Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - July 2023 Transcript

1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:18

00:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I shall. Councillor Wegener: Brian moves it. I'll second. Councillor Finzel second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone vote on that one? All in favour? And Mr Chair, would you like to accept the apologies of the Mayor and acknowledge the other councillors in service? Did you do that? I did. Oh dear. I blame age. No. Councillor Wegener: We have our first agenda item. Councillor Wilkie: There are no presentations and we have three deputations this morning. Councillor Wegener: But before we go to the deputations, we will need to go through our conflict of interest. And we'd like to have first Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I declare a conflict of interest in this matter.

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:01:11

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

3 PRESENTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:01:41

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

4 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:01:54

00:02:00 I inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. And I've come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Altam Property Group, who are the developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs development. Lee McCready is associated with Altam Property Group. On 24 February 2020, I sought a review by the... Oh, hang on. Sorry. I skipped all the lines. I was associated with Altam, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and... It's not going to be voted on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So while the... So while the... While the deputations are heard. Councillor Finzel: While the deputations are heard. Thank you.

00:03:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I also wish to inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I've come to understand that JFP Consultants, on behalf of Altam Property Group, are the developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel development. Lee McCready is associated with Altam Property Group. On 24 February 2020, I sought a review by the Independent Commission Council Election Observer as the public claim of the Future Noosa team in regard to Ms. Lee McCready, Ms. Lee McCready. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICO review was an advisory service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. Will I refuse to remain in the meeting room? How will I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and listen to the deputations? Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Brian.

00:04:00 Normally, we would bring a motion to have Brian stay in the room, but there's only one councillor, me, who can make the decision and so I will... I can't move it in seconds, can I? But I can't move that Brian stay in the room. You can move it. We've gone through this conflict many, many, many times and Brian has stayed in the room each time when we believe that he can make a... Do I need to say that we believe that he can make a... Yes, please. Yeah. That councillor knows that the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell, determined that council knows that there is no declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell, and determined that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates in the decision. We can vote on this matter because council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the I-C-E-O review was an advisory service, not a statutory process. And Councillor Stockwell's queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Mr. McGree stood to personally gain or lose from the advice and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

00:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Mr. Chair? Yes. I'll just clarify. The language doesn't, at this point in time, is only relating to the deputation and not being voted on. So the wording in that needs to be corrected. With regard to being voted on, that will come in later on when the matter is actually up for discussion or debate. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So how do you want to take it? It was corrected in the declaration. It needs to be corrected in your resolution. Just so it replicates what's in the declaration with regard to... Councillor Lorentson: And you want to take stuff out about the decision? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: There's no decision. No decision process there, Kat. So it should only be about being able to stay in the room while the deputation is being presented.

00:06:00 Tom, would you like to add to that? Councillor Lorentson: I think that blew it. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I agree with that. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Sorry. I understand from the CEO that I have the right to vote and... Speaker 12: In accordance with the Act, you've got the ability, as a single councillor, to make this decision. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So I just decided to let Ryan stay in the room and do the matter. We're ready for the deputations, then, and... Thank you. First, please have Mr. John Cochran. Yeah, now there's a question of whether you'd like to be on camera. John Cochran: That's fine. Councillor Wegener: You're on camera's fine? Okay. Okay, so please take the lecture. Thank you. We have a 15 minute time limit. So I've been instructed to make sure. I got to, I can do this.

00:07:00 Sorry, we just have to make sure. John Cochran: If we could just, there'll be a preamble to the slideshow. So if we can just hang on to those for the moment. Oh, that's fine. We can have the title sheet up. Councillor Wegener: Okay, make sure that it's all working there, Kathy. Okay, John, please proceed. Thank you. John Cochran: Thank you, councillors for the opportunity to address this meeting. My name is John Cochran and my co-presenter is Kim Petrick. We both live in Noosa Springs and represent some of the 450 residents who have made submissions against this proposal, the 1500 residents who will be negatively affected by the proposal and the Noosa-wide cohort who will potentially be affected by the likely need for upgrade of the nearby sewage treatment plant and the consequent increases in charges.

4.1 JOHN COCHRANE TOPIC : MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL ¶

▶ 00:14:20

00:15:00 There are a total of 670 dwellings in the affected residential enclave. While residents love living in this residential enclave because of the community spirit and peaceful, secure environment, we believe our ability of life will be, our quality of life will be significantly and adversely affected and this has the potential to cause adverse health issues. The MCU is based in New South Wales. The MCU was submitted during COVID when the level of activity was considerably low. The traffic survey was conducted in 2017, some six years ago, and it failed to consider that the Park Ridge residential precinct had not been built and Elysium properties had not been fully completed. Here's a fact. Unlike the developer in Noosa Springs Estate, we know that we had 162,000 vehicle movements of non-residents in and out of the estate in a 12-month period in 2022. This figure excludes resident movements.

00:16:00 If we can do it, why can't Council ask for traffic counting to be undertaken on Lynx Drive, Resort Drive and Noosa Springs Drive by the developer? We have since learned that a distillery that opened in Rene Street, Noosaville, within the last two years had to undertake two periods of traffic counting before permission was granted to its operation. Another factor is the ageing demographic in this location and their ongoing need for emergency service, including personnel to attend residents to ensure medical emergencies can be dealt with in a timely manner are a major concern within our community. Residents have had some exposures to the delays associated with one road in, one road out, when roadworks in April 2023 caused lengthy delays and frustration. Lynx Drive is within a high potential bushfire intensity zone. Evacuation will be compounded in the event of a bushfire. Residents have been attempting for the past two years to engage with Council about the bushfire risks in this area.

00:17:00 Other than the meeting with the Mayor and Councillor Lorentson in July 2021, nothing has occurred. The developer has indicated that the clubhouse can be the assembly point, shelter for their guests, but that doesn't guarantee guests will use it as such and they decide to drive out of the area like so many residents. As you know, panic sets in when there's a bushfire, so trying to egress via one road will be a disaster when it happens and our residents are fearful. Memories of the 2019 fire are fresh in our minds and how close it came to the golf course and residences. The odour from the sewage plant is already overpowering in some residential precincts and can be expected to worsen when the existing system cannot cope with the additional effluent from the hotel. Complaints from Oasis residents to Unity Water have not improved the situation over the past five years. Golfers report they are exposed to the same smells on the 15th hole.

00:18:00 The impact of the sewage treatment plant will inevitably increase complaints to Unity Water and will lead to very expensive modifications to be made to the facility which will ultimately be a cost borne by Noosa rate payers through their water bills. Our residents are worried about further increases in an inflationary period as we have now. The increasing burden of utility costs are already hurting some residents. There is a clear disconnect with the luxury brand that the developer is putting forward and the visitors they are attracting. In the past 18 months we have seen the emergence of wedding guests and visiting golfers urinating on the golf course, exposing themselves to residents, swearing and shouting, dropping cigarette butts, trespassing on private property, driving buggies over residents. Excessive alcohol consumption on and around the golf course, being intoxicated whilst driving golf buggies, throwing empty bottles at each other due to the level of intoxication and general unruly behaviour.

00:19:00 When reported to the hotel nothing is done. In a recent incident our security guard at Noosa Springs approached a trespasser who came through the golf course and moved onto Noosa Springs common property. He was assaulted and the alleged offender now faces criminal charges. This increasing exposure to this clientele base is generating fear that our residents will become a victim of crime. With all due respect to the representatives who are here with GH Property Holdings, this development is about making money and the background of visitors is an irrelevant consideration for them. The impact of their behaviour is felt by our community. The residents are opposed to the proposed development because we feel it will negatively impact on our mental wellbeing. We do not feel safe and positive about our future lives,

00:20:00 specifically because of the changes we will experience during the development of the hotel and after its completion. For these reasons we ask you to place community interests above the developer and to refuse the application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 1: Clicker. Yeah, that's left and right I think. John Cochran: Just quickly move onto the slides there. The logo on the top left hand corner is a representation of sustainability. A balance between social, environmental and economical factors. We believe that the proposal is not balanced. It favours economic over social and environmental factors. To make our point, we've constructed a computer model, a BIM model. The accuracy and validity of the model can be sustained. On the left hand side you see the developer's view. On the right hand side what we've designated there the neighbour's view.

00:21:00 Speaker 1: Sorry. John Cochran: Left. Left. Left. Speaker 1: To move it. Is it not working? John Cochran: No. It appears not to be. Sorry. I'll just call for the next slide then. Just a little bit about the balance between environment, society and economy. Next slide please. This shows the general core planning issues. Zoning, bulk and scale, impacts, habitat, bushfire and whether it's a well-made application. The model there shows the extreme imbalance in scale and proportion between the proposal and the existing Noosa Springs Resort buildings. The heights can be guaranteed as effective. They're taken from the AHD levels within the AHD. There's some notes there on how the model's been derived. So you can see there's an extreme imbalance of bulk and scale. The hotel's built on 65% of the floor area is based on land-zoned open space recreation.

00:22:00 The green area is the open space recreation zone. The red area is the... 30 seconds. Yeah. We'd better shoot. Okay. That's the imbalance of zoning. Can we move? Next slide please. We dispute the height plane calculations. We've done our own calculations to find a higher level of exceedance. Next slide please. Three great sources of noise and congestion. The pool area, the loading dock and the existing entry to the hotel. One of the big problems will be the impact on Park Ridge. That shows the roadway. Speaker 11: That's it. Speaker 2: Great. Councillor Wegener: Thank you very, very much. Thank you. We have our next deputation, Rhett Duncan from Unity Water.

00:23:00 Please take up. Would you like to be on camera? Would you like to specifically not be on camera? On camera is fine. Thank you. On camera is fine. Okay. And you have no power plane? No. Okay. Rhett Duncan: Good morning. Unity Water is the water and wastewater service provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan. In my role as Executive Manager Customer Delivery, the operation and maintenance of our network is my responsibility. So thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. After ensuring the protection of public health and the natural environment, our most important priority is enabling economic development that allows communities to thrive. I'm here today to convey our very clear and very strong position that we do not support this development in its proposed location. To be clear, we are not opposed to growth at Noosa Springs, just the proposed location, which is too close to the existing Noosa sewage treatment plant.

4.2 RHETT DUNCAN - UNITYWATER TOPIC : MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL ¶

▶ 00:23:08

00:24:00 I'll explain our position and what we're asking this committee and council to do. Sewage treatment is an essential community service that has been lawfully carried out on the site under council operation since the mid-1970s. The STP was fully upgraded in 1997 and transferred to Unity Water on 1 July 2010. The STP operates under a Department of Environment and Sciences environmental approval and continues to meet all of its licensed conditions. The 1995 Environmental Impact Statement commissioned by Noosa Council notes in section 3.10 buffer area. Substantial buffer precincts exist around the existing and proposed STP. Nearest housing is more than 400 metres to the north of the existing STP northern boundary. The STP will be augmented to the south of the existing facility, increasing the buffer from the south to the north.

00:25:00 The centre of the proposed STP augmentation by approximately 300 metres. The proposed Noosa Springs development, 400 metres to the west and south-west of the proposed STP, is protected against noise, odour and visual impacts by the intervening ridgeline. Now there's some key points to note in that EIS. Council made a conscious decision to shift the plant a further 300 metres to the south, away from sensitive receptors, then 400 metres to the north. Key odour generating sources are located to the south-west of the STP site in order to maximise the distance from these sensitive receptors. And the 1997 STP was designed with consideration to this 400 metre buffer land to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. This proposed development now sees sensitive receptors located approximately 200 metres to the north.

00:26:00 Significantly closer than the 400 metres considered in the design of the current STP. The development encroaches up the ridgeline, noted in the 1995 EIS as providing protection. And this development knowingly places sensitive receptors within the 2.5 odour unit contour line. Council's actions and decisions in the EIS were appropriate, and in keeping with the principles outlined in Part E of the current statement. Which still seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. Therefore, approving the proposed development is not only in conflict with Council's own earlier decisions to minimise the potential impact of the STP on nearby land uses, but also in conflict with the intent of the State Planning Policy. It's true to note there have been few complaints about odour from the post-1997 upgraded STP.

00:27:00 And this is a result of two things. Firstly, Uniwater deliberately operating the plant in ways that aim to minimise odour events and therefore impacts on our neighbours. And of course, geography and the buffer zones. So while we operate the plant to minimise odour, there are limitations to what we can do. The STP comprises of mechanical equipment that can fail over time. Or can have power supply interrupted because of weather or electricity network events. We should also note the catchment volumes are increasing. Meaning that while we are within licence limits, the plant is treating more sewage today than when it was built. And the original buffer lands were contemplated. And while it's true the Oasis community of permanent residents is located approximately 300 metres to the west of the STP. This community is afforded some shelter from the ridgeline running north-south between these properties and the STP. The Noosa Springs development shifts development north along the ridgeline, reducing this available protection.

00:28:00 Uniwater note the proposal that the resort manages odour complaints internally. But we know this is not how it works in practice. The Department of Environment and Sciences is the regulator in this space. And regardless of any good intent from the proponent, responsibility cannot be transferred. Uniwater note the reference to the 2.5 odour unit limit. However DES do not take this into account when investigating odour complaints and issuing enforcement action. In fact the application of general environmental duty, environmental harm and nuisance is very open under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. So this means that odour complaints made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Uniwater. That may lead to prosecution and costly plant modifications. And for reference, Uniwater installed odour control equipment at the Murrumbah Downs treatment plant in 2010 as a result of urban encroachment.

00:29:00 And the cost of that was $38 million in 2010. It's also our view that this outcome is more likely to happen as a result of the proposed approval condition 13. That would see all guests being advised of the potential odour from the sewerage system. Actively drawing attention to a potential odour source will drive guest perception of odour and trigger an automatic assumption that any perceived odour relates to the STP. Uniwater upgrades STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing, compliant sewerage treatment. Upgrades at the treatment plant will change the odour contours used in the modelling. A future DA application by Uniwater will need to consider sensitive receptors only 200 metres from the STP as a result of this proposed development. And again I refer back to the Murrumbah Downs treatment plant example where odour control equipment cost $38 million in 2010.

00:30:00 So in closing, while we support development that promotes sustainable economic growth, we do not support this development in its proposed location because it locates new sensitive receptors closer to the existing treatment operations. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Uniwater that cannot be transferred and could unnecessarily cost Uniwater customers tens of millions of dollars and limit our ability to meet future growth in the region. It is our view that approving this proposed development would be at odds with the 1995 EIS and the current state planning policies. The conditions proposed to be applied in an approval with good intent would actually further increase risk to Uniwater and our customers and this risk could be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in its currently proposed location in the first place.

00:31:00 So Uniwater are asking this committee and Noosa Council to not approve the development in this location. And in thinking about this scenario, we can't help but wonder about a reverse situation. Would a new sewage treatment plant be approved 200 metres from existing luxury accommodation with significant outdoor facilities? Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you very much, Rhett. And our third deputation is for Ellen Guan to take up. Do you mind being on camera? Speaker 3: It's fine. Fine with the camera. Councillor Wegener: And do you have a powerpoint? No, I don't have a powerpoint. Speaker 3: We have an architect who will have a powerpoint to do the presentation after me. Speaker 12: Okay. So there's a powerpoint. Yeah.

4.3 ELLEN GUAN TOPIC: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL ¶

▶ 00:31:40

00:32:00 Councillor Wegener: Do you have the powerpoint here? I should have that. Okay. I just want to make sure that it's all... We'll cover it before we get... The initial introduction is . Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Take... Please begin. Speaker 3: Yeah. The hotel industry is highly competitive. To efficiently manage various operational functions while maintaining high standards consistently can be complex and challenging. It requires significant upfront investment and may take years to recover the initial investment before generating any profit. People might question, why do you want to do this? And how can you make this hotel stand out? What is the unique position of this proposed hotel? Our intention is simple. We aim to create the best version of Noosa Springs. We have been operating this place for almost 10 years.

00:33:00 We would like to explore its full potential as a complete resort destination. An exceptional platform that can uplift and inspire as many people as possible. This intention serves as our motivation and brings us a profound sense of fulfillment. Currently, I would say the key words that define our vision of Noosa Springs are community and wellness. The hotel will be a community-based and local business. It goes beyond traditional hotels by actively involving and engaging the local community in its operations and developments. We will leverage the skills and passion of the existing Noosa Springs team, providing them with career opportunities to advance under the guidance of an international five-star hotel operator. Currently, we have 125 employees working for Noosa Springs, with most of the full-time staff have been with us for a number of years.

00:34:00 Considering the local HR market and accommodation costs for staff in the hospitality industry, it is truly a blessing for us to have such a stable and experienced local team to support this proposed project. Our staff is enthusiastic about this opportunity, and of course the proposed hotel will create more jobs as the team expands, making it one of the largest local employers. We would like to offer activities and experiences that showcase the community's culture, cuisine, arts and crafts, encouraging guests to immerse themselves in the local way of life. We would like to collaborate with local business owners, artists and service providers, contributing to the overall development and well-being of the community.

00:35:00 We would like to minimize the ecological footprint by using renewable energy sources, implementing an advanced waste management system, etc. Sustainability is one of our focus in the design and future operation. We are also inspired by a sense of community that evolves from consistently considering the benefits of social interaction. The hotel serves as a social hub. It is a setting for connections, while we actively cultivate connections between local communities and a group of guests. We would like to foster cross-cultural understanding and create a mutually beneficial relationship between travellers and the community. In terms of wellness, it stands as one of our core values. Noosa Springs Spa Facility itself is a destination, offering a remarkable experience.

00:36:00 Leveraging the existing health and fitness facilities together with the natural setting of Noosa Springs provides an ideal foundation for this concept. The integration of the hotel and other enhancements allows us to introduce a range of programs. That includes meditation, wellness retreat and packages, dynamic healthy dining options, and sleep-enhancing technologies, etc. We deeply appreciate and understand the reasons behind Noosa Council's efforts to safeguard the region's reputation, particularly with regards to preserving its distinctive atmosphere, enhancing the town's aesthetics, and being sympathetic to the environment. That's also why we are so keen to be part of it. It provides an invaluable foundation for a resort destination, we believe. Our goal is to contribute positively to Noosa's reputation as a leader in design and development within this community.

00:37:00 I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to the deputation from Unit Water and the other submitters. The wastewater treatment plant completed in 1997 made a substantial difference to odour control, and the buffer zone was not required in the subsequent planning instruments. In early 2018, our early design of the hotel project shows part of the building located within the 2.5 odour contour. We had discussions and meetings with Unit Water representatives at that time. Unit Water advised us that if the buildings were completed, especially outside the 2.5 odour contour, it would be okay. Then we made a substantial redesign which placed all the buildings outside the 2.5 odour contour, which complies with the appropriate guidelines, and it was assumed satisfied Unit Water concern.

00:38:00 Noosa Springs has been operating for almost 25 years, and odour has never been an issue. We have never received any complaint from members or visitors. Unit Water also informs that it has never received any complaints from this area in the past. The Oasis residential precinct at Noosa Springs is just outside the 2.5 odour contour, and Park Ridge is not much further away. The hotel will therefore not worsen the risk to Unit Water, and those other areas being a sensitive receptor of residential use would be much more of a concern than the proposed hotel. Although the hotel is regarded as a sensitive receptor, the nature of hotel guests occupying the room for a short time is very different from residential use. GH and Council both have used leading specialist consultants in this particular field,

00:39:00 and they both support the development subject to conditions that GH will support. In summary, the proposed hotel development will not put Unit Water in a worse position. The possibility of a perceived incident in the future is extremely low to our opinion. Should that occur, it has a grade for a management plan to be prepared and used in a 24-7 hotel operation. Some also claim that the hotel would add traffic onto Noosa Springs Road if a bushfire is approaching. Our bushfire consultant has prepared an emergency response plan that requires guests to remain on site and meet at an assembly point. It will be an important role of the hotel manager to coordinate that plan, and by doing so, the hotel guests will not use the external road. The first pre-lodging meeting we had with Council was in 2016.

00:40:00 It has been a very long journey for us. Over the past seven years, we have developed numerous versions of the hotel design through extensive research and planning conducted by specialist consultants and our team. We respect and value the contribution made by submitters in the design application process. We have made many changes to the hotel design in response to issues raised by submitters. We have confidence in the current design scheme in terms of viability, efficiency and sustainability. Should we have the opportunity to proceed to the next phase, we warmly welcome input from the community to move forward together and collaborate to deliver the best possible design outcome. We sincerely hope to be granted the opportunity to transform our vision of Noosa Springs into reality. Our team is committed to delivering exceptional guest experience, striving to thrive in this industry.

00:41:00 We are confident that we can make a positive and sustainable contribution to this community. Thank you. Juergen Weigel: Could you please start the presentation? Thank you. My name is Juergen Weigel. I'm Associate Director at Marchesi Partners, the architects for the proposed hotel. Marchesi Partners are located in Brisbane, but we are an international partner. We have international operations and we have eight offices worldwide. Could you please go to the next slide? We have substantial experience in the hotel sector. Over the last few years, we have delivered about 20 hotel projects. I personally have delivered five hotel and short-term accommodation projects and currently designing one in Townsville and one on the Gold Coast. I also lived for four years on the Sunshine Coast.

00:42:00 I believe that I understand the Sunshine Coast very well. Next slide, please. The original designer for the proposed hotel is Shane Thompson. He's known for elements of Byron and Byron Bay, a hotel which was successfully integrated into a natural setting and is very well perceived by the locals and the public. Overall, it was our intention to design a high-quality five-star hotel with limited off-site impact. In achieving a high level of sustainability. I would like to point out that this is the first significant five-star hotel developed in Noosa since 1989. Here on the master plan, you can see how the hotel tries to limit the impact on the existing site. All buildings stay away from the Corolla Habitat Zone, but also we stay truly behind on the auto setback line. To limit the concealed areas on site, we place the tennis courts above the existing car park and also the additional car parks above existing car parks.

00:43:00 So just for building another level there. Next one, please. We use landscaping to limit the impact of the buildings to the surroundings, but we also have broken up the hotel in smaller pavilions, which gently step up the existing slope and follow the topography. Next one, please. So here you can see the diagrams left hand side showing the different zonings. And on the right hand side, the associated height limitations. The yellow shows the eight meter height limitation and the red one is 12 meters. So you can see that the majority of the building stays under the height limit, while a few roof edges might project over.

00:44:00 Next one, please. However, the main intent behind what we have been doing was to limit the impact from the outside. So this is a view from Resort Drive. And from Resort Drive, the building would appear as a one to two story structure. Next one, please. And the view from the golf course. It actually demonstrates that most of the building, the new building, will stay below the actual tree line. While on the right hand side, I would like to point out how Park Ridge and the development actually towers above everything. We have introduced and incorporated a number of sustainability design features like water harvesting, considering the size of the pool we have, and also to limit the impact on the public water supply. We think this is an important part of it. But we also have maximized the solar protection, external views and daylight, which is apparent how the rooms have been designed and laid out.

00:45:00 The rotation of the rooms, but also the lobby. We have solar panels integrated and we promote mixed mood ventilation, which actually then results in reduced energy usage and alternative transport, which will reduce the number of individual cars going in and out to the hotel. Next one, please. So the design is inspired by a Tuscan village. So as you see on the image here, typically they are located on a hill and the buildings gently step up to the hill. But we also were really interested in the materiality. Terracotta, stone, the landscaping in between. And we think that is something you clearly can see here in Noosaville Springs as an existing design philosophy. Next one. The pool is the center of our hotel.

00:46:00 And so we are a fair bit away from the beach, so we have to create our own amenity on the side. So this is truly the feature. The pool is about 1,265 square meters. 20% of it is just water feature. This 300 deep water. The rest is about 1.5 meters deep. So the volume of water there would be about 1,550 cubic meters. And a pool this size and impact would be expected for a five-star hotel. Next one, please. So hotel guests will arrive on the Port Cochere and then walk. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Speaker 13: I'd just quickly like to say in the last few minutes, I think that the council has been the town planner for the application. The council just needs to be very conscious of, obviously, Smith is very concerned about the issues raised. A lot of the issues that have been raised, however, are not substantiated by any technical reports.

00:47:00 The technical reports that have been considered by both the applicant's consultant and the council's consultant, there's agreement with all those reports in terms of the off-site impacts. So I think it's really important that council understands that while I understand Smith's concerns, and also your new order's concerns, those technical reports have been assessed, and the consultants on both sides are in agreement. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener: Okay, we'd like to thank our deputations for coming here today, and everybody in the gallery. Councillor Lorentson: We will be... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can do the countdown and then just... No, if we're just referring, we can't do it. Just refer to the next meeting. Councillor Wegener: Oh! I'd have to come in for that? To refer? Yeah, we will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: She can't be in.

5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 00:47:47

00:48:00 Councillor Jurisevic: The declarations made, Brian, were with regard to submissions. I'll have to do them again for the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but now, under the Act, if all you're doing is referring, you don't need to make a declaration. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Which is probably easier to do with her outside the room. Yes. Okay. I'm happy to move that we refer this matter to the general committee. Okay. Due to the submission, it's an issue. Councillor Wegener: Okay. I'll second that. All in favor? Does that Cathy catch up? Yeah. All good? I don't know what's happening. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just take your time, Cathy. We'll... Yeah, no worries. Tewantin, we could have done that too. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Sure.

5.1 MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD, AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 00:48:46· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

00:49:00 Councillor Wegener: Everybody in the room? So, that's all the discussion we're going to have on this issue. We've referred it to the general meeting. And we do that because we want all the councillors around the room at the table in the full meeting. As of now, three councillors are not actually in the meeting. They're observers of the meeting. And so, they can't debate and they can't really vote on the matter. So, that's why we're referring it. Because of the significance of the matter. So, thank you very much for coming today. We're just going to carry on with the rest of the morning.

00:50:00 Okay. Take a deep breath, everybody. And we'll go to item two. Change to development approval. Changing shared rooms to single rooms in lost care. 102 Yard Street. Who's ahead? John Cochran: And... Okay. It's all good. It's all out there. Okay. Councillor Wegener: And we'll be back. Would you like to welcome Richard MacGillivray? And do you want... Patrick, would you like to walk us through... Taro. Taro, if you please. Sure. Speaker 8: So, this one is a redevelopment of portions of the Ozcare, existing Ozcare facility on

5.2 132001.210127.3 - CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL - CHANGING SHARED ROOMS TO SINGLE ROOMS - OZCARE - 100 COOYAR STREET, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 00:50:14· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

00:51:00 Street. So, it's coming to council today because there's an infrastructure framework required for some works on council land. And it's currently for bushfire management purposes and some stormwater runoff as well. So, well, Linda's been given the hard copies of the infrastructure framework. So, essentially, the changes are predominantly as a response to COVID. So, they're removing all the existing drill rooms and replacing them with single rooms. So, 24 drill rooms going to affiliate single rooms. So, there will be additional story on one of the wings. A slight increase to footprint of the building. And then some internal changes in terms of community spaces and things like that. Councillor Wegener: But there's also some landscaping to be done. Yes. Speaker 8: So, there will be some minor changes to the landscaping as well. Councillor Wegener: Does anybody have any questions?

00:52:00 I do. Oh, Taro. I was there. My friend Bill Wallace was staying there till the end. And he was very friendly with the birds that would come down. And the shrubbery and the trees were pinned right up to the windows, basically, and right down to the balconies. Are they considering that the guests in their final days really might want to be a part of nature as best they can and have the trees there? Are they considering that? Speaker 8: So, I guess the greater concern is that they're time manageable. So, in terms of what needs to be removed for the bushfire management purposes, I guess that's probably a priority. Councillor Wegener: They need to have a car be able to drive up and down, right? Speaker 8: On council land, it will be an access trail for fire. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question.

00:53:00 Just to picture what's happening there, this is creating a fire access trail around the park. So, it doesn't exist currently? Speaker 8: So, it has been done. The works have been carried out. So, there was an approval issued by our environment management team, I believe, to do that access work already. So, the clearance has been carried out already. It will be the actual construction of the track and the stormwater management that will need to be done through a lot of work as well. Councillor Wilkie: Will it be hard-span material? Speaker 8: I don't believe that we've figured out through what works. Councillor Wilkie: The actual break in or something? Potentially. Right. Councillor Wegener: So, it's on the top of the bay, not directly in front of the road. Yeah, of course, because that's where the road is. Joe, question? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, given that, as I said, I asked a question via email and I'll just let the councils know. I noted there was no mention of a bio base for stormwater runoff in the upgraded plans for Roscair. So, I asked, what is the current stormwater management in place and should or could a

00:54:00 bio base be added to improve stormwater runoff given that there are extensive works being undertaken to upgrade the facility and developments in proximity to the Girraween Nature Reserve? Now, if a new building was being built today of this nature, what would be the requirement for stormwater runoff filtration? Would a bio base be part of that sort of procedure? Speaker 8: I'd have to check the bio base. I don't know the engineers, but I believe so. Councillor Jurisevic: And the response here that I've been given, the council have another opportunity to further question the specific details of the stormwater drainage system during the operational work stage if necessary. Is that the appropriate time to look at stormwater management and bio bases and the like? Speaker 8: Yeah, so it has been addressed through this application, but essentially it's predominantly natural runoff. So, they are providing an extra drainage channel through the proposal and then that will be the nitty gritty details will be dealt with through the up works. Councillor Jurisevic: So, there will be an opportunity to request a bio base at all?

00:55:00 Speaker 8: It's unlikely that we would request it because it's a minimal increase in the footprint. It would just be that the natural drainage channels that have been provided, that's what does the actual filtration. Councillor Jurisevic: So, there's no capacity to upgrade stormwater, even though there's been capacity to upgrade fire management and actually introduce clearing within the council reserve? Speaker 8: So, the stormwater is being upgraded. They're providing additional channels. It's just that it's not being up to a bio base. Councillor Jurisevic: But not up to current standards? Speaker 8: It would be up to the current standards, just potentially not a bio base. So, it hasn't been determined that a bio base is needed. Speaker 9: There is an opportunity now, Joe, absolutely, to do it. That's what I'm looking at. But through the assessment, it hasn't been determined that a bio base is the required treatment. Councillor Jurisevic: It has to be reassessed and re-evaluated. That's all of us. Any other? Councillor Wegener: Questions?

00:56:00 I'm happy to move to staff recommendation. This one's been requested. Do you have a general answer? No. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to second it. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell has moved this staff recommendation. Is there a critical? Seconded it? I wouldn't say so. Okay. Oh, sorry. We invited. It's okay. Okay. Is that Kerri? Yes, it's Kerri. He's ahead of us. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 14: No, sorry. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: We're up to report number three, application for building works for a dwelling house at

5.3 DBW21/0216 - APPLICATION FOR BUILDING WORKS FOR A DWELLING HOUSE AT 60 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH ¶

▶ 00:56:53· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

00:57:00 CCC View Terrace on China Beach. Yes. Jada. Jada. Jada, would you please walk us through? Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 2: So this is an application for building works for a new dwelling house out at CCC View Terrace. The application was originally presented to council at the general committee meeting in October last year and was originally recommended for approval subject to conditions. It was presented to council for issues including geotechnical and coastal hazard processing site cover, building fire, the enclosure and rooftop terrace, and building the coastal building line.

00:58:00 During the general committee meeting, there were concerns raised regarding issues of overlooking due to the rooftop terrace, as well as the form and presentation of the street issues. The applicant stopped the decision-making period. Before it could be discussed at the ordinary meeting, just to provide further plans to rectify the issues of overlooking from the rooftop terrace. And has now come back with those amended plans. Although the original application was recommended for approval, a further assessment of the proposal has raised a number of issues, including that of site cover, pipe, side setbacks, and the build around the garage and bin storage. And as such, a proposal is now recommended for approval.

00:59:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the overview. I do have some questions then with regards to the discrepancies between the last report and this one. Given that they went away, they looked at it to meet the conditions around overlooking, and now we've got all these other conditions. About site cover and height and all of that. Was that not included in the first application? Speaker 14: They were looked at in the initial report. At the time that the matter was presented to the previous Council meeting, there was conditions as to what would be required to limit the overlooking. There was some question as to the effectiveness of those conditions. So the applicant stopped the clock and went away to demonstrate how overlooking could be mitigated with the inclusion of the roof terrace. They've created an additional bulk in terms of their resolution to that issue.

01:00:00 Previously, the Council officers were seeking the rooftop terrace to be drawn back, pulled back from the perimeter of the building, and dissociated treatments to the side also be pulled back. But this model that they've put forward has actually got a lot more extensive bulk associated with the rooftop terrace and the mechanisms to prevent overlooking. There's also a rooftop-style garden that's also proposed. And there's some question really about the suitability of that rooftop garden and its potential to be used in the future as part of the rooftop terrace. And that the additional measures proposed wouldn't be suitable in terms of limiting overlooking from there. But notwithstanding, this has been a fresh look at the application. There were some elements of it that were supported. You know, the rate Jaden has raised that were supported in the previous applications, particularly around the height. There was a minor height exceedance in the middle of the rooftop terrace.

01:01:00 But in the current proposal, that bulk contributed to, as I said, the rooftop terrace has significantly increased from what was previously put forward. So it's no longer considered reasonable. Councillor Finzel: So just to summarise then, they went away to find a solution to address the overlooking. And in that process now, there's other issues. Which is a raise. Speaker 14: Yeah, we consider they've amplified the issues in terms of the building design and the bulk associated with the rooftop terrace. Councillor Finzel: And is there opportunity to go back to negotiate another outcome? Speaker 14: There's been a significant amount of time that's been spent since the previous meeting with giving them the opportunity to address the issues that were raised. This is the proposal that they've put forward and sort of priced to make a decision on. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Wegener: Okay, I'll second it.

01:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'll move to it. Yeah. So when this came up originally, I had concerns. Not just about the rooftop terrace, but also about the street presentation, which I thought was contrary to the scheme as well. Which I think is now part of the grounds of refusal, which I fully support. We can... Understand this situation because we've had a new development a few doors up, which raised objections from all the surrounding residents for a similar scale and bulk of building in terms of its impact on people on the other side of the street losing views. And that's, I believe, part of the grounds for refusal of this one as well. We have to be sure when we're building in these high-profile locations that what's there reflects both the environment, the streetscape, but also doesn't unduly impose itself on the existing sidelines within the coastal overlay, scenic amenity overlay.

01:03:00 It's all... Yeah. Here's one of the key areas of scenic amenity for people who visit Sunshine Beach is to look back then to ensure that the balkan scale of those houses, you know, are in good shape. It is within the scheme to ensure that we keep our reputations in terms of being able to balance the natural world with the sea coast environment. Councillor Wegener: Any further questions? Comments? I have a question. When it comes to vaults, you have the built forms and then you might have umbrellas on the rooftop terrace and you may have trees rolling up on the roof of the vaults. How is it that... Is there a grid? And where do you actually count some bulk? Speaker 14: There would be elements of a building that are not, say, included in building height, such as the chimney or the like. In terms of someone putting an umbrella on the roof, it wouldn't form part of the built-in vault.

01:04:00 So if someone puts forward a proposal, generally they're not going to show you, I think, if there's going to be any umbrellas. Maybe we have to look at how that rooftop terrace is going to be used. I mean, where it's sited on the building and the associated vault, which is attributed to screening mechanisms and the like. But also, yeah, how it's sited in terms of not having to go overlooking. Speaker 11: They're generally looking at the permanent infrastructure, so the actual physical floors, so the walls and the double strays. That gives the perception of the bulk, whereas trees and vegetation and umbrellas can be temporary instruments that can come down and move at different times as well. Councillor Wegener: Any further questions? Brian, would you like to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I can't disagree with anything that's been said. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Put into a vote. All in favor?

01:05:00 Carried. Carried. Correct. The staff recommendation is carried. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: We're on to report number four, reconfiguration of a lot, one to two lots at 39 to 41 Future Point Crescent. Who's ahead? And we have Nadine Gordon to walk us through the report. Speaker 4: Good morning, everyone. This is an application to subdivide an existing 1,400 or so high density residential lot at the end of Future Point Crescent into two residential lots. The proposed lots are 723 square meters in area. The proposed lots are 723 square meters in area. With the requirements, and they're significantly less than the requirements under the planning scheme, which is a minimum of 1,200 square meters. The lots are also less than the minimum width, which under the planning scheme is 25 meters,

5.4 RAL22/0021 - RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 INTO 2 LOTS) AT 39-41 PICTURE POINT CRESCENT, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 01:05:16· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

01:06:00 and they're proposing 15.8 meters. And they're also irregular in shape. So, based on the outcomes of the zone, which is also to facilitate the development of multiple dwellings, not houses. There are concerns about, you know, whether or not we're going to be able to provide a subdivision not confined to the planning scheme requirements and its ability to fulfil the high density residential zone requirements. Councillor Wegener: Any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's more a matter of interest than anything else, but was there any justification for the highly irregular shape of lot 50? Not any justification, like is it to try and get leads protection over views or something like that? No. Speaker 14: It looks like they've done a 50-50 split. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. That's what I'm presuming. It was just having to get people there. Formal planning grounds. Yes.

01:07:00 Councillor Lorentson: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wegener: No other questions? No other questions? Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Hi. I just want to raise the size and the character of the surrounding lots and also the nature of the precincts. So I went and visited the site yesterday, and one side of the room is clearly high density residential. The other side, there are really small lots, and on the small lots, there's three full dwellings. So can I understand what consideration and what weight was put on when I'm referencing the relevant purpose and overall outcome provisions in the code? Yes. Okay. Thank you. The number A, the overall outcomes sort of reconfiguring a lot of development that provides for lots that are of size and have dimensions that are appropriate for their intended use and are consistent with the sizes of salinity plots.

01:08:00 Speaker 4: Sure. Unfortunately, one page number didn't work, but under, if you look at figure 10, even though it says landslide positive over a month, that's incorrect. But figure 10, that was an analysis of the surrounding lots and their sizes. And again, that gives you an indication that there is a mixture of larger developments, like in the middle there is the Pitch Point Terraces, I think they're called, right in the centre. That's a larger development. And number 47, again, there's a larger development. So there is a mix. We acknowledge that. There are smaller lots, there are larger lots. And yes, there are some lots with units and some with houses. The proposed lots we don't feel will have, and we're concerned about the potential for them to be used for residential identity plots with long units.

01:09:00 So it is an interesting comparison. There is a mix there. We acknowledge that. The preference would be for larger lots, which will enable a better form of unit development on the site. And what's the limit? Three units. Three units. Three units, yeah. So duplexes are an inconsistent use. So what we're trying to achieve here, they could build a house, or otherwise we'd be looking at minimum three units. And can that be conditioned? Councillor Lorentson: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just on the line of that, with the multiple dwellings, you think there's like no opportunity for that to be developed to have seven units?

01:10:00 Speaker 4: On the smaller lots? Yes. Based on the constraints of the site, they gave, the applicant gave a massing diagram. Even with those massing diagrams, they required some setback relaxation straight off. So that was what they provided in terms of the concept. The site also slopes quite steeply at the back, it's 50%. So, and that triangulation at the back makes it very difficult for the development to sort of step down and then get appropriate setbacks to the environmental designs at the back as well. So, the configuration just makes it difficult. I'm not saying it can't be done at that time. It makes it difficult. There's also a sewer line that has to be relocated. So, there are some, and also there'll be geo-technical considerations for it. Speaker 14: End up creating lots that are narrower as well as what is intended. So, you're going to have two, a lot side by side. There's going to be a requirement for the setback from side boundaries. So, you really are limiting the extent of development that can occur on each lot.

01:11:00 Then each lot would need to be serviced by a driveway. So, you're really sort of transforming it. The street appearance as well, impacting the potential of car parking in the street, capacity for street trees. So, it's more desirable that this lot be left as it is and that it can be built, developed for multiple dwellings. Councillor Wegener: Okay, one more. I'll move the document. Seconded. Seconded. It just seems to be a very bad precedence to go against our own speed in such a fashion. A lot of the houses will jump on that level anyway. I don't think we're going to have to change the whole character of that. John Cochran: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Put it to a vote. I think there's some important principles here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is a very high value, high humanity site. Probably exceptional views. There's very few of those high density residential. It's really important that we keep the mix of zones right and that the proving this subdivision

01:12:00 is likely to be more likely enough in the future. I don't think we're going to get two houses rather than a series of multiple units which is, while this won't be a portable accommodation, it's still important to get as many of different curling units with a range of choice at various price points and it's clear by trying to push the boundaries of all the different requirements for lot size, lot shape, et cetera, in this development application that would have a suboptimal outcome for in terms of providing housing choice. So, I agree with the recommendation. Thank you. And the motion. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Should we put it to a vote? Shall I? You know, give us your recommendations first. Who's going to do it? Okay. Sunny opacity to raped, with 5 .5 development permit for materialchange of use, home-based

01:13:00 business, mechanic, F 39, you flip way to Thurabox. We have Tara walking us through all of these submit Speaker 8: All right, so this one did come in as a result of compliance action, so we received a complaint regarding an unlawful home-based business that's been carried out on site. So the applicant lodged an application in response to receiving a show-cause notice. As part of the application, Patrick and one of our law officers did go out on site. The applicant's been asked a number of times to provide an acoustic assessment to confirm that there was no off-site impacts in terms of noise. They declined to provide that, so we haven't been able to gain enough evidence to say that it wouldn't create those impacts, so in this case, we're recommending refusal. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. You guys visited the site yesterday. Do you have any further questions?

5.5 MCU22/0120 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOME-BASED BUSINESS (MECHANIC) AT 39 EUCALYPT WAY, COOTHARABA ¶

▶ 01:13:02· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

01:14:00 Councillor Finzel: Do I have questions around that? Yeah, I do. Is there any way that moving forward we could speak with the applicant? And provide opportunity for it to be conditioned to operate? Speaker 14: We have been trying to get the applicant to provide suitable information for us to make a decision on this application for an extended period of time. We were keen to make a decision on this application because we didn't want it just dragging on and on and the operator continuing to operate without an approval with our concerns around noise. We think it's appropriate that an acoustic assessment be made. We think it's appropriate that an acoustic assessment report be submitted and it be demonstrated how this use can operate on the land without causing any impacts to the surrounding area. I think it would be caught with danger to issue an approval without such information because there'd be some unknowns as to what sort of treatment should occur to the building, what kind of machinery may be suitable to be used, what hours of operation would be suitable.

01:15:00 And particularly, what kind of attenuation should occur to the building. So, we've certainly tried to go down that path with the applicant and to this point they just haven't agreed to do that. They've found it onerous to provide an acoustic report and I think that's somewhat concerning that they haven't come to agreement on that at this stage. Councillor Finzel: So, is the acoustic report the only mechanism that you have to condition the audio? Speaker 14: Well, we're concerned, because we're concerned about noise, so once you allow the business to operate, if you allow it to operate in a few days a week or limit the number of cars or whatnot, you've still got the issue of noise which you haven't demonstrated as being appropriately mitigated.

01:16:00 Cathy? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's worth trying again. I think it's worth trying again. I'll speak to this before I move it. It is relatively a rural residential area. The level of noise associated with normal rural residential activity with mowing, brush cutting, etc, the normal operation of a mechanic is not going to be any different in terms of the noise signature. It is a commercial operation and the verbal advice yesterday was that the complaint was It was driven by a one-off unusual set of circumstances in terms of the car that was backfiring and he was trying to work out the problem and it was creating a noise nuisance. There appeared to be, when the councils met on site, a degree of acceptance of the potential to modify. I understand it is only a number of days a week that they're proposing to use it

01:17:00 and what I'm proposing to move is we go out there and see what they're willing to offer before next week in terms of limiting the use to three days a week. I think the time of day that was mentioned maybe is only nine to five. Installing acoustic barriers around the compressor which is likely to be the main noise source. Any other noise making machinery is likely to affect the outside vent. Adopting work practices above and direct noise from neighbouring properties. Closing the back door and maybe having some insulation on there. And then a condition requiring conducting all operations that comply with the noise nuisance. I do think it's probably reasonable to, in the circumstances where it is only a part-time use, to look at the potential to improve subject conditions

01:18:00 in a way that perhaps you know, I understand staff would like to have an acoustic report. My gut is it would be better to spend that money on actually doing the acoustic attenuation measures which are pretty obvious in terms of, you know, there's a hoist that goes up and down that the level of DB's coming out of that won't affect across the boundary of the compressor when it's going. Anyone knows, they've come on and seen how many times and it's probably obvious that needs to be buffered. So my suggestion is that this matter be referred to the General Committee for further consideration and request the CEO liaise with the applicant to determine if they are agreeable to accept some approvals subject to conditions that would reduce the potential impact of the use including limiting the use to three days a week. Installing acoustic barriers around the compressor and any other noise making machinery likely to create nuisance outside the property boundaries. Adopting work practices of buffering and direct noise away from the neighbouring properties and conduct all operations that comply with noise limits.

01:19:00 This is set by the relevant environment protection policy. I'll second that. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, Brian, do you think limiting the use to three days, we could add the hours of operation? I'm happy to add that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Nine to three or something. Well, I think we talked about nine o'clock as being reasonable at that time and whether it's four or five. I think it's up to you. I think if you'd like it in there, eliminate the use of three days a week and hours nine o'clock. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Chairman. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Before it goes too far, I have a fundamental problem with the process where we're heading at the moment. Because to date, the powers of this committee has only been to refer to the ordinary meeting or to the General for further consideration. Not commit the organisation to extending resources on a course of action which may not be agreed by the full Council.

01:20:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a very good point. I'll have a different view. Yes. It's quite common to request further information to be presented, including a report to the General Committee. If it's something that these committees have done as a matter of course. And this is just asking them to liaise, which is something that once again has happened on a number of occasions in the past. It's probably a little bit different in that it's fairly specific in what it's asking to be liaised on. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Yes. I have a different opinion too. I think that we should explore, given the current financial implications and hardships people have out in community right now. I think that we should be looking at every opportunity to get information to support small businesses. To be thriving in our communities. So I'm happy to support the request for further information from staff to just help make that decision moving forward.

01:21:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Do you have something to say? I concur with what Brian said. I think we've done something similar to this in the past. On a number of occasions. This is just being a bit more specific about the nature of the referral and the sort of information being sought to bring to General Committee. I'm not making any commitment to that. I don't think there's any commitment of Council in any way, shape or form. It's just giving an alternative information being sourced to see if an alternative decision can be reached at a future meeting. Councillors, that couldn't be more wrong. Councillor Wilkie: What you're asking... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. There's more information. Point of order. As an observer, I think Council and Wilkie is going beyond the bounds of what is acceptable for the Committee. Councillor Wilkie: You're making decisions on behalf of this Council that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order has been raised. So I believe that... Observers can ask questions.

01:22:00 You can make a comment. But trying to debate the point is, I believe, outside the standing orders. It's about process. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me. I have a question for the Chair and the CEO. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes? Sorry. With the point of order... Point of order. I've moved it. It doesn't need to be seconded. Okay. Councillor Finzel: I'll second it. I'll second it. No, it's not a point of order exactly. Oh. The point of order. No, I second it. That's the point of order. It's outside of order. That's the point of order. Councillor Wegener: So now it's time for Tom to make his decision. Councillor Finzel: You're going to decide as the Chair. Councillor Wegener: Oh, I would like to view it... I think that it's important to hear what Frank has to say about this. I don't think he's debating the point. He's just bringing more information. Councillor Wilkie: It's a process question. It's a process question. As I said before, to date, the powers of this Committee have been to make a decision that refers the item either straight to ordinary or to the General Committee for further consideration where more information can be asked for. It's content... I don't recall at this point whether this Committee has also asked for further information.

01:23:00 I don't recall. But if it has, it certainly wouldn't be angling towards a certain outcome which may not be agreed to. So, in that case, it's inequitable because this Committee has the inside running in terms of directing this Council, without full complement of Councils around the table, towards getting an outcome which may not be agreed to. Now, I... I don't know. I don't know. I don't have the opportunity to be at the table to debate that. I may end up agreeing with this, but in terms of the process, it needs to happen at the General Committee. Then we can request the CEO, which is a commitment of resources of this Council, to angle towards a certain outcome. So... And I think it's the... This is beyond the powers of this Committee to do that. Councillor Wegener: So this is sort of what... What Brian's asking is to move... Move to General for further consideration. But... Full stop. Councillor Wilkie: That's where it should end.

01:24:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I'll have the turn of view. This is a properly constituted Committee of the Noosa Council, where we're emboldened by the Standing Orders to make decisions. Those decisions are subsequently referred to either the General Committee or to the Ordinary Committee. There is no statutory bar on any motion being put before this Committee. There are a range of protocols and processes that have been instituted. There are a range of protocols and processes that have been instituted to make this process work right. To suggest that this is beyond the scope of the Committee, in my belief, is based on a misunderstanding. I believe the matter and the manner... It's exactly the same thing as an individual Council going up to a staff member after the meeting. It's better for it to be something that it's not just one Council. It's better for the Committee to determine whether they think it's worthwhile pursuing this course of action. Speaker 12: The difference is that this is now putting in the recommendation.

01:25:00 What we would have done before is ask for further information but not actually worded it as such in the recommendation. So, that's a decision for you as Councillors on this Committee as to whether you accept that. The fact that it is four dot points as opposed to there may be other dot points and other questions that the other Council members may have. It does go to Councillor Wilkie's point of limiting it and essentially directing. So, I'll ultimately answer the decision of this group, of this Committee, as to whether you accept those four dot points to go into the recommendation to get that information. As Councillor Stockwell said, you're quite welcome to get this information over this next week before it goes to general and then to ordinary. But this is... This is... This is really just, you know, quite formalising it in terms of putting it into the recommendation. If you're prepared to do that, if you want to do that as a group, then that's your call.

01:26:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'm happy to add the potential impact of the use, including such matters as... So, just giving a little... Like, these are just some ways that they might be able to do, but I think if we're going to ask staff if they're happy... In other words, if you just ask staff whether they're happy to accept approval subject conditions without giving an indication of the nature of those conditions that may satisfy councillors as to overcoming the concerns of amenity, I think it's important that we do give some guidance. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So, we're not telling staff to do a particular thing. We're making a suggestion here. Councillor Finzel: We're making a recommendation. Councillor Wegener: A recommendation that that staff... But not... Councillor Finzel: Given that... First of all... Councillor Wegener: I'm... Go ahead. Go ahead, Cassie. If there's not... Councillor Finzel: Yes. Well, the debate is between us, isn't it? So, I take on board what Councillor Wilkie has said with regards to process.

01:27:00 I'm not okay with the process. What is right or wrong around that? I'm leaning towards the idea of then we remove the recommendation and we present it in such a way that it's questioned back to staff. And then we bring it to the next meeting to actually, with further information, we can debate whether we want to refuse and accept the staff recommendation. So, you... So, I'm not going to support Brian Stockwell's committee recommendation based on the fact of Councillor Stockwell has raised a process issue of which I'm uncertain. I haven't got the facts on that. So, I'm happy to support the idea that we put the questions back to staff informally. Rather than committee recommendation. And then we can debate that at the next meeting. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Speaker 12: Yeah. Speaker 9: Just to add to that. I think where the current recommendation says to determine if that agreement would

01:28:00 accept approval subject to conditions is a problematic piece. We have definitely previously, from this committee, had requests to have further discussions with the applicant. So, I'm not going to support that. But I think it's important to say that we have a commitment around a range of matters that has been normal practice in this committee. And that those matters be brought back to the next meeting. Yeah. So... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you suggest an amendment to the words that you think would be consistent then? Speaker 9: I think if we decide to request a CEO to liaise with the applicant regarding a range of matters to reduce the potential impact. Okay. And report back to the general public. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because that... Speaker 9: Including such matters as... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. The accepted approval is maybe preempted. Yes. Yeah. That's right. I think that's very important. Yes. Yeah. Okay. That's the rule. I'm happy to change it. I should have changed it. Yeah. And now they know what I'm talking about.

01:29:00 Delete that. Speaker 9: Keep going. Range of matters. That would then stop. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then could we potentially impact... So reduce the potential impact, full stop, and then you're wiping out everything else? Such. Speaker 9: You could say such as. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Such as. Such as. Yes. Such as. Yes. Can you take all that out? No, no. Speaker 9: No, I don't think so. Okay. I think it's fine. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And take out matters. Take out... Just put impact such as. After impact, just put such as. Yeah. I'm happy with that change. If the seconder is happy and... Councillor Finzel: Okay. Through the Chair, I do have an issue with the fact that I voted against the initial recommendation with the wording. So then the process has been then that it looks like... Speaker 11: You haven't voted yet. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, we haven't voted. You indicated you... I was just writing that. Sorry. You haven't actually voted yet. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's up to the...

01:30:00 It's up to the majority of the committee to decide whether they're happy with the change. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Start the question, please. Okay. Yeah. Just in terms of acceptable outcome 9.3, home-based business does not produce noise which exceeds the background noise level plus finding the aid at site boundaries. Is there an alternate way to get at site boundaries? Is there an acoustic report that can satisfy that condition? I understand it's on-risk. Four and a half thousand dollars has been quoted for an acoustic report. But I think that given that the property is less... The home-based business is situated on a property that's less than four hectares and there's a requirement that it's got to be impact assessed, is there another way that we can be sure that it meets that requirement?

01:31:00 That concerns me quite a bit. So a question to you, Patrick. Can we go out there and do our own sound acoustic missions? Speaker 14: Well, we would do that, I suppose, after the fact. It's somewhat relying on the operator using machinery that is reflective of the maximum noises that they can make. And also acknowledging that once you issue an approval, it's in place in perpetuity. So you have some other option. I would say that the property has to be at the same time as 10 percent of the use down the track. They might come in and receive to use the premise for the same years, using different equipment that's valid at that point in time. Hence why we go back to what they should do now, provide an acoustic report and mitigate the noise coming out of the building by attenuating it. Speaker 9: Can the staff of course also be out on site and observe that there is noise heard at the site boundaries? Yes. So in order to mitigate that, there needs to be mitigating measures to inform what those measures are. Speaker 11: And I will add, in terms of the acoustic requirements, particularly with the shared

01:32:00 a lot of reverberation. So the type of treatment is really important to make sure it's effective and actually meets the scheme requirements. So I guess that's where we need some detail without making assumptions based on what's happening and what the noise might be. And given, as Patrick said, there may be future operators may purchase that site in future perpetuity and they may set up a similar operation which may have other impacts that we're seeing. So we need to sort of cater to what may happen long-term as well at this future moment. So I guess it comes back down to we need some good evidence around how that noise is going to be mitigated so that we don't have a bit of compliance burden that we may inherit if we don't quite get it right now. Precedency. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask another question? If an approval was given with conditions, can the approval be for a limited period rather

01:33:00 than in perpetuity? Can we approve it for 12 months, subject to no complaints? We've had issues with approvals. We've had issues with approvals in the past. Speaker 14: That's right. That's a good question. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: We have some questions for the CEO for the recommendation. Are you happy to fill out your request to the CEO to engage with the applicant regarding the range of matters? Yes. Speaker 12: So the idea is through the CEO and then go to them, so that's just the process? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. It might be me, I don't know. Okay, well I'm just double checking with the process given it was raised by... Yes. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Frank, do you have any further comments?

01:34:00 Councillor Wilkie: No, I thank you for hearing that concern and I respect the direction the discussion has gone and the change to the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. So one more question. There are six dwellings within 200 metres of the property against smooth lot services. I know we've had one complaint with the... Yes. ...neighbour. Have we had any indication from the other dwellings where we've had any impacts? That's a good question. Speaker 14: So it is a code accessible application, so there was no notification required. And as Tara's indicated, there was a complaint that stimulated the application to be made. Through the assessment process, I did contact the number of owners in the area and one of them who was a separate person to the person that made the complaint advised me that they weren't supportive of this business operating

01:35:00 because of the noise in the house. Councillor Lorentson: And it's code accessible. It's code accessible if low impact industries such as an account or a workshop is situated on property no less than four hectares. So given this is less than four hectares, is it a different assessment? I'm confused. In the rural time, it's very accessible in the outlands. Speaker 8: In the rural place, it's actually fine. So these aren't the local plans, but that size has got the design that doesn't trigger the furniture. Councillor Wegener: So that's a good question. Any other questions? We take a close breath. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I accept that Council would be genuine concerns and that the removal of that potential forecasting of an approval was probably something that I hadn't thought of. And I do think it's important that we do just test these orders.

01:36:00 Sometimes when it happens, get to the point of knowing that on one hand, they've got a refusal and on the other hand, they've spent a bit of money to get an approval. If I choose to go the second way. Choose wisely. Councillor Wegener: Okay. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? unanimously. Thank you very much, Tara. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: You're still there. I am. On to the next report. 5.6, short-term accommodation at 2A Woongar Street, Boring Point. Tara, will you please walk us through the application? Speaker 8: So this is an application that's been submitted to the Council. It's an application for an existing dwelling to be converted into short-term accommodation. So the applicant's provided some history on the site that it's been owned by the family for 40 odd years. And siblings have inherited the house. They use it sporadically throughout the years. So we've decided that they would look at turning it into short-term accommodation to basically make up a little bit of money.

5.6 MCU23/0019 - SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 2A WOONGAR STREET, BOREEN POINT ¶

▶ 01:36:40· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

01:37:00 So the site's quite large. It's a split zoning. The dwelling house itself is located within the residential zoning. And then the rest of it is environmental management and conservation. There's no works proposed. It will just all be within the existing dwelling. Five bedrooms. They've proposed 10 guests on site at any one time. We've conditioned eight, just to be consistent with previous approvals and not just any kind of humanity impacts. We do receive submissions from the community in regards to the application. So they've been addressed in the report. Predominantly around concerns regarding bushfire and noise. So our standard conditions in regards to trailer conduct and management and things like that are included in the recommendations. . Councillor Wegener: As you know, I was going to talk about dogs. But before we get there, would anybody else like to... Any questions? Councillor Lorentson: I've recommended that this gets moved to...

01:38:00 Councillor Wegener: Yes, yes. Councillor Lorentson: I can give this one up. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: As you know, I brought up the thought of dogs. And it just seems to me, with the short-term accommodation, somebody looks at it on the internet and just goes, oh my gosh, this is a huge property. Here I can bring my dogs and they can run freely. And I would think that'd be assumed. And it's in a very, very environmentally sensitive zone, especially for koalas and shorebirds. What put out that we should make further conditions for the dogs. For either no dogs allowed, or make sure they have an area set up, a properly set up area to fence for dogs. And in the old regulations, as Nadine and I found out, that when it comes to koala habitat, for koala habitat, they recommend a closed area for fencing for dogs for anybody that lives there. And also in our own policy, our own dog policy at the City Council.

01:39:00 All dogs must be adequately contained on the owner's property. And they must not be allowed to roam. And so if somebody comes up with a dog there, they must not be allowed to roam. And we have to make sure that they don't roam. And we have to think about dogs, because it just seems that dogs are a part of the family now. They're actually family members. It's just the way it is. They come everywhere. They're in restaurants. They're on the parks. Speaker 8: So I did contact a consultant to see whether they would propose to allow dogs on the site. I haven't heard back yet. But we can, depending on whether they're just restricting, preventing them completely, but we can condition to recommend a channel for fencing for dogs. Councillor Lorentson: OK. Councillor Wegener: So it will either be no dogs or fencing for dogs? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes.

01:40:00 Yes. The impact of cats on the environment and on the environment. Yes. And native animals as well. Would you include cats? Councillor Wegener: I wouldn't include cats. My impression is if you have a cat and you bring it there and you let it off the lead, it's gone. You'll never see the cat again. Probably the same with birds. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But dogs are different. Yes. I know you've got to pay for it. To me, it is an environment with a sense of self. And for Monday, I'd just like to think about, is there any reasonable and relevant conditions that could be imposed that would increase our security of good environmental management in the balance of that block? Because it is a remnant that is right on the foreshore, got a range of values that could be disturbed by guests who are unaware of its importance. To me, there may be other conditions that we could consider. As well as the control of domestic animals.

01:41:00 That may just give us a bit of security that if we're going from residential use to commercial use. So therefore, what other protections we can have on that balance. Speaker 14: We can have a look at that in terms of the proposed use. But acknowledging that there is zoning and overlays on the land that do provide a level of protection as well. More about that management, the activity stuff. Speaker 11: There could be some signage, for example, making us aware about the significance and information, making a way around, you know, what the influence of that area would be. That would be an adverse cost on the emerging use that's proposed. So that could be one of the criteria for increasing awareness. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So, I would like to... Oh yeah, there it is. I'd like to move that the planning and environment... Okay. ...agenda number six be referred to general committee for further consideration and request the CEO to provide appropriate conditions considering the environment sensitivity of the

01:42:00 site including the control of dogs and other activities that may impact on the environmental values. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. And I don't need to speak to it. Anybody else have a question? We're going to go back to the agenda. Okay, we're up to report number seven, minor change to existing approval for the purpose of providing a cafe for guests of the community use wellbeing, conservation, and special needs Type 2 Social on Land at 468 McKinnon Drive, Cooroibah.

5.7 MCU16/0090.02 - MINOR CHANGE TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A CAFÉ FOR GUESTS OF THE COMMUNITY USE – WELLBEING – TYPE 2 SOCIAL ON LAND AT 468 MCKINNON DRIVE, COOROIBAH ¶

▶ 01:42:44· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

01:43:00 And we have Georgina Schramm. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act of 2009, Chapter Regular provides the following explanation to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I, in Chapter Regular, affirm the meeting to have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Sunshine Beach Butterflies as of the 23rd of October, 2020. I provided them with a donation of $1,200. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person should have a perception of bias because I do not have any other association with that organization. Therefore, I would choose to remain in the meeting, however, I will respect the decision of the meeting

01:44:00 on whether I remain and participate in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I vote that Councillor Finzel take over the chair of the committee. Do you have to second it? I have to second that. That's the vote, isn't it? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Oh, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then I'm happy to move that Councillor Knowsley clear all conflicts of interest by Councillor Wegener and determine that it's in the public interest that Councillor Wegener participates in both of them in this matter. Because Council believes that he does not stand to receive personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Juergen Weigel: I'll call that. Speaker 12: You can second that. Councillor Finzel: And I'll second that. All in favour? Is that unanimous? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you.

01:45:00 Thank you very much. Yeah. And it was unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Any questions? Oh, do we get it over? We haven't got, we didn't get it over here. I'm sorry. That's it. Okay. Speaker 10: Good morning. So the application in front of us today relates to Vasa Land along McKinnon Drive. There's an existing approval there currently for community use that we know of as Sunshine By-the-Fudge. So in this instance, they're looking to extend one of the existing buildings on the site for the purpose of providing cafe-style food to those already attending the site. So whether that's students, clients and staff, the extension is remaining auxiliary to the large use being the community use. So in this instance, the application is being recommended for approval subject to conditions.

01:46:00 Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Questions? I'm happy to move. Is there a staff recommendation? I'm happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this is a really important social enterprise in our community that provides a range of really beneficial services to its clients. And this little cafe is just part of that experience of going there. It is internally focused. It won't generate additional traffic. It'll just be... ...a add-on to the range of services that they do provide to their clients. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Any questions from Caster, Lawrence and Wilkie? Okay. We'll put it to... We'd like to close now. We'll put it to a vote. Okay. Any recommendations?

01:47:00 Pass. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Would you... What we're at... What we're at now... Five point I. I know I have a declaration. Councillor Finzel: You've got a declaration. Councillor Wegener: Two hours. Do we need to come on first, anybody? This is off. Okay, table for us. Okay. So here we have the first. Five point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter due to the fact that as President of the Nurse Alliance Football Club, I have land and water management responsibilities for approximately 4.5 hectares of the Vereen Sports Complex.

5.8 INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - BURGESS CREEK ¶

▶ 01:47:16· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

01:48:00 This involves the application of mainly organic soil release and calcium-based fertiliser and herbicide over what is a sizeable holding in terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and uses surface water and recycled water in the park. The downstream impact of sports field are potential risk factors for the quality of service orders in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role with NLFC and the fact that the club is not likely to gain or lose from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to remain in the mid-room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision.

01:49:00 However, I have the responsibility for doing that in a sustainable fashion. Councillor Finzel: And as an executive member, do you liaise closely with the community role with regards to the release of the water for the irrigation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: When we used the recycled water, we had a close association with the then managing company at the plant, which is Krishna Gond. We no longer, we now only, we exclusively use groundwater now. Speaker 6: Okay. Councillor Wegener: What a web of a world we live in where you need to do a conflict of interest because you're on the administration of this community group, sporting group complex. Okay. Well, should we vote?

01:50:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Does the Councillor Stockwell stay in the room? Councillor Finzel: I don't rate again. That's the thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Oh. Yeah, we don't, Amelia has asked you this, but we haven't heard about the report yet. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: You don't have to vote yet. Councillor Wegener: Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. Councillor Finzel: Oh, okay. You just wrote it up. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Oh, Rodio. I'll put it in the . But you can read it. Councillor Wegener: I'll read it out. We voted that Council note the Declaration of Conflict of Interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that neither he nor the Noosa Lions Football Club stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

01:51:00 We've already voted that. So Amy Kimber, would you please walk us through this? Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely. So hopefully you can see by the report that a lot has been happening in this space and I have to commend Sophie for really pulling together the different area groups and we've run a series of workshops now. Three in total that we're performing. But also more offline. We've done some operational matters with David Shelpinger who looks after the Queensland Water Director at Swim Database which we're trying to integrate all of our data into. We had a Council workshop on the 1st of June where Unity Water came and presented the receiving environmental monitoring program work. I regret there wasn't really a lot of time to get into the detail of what those results were showing. But they have now agreed to share the report.

01:52:00 Which is attached to this Council agenda. One thing that we didn't get to in that workshop that we were hoping to cover was the work that the infrastructure team has been doing around the high risk erosion working group. So that project has funding in this financial year looking at nine locations. But there's still a grant pending for that to go ahead. But we're hoping that that work will really flow into the Burgess Creek integrated catchment management plan. And a key piece put up for that at the end of last year. And it looks like that has been successful in the budget outlook for 2024-25. So Burgess Creek could be looked at as one of two priority creeks under the high risk erosion project as well. What we couldn't include in this report, it was just a little bit too late.

01:53:00 The agenda deadline was our submission to the water management planning process. So Council has put forward its recommendations and management options that were proposed as part of that. And I'm going to share that out of session and attach it to the general committee agenda. In terms of the water quality program itself, or broadly across the Shire, the reason I'm dressed like this, the primary river catchment crawl is on today. So we'll be heading out to a range of sites this afternoon. We kicked off at 7.45 this morning. And we're really excited that the next workshop will bring our next situation analysis report, which is the water quality results from right across the Shire. So the last report was prepared by the NICCC every 2021. So it's been about two years. And it will be really important to be able to compare what has happened over that period.

01:54:00 So that's a bit of a summary. The only other thing to add is we're working with Sunshine Coast Council to prepare a million river report card as well. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Question. On page of the report, of the community water report, 25 or 46, there was a substantial spike in the concentration of buccal chloroform in 2021. Was that because of a flood, a rain event in May? I don't remember there was a rain event in May. Speaker 6: I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. But we can take a look at this. Councillor Wegener: Did you say page 25? Yes. You can see that. Page 25 of 64.

01:55:00 Speaker 7: This is May 2021. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's the blue line is Site B8. Site B8 they describe as a ephemeral stream. It's probably really important. It's important to understand that that site's probably just a drainage depression within a wetland. So what might have been happening at that point is the ephemerality of that, it might have gone from being a aerobic watered body to drying out pool. And that will affect. There's also comments in the report about it having higher chlorophyll levels. Once again, that could be indicative of the ephemeral nature. It's not really a good comparator in terms of the creek. I went back and checked my advice from the Department of Natural Resources a few years ago. They consider the water course finishes below the outlet of the stormwater treatment. So upstream is really just a palestrine wetland.

01:56:00 It's useful information. The top point would be useful information to capture urban stormwater during events. And that B8 will be useful in terms of the quality of flow during events. But after that, the whole ecosystem process will be different. So it won't be a good comparator. Yeah. So it's a second highest one. It's above the outlet. So where the water comes out of the treatment plant, it goes into a wetland. But because it's down constant, that's down constantly flowing. But the water course, the DNR determined, is down actually below the football field. That makes sense. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Skip to the next one. Speaker 6: We do have funding, I guess, to our district. We do have funding to expand to what Brian was talking about in terms of stormwater monitoring. So we haven't really been doing that. And we know that some of the creeks, like Cranks Creek and Eadie Creek, are reporting F ratings. So we need to get a much better understanding of what's happening with stormwater discharge

01:57:00 across the Shire and some of the areas where we know it's an issue. Councillor Wegener: The cost overall has been, as you mentioned in the report, about $400,000 a year. $400,000 for this project. And we'd never say no to money being spent on this. But there are, like you just said, there's other catchments, like Eadie Creek and all over the place. But does this give us a really deep understanding of a micro-catchment? Because we're fortunate. We have micro-catchments where Gympie or other places aren't dumping into our catchment. We're completely responsible for our own that helped in pollution in our own catchments. Yeah. Speaker 6: I think there has, I think that the feedback we've received from our NRM group, since that it is receiving, I guess, an inauditive amount of attention, however, it is a very high-profile area and people are concerned.

01:58:00 So I think that the PID that we've come up with is for $266,000. And that's what's been, I guess, included in the 24 to the 5 outlook. I think that's what's been included in the 24 to the 5 outlook. I think the extra cost might have been to involve project management in that, because it's a big job to pull something like that together. So, you know, it may be that there are cost savings that could be made. Councillor Wegener: And it also, oh, go ahead. It just, with Unity Water and the discharge from the STP there, actually is a positive effect on the quality of the water in general, because it dilutes the quality of the water and it dilutes the amount of chemicals and things coming down the river from upstream. Speaker 6: Certainly with the results showing that at B3, which is the STP outfall, that's the best quality water in the catchment.

01:59:00 So, yes, it appears that that is having a positive effect. And further down in the catchment, we're seeing the inputs from other areas that need to be investigated. Councillor Wegener: That really probably is counterintuitive. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for your report. I mean, water security, it should be top priority and any investment in that to secure sustainable outcomes for suitable water for our population is to be commended. In relation to, you said the water matters report didn't come to us due to time constraints. So, a question to the CEO through the chair. Is there a possibility that we could seek or request that to be available before the general or ordinary meeting? Speaker 12: I don't know the answer to that one. I'm sorry. Yep. Speaker 6: I'm very happy to submit it if it's not too late. Sorry. Speaker 12: Okay. See you. Go ahead. Speaker 7: We could probably start submission of the water matters consultation to take one.

02:00:00 No, just the general. Speaker 9: Just circulate it to councillors. Councillor Finzel: Oh, circulate. Yep. That'd be great. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the question is, what is the potential source of impact on Burgess Creek catchment on figure one on page two? It leads me to ask a couple of questions. One, it mentions runoff from the golf course. I would have thought the runoff from the golf course actually ran into Weyba Creek because of the ridge line. It was actually going in the opposite direction. Two, have we mapped all of the storm water inflows into the creek, i.e., from each of the urban areas? Where each of those storm water inflows goes and what level of detention or bio-basin or any other mechanisms that are on those exist currently in the system? Has that been undertaken at this point in time? Speaker 6: Not to my knowledge.

02:01:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Is that something that we intend to undertake as part of this so that we fully understand all of the inflows? Speaker 6: That was, I think, something that was proposed that's one-third of the peer-to-peer support. That was proposed that we look at storm water inflows and try to then understand what impact they're having on the catchment. Councillor Jurisevic: That would be good because I said that seeing runoff from golf course on that I'm going, is it? Is it going in that direction or is it heading in the opposite direction? That just gave me cause to question as to whether we understand where each of these inflows is. If that's a mapping exercise to be undertaken, I think that would be a good exercise to undertake to fully understand and map those bio-basins. Noosa joked there's only a detention basin that's got a bio-basin form there in the form of reeds and things like that. That's a different sort of bio-basin. Am I understanding? Yeah. Speaker 6: I think there's a lot of opportunity to implement water sensitive urban design. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the point behind my mapping of this.

02:02:00 Understand what exists, what doesn't exist and what may be the opportunities for the future to implement if need be. Speaker 6: Absolutely. I was shown one example of rain garden that's in this adjunction and to my knowledge that's the only one we have around our urban area so that would be a relatively simple thing to implement. Councillor Jurisevic: We have three schools, two lots of sporting fields as well that one would assume get fertilised on a regular basis as well that would need to consider where their water flow is going to that catchment. Speaker 6: I do notice that B3, not B3, B6 has the worst water quality in that Sanford region and it's right next, I'm not pointing the finger here, but it's right next to Yarraweed Sports Complex and so what do we need to do there to investigate? Councillor Jurisevic: Exactly. Understanding and mapping it fully gives us the opportunity to then monitor where these impacts are coming from and potentially directly.

02:03:00 Thank you. Councillor Wegener: I'm going to have to wrap it up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just before we wrap it up, in your question I've had a look at that graph again and it's probably very narrow in my description. I'd just like to say that it appears that event with high enterococci is across most of the streams coming off urban areas, so B1 was high, it was the other high it was hiding there, B2 which is behind the schools and in fact the lowest was coming out of the series treatment plant. So it does look like there was a catchment event that was broader than just something happening, whether it was drying out or whether it was something else, but it's not just what I was talking about. That would explain that high enterococci ended at four or five sites. Councillor Finzel: Can we get some further detail on that for general? Yeah. I just wanted, should we move this to the general? Yes. Yes. Have we done that? Speaker 12: That's a recommendation. Oh, okay.

02:04:00 Councillor Finzel: I'm sorry, Amelia requested that. Would you like to move that? Yeah, I'd like to move that. Councillor Wegener: I'm happy to second it. Would you like to speak to that? Councillor Finzel: I just think that due to the significance of it and waiting on the report and also from the water matters and there's some complexities around this, I think it's prudent that we have all councils around the town. Due to the significance of the matter, yeah. Councillor Wegener: It's a colossal report and it really took a long time to digest. And with the new computer system, I lost my notes because I forgot to save it, so I'm just so frustrated. This is loose. If you don't save your notes, you can save them and they all disappear, which is not the computer. Yep. Okay. Okay, let's . Okay, let's vote on this. We can refer to the general. All in favor? Speaker 11: Yes. Councillor Wegener: Two and a half, two hours and ten minutes. We have a five minute comfort break.

6 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 02:05:22

02:13:00 Councillor Finzel: We'll be right back. Councillor Wilkie: It's on. Councillor Wegener: Okay, two reports for noting by the committee. Number one, planning applications decided by delegated authority. And we'll have Kim, Kim Rawlings, walk us through the reports. Speaker 9: So councillors, this is our standard report that we provide to you, that provides, yes.

6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY MAY 2023 ¶

▶ 02:13:46· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

02:14:00 Councillor Wegener: Do we have any comments? Conflicts of interest. Usually we're loaded with the conflicts of interest. I couldn't find any. No, we don't today, thank goodness. Okay, got two. Speaker 9: Yeah, so this standard report we provide to you on a regular basis. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Query. I've got a conflict of interest query. The applicant is the landowner, but it does mention Suncoast building approvals in the line under proposal. I've got a conflict of interest in Suncoast building approvals, does that constitute a conflict? It's meant in the name of someone else that they're involved. Councillor Finzel: Brian, only you can do that. Speaker 12: It's your decision, but maybe in the past you've... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've declared when Suncoast building approvals have been the applicant. I'm saying because they're not the applicant, there is no conflict.

02:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Any questions? Councillor Finzel: Yes. So just a question with regards to the delegations on, I can't read the page, but anyway, item number 15, there was a delegation for a material change of use at 67 Eucalypt of Cootharaba. So we've just discussed that with the terms to the SBAs. Can you just tell me a little bit about that specifically, or? Yeah. Speaker 9: Actually can't. I'll have to take that one on notice. I can send Patrick off. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 9: Okay. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, sure. Speaker 9: That's fine. I can take that on notice and come back to you. Councillor Finzel: So it's application MCU23-0005. Speaker 6: Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Mr Chair. Yeah.

02:16:00 Councillor Wegener: Councillor Stockwell. Wilkie. Yeah. Right over there. No. Again. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I just had a question. We had a matter come before us as a full report for an approval for a short-term accommodation at a quarrying point. And then item 16, which is MCU23-0015, material change of use code, it's approval for a short-term accommodation. And I just wondered why one would come before the council as a full report and why one would be approved under delegated authority? Yeah. I think it's just a matter of the possible reasons. Speaker 9: Yeah. Again, I might need to take that one on notice and have a look in detail at that one. I suggest it would have been the split zoning that was at the quarrying point and the conservation issues related to this application. More complicated. More complicated. Yes. As to why you will note that some of the short-term accommodation applications that are code accessible, or complied with the code under the current provisions we are doing under delegation,

02:17:00 unless there's a complicated matter or an issue you can consider. So my suggestion is it's because of the split zoning, like here today. Okay. Thank you. But I can follow up on that one. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I just wanted to reply to Frank. In front on the picture, there's a house and then it showed another little house next to the house, which it seemed to say that that's the SDA. So maybe it might be a home hosted. Speaker 9: It could well be too, Councillor Whitmer. But yeah, it would usually be if it was a complicated factor or out of the ordinary factor. Councillor Lorentson: So I'll confirm that. Councillor Lauritsen? Just in reference to Councillor Finzel, you could have laid Ariba. It's a different property plan. It's 67 different properties. Oh, it's a different property. Oh, thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you for the clarification. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.

02:18:00 Excellent. Councillor Wegener: Any other questions? No. Councillor Finzel: Oh, no. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Well, I'll move. Would you want to move it? Councillor Finzel: Oh, you can. I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wegener: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can't change it too much. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Mayer? Yes. Thanks, Councillor. We have 2.2, use the environment strategy. Here's 3, implementation plan updated. This is a colossal report. Speaker 7: Yes. We'll let it . Councillor Wegener: It's a summer report. Speaker 7: A lot of work. Councillor Wegener: It's just summer. A lot of work.

6.2 NOOSA ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY - YEAR THREE (2021/2022) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATED ¶

▶ 02:18:38· Carried unanimously 2-0 from council's minutes

02:19:00 Speaker 5: So this is the 2021-22 summary report which maps progress against the environment strategy and the 42 key actions. So it had been delayed obviously due to stop changes in COVID. So basically it's highlighting that most of the actions are on track at the moment. There were seven that identified as needing attention. But we are also preparing the full report which will be presented to Council in September which will have the combined monitoring results. So it will be a lot more detailed basically. And as part of that we're also reviewing the implementation plan itself which will potentially lead to the environment strategy review as well because there's some key gaps we've identified in terms of fire management and also sustainable infrastructure that's not captured under the environment strategy at the moment that we want to include.

02:20:00 So in terms of significant achievements, some of the highlights have been that 5,700 bushland operational assessments have been completed in 2021-22. There was also the fine scale regional ecosystem mapping that was commenced and 29% of that was complete of the Shire at the end of the 2021-22 financial year. We've also consolidated water quality monitoring data in the swim database. And there was also an introduction of green waste bins which saw 16,000 times of organic waste done by the plant, which is fantastic. There was also the extension of the solar array which reduced emissions resources. There was also the extension of the solar array which reduced emissions resources. We also provided a review of CO2 emissions by 12% on the previous financial year. Some key areas needing attention were the progression of the environment sustainability roundtable. So there's obviously been ongoing engagement with different NRN groups

02:21:00 but that hasn't been formalised in a roundtable as yet. So that's been the focus of this financial year. We're also looking at creating work with stakeholders, which is Amy's area, for... Annie is looking at advocating the minimum energy efficiency and renewable energy generation standards as well. And then there's the identification of potential opportunities for carbon sequestration. So that's part of the offset strategy which we'll be looking at as well. So I guess that's sort of a key overview of where we're currently at at the end of the 21-22 financial year. And obviously we'll be a little further up there in September as we were at the end of this financial year. Councillor Wegener: There's so much to it. Everybody has different interests, you know, around this table. And of course mine is the water sills, washing down the Kibbit and Kin Kin and expanding that.

02:22:00 And that's several of the different projects that's mentioned. Yes. We're working on that. Any other questions or comments? Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to comment. Thank you for the summary. It's really good to track where we're up to. And I'm really interested in how we're collecting the data and how we use that data to inform our decisions moving forward. I think it's really a robust opportunity to be able to align all those reports, the data and applications and funding to deliver great outcomes for the community. So yeah, I just think it's a really good body of work. To inform us and ensure, you know, that we have responsibility through our fiscal management and our environmental targets and outcomes. So I think I'm really excited to see how we keep bringing all this together and be able to make really good informed decisions around how we meet all the targets. Thank you.

02:23:00 So how do you feel that you're tracking along with where we're heading? Speaker 5: Yeah, I think we're definitely progressing well. I guess there needs to be a review of the implementation plan. And it's something that's talking about making sure those targets that we're working towards are achievable and that we can actually influence the outcomes. And where we can't, is there a way that we could measure that success or should we be focusing on, you know, core areas? So I guess that review would be good. Yeah. You know, what can council actually deliver on and what can we maybe be able to take into the stage? Or for the government to try and, you know, for example, sustainable fishing. You know, can we get more consultation with those key groups to use their data to have a measurement of what's happening within our catchments rather than the council collecting that data? Yeah. Reduce that duplication process. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So you see the partnerships and relationship building with the community are really a vital part in reaching those outcomes.

02:24:00 Speaker 5: Definitely. Yeah. And obviously the collaborative agreement we're working on with KBW Works is a key part of that. It is. Particularly around the conservation land plan, looking at where they're undertaking their strategic acquisitions. How can we, you know, build on those and also leverage funding through the offsets, State Offsets Fund. That sort of thing. It affects the opportunities, I think. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. We're getting in place our foundations in order, I guess, at the moment and doing assessments as we're at. But yeah. I don't know. Rebecca's probably better. So. Yeah. Speaker 7: The Environment Strategy presents such a broad program across all those. Well, meaning sustainable living, climate change, waterways, biodiversity. And council can't do it on its own. And so those partnerships that you mentioned are really vital for this. Yeah. And we really want to continue to showcase the good work that our, in our own partners do in this space.

02:25:00 They're doing a lot of the on-ground work. Assessments, water quality monitoring, on-ground planting work, helping with invasive weeds that mean that we are making some really good headway on environmental improvements. So, you know, this provides us with a really good opportunity to take a step back and just acknowledge what we have done over this year. Knowing that there's plenty more management efforts to do. But to just stop and acknowledge that. So it's really great for our staff and the rest of council to see that progress. But also for us to shine a light on those within the community that are helping us significantly to achieve our program outcomes. Yeah. That sounds good. Councillor Finzel: So in relation to the round table progressing, and that's a key focus, how are we stepping towards a timeline for the future? How are we going to deliver that? Speaker 7: Yeah, we have it scheduled for September for this year. And we hope to get our NRN partners together to talk about the range of programs and projects

02:26:00 they're working on and to update them on what our forward program looks like for this year. And to see where we can consolidate some of those partnerships. And then also think about how to really spread that information out to the broader community as well. Because there's several interest groups across the community that want to be updated on this. And that's happening with council's projects. Yeah. So considering how that feeds in as well. So there's a little bit of planning around that. And we had some successful NRN style round tables in the past that were great. That council has chaired and some of our community groups have inputted into. But it was just really useful that you might not otherwise have been aware of what activities are happening across the Shire and beyond. But just, yeah. Yeah.

02:27:00 Councillor Finzel: That's great. Fantastic. That's a great collaborative approach to share all our knowledge and reach the targets and outcomes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Like, I'll move the motion and then I'll talk to it, but yeah, move that motion, I do think it's a very important and significant issue that we, sorry community seconder, yeah, I'll talk to it and rather than ask questions, you know, like there is, while this is the in-between year, like every two years we do a full analysis against the tables, if you go to the end of the report, you've got some really good news. It's hidden in here in terms of, you know, in 21-22 we reduced carbon, council's carbon footprint by 12%. Now we now have about 680 kilowatt of solar across council buildings and I'm sure it must be just about the increase at the Sunrise Beach shops, but there are also some areas in that, you know, it does identify that where we're going slow, the red clipboard on one of my favourite ones is identify potential areas of carbon sequestration and we talked about pilot, that one's, you know,

02:28:00 probably been pushed back a few times now and it's ones where we do have to focus, you know, like if we're going to avoid the significant social, commercial, financial and environmental impact of climate change, we have to be in a position to be sure that we've got enough trees and draw down capacity to take the peak off the emissions impact. But, yeah, the other good area where we're travelling well is in the waste area and while this will show what we're doing, you know, you hope in the next one that we'll have some more key performance indicators there. So, yeah, I welcome this report, it's coming a little bit late, but it does give us a good snapshot of the activities taken and some of the investments made and, as previously mentioned, the great work that occurs in association with our community groups and partners.

02:29:00 Councillor Wegener: One of the projects that's, thank you, Brian, on those people there, so just, you know, thank you so much for all of this work, it seems the environment strategy struggles a lot of, pretty much all the different departments, I mean, you have waste, you know, is a key part of your environment strategy and climate change response is a key part of it and the benefit layer and the rivers and the silt, we keep it a key, but it's just such a wide body that's under the big umbrella. One of the, number 27, is the advance the, advance the idea of a new sustainability institute to establish a coordination, an approach to research and activity occurring in our community towards sustainability. Camilla, you probably haven't heard me hammer on about this, I'm not the only one, but I think that an educational opportunity for DUSA in a giant way, especially as a biosphere, in other words, between two other biospheres to lead, lead by example,

02:30:00 but to actually document and tell the story better is through the potential of an institute. Yeah, but. It could be a university self funding on itself, I think that you can very quickly get investors into it as a government private body institution. And so that's something that I think is important, I think it's a long range goal, and I think if we ever do go for double world heritage status of DUSA, which I think is possible, that would be a really good step in stone to get to this very lofty goal. And then the second thing I'd like to say is, you know, with our press, our outward face, and all these are such good, good stories, and the residents here like this stuff. And I would love to see our own team, our own press team, focus on this stuff a bit more.

02:31:00 I mean, it's, I have that time drive, I have to call up, you know, Nathan and say, Nathan, this is a good story, right? Well, we have to hear about it, so it's a matter of maybe better talking to them. Maybe our, maybe Kim Rowlings, our strategist, genius over there could, you know, push these stories through as well. Speaker 7: We've got a few things planned in that publicity space. Any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: Just in regards to the environment, is there any sort of work on the objectives? We've really achieved that. I know that you made a submission on that. And has that come to completion? Is there a draft review that's? Speaker 7: Yeah, so we're regularly following up with the department on that one. And we haven't got that final set of information to understand how they've landed on their decisions around that.

02:32:00 So it has been significantly delayed. So we'll be able to provide an update when we know some more. So if you haven't heard anything further from them, no. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It certainly has implications for our last five-minute Great Water Management Bill. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I guess we're ready to vote on favour. We're moving it to the, yeah. We've done that. We've voted to move it down due to the significance of the matter. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I have a declaration before we go into closing.

02:33:00 Okay, so would you like me to kick off? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, we're not in confidential yet. No, that's right. Before we go into confidential, Councillor Stockwell has a declaration to make. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as in my sole trade of consultancy, Watch Australia, I commenced a contract with the Koala Action Gimpy Region Association in June 2023. The $28,000 agreement currently runs to the end of the calendar year. As part of the contract, I'm assisting the not-for-profit group identify potential programs and projects to enhance koala habitat and the sustainability of the group in the Gimpy region, including opportunities to link with other organisations to create inter-regional corridors. As the subject land abuts the Gimpy Regional Council area and as it is part of the Matt Koala Corridor in the SEQ Bioregion, KAGR may have a future interest in linkages across Shire boundaries in this locality. As there is currently no direct link, nor any current specific project or proposal involved in KAGR or myself in a consultant capacity

7.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE ¶

▶ 02:33:05· Carried unanimously 1-0 from council's minutes

02:34:00 and a lot in question, nor is it likely that I will benefit directly from its acquisition, I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will also respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Finzel: I feel it's a, I don't know, it's a really close, you know, yeah, has anyone else got a question before that? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Finzel, can I help by throwing some questions to the table? Yes, okay, quick. Speaker 12: Just sort of, because you said this is a company that you're going to do, so please don't refer to any of the...

02:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: Oh no, these are just questions to Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I didn't, yeah, I wasn't prepared for this, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: What if councillors' unique skills, knowledge or expertise help the non-completed councillors to make the best decision in the public interest? That's a question of consideration. Do the non-completed councillors require more information from the council? How would inclusion of the councillor in the deliberation and decision effect of the trust? And my favourite question. My question is a reasonable man test with a man in a pub. I believe that given the declaration in front of you, that the councillors thought they would be able to act impartially without bias in this discussion.

02:36:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, so I guess that's where my question is actually. Would it be directed, especially around Councillor Stockwell, your ability to remain impartial, and how would you address public trust, whether that contributes or takes away from, and also consideration to the reasonable man test when managing public perception? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sure, yeah. Because this is a separate acquisition, irrespective of what may or may not happen in the future around any... proposals that link to my clients, I don't think that a reasonable man would have concerns. I think the first point that Councillor Lorentson mentioned is the reason that may benefit me to stay in the room is because I have got good knowledge around these areas and therefore may contribute to the discussion and deliberations on why it may be appropriate or not to acquire the particular block in question.

02:37:00 So it is a balance between those two. For me, there is no personal gain or benefit to it, certainly in my mind, my consultancy won't make any difference the way I would consider this particular block. Councillor Wegener: I, considering we're going into a confidential, I can't, I don't want to say anything, but I don't know if this would pass the fund test. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's your, that's a decision you do have to make, yeah. Councillor Finzel: I don't. That's a good point. Well, that's why I sort of, I've raised it because I, in terms of the reasonable man and the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think if there's questions, the appropriate thing is that I'll step out of this one. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, yeah. If in doubt, I think, yeah. Okay. I'll step out. There you go. Councillor Lorentson: You've already made the decision to leave the room.

02:38:00 Councillor Wegener: I agree at the moment. I'll, I'll, I'll move that Councilor Stockwell must leave the room and not participate in the consideration and vote on this matter because they're, they're, how do you put it in a word that doesn't pass the fund test? It would. It's reasonable. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: All right. Thank you. It may not trust the final decision it made in the public interest, not trust, but yeah, may not trust. Councillor Finzel: Do you want to give the effect of that in the conference? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, especially if you give it, maybe add words to the effect, because it's going to be confidential, or maybe that doesn't seem to matter. Oh, it's just part of the perception. Councillor Finzel: Part of, yeah, I think you have a perception.

02:39:00 Councillor Wegener: Fairly, you have a perception going into a confidential meeting. Councillor Finzel: And it would be related to confidentiality. So where do you want to go with that? Councillor Wegener: Go to start. Yeah. So that... Speaker 12: To, to, to better being considered. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I think you said the public interest is... Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, all time to keep it. Okay. Okay. You can have a... Then you have to take it. Councillor Finzel: Karen, are you seconding that? Yeah, I'll second that. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, here you go.

02:40:00 All right. All in favor? Yes. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for all the time. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I believe that we go into confidential session. Okay. All clear. I'll second that. Can I second your second? I'll second that. All in favor? See you now. Speaker 1: Okay, one.

02:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just . Councillor Lorentson: I'll tell you when it's ready.

02:54:00 Councillor Wegener: We're back on. We're in the committee room. We're gonna vote. We are back into the confidential session. Wait. Wait. Is there a wording for me? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, moving the committee recommendation? Moving the recommendation? Okay, yes. Councillor Wegener: I'll move the committee recommendation. No, I don't think, do I, do I, do I, no, no, it's in the report. It's just, it's just moving the committee recommendation. I'm having a second. All in favor, unanimous. I call the meeting to a close at 12.30. Speaker 14: 12.30? Yes.

8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 02:55:33

Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.