General Committee Meeting - July 2023 Transcript

1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:23

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

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:00:45

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

3 PRESENTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:00:55

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

4 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:00:56

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

5 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES ¶

▶ 00:00:58

00:01:00 bar food and drink outlet, apples for recreation and resort context at Whistler Springs Drive, Whistler Heads, which was referred from the Planning and Environment Committee meeting from last week due to the significance of the issue. And we have our Manager of Planning, Patrick. And we do have some conflicts of interest to declare as well. Thank you. Mayor Stewart. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: In accordance with Chapter 5B of Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration for the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest. I, Councillor Stewart, inform this meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as, unbeknownst to me at the time, my mother signed a petition against the development for the proposed Noosa Springs Hotel. Subsequently to finding this out, I have since removed myself from all workshops and discussion on this application. My parents also live in Noosa Springs. I also understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Alton Property Group, who are a developer of Park Ridge, Noosa Springs,

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 (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 - Item 5.1) ¶

▶ 00:01:02

00:02:00 made a submission against Noosa Springs Hotel development. Liam McCready, who is an associate of Alton, is a friend. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while this night is considered and voted on. Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Councillor Finzel: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration for the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter, as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Lee McCready, who is associated with Alton, Hang on, sorry, I've written it wrong. Yeah. Noosa Springs, on behalf of Alton Property Group, who are the developers of Park Ridge, Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel development. Lee McCready, who is associated with Alton, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity.

00:03:00 As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted upon. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Cathy. Councillor Finzel: You're welcome. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Stockwell. I also wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Alton Property Group, part of the developers of Park Ridge, Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel development. Lee McCready is associated with the Alton Property Group. On 24 February 2020, I saw a review of the Independent Council Election Observer as to the public claims of the Future Noosa team in regard to 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 a vis-a-vis service and my queries at the time were in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however, I respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.

00:04:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I move that the Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell is established in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates on this matter because the Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Councillor Stockwell has queries at the time from the public interest, and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. I second that. I second that. I second that, Councillor Morrison. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion, put the motion to the vote, those in favour, that's carried, Councillor Stockwell did not vote on the motion. Welcome staff, we have our new Director of Regulation and Compliance Richard MacGillivray, Head of Planning Patrick Murphy and their team.

00:05:00 Will Lowe, Senior Environment Officer. Speaker 8: I'll give an overview and as Councillor Wilkie's referred to, we have Paul King who is our Odour and Acoustic Expert and obviously Will's the Senior Environment Officer who will be able to take some questions a little bit later. I'm probably just pertinent to start with the zoning map for the site. This is a zoning map under the current scheme and it shows the site to be split zoned. The orange area being the tourist accommodation zone and then the light green or blue area to be the recreation and open space zone. So that's the Noosa Plan 2020. Under the previous regulation of the planning scheme, the whole site was zoned open space and recreation. Also of note is that the urban boundary under the planning scheme sort of snaps back to the tourist accommodation zone.

00:06:00 Under the previous version of the scheme, the urban boundary was around the perimeter of the site. So there's been some changes from the previous scheme to this scheme. The scheme introduced the tourist accommodation zone. It really recognised how Noosa Springs had been developed with previous approvals that were seeking for some tourist accommodation use to occur on the site having been developed. But those approvals didn't limit the occupation of the premises, those new premises within Park Ridge to short-term residents only. They could be both short-term and permanent occupants and have primarily been taken up as permanent occupants. And again, hence a need identified to provide some tourist accommodation within the Noosa Springs precinct, hence the zoning change. And I think we can also be mindful of the quantum of five-star offerings within Noosa being quite limited.

00:07:00 So it's seen that this site would be a good opportunity to develop in such a way. And also noting that we do have events like the Olympics sort of not too far in the distant future. So that need for a high-end accommodation is quite significant. Also of note is the odour line, which is on the left. It's also detailed on the plan, which is something that I'm sure that we'll talk to in a bit more detail. That is the 2.5 odour unit line. And in terms of, I suppose, the zoning, the zoning that was created under the 2020 scheme was designed to provide a buffer between the sewage treatment plant and the tourist accommodation zone without any robust methodology being undertaken at that time. It wasn't, you know. Known where that delineation should occur. So the assessment of this application has used the 2.5 odour unit line as a ground truthing exercise to determine where it has been appropriate to site this building and the associated uses.

00:08:00 So this application has been in hand for nearly two years. And there's been some discussions with the applicants prior to the application being lodged. And that sort of ground truthing concept is something that's been consistently applied in those conversations and the assessment of the application. The site does have biodiversity overlay mapping within it. Initially, it was proposed to site tennis courts generally in this area here. That is an area that's identified as koala habitat. Subsequently, the applicant made amendments to the layout. To move the tennis courts to above the existing car park to preserve that vegetation. There is a loss of vegetation within the biodiversity overlay across the top of the site, across the top of the resort drive, which has been assessed by our environment officer as being reasonable to be removed.

00:09:00 It's also noted that offsets have been proposed by the applicant. When it was proposed to site the tennis courts in the koala habitat. It was, there was going to be a financial offset as required by the state. But the applicant also proposed to offset with 120 koala trees and 25 glossy feed trees. They're still proposing to do that, although they're not removing the koala habitat. So that's proposed to provide those offsets on the golf course into locations. In terms of the built form, it's considered that the appearance of the building is consistent with development of the original Noosa Springs development. And certainly with the resort facilities that exist on site associated with the golf course and the spa, which the resort is to use in combination with the accommodation use.

00:10:00 There are some variations to the height allowances and setback and site cover and plot ratio. Being that the building does exceed the 12 meter height limit in the tourist accommodation zone and the 8 meter height limit in the recreation and open space zone. Those intrusions are not considered to be significant in terms of their impact on the surrounding area. And they are a consequence of the topography of the site and the large scale, large form of the buildings. There are, in terms of the site cover and plot ratio, the development proposes, sorry, the proposal seeks development in the recreation and open space zone. And accordingly doesn't comply with the site cover and plot ratio requirements. However, it does comply with the total amount of plot ratio and site cover that is permitted within the tourist accommodation zone. So, yeah, and that's including the existing buildings that are on the site as well.

00:11:00 Also, just to note that there's been a number of reports provided with the application. In terms of odour reports, acoustic reports, traffic and car parking reports, bushfire reports, water quality and quantity reports. Which have been reviewed by the relevant external consultants and also by staff and deemed to be appropriate. And I just, and just to conclude as per the report, despite the conflicts with the planning scheme in terms of the zoning. And noting the ground treating that's occurred with the, with the odour impacts. Officers are recommending that the application be supported subject to conditions. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Patrick. Questions, councillors? Councillor Jurisevic: Patrick, developments of significance of this sort, council have often sought the advice of other architects and local architects. Have we had any input from other, because I know one architect in particular has given us some input on this development.

00:12:00 But have we had any of our local architects do any consideration of this development? Speaker 8: No, due to its, no there hasn't been a review by any local architects. It was something that was discussed. But we were. We were comfortable with the appearance of the building in terms of its consistency with the built form within Noosa Springs and its location. Councillor Jurisevic: The other thing that you just raised there was regard to the urban mapping. And the change to the urban mapping from the previous planning scheme to this planning scheme. Is there any background as to why that changed in this planning scheme? Why? Speaker 8: Um. Councillor Jurisevic: Given the nature of what, of the potential for the development of this project? Speaker 8: I would have to probably clarify that for you Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: I might ask. Might the, the director at the time is actually in the room and she might be able to change her mind. Speaker 5: Kim Rawlings, you're welcome. Through, thank you. Through the chair.

00:13:00 Councillor Druzevich. Yes, you might recall that there was always anticipated to be short term accommodation, a resort delivered at the Noosa Springs community, in the wider community as part of the Park Ridge development. That didn't occur as a result of approvals at the time. So during the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, that need was still considered something that was required. So there was consideration of where else on the site that might work. And they, the identification of this area adjacent to the existing facilities kind of covered the car park site was looked at. So it was about still, still achieving a tourist facility in that vicinity. It's one of two last sites that can potentially deliver tourist accommodation and at the higher end five star type accommodation. Councillor Jurisevic: The existing footprint is where what is, what is essentially mapped as opposed to what was

00:14:00 previously mapped in the urban mapping from what Patrick said, encompassing the whole of that area. So the existing footprint is where what is essentially mapped as opposed to what was previously mapped of that land parcel. Is that correct? Speaker 5: Can you say that again, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: What is mapped currently in the orange on the map is what is in the Noosa Plan. Yep. What Patrick said, or if I misunderstood, is what was in the previous scheme was the entire land parcel there was included in the urban map. That's, that's what I just heard. Speaker 8: So just to clarify that that's correct. Just to clarify, what I'm saying is that the whole site was, was zoned open space recreation under the previous scheme and now we have split zoning, but also there was an urban boundary which went around the whole site. That's right. And now that's been brought back to the tourist accommodation zone. Councillor Jurisevic: So why was, why was, why was that change in the, in the ? Speaker 5: Oh look, it was just, it was snapped back to the tourist accommodation zone at the time. Joe? Councillor Wilkie: Was that as a precaution because of the odour?

00:15:00 We didn't have the odour modelling at the time? Speaker 5: Yeah. So the, the, it was done on information at the time. We definitely didn't have the level of odour, odour investigations that we've got now to sort of substantiate where that boundary should actually be. And as you know, when we do have split zonings, you know, often there's ground truthing process that goes on. It happens often with the environmental conservation zone where, you know, we, the, the, the zone will have a particular boundary. But it's not until you get in and do detailed site investigations that that actually could shift based on, you know, the detailed information. So that's what's happening here. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I think it's the right side of the question. Yeah. Tom and then Ben. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Considering the plot ratio, I just heard you say that the existing building does not exceed plot ratio when including the older Noosa Springs building. Is that, did I hear that right? Yeah. Speaker 8: So the, I think it's approximately 15,000 square metres of GFA that's permitted as a

00:16:00 result of the total area of tourist accommodation zoning. The total amount of GFA associated with this new building and the existing buildings on the site do not exceed that. Councillor Wegener: What would the GFA, if the new building, if the existing building, if the existing building is approved and they, and it's found that the older Noosa Springs isn't going to satisfy the demand from the hotel, would they be in violation of that planning scheme if they wanted to double the size and, and make, make the, the current Noosa Springs fit size-wise and, and, you know, let me say, be able to facilitate the people from the hotel in Noosa Springs. I think if Noosa Springs grows, will they have a GFA problem in the future? Speaker 8: So just to reiterate, so that area, tourist accommodation zone, there's 15,000 square metres of GFA permitted. What is proposed with the new building and the existing building is only 10,000.

00:17:00 So they're 5,000 square metres under the GFA that they're permitted to develop in this part of the site. So if they were to seek to remove those buildings and to develop additional buildings under the GFA, it's reasonable that they would be able to go up to, to 15,000. And I suppose some of the things I'm saying in the report are that if Council were agreeable to allowing the footprint of the building as it is detailed on these proposed plans, there, there may be a need or there would be a need to amend the planning scheme, the mapping, so that there could be a rectification of the urban boundary and the zoning in the future. And that might mean shifting the recreation and open space zoning in other parts of the site as well. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the odour complaints, the United Borders raised, challenged and raised concerns

00:18:00 about the review and recommendations that have been made by Council's consulting odour expert. And I want to note the, they, they note that the cagestone modelling was done by the Council in 2016 and did not take into account changes in population and the development of this area in the last six years, including Park Ridge and the Ellucian. They, in the report, the Unity Borders said, look, if, on legal advice, if they could transfer the responsibility onto the developer, then they would probably be able to do that. So I think we sit a little bit more comfortably in this space with risk. Can you clarify, there was in the report noted that, that transfer of responsibility is not legally, not capable of legally transferring the responsibilities across, is that right?

00:19:00 Speaker 8: That is correct. We sorted, we, we were having discussions with the applicant as to whether they'd be agreeable to entering into such an agreement and also sought legal advice as to whether that would be enforceable. It's a lawful, lawful document. And the advice that we received was, no, it's not something that you could do really to take away someone's right to, to object. So there would be problems. So it, it, it just wouldn't be suitable. Councillor Lorentson: So I will refer back to, I think it was condition 13, that all guests must be advised of the potential for odour on a syringe treatment plan to be noticeable. Again, a concern raised by Unity Water is that people might mistaken odours that could be caused by bats or by mangroves, et cetera. And their concern is again, is complaints made and it's, you know, proven to be an environmental

00:20:00 nuisance. There may be a situation where there are extensive modifications made to the essence of the water. So the risk then is not only to Unity Water. Does Council rate pays also carry financial risk or burden if that happens? And again, I referred to the deputation where Unity Water spoke about Narumba Downs and the cost of upgrading or putting those odour installations to the tune of $38 million. Can you confirm or clarify, was that cost borne by the rate pays and the cost of the products down the mooring bay? Speaker 8: It's probably a good opportunity just to talk about that assessment of the risk. If you don't mind, Paul, could just share your thoughts on that. Okay. Speaker 7: So a couple of things, Councillor, you mentioned 2016. So the co-standard report that was submitted with the development location was dated 2020,

00:21:00 so the year 2020. I think the 2016 might have related to some earlier odour sampling that was conducted, not when the report was prepared. So. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you for that. Speaker 7: So my role in this has been to, on behalf of Council, to assess the technical assessments that have been provided. I've also met with Patrick and Unity Water on a number of occasions to understand their concerns. So firstly, just with Narumba Downs, we'll just work backwards. I was listening to the deputation last week. So I heard what Rhett said. In terms of Narumba Downs, my research shows that that, particularly in the area of the particular plant, is a lot larger than the Noosa Springs plant, probably about 60% larger at the current point in time. The Narumba Downs plant is located, the nearest infrastructure of Narumba Downs is 80 metres from the nearest residential boundary. So it is a lot closer. The major odour producing infrastructure, the uncovered infrastructure is a bit over

00:22:00 200 metres away from the closest house. So it is closer in proximity. In terms of looking at the aerial photography, in terms of the odour producing infrastructure, the odour control measures that are in place at Narumba Downs as compared to Noosa Springs. So Noosa Springs, when it was updated in 1997, my understanding was, significant odour controls were put in place, covering of the primary treatment units, installation of a biofilter that sucks the odour from those odour producing units and discharges to atmosphere. The inlet works is enclosed and there are other measures. Oh, I'm sorry. And the primary clarifiers. The primary clarifiers are covered. The Narumba Downs plant has those but on a much larger scale because it's a larger plant and possibly a couple of other measures which I'm not exactly sure what they are. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Noosa plant is quite modern in terms of its high degree of odour control. So Council at the time had some forethought in what they did.

00:23:00 It would appear and so there is a good degree of odour control on the plant. Now as serious treatment plants grow, as the catchment grows, of course the plant will need to be augmented at some point in time. I'm not sure of what those details are. The assessment has been conducted on the current size of the plant. So I think the point you were making in 2016, they were the odour emission rates that were measured in 2016. The modelling that's been done is based on the current physical size of the plant. So there's been no future forecasting undertaken. Okay. Unity Water have made, I believe, a statement that in the future where the plant will need to be upgraded, they'll probably have to include additional odour control measures as the plant grows. And that's not unusual, even if we ignore the development that's on the table today. Because the plant is already in quite close proximity to existing residential. So I think in terms of that, the existing residential to the west I measure is about

00:24:00 300 metres from the nearest. The existing park ridge residential to the south is about 365 metres away. The existing tennis courts are about 265 metres away. The proposed accommodation, the building that we're talking about here, is approximately 265 metres away at its nearest point. The outdoor recreation areas, which is the open space zone, is within approximately 225 metres. So 300 metres now to the nearest residential, bringing back to the short stay accommodation development, 265 metres. So we're talking about 35 metres closer. Just to quickly wrap up, my role was to review the technical assessment that's been prepared. So I've been through the Kate Stone report, we issued an information request, they responded with further detail, they gave us their models, we've reviewed the modelling that's been done.

00:25:00 And I'm comfortable from a technical point of view. The assessment demonstrates that the 2.5 odour unit contour is outside of the line, sorry, the accommodation building is not within that 2.5 odour unit contour. 2.5 odour units being regarded in development assessment by the Planning Environment Court is the pass-fail line, shall we say. So it's the speed limit. So if it's been appropriately demonstrated the hotel is outside of the 2.5 odour unit contour, which is what I'm saying has been done here. There's no technical reason why that development can't exist and people will experience appropriate amenity. Councillor Wilkie: Does that mean, Paul, that there's a chance that visitors to this resort will still experience on occasion some odour? Speaker 7: Yes, I'm not saying that they won't experience odour. The one point I forgot to make is that with respect to the outdoor areas, some of which

00:26:00 are within the 2.5 odour unit contour. Yes. That 2.5 odour unit contour is based upon the highest 24 hour average, sorry, one hour average over the entire year. One of the information request items that we went back to them with, and they've provided further information, is that 2.5 odour units is only exceeded in those outdoor recreation areas within the contour in the nighttime period, sort of between 2am and 4am. So one of the conditions that Patrick's put in the package is limiting the hours of use of those outdoor areas. So people shouldn't be there when higher odour events occur. And they occur intermittently. So the 2.5 odour units is a 99.5 percentile exceedance. So 44 hours a year, you're going to get 2.5 odour units or higher. Most of the time it's far less than that. So people may detect it. I've detected odour driving in the Noosa Springs. I'm happy to say that. The criteria is set on the basis that the majority of the population is not annoyed

00:27:00 by it. We can't have an absolute. If we had absolute criteria, we wouldn't have development. So to answer your question, yes, people may at times smell something from the series treatment plant. They won't necessarily know what it is. So I can't say that they won't, but the technical assessment shows that it should be an acceptable level. Councillor Wilkie: So that's us. That's if they're within the 2.5 odour line. Speaker 7: If they're outside, well, even if you're outside of the 2.5 odour unit line, less than 2.5, you can still smell odour. So in terms of that. Councillor Wilkie: Very small proportion. Speaker 7: Yeah. So just to give you the numbers and sorry, I'm an engineer, so I deal in numbers. So one odour unit is the level at which you can just detect an odour. Now it's logarithmic. It means you can smell it, but the 2.5 isn't all the time.

00:28:00 That's just on 44 hours a year, it's going to be 2.5. And generally in the early morning period when the atmosphere is most stable, colder temperature inversion conditions. Councillor Wilkie: Paul, in your view, what would need to be done to the nursing waste water treatment plant in order for there to be no odour? Is that? Is that an impossible dream? Speaker 7: I think it is an impossible. I think it's an impossible dream. Certainly in Europe, there are plants that are fully enclosed, but you're much higher population densities. The trouble is that the trouble, the fact is that modern day sewage treatment plants rely on being in the open atmosphere for air exchange, biological action. That's how they work. So here with the primary treatment systems are covered. The secondary tanks aren't. The clarifiers are. So really you can't fully enclose it. So you're never going to not have some odour. Councillor Wilkie: So you're satisfied that with the buildings being enclosed and limited hours for the use

00:29:00 of the outdoor areas that the applicant has managed the impacts of any odour sufficiently to a standard that satisfies yourself? Speaker 7: Yes. So I don't know about any odour, but they've managed the impact of odour to an acceptable level. The conditions require that the hotel be mechanically ventilated. The conditions require that there be activated carbon filters on the supply air to the building. The conditions also require that the fresh air inlets be located on the building as far away from a sewage treatment plant as possible. So that's all to minimise, and really with activated carbon filters, to prevent odour within the building itself. Councillor Wilkie: And Patrick, in an ideal situation, now you've got this information about where the odour contour lies. If there were to be planning scheme changes, would the tourist accommodation zone be extended to half of that 2.4 contour line, eastward of that 2.5 contour line?

00:30:00 Speaker 8: Well that's probably a question for our strategic area and for your councillors. But yeah, that's right. Ideally, it would be within the area that's below the 2.5 odour units, noting that part of the tourist accommodation zone is on the east side of the 2.5 odour line. It's already outside. And can I just add one thing? I think it's relevant that Parkridge, the approval or the assessment of Parkridge and the Oasis Precinct, which is the precinct which Paul referred to where there's a house within approximately 300 metres to the west. Both of those applications were supported by odour reports, and the methodology used was the same. And the criterion that they both sought to rely on for where their development should be sited was the 2.5 odour. So at that time, 2005 was the Parkridge application, 2007 was the Oasis application, and again, both those applications supported by reports, supported by council on the basis of complying

00:31:00 with the 2.5 odour unit line. And at that time, it was noted in the reports that when the, when these plan of development was first done pre the application. The upgrade to the treatment plan that a 600 metre buffer was required, but subsequent to the improvements to the plan and the demonstration of the compliance of 2.5 odour units through the reports that those developments were considered reasonable. Councillor Wilkie: And just one final question, the residents, which were part of the deputation, said that they do experience odour there and have complained, but can you confirm whether there was any improvement or complaints? We've read in the report that not only Unity Water nor Noosa Springs has received any complaints. But they maintain that they have complained and that they can experience odour.

00:32:00 Speaker 8: So I've had a look at our electronic records and can't find any records of complaint. The report submitted with the application notes that there was an RTI request made to Unity Water and to council seeking records of any complaints. There were no complaints that were identified in those. In those record checks. The reports associated with the previous applications do talk about complaints pre the upgrade. And it was only like a few complaints before 97. Yeah. A few complaints. So, and we've asked, we've specifically asked Unity Water in meetings as well. Have they received complaints? And they said that they haven't. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, John. Thank you. You've gone down the rabbit hole. I was going to be. One specific thing I asked Patrick to do. Reiterate from Unity Water is have they had any complaints because we were categorically told on at the meeting the other day from one of the residents that they have complained to Unity Water.

00:33:00 So I'll find this disparity between yes, there is, there is complaints being lodged and no complaints have been received to be an anomaly that I don't understand how a complaint can be made yet no complaints are registered. The fact that pre 1997, I don't think much of this development was there pre 1997. Sure. So it can't have come from these residents and it must be, it must be a resident elsewhere. So you've got no further information with regard to any complaints from Unity Water, that no complaints have been lodged is the, is their response? Speaker 7: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Okay. Speaker 7: And sorry, just to add also DES, Department of Environment and Science we contacted the regulator over Unity Water and at the time the report was written, they had received no complaints either. Councillor Jurisevic: I wouldn't expect that the general public would go to DES, they would go to either council or the source of the problem, which is the sewage treatment plant, if in fact that is the source of the problem. That's one.

00:34:00 Two, we talk about the developed receptors within, but there are other receptors within closer than the 2.5 odour modelling line, recreational activities, such as the heroine sporting complex. And the men's shed is adjacent to the sewage treatment plant. Have there been any complaints from those receptors with regard to their proximity to the facility? Speaker 8: Well, I'm looking, yeah, so I'm looking against the property from which the odour would emanate and there's no complaints logged on that property. And to your point about the men's shed, Unity Water have just facilitated a development approval for a women's shed on their site as well, which is in, again, in much closer proximity. To the treatment plant than... Councillor Jurisevic: That seems in contrast to what Unity Water have been presenting here. Speaker 8: Well... Councillor Jurisevic: That's just an observation. I'm not asking for a response on that. You mentioned the current carrying capacity of the plant. Now, I know we've got a presentation with Unity Water on that and the numbers were something

00:35:00 like 100,000 properties that they're supposed to be able to cater for. That's off the top of my head. Do we have any information as regard to the current carrying capacity of the plant as it currently stands versus its ability to handle the influx of visitors during peak periods and how that impacts on its capacity? Speaker 7: All I know is that the plant is licensed under, it's licensed from DES is up to 100,000. They're licensed up to what their actual capacity is at the moment. I'm not sure. Councillor Jurisevic: I understand that they're well... The presentation with Unity Water that I recall was they were well under that. Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And that the future need for upgrades of that plant since 1990, since that last upgrade, is sometime in the future. But again, our capacity to exceed that 100,000 is a question that I've got with regard to how or when that may occur, given that we have a notional population capacity, or current

00:36:00 limit of around about 65,000. I'm not sure. Speaker 8: That's true. And noting that there is another treatment plant out at Cooroy. Councillor Jurisevic: Which caters for the other element. Thank you for that. You mentioned activated carbon filters. I'll ask two questions with regard to that. What are the properties and the benefits of activated carbon filters on an air conditioning system? Speaker 7: First. Sure. So activated carbon filters, just like most air conditioning systems, have a dust filter on them. An activated carbon filter is just another cartridge that slides in and out. So activated carbon is an odour filter. So it is commonly used on a more commercial aspect, on cooking exhausts from restaurants. I won't name certain ones, but there are fast foods around the chargrill that use activated carbon filters. So they're very effective at reducing odours. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a bit of a . Speaker 7: There we go. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element with regard to the activated carbon filters.

00:37:00 You mentioned the other developments around, and Parkridge being the most recent, with an odour report. Were any of their air conditioning systems required to have activated carbon filters installed? Speaker 7: I'm not sure. Is it? No. I don't believe. Well, my recollection is no. Councillor Jurisevic: Being the next nearest and having an odour report. They only work on the air conditioning system. Have the units got the capacity to open windows and doors? No. Speaker 7: I think the answer to that is yes. Councillor Jurisevic: I suppose that's a question for Patrick. Speaker 8: Well, I suppose the interface of the building with the contour line is, there's two of the five pods that interface. I'd have to just refresh the elevation plan. Councillor Jurisevic: I was thinking they had sliding doors, balconies, and . Speaker 8: Certainly within the site.

00:38:00 Around this area, well away from the 2.5 unit line. They do. I'd have to just refresh myself with the elevation plan to see how that is on that eastern facing wall. Councillor Jurisevic: Regardless if they've got air conditioning or not. They could have open windows and open doors. Assuming, yeah. If that was the last of my questions. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Going back to our complaints. So, if there was to be a complaint, then Unity Water would be forced to make these expensive modifications. My question, Paul, is, I know we're sort of debating has there been a complaint, he says, she says, et cetera. But I sit here as someone that's looking at risk, and I understand there's been some modeling. Surely the question has got to be, if it's got the potential to result in other complaints, then you must consider that risk, and then consider the ramifications of the implications

00:39:00 of that. Which is, again, there's a cost. And that cost is worn by our ratepayers. So, the potential to result in other complaints is real. And the report, our expert, on page 26 or 27, that's actually not disputed. And I understand there are mitigation measures. But I want to throw at you the potential of other complaints. And I understand there are mitigation measures. But I want to throw at you the potential of other complaints. Is there the potential of other complaints? Speaker 7: You happy for me to answer this one? Sure. So, there is a potential for a complaint. There's no hard and fast rule about the grounds of someone making a complaint. The point I will make, though, is whether it's a substantiated complaint, and as to whether the regulator finds that the complaint has validity that requires the operator to

00:40:00 do something in response. So, a large part of my practice is working for developers, abattoirs, composters, people who make odour. And quite often I spend a lot of time dealing with DES in terms of complaints and those sorts of issues. So, it's about assessing if something needs to be done. And a lot of time it doesn't. So, some people are sensitive, they'll lodge a complaint. But it's got to be a valid complaint, reasonable complaint. And it doesn't take just one complaint to require Unity Water to do something. It generally will be based upon how many complaints and what their investigations show. Another thing that Rhett said the other day was that DES did not take account of the 2.5 odour in a contour. Well, that's a little incorrect. They do. If there's a complaint, they'll send an officer out to investigate and for them to experience is it an unacceptable odour in their opinion. Then if they deem it is, then there'll be action taken against Unity Water for them

00:41:00 to investigate the complaint and to assess it. And that's generally done by taking odour samples, doing odour modelling and looking at where the 2.5 odour unit contour sits. So it's not a fact that one complaint can cause an issue. It's if there are a lot of complaints and if they're substantiated. The one thing to consider, I suppose, in this case. And so I'm not disputing that people may complain, but people living there may complain now. The data we have, Patrick and I have, is that there are no formal complaints on record about odour from the sewage treatment plant. So if there is a complaint and it's investigated, whether Unity Water have to do anything or spend any money depends upon if it is a problem. The assessment that's being conducted today shows that there should not be an exceedance of the 2.5 odour unit contour. Cr Cr Criterion, sorry, on the basis of what's there now.

00:42:00 Things always change. Things can happen. But I think we're talking about risk. We're talking about 300 metres to the nearest residence now to 265 metres for this building. We're talking about short stay accommodation rather than permanent accommodation. And the difference being short stay accommodation, and just in my opinion, if someone had a problem with odour staying here, they would more complain to the hotel than go to the regulator about it, because they're saying, I wasn't happy staying here. So I think there's less of a risk to Unity Water from a short stay accommodation development than permanent residential. Councillor Lorentson: So again, tell me, point of order, if you want, Councillor Wilkie, real versus perceived. I think that's a good point. If I go into a hotel and I read, you know, all guests must be advised of potential for

00:43:00 odour on the sewage treatment plant, to me, every smell that I have, I'm going to associate with the sewage treatment plant. So I get that there's going to be an investigation and any vexatious complaints are not going to be considered. But the risk is reputational risk. And that's probably where I'm sitting. I get your point. I get your point. Put in the question, is that a ground, is that a ground, is that a planning ground? Reputational risk. Is that something that should be considered, given that there's a ground? Speaker 7: Okay. So firstly, Condition 13, I think, was put in place to, I won't say cover all bases, but it's a bit like having an empty buyer beware. In my opinion, it's not a condition that has to be in a package. If we're approving this, you don't have to tell people that they're near a sewage treatment

00:44:00 plant and they may smell it. I listened to Rhett's presentation the other day and agree that in the context he put it, you're putting people on notice. You know, you don't have to do that. That would be more something that would be akin to if it was a permanent residential. So residents come in, cabin empty, buyer beware, just letting you know, you're living near a sewage treatment plant, you're in the flood path of an airport or whatever. Condition 13, I don't think, in my opinion anyway, needs to be in the conditions package and I don't think there's any loss if it's not in there, in terms of protecting unity water with respect to operation of this development. Councillor Jurisevic: It's also been said, it's not blazoned in flashing lights and saying you're entering an over-receptive area. That's right. Please beware. I don't think there's any loss if it's not down in the room or a disclaimer on the website. Speaker 7: But whether it's there or the conditions there or not, I don't think really makes any difference to the outcome.

00:45:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So is there anything to indicate how that has to be, that information is provided to the guest? Speaker 8: Well, but... Councillor Jurisevic: Who says that you've got a, that you've got a note on them. So provided it's on, it's a notification on a website or on a piece of paper they sign that it's not in the room, that would, that would meet those criteria. Speaker 8: It would meet that criteria. But we probably agree with what Rhett was saying, that it's not something that is needed in terms of the potential to inflame, I suppose, or, or, or draw people's attention to, to, to what could potentially be noticed. Councillor Jurisevic: So why is it being put in as a condition? Speaker 8: Because it had come through the original narrative and the original review of the, of the proposal and at that time it was, it was supported, but it hadn't had the alternate view from Unity Water at that point in time. Councillor Wilkie: So I have a question along a similar line to the board one. Sure. Why is it proposed as an argument in mitigation that because it'll be visitors, short-term

00:46:00 visitors staying here, that the reputational risk or the experience of over is less of an issue than if it were a permanent residence? Speaker 7: Okay. I'm not sure I quite said that. And if I did, I didn't mean to, but reading the documents. Right. Okay. Um, so I'm probably not the person who asked about reputational risk, but in terms of risk, I did say before that in terms of a complaint being made to the regulator, because that's what I heard Unity Water talking about and being quite concerned about the other day, I think there's less of a chance of a complaint and a validated complaint being made to the regulator by a short-term accommodation guest, as compared to a permanent resident. Councillor Jurisevic: Like the one who's there for an overnight stay as opposed to being there spending seven days a week for 12 days a year. Speaker 7: Correct. So that was just the point I was making there. In terms of reputational thing, from my point of view, as I started saying earlier, in terms

00:47:00 of the criterion, the 2.588 of criterion, if the odour levels are at or below that, people shouldn't take offence to it. They, they won't, trying to put it into simple terms, staying in this hotel at 2.5 odour units shouldn't be at a level that you regard is bad for Noosa, that it's a high level of odour. It's something that you might smell on occasion. Odour is something that travels in puffs, so you get little puffs of it at times. It's not something like noise from an air conditioning unit that's there all the time. It tends to come and go. And the one thing that hasn't been taken into account in, in this assessment is the very significant band of vegetation that extends along the ridge between the site and the sewage treatment plant. So vegetation helps to increase dispersion, increase surface roughness, so there's less potential for the odour to be at a higher concentration. That hasn't been factored in. It was something that was considered in the 2005 and 2007 approvals for Park Ridge.

00:48:00 Considered, didn't factor into the decision because I was involved in those peer reviews at the time as well. But it's just another factor in this case. Also, the last thing I'll say, sorry, is that I heard Rhett talk about the ridge line and the effect of topography. In this case, Noosa Springs Resort is well elevated above the sewage treatment plant. Generally, you find that the worst case odour conditions when you've got low wind speeds, temperature inversions, and odour tends to flow as katabatic drainage. It more goes down valleys and gullies. It doesn't flow up a hill under those sort of low wind speed conditions. And it's low wind speed, less dispersion. During the day, when you get sunlight, you're mixing in the air, the odour, even though the plant's at a higher load during the day because people are awake and using, using it, the atmospheric conditions tend to mix the odour up, so you get less transport. So, at night, the fact that it's elevated, the site is elevated above the sewage treatment

00:49:00 plant is a good thing, rather than being at a lower elevation. Councillor Wilkie: So, Paul, I was wondering when you were going to mention katabatic drainage. Sorry. Let's expand a bit on what it is. Is it the odour travels to the lowest? Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. So, it's like when there's not a lot of wind, very calm conditions. So, air movement is more temperature driven. So, it goes from hotter temperatures to colder temperatures. So, the lower you go down, the cooler the temperatures. So, and sorry, the other way around. Sorry, hot and cold. So, air tends to flow under katabatic conditions. You've got a temperature inversion. So, you've got a warm air above, cold air below. Yes. And air just tends to, like water, tends to follow the easiest path. So, it flows down valley drainage is the easiest way to call it, rather than katabatic drainage. So, this happens all the time. It's a well understood fact, to me anyway. But it is an important consideration here.

00:50:00 So, being elevated above. And I suppose in the reverse is that quite often, like a big power station, for example, has a big stack that's nice and tall. The reason it's nice and tall is to get that pollutant up in the atmosphere and dispersing away. This is a bit of the reverse. We've got the receptor up here, but we've got the plant down here. It doesn't have big stacks. It has biofilters, but that's treated. The rest are all surface, the big tanks, big surface emitters. So, there's not a great temperature flux to push that up into the atmosphere. So, it tends to rise up because there is a slight temperature difference. And then it's at the vagrancies of the local meteorology and topography. Councillor Jurisevic: So, yeah, you mentioned vegetation being a buffer for rhoda. Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And the question is not directed to you as a result of that. But we've talked, Patrick, within these applications, some of the planting being mentioned in all of this. Is there an opportunity for additional planting in the buffer zone between the east and the

00:51:00 west and the development? To facilitate . Speaker 8: Well, I might just... Councillor Jurisevic: Probably not a question. You can have all the... Speaker 8: No. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the... Is that something that might be able to be considered? Speaker 8: I think that what would need to be considered was bushfire. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. And then your bushfire issues and all the rest of it. Speaker 8: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: And the type of vegetation that you would have there. But I know we're doing another offset planting within proximity of this area. Is there a facilitation here that could barrier ? Speaker 6: Yep. So, as part of the application through the landscaping portion of the application, there is... That was the... Improvements to the northern and eastern areas with non-flammable vegetation. It has a similar RA. The... I think there's a conditioner. So, that's been incorporated. So, that's been incorporated to include that re-vegetation within the road reserve.

00:52:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy that that question has been taken on notice because it was a question without water going from what I heard there. So, just a thought. One more that's just come up. Sorry. Speaker 7: Can I just jump in? Sorry. One of the recommendations of the Kate Stone Odour Report that was prepared by the developer back in 2020 and maintained was planting of dense vegetation to the south of Resort Drive, so, on their site, including plants with fine foliage through the lower stories to the canopy. So, that was about also providing some more of their own odour buffer. So, vegetating, for example. Can I borrow your... Patrick. Patrick. Patrick. Yes. So, that's one of their recommendations. Councillor Jurisevic: Within that road reserve area there. Speaker 7: Well, within their site to the south of Resort Drive. So, in here. I'm just pointing generally. Councillor Jurisevic: The plantings that currently sits doesn't really facilitate a lot of planting between where the last of the resort units are. Correct. Related to Resort Drive and Resort Drive itself. Just in this part here. But there may be options on the other side of Resort Drive? Speaker 7: I don't know. Sorry. There's a landscaping plan.

00:53:00 That's probably a little better. Councillor Wilkie: So, that's just a question that arises a lot. Patrick. One of the other concerns raised by residents was noise generated by traffic under the loading dock. Vehicles reversing. Is there... They have concerns about the vehicles reversing. That's right. Alarm affecting amenity... Laws and amenity for neighbours in the part of the development. Is that... How is that going to be managed? Speaker 8: Fortunately, Paul is also an acoustic expert who's looked at this aspect of the development. We certainly recognise that the loading dock area has the potential to have some noise emanating from it to dwelling within 25 metres of the loading dock. So, we have recommended a further acoustic report to address that and mitigation measures. To recommend mitigation measures that would need to be implemented. That road is already being used by trucks to service the existing resort facilities.

00:54:00 Yes. So, it's envisaged that the frequency of the trucks will probably be similar. The size of the trucks will probably be larger to accommodate servicing, you know, the larger demand. Speaker 7: I suppose the deficiency, I'll use that word, was raised by me in looking at the noise report that was submitted, that there was no specific assessment of the loading dock area. One of the things I said, we can limit the hours. Quite commonly with loading docks and refuse collection, you limit the hours. 7am to 6pm. One of the things with this development is that in terms of getting from the loading dock up to the resort proper, up here, there's a fairly steep driveway, you couldn't get trucks and things up there. I think they were proposing to use golf buggy style things to transfer things from one part on the internal road, internal, not the public road. What I also said is that Patrick's conditions require an updated acoustic report that would

00:55:00 assess the loading dock. I think with some strategically placed acoustic barriers or screens in that, around the loading dock area, that the amenity of the Park Ridge residents can be suitably protected. Given that a resort shouldn't really generate that high a volume of truck traffic, you know, there'll be laundry, there'll be food deliveries, those sorts of things. But it's not like a supermarket where you get lots of vans and trucks. But equally, if this was a supermarket, typically 7am to 6pm delivery. There's some form of noise barrier screening. So that's the detail that's missing at the moment, but that's why the condition is it proposed to do that and I'm comfortable that Park Ridge residents can be protected. They already get noise from traffic on the internal road now, existing trucks, things going beep at times, other trucks coming to deliver furniture and whatever else. I think where this is located, it can be suitably conditioned and controlled. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that's a point that's been raised by residents of Park Ridge.

00:56:00 In recent times with myself, with regard to the traffic on resort drivers in this town, obviously the residential traffic going in and out of Park Ridge is part of that, but also the heavier vehicles, the trucks and that that are delivering there, but also the parking on the road. Are they things that we can condition the resort to manage with regard to not, because some of those complaints have suggested that they're already vehicles that are visiting the resort complex and parking on the resort drive. Is there any opportunity there to limit or manage- Speaker 8: Are they lawfully parked, those- Councillor Jurisevic: They're parked on the road. The road is a road, but if we've got heavy vehicles going down there, and it's a fairly narrow road as far as I see resort drive, is that something that we can condition to manage, either the facilitation of non-parking on at least one side of the road or- I could- Safer pedestrian access and crossing and sight lines for residents from-

00:57:00 Speaker 8: Well, yeah. Well, I'd like to explore the no parking yellow line for you, but the crossing is quite complicated. It's more than just painting lines on the ground is my understanding. Councillor Jurisevic: Here's the resort that will facilitate public access, and we've got the residents of Park Ridge living across the road. I would assume they're going to come across and utilise the facilities of- Yes. Of the resort that already exists, but any increase in that with regard to restaurants and the like, they'd be welcome there, I would assume, from what I understand they would be. So- Speaker 8: Well, the crossing would be something that would become council assets, so the cost to maintain that and the standard of that would be something that we'd need to look at and come back to you. Councillor Jurisevic: There'd be an unreasonable impost on the developer to deliver as part of the- Speaker 8: I'd have to- I'm not sure I can see a nexus between the use of the site and the need

00:58:00 for the pedestrian crossing, so I think it would be a stretch to require that condition. Speaker 7: In terms of the service and delivery vehicles, the condition requiring service and deliveries occur on site. Of course. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, I missed that. Speaker 7: Sorry. In terms of the service and delivery vehicles, there can be a condition imposed that requires that to occur on site. Vehicles- Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, if there's parking on both sides of the road, it's currently occurred, and we've got delivery trucks going down that road, it's a fairly narrow road, when would we think we need to better manage the access of delivery vehicles into this, particularly if they're going to use larger delivery vehicles than they currently use, by the increasing use? Speaker 7: Yeah, and I've seen development approvals and others say, you know, try and say that the trucks will not park on the street, they'll park on the site, you know, they should be parking on the resort site. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm not worried. Partly the trucks, but access for the trucks is that other vehicles aren't parked on the street, so the trucks have safe- Speaker 7: Safe access. Councillor Jurisevic: Safe access and not, you know, a garbage truck having to go down there, for example,

00:59:00 with vehicles parked on both sides of the road. Yep. It's a very narrow road. So, have we got sufficient access down there, and then who's facilitation would it require? Councils, because it's Council Road at the current standard. Speaker 8: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Or can the impost be placed on the developer to- Speaker 8: Well, if it's a matter of painting a yellow line, it's certainly something that Council could do, if it was agreeable to doing so, and then that would need to be enforced by our local law staff. Councillor Jurisevic: If you can't handle our parking on the other side of the resort site, you may not, for example. Councillor Wilkie: Excuse me, Patrick, in an ideal world, all this resort would be within the Municipal Planning Scans urban boundary. Could you explain the process by which that is intended to be remedied and are there any potential risk factors in current or pending court cases for a Municipal Council to approve a development application? No. Speaker 8: So yeah, I suppose in an ideal world we would be dealing with an application where the footprint

01:00:00 was the same as the zoning. Notwithstanding, as I said, the approach here has been about ground truthing the suitability of the buildings in terms of the odour line, there would be an opportunity for Council to amend its urban boundary to reflect an updated footprint, should Council wish to approve it. In terms of risk, there is a legal matter at the moment which involves development outside the urban boundary and it's certainly one of the grounds of the appeal. I have spoken to our lawyers about this particular situation on this site in context of that appeal and they said as long as there was a valid reason to approve this development such as need, and that was clearly articulated, then that would be okay.

01:01:00 Councillor Lorentson: In terms of bushfire and evacuation risk, does the development compromise the safety of people, of the residents from the bushfires? Yes, it does. And has the development taken into consideration the impact on adjoining or nearby residential communities and the capacity of our emergency services to evacuate people in cases of fire? And I've got some numbers in front of me about, you know, 700 properties, 1,200, the population's estimated at 1,200. As a precinct, has consideration been given to the impact on the precinct getting in and out and evacuating people? Speaker 8: So just, Will will answer the question, but this is an application that was supported by a bushfire management plan which was reviewed by an external consultant and, you know, some

01:02:00 reiterations of that plan and also by Will who has experience in bushfire management. So Will, I wouldn't mind if you could respond. Speaker 6: So there's probably two key points. One of the key points in this discussion regarding bushfire and that's bushfire on the site itself and evacuating residents and partakers of the site and then the greater local area of Noosa Springs. So in relation to Noosa Springs, there is a procedure in place to provide alternate evacuation routes from the estate if required. One of these routes will take vehicles straight out onto Endy Creek Road while the other will take traffic by the Girroene Sports Track and out onto Endy Creek Road. That's the emergency access? Correct. Correct. Okay. So both these routes will only be implemented under the direction of Queensland Police Services or QFES. So that, that forms the basis of the evacuation of Noosa Springs which would include the development

01:03:00 site in an emergency. The site itself, the application materials included a bushfire hazard assessment. Prepared in accordance with the Noosa Plane Scheme Policy A for natural hazards and the bushfire resilient community's technical reference guide from the State Plane Policy. So the bushfire resilient community's technical reference guide provides advice regarding the assembling and evacuation of sites like this. A safe assembly or evacuation area may be a suitable alternative to an evacuation route where the site is in an isolated location. So if there was an evacuation site, it would be a suitable alternative to an evacuation route to stay on site. That is a suitable alternative is to evacuate the site through a route that doesn't pass through the bushfire prone area. So in this instance, the evacuation plan has the direction from the east to the west through

01:04:00 the site, away from any potential bushfire hazard and at this stage, safe assembly and evacuation area has been provided in the existing country club. Additional conditions have been provided as well regarding the evacuation to take that to one step further, which is to also provide an off-site evacuation location, which would be within the golf course, which would be wholly outside of any bushfire prone area. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all Willem. Thank you. Does anyone have anything? No. That's all Willem. In the short term, and then a prolonged incident, a people council and a golf course for any period of time, an evacuation, would have to occur at some stage, potentially, if the incident was ongoing. Speaker 6: And that would be under the direction of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services?

01:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So is there the capacity here to review the current evacuation procedures for the entire Mesa Springs estate with regard to that emergency gate making a more permanent fixture? Some sort of permanent, rather than a gate that needs to be opened in the event of an emergency? Something that facilitates greater movement into and out of the estate as a whole? With a more permanent egress from the emergency? So that we don't have just one road in and one road out? Speaker 8: So that gate you're talking about at the moment, I'm not, that goes out to... Innew Creek Road. Innew Creek Road. Councillor Jurisevic: You see it's near Mesa Springs. Speaker 8: Yeah, I know the gate you're talking of, but I mean that's considerable works that would need to be undertaken to do that. Would it be reasonable for this development to be required to do it as part of this? I'm not sure that it, I wouldn't think it would be. I mean we've got to acknowledge that Council has zoned this land.

01:06:00 As tourist accommodation, there is an expectation that there's going to be a resort in Noosa Springs as a result of the zoning. There's been no requirement in the scheme to require an upgrade to Noosa Springs as part of emergency access associated with this development. Councillor Jurisevic: So if that were to occur, it may be something that needs to be brought up in a different forum and actually considered as capital works for Council? Speaker 8: That's correct. Councillor Lorentson: So I'm just all heading down those paths. Speaker 8: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? So you've got residents, hotel guests, function attendees, staff, Park Ridge Cafe, gym crew, visitors, golf spa users, visitors. Have we got any details on how many vehicles potentially may be involved in an evacuation? Because I've met with the residents at Noosa Springs. And... Bushfires of 2019 are alive and well.

01:07:00 It's like yesterday. So... Where are the details? Do we have an idea? Numbers of vehicles? What happens? Scenarios? What happens if one breaks down on Noosa Drive? What happens? You know, the gatehouse of Noosa Springs have provided some numbers, vehicle movements. And I've got all those numbers. I don't know what it is on a daily basis. But the numbers are really quite high. Over the last 12 months, non-resident traffic entering the estate was over 35,000 guests and 46,000 trades and construction vehicles. And they've got the... You know, this is just going through records. Last year, the gatehouse, 81,000 residential vehicle movements, plus over 162,000 non-residential movements. So... If I was a resident...

01:08:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, sorry. So, my question. How many vehicles potentially are involved in an evacuation? Speaker 6: So, I don't have the information as far as for the entire Noosa Springs. And we don't have that information for the site. However, the Bushfire Resilient Communities Document, that is the guiding principle... 2019. Yep. ...is produced by Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. And they outline the minimum requirements as far as providing a safe assembly and evacuation. And so, the Bushfire Assessment, in this instance, has followed that and provided that information in accordance with that document, which is produced by QPS. Councillor Jurisevic: Would be supported and assisted by QPS, I would imagine... Speaker 6: Absolutely, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: ...in areas being evacuated. Councillor Wilkie: So, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the evacuation plan is not by a vehicle. It's by foot into the... Oh, click. ...the expanse of the golf course. Speaker 8: It's to the resort building first. Yes. And then to the golf course. There's a secondary...

01:09:00 Yes. ...evacuation if needed. And maybe... Yeah. ...just to clarify maybe Amelia's question, you're asking about how many cars. So, the traffic analysis has predicted that the peak demand for parking on this site, and that would be, say, at midday, when the other facilities, such as the golf course and the resort, are all being used, that peak demand is 255 car spaces. Councillor Lorentson: And when was the analysis done, Patrick? Speaker 8: That was based on... Well, there was an analysis done as part of this... Application. ...application, but that was also based on a demand from 2017. Noting that around the time of the application, preceding the time of the application, we were in COVID. So, it was very problematic for them to get current data at that time into... Councillor Lorentson: So, 2017, there were 255 vehicles. Is that correct? Speaker 8: No. What it's saying is that... That peak... Yeah. It's...

01:10:00 It was based on the existing development of 160 cars, based on a 2017 survey, and then with the additional demand reviewed, you know, as part of this application, associated with the new resort. Councillor Jurisevic: So, as far as the new... The new element of the resort goes... Yeah. Yeah. I've attended functions at the current facility, and the car park, which is reasonably substantial, has been very, very difficult to buy the car parking space. How many additional car parks does this resort development increase the car parking by? And if the entire development were to be created today, as the parking needs that were there when the resort was... The resort element, and the golf course element, created more parking space, would you say that you meet the current parking standards? So... I mean, has the parking as a whole been considered... Speaker 8: It has. Councillor Jurisevic: ...this, or only the additional parking?

01:11:00 Speaker 8: No, the whole. So, the demand... Councillor Jurisevic: So, the parking as a whole meets the numbers required for the resort, plus all of the resort facilities? Speaker 8: Yeah. So, the parking has been reviewed by our external consultant, who represents us in court. Yeah. And he's determined that the parking associated with the new resort and the existing facilities is sufficient at 255 car spaces. That's... How much is that over? Councillor Jurisevic: What kind of... Speaker 8: Oh... Speaker 7: So, it's 160 now? Speaker 8: Well, that was the demand. I mean, if you look at the approved... The proposed plans, there's going to be some basement car parking provided in the building, and then there's a second... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll get... I'll just ask the numbers. Speaker 8: I'd have to get back to you on the specifics. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll just ask the numbers compared to what exists there now. How many more... What have we got? How many rooms in total? Speaker 8: 106 rooms. Councillor Jurisevic: 106 rooms. And at the moment, we're talking about 90... Speaker 8: 90, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: About 90-odd car parking spaces, roughly, from those numbers.

01:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: Any further questions, councillors? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move... I'd like to move motion, please. I'd like to move the council to note the report by the Acting Development Assessment Manager, Paul. And take out the word acting by the Development Assessment Manager for the Planning Environment Court meeting dated 11 July 2023, regarding NCU21-0110, Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Resort Complex 113. Rick Outlet, Bar and Outdoor Sports and Recreation at Link's Drive, Noosa Heads and A. Refuse the application for the following reasons. 1. The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate in circumstances where A. Part of the proposed land use is a resort complex in circumstances where part of the subject land is outside the urban growth boundary of the Noosa Plan 2020. B. The proponent seeks to utilise the land for a resort complex which is an inconsistent use in the recreation and open space zone.

01:13:00 C. The proposed development is an over-development of the land at the expense of the natural values of the land and involves reduction of land in the recreation and open space zone. D. The proposed development would result in the over-development of the subject land at the expense of environmental values as it proposed that an area of existing open space be developed. It results in the unacceptable clearly of vegetation in an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area. F. The built form and density of the proposed development is unacceptable. In these respects, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Noosa Plan 2021 Strategic Framework 3.22, 3.25, 3.32G, 3.31B and 3.34B and 3.34P. 2. Biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlay code 8.2222 A, B and C.

01:14:00 Cable 8.2.23 performance outcomes 1, 3 and 5. 12. Recreation and open space zone code 6.612 2A, C, F and G and S. Table 6.613 performance outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 38. Noosa Heads Local Plan Code 7.2.5.2 2B, E. Table 7.2.5.3 P. Performance outcome 5. B, if it is the case that there are indeed poofing impacts, no measures have been proposed to ameliorate those impacts. 3, the proposed development conflicts with the state planning policy, state interests, emissions and hazards activities as it is in proximity of an existing sewerage treatment plant and risks inhibiting the sewerage treatment plant from functioning safely and effectively due to potential reverse amenity impacts.

01:15:00 4, when read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 does not lend support to proposed use of the land as A, the SEQ Regional Plan since a long term 50 year vision establishing aspirations for this region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of residential developments occurring within the urban footprint is a finer grained detail, the planning of which is implemented through local government planning schemes. The designation of the land as being within the urban footprint does not imply that land is being used. With that designation can be developed for urban purposes. And C, when assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020, proposed development is not suitable for urban development. 5, Noosa Plan 2020 appropriately integrates and advances the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 as set out in section 2.2 of the planning scheme.

01:16:00 6, the proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside the urban boundary, particularly at the density and intensity proposed and where inconsistent with the local landscape character. Nor has any overriding community benefit been demonstrated which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme. 7, many valid planning grants have been raised by submitters that the proposal represents an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what the community member could reasonably expect because of the change of the Tourism Accommodation Zone when the Noosa Plan 2020 was advertised. B, note that... Note that Council resolves to deviate from the staff recommendation on the following grounds. 1, Council is of the view that there is a clear deviation of the zone and urban boundaries on the Noosa Plan 2020 maps. Further, that A, Council of the opinion that the demarcation of the split zone over the lot took into account a range of factors over and above the acceptable line of over nuisance.

01:17:00 During the development of the Noosa Plan 2020, as would be the case in any case, any future potential scheme amendments, avoidance of areas mapped in the biodiversity overlay and protection of vegetation and noise buffers to adjacent residences were and would be important factors when determining the appropriate development footprint. There is a long-standing position of Council that it doesn't facilitate development applications that drive the need to amend the planning scheme. 2, the proposal represents an excessive use of recreation and open space zone for land, zoned land for an inconsistent use, and does not adequately achieve the desired outcomes for the zone, including those listed below. A, on the first dot point, development does not adversely impact on the Shire's environmental values or reduce the quality of recreational experiences provided by land or waterways within the zone. Second dot point, adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, including habitats, bushlands, wetlands and waterways are avoided or minimised.

01:18:00 And lastly, impacts of management, landscape buffering and appropriate design, siting and operation of the facilities, facilities and infrastructure. Three, the proposal does not adequately manage impacts within areas under the biodiversity overlay, and amongst other things, do not meet performance outcomes free with respect to the following requirements. Development is designed and cited to manage adverse impacts on ecologically important areas by A, minimising the total footprint within which all activities, buildings, structures, driveways and all other works are contained. B, locating development in existing cleared areas or where areas of low ecological value, over other areas to the greatest extent possible. C, incorporating siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values and ecosystem processes within or adjacent to the development site. Four, a large number of valid planning grants have been raised by submitters, and councillors satisfied the proposal represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality.

01:19:00 Further, development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect as a development change to the tourism accommodation zone when the nuisance plan 2020 was advertised. And five, a balanced emission of community water identifies potential risks and flow-on costs associated with the proposed development of additional sensitive receptors within the recreation and open space zone in its proximity to the necessary strength of the plan. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, we have a seconder please. Seconder, Councillor Morrison. Councillor Stockwell will report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's probably not much more being said because a lot of it's in the motion, but if I can ask Cathy to bring up figure 15 from the planning officer's report. I'm going to deal with a couple of issues that haven't had a lot of airtime as yet. Figure 15 identifies areas of biodiversity significance. I'll talk when it comes up. I've had a look at WildNet, and on WildNet there's about six or seven green dots on this particular development site.

01:20:00 These green dots indicate known sightings of endangered, vulnerable or near threatened species. This is a known koala habitat. And while there is on that... Councillor Wegener: Is it in the attachment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's in the report. In the report. It's in the attachment. It's a known koala habitat. Part of the site down to the north of it is listed as a matter of state environmental significance. And that covers the site which is mapped as Remedy Assessment 1225. That Remedy ecosystem has species of it which are known koala and the species. And I'm probably just about ready to put the map down. By the way, unfortunately we don't get page numbers anymore. How big is this? 37? Councillor Lorentson: There's no page numbers.

01:21:00 Yeah, you're getting close. There's no page numbers. 13? Oh, okay. 15, next one. One more. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, no. Councillor Jurisevic: We're nearly there, okay? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You were one page away. Speaker 7: Yay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There it is. There we go. Speaker 7: 15. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's all? Speaker 7: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, if you can blow that one up. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can probably get it 200. Yeah. Okay. So, you can see the stippling of the dots. That's the remnant vegetation. But you also see the green around the outside of Resort Drive. That is the biodiversity overlay. Now, I noticed in... And I could say I understand how the planning officers got to the point where they recommended

01:22:00 this with a lot of discretion. My argument here is that if we were consistent with the previous approaches to planning officers, this is the appropriate way to go. I can't recall any development since coming back in 2016 that we've recommended approval that requires the clearing of significant amount of vegetation under the biodiversity overlay. That in itself would be enough to refuse the development in my consideration. I can remember developments where we had successfully defended appeals where clearing of vegetation in the... Under the biodiversity overlay has occurred. I can recall developments where we had successfully defended appeals where clearing of vegetation has occurred. So, that's a significant issue that I don't think sufficient weight has been placed on in the assessment process.

01:23:00 If we were going to be true to the values of NUSA as expressed in the NUSA plan and many other documents, we'd take care of those areas that are mapped under the biodiversity overlay. Now, they're not... That is... The path without stippling isn't remnant vegetation. There might be some remnant trees that are mapped under the biodiversity overlay. There might be some trees in there from an expert I've had a look at over the weekend. It's regrowth and it's very close to the point where it would be, once again, to a height and to a standard that could be mapped as remnant vegetation. And just having vegetation does trigger the definition of an ecologically important area as remnant or non-remnant vegetation is defined. So, that to me is a really important part that I think hasn't had enough weight placed on it in the coming up with the staff recommendation. The next part is... And we've seen them mapped several times. We did map part of this lot for tourism accommodation.

01:24:00 And it was for a hotel. There's no argument with that. And there is a need for a hotel. We identified that NUSA is well served by units, but underserved by hotel complexes of a reasonable standard. And, yes, the... I don't know. The zoning map isn't defined by meets and bounds. But it is fairly clear the area that council thought should be developed for tourism accommodation. And those areas exclude any of the biodiversity overlay. But they're also... The other role that that vegetation plays is both the visual and acoustic buffer to the neighbouring developments. By the current development going into the open space zone in the area of the open space zone, it not only goes under the biodiversity overlay, it also moves the potential impacts and amenity impacts much closer to the residents of Park Ridge. That wasn't perceived and no resident had the opportunity to object to it in the NUSA

01:25:00 plan because the development... The tourism zone was much further away from it. Or a number of them. So then we have the concern... And I think you've expressed it in one of your questions. And I think you've expressed it in one of your questions. We have a significant development for hotel purposes in a recreation open space zone. It's an inconsistent list and once again I can't recall any approvals since the de-amalgamation that would have considered that. It is a really significant deviation from practice. And it's not... Now I can understand the argument, now that we've got more detailed noise modelling, that we could perhaps amend the tourism accommodation zone to take some parts that are affected by the modelling and adjust it perhaps to where the existing cleared area on the tennis

01:26:00 courts are. But we can't do that at Hock. It's always... You know, it's much longer in NUSA Council that we've always tried to avoid developments that pre-empt a change to a planning scheme. And to me that's a really strong principle also that have involved. I'm not going to say much more about ODA because we now know a lot. I'm going to just reflect one other thing that the Indy Water spokesman said that I think is really important. He said, if the shoe was on the... In the words of the effect, if the shoe was on the other foot and the hotel developer was there and we wanted to put a syringe treatment plant 250 metres away, would you approve it? Obviously we wouldn't. So I understand the science and the modelling and I understand that the footprint has been

01:27:00 designed to come within what is modelled as an acceptable standard. But the closest point is it at a point in the open space of the city where there's no traffic zone under the biodiversity lane that this council has never considered to be suitable for a tourism development. So the council has never made the decision that would suggest we have to expose either the Indy Water or our community to those additional risks. So for me, the grounds of varying from staff recommendation are strong and the grounds for refusal I believe are valid. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillors? Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I've got a question with regard to the first point in Councillor Stockwell's motion. Part of the proposed land use in the Resort Complex 6 is where the subject land is outside

01:28:00 of the urban growth boundary in the Noosa Plan 2020. Do we have any approvals that have occurred outside of the growth of the urban boundary in the Noosa Plan 2020? Speaker 8: I think there's lots of approvals that have been issued outside the urban boundary because our rural residential areas, our rural areas are all within outside the urban boundaries and they've had approvals for a range of uses from dwellings to short stay accommodation. There would be, I'd have to, you know, to drill down further into Tom's approval but it's not. It's not a line where. Councillor Jurisevic: But not of this sort of scope? Speaker 8: I wouldn't think so, no. Councillor Jurisevic: May I ask a question? Councillor Lorentson: Patrick, will our lawyers have an opportunity or your self planners have an opportunity to review and revise the amendment that's, the motion that's in front of us?

01:29:00 Speaker 8: If councillors are seeking to refuse the application, we would certainly have these grounds. Seek to have the grounds reviewed by our lawyers prior to the ordinary meeting. Yes. I'm happy to speak. Councillor Lorentson: I support the motion to refuse the proposed hotel development before us. The refusal is not a no to a hotel development, it's just a no to this hotel proposal. It's a no to a development that is not mindful of community expectations and values. It's a no to a development that represents an unacceptable level of impact on the amenity of the locality. It's a no to a development that may potentially exacerbate existing bushfire and evacuation rates. It's a no to a development that has the potential to expose ratepayers, Noosa Council and Unity Order to financial and reputational risk. And it's a no to a development that is in conflict with our Noosa plan.

01:30:00 I simply believe that a smaller and more suitable hotel can be built on land currently in the And I really encourage that the applicant resubmit his plans. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Lymerson. Have the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Um, yeah I've got it. Councillor Jurisevic: Brian has raised some very interesting and relevant points earlier. Um, I'm going to need a little bit more time to absorb some of it. Uh, although I understand the planning nature and areas it's come from, and given that we still have to get some legal advice on regards to the points raised, um, I'm happy to support it with an open mind. Councillor Wegener: Um, yeah, no, I'll just say that, um, it's inconsistent with the plain reading of the Town Plan,

01:31:00 and, um, my policy is, um, I don't support things that are inconsistent with the plain reading of the plan unless there's an overwhelming public support, and I don't think that, um, that the standard of overwhelming public support has been satisfied. Councillor Wilkie: The principal objection for me is that the bulk of this development sits outside the urban boundary, and if we were to approve this amendment, in its current form, we could be seeing that this Council is moving away from one of the key principles of upholding its planning scheme, and I'm always mindful of a ruling from a judge who said, who ruled in favour of, uh, Council's defence of a planning scheme appeal. He said that Council's consistent upholding of the planning scheme principles is one of the reasons why he found in favour of the Council in that particular court case.

01:32:00 I'm concerned if we start... approving developments of this scale outside the urban boundary, it might weaken our stance in current and future legal cases. I would hope this is seen as a starting point for future talks on how the benefits, the well-established benefits of a five-star resort in this location, away from heavily, more heavily congested sites and user heads, can be achieved, while minimising legal and amenity risk. So I, I support the, um, I support the motion. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? I do. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that will bear the status of a recommendation that will go to the ordinary meeting on Thursday night,

01:33:00 uh, and if the decision, whatever decision was carried at the ordinary meeting on Thursday night becomes a decision of the local, a final decision of the local government. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Good. Speaker 6: Okay, I'm fine. Speaker 8: Thanks. Sorry. Negative statement. Thanks. No, it's all right. Councillor Wilkie: The next item is, um, development of permanent... I'll run away. Where do I go? That way. Home-based business... Did you need to go to tomorrow for something? Speaker 7: No. Go over there again. I appreciate it. Okay. Right. Good start. Councillor Wilkie: Um, should we let Bear Stewart and, um, Justin Kinsella back in the room, please? No, you don't. Speaker 9: He didn't seem to do a good job in that area. Yeah, he didn't. He didn't. Yeah, he was good. Speaker 8: All right. Here we go. All right. So we're going to adhere to the planning scheme. Can you just chocolate mine in? Yeah. It doesn't comply with the planning scheme. It hasn't been demonstrated that it complies.

01:34:00 Yeah, right. Speaker 3: Okay. Um, I should write that down. Councillor Wilkie: This is... This is... Speaker 8: We ended up... Councillor Wilkie: Did... Speaker 8: Did I just say that four minutes ago? Councillor Wilkie: I was actually going to say it. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.

01:43:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 8: We won't say that we're going to oppose approval of development. We just say we've got concerns. Councillor Wilkie: Could you give an example of what some of those conditions might entail? Speaker 8: We're also mindful of trying to condition something in line with how they say they're currently operating. We've got to remember that when we're issuing an approval, we're issuing something in perpetuity.

5.2 MCU22/0120 – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOME-BASED BUSINESS (MECHANIC) AT 39 EUCALYPT WAY, COOTHARABA (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 - Item 5.5) ¶

▶ 01:43:11

01:44:00 And this property will change hands over the course of time, and it's possible in five, ten years, two years that someone might come in there and use machinery that it wasn't, or equipment it wasn't envisaged. We're trying to condition in terms of how he's operating now, and we could really miss the mark in terms of trying to condition this around how he's currently operating or what we consider suitable. We really reiterate that it's appropriate and in line with what the planning scheme requires. For an acoustic report to be provided to clearly articulate the noise that will be emanating from the property and the mitigation measures that are proposed. And that'll be something that will be very definitive as to what's to be required and enforceable. Councillor Wilkie: So you're saying you may be prepared to approve with conditions once you get this acoustic report? Speaker 8: And that's been our position the whole way along. We've been open-minded to this application. But we've sought an acoustic report and it just has not been forthcoming, and we think it's a real important that it is provided, and it's important because it'll set some form of precedent for similar types of uses, and we will have a lot of pushback from consultants and property owners if Council starts agreeing to these types of uses without providing an acoustic report and just putting on conditions.

01:45:00 Councillor Lorentson: That's my question. Have we ever been sent to an acoustic report? Have we ever been sent to other home-based businesses? Have we ever given that exemption and no acoustic report? Speaker 8: Well, you'll be familiar with the meat processing plant. That was, we had the opportunity because that was constructed and he had pneumatically sealed that premise and he was able to, we were, I was able to go out there, I understand Councils were able to go out there and he was able to use that equipment and it was clearly demonstrated that it did not result in a noise. I've been out to this site and I've stood at the boundary and I've heard noise, contrary to what the scheme's asking.

01:46:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Near by there's a trailer manufacturing facility on a property a short distance away. Was that one required to have a noise report? Speaker 8: I would have to go back and clarify that for you, Joe. I know that, I know the one you're talking about, it was something that came to Council a number of years ago. Councillor Jurisevic: I can't recall whether it had a noise report or not. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, through the Chair. Do we have an opportunity to condition the provision of the acoustic report, say within 30 days? Speaker 8: I think it would take longer, I think, for them to provide an acoustic report. It would probably take a number of months and then importantly it would be the recommendations of the acoustic report that would need to be implemented also within a timeframe that would be critical.

01:47:00 Councillor Wilkie: Karen, you've got more questions? Councillor Finzel: Thank you, through the Chair. So is there opportunity that we can like put a halt on this with the provision that it's conditioned to provide that acoustic report in a reasonable time and with the staff to be able to then make the recommendation based on the, Speaker 8: it's a code accessible application, so we are bound by timeframes. It is, I mean, that would be reliant upon the applicant extending out the decision making period and being agreeable to providing an acoustic report, which up until now they've not been agreeable to do. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. And what's the process, thank you, Chair, what's the process, Patrick, if this is a refusal but there is a way, as you said, you're open to where you're better with the attachment or the insertion of an acoustic report, if that was to be provided, what is the actual process then for the applicant to go through? If this is refused in the basis there is no acoustic report, what is the next step then for them? Speaker 8: They can only appeal the decision, they can't make representations to a decision.

01:48:00 So if we approve an application with conditions and the applicant is not supportive of those conditions, they can make representations within their appeal period and they suspend their appeal period, they make representations and we decide it. So it's sort of like a second bite at it, but with a refusal you do not get that opportunity. They have to appeal it straight to the court. Mayor Stewart: So we could approve it with the condition of the acoustic report and if they say we're not doing it, we're not providing it, then there could be approvals. Speaker 8: It could be manageable to come up with some conditions around the provision of an acoustic report within a timeframe and then looking at what that meant for the life of the approval, whether that's something that we could tie in as well. Speaker 9: The other option, councillors, that we could look at is a condition, a very strong one I guess, that requires no audible noise from the use, beyond the boundaries of the site, which is similar to what the scheme is actually envisaging.

01:49:00 That will put the obligation back on the operator to put the necessary measures in place within their facility to ensure there's no noise beyond the boundaries of that site. So obviously without the acoustic report, that really gives us the ability to hone in on where those treatments need to be in place, but given the team have had multiple attempts at trying to seek that report, be provided to council so we can then suitably assess and condition those impacts. Another option is a result where we condition that they comply essentially with the acceptable outcome, which is to ensure there's no audible noise from that use beyond the boundaries. Councillor Jurisevic: Given that there's sufficient costs associated with any development application, what are we looking at in addition for an acoustic report? Do we have any sort of a ballpark? Speaker 9: That can be anywhere. We have $5,000 potentially for an acoustic, basic acoustic report. It's a little bit upwards from there. So there's a bit of money involved in getting that. And then there's obviously any treatment required for that.

01:50:00 Often sheds are quite difficult to treat given the scale and size and the noise can reverberate. Obviously it's better to go to the point source of the actual noise emitting equipment and trying to treat that and manage that. Compressors and putting those in acoustic sealant treatments can be often the most effective. But as Patrick pointed out, noting the approval will remain with the land forever. Future owners may take up that. We just want to have certainty that we can enforce those conditions that we apply to that particular use so that we don't have long term compliance or headaches with uses. And also providing certainty to the land owners around how they must operate their particular development. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have time to put your hand up? Along with that. Councillor Wegener: Do you want to go, Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: So you mentioned that we could condition it with no noise beyond the boundaries or with an acoustic report that would have the appropriate measures.

01:51:00 In perpetuity, that acoustic report would have noise limit levels outside of the boundary and specific acoustic mitigating measures to be undertaken? Speaker 9: Potentially, yeah. And preferably we want that now before we assess and decide because often what we would do is condition that report and any recommendations in there that we deem to be appropriate. Yeah. Speaker 8: And I think it's also the financial implications are not a planning matter. They're not to be... And it's valid, I think, to say that if an approval on this site for a mechanics business would actually benefit the value of the land, particularly over time. Councillor Wegener: When we say no noise beyond the boundaries, is this an unreasonable expectation on any business? I mean, to me, this seems to have a chilling effect on people doing any businesses out there, including rural businesses.

01:52:00 I mean, tractors, you can hear a tractor out there. When you wean a cow, my God, they make a racket for days. There's lots of noise. Rural properties are noisy places. Will this have an effect on other properties and their ability or desire or gumption to do things that they think are their own property? Speaker 9: Yeah. Look, and it's not certainly intending to try and prohibit people from running businesses. I guess in this instance, we have... The team have been seeking to obtain an acoustic report so we can potentially deal and address that noise. Without that, we're essentially... The team are flying blind in terms of how they condition and ensure that there's no adverse impacts from that operation on the general public. Another point that's relevant is also the type of noise that's generated, noting the zoning of the land. A mechanic business is not generally a noise that you'd like to hear in those particular zones. So whereas I know there's farm tractors and lawn mowers and animals and livestock, obviously a noise that's more familiar on those zones.

01:53:00 So I think this is just about making sure that we protect the intent of the scheme in terms of the types of noise in particular zones. I think the team are comfortable that they can support the use subject to getting sufficient measures in place to mitigate those noise and those impacts. Councillor Wilkie: So because you're dealing with an impact, an industrial-type impact in a rural-type zone. Yeah. Different... Speaker 9: Noise. Different types of noise. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, Karen. Yes, thank you through the chair. Given we've talked about perpetuity for the land, is there an option to condition it that the business only operates for a period of two to three years and then this gets re-locked up? Speaker 8: There's... I think with that situation, you're sometimes asking someone to commit financially or commit their business to a site but there's no guarantee for them whether that's fair. I don't know if that's totally fair. And also the other converse argument would be that if you allow it for three years, you're sort of potentially hamstrung in three years' time

01:54:00 when they want to extend it. It's probably not the best way to go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian, do you want to? Yeah. So I heard what you're saying about the President's second aspect of achieving this. In considering the President, the proposed... To me, it's about the scale and impact of home-based business. Now, he is a mechanic and I don't know what the specific application said. He said mainly just doing gearboxes, which is not a heap of noise. So one way to do that is actually say, well, this is a... We consider this to be an acceptable way of doing it. It's a way ahead if it's three days a week and this at these hours. So it's limiting the scale, limiting the potential impact and therefore that doesn't set a precedent

01:55:00 for a full-fledged... Could we have a question, please, Brian? Do you agree with that statement? Councillor Wegener: No. Speaker 8: I don't think it's reasonable for a rural type area, a rural area to be... Inundated with mechanical noise three days a week. Speaker 9: And again, this is where, yeah, the specifics of the approval are not really well demonstrated and what equipment he's using. And I know you can put hours around it, but the type and frequency of noise during the operation is what could be the cause. So I guess that's what we're looking at in either or option here. A conservative condition, which we could put on them if they're not willing to submit, if they're interested in obtaining approval, which puts a very onerous requirement on them not to emit noise, or they can provide us with a technical report that we can evaluate.

01:56:00 Councillor Lorentson: There are six dwellings surrounding the property and all the properties are less than four hectares. In fact, around two hectares. Two questions. I think I asked this question at the planning environment meeting. Have there been other complaints, not formal? No, sorry. The question is, have you been to the other dwellings and listened to whether the noise goes beyond the boundary? And are there any families or newborns or young families that are living within that vicinity? Because to me, I am concerned of adverse humanity impacts, night workers and mothers with newborns. I think that noise issue really matters. It needs to be addressed. Yeah. Speaker 8: I certainly agree that the noise issue needs to be addressed. We did have a complaint, which was the stimulus for the initial investigation and triggered the application in the first place.

01:57:00 I did contact a number of property owners within proximity of the site. Someone who wasn't the person that made the original complaint expressed to me concern with a mechanics business being approved in the area and that they had heard the noise and that they did not want to hear noise associated with the business. That they wanted to have a, you know, live in a quiet environment. In terms of the specifics of who's living in each household, I don't know exactly that. But it's fair to say that over time that these houses will have a mixture of people that will live in them and that there will certainly be young families potentially in there now or certainly in the future. So a very relevant point for amenity. Councillor Lorentson: My other question is, what's the cost of an application? So just a rough idea. Speaker 8: It could be $2,000 to $5,000 along those lines, just off the top of my head for something

01:58:00 like this. Councillor Lorentson: So to resubmit an application is burdensome for the applicant. So the concept of stopping the clock, you're saying that's not an option in this application? Speaker 8: Well. Certainly the applicant has got that discretion to stop the clock and we'd certainly be supportive of them doing that to allow them to provide an acoustic report. Councillor Lorentson: Can we seek, ask that question of the applicant before making a decision? Is that possible, Patrick? Speaker 8: Yeah, we can certainly seek it from them. It would, if we were, if it was Council's position that they would refuse the application unless the stop was clocked and the clock was stopped. Yes. That would give us more leverage. There would be no reason really for them to do it otherwise. But if they, if they thought they were getting a refusal and this was a pathway to get an approval, then I think that would be more enticing for them. Speaker 3: And just to add, when the application was decided that it would be coming to Council

01:59:00 for decision, I did contact the consultant at that point and explain that we were looking to refuse it and that the next extension was to allow it to come to Council. So they were given, I guess, the opportunity at that point to potentially stop the clock and provide that information, but they chose to bring it to Council. Councillor Wilkie: Could you say that again, because Karen just speak up a bit. Sorry. Something important. Speaker 3: So the latest extension to the application, I did speak to the consultant and say we would extend one more time to take it to Council for refusal. So they were given advice probably four weeks ago to say, okay, well, it's going to go to Council recommending refusal. So they were aware that this was the, I guess, the opportunity to do that if they were looking to move towards an approval by providing that report at that point. Councillor Wilkie: So if we were to defer the decision to Thursday night on the provisor that you once again approach the applicant and give them an opportunity to provide a boosting report, would that be

02:00:00 acceptable to you? Councillor Jurisevic: Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. Speaker 8: Absolutely. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. My question is in regard to what an acoustic consultant comes in and actually looks at the nature of the business and what potential noise they could create, or the function of the business is, well, they've got a compressor. A compressor needs this. They've got a mechanical hoist. They need this. They've got car exhaust. With a car operating, they need this. Around those sort of parameters, or is it just generally mechanical facility needs? Speaker 9: I would assume a site inspection would be the best way to target exactly what the operation involves. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Speaker 9: And doesn't overkill in terms of providing any more than it needs to apart from just how to get the... Councillor Jurisevic: No. That would probably limit the... Speaker 9: Correct. And we wouldn't necessarily require modelling and the like. It would be more around targeting the particular noise-generating implements. Councillor Lorentson: Question. Councillor Wegener: So we're just talking about acoustics here.

02:01:00 But I'm not sure the hazardous waste regulations here, but I know in the States that every bit of oil, radiative fluid and so forth that comes onto the property has to be accounted for as it goes off the property, and there's very strict regulations. Do you look at that side of the business when you're looking at an approval? Speaker 8: Yes. We certainly would. That did form part of the complaint as well, that there were some noxious smells associated with things that were being used. So our environmental health team did attend the site and have discussions with the operator around that. He had his reasons for why that occurred, but we certainly would be looking for some robust conditions around regulating any waste on the site. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. I just had a blank. Someone care to make a motion or a... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy. Councillor Lorentson: Just to know that this gets deferred for a decision.

02:02:00 Okay. So that planners have an opportunity to ask the applicant if he can provide an acoustic report. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have a seconder for that. Councillor Wilkie: A seconder for Joe Urissemi. Further discussion with the applicant regarding the provision of an acoustic report? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Miller, you're suspected of motion? Just to reiterate what's already been said, that the concern is that approval is in perpetuity. And that we need to be assured, and the residents need to be assured, that we A, comply with our planning scheme. That acceptable outcome number 9.4, I think, is required.

02:03:00 You know, there are no adverse impact, amenity impacts for neighbouring properties. And I also think the other side of this is that if we condition it with no noise going beyond a boundary, that's actually more onerous for a small business than confined with an application. So understanding really clearly that small businesses, there are financial implications and financial costs that, you know, small businesses, we would love to remove for small businesses, but reapplying, if this gets refused and to reapply and then get an acoustic report, it might actually cost more in the long run. So I think that this is sort of just a win-win. I just hope that the applicant will seriously consider just submitting an acoustic report.

02:04:00 So that, yeah, we comply with the lease of plan in what's required. Thanks. Thank you. John? Councillor Wegener: Yes. I find this to be perplexing because you have a business, but it's also a hobby. And so Plunty, he can do his hobby there, I would suspect, undeterred, because you can do hobbies on your property, but at the business, then if you come into the rules for businesses. And I think there's a question of due process, which I'm perplexed about. But again, is will one complaint actually stop this person from doing their business and have the domino effect when one complaint hasn't actually been thoroughly substantiated? And yeah, the concept of no noise beyond the boundary is another one that's very difficult for me. So I look forward to Thursday night to hear more about it, more discussion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.

02:05:00 Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to say, I agree with you, Tom, around the complexities around the process. Given the applicant clearly had the opportunity on more than one occasion to comply with the request for the noise mitigation paperwork to protect the intent and also to alleviate the noise pressures on the neighbourhood, and it's unfortunate it took a complaint to trigger that. I'm not in support of this. I'll leave it to you. I just want to say that. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillors please receive the motion? Do you wish to close, Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: No. Councillor Wilkie: Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Gerisovic, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart-Wilkie. Against? Councillor Finzel? Motion's carried. Thanks, Tom. Next item is the 5.0. 4.3. Short-term accommodation at 2A Woongar Street, 4.0.

5.3 MCU23/0019 - SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 2A WOONGAR STREET, BOREEN POINT (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 - Item 5.6) ¶

▶ 02:05:59

02:06:00 Preferred from the Panning and Environment Committee meeting. Due to the significance of the issue and more information. Okay. Please give some overview and comment. Speaker 3: No worries. So an application for short-term accommodation for the use of an existing dwelling on site. The applicant has requested the use of five bedrooms and ten people on site at any one time. The use would be contained entirely within the existing dwelling. The subject site is a split zone. So the house is within a rural residential zone and then the remainder of the site is environmental management and conservation. So we're recommending approval for this one with some specific conditions predominantly relating to amenity and code of conduct requirements to be in line with council's local law. The existing house has been, it's being used by family members at the moment, but they also are looking to actually use it in the times that they're not. So that's what we're saying on the property themselves. Speaker 8: And just in terms of the conditions, while Tara said they're seeking for 10 people to

02:07:00 be on site, we're conditioning it to be maximum of eight. Councillor Wilkie: Is that the size of the lot again? Speaker 3: It's four hectares, 10 hectares I think. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the whole lot of previous . Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: It's big. Speaker 3: It's big. It's ten. Yeah. It's big. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's five bedrooms or four bedrooms? Speaker 3: It's five bedrooms. They were, yeah, they were requesting 10 people on site. We've conditioned eight. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Questions, councillors? It's consistent with the zoning. Okay. SDA is in consistent use in that zone. Yeah. Does someone care to move the recommendation? We have a few. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want me to start up and then do the amendments or are you going to? Councillor Jurisevic: No, no. I'll move it. I'll move the . Okay. I'll second it. Oh, okay. Councillor Wilkie: Hang on a second. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, sorry, Tom. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. Councillor Wegener: It needs to be seconded and then I'll make the amendment. Mayor Stewart: No, you were going to move it with your amendments. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's all right. No, we're just doing the amendments. Oh, sorry.

02:08:00 Councillor Jurisevic: It's all right. Mayor Stewart: Just give me a minute. Speaker 3: I'll have to just change everything. Councillor Jurisevic: The new system. Councillor Lorentson: I thought Tom was going to move it. Councillor Jurisevic: As far as we can do it, I understand the staff have approved it with a number of conditions and I believe councils may have a raft of other conditions they want to apply, so we'll see when this goes. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Can Councillor Millie second it? No, Millie can't be seconded. Who seconded it? Councillor Jurisevic: I did. Oh, Frank. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to make an amendment. I'd like to make an amendment. Are you ready? Okay. Councillor Wegener: Can we move that? Council will note the report by the developer manner. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think that's right now because the motion has been moved. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, yes. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

02:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: Item 11 is a condition, is it? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a new condition, but you added it by a problem. Sorry, condition 11. I don't understand. Let's just go back and make a new one. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay, that condition 11 be added to read with the numbering reordered as applicable. Item 11, domestic dogs are permitted on the property provided they are permanently combined within buildings and or fenced enclosures. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. Seconded by Brian Stockwell. Tom. Councillor Wegener: It is pretty much self-explanatory. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, can I just clarify this point of order, Mr. Chair? Yeah.

02:10:00 My reading of the conditions are that there are well beyond 11, 27 conditions currently apply. Yeah. The addition of the condition 11 should be a condition 28. Councillor Lorentson: No, adding in is 11 with them all renumbered. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See if it's the numbering reordered that is applicable. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, okay. Sorry. That's okay. I'll take that back. Because 11 is our contact person. Okay, 11 then. Okay. Under amending. Adding it into the appropriate area of the under amending. Sorry, my apologies. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Keep going, please. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Wegener: I understand that. We have contacted the owner of the property, the applicant, and they are envisioning dogs being allowed on the property along with people, short-term accommodation people, and dogs are part of the family now, and many people come with dogs in such a large property with very, very sensitive environmental values around the property that it's beholden upon ourselves to make sure that the dogs are accommodated, similar to the family members.

02:11:00 There's so many rooms, there's so many people. They're going to bring dogs. They need a place for the dogs to stay. It would be unruly for people with dogs to show up there and not have actually a place for the dog to stay, and dogs are very different from most other pets. You don't need a cat enclosure. You don't need a parrot enclosure because dogs are different. We, at our open beaches, we have off-leash, off-leash dog areas and on-leash dog areas. We don't have off-leash cat areas, not off-leash dog cat areas, off-leash cat areas. Birds, they're unique. They're a part of our families. It's our society now where we bring our dogs with us when we travel, when we go out to dinner, when we go to the beach. Wherever we go, we bring our dogs, including their short-term accommodation. So I feel as though this is just a very important addition to our rural properties. Councillor Jurisevic: John, question? Councillor Wegener, would you be averse to the addition of some wording there with regard to, because if the dogs are permitted on the property, are permanently confined

02:12:00 to buildings or fenced enclosures, it means you, they can only be in a building or a fenced enclosure. They can't be in and out of the car. I would suggest that we need to say, and on-leash, and or on-leash at all times. Something to that effect, because I don't see how you can confine a pit to a building or a fenced enclosure without allowing access between those elements. Councillor Lorentson: Can I throw something in? A question. Maybe, and this is a question to the planners. Councillor Wilkie: Well, hang on. I think we'll deal with this issue with that. Sorry. Speaker 9: Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: It's not related to that. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that seem... Speaker 9: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I would... Councillor Wegener: I'm just concerned that that doesn't allow for movement of the dog. Speaker 9: No, that's right, from the vehicle to the building. Councillor Wegener: Well, we don't condition that. People can walk that way. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, you can't walk the dog around that. So, under... So, that reason says permanently confined within buildings and or fenced enclosures. So, I just thought that just became overly prescriptive, and or on-leash at all times.

02:13:00 Councillor Wegener: But if you have the, if you include the and or on-leash at all times, then you may not have a fenced enclosure, because they'll just say, oh, we're just going to be on a leash all the time, where... Councillor Jurisevic: Well, they won't have to walk around the property that way. So, it's all on the... Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't think so. I hear what you're saying, Joe. I don't think so. Councillor Lorentson: All right, Amelia had a question. I, I was thinking, sorry, I'm thinking of our local laws. So, I think the wording in our local laws is something to the effect that dogs are controlled. Controlled. So, maybe to sort of in between both of you, that they've remained currently within confined areas or fenced enclosures and are under... And avoid my local laws at all. And, yeah, there's a reference to they've got to be under control. Speaker 9: My, my take on that is that the condition and council would reasonably allow the animals to be put into the building to get there in the first place.

02:14:00 So, I don't think, I don't think there's a, an issue around a non-compliance. I think the way that the condition would be interpreted is that that's a reasonable expectation. Councillor Jurisevic: Just worried about being allowed to walk the dog on the leash on the property. Speaker 9: Yeah, correct, correct. And, and I think the way that that would be enforced would be appropriately understood as what the intent of the position is. I think it's sufficient. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Sellcwell. Yeah, if we did want to address it the way it would be, other than for ingress and egress. No, I don't have any comment on that. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I'm just saying, I, I... I was just saying it's still not fine. I just, I've just seen, so take your description. Thank you. Yes, the justification is false. Councillor Wilkie: I'm assuming that anyone else wishes to speak to the amendment or I've told all of you. Yes. Councillor Sellcwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I, I think the, the justification for including this condition is specific to the lot as we discussed in planning and environmenting. It is a really nice lot on the edge of Lake Tharabas with high environmental value in an area which is known to have things like koalas, which dogs do chase, and I think part of the justification is to ensure there's good environment management as part of the tourist facility.

02:15:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Any other councillors to speak to the amendment? Yeah, I'm still concerned about the wording confined as opposed to something that you've just said. Just, just something about the wording makes me read it in the, the imprisoning of, of the pet within, within the facility. That's, I'm sorry, it's just my, my interpretation of it, but... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll be quick to cut to you, Mr. Jurisdict. Yes. Would you be a dog by the way? Councillor Wilkie: I'm not a current dog, yes. Okay, now the council's supposed to, I'll, I'll support the, the amendment given that the, the lot is quite a large one, heavily forested, it's zoned environmental management and conservation, it's bound to be animals through there, can't have dogs chasing wallabies or kangaroos, or koalas through that lot, so I think it's a very astute amendment, my support. Tom, do you wish to close? Councillor Wegener: No, thank you.

02:16:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, put, put the amendment to the vote. That is unanimous, the amendment becomes part of the motion. Do we have any more amendments? Councillor Lillian. Councillor Lorentson: Um, hi, um, I'm moving an amendment, um, that the condition 12 be added to read 12, domestic cats are permitted on the property provided that they are permanently confined within buildings. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, do we have a seconder for that? I'll second it. Okay. Councillor Lillian. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to go over what we just spoke about, we know that this is an environmentally sensitive and beautiful, um, 10 hectares, or 10, 10 hectare property, um, note, I went through all the submissions and pulled out some really good content out of all the submissions, um, and I actually started looking at cats, um, I'm a cat lover, I'm a dog lover, so this is nothing against cats, nothing personal, um, but really quite interesting.

02:17:00 Cats have caused more environmental damage in Australia than in any other continent of the world, and the damage that, um, in terms of risk to wildlife, like parrots, birds, reptiles, frogs, um, I just think it's, um, just responsible that we have this condition, um, given the sensitivity of the, the location. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Hinson. I just have a question. Councillor Hinson. Is there any policy in council where we've registered cats? Councillor Lorentson: No. Councillor Jurisevic: No. I don't believe so. No. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to ask a question to staff. Um, we're getting into specifics now, we're talking about dogs, and now we've got cats. We're going to have to do domestic pigs next, um, um, and all of those. Can this be all encompassed in pets as, as one motion rather than going into individual animals?

02:18:00 Speaker 9: Potentially, yes. The, the difference being, I guess, um, with, with dogs, the ability to fence off areas outside of the sensitive area. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, a cat could be in a, you know. Speaker 9: An enclosure, potentially, yeah. An enclosure? A cat run? A cat run, for example, could be more of a problem? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah, it does get, it does get tricky when we're starting to get into minutiae of particular animals and how to contain them and avoid impact. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 9: And the operation of that for the, for the people they're running that operation as well. Um, so I guess it's just being clear around the intent of the conditions we're requiring and whether, you know, we, we use the term pets are confined to the building so that Councillor Jurisevic: they're not, um, they're not able to roam freely. That would mean people could bring, people could bring their birds, people could bring most other pets and. Yeah. We have had people with their, their pet, their pet people, whatever. Councillor Wilkie: Paul, Paul, he's gone. Okay.

02:19:00 I would. No, Tom, you have a question. Councillor Wegener: Just, just a, just a, Dr. Camilli. With cats, I've, I've grown up with cats. I'm from California. I grew up with a cat. Um, and first, if you have a cat and you bring it to the property and the cat isn't enclosed, you no longer have a cat. It's gone. It'll never come back again. Just like a parrot. If you bring a parrot, a parrot flies away. It's never gonna come back. Um, the other thing about cats is when they're inside, they, they, they can stink. They're kind of gnarly. They're, they, they can, they can make quite a mess of things. Um. Councillor Wilkie: It is. Councillor Wegener: Um, should, should we leave that to the, that, that sort of thing to the owner, to the, the property owner versus us? You know, maybe this condition is going too far to conditioning. Councillor Lorentson: Uh, I am responding to quite a few submissions that were made on this application, um, that

02:20:00 neighbouring properties that are potentially impacted by an STA and given that our Noosaville plan supports this application, to me is, where I see is we've got the opportunity in, in terms of conditions to reduce the impact and if a, if someone who lives alongside and people in Boring Point, um, have raised the issue of cats, I think it's responsible, um, to, if we can, um, condition, condition that in the application. Um, we can't stop the application, but we can reduce amenity impacts, um, by imposing such conditions, Tom. So that's where I sit. I understand what you're saying. Um, but that's, I just think we've got an obligation to listen to what the neighbouring properties, what their concerns are. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'm going to talk to, um, you may have heard my last comment, I'm not a cat lover. And it's for the reasons outlined.

02:21:00 Cats, whether they were feral or domestic, create quite a strong destructive force in the environment, particularly with small reptiles, birds, et cetera. Now that the, the frequency of people taking cats on holiday is, is probably fairly low. But if we're trying to give staff an indication that when we have applications, uh, in sensitive environment areas, that we want to see conditions that control domestic pets in a way that gives nature the best chance of not being impacted, then I think it's quite reasonable not to be speciesist and keep it to dogs. I think if there's a potential impact, it's good to control them. And while it may never come into any need, um, I think it's, it's reasonable just to have both dogs and cats covered, uh, particularly, it's probably a reasonable point that if,

02:22:00 if the local objectors have raised this as a concern, then having an appropriate condition does respond to those submissions in a way that seeks to retain the natural value of the site. Councillor Wilkie: I also support the amendment. Um, cats are fleeting. They're fluffy. They're, they're cute. They purr. But they're also vicious killers. They kill millions of Australian native birds, reptiles, and marsupials every day. I think it's a, uh, with a, a lot like this, 10 hectares of environment managed in conservation land, I think it's a very, again, another very astute, um, condition. And I fully support it. Councillor Jurisevic: On those, on those grounds, you wouldn't permit a cat on your property. Um, I'm not going to support this on the grounds that I think we can all be encompassed in one amendment and make it domestic pets. Pets. I'm permitted to cover all, all, and I'll, I'll be moving an amendment following this,

02:23:00 uh, or can I? I think it would be original. I'd, I'd be suggesting, I'd move the original. I'd be suggesting to my fellow councillors that we look at encompassing, um, the, the pets under one condition as opposed to individual conditions for every type of pet. Because what you'll do here is you'll open the opportunity up for other pets to be brought into the property that have no restrictions. That may be just as damaging to the environment. Like an elephant. If it's a domestic elephant? Speaker 3: Absolutely. Pet money. You couldn't, you know. Councillor Jurisevic: We, we stop. We stop. We don't think about horses, you know, and, and the like, so. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Durrissvig. Uh, anybody else wish to speak to the amendment on cats? Um, no? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Um, no. Okay, I put the amendment in those in favour. Councillor Lorentson then, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wilkie, cats against. Councillor Durrissvig and Councillor Finzel.

02:24:00 Now, any more amendments? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have another amendment that condition 13 be added to read. 13. Any illumination resulting from direct, reflected or other incidental external lighting emanating from the site must not exceed 8 lux when measured at any point 1.5 metres outside the boundary of the rural residential zone portion of the land. Seconded by that, please. Curves of the debate. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Go to Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson. Again, another response to a submitter. And something I think we should consider on all applications, and I had this discussion with one of the planners last week about this, about dark nights. And again, just looked into it, and quite interesting.

02:25:00 Basically, it just says that, you know, night time turn your lights off. There are nocturnal animals that sleep during the day and are active at night. And that by switching your lights on, you actually start disturbing the nocturnal ecology. So we know about it in turtles, just along coastlines, why we don't have bright lights that, you know, stop little baby turtles from knowing where to walk in and out. The same applies to any sort of precinct or any development. And, you know, cities, there's a push where the lighting's got to go down instead of up, and this whole concept of dark lights, I would love workshopped, perhaps, in council, because I just think, you know, different by nature, this should be almost mandatory, I think. So for that reason, and in response to a submitter, I would like to put forward this condition.

02:26:00 Councillor Wilkie: I've got some questions on this. I noticed it's an interesting addition. The under-amenity condition mentions the operation must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity, so that implies neighbours, including but not limited to noise, overlooking light spill or odor, enjoyed by surrounding residents, of course, and useless. So light must come, you were suggesting light mustn't spill out from the boundaries of the property. Cathy, can we have a look at the map of the property? OK. So the condition talks about there not being an eight, more than eight blocks of light spill outside the resident, rural residential zone, which I understand is this portion of the lot here. So in order for that condition to be monitored,

02:27:00 forced, you'd need people coming inside the boundary of the property, walking around the bush with some sort of a monitor to see whether eight lux or more is emitting from this use here. If it pertained to the external boundary of the property, you can understand it. But then again, you've got the problem of needing people with monitors going on private properties. What I'm, I understand the intent, I think it might be covered in the conditions already, because if this property owner starts to experience light spill, we're going to complain to Council, Council take action. But, sorry, I'll put this in the question, if we were to approve this amendment, would it mean, would you have people creeping through the bush on private property with lux monitors in their hands?

02:28:00 Is that, is that a decision? That's a desirable outcome. Speaker 3: So I might start with this one. So I guess there's two different conditions there. So one is about the amenity of the adjoining properties. Council Laurenston's was more about impacts on the environmental management area, so wildlife. So that condition, it should be more so around the actual lighting that's on the house once it's, you know, I don't know whether we would go out and check that ourselves, but the applicant should be ensuring that they're complying with the conditions in terms of the external lighting on the building, not creating that light spill into the environmental management zone. So it's more about the wildlife than the adjoining properties. Okay. So two separate conditions. Well, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Council, do you think that what you said about people trying to police it comes back to the whole premise of all of this, isn't it? I mean, who's getting on there checking that there isn't a cat outside or a dog outside? I mean, this is all good in theory, but it could very much be a two-horse tiger because the enforcement may not necessarily, people may not necessarily adhere to the requests, which is some of the...

02:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: I guess in answer to your question, I guess you could see whether, a neighbour could see whether a cat's roaming around or a dog's roaming around. All right. All right, I take the, thank you for answering my question. It pertains more to spill of light from the house itself into the bush, I mean, the surrounding bush. Councillor Lorentson: Can I also add, people also light up the National Park, so actually put lights in the National Park. And, you know, it's, if you're going to short-term accommodate place, it's really quite pretty to have the National Park lit up. Can I point out that the Council is talking to the motion again. Okay. So, Tara, that was also part of the intention. So, there's just a clear indication, and is that... Sorry, question. So, is that also the intent of the condition, that to prevent the applicant from illuminating the National Park?

02:30:00 Speaker 3: Yeah. So, more so the environmental management zone on the property. Environmental management. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. So, it's basically just to reduce any light spill that the actual building is creating. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So, would a Council officer, when the approval's given, go and talk to the applicant to ensure that this is done? Speaker 3: So, it's up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the conditions of the approval. It might be a compliance issue if they, you know, if we received reports that it's lit up like a Christmas tree, I guess, we would go out and check those conditions and check they're complying with them. But we wouldn't go and check it unless we've received that complaint, is my understanding. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I have a question. I'm an electrician. What is eight lux being measured at 1.5 miles an hour outside of the vanity of the rural residential zone portion of the land look like? Speaker 3: I'm not a lighting expert, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

02:31:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Without having a light meter. Is it eight candles? Eight candles? It's candela. Candela. Lux is a bit different from candela. So, without... To the average and ordinary person, this would have to require some means of... Speaker 9: Yeah, testing. Councillor Jurisevic: ...of testing facilitation. So, is this... I guess my question is, is this an overly, overest requirement on a property? I understand the intent. The intent is well thought out and well intentioned. I'm just trying to work out how this may be enforced, measured in the first place. What does eight lux look like to the average person? So, that the average person... Okay. Is it... Is it... Try to say, don't have spotlights. Yeah. So, you can't light... Don't have security lights? Do they go... Exceed me on eight lux? What does this and does this not limit? The only reason I can't support is because I don't really understand what the level of

02:32:00 eight lux looks like at the 1.5 meter point of the boundary and how it would be enforced and how the owner would understand it without getting some professional lighting person in to undertake the test. And security lights around the property are quite a reasonable expectation, one would think. Speaker 8: Well, it might be more... To get rid of the ambiguity or the unknown element of it, if councillors were... I guess that's what I'm trying to say. ...agreeable to... Is there a better way of saying it? Well, would you say there'd be no lights built... No lights built. ...in the proportion of the land? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Something's more readily understood. Can I have a further question? I'm guessing this is based on a standard condition for turtles? Speaker 3: It's a standard amenity condition that we've got for our dwelling houses, so not specific to turtles. We've got more thorough ones. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, and councillors, have you bought a torch recently? No. I know my bike lights 300 lumens.

02:33:00 Okay. So, you know, what's the lux? So, one lumen per... So, it's dull. It's really dull. It's a very dull light. It's light. It's light. Yeah. Speaker 9: I think it's just... Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think it's just... Speaker 9: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. And... Yeah. Okay. It's just... I think it's an interesting point, and for the same reason I agree. It's sort of this... The concept that we do conditions that protect the environmental values as well as amenity, and that's one thing I think... I don't have an amenity amendment. I think we just change the second to amenity and environment at times, amenity, because it's not... You know, amenity's the anthropocentric experience of the development that, you know, what we're doing here is actually towards improving the environmental outcomes. So, I think it's a good measure, and similar to Council Lawrence, and I think it is something in similar situations if we've got developments that have high-quality ecosystems surrounding

02:34:00 them that we look at controlling lights, but not just with turtles. And as far as monitoring, there's lots of people who are on boats at night. It's very close to the lake. There's people who can walk along the foreshore, and that's where you get your complaints from if they... As you say, they can walk past them, and they can see it's lit up like a Christmas light. Christmas tree. Yeah, but yeah. I think it's just... And it's an easy one to apply this, because the applicant just has to look at his light fittings and get... Get someone to say, yeah, that'd be fine. Councillor Wilkie: Could you say that point again, Tari, saying this condition's applied to standard residential buildings? Speaker 3: Yeah, we have it as a... This one's been altered a little bit to be specific to this site, but we do have a standard lighting amenity condition that we've been putting on some dwelling houses. We're finding that we're getting them really lit up at the moment, and it's causing some issues. So we've got standard turtle lighting, which is separate to this one. Councillor Wilkie: And what's the wording of that? Speaker 3: Of the turtle lighting? Yeah. It's pretty thorough. Councillor Wilkie: And is it about... Does it mention eight lux?

02:35:00 Speaker 3: I wouldn't be able to... It does? Councillor Wilkie: I'm not sure. Okay. I'll speak to the amendment. This is a condition that's applied already to... Dwellings that may have impact on environmental amenity. I'm happy to support it. I understand it better now, so thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all right. No, I'm just looking it up. It says the... To give you an example of what different lux levels look like in practice, here's some examples. Moonlight with a clear light, one to two lux. Office lighting is around a five lux. So that's a comparison of indoor and outdoor situations. And the illuminance is exactly one lux per luminance power of one lumen. Uniformly illuminates an area of one square metre, but they use the lux meter to go around, and the lux meter is fairly easy to obtain. So it wouldn't be too hard to... Wouldn't be too hard to... Speaker 9: Probably use your phone these days to test it as well. You know, you can't get a reason. Councillor Wilkie: Now, the council, please speak to the amendment. The amendment is closed. Councillor Lorentson: I will say something.

02:36:00 There weren't a lot of submissions made on this property, but the ones that were, were actually from the adjoining owners. And the environment's really important to them. So again, we can't stop the application, but we have an obligation and responsibility to address their concerns in terms of conditions. So thank you for supporting us. I'm assuming everyone's going to support this, but I read a lot about what this community values, and it's loud and clear, the environment. So, yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So, we have a lot to look at. But we have a very, very good plan for this. So I'm gonna put you in the middle of this. Councillor Lorentson: That condition 27, an advisory note be added to read 27, a bushfire hazard maintenance plan providing recommendations for on-site vegetation maintenance must be prepared by a suitably qualified person.

02:37:00 Any maintenance requirements recommended in the plan must be carried out on site in accordance with the recommendations. In this regard, the maintenance plan must relate to the maintenance of on-site vegetation, for example, removing fallen branches, leaf litter from the site, maintaining clear access tracks, cleaning out of building gutters. Advisory note, for the purpose of preparing a bushfire hazard maintenance plan, a qualified person is considered to be an ecologist with a minimum of three years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management. In this regard, this relates to the maintenance of fallen branches, leaf and litter.

02:38:00 Do you have a seconder for that, please? Seconder Tom? Milly? This came up quite a bit again in the submissions, most against the STA, but there were actually some that were in favour of the STA, but all made reference to bushfire management. The conditions already include a bushfire management plan and there's clauses 23 to 27. There's a prohibition, no fire prohibition. But what I've read from the submissions is that the residents are just not assured that it's going to be enforced, because the property's not visible from all the other properties, there is a chance that there might be fire pits or campfires that go unnoticed. So this, I think, addresses a lot of the concerns raised in a lot of the submitters' notes.

02:39:00 You know, it's potentially a high risk, it's a by-hazard risk because there's, it needs to be maintained quite regularly. So I spoke with Planning and Tara put together this condition for me, which isn't too onerous, but sort of addresses the gap in the bushfire management clauses and again addresses real concerns by the adjoining property owners. Okay, question four. Councillor Wilkie: New Sir Council has a lot of reserves where branches are allowed to fall to the ground, are you suggesting that this bushfire management plan would require the property owner to manage the 10 hectare lot in a way, removing fallen branches from the ground, picking up leaf litter, in a way that New Sir Council doesn't require itself to do for its natural areas?

02:40:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, mine was more a maintenance issue, just that it's not left in disrepair. Councillor Wilkie: The 10 hectare lot? Councillor Lorentson: Or just the rural residential portion? I might throw that to Tara, but I was thinking in terms of just the buffer zone, so where the fire breaks, so that the property and the neighbouring properties are not at risk. And again, concerns just raised by adjoining property owners. I'll ask what's reasonable. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. So we'll probably have to just confirm with our environment officer, who's a little bit more aware of the bushfire requirements. But there was a number of submissions from adjoining property owners that, or property owners within Boring Point, that mentioned that the site hadn't necessarily been maintained to a high enough standard in terms of leaf litter and fallen branches and things like that, that they were concerned that it was creating a higher hazard in terms of bushfire, so.

02:41:00 Councillor Wilkie: In the rural residential lot? Speaker 3: For the whole of the site, so. Councillor Wilkie: In terms of environmental management? Speaker 3: Yes, correct, yeah. So the access runs along those boundaries. Sorry, along those adjoining properties on the southern boundary, and then hooks up around. So the condition that we've included is basically maintenance of the access to ensure that that's kept clear, and then picking up the leaf litter and whatnot. So whether we look at restricting that to the rural res zone might be the best option, and then the access as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Jane, I'll ask a question based on what you asked there. Given that the property is, how large is it? 10. 10 hectares. Yes. What is the responsibility of the owner to manage a property of that size for bushfire? Speaker 8: It's not a, it's, sorry, it's just not a planning matter, that would be a local law matter.

02:42:00 We have to. Yeah. But to go to the point, it might be reasonable to make amendment to this condition to reflect an asset protection zone around the property to be determined, and then that area to be maintained. So it might be an area 20 metres around the property, 25 metres around the property, and that there's maintenance of that debris, clearing of gutters. Speaker 9: I think that would be more appropriate as well, because obviously the falling debris branches, trees falling over, that provides habitat for a lot of ecological creatures and critters in that environment. So I think it needs to be targeted to bushfire maintenance and around the asset protection zone. And obviously maintenance and access for fire access. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm guessing that's why the council has referred to an ecologist to come up with the plan. But in terms of local law and our own environmental management of a lot like that, can I request

02:43:00 some further information? Speaker 9: Yeah, happy to provide that on the duty of care. Councillor Jurisevic: In that regard as to what the duty of care of an owner currently is in that regard. Particularly if the law has stopped the owner, if they're going to rent out their property in any way, shape or form. Speaker 5: Local law number three deals with this issue about appropriate maintenance of your property both from a weed, pest perspective, overgrown, bushfire hazards. Bushfire risks. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to look at it and say, knowing what that is, having that information provided to us so we can have a bit more information. Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. So a big pile of vegetation right beside your neighbour that's beside their building, obviously would pose a risk from a vermin, but also bushfires. Councillor Jurisevic: So that information provided to us following the meeting and we're happy to provide that and have a look at it in relation to this. Happy to provide that. Karen. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just following on from that, then that raises the question of, I wonder then how would that affect like insurance? Like how does that affect the use of the property and the insurance for if you're having it

02:44:00 out as for guests? Well, yeah, I'm sure that would impact. I'm sure that's going to impact some. Speaker 8: By not maintaining it or maintain? Councillor Finzel: Well, if we condition, what is it? A maintenance. What did you say it was? A maintenance. A fire hazard maintenance. Yeah. Under local laws three, then what's the impact for insurance around that? Councillor Jurisevic: You're talking about the individual insurance company? Speaker 9: Yeah. I think it's. It would be. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure they'd be looking at the fact that the property has this tree, it's forested and we're looking to ensure it's as is there. Mayor Stewart: And the question with that is, if we've commissioned for this photo of previous properties, it can't be approved. What is the retrospective? Speaker 8: Well, we can't apply anything retrospectively, obviously. Mayor Stewart: So then you're saying, well, this is putting us under duress compared to other properties that you have.

02:45:00 Speaker 8: Yeah, well, this one we recognise that there is a bushfire risk within close proximity of the dwelling. And that's why there was a number of conditions put on about having the appropriate infrastructure on site to assist with firefighting. This condition certainly takes it to another level. Speaker 9: I'm happy to come back with some further advice around the duty of care, because obviously this is a short term use. But there's also the residential component, which the landowner has the rights to occupy as a dwelling. They will have a duty of care to maintain their site in accordance with the local law. Councillor Jurisevic: We were just looking at a hotel application. This is a short stay accommodation element where it's not the usual resident in situ. Their awareness around the risk here is something we need to fully understand and comprehend. And so do they.

02:46:00 So how we manage that going forward is an interesting question. Question for staff. Councillor Wilkie: If the intent is to have a buffer zone suitably managed to mitigate fire risk, could we have a condition that reflects that more clearly? Because I don't know what this entails. Would staff be able to draft something that is specified more clearly? What's intended by this and what areas could be affected? Because the way that it is, it could be the whole ten hectare lot. I support the idea in principle. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy with that. I don't want to make this burdensome for the applicant. That's not the intent. The intent was really just to address issues raised in the submissions. And it's basically fire risk maintenance. And I'll read, just to give you an example, one application which was really quite thorough and reasonable.

02:47:00 So she makes reference, some residents have regularly mowed individual segments, but vermin and unwanted wildlife are encouraged onto residential properties. Some sections are mowed and some owners are not in a position to attend this. There's some dead trees and shrubs on this flat area. So it's really quite reasonable. She's not requiring high maintenance. But she's just noting that there's a high risk and that there needs to be some high risk maintenance, some attention to the property that it just doesn't lapse. So I'm happy for a really watered down version of this. The intent is not to set a precedence for other similar applications. And I do think the conditions already in the application, I think they're really good. So maybe just an advisory note. In terms of fire risk maintenance.

02:48:00 Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Thank you. Mr Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm happy to go along with this. Keep more information. I wouldn't have supported this. Just because you have to look at what the increased risk is. And that one would, I believe, be unreasonable. And it may also result in perverse outcomes in terms of the other things we're trying to protect. Having said that. I'll give you a quick look. The whole site is under medium bushfire hazard. And the houses on Moongar Street that face it, the next level down. I think the suggestion was you're looking at using the access drive, which goes between the more vegetated area and those houses is the place to have a fire drive. And so it's probably just a load reduction between the driveway and their boundaries is really all we need. And we do need an expert to tell you to reduce load there. I don't think you do. I think you just need a requirement to undertake fire fuel load reduction on a regular basis.

02:49:00 Because a lot of it's already. I can see it's not as dense vegetation. There's a mown section or a grass section. So I think that's what we do. Councillor Wilkie: Great. I'm going to speak against the event for a similar reason. It's not as clear as it could be. And if we let this one fail, we have the opportunity to let the staff bring something back that's more specific to the areas that need to be effectively managed to fire for thirst analysis. Can the councillors proceed to the amendment? Oh, sorry. Amelia, you're supposed to close. Councillor Lorentson: No, I'll vote against it and look forward to the, hopefully, energy efficiency of the advisory note as opposed to a condition in terms of fire maintenance. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the amendment notice into favour.

02:50:00 It's my job. Councillor Wegener: Oh, okay. Councillor Wilkie: It goes against. It's unanimously against. The amendment's lost. Are there any more amendments? Okay. We go back to the original motion, which was some time ago. Now, which is moved with amendments relating to dogs, cats, water. Any other amendments? And light. Dogs, cats, and light. And in terms of that, only councillor Gillespie has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak for the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Amelia. I'm just going to just add one, two sentences because I'm talking too much. I was looking for this. Just a little bit about the environmental significance of the block. The area of land at 2 Aronga Street is of important environmental significance. The property's been identified as prime habitat for the koala, which is listed as endangered by the Queensland Government under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 by the Australian Government

02:51:00 under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The property's also zoned as a high risk area for some endangered, vulnerable, or near-threatened native plants. Just wanted. And then it goes on. Domestic pets collecting firewoods increase fire protection. Joe, Mr Clay? Oh, sorry, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: None of us have talked about the Aboriginal and Indigenous people. The Aboriginal and Indigenous people. The Aboriginal and Indigenous people. Normally we have great debates about why we shouldn't approve short stay. I'll be waiting for it. So, it is in residential. The current scheme does allow for short stay. Boring Point Lake of Tarawa is an interesting area. In that, I think, I and I think my other councillor originally got letters from the sailing club saying

02:52:00 we're losing the potential to hold our regattas because people can't find a place to stay. So, there is demand. There is the boring point. You can't do much. But having an occasional holiday there and having low-key infrastructure, this is done well. It can actually be a really good thing. Boring Point, in terms of having a small to moderate size of the facility. It's bigger than the other houses in town. And I think it is an addition in terms of what is on offer out there and providing it's managed well. It should maintain the environment around it. So, that's why I support it. Yes, this one. Councillor Wilkie: Jodie, would you close? Because it's the only thing to say? No. Okay. The motion goes in favour. It's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

02:53:00 Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Patrick. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Richard. Thank you, Tim. Next item is the integrated water quality and monitoring program, Boozis Creek, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee due to the significance of the issue. We have Amy and Sophie. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a declaration. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Brian, do you have a declaration? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. I wish to inform the meeting that I have declared a conflict of interest in this matter due to the fact that, as President of the Noose Lions Football Club, I have landed water management responsibility for a crop of the 4.5 hectares of purine sports complex. This involves the application of mainly organic soil release and calcium-based fertilisers and herbicide over whether soil is well-holding in terms of the catchment. The club also uses groundwater for irrigation and has used surface water and recycled water in the past. The downstream impacts of sports fields are potential risk factors for the quality of surface waters in the catchment. Considering the volunteer and community nature of my role within NLFC and the fact the club is not going to gain or lose

5.4 INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - BURGESS CREEK (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2023 - Item 5.8) ¶

▶ 02:53:05

02:54:00 from the proposed monitoring program, I choose to remain in the room even though I was kicked out on Monday and Tuesday. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Let me see. No, I'm going to go the other way, Cathy. I'm going to go that... Speaker 7: I was going to vote you out anyway. That's okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to go that... that I'll leave the room for debate. What else comes next? Okay. You've got the power. Are you going to take half of this? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, I will. Okay, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting

02:55:00 that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my brother, Gabriel Cherasani, lives approximately three kilometres from Burgess Creek. Also until recently, my brother was on the executive of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association who have made submissions regarding issues with Burgess Creek, including raising a petition on the matter. Considering recent advice given to councillors by the Office of Independent Assessor, that is to exercise an abundance of caution, I believe it is prudent to declare a conflict of interest. It's important to note that I've taken myself off the CHAP and the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan because of my brother's involvement on the EPBA. An integrated catchment management plan for Burgess Creek is not part of the CHAP nor part of CHAP's solution. It is part of a broader Noosa catchment strategy of waterways. What I've been requesting since June 2022 is an analysis and review of environmental monitoring and impacts for the Noosa.

02:56:00 and the other matters regarding water quality issues affecting Burgess Creek catchment, and environmental impacts of wastewater treatment plant outflows into the Burgess Creek catchment. Burgess Creek catchment covers roughly 545 hectares. It drains from the back of residential developments in Noosa Head through bushland and community facilities near Eany Creek Road, and then through a council managed bushland reserve and national reserve. It affects and impacts thousands and thousands of people in the Shire. The disposal of liquid waste into our waterways, including freshwater, oceans and rivers, creates social and environmental problems for the whole of Noosa Shire. This issue is a significant issue for the whole community. Water quality has political, environmental and legal implications for the whole of Shire Council. Many of these implications include risks to council infrastructure, such as stormwater,

02:57:00 open spaces and roads. In October 2022, I moved a council resolution at the LGAQ conference for regions becoming more resource independent through efficient use and reuse of wastewater. I called on the LGAQ to advocate to the State Government of Queensland to undertake a statewide analysis of recycled water reuse that values the protection of local ecosystems and provide suitable data to assist councils and water authorities and retailers in producing business cases for water reuse. It was supported almost unanimously. In June 2023, I moved another council resolution at the Australian Local Government Association, calling on the Australian Government to formulate a national policy on ocean sewerage outfalls that aims at no new ocean and estuarine sewerage outfalls to be built or developed along the Australian coastline. I called on the Australian Government to formulate a national policy on ocean sewerage outfalls that would be designed to support local, regional governments and wastewater

02:58:00 providers with existing ocean outfalls, to develop new methods and technologies and make every effort to recycle 100% of all treated wastewater generated within their localities and to avoid the need to discharge in the ocean. It was carried unopposed by 357 councils in Australia. Both motions were supported unanimously by this council. I've also put forward a motion for council approval of the new Council's proposal, This year's LGA conference in Gladstone called for the LGAQ to advocate to the state for a state policy on ocean sewage outfalls, because we need to develop a standard wastewater diversion targets and wastewater recycling and reuse targets that can be replicated across all the states in Australia. I believe that my intention cannot be questioned. The outcome I'm seeking to achieve is cleaner oceans, cleaner wastewater, reducing the impact of liquid waste on the environment and our community, transitioning towards a circular economy for liquid waste and environmental best practices for the whole of Noosa Shire.

02:59:00 An integrated catchment management plan for the Burgess Creek catchment that will form part of a broader Noosa catchment. An integrated catchment management strategy of water waste will help us plan to achieve this outcome. For nearly two years, this issue has become one of my passion projects. I have knowledge and expertise that I bring to this table and integrity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe I could consider the matter impartially and in the public interest. I choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Stewart: Council note that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Council Orenston and determine that Council Orenston stay and that Council Orenston participates and votes in this matter because Council believes that Council, that, what's that Kath?

03:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: You've got to tell me why you think she should stay. Mayor Stewart: I believe that she can remain impartial in regard to this matter and it is in the public interest for her to remain in the meeting room and I also believe the present person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest and that is to ensure that Council Orenston remain, participates in the meeting and provides the necessary and vital input that she can. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question for the CEO. This is probably the longest conflict of interest declaration I've seen in my life. I'm sorry. The important thing about a conflict of interest declaration is that it declares what the conflict is, the links between the councillor and the parties involved and in this case it's not ordinary business because Burgess Creek is a specific geographic area.

03:01:00 That'd be great. Yes. Given the advice we got about the Eastern Beaches Wiltshire management plan, that's not ordinary business because it pertains to a specific geographic area. It's akin to that. You see it's akin to that. Do, do, do COIs need to be this long? Councillor Jurisevic: Not necessarily, but I can understand Councillor Orenson's passion in this project and her desire to explain why she should remain in the room and give councillors an opportunity to digest her reasoning and make a decision of such. Can we go back a little bit? No. I was trying to take it all in while we were going through it.

03:02:00 I was trying to take it all in while we were going through it. I was trying to take it all in while we were going through it. I think the conflict is that, that I've highlighted, that her brother. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Claire? Mayor Stewart: Look, I mean, Councillor Lorentson, she's corrected. Thank you for providing that information. It is good to put it all on the table. But Councillor Lorentson has been working really hard in this space for over a period of two years, has taken a number of motions to various conferences, both, you know, state and national. And I don't believe that, I believe that she can make a decision impartially, and in the best interests of the Amusa community. I understand everyone is, you know, concerned with conflicts of interest, particularly at this point in time and now. With an election looming. I think Councillor Lorentson has been overly prudent, which is a good thing, as Councillor Stockwell has.

03:03:00 So, but I do believe, at the end of the day, she can make an impartial decision in the best interests of the community and in the public interest on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak in favour of the motion as well. The important thing is that the declaration is made. It was the East, the Eastern Beaches protection. Protection Association that first raised Burgess Creek as a matter of interest, as a source of, claiming it was a source of major erosion on the Eastern Beaches during the chat process. This, and the Councillor has correctly declared links to the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. The important thing is that that has been declared. I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. She has done a lot of work in this regard. And a lot of work which has helped us better understand the dynamics of the Burgess Creek system.

03:04:00 It is a specific geographical area, affecting certain residents, have greater interest than others. But the important thing is that the conflict and the link is declared. So for that reason, I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. I'll speak to it. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room. Councillor Lorentson has been focused on one particular element of Burgess Creek. The catchment as a whole is a far greater picture to bring into being. And there's far more involved than just the element of the discharge from the water treatment. I think that in that manner, there's a lot more to the integrated catchment plan than just that one focus. So I'm quite happy for Councillor Lorentson to stay in the room and be aware of all the other elements of Burgess Creek. But many of us have been alluding to over and over again. Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilkie: We'll just close, Councillor Stewart.

03:05:00 No. Put it to the vote. That's in favour? That's unanimous. And Councillor Lorentson given a vote. She's able to stay in the room. Now, Councillor O'Malley, would you like to move a motion? Councillor Lorentson: Can I move a motion? And it has three extra words added to the original motion. So that council note the report by the Environment Officer, Rivers and Coasts to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11 July 2023 and a note staff will continue liaising with Unity Water regarding the Burgess Creek STP data. Councillor Wilkie: Well, I've given you a bump steer there. Yeah, that's right. Councillor. We'll let the staff give their overview of the report. Sure. Four years' worth. Four years' worth. Sure. Apologies. Speaker 1: So this report today provides a summary of the actions that council have taken to address two notified motions from June and December last year around the Noosa Wastewater Treatment Plan.

03:06:00 So the actions that have been taken are the formation of Burgess Creek Working Group, which is an internal working group with infrastructure, environmental services, environmental health, and the climate change team. And so the purpose of that group is to better understand the Burgess Creek catchment and monitor the catchment. So the parts of that PID will be stormwater management and flows, water quality, and then other environmental factors that might be affected. So the first part of the report is that the water quality and flows have been impacted by not just the wastewater treatment plant, but other contaminant sources in the catchment. We've also established an interagency working group with Unity Water. So that involves monthly meetings with Unity Water, so their communications team, their operations team as well, where we can provide updates to each other and matters relevant to water quality in Burgess Creek.

03:07:00 And through that group, we've established a confidentiality deed with Unity Water, which means we now have access to their water quality data through their RIM. And as you know, Unity Water recently presented their data to councillors last month as well. The other aspect of the actions is a partnership with UniSC. So they've got a flow meter installed under the David Low Wave Bridge, which is to sort of determine the movement of the mouth and the impacts behind movement and the erosion issues at Burgess Creek. This report also addresses the council resolution for the development of a citizen science monitoring program, specifically around monitoring runoff of STPs in the area as well.

03:08:00 And with this report, we hope to close off by saying thank you. Notices of motions, except for water discharge volumes in the Burgess Creek catchment, because this would require further investigation and modelling. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to move the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. I'd like to move the motion, please. That Council note the report by the Environment Officer, Rivers and Coastal Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11 July 2023. And A, note staff will continue liaising with Unity Water regarding the Burgess Creek STP data and aspects of Burgess Creek management. B, continue scoping and development of a Burgess Creek integrated water system. And C, note the continued development of Council's integrated water quality monitoring program, including potential expansion to include additional monitoring sites.

03:09:00 And D, that this report responds to previous Council notice of motions. We have a seconder, please. Councillor Wilkie: Seconder, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to just add. I included key stakeholders, and I know that speaking with staff, that that was always the intention, that various stakeholders would always be consulted. Also, I want to throw a question before I speak to the motion. My understanding also is that we will be creating a project control group. And is that correct? And what is the process of actually finding people? People in the PCG? Does that go out to or expression of interest? And will it be similar, for instance, to our destination management plan?

03:10:00 Speaker 4: So I guess in the first instance, just wanted to flag that the funding that we have for the integrated catchment management plan is actually in the next financial year. And while we're, I guess, preparing our response by doing the monitoring in addition to continuing to work with Unity Water. That there's a process, I guess, to plan that whole pit, I guess, moving forward. In terms of key stakeholders, I'm curious to know who exactly you mean by that. Because obviously we've been doing quite a lot of community engagement, not just on this, but with the Eastern Beaches Management Plan as well. And ongoing liaison with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association. So. Councillor Lorentson: There's a lot of. Councillor Wilkie: Kim, have you got an answer there? Speaker 5: Yeah. Just to clarify. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson. And the integrated catchment management plan was not funded this year in the budget.

03:11:00 So we are not moving into the space you're talking about. Not yet. It wasn't funded. Not yet. Exactly. So what this says is that staff will continue to maintain that relationship with Unity Water. And continue to, within capacity, scope the project. This does not mean that we'll be performing a PCG or be consulting with key stakeholders or any of that. We are doing within capacity because it wasn't budgeted for. So we weren't given the resources to do this project. So I just want to be really clear about managing expectations when you add something like and key stakeholders. The project wasn't funded. It's not in our list of deliverables this year. We will continue to maintain that relationship. And scope and understand the issues to prepare for a business case for next year. It's funding. Speaker 4: And I think it's important to add as well, we've come a huge distance in terms of our relationship with Unity Water.

03:12:00 So getting them to, and you know, congratulations to you for really championing this whole process. But I think we've come a really long way. So we want to continue that collaborative working relationship with Unity Water. And I agree, you know, the community eventually needs to be involved if we move forward with this. But like Kim said, until we have the budget and the project management resource to make this happen, we can only do what we can do, I think, within our existing team. Councillor Wilkie: So is the addition of any key stakeholders, is that a problem? Speaker 4: Well, I guess it just depends on when it's expected. Councillor Wilkie: So you're doing the scoping work with Burgess Creek Integrated Cash Management Plan, in partnership with Unity Water, currently? Yeah. So not key stakeholders at the moment? Speaker 4: Well, we are still talking with the Eastern Beaches Protection Association and regulators.

03:13:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So you want to talk to your board of directors? Yeah. I think it's fine. Speaker 5: But it's just important to manage expectations. This doesn't mean there's a PCG and we've started the project. We won't be doing that until it's funded and resourced. Councillor Wilkie: If you're liaising with key stakeholders already, that's fine. Speaker 5: Fine. Councillor Wilkie: That's great. And if you're talking with the environmental groups. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And Burgess Creek comes up, we should be part of continued scoping and development and updating on what's occurring or what may be needed to be included from their perspective. Councillor Lorentson: And that was the intent of the addition that it just, and I know that you had spoken with other environmental groups, that it just wasn't included in the recommendation. And I really wanted to make that clear that it's council, unity, water and collaboration with community. And I think we're heading in the right, on the right track. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: There's a very high level of expectation around community consultation and we appreciate

03:14:00 that. And I've been talking with Carolyn Osbourne about getting a dedicated sort of community engagement plan around the eastern beaches in general, because we can't, I guess, have round tables for every single issue. It's probably about, you know, how do we get best bang for our buck in terms of our communication with the different groups. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Come on. Councillor Anderson, you had the floor. I just won't talk too much. I really just want to acknowledge the staff and thank the staff for putting words into action and for putting our community in place. I think the report does place a high value on natural environment and sustainability first. So I really want to acknowledge that. Although the report doesn't review things like the permit condition and water bottlings and analysis of the contaminants from other potential sources within the catchment, I believe that this information and other concerns raised by the community will be captured in

03:15:00 the scoping and development of this Burgess Creek catchment plan. What I've learnt over the last 18 months. Is that in order to achieve best environmental practices and outcomes for the Burgess Creek catchment, we need to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including Unity Water and DES. We need also to do our own housekeeping and we need data. Data to improve management of the environment, to know what other researchers and councils have found and how they have found it. And data to improve transparency and accountability. More importantly, I've learnt that we must welcome the data for the value it adds to the decision making process. Mantra I've used I think for the last two years, you can't fix a problem unless you know what the problem is and you can't manage what you can't measure. This is how we make good policy decisions with data.

03:16:00 This is how we make informed decisions about sustainable use of the environment. Again, I'd like to thank the staff for all their hard work and for council's commitment and investment in our environment and sustainability. We're part of the problem and we are now part of the solution. Councillor Wilkie: Council Morrison. Council, any questions, staff, comments? Anyone wish to speak? Tom. Just a question. Councillor Wegener: What's next? So after this, it sounds like there was something else. So what is the next step? What is the outcome? And from the report? What's next for Burgess Creek or other creeks? Or Uni Creek, which is an app? Speaker 4: So I guess we continue that relationship with Unity Water and we've actually had our last monthly meeting with them last week and talked about the Cooroy Treatment Plant and perhaps arranging a tour for staff at that site.

03:17:00 So it's really, I think, to continue building our understanding and knowledge of what are all the operations that we need to do. We've got a lot of questions around the Shire that Unity Water are involved with. How do we... We've got $10,000 in this financial year to expand the program to look at stormwater as well. So we've got our next workshop with the NRM groups that are part of that program next Monday. So really just to keep building on what we're already doing. Councillor Wegener: Because the report is amazing and the findings are really eye-opening, aren't they? They weren't what we expected, or at least that was what I expected, quite the opposite actually. Yeah, so just... Thank you. I'd like to ask... Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? So in terms of the $400,000 funding to implement a Burgess Creek Integrated Management Plan, the formation of a Burgess Creek working group, when can we expect to see the working group again?

03:18:00 I'm... The working group's established. It's already happened. That's it. Speaker 5: And Sophie outlined that in her opening. Councillor Lorentson: That's... Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So the $400,000 and the $266,800 should be approved. That's allocated to Burgess Creek for survey to inform a catchment action plan. So that's still pending on approval. So that's the part we're still waiting on. We didn't... It wasn't funded in this budget? It wasn't funded, but the opportunity may be in VR2. Speaker 5: We don't tend to re-litigate new initiatives in VR2. That will be up to council, whether or not that's something the councilors want to re-look at. But from an officer perspective, the decision on the budget and the allocation of the new initiatives has occurred. So we're now working... Our work program is based on what you've endorsed in the council budget. We won't be bringing forward to VR2 new initiatives that weren't funded in the budget to re-litigate them. That will be a council decision.

03:19:00 Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the partnership project for the University of Sunshine Coast, I've got a copy of that report. And they're, I think, still waiting for funding or there's some issue holding everything up. But they're investigating erosion and flow. Will there be an opportunity when that report comes out? Because there's a lot of maps in there. And that was something that I had asked for. Will that report come to council? Or will we get them in and get a... Absolutely. Fantastic. Speaker 4: Yeah. So it's a one-year project. And so that will be concluded in September. About that, I think. Next year. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Fantastic. And that'll feed into the Burgess Creek... Yes. ...working group. Speaker 5: And the scoping of the integrated catchment management plan. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And my last question is, I think there was a request at the planning environment meeting for a copy of the submission that council made in terms of the water quality objectives. There's a draft that's out.

03:20:00 Yes. Speaker 5: Has that been circulated? Sorry? The officer-level submission that we'd put into that process? Yes. I sent it around earlier today. Speaker 4: Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, it was a bit late. Yeah. That's okay. So that's available. It is. Yep. So I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. Can I ask just one question? Could you explain the process of consultation with that? So how did the draft... How did we make that submission? Did it come from officer-level? Yes. Or was it mandatory that community were consulted? Speaker 4: It came from officer-level. And it was a bit of a tricky one because Unity Water initially were not happy that we were putting in a submission as part of that. They felt that our role as part of the project steering group that they have for water matters was our opportunity to provide input. We did sort of negotiate with them that, well, no, we do want to put in a public, you know, record of what our position on this is.

03:21:00 So yeah, there was a bit of back and forth on that. Speaker 5: And it was done at officer-level because of timing, Councillor Lorentson? So often there are short timeframes around providing submissions to different state policies or processes. So it's not unusual for us to do an officer-level technical submission. You know, when we can get it to Council for it to be endorsed, we will. But when we can't because of timeframes, we'll still put something in at an officer level. Councillor Lorentson: So how I've sort of understood that is at the moment there is no water quality objectives for Burgess Creek under the existing... There are. There are? There are, yes. Speaker 4: And in fact, they amended them because of the fact that it's got an STP on it. So we're continuing to work with DES to try to understand whether the water quality objectives are appropriate, not just for the coastal creeks, but right across the Shire, because you'll see in the reports that we've sent through that we're getting Fs on quite a number

03:22:00 of them. So that really needs further discussion with our NRM groups around that to understand that. Because obviously, we don't want to be ratcheting down the benchmark, but similarly, we need to actually know if there's a problem if we're doing this annual reporting and continually getting Fs. So, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Just one more question. In terms of the confidentiality agreement we signed, which was for three years, I think, or five years. I've got two questions. Why did we sign a confidentiality agreement? And will the information after the five-year lapse be made available to the public? Or does that remain confidential? Speaker 4: We signed the agreement because Unity Water asked us to, and it was the only way we felt we could get access to the data. But I think we're slowly getting there.

03:23:00 The fact that they provided the receiving environmental monitoring program report, and it's now on the public record. I think it's a good step in the right direction. And certainly, I think as part of this program more broadly, we would like to see a public dashboard eventually, at the very least, for recreational health. Because we have a duty as council to inform the public if it's safe or not to swim. Speaker 5: So the reason we agreed to a confidentiality agreement, like Amy said, is also that the data, the raw data, needs interpretation. So you were presented with data. And you saw how complex it was and how it needed interpretation. And we had Unity Water there interpreting that for us. So to just release raw data into the community without that sort of interpretation is cause for confusion. So that's why they were happy to provide the raw data, but said it has to be given interpretation. The REMP provides the interpretation.

03:24:00 The REMP reports are publicly available and have been for a long time. That's not a new thing. Their REMP reports have always been publicly available. They're available through their website and they're available through DES. They're now available publicly through council. So those reports have always been available publicly. Is that correct? Yeah. So if you go onto the website, you can get the last number of years of REMP data. Yeah. And that provides interpretation of the data. So that's why. It's not. It's not so much about there being something to hide. It's more about that raw data requires interpretation because it's complex. And so it was more about that managing that process. Councillor Lorentson: On page 217 of the report, it references a KBR and KBR consultants 2004. And I've got bits and pieces of that report, which I just found through Archives Noosa

03:25:00 today. And it was actually quite a good report. And I would imagine an expensive report, but it looked at the implications of Burgess Creek water quality. And looked at, it was a detailed review of all the land uses. It made some really, really great recommendations. And in 2004, 2003, they were recommending, you know, these deep ocean pipelines. I was wondering, has that ever been reviewed or updated? It would be great if they were talking about recycling reuse in 2000, 2003, 2004. I would love to know what the recommendations would be today, whether, you know, sewerage into power and energy going down that route. Speaker 5: I'm not sure whether Munity Water have updated or reviewed that report. That would need to be a question we would need to put to them, one, if they have.

03:26:00 Yeah, of course. And two, if they've got any intention to. If they haven't, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. KBR Consultants. No, lastly, I just want to note on page 55 of the rent, the recommendations. Really good. And I think if you add the recommendations to the recommendations to the report, and this is what I mean with collaborations. I think, again, we're on the right track. And I just want to note some of the recommendations on page 269. So expand the Burgess Creek monitoring program to include monitoring of the weeds within the creek and creek banks of Burgess Creek. So there was a lot of issues around the infestation of weed or introduction of weed species and acidification of soils and testing of soils. So for them to acknowledge that, and that's one of their actions, review which sewage

03:27:00 pumping stations may potentially impact water quality. Should they overflow? Considering incorporating flow monitoring data and quantitative methods for flow reading in the receiving environment. There's just some really good stuff that they've identified as a result of the receiving environment monitoring program. And it's really interesting and good reading. Speaker 4: Fantastic. Councillor Lorentson: Great. Speaker 4: Any questions, councillors? Councillor Wilkie: I'll hold, Karen. I'll hold the line. I'm sorry. Karen, pass the question. Pass the question. Sorry. Councillor Finzel: With regards to the addition of the key stakeholders given the response from the staff regarding the questions around that. Are you intending then to leave that on there or remove it? Councillor Lorentson: I'll keep it on there. So key stakeholders, I think a lot of them have already been included, but the report just read that it was, the scope and development was only going to be between council and unity board on. And in fact, they're already key stakeholders that have already been engaged as part of

03:28:00 the scope and development of the plan. So I think it's critical that's included. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question on those lines. Would it be fair to say that to undertake the scoping and development of monitoring stations and all the rest of it, environmental groups would be involved in that and they've been engaged in the process and they would be key stakeholders going forward in this process? Yes. So I'm happy to keep key stakeholders in there on that basis. I'll speak to it if I may. Here you go. I appreciate Councillor Morrison's focus on the sewage treatment plant elements of Burgess Creek. But if you look at figure one, Burgess Creek is far more than the outfall from the sewage treatment plant. Those of us that have been here for a little while have been working behind the scenes with staff on other elements of Burgess Creek. We've got to some of the other things that are mentioned here. We've got the leachates and residential runoffs and biobasins, the lack of biobasins and maintenance

03:29:00 of biobasins and some of the upgrades that are required as well in our facilitators. And we've known about some of the other elements of the wide ranging area that needs to be looked at when you look at Burgess Creek as a whole. And I took staff out today and had a bit of a look at some of the other elements. And we found a constant flowing stream through there. So there are other elements that are unknown about Burgess Creek that we've still got a lot of work and research to do. There's some questions that have been raised at that time. So I look forward to seeing this come to fruition and the monitoring occurring here. I think there's a lot that we can learn and a lot that we can better manage. One rather significant waterway that flows through some sensitive environmental land and how we can possibly in the future implement some of that. So I think there's going to be some changes and some improvements to the health and quality of the waterway.

03:30:00 Councillor Wilkie: Tom. Councillor Wegener: I would just like to say how pleased I am that Burgess Creek is a creek and not a storm drain. The rest of the world would have it as a storm drain, but it's still a creek. We can produce that. Speaker 3: We're different by nature. Councillor Wegener: We're different by nature. Yeah. Thank you, Kerri. Councillor Wilkie: I also think it's very useful that the Council and Unity Order have decided to take a whole catchment approach to this issue. But what that's revealed is that the STP is actually the least of our concerns there. And we've come to learn and appreciate that it's the water quality flowing from the STP is superior to some of the other sources and actually dilutes pollutants that are coming from, say, storm water, landfills, night soil. It's flowing through there. So this amount of work that you've been doing has been extremely insightful. It's enormous and it's great. It's really appreciated. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.

03:31:00 Councillor Wilkie: Amelia, you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I think what I've learnt in all this is there's a lot we can do as a Council to help people. We've got to improve water quality. And I think that's got to be, you know, something that we've got to progress with. Water quality improvements just without, you know, storm water runoff. Pesticides that are used on storm fields, ageing storm water infrastructure, et cetera. And then the advocacy part and the lobbying part, that is so important. The Environmental Act is 1994. And as much as, you know, the Government has said, you know, we've got to do this. We've got to be water compliant. They are compliant to something that was written 30 years ago. You know? So there's an advocacy part that we need to still push and promote legislative changes

03:32:00 in our Environmental Protection Acts that, you know, bring them up to current standards and stricter, you know, stricter standards. I read what's happening up at the Great Barrier Reef and think, my God, why is that happening? You know, it's a very, very important area, more pristine and our beautiful beaches. And it shouldn't be. It just shouldn't be. We need to place just high value on our beaches and water quality. So, yeah, lots we can do outside, you know, lots we can do to help with cleaner oceans, cleaner wastewater. But just keep asking questions. Keep asking the questions because we can do better. And the moment we stop, you know, we fall behind. Councillor Wilkie: There's a motion to move in favour.

03:33:00 That's unanimous. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is the News and Environment Strategy Year 3 Implementation Plan. Brian. Yeah, Brian, back in. And... Brian. Brian. Brian, do you want to talk about? Oh, yeah, of course. I think it's fine.

03:40:00 Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Welcome back, everyone. We're up to item 5.5, which is Inducer Environment Strategy, Year 3 Implementation Plan Update. I have a conflict of interest. My councillor, Vousky, informed the meeting that I had a terrible conflict of interest in the status in early 2020. Received intellectual donation of $750 from Bridging resident Susan Francis. Thank you. Susan Francis is the partner of Fridgton Resident Mary Cottrell. Mr Cottrell is the President of the Fridgton Vegetarian Community Association. Environment Strategy Update mentions the progress of the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The UBCDA has provided feedback on the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan. The Office of the Independent Assessor and Legal Advice has indicated the Eastern Beaches Foreshore Reserves Management Plan is not ordinary council business

5.5 NOOSA ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY - YEAR THREE (2021/2022) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ANNUAL UPDATED (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 11 July 2023 - Item 6.2) ¶

▶ 03:40:08· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

03:41:00 because it relates to a specific geographical area and that links to groups who have made submissions to it ought to be declared. Although I know the PBCA, which is a volunteer community group, stand to gain personally or materially through noting this report on the Board of Environment Strategy, I make this declaration out of an abundance of caution and commitment to transparency. I believe I can make an impartial decision in the public interest of this matter and therefore choose to remain in the meeting room. Actually, I want to leave that out, that I choose to remain in the meeting room. I just want to say... That's our standard wording. Okay. However, I will respect the decision on the meeting room. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move that it's in the public interest of Councillor Wilkie to vote this place and those things matter because Councillor Lewis, Councillor Wilkie does not stand against personal immaturity through making this report and therefore a reasonable person would trust the decision made in the public interest.

03:42:00 I'll do so on the basis to be consistent with the position that we've held to this point in time on this declaration and also that I see the link to the level of conflict to be quite a distance. Mayor Stewart: Any questions? Oh, we need to do a new chair. Yeah, no, I'm assuming a chair, but how's all of you? Oh, you've missed a comment. How's all of you? Just ask them to. Yep. So. So, any questions for Councillor Wilkie? Would anyone else like to speak to this? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Now, I have a question. On the basis that Councillor Wilkie has declared a conflict of interest in this matter for the same reasons, does anyone else around the table?

03:43:00 Speaker 5: Yeah, I believe I have. Mayor Stewart: And I believe that we may have. Councillor Stockwell said he's sorry. Yes. So, we might go to that vote again, which will be Councillor Drittich, Councillor Wegener and myself. That's right. So, we'll put the matter to vote. All in favour? That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wilkie did not vote. You can now vote if you want to. You can now vote. Any ones? Okay, all right. Sorry. You can chair. You can chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to declare exactly the same what Councillor Wilkie just declared, which is a change to the donation figure of $500, and as it's in front of you, I believe it's okay to say take it as read.

03:44:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So moved. Speaker 6: Seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Jurisevic: For all the reasons alluded to in the previous matter where Councillor Wilkie was the inviter. Councillor Lorentson: So, to stay. Councillor Jurisevic: To say that to stay in the council public. The council made a favourable contribution by Councillor Stockwell and determines in the public interest that he participates and votes on this matter. The council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal maturity through igniting this report. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust the financial suit is made in the public interest. Thank you. Okay, any others wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilkie: Those in favour? Councillor Stewart, Wegener and Krissny. That's carried. Note that Councillor Wilkie, Lorentson and Stockwell have been voted on. Any other conflicts?

03:45:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Okay, you'll just have to wait a moment because you haven't told me about things. Sorry. Mayor Stewart: That's a declarable. A declarable here. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just have a quick look at the wording beforehand? Speaker 8: Of one of the other ones? Councillor Lorentson: Of one of the other ones. Just in reference to. So, we have Easter Lake here? Yeah, okay. Easter Lake. So, I, Councillor Lorentson, I, Councillor Lorentson, form the meeting that I'm a declarable competent. I'm competent in this matter because my brother, Gabriel Cherasani, was on, was on the executive

03:46:00 of the Eastern Beaches Protection Act. Councillor Wilkie: Act. Councillor Lorentson: Association. Association. Excuse me. Association. Association. Association. Association. Association. Association. Speaker 5: The report provides a status update on that plan, just to link it to this report. Councillor Lorentson: It's a report about an Eastern Beaches offshore management plan, as the report references the Eastern Beaches offshore management plan as part of the Noosa environment strategy.

03:47:00 I do not believe a reasonable person would have a perception of bias. Because my brother nor I stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 9: Do you want to just read over it again? Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lonesome, call the meeting a declarable conflict of interest in that it was my brother who gave the chair of signing. That's spelled correctly. Chair of signing, yes. Can you add Cathy Comma, who until recently was on the executive of Eastern Beaches.

03:48:00 We've made submissions to the Eastern Beaches. That's good. To the Eastern Beaches offshore. That's good. The report references the plans part of the Noosa… Oh, OK. No, just one word for us here. I'll just make it the report. The report references the plans part of the Noosa… Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We have a… Councillor Lorentson: We might just have to bring this in and… Shh. Shh.

03:49:00 Councillor Wegener: I probably should mention, but the word Permaculture Nuse is mentioned as a recipient of one of the grants way down the list there. Councillor Finzel: Are we voting on Amelia's name? Yes, we voted on Amelia's name. Councillor Wegener: Sorry about that. Councillor Finzel: You told me you voted on Amelia. Councillor Wegener: I'm going to do a procedural motion. Just forget I said that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm moving to a procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Procedural motion that the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting. Mayor Stewart: Yes, I'll second it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the only sensible way to proceed if it's likely the councillor may have a similar level of conflict in making all the previous motions invalid. Councillor Jurisevic: Alright. I think councillors need to go and double check and read the report and see that they

03:50:00 Mayor Stewart: Who's seconded that? Councillor Jurisevic: Mayor Stewart. Okay, put it to the vote. All in favour? Councillor Wilkie: That's... I'm sorry. Procedural motion. Procedural motion. That's unanimous, the procedural motion. All those. Speaker 1: Just to note as well, it does include a summary of the environmental grants, so plastic free NUSA and a few of the others, so there may be further conflict. Councillor Wilkie: Permaculture NUSA is mentioned? Speaker 1: Yes, and plastic free NUSA as well. All right. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you Thursday night, Camille. Don't worry. Financial performance report. Pauline, your report mentions the leisure centre and I know someone who passed by there once.

6 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 03:50:48

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

6.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JUNE 2023 ¶

▶ 03:50:53· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

03:51:00 That's okay. Councillor Jurisevic: How much use does the facility take? It's late in the day. Councillor Wegener: Sorry about that, you guys. It's all right. Mayor Stewart: It's better. Councillor Wilkie: Pauline, welcome. Have welcome training. Please give us an overview of the financial performance. Thank you. Speaker 2: Good afternoon, councillors. The financial performance report for June 2023 shows the interim position at the year end. However, financial adjustments are still in progress which may have a material impact on the final position. These adjustments include provisions, calculations, revenue recognition, calculation and accrual adjustments. So there may be a movement, there will be a movement when we do the final reports. A further final report will be provided in respect to the 2022 report.

03:52:00 The final report will be provided in respect to the 2023 financial performance at the November 2023 meeting once the independent audit has been completed and the financial statements are released. Firstly, I'd like to advise the table on page 197 should indicate that the operating expenses are below budget and not above budget. So there's a slide on that page. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Brian. Councillor Lorentson: At the top. Speaker 2: So the cut off the table. Thank you. So operating revenue has outperformed forecast by $3.6 million which is predominantly driven by interest revenue of $1.2 million and grants of $1.2 million. Grants relate to the advance payment of the 2024 financial assistance grant and in previous years we have only received a 50% or 75% prepayment. Operating expenditure is $6.2 million under budget with employee cost making at $1 million and materials and services are $5.3 million. Under budget.

03:53:00 $2.5 million of that relates to restricted projects that are funded by special levies and separate charges. So they'll be held in reserve for future use and for specific programs. The remainder of underspend relates to civil operations, community facilities, holiday parks. Sorry, they're over. Sorry. And strategic planning, infrastructure, waste development assessment and environmental services are all underspend. Tourism and economic development expenditure remains on track. A summary of consultancy fees has also been included as requested at the May general committee meeting which shows expenditure by Council over time on consultancy. These summaries only include operational consultancy and not consultancy expenditure that's been incurred on capital projects. It should be noted when reading these graphs that generally consultancy spend relates to specialised services and the quantum is dependent on the nature and size of projects that are being undertaken by Council. Overall Council's interim operating position at the moment is $3.2 million. The current operating position at June is $9.8 million above budget.

03:54:00 Capital revenue is above budget $5.5 million due to some of the further advance payments of QRA disaster projects funding. And Council has expended 82% of its full year capital budget which equates to $46.6 million. Which is the largest capital program that we've delivered. Council's cash holdings at the end of June were $115 million with $15 million of these still invested in higher return term deposits. As mentioned previously Council's cash holdings are higher than we would normally expect at this time of year and this is predominantly due to the advance payment of the QRA disaster program. Which is held in reserve for these works once they're underway. Council is also holding $10 million in relation to the advance payment of four years worth of waste levy and $2 million as I mentioned for the prepayment of the 2024 financial assistance grant. In accordance with Council's financial staff sustainability policy we also hold a minimum of three months cash cover which is about $25 million as well as cash reserves to fund the operations of Council through July until the first rate runs of 2024 and that's $7.3 million.

03:55:00 Also provided is $10 million in project funding for capital works that will be delivered in financial year 2024 as well as $9 million of projects that will be pushed out at Budget Review 2. In addition to this Council also holds funds for restricted purchases such as reserves for natural disaster, waste management operations, developer contributions and other projects. And this is in accordance with Council's management of restricted cash policy. Overall Council's financial position ended the financial year in a strong position and it continues to meet its financial sustainability targets. Councillor Wilkie: What will be the free cash in the year? Speaker 2: We're still sitting at $5 million. Once we do finalised adjustments there may be a slight increase in what our cash holdings are but we'll wait until we get to that point. Councillor Wilkie: That was the $5 you mentioned during the major deliberations? Correct. President Constance? Mayor Stewart: Rates and notices have gone out in the last week or two, is that right? Speaker 2: Rates went out, yes, yesterday.

03:56:00 Mayor Stewart: Just yesterday, okay. So we should be looking at that $7 million coming in if you don't want to waste time, we should be looking at a further increase of that $7 million, is that correct? Speaker 2: So we're holding $7 million to fund the operations through to July because of the due date of rates which won't be until August and we just hold that cash. But we'll obviously see a big up-kick in our cash holdings once we get that revenue in in August. Mayor Stewart: And 18th of August is when they have to get the 5% discount. Correct. So hopefully we'll see a lot of people take advantage of that too. Speaker 2: Yes, correct. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? Pauline, in terms of employee costs, $41.4 million of the annual budget of $42.4 million has been expended. So total employee costs $42.4 million. As a percentage of total operating expenditure, which is $122 million, I've worked out that it's about 34% wages or about 34% of total operating costs.

03:57:00 How does that compare with similar councils of similar sizes, 34%? Speaker 2: When you do a comparison and benchmark across councils in Queensland, it can range from 30% to 40%. So we're not out of the realm of employee costs. Fantastic. Speaker 6: I guess just to add to that, what the biggest driver or the biggest variance between councils are is more about their assets employed, the depreciation on their balance sheet, and whether they've borrowed and what their borrowing extent is. But you tend to find that materials and employee costs as a percentage of total revenue remains relatively in that 30% to 40%. Councillor Lorentson: So consultancy sits outside of that, even though it's human. Correct. Correct. Speaker 2: Because it's generally employed for specialised items. It's work that council doesn't normally do. So consultancy does not include labour hire where we might get extra resources in to supplement vacancies. That sits within the employee cost line.

03:58:00 Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All of our staff, Mr. CEO, for the efforts, it reflects really, really well through the financial situation. Thank you. A bit short, sweet to know. Anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Wilkie: Motion goes in favour. Carried unanimously. There are no more, there's no confidential session. That's it for today. I declare the meeting closed and thank you, councillors, for your patience and discipline. And thank you, Larry and your team.

7 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶

▶ 03:58:40

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.

8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 03:58:47

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.