mic is muted.
00:44:00 Thank you. Thank you. Item three. SSL 20. Oh, sorry. No, no, he's here. Oh. Sorry. She didn't leave. She didn't leave. She didn't leave. It's been very quiet. I am sure. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Mayor Stewart: Sorry. Sorry. SSL 22 1856, Planning and Environment Court Appeal number D174 of 2022, application for short-stay living under local law number one, subordinate local law number one, administration 2015 for 52 Duncan's Lane, Noosa North Shore, item four, MCU 22 0067, Representations and Development Permit for material. Material change of use, a short-term accommodation at 401 Sunrise Road, Team B1, Tassel, Tewantin. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to move an alternative motion, and that is, in summary, having the guests limit
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 to eight, not changing it to 10, and so I'll go down and read condition five, and the reasons being that there has not been an acoustic monitoring program. Okay. Speaker 4: I believe that the change from 8 to 10 guests is not supported. Councillor Wegener: It's a 4 bedroom house and when we check the internet and the house is for sale, it's clear that it says it's a 4 bedroom house and hence there should be 8 people, 2 people per bedroom. If we say that there could be 4 bedrooms and 10 people in there, well then you're setting a precedence where you don't limit the amount of people by the amount of bedrooms and we
00:46:00 don't need to go down that route of having more people than bedrooms in the house. Second, I think this is a step too far endangering the amenity of the surrounds. First the staff gave a huge break to this property. When they waived the 4 hectare limit and said well we'll waive that and you can do this because it's only a 1.9 hectare site. So that in itself compromised the amenity for the surrounding residents. Second, the amenity, gosh I'm so sorry you guys. Housing choice, when we look at amenity and we look at short term accommodation, we look at the higher order parts of our town plan and when we're looking at housing choice,
00:47:00 the strategic outcomes for housing choice are 333N, neighborhoods of permanent housing are protected from short term accommodation that would impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents. So we're already hedging that and going against the town plan by hedging that by giving them a 1.9 hectare site. When we look at the business code, the business code says the same thing. It's all about amenity. Then when we look at the rural residential code, it's all about amenity as well. And within the rural residential code, this is a business, businesses are impact assessable. So it has to be an impact assessable application. Within the rural residential code. And the impact of a short term accommodation and by raising the amount of people there is the amount of noise filtering out through the trees to the properties which are very
00:48:00 nearby. And if this was a business like making skateboards or any other business, you would have to be impact assessable. You'd have to be at those monitoring how much the sound and how much the sound resonates through the area. That would just be a part of the rural residential code impact assessable application. We're here because it's a short term accommodation. That isn't happening. And I don't understand why we're not actually listening down below how noisy it is. Because we know that noise goes down and there looks like there's a beautiful outlook, but there's a lot of trees, but a lot of people underneath those trees down there. So due to the lack of acoustic monitoring and the fact that there's only four bedrooms in this, I do not see that the fact that, or see the recommendation of letting two more guests stay there is supportive. Thank you. I've just got a question.
00:49:00 It might be good for the director to be at the table. Speaker 4: Oh, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The first question was in the statement made in the opening address that we went against the town plan because we allowed, we approved this on less than four days. Can you just clarify if that was a true statement, whether the four hectares is a performance outcome or whether it is just an acceptable solution and they meet the performance outcomes? Speaker 6: Thanks, Councillor. It's more of an acceptable outcome. So the officers have assessed the application on its merits and you have the recommendation before you. So it's more of an acceptable outcome. Councillor? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I follow up on that? On that point? It would be co-accessible if the property was four hectares or larger, but because it's under four hectares, it becomes impact accessible. Is that correct? Speaker 6: Correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And another question. From memory in this particular application, there was differences between the application
00:50:00 lodged. In terms of my understanding, from my recollection, it was actually applied for eight, but the plans showed a facility for 10. And in the approval, did that plan that showed the 10 become an approved plan? And is there any legal complications if the conditions say one thing and the approved plan say another? Speaker 6: Thanks for your question, Councillor. Yes, that's correct. So the plans did show, sorry, the officers assessed the application, but the conditions were based on the plans. So the approved plan of development, which showed the number being up to 10. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll talk to the amendment, and I'll repeat what I said at the general meeting on Monday. My issue with this application, and I didn't approve for an STA when it first came to Council.
00:51:00 I didn't approve the amendments on Monday. As the Mayor and Tom, we all didn't approve of this. My issue is the number of people. I repeat, the issue that we're experiencing, the complaints we're experiencing in terms of short-term accommodation and the issues of noise and harley houses. It's my opinion that I believe 10 people allows the opportunity for misuse of a property. And I think we have a responsibility as a Council to mitigate that opportunity for misuse of a property. 10 people is potentially three families. When a family sits at a dinner table, it's a dinner. When two families sit together, it's still a quiet dinner party. When there's three, it's a noisy dinner party.
00:52:00 And I just think that approving 10 people when we had an opportunity to approve eight is simply not listening to what the community has been telling us. My position and I agree with Councillor Widner, but I won't support the amendment because I don't support the approval. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Another question, if we go down this route, do we need any other wording to suggest on the long perhaps on the lines of, and that print plans be amended accordingly? Speaker 6: Thanks Councillor. That will probably assist the situation so that there's no interference. So it's all congruent and consistent. Mayor Stewart: Just to confirm, and just to confirm voting protocols, and this is a question for you, Larry. The outcome of this amendment will form part of the standard motion.
00:53:00 No, this is a motion. Oh, it's a motion. Sorry, it's an amendment to the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: No, he's brought the motion as a whole with the changes from what... We've got the motion as a whole. Councillor Lorentson: He's just moved a new motion. Mayor Stewart: So once we vote on this, this is the final. This forms part of the original motion and we vote on that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move an amendment. And I think it's had a D. No, no, this makes sense. We've got a C, D, and we've got a C in. Sorry. So after B, we've got a C. Mayor Stewart: Yes. We've already got a C. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's going to become D. Mayor Stewart: Is that an item D be added? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, an item C be added and C becomes D. The fourth item would be an item C. Yeah, C has to be the last thing. Okay. And C to read that approved plans be amended
00:54:00 to reflect... Condition five. Speaker 4: What do you mean by that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: At the moment, from the advice from staff, we have a conflict between the number of beds and the people shown in the approved plan versus the number of approved conditions. This just makes it that the approved plans reflect that there's only eight people there. So there's no... Mayor Stewart: So it doesn't stop at your condition? You're supporting the original intention of Councillor Wegener's motion, which was to change it from 10 to eight. Is that correct? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this just tidies up the loose ends. So it just says, the condition says this thing, and if need be, the approved plans need to be amended to show that there's only eight people there. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a couple of questions on that basis. Leo, can we post date of approval with a change from the original approved plans to amend
00:55:00 from 10 to eight? I think Ryan asked that, but I didn't quite get the gist of the question. Speaker 6: Thanks for the question, Councillor. Yes. As part of these negotiations before you, this is effectively what we're discussing, is negotiations that the applicants come back. By amending the plan, you will achieve consistency, as mentioned, that if council decides that it's going to be up to eight persons on site, it would be advantageous and advantageous to amend the plan to reflect the . Councillor Jurisevic: As long as we do have the authority to amend the plan, that's the first part. The second question I've got, I'm wondering whether that's actually necessary, given that this becomes impact assessable for the use as an STA, not as a residential dwelling as such, but as an STA use. Being impact assessable, do we not have the right to then condition the uses and the impact
00:56:00 with respect to that? Speaker 6: I think if I understand the question correctly, you have the ability to be able to condition it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I clarify? I think you'll find there will be other conditions that refer to approved plans and that's what's being reviewed. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: That's all. Thanks. I just need to clarify something now. The initial approved plans were for eight people. Correct? Yes. That's what I was looking for. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 6: Councillor, the initial plan of development that went through with the approval actually indicate it could have been interpreted that there were up to 10 persons on the plan of
00:57:00 development. So there were a set of bunks in one room that added the extra two. Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Didn't the applicant initially apply for eight people? Speaker 6: Correct. The original application was for eight. As part of the assessment, the officers condition up to 10, given that it reflected what was on the plan of development. Councillor Wilkie: And when council approved this application that first came to us in August, it was for eight people. Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the answer to that question, I'll second the amendment. Second. Speaker 4: Thank you, Joe. I'm waiting for a second. Can the councillor stop for a while? No. No? Mayor Stewart: Okay. Would anyone like to talk to the amendment, which is and just conclude? No. I think change your condition from 10 to 8. No, we're just talking about my admission. So yeah, which is... She was talking about this. So the approved plans you mentioned. Yeah. Three as to condition five. To a maximum of eight, yes. Which is what I said. Yeah.
00:58:00 Which I just said to the councillor. Right, Martin, are you... Councillor Wegener: No, this is exactly what I asked for, it seems. Yes. So I don't need to say anything. Thank you. It's terrible. Yes. Yeah, why not, I could get you down. Speaker 4: Do any of you have something to put in? Mayor Stewart: Would you like to close? I can't argue with anything. Can't argue with something, okay. We'll put an actual vote, all in favour? Yes. Yes, that is Councillor Stockwell, Wegener. Sorry, is that not... All by agreement. Wilkie, Stewart, Finzel, and that forms part of the original motion. And the original motion, we have Tom, he's the one that's spoken to. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to that. The decision before this council at the moment is whether or not we support imposing conditions
00:59:00 on an approval that already exists. We have to make the best of this. We have to make the best of this to minimise the impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood and reducing the number of persons from 10 to 8 will do that. Ensuring that the outdoor areas are not used beyond 9pm will help that. And ensuring that the driveway is sealed. So to minimise impact noise and dust on neighbours. I support that too. There, what we're being asked to make a decision on, whether we support the imposition of these conditions or not, I do. I do. Thank you, Councillor Wegener, for bringing this matter, this change before us. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Jo. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll support the changes, well, the conditions, but also with the changes that Councillor Wegener raised. There was much debate over the Act 10 matter here. But given that this is in a rural residential zone, under the four hectares, makes an impact
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 accessible, means we have the right to determine how that impact is managed. And what we have here is restricting the impact. I mean, whilst there may be, I mean, you can put two sets of bunks in every bedroom, four bedrooms by four, 16 people could stay here if that was what was brought up there. I don't agree with that, I think the nature of the activity, as an SDA, should be restricted as where possible and that two people to a bedroom is a fair number to have in a four bedroom home. And I agree that the number of guests limited to eight is a fair impact manageable number. It's a reasonable condition that we are placing on this SDA and I'll support their conditions as they have voted. Mayor Stewart: I'm really happy with it. It has moved from 10 to eight. I think that's far more in line with residential amenity. But I'm going to keep my vote consistent on this. I've voted against it the last three times.
01:01:00 I'll maintain that same vote. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So as much as I'd like to give Councillor Wegener something to debate over here, I'm going to support the approach and I do so because basically, we're not going to get too many of these in the future. But I think it sets a good standard that we just do condition things on two people per bedroom maximum. Because I thought back when Councillor Wegener was talking that one of the frequent concerns we get about SDAs is that how, oh, don't we have to do this? You know, they've built in the garage and they've put wall-to-wall bunk beds and so that is part of that intensification of what was a single family home into what becomes a source of noise. So I think it's reasonable. I understand how staff got to this because I was talking about in a residential zone, there's a maximum of five bedrooms with two in each, which came to the 10.
01:02:00 But I think if there was five bedrooms in this one, we might have got to 10. But I think setting this as a standard, yeah, two people bedroom max, is probably the right setting. Mayor Stewart: Anyone else? I think we've all spoken to this. Can I speak? Oh. Please go ahead. Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Certainly. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Thank you, Councillor Wegener, for bringing this to the table. I think it's timely, given the emails we've received recently about community concerns around noise and amenity, around SDAs and the intensification of such. I think it's pertinent that we do have a look at it and take the most of the opportunity to condition the use to what we consider reasonable for the guests and neighbours.
01:03:00 I think it's pertinent that we do have a look at it and take the most of the opportunity So I support this tonight. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Tom, would you like to close? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Amelia, I'm not quite following the kind of protest vote to say I'm not going to vote in favour of this because I didn't vote in favour in the beginning. I mean, it's passed. It's an STA now. Now we're just imposing conditions. So we're just voting to bring the number from 10 to 8. And it's just as simple as that. And as well as the driveway and so forth. And imposing these conditions that will ensure amenity to the neighbours. These conditions that they've put on are excellent, especially with the ceiling of the driveway. So let's just close on that. Mayor Stewart: Okay. We'll put the vote in your favour. Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Jurisevic, Wilkie, Councillor Finzel? Yes. Yes, yes. Stuart Lawrence, that motion is carried.
01:04:00 Thank you very much. Item 5, Sunshine Coast and Regional Climate Action Roadmap. Thank you, Leo. 6, Financial Performance Report December 2022. Item 7, Confidential, Not for Public Release, Environment Levy, Proposed Land Purchase. Item 8, Confidential, Not for Public Release, Contract T000055, Noosa Parade, Corridor Upgrade, Final Budget Approval. Councillor Lorentson? Can I have a mover for the recommendation on page 8, please? Speaker 4: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. All in favour? Yes. Thank you.
01:05:00 Now unanimous. Thank you, Kath. Speaker 4: 4. Next is 9. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Madam Chair, given that item 9 is a confidential matter, we're going to move on to item 8. Which has been laid on the table since the ordinary meeting. I would move that we move it to 5. Speaker 4: We need to move it off the table first. Mayor Stewart: The item was laid on the table so we can move. So who's moving that matter to be taken off the table? Councillor Lorentson? Are you seconding that? Councillor Stockwell? Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Karen. Pass the procedure. Do you like to move it? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that the meeting be closed and published as the order section 253. I'm back on the table. I'll relate the Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing potential commercial and aviation simulation to that contact for item 9, Office, Administration, Space, Commercial Relief, Procurement, and Procurement. Councillor Stockwell? Second. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
01:06:00 All in favour? Yes. Yes. Speaker 4: Thank you for your time, we appreciate it and thank you to our questioners as well, we appreciate it. Thanks Pete, that was a lot of fun. Thanks Madam Mayor. Thank you. See you next week. Mayor Stewart: Well done Spencer, that was really bright, very bright. Speaker 4: Thank you very much.