General Committee Meeting - September 2023 Transcript

4.1 DANIEL MOISANDER TOPIC: RAL22/0027 ¶

▶ 00:00:38

00:01:00 I've provided her apologies today. However, if she were in attendance at this time of day, she may experience a record new life before I'm at a council meeting. The subject property, 28 Saturday Night Drive, is our home. I hope I can offer some relevant context to the application and to the planning report before you. At the summary level, the report that features a non-suitable development site with significant and seemingly unsolvable limitations based on commercial counselling assumptions. The report adopts these assumptions. The report is a complete application by Adrian Hansen, a bushfire and biodiversity expert with decades of experience and a volunteer firefighter to boot. I will speak as briefly as I am able this afternoon, as I do appreciate your time and pressure. Firstly, I wish to speak to how, despite the top-line conclusions of the report submitted, I consider it remains a reasonable decision of the council to approve the subject to conditions and application for subdivision of this lot. Then I will speak briefly as to why I consider council should grant such an approval. Thank you. Thank you.

00:02:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I can sympathise why a provision serving as a blanket amendment on the addition of housing throughout the estate may have been appealing to the previous council. I enjoy snagging apart from the service of as much as the next resident. But if the aim of the provision was to preserve amenity and character of the estate, the provision appears redundant as there was already other existing and well-standing references to amenity and character throughout the old town plan, which could have served that purpose.

00:03:00 In fact, due to the subject lot being larger than the large majority of lots in the estate and 2.4 times larger than the minimum lot size zoning, a subdivision of just two lots would yield lots larger in size than at least 10 existing sites already within Lucerne Parklands. Many, if not most, of the other cul-de-sacs in the estate already contain smaller lots. At the end of the cul-de-sac are a density of driveways catering to battle-based blocks. You cannot get to this lot without viewing within the estate lots that are smaller than what is proposed. And all you know the proposed development has occurred once you travel to the end of Saturday Drive to view it. To its benefit, there is already a great variety of lot sizes and construction types within the estate and the street. Saturday Drive already contains multiple two-storey homes, and homes of varied types of construction without any consistent theme. Merely maintaining the minimum 600 square metre lot size zone for this part of the estate could prevent any slippery slope, with consequential changes to character and the nature of the street, as lots smaller than 1200 square metres are unable to follow suit.

00:04:00 The lot has just one privately owned neighbour. If we see six cars pass our driveway, it has been a busy day. There is capacity to support more, with negligible impact upon character. When this application was first submitted, the information requested for its return indicated planning was not supported under the PO4 planning provision, in large part due to flooding concerns. The property is 14 metres above sea level and more than 90 metres from the nearest 500-year-extreme floodplain. Exit from the lot via Griffith Avenue to Noosaw Cooroy Road remains open, even in the 500-year flood extent. As this was noted, the focus of opposition returned to character. Essentially, PO4 appears to have been expanded, and 2020 plans a broad brush tool for the restriction of housing supply in select areas. While the purpose of the revision is now said as being on the character preservation of the subdivision of this lot. Turning to bushfires.

00:05:00 When this application was lodged, an information request was first issued for reports regarding stormwater drainage and driveway puncture, which was complied with in return to Council. Initial objections were concerned with character and lot shape only. Only once those issues had been addressed, bushfire concerns raised for the first time in the further advice issued in January of this year. The further advice required particularly inputs into the bushfire assessment model, mostly which contained within the Statewide Bushfire Resilience Community's 2019 document. The inclusions provided from that document are totally accepted without objection. However, the January further advice included atop those requirements an insistence that bushfire analysis must be calculated using a 1200 degree Celsius flame temperature in place of the Australian Standard 1099. Rejection of Australian Standard AS3959 is not to my knowledge provided by the State wide Bushfire Resilience Community's documentation and is instead a standard put forward in

00:06:00 instances like this. Nevertheless, I acknowledge there are mature trees in the area and a high flame heat assessment may provide superior building outcomes over and above those which may be accepted in similar circumstances in other parts of the State and the Country. Even at this best practice flame heat assessment level, it is possible to design a two lot subdivision outcome for this site, which provides for compliant building envelopes. Where the planning report diverges from the expert bushfire report in this regard is planning have now, in the most recent report, introduced a basis of assessment which appears to assume that the passing heat immediately above the northern boundary is all mature forest at the same intensity as the old growth state forest due to north. This appears to be on the basis that the State may elect to simply stop performing its functions as it has performed to my knowledge throughout the existence of the estate since the 1980s. It further assumes that, in that event, the State would not permit any third party to maintain the firebreak and access road bounding the majority of the existing parklands estate.

00:07:00 Presumably, the assessment then assumes the firebreak will still be abandoned long enough to regrow its old growth logging forest as it sits behind it. This would put the entire existing use of parklands estate at unprecedentedly increased risk. This is the critical assumption of my apology in recommending the application be rejected. The State does not appear to have given any advice to this effect in regards to this particular application. However, QPWS is said to have expressed a view that third parties should not be relied upon in reference to a different application upon which it not concerns particularly long standing and crucial firebreak and access track. In effect, this assumption means assessing the property against vegetation and risk that does not exist on the basis that it could come to exist if the State Government abandoned its current use. This level of assumption could be used to apply the maximum bushfire rating to every property in the Shire which borders any road, park, estate asset, trustee asset or otherwise. Indeed, if this assumption is the adopted standard, every neighbouring lot boundary would require assessment at current timing on the basis the neighbour may in the future abandon

00:08:00 their property allowing the forest to grow in place of their vegetation as it has existed for the past 40 years. There are already improvements on other lots all the way along the main firebreak at the northern boundary of the estate in similar areas to where building is proposed and I would submit the expert report submitted is not flawed. It simply makes an expert analysis at the highly elevated flame that we requested based on the reality of the estate as it exists. If it cannot be committed to do so, then assessment must fundamentally change for every future development in the Shire. That now said, we remain completely open to working with Council's planners to seek acceptable alternatives and if this envelope calculation had been raised to its prior to the report being put to Council, we would happily have eliminated our design to relocate the driveway to the opposite side of the lot and thereby move the proposed housing further from the fire risk and mitigate the proposed equivalent envelopes. Indeed, we offer to do that now and would ask that Council vote to approve subjective conditions requiring the best way out alternative for such mitigation to be implemented. This is how I submit Council can reasonably recommend an approval of subjective conditions.

00:09:00 I will now speak briefly as to why we consider Council should support this application. We are all keenly aware of the changing housing pressures in our area over recent years and a consequence of that change is the change in political rule of the State Government to be seen to be taking big and prompt action to address supply issues. I cannot pretend one too much subdivision will materially resolve these concerns. However, as the Noosa Housing Action Plan stated in A5.2.1, the Shire should aim to meet the SEQ development targets as they were at the time of that action plan by adding new housing capacity in defined urban boundaries with associated efficiencies in infrastructure and service provision. This location is a wonderful place to live. With walk-in proximity to parks and arterial bus routes, it is connected to all town services and a fire hydrant is already installed at the street frontage. Prevailing wisdom expressed to us by experienced real estate agents is more money would be made by simply hoarding a larger piece of land in perpetuity and building a larger single house permissible upon the lot for the use of one family.

00:10:00 The fact that we are a young working family who are outgrown with audio structure on the site, parts of which are approaching end of life, means we are the exception to the normal owner of such a lot. We are willing to put forward this land for division and the future accommodation of two families. An opportunity for subdivision in such an area which creates resulting lots larger numbers in the estate is an important Council's perspective in my opinion given the supply issues the Shire is facing. Our community's paradise problem may mean that we are hurtling towards a demographic cliff where too many of our residents will require care in proportion to those who can live within a competitive distance to provide and other services required. Staffing businesses for the long term is likely going to become more and more difficult due to the lack of available housing stock of the kind it is proposed to create here. Estate is a hive of working families and gains of stock here bring benefits to the community which will not be replicated by the addition of luxury units or high density offerings elsewhere. In addition, depending on the outcome of the next state election and the position taken

00:11:00 by the next state government in relation to the new SEQ regional plan, the state is going to be pushing harder to make progress on the addition of housing stock. The application for full council is one of the lowest impact conditions where stock is conceivable and undercuts our future negotiations with the state if we are, even at this level, still operating from a position of can we find a way not to approve this rather than is there a viable alternative way to approve it. As we were all reminded during COVID, we are a nation of a federation of powerful state governments. If the state decides to override our relative self determination in planning under the current framework, I think it can be safely predicted that the added dwelling of new stock this application we have offset will not come at as low an impact on the Shire and is highly likely to involve some destruction of existing food and water. I fear allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the group could lead us to receive minor. Tegan and I love living in this community and in this pipeline estate. We are willing to give up what is an excessive surplus of backyard in order to find replacement of our alien older dwelling with a new home to be built to modern resilience and energy

00:12:00 efficiency standards. I ask only that councillors send us down the path to achieve this by requiring planning and seek agreeable conditions with us to facilitate a subdivision in a way that best meeting out bushfire concerns. Thank you all for your time. A quick reminder, our surveyor has prepared a draft plan for relocation of the driveway in response to the new development statement in the planning report. If anyone wants to do that, please do. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Moyes-Amethur. Excellent submission. If possible, could you email that to us so we can consider it prior to, in case we Speaker 4: want to review the subsequent application. Councillor Wilkie: No problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Next item is items referred from the committee. First up is an application for another change to development approval. Integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex, adding holes to include group farmstay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure. The 59 Covey Road to Paribas, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee dated

5.1 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA (Referred from Planning and Environment Committee dated 12 September 2023 - Item 5.3). ¶

▶ 00:12:50

00:13:00 12 September. I think it was due to the significance of the matter. Councillor Wegener: Yes. I counseled Tom Wegener from the meeting that I had a declarable conflict of interest as I requested from the permaculture report, which was, I requested the permaculture report, which was mentioned in the application submission, which was not required to be included in the report to council. Do you want me to read that again? It's been amended. Yeah. Okay. The permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture expert. As the president of the Community Group Permaculture News Center, I have learned from Tom Kendall and visited his permaculture property. However, he is not a personal friend and I do not socialize with him outside of our common interest in permaculture. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest.

00:14:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain, participate in this decision. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Any questions for Councillor Wegener? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you just clarify the statement you made that you requested the permaculture report? You requested it from the applicants or? Councillor Wegener: No. I requested it from staff. I requested the permaculture report from staff. And it was not mentioned. It was mentioned in the applicant submission, but it was not included in our report to us, to us councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: That was what I was trying to clarify. Councillor Wilkie: So only through asking for this report was your potential comparable content revealed? Exactly. Okay. Does that make sense, Councillor Stockwell? Yeah. Joe, did you have a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that needs to be clarified, Dave, because it wouldn't make sense after reading it. It sounds, as you read that, it sounds like he requested the applicant provided it. Yeah.

00:15:00 Councillor Wilkie: So what change are you suggesting? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm suggesting that upon request to staff for the permaculture report, which was entered. Councillor Jurisevic: To staff, not from staff. To staff. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. To staff for the permaculture report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, for the permaculture report. Okay. Thank you. So the permaculture report, which was mentioned in the applicant submission, I don't think you need it next year, but it was, I learned that the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall, a local permaculture head. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So get rid of, which was not required to be included in the report to council? Yeah. It was revealed the permaculture report was written by Tom Kendall.

00:16:00 Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the, if the council wouldn't be as happy with that one I think that is clear. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, so- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That, that, the permaculture. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I, just a question with regard to Tom Kendall's credentials as a local permaculture expert, and your role as president of the nursing community permaculture nursing group. I'm assuming that Tom is a member of that permaculture nursery? Councillor Wegener: No, he's not a member of that. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So there's no, no association with your role in permaculture Noosa and, and Mr. Kendall as a permaculture expert? Councillor Wegener: No. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That's all right. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to believe that Councillor Wegener participates and votes on this matter. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because council believes that Mr. Kendall is not a close associate, I'll put associate,

00:17:00 which is the legal term. Speaker 2: No. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Don't worry about personal. He's a close associate. Sorry, just the legal word personal. Just the legal word personal. That's, that's what the legislation talks about. Yeah. And that- Councillor Jurisevic: Reasonable personal. Yeah, definitely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A reasonable person would trust a final decision is made in the public interest. Second, council's curiosity. Councillor Wilkie: Does Mr. Stockwell just speak to that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, just that I think by declaring we're now aware of what the link is, it's, it's good practice. But the fact that Mr. Kendall isn't a close associate of the needs doesn't actually trigger the statutory need to declare. So it's a, it's a one that's being done out of an abundance of caution as another councillor responded saying. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors want to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just have a question through the chair. Yeah. So just to clarify then, councillor Wegener, was that you raised this because of public perception?

00:18:00 Councillor Wegener: Yeah. The possibility of, of public perception that, oh my gosh, the, the word permaculture is in, you know, Tom's about that and Tom Kendall's about that. There must be some, you know, intertwined connection, which there's not. And it's, and I, looking into the report, I, I try to do due diligence and, you know, we all look in and ask for further reports to come. Yeah. So, but yeah, just, just at the perception, if you want to put it on the table and say there is no associate. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Question. Sorry, possibly a question for staff in this regard. With regard to what the permaculture report that was mentioned in the applicant's submission revealed, what, what, what the nature of the report was, was it about the. Speaker 8: It was about the proposed use and how the site could be used for agriculture using permaculture practices. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there a reason why that report wasn't attached as, to the report so that councillors could have been aware of it? Speaker 8: It was, it was more detailed. So it was saying, you know, these are the types of, you know, this is a design layout.

00:19:00 This is where we're going to plant. This is the type of plants we will use. Councillor Jurisevic: So the nature of activity, how the permaculture would be undertaken on the site. Speaker 8: I didn't see it would add too much more in terms of the planning. Okay. Planning recommendations. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Do you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? To the vote, those in favour? That's unanimous. And Councillor Whelan didn't vote on the motion. Nadine. Hello. Hello. Could you give us an overview, please? Okay. Speaker 8: Good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for another change to an existing approval. In 1999, council approved an integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course on the site out of Kabi Road in Tharabah. This current application that we're dealing with, as I said, is another change. We're proposing a group farm stay accommodation and supporting facilities on the site.

00:20:00 The proposal is for a group farm stay accommodation and supporting facilities on the site. The proposal proposes approval to have up to 299 people on the site and is mainly to cater for school camps during the school term and then weekend groups and out of school term other groups, which might be sporting groups, religious groups. We're not really sure exactly what those groups will be, who those groups will be. As part of the proposal and to address the agricultural uses and designation over the site, the applicant proposes that this is a farm to plate. Okay. This is a farm to plate type of visitor accommodation where students will be seeing how food is produced and, I suppose, displayed and eaten on the site. Three villages are proposed and having a total of 7,405 square metres. Sorry, my report refers to 8,300. My math wasn't great on that. There are three villages with the main building having a gross floor area of 2,330 square metres.

00:21:00 That main building includes a farm to plate. It includes a seating or restaurant area with full kitchen for over 300 people, plus office reception facilities as well and next to it is a three-colour basketball court. The scheme talks about ... This is in the rural zone and it's affected by the rural zone code, plus it also has an agricultural land conservation area designation or ALCA as we call it. The scheme talks about in terms of character and quality of life. It talks about an amenity. It talks about a maximum of 2,000 square metres for short-term or visitor accommodation in this zone with a maximum building size of 250. Just noting, as I said before, the main building is 2,300. In assessing the proposal, we found that the application does not further the SEQ objectives, which are intensifying agricultural activities rather than reducing them. It permanently alienates agricultural land.

00:22:00 It permanently alienates agricultural land. It is not complementary to ... fully complementary to the agricultural uses. We consider that this use of accommodation is probably more predominant than agriculture. It is inconsistent with the character. It is envisaged by the scheme, which is for small-scale buildings. It's not small-scale. There's no overwhelming need for the provision of this educational establishment for the residents of Noosa Shire. There's no overwhelming need for this type of development. We've got concerns with the traffic impacts because of ... on the weekends when it's not being used for school accommodation and traffic, there will be significant impacts on that road quite significantly, which is detrimental to this area. We've also got bushfire concerns in terms of evacuation from the site because it will have to go through a high-intensity bushfire. Therefore, the application has been recommended by staff for a few seconds.

00:23:00 Councillor Wilkie: Questions, councillors? Councillor Jones. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jones. Yeah, thanks, Nadine. I wanted to clarify one of the points that was mentioned in the report about the need to refer to the state with regard to the 5,000 square metre area for development. I asked for a breakdown, which you've provided, thank you, and a correct, which brought the correction of the tax. Given that the villages total 4,000 square metres and the communal area totals 2,000 square metres, and amenities 140 square metres out of that 7,505, to me that calculates over 5,000 square metres. Why does that not trigger the need to refer to the state of being over 5,000 square metres? Speaker 8: Because the accommodation components excluded from the state referral. So it's only on the central facilities area.

00:24:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So accommodation doesn't get included in that calculation? It doesn't get included in that calculation. Thank you for clarifying that. Further to that, the ALCA, with regards to uses that will be in the mapped area and or additional uses that may not be, can you confirm what uses will be actually proposed to be developed within that mapped area? Speaker 8: So the agricultural land conservation area extends basically over the 5,000 square metres. So over all of the cleared area of lot 394, that's where the existing golf course is. Yep. So all the cleared areas, including the golf course. Councillor Jurisevic: Does that include the other part? Speaker 8: The other part actually is outside. So the block to the north. Sorry, there's a portion of that. I'm just having a look at my map now. There's a portion of that area that isn't included in the ALCA, and that's what we're talking about, the economic disposal area.

00:25:00 So the central facilities, plus the three villages, will all be in agricultural land conservation areas. And there are also two fields that are proposed in the eastern portion of the site that are also located in the ALCA area. There is also an existing caretaker's house that isn't actually indicated on the plans, and that's also indicated, is also located within the agricultural land conservation Councillor Jurisevic: I assume all the access roads and all the rest of it as well? Speaker 8: All the access roads are in the ALCA as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So the only portion of development that isn't in the ALCA is the effluent disposal area, which is on the adjoining lot that isn't covered by that. Yes. All right. Thank you. Two, two, one, two. There was another question. Sorry. I want to see if anybody else has got one, and I'll go back to my notes and just see if I can find the third question. Absolutely. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So there was no requirement for state agency referral under this application.

00:26:00 If the application was submitted as an MCU, would that have triggered the need for a state referral? No. It wouldn't. It's the same trigger. Same trigger. Okay. Speaker 8: It's the same trigger, which is the number of people and that floor area that we were talking about. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And there's a little bit of discussion in the application about the existing use rights. Yes. Can you clarify how the decision was made that the development approval had not lapsed in 2011? So I've gone through the papers, and it just seemed very great to me. Nadine? Speaker 8: Existing use rights are probably great. Yeah. But we're talking about approval lapsing. So an approval runs with the land. Yes. We talk about an approval lapsing when it can be abandoned. So you have to be able to demonstrate that a use has been abandoned. In this instance, the golf course has been maintained.

00:27:00 The facilities, that restaurant, is still there. So it would be very hard for us to argue that the use has actually been abandoned. They could come back at any stage and we would commence that use with minimum sort of change. So there are some changes to the existing facilities. Speaker 5: There are situations, Council, where uses can cease for a period and sometimes referred to as not-for, and where they may hold them at banks. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have extended the use rights, but it does come down to a fact and degree in a lot of situations and can be quite a great area in terms of has that continuity of their use continued and has it been abandoned. So it's quite a complex test to get to. I guess, in this case, staff are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that a use has not been abandoned, given the fact that there are some signs that it has been maintained as a facility. And therefore, those rights continue.

00:28:00 Speaker 8: There's some interesting case law that you can read about it. There was one about a service station that was shut down, basically, by all of the facilities that have been abandoned. And they were able to retain. The houses were there. The tanks were there. The shop was still there. And that was left unoccupied for years. And there was a court case about that. And they were able to come back because it hadn't been abandoned. It was the intent that the site was getting sold. So exactly what Richard's saying. So it just held on the basis that somebody else was going to come and use it. So in this instance, we believe that the use hasn't been abandoned. It's shown in the tent that it will continue to be operated. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. In your report, and I apologize for my voice. Might not make it through. It's nothing contagious. It's from too much cheering at a successful grand final for the Noosa Lions Premier and

00:29:00 other teams. Councillor Jurisevic: Not pointing hard at the birthday yesterday. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The application was based on it was an undefined use. In your report, you identified that similarities to things like short stay accommodation, etc. However, when I read the definition of a resort complex, I can't see how it's not. So the definition of a resort complex means the use of premises for tourist and visitor accommodation that includes integrated leisure facilities, including bars, meeting rooms, which they've got. Fundamental facilities. They're not saying they've got restaurants. They've got sporting and they've got fitness facilities. Staff accommodation they've got. So my question is, why wouldn't it be defined as a resort complex? And does that make an implication on the level of assessment? Speaker 8: Again, just remember, this was another change. So it was a change to an existing approval. It was publicly modified, which is the main difference between a code and an impact accessible

00:30:00 application. In terms of the land use, when I look at the definition of a resort, I really think unrelated people. Whereas in this instance, the predominant use is school camps. So we're getting one operator or several, you know, it might be a school who's coming and they're going to basically utilise the three camps, the three villages, the whole site, rather than having individual people coming like toppers to the resort. And I would say some of the recreation facilities too. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's nothing within what I've read that restricts it to either school just as a group. The group can be of any size. Speaker 8: I do agree with you. And I think I've got some concerns in terms of when the school term finishes. And we did ask for them to clarify when the school groups aren't using it. Who is it open to? And if there's a brief response in terms of whether it'll be open to other groups. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And one of the benefits is of education. There's nothing within the undefined land use. There's nothing that appears in the undefined land use that links it to education.

00:31:00 Is that correct? Speaker 8: No. It's in their, I suppose, their proposal. They're advising us that it will be used for school groups, predominantly for school groups with a education confinement associated with that. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jones. Following on from that, if it were to be approved at any stage, is that something could be conditioned as to who the users could be? Can it be confined to school groups only as an educational facility? Speaker 8: I think that would be a hard condition. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: So there's no scope to really define who could use the facility? Speaker 5: I mean, we've been seeking that from the applicant early on. And that's the ways of the concern around the scope of the exact user group. Obviously, a condition could be looked at around that. However, it potentially could be subject to contest, given that's not what they've been Councillor Jurisevic: applied for. That's what I'm seeking, whether it's contestable after that.

00:32:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Just following on that. So this application, if approved, it could be used for conventions? Speaker 8: Yes, I believe so. Yes. Unless we, again, try and condition it. But I think it's a good idea, when asked about the... Remembering that there are four substantial areas. There's the central facilities building, which can seat, as I said, over 330 people. At tables? Speaker 2: At tables. Speaker 8: With a large kitchen and reception... A large kitchen and there are offices. So it could seat possibly more than 300 tables worth of people? That was on their seating plan, I counted. Yes, over 330. Then there are the three villages. Each village has its own dining area and kitchen area. So there's a lot of duplication of facilities. So, you know, yes. I'm not quite sure of how these buildings will be used when they're not being used for school groups. And yes, I think that there is a potential that they could be used for some form of functions or conferences out there.

00:33:00 Yes. Council Member? Councillor Wegener: Looking at... It was a plan, again. We're looking at the plans. There are small rooms with four bunkers. And it just seems to be catering for exactly what they say they're going to use it for, which is school kids. And then, of course, the basketball court, taking up a lot of GFA, also seems to indicate the school kids. So the evidence is there that there's not a Trojan horse to put in a... You know, continue using it as a golf course with, you know, the five star. Councillor Jurisevic: Is this a common opinion? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Is that right, ladies and gentlemen? Speaker 8: That's what they had proposed. Each of those little cabins has its own toilet. At the moment, they're showing an indicative layout of four of, you know, two bunk beds, which could have four people in them. Could they be easily converted? Yes. I think they could be easily converted to a double bed.

00:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: Nadine? Sorry. Oops. Sorry. Nadine? So we're planning to deviate from the Noosa plan. There's a requirement under section 63 that we have to establish a planning need. Can you elaborate? You've provided counsellors with a list of all the other available school camps and education facilities. Can you just talk to us about that? Speaker 8: Okay. Again, it was a brief list. I don't mean that that is a final list in terms of this area. The applicant hasn't demonstrated that there is a planning need for this type of facility in the area. Sorry. In my opinion, I don't believe they have demonstrated that. There are a number of existing camps in the area that our existing school groups use. There's facilities on the North Shore, and also our existing schools do go outside the Shire to existing camps. So I don't see that there is a need for this type of facility in the area.

00:35:00 I don't see that there is a need to service our community requirements. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. No other answers? Yeah. In the report, there was no mention of bushfire hazard assessment or management plan for the site, but my understanding is the applicant has since provided one. Yes. Were there any concerns raised in the bushfire hazard plan that the applicant provided? Speaker 8: We'll get Will to have a little chat about that if you'd like. Councillor Jurisevic: Please. Speaker 6: So the site is considered a vulnerable use, and I guess under the SPP requirements, the assessment benchmark query requires that developments mitigate the risk to people and property to an acceptable and tolerable level of risk. This is done three ways. They need to demonstrate there's an overriding need in the public interest within your expanded service. There's no other suitable alternative locations within the required service catchment, and the site in planning can appropriately mitigate risk.

00:36:00 The applicant has determined that they met this requirement by achieving a separation distance of less than 10 kilowatts per square metre for the users of the site. So in an emergency, the idea is that you'll locate the users of the property within that less than 10 kilowatts per square metre of radiant heat. It should be in the centre of the site. From an officer level, I guess I'd need to look at, is that an acceptable level of risk, a tolerable level of risk, or an intolerable level of risk? And there's three definitions for these. An acceptable level of risk is sufficiently low to require no new treatments. A tolerable risk is low enough to allow the exposure to a natural hazard to continue, but high enough to require new treatments or actions to reduce that risk.

00:37:00 Communities can generally live within this level of risk, but as much as reasonably practically should be done to reduce this risk. An intolerable level of risk is one following an understanding of the likelihood and consequences is so high that it requires actions to avoid or reduce risk. Individuals in society will not accept this risk and measures are to be put in place to reduce risk to at least a tolerable level. In an emergency, the current proposal depends on two exit points, both exiting south via Kabi Road and Katharabai Road before being able to evacuate towards Tewantin or Pomona, and where evacuation is not possible to shelter in place in this 10 kilowatt area. Given that the proposal may potentially put large numbers of school aged children and

00:38:00 children in a situation where they can't be evacuated in an emergency, these guests would have to refuse on the property. In case of a wildfire emergency, may be exposed to a flame attack, ember attack, radiant heat exposure, wind, smoke attack. Council would view this as an intolerable risk. Councillor Jurisevic: You've mentioned two egresses from the property in the report that only talks about one. Speaker 6: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Can we just clarify that on that, please? Speaker 6: Yep. So the original report referred to one evacuation point. Yep. And a secondary evacuation report has been provided to Council, which now proposes a second exit point. It's through Highbush Fire. Which is also through Highbush Fire. They both exit basically south through the Highbush Fire area. Councillor Jurisevic: Now, I'm not sure whether you're the right person to ask this question. I will. But with regard to having that many people on a property, if they were to remain in place, from a building code perspective, would something like sprinklers or that be required in a property

00:39:00 of this nature? Given what it's being intended to use for, I mean, a school or a school facility or a boarding facility, I would imagine that sort of thing would be a requirement. Would that? Speaker 6: It's difficult to put a solution to a risk like this, given the use. The individual buildings would be required to achieve a BAL rating, which is different to a radiant heat fluctuating. So that would be undertaken by a certified- And again, that goes under building code? Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Correct. Okay. So that would be reliant on building code. So they have to meet certain building code- That's right. Regulations if these were to be accepted and go ahead in a rural setting with a dam for water supply. One would imagine. Speaker 8: And also, I think, the number of children, the number of people on site as well. Councillor Jurisevic: People on site. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 8: Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: Just another question. The applicant's town planner has communicated that the applicant's happy to discuss scale and materials.

00:40:00 Would that change the decision? And how much smaller does this have to be to get a tick? Speaker 8: I find that a very hard question to answer. Councillor Lorentson: It is. And I'm struggling with it also. Nadine, just- Speaker 8: So on face value, we are proposing permanent structures, quite large structures, such as the basketball court, on valuable agricultural land. So we're reducing our amount of agricultural land available. Again, it's a limited resource. So whatever we approve on this site, we'll reduce that resource. So there's- Okay. There's that one aspect for me. The second one, we're talking about scale. And I know Karen's mentioned about scale involved. When you look at the whole site, yes, this is a small percentage of all three sites, the built form.

00:41:00 But I'm not- When I read the planning scheme, I don't see that this is what the planning scheme was looking for. It's talking about small scale, smaller buildings being scattered amongst the environment. And I don't see that this is really meeting that. So what I think might be appropriate, I don't know if it's functional, viable, and I don't know if that's- And I don't have a number in my head, actually. Speaker 5: And I guess, Councillor, just to add to Nadine's comments, it's always difficult, I guess, putting staff, putting feedback on what is the appropriate scale. It is. And our role is to assist the applicant's proposal as they put it forward. Certainly, staff from an early stage, from pre-launchment, have been very clear around their concerns around the scale of this operation. And usually, based on that feedback, we would be thinking that they modify that to reduce it to a point where it's considered acceptable as part of our assessment. We're obviously presenting what's been worked by the applicant today.

00:42:00 So, sorry, I can't answer that question accurately. Councillor Wilkie: But just to give you some context around that. I'd just like to ask another question. In the report, you mention the impact on road, heavy rail, and is it the development applicants consult, traffic consult points to a six-fold increase in traffic on the Fever Road during weekdays? Yes, that's correct. From 57 to 356. Yes, that's correct. During weekdays? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Would any of that impact on road traffic? Quite possibly. Speaker 8: We do find our truck consultants often have a different opinion to some of the consultants. But in this instance, we have just taken the applicant's consultant's perspective. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Two questions. I'll follow on from that question. With regard to traffic management or traffic, what was the allowable traffic under the

00:43:00 previous development application? I didn't bring that up. In comparison to the previous development application, what was the allowable traffic under the previous development application? About half of what's proposed here. Yes. Speaker 8: Sorry, I didn't bring that email. Yes. What I sent previously, at its peak, when it was approved, it did have up to about 180, I believe. Again, that was based on, I suppose, conservative maximum figures. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just going under its current approval. Yes. It had approval for up to 180 vehicle movements a day. Speaker 8: That's right. Councillor Jurisevic: Just for comparison's sake, with regard to that. The other element is you gave a response with regard to the question raised previously, and I just confirmed this. In terms of bulk, the rural Zane Coe details a range of outcomes relating to built form and small-scale accommodation development. The acceptable outcomes detail that individual buildings not used for rural activities do

00:44:00 not exceed 500 square metres gross. Is that correct? Yes. Further, the Noosa plan details that small-scale accommodation is to take the form of small separate buildings with a lodge not exceeding 250 square metres and no individual cabins or cottages having an area exceeding 65 square metres. So just in relation to that last part, so individual cabins or lodges 65 square metres, but in total no more than 500 metres gross. Is that how I read that? Speaker 8: Yes. That's how it does read. Yes. Right. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Stockwell. I'd like to move the staff recommendation with one small change, and that change is down on item D from memory. Oh. No. There's one on E. Keep going down. I think it's the third down. Councillor Finzel: It's numbered. What, 105?

00:45:00 No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Just go to the last part of the page. Speaker 8: 3A, is that the one you're looking at? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 3A, is it? That's close to D. Very, very close. Councillor Jurisevic: Now if we start to demonstrate an overwhelming need. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Overwhelming, yes, by inserting the word planing after the word overwhelming. There's an overwhelming planing need. There is an overwhelming planing need. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, we have a seconder for that please. Seconder is Councillor Lauritsen. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, Vicky, if you could bring up, you put on voices pretty quickly. I have done a wonderful presentation.

00:46:00 I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I could do so, so myself. So the first thing is the concept of having a paddock-to-plate school-based education facility in a rural area is a good one. It is one that if it was the right scale and designed well, in the right place, that we would support it. But one of the first things that I teach, and I teach anyone about agriculture, is one of the most important principles is to have a planing plan. That we're not making any more good quality agricultural land. That's why the state planning policy on protection of good quality agricultural land was the first one gazetted in Queensland in 1992. It is the longest established state interest in local government planning schemes. And what is that state interest that affects this? This is out of the current state planning policies. It says, avoiding development that will have irreversible impact on urban development.

00:47:00 And it says, avoiding the development of land that will be on or adjacent to agricultural land class A or B. Maintaining or enhancing land conditions and the fire physical resources underpinning that. And D, it does say facilitating opportunities for coexistence with development that is complementary to agricultural uses that do not reduce agricultural productivity. Okay? And it mentions agricultural tourism. That's the core principle about this one. Is we have nearly two acres of land. We've got in the same area, there's a total of about four acres of grouse porous area for short term accommodation that can be used for both school children and the general public, some groups. That's not the only area that is alienated. It's also getting to those sites. But it's also, if we have sensitive land uses, then the land the buffer around them is also alienating from the intense agriculture. So it's really essential to me. That is number one.

00:48:00 One grounds for refusal is it offends the longest-standing state interest in local government planning schemes in the state. Because while we've never had a famine in Australia, the countries that have realise that protecting good quality agricultural land is fundamental to the sustainability of their community. So next please. I did talk about this before, we're talking about a sports hall with basketball. There is no way that a court would approve a basketball court on good quality agricultural land. In one of my previous jobs I had the state role of identifying and going through all the court cases on good quality agricultural land, up until 20 years ago when I left that job. And while early days there was some doubt about how strong the state's interest was, it's a very well-established principle that you do not alienate state agricultural land in the extent forward.

00:49:00 Land sale of kitchens. Okay? It talks about, in the report we talk about, it's clearly more prominent, like this is from the report, it's clearly more permanent. There's one area there that has, some of the buildings are built on concrete slabs. That is permanent alienation. There's one thing that isn't identified, we're talking about incompatible land uses. The predominant driver is about recreation. You know, agriculture is a component and it's, the part they are looking at for permaculture is a good concept. No argument with it. But 7,200 square metres of change in the waterway for recreational purposes, once again, inconsistent with the appropriate treatment. Now, they're suggesting that might have some rehabilitation benefit by getting clothes back. I haven't seen the detail, but certainly in my years of waterway restoration, widening it to the point that it's a canoe course would not be considered to be rehabilitation.

00:50:00 So we're in a, yeah, I've mentioned that, in my opinion, the closest definition under the state is, we're talking about a 300 person resort in a rural area. Simple thing. We're really unusual. Next, please. So that's the resort. I'm clicking on here and it's not changing anything. We're really unusual. Next one again. Unusual in this particular spot. Thanks Vicky. Next slide. We've got really good quality soils mapping. Okay, we've had a land resource assessment. The state only does this in areas they think have got agricultural potential. So not, I don't know if there's anywhere else in our Shire that's got such good soils. There's no smaller part done. What does that show? That just shows the soil. Okay, the next one. From that soil map, you get your ag land classes. And if you see that there, the dark green is the highest quality ag land, Class A1.

00:51:00 The lighter green is A2 and the orange is B. If you go to the next slide, that's overlaid on the development. You can see the whole of the development site is mapped within Class A1 or Class A2 agricultural land. Okay, you can see through the map. Yeah. It should have been a slideshow, it should have been. Go once again and it probably will take off. Hit next again. Oh, there you go. See, that's what it was overlying. That's the development concept. We can move on. Ah, I've got out of order. Okay, keep clicking until that goes away. There we go. Click, yeah. This is the overarching strategic framework. It talks about, we do want economies diverse and resilient and we do want agricultural pathways. It talks about aligning with the NUSA point of distance, NUSA brand, Mentoring Natural Environment Sustainability

00:52:00 and it talks about low impact nature-based tourism and rural tourism that are supported. And if we go on, that's reflected in the tables of assessment. Next please. And you can see the sort of scale that was envisaged. These are all the sort of uses that were mentioned in the report. You can see the code assessment, 25 tents of caravans for tourist park. For education assessment, involving no more than 20 students. For nature-based, it talks about 20 guests. So, this one's seeking approval for 299 and across the area, less than 5,000 a metre square. It's a much larger scale than what we're envisaged. And next slide please. We talked about the South East Queensland plan being inconsistent. Now, there's some important words there. Opportunities to further grow and diversify regional food, which is seen in direct marketing, valuating options, adaption of traditional industries to new players, artisanal food protection, local farmers markets.

00:53:00 These are all the things that the permaculture movement leaps into, you know. High value dairy products, grass-fed, free range, subtropical fruit. It talks about the sub-regions, hinterland areas, and this is in the northern part where we are. The sub-regions, hinterland areas, where we support the growth of creative and boutique industries. Rural diversification includes value-adding, nature-based tourism, as well as clean industries. These activities will be encouraged, which we should. Where they can be managed to preserve the agricultural land resource, conservation has enthralled the character. That's what this development has not done. Now, one of the reasons I bring this up is those words are very familiar to us, because they have taken strength. Straight out of the Noosa Council's submission to the regional plan, I wrote most of them, and Raoul improved on them. So that's what we said we wanted, and that's what the regional planning reflects. And when we talk about scale that we may accept in the future, then they really need to do a better job

00:54:00 in identifying how they can get an educational establishment without offending the really core principles of planning. Councillor Wilkie: And Councillor Stockwell. And now the councillors wish to speak. I want to speak to this. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: We can start, OK. I understand the staff's recommendation, and I understand that they're looking through the lenses of the planning scheme. And they say there's no overwhelming need. And I agree. When I say I will not vote against the clear wording of the planning scheme, unless there is an overwhelming public interest. And in this case, I think there is a whopping overriding public interest. And I want us to look at this application through all the other strategies and plans that we have. For example, when we look at the environment strategy 2019

00:55:00 through the lens, a different lens, through a different strategy, we say by 2030, 80% of all grazing land achieved best practice management for agriculture. Where are we right now? As far as I know, and I've spent a lot of time in the last four years really trying to understand Noosa agriculture, there's a grand total of one East Wall Farms properly doing regenerative cattle farming. So if we approve this application, we will double the amount of regenerative cattle operations in Noosa to two. When we look at the climate change response plan, again, a different set of eyes. We're looking at, we know that we need to produce our own food. We do need to grow it. At the last food trail, where they go around to the different farms, how many crop farmers were there in Noosa on the trail? Zero. There was one East Wall Farms, token regenerative farm. We have a situation here where we don't eat what grows here.

00:56:00 During lunch, during the summertime, we eat iceberg lettuce, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower. None of them are from here. Not from anywhere near here. Well, there's plenty of wonderful greens we can put on our plate, but we don't grow them. And that is a very, very big problem. When we look at it, this application through the corporate plan, which is the big daddy plan of ours, the plan states, work with agriculture organizations and agencies to support and educate landholders on regenerative agriculture methods and promote local and sustainable food production. That's right in the corporate plan. That went out to public consultation. Lots of people said, yep, that's right. And we know we need to live up to that. And the question about how the corporate plan is, how is it going to filter out to other plans? How are other plans going to use that lens to perceive what to do next? And we looked at the last business roundtable meeting of the economic development. And they stated, we will scope the preparation of a food and agribusiness industry development plan.

00:57:00 So that is how our economic policy is looking at the corporate plan. And the corporate plan is filtering through. So we're going down this agriculture route. When we look at the Noosa River catchment management plan, which we will soon be celebrating, we have a very different view of this application. In page 65, it says, the amount of silt or mud coming down was 1,102 kilograms per hectare, which is an ungodly amount. An ungodly amount of silt coming off of the property. This is in just the Kin Kin area alone. This is 28,069 cubic meters of silt washing off of our primed farmland into the river, clogging up our river. Page 26 states, this is, again, of the river plan, the massive decline of our lovely little creatures, which live in the bottom of a river, is

00:58:00 due to the amount of sediment in the river and on our watch in the last 20 years, 30% to 65% of those creatures that live in the benthic layer are gone, aren't there anymore. And what does that do to? Probably silt coming off of our agriculture lands. The current cattle farming is an extractive industry. An extractive industry is one where the externalities are not incorporated. It does not incorporate externalities into the business, which is they have cattle, 60 head of cattle on 100 acres of property. That's normal out there. They eat the grass down improperly. They're not moving around so that the farmer sells the cattle. We get the mud. Our river silts up.

00:59:00 So we are subsidizing our cattle industry here in Noosaville with our practices. We need to start this regenerative concept. It is so utterly important for us. On page 63, it states that the river plan, develop a land holder extension program to educate rural land holders on sustainable land management. So we need it. Educate them on sustainable land management. And what does that look like? Well, Rachel Ward, the famous actress from the Thornbirds, Don Mendo were plaid and against all odds. One of our favorite. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're looking at a development application for farmstay accommodation. We're getting a sermon on regenerative agriculture. I don't think it's relevant to the application because we're not getting a sermon on regenerative

01:00:00 or approving agriculture. Councillor Wilkie: What's your response today? Councillor Wegener: We are looking at an overwhelming need. There is no overwhelming need. And I'm demonstrating that there is an overwhelming need. For agriculture, I agree with you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But we're dealing with an accommodation application. Councillor Wilkie: So it's your point that this application would develop these sorts of elements that you're championing? Councillor Wegener: It is. This application for this development is thoroughly supported by many other plans that we have, including our own corporate plans. That's the link that I'm making between agriculture and this. Councillor Wilkie: All allowed. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. It is interesting. What is? It's very interesting. So we have Rachel's farm. So Rachel Ward hasn't had a farm. Cattle are dying. She's worrying about climate change. She says, what can I do? Well, it's in the soil. The only way to sequester carbon is to put it in your soil layer.

01:01:00 That's where it belongs. And in Honour Farm, she changed to regenerative farming. And she came here to talk about it. She came to do this. She played the movie twice. She answered questions. And she said. Councillor Lorentson: Through the chair. Point of order. Sorry. Through the chair. OK. OK. Councillor Wilkie: Are you talking about another development now, Tom? Councillor Wegener: OK. Let's look at. Let's talk about this one. Let's talk about. OK. We're looking at it through the waste strategy and zero emission. How do we? This development could teach us about zero emission. How to sequester carbon. With the waste strategy, we are looking towards getting our double grind and our, what do you call it? Burning. The biochar. Biochar. We are looking at that. Bringing. Getting that as our. It was once a waste product. Bringing it back. Putting it on our land. Sequestering carbon. Can you say that again? Of course they will. So currently, our topsoil is being washed. Washed away from our. Yes.

01:02:00 Yes. Councillor Finzel: I would like to raise a point of order. Councillor Wegener: Yes. Council thinks so. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I don't believe the speaker is speaking to the nation before us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, OK. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Tom, can you keep your comments? You've been giving a lot of latitude. Can you keep your comments now to the application that's before us and the recommendation that's before us? OK. Councillor Wegener: Well, I spoke to Andrew from CYC and said, why does it need to be so big? And he said, it's the only way to make this economically viable. 300 kids. He said, isn't it the only way to make this economically viable? And I said, it isn't actually that big when it comes to this sort of development. There are much, much bigger kid camps out there. It's not a big one. He says, it's just the right size. And I said, well, why does it have to be so fancy? And he said, well, teachers. If you're going to have a place like this with lots of kids coming, it's actually got to be really nice for the teachers. Because the teachers have to want to go there. And by making a facility like this, you'll have teachers to say, yeah, I want to bring

01:03:00 my kids there. Why the basketball court and the canoeing? Because they're kids. You need something else. Like, not every kid is all that excited about getting their hands dirty, learning about the circular economy, growing things, learning about nutritious plants that they could be eating. They might not fit for that. But you got this over there. But at least we're working towards that. This is what's called a BHAG, a big, hairy, audacious goal. And we need to move forward with this, because we are actually in a terrible place with agricultural land. And maybe this application is the giant crowbar we need to dislodge the old paradigm that we are living in right now and we desperately need to escape from. We are going backwards on our river, on our river as we'll see in the river plan. We're going backwards on sustainable agriculture. We're going backwards on teaching our kids about the circular economy, about eating what's right. We're going backwards on our climate change response plan.

01:04:00 We're going backwards on so many of the things that we value here at UCEDD that perhaps this application is a step forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Kinsler. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Through the Chair to Councillor Tom, are you aware they're running cattle on this property? Councillor Wegener: They are, and they're currently running cattle, but not in a regenerative meeting, meaning that they've got a big paddock with a handful of cattle on it. They in the plan, and I think it's in the plan, but it's also in the permaculture plan, they move the cattle every four days. So every paddock has a lot of time, has what, 30 something days to regenerate before the cattle comes onto it next. You drive around Noosa, you are starting to see brown. You won't see that on Eastwell Farms, on the regenerative. You won't see brown, but you look at it now, it's already turning brown. The cows have eaten the food all the way down. When it rains again, our rivers are full of water, they're full of mud. Councillor Wilkie: Can I answer your question, Councillor Kinsler? Yes, thank you. Councillor Lorentson.

01:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to this. I support the staff recommendation to refuse the application. The scale of this project, a 299 person accommodation facility is excessive and conflicts with the Noosa plan. Contrary to what I've heard at the table, the proposal does not further, and I'm referencing the recommendation on page 42, it doesn't further the SEQ regional plan 2017 that says to intensify or diversify on-farm agricultural activities. Because the proposed permaculture and food production is not of a significant scale. The farm stay is of a significant scale. And there are two other major reasons why I'm supporting the application. It does, the applicant hasn't proven or demonstrated this overwhelming planning need.

01:06:00 We don't need another school camp. And the issue on bushfire. There is no way that I can sleep well at night knowing there might be 299 kids placed in a precarious position. We're in a bushfire season and that is a paramount concern and a strong enough reason to be added to the refusal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wegener: Do you have a question? Just that. We look at the buildings, all three, are in the middle of the property. And if you can take into consideration that when you have the syntropic and permaculture gardens surrounding them, that it feels very wet and that's about the last place it'll burn. So it would actually add to the safety of the concept of staying on property in case of the worst case scenario where they can't get away, that you actually have got land that will not burn around the property. Thank you. Speaker 6: Was that considered?

01:07:00 Yeah. I guess there's a lot of different variables with bushfires. Smoke and ember attack is also another issue that we consider to be a significant issue for type of occupants. Speaker 7: Thank you, Laura. I'll speak to it. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart. Yeah. Thank you. I support staff recommendation. I think it's excessive inside. I think we have a plethora of school camps. In fact, I know because I'm continually driving my children to them. I'm picking them up at night when I want to stay over. So there are many within driving distance of this area. So I don't think there has been an overwhelming planning need shown. The real concern I have too is in regard to bushfire, especially when the secondary exit point was in a high bushfire area. That is a major concern to me. And I support staff recommendation based on those three factors. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mayor Stewart. Councillor Jones. I agree with everything that's been said around the table. Tom, I take all of your points on board. That's why one of the reasons I sat, spent most of the weekend trying to get my head around

01:08:00 this. Because I see the value in what's being proposed here. Even Councillor Stockwell acknowledged that in one of his first comments. There's merit in what's being proposed here. Once again, we've got the great idea in the wrong location to deliver this. The concept of education of sustainable agricultural practices involving and having activities for children are great. Nobody argues that they're great outcomes, particularly with what we're hearing on the news with regard to youth out of control. Here we've got an activity centre that will keep kids occupied, but also educate them in the need for sustainable food and agricultural practices for the future. What a great concept. But as Brian pointed out, the land has been earmarked as some of the best agricultural land. And taking that element of that, and the Noosa plan also alludes to, it's not the right

01:09:00 location to actually implement permanent structures and the like. It should be utilised for ongoing and increasing agricultural practices. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place in some elements of this. But there are clearly elements on the size, the scale, and the location. And the land use that challenge that. Nobody's saying it's a bad proposal. It's just a good proposal in an inappropriate location according to the land availability, the land usage, and according to the plan. And the size and scale of the activities clearly is something that challenges bushfire management in a location like that. Putting that many people into that sort of area is also a challenge. So I say, I can't agree more. I can't disagree with anything that's been said around the table. And I thank you for your passion, Tom, with regard to wanting to see more sustainable agricultural practices and the like in the region. I just can't support this development application as it currently stands before us.

01:10:00 But I do credit the applicant with bringing forward some challenging thinking with regards to what's needed for the future of not only this region, but the entire country. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Joe. Any other councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? I will. At a risk of oversimplifying, the reason why I support staff recommendation, because this is a resort scale accommodation development on land set aside for food security and food production. And as time goes on, with the challenges of a changing climate, climate change, climate change as well, and development, our access to arable land and securing our local food production is going to become increasingly critical. So to put permanent structures of a resort scale accommodation development on some of

01:11:00 our best agricultural land will deny us food security going into the future. I also don't believe there's an overwhelming pain in me. Because as has been pointed out, there are 16 other youth educational facilities camps in our region. So it's not as if we need to override the planning scheme and the South East Queensland Regional Plan's intent for this site to provide another school camp. The other factor is the impact on neighbours out there. This would see a six-fold increase in traffic on the feeder load. And I don't think people who bought in, based on the information they've gained from the Noosa planning scheme, were expecting to see a six-fold increase in traffic out there. And the Noosa planning scheme, in a sense, is a contract we have with our community.

01:12:00 It sets reasonable expectations about what people can expect to see appear on a property next door. I'll be open to assessing another application which had the proportions, the ratios, of accommodation as opposed to land under permaculture reversed. That is much more land under permaculture and a lot lighter footprint in terms of accommodation provided out there. I think it possibly is the right location. But I don't think it's the right location. I think the size and scale is wrong. And for those reasons, I'm supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Closed. I didn't hear any arguments against the motion. What I heard was a passionate concept of the need being one for more sustainable agriculture.

01:13:00 No person is going to agree with that more than myself. I was the President of the Organic Growth Committee. We were the first growing group in the 1970s, one of the first permaculture conveners on the coast in the early 80s and went on doing PhDs in this area. The concept at a planning stage is protecting the most valuable resource we have for the resilience of future communities. Aftershelter, on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, food is next. Thank you. And we consistently underestimate how important it is to protect our best quality agricultural land. When I grew up, my mother was a travelling piano teacher and she taught the custard apple farmer's kids in Sunnybank. She taught the strawberry grower's kids in Rochdale.

01:14:00 She taught the chicken farmer's kids in Woodridge. They're now mass urban areas. Thank you. Why in 1922 did the state bring it in? Because they realised that the incremental death by a thousand cuts of agricultural land threatens the future sustainability of our community. That's what the primary issue at heart of this is. While I appreciate Councillor Wegener's passion for the current regenerative form of agriculture, some of what he said was incorrect. Not all alternative mechanisms of grazing or agriculture relate to downstream sediment movement. In fact, there's lots of science for other forms of agriculture, other than what's going to be considered regenerative, that have little or no impact on water quality. And many of the producers in our Shire do adopt a range of the best management practices.

01:15:00 Many farmers have spent thousands of dollars putting riparian vegetation along the grass in their fields. I think that's important to say that we know a lot about what creates the sediment in the Noosa River. Some of it will be off broad scale grazing. A lot of it will be from mass movement, floods, stream bank erosion. So the key point here is that if we're going to educate people, we're going to have a transformational change in our food. The place to start is you look after your best assets first. And that's what we're doing by saying, no, this has gone too far. Councillor Wilkie: And Councillor Stockwell, put the motion to the vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Stewart, Lorentson, Derisovic, Finzel, Stockwell and Wilkie. Against? Councillor Wegener? The motion's carried.

01:16:00 Councillors, we have another item ahead of us, which may take a bit of time. Would you like to take a five-minute break now? No. Thank you. Yes. OK. We'll again meet for five minutes. Thanks again. Thank you. Thanks guys. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We've got everyone. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have the camera live again? We're ready to go. Ten minutes. Welcome back everybody. We're up to item 6.1 which is the adoption of the Noosa River catchment management plan and to give us a bit of an overview we have Amy Kimber and we have Kim Rawlings and we have Ben, Ben Derrick. Welcome. Can you give us a bit of

01:17:00 Speaker 2: an overview of where we're at? Thanks very much. Good afternoon everyone. So it's really exciting I think to be at this point. A huge amount of work has gone into preparing this catchment plan and it's been going on for decades. Oh sorry, Brian has a conflict. Oh Deputy Mayor Stockwell: yeah. I have more than one. Council has always declared a conflict consistent with my previous written declaration in regards to Noosa district land care to acknowledge in a number of locations as being consulted on this plan. I as in previous times think I can stay in the room and make an impartial decision in the public interest and I will choose to remain in the room but respect your decision. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. I guess that's incumbent on all. There's a list of people who have consulted at the back of this campaign. So councillors, we've all checked. We've got a few links. It's a very long list.

01:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On page 100, page 146, NICA is on the list. Councillor Lorentson: Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation, Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, Noosa District Landcare Group, the Biosphere Reserve Foundation, Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Healthy Land and Water Department, DES, DAF, MSQ, South East Queensland Council of Mayors, The Nature Conservancy, USC, NBFA, Boating Industry, Environmental Services, etc.

01:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Knowing anyone on the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, can we constitute a... I don't know if there's anyone on that. Do I? Councillor Stockwell, your report. Yes or no? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I've declared an alignments in my written declaration. So it's up to you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, look, I'll move that the council note that the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee has declared a conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and between Councillor Stockwell, participates and votes on this note, if this council believes that a reasonable person cannot consider this... Believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Jurisevic: It's catching, right? You're starting to affect other people's friends.

01:20:00 A reasonable person would trust... Would trust. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions for Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Lorentson: Can I throw a question? My question is, given recent OIA findings, would your long association, and I'm referencing Councillor Wilkie, his long association with the PBCA. Should we be revisiting this conflict of interest, just in light of that decision? A question to the CEO. Speaker 1: Ultimately you are revisiting it now, he's bringing up this conflict of interest, it's just that he's not reading it in total, but it's still a conflict of interest to me.

01:21:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It hasn't changed from being a declarable conflict to a prescribed conflict. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question, through the Chair, I understand it's not prescribed, but have you earned money in your association with these groups that have been mentioned? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: From memory, under the Act, I only have to go back to the 2016 election, I did earn a small amount with Landcare doing a half day workshop for them. I did earn a small amount with Landcare doing a half day workshop for them. Which I think was still less than, or just, I can't recall, but it was a small amount still within the declarable, if it was taken to be a gift, if you had a donation of $500 or more, I think it was around that $500 mark, but it was before the time, before 2016 election. That's it. Councillor Wilkie: And if I remember rightly, when this, when District Landcare spent, your association

01:22:00 with Landcare has been mentioned before, you've declared it on the stage of your own. Correct. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Put to the vote those in favour. That's unanimous. Councillor Stockwell did not vote. Councillor Stockwell you had a second declarable conflict of interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll read this one just because I don't do it that often. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a long standing relationship with MRCC as a previous current employee and a long term collaborator since 1994. I have in the past had a small contract below the limit of that for a prescribed conflict and prior to the declarable timeframe. I was up until the last AGM council represented on the committee and this role I played, in this role I played a role in facilitating the development of the group that had always kept me standing. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a regional person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. I'll choose to remain in the meeting and have I respect the decision of the meeting

01:23:00 upon whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Joe. I move that Councillor note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on the matter. Because the Council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to gain personal material through noting this report and therefore reasonable personal trust the final decision was made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, as we've done in the past, I believe this is fairly consistent with the approach that we've had in past mentions of this conflict by Councillor Stockwell and the nature of the relationship being predominantly community based in nature. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any questions or comments? I'm going to take a vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Councillor Stapleton. On the matter. Sorry for the interruption.

01:24:00 It's okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Anybody else? Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. So over the years we've had many improvements in managing and coordinating river related issues including speed limit changes, ecological restoration, marine zone regulations, improved environmental monitoring and enhanced river based infrastructure for boat access that can be used in the river. We've had various types of governance models. So at the beginning in 2004 when Council had its first plan, we had a coordinated group of governance agencies around the table. In 2016 we had the community jury considering changes to the river. And then we also had more recently the Mr River State Water Advisory Committee which concluded its term in March this year. Now we did have a subcommittee meeting of the NSERAC about the vision and plan for the

01:25:00 river moving forward. It sort of went around in circles a little bit. And I think that the committee felt that having MSQ as a co-chair for the committee really meant that we needed to focus on MSQ methods. So I think there was a fair bit of frustration that over two years we had a subcommittee meeting that was really focused on anchoring the mooring. But that was the situation that we were dealing with. More recently we've had very targeted stakeholder engagement. We had a dedicated workshop with Kabi Kabi. Spoken with a whole branch of state government contacts. Council of mayors, healthy land and water, Landcare, MRCC, NICA, the Nature Conservancy, a local commercial fisher. So there's been a lot going on. And that has all been documented and incorporated into the plan.

01:26:00 In terms of our updated plan, we've really tried to draw on consultations, scientific research and the many partnerships we already have underway. So I think we've been going over this ground for a long time. I think given the amount of consultation that's been undertaken. We do have a big picture of river management issues and concerns. And we've really tried to take that feedback on board in terms of this updated plan. It's really important that we get our plan finalised. Because without it we can't access state and commonwealth funding. We really need a roadmap to guide our investment moving forward. There are two major opportunities through South East Queensland. One is named Passport Nairns. Resilient Rivers Opportunity.

6.1 NOOSA RIVER CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ¶

▶ 01:26:51

01:27:00 As well as the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy and the Environment and Waters, Irving Rivers and Catchments Program. So there's been advice received that funding will become available later this year for that. The plan provides an overview of the key threats and pressures for the MISR catchment. And we've identified prioritised management activities. The next part is using a risk assessment process. The intention is that this will be monitored annually. Both in terms of the ecological condition of the catchment. But how we're going actually implementing the plan itself. And one of the ideas that we've been thinking about in terms of the future governance is whether we have a small technical advisory panel that can help guide that ongoing monitoring and risk assessment. So I think that's really important. The plan includes an action to consider the establishment of a conservation park under

01:28:00 the Nature Conservation Act across fish habitat areas. This would provide a statutory head of power for better integration of river management across government agencies under a trust agreement and joint management plan with Department of Environment and Science. We're in the very, very early stages of considering that. But we have received legal advice. That indicates it is possible. Completion of this plan is listed as a signature project in the 2023-28 corporate plan. So we do have a mandate in our head document to get on with it. And really without it, as I said, it's a framework to protect and improve the catchment. Better monitor the condition and trends. And collaborate together. We have peer review undertaken by four independent experts.

01:29:00 And what we've done is divided the plan up into six management areas to try to prioritise management focuses in each of those areas. So I think that's an overview of what we've tried to achieve. But at the end, I'll take any questions. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor JOHNSTON. I've got a couple of questions. With minor changes that I believe are necessary to the document to clarify a couple of things. The first one being that I note in regards to Lake Doonella. The runoff from the industrial area west of Ducey and Mundy Road drains into Lake Doonella, as I understand it. But I can only see Lake Wyba mentioned as having runoff from the industrial area. Is that something that can be reviewed before the final document is released to the public to correct that element? Is that an element of where industrial area runoff falls into?

01:30:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor Joe, we're talking about the report that reviewed the runoff into Eny Creek. So the... Councillor Jurisevic: But the other side doesn't. If you look at... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That report talks about into Lake Wyba. So that was where we had river water quality in Eny Creek just after the first stormwater outlet from the industrial first stage. So it does flow both ways now. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. That's what I'm saying. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm saying. It flows both ways. We only mention it flowing into Lake Wyba. We don't mention it flowing into Lake Doonella. I think... I think that's a correction that could easily be addressed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Okay. I just think in that... Where it's mentioned, I think we're talking about that study, though. Councillor Jurisevic: I realise that. But as far as an understanding of the concept of the river and what the impact of the industrial area potentially is, I think it should be mentioned that the industrial water flows both ways. Councillor Wilkie: That's one of the minor editors. Councillor Jurisevic: That's a minor edit. The other... The other element here with regard to water quality... Thank you. Mentioning zero litre entering the river under desired actions on page 110.

01:31:00 But my concern is that what we've said there is that the... And I'll go back and actually quote it on the page, that one. I think we're just being a little under water quality point C. By 2030, zero litre enters the Noosa River system. I don't know that we're capable of making sure that every element of litre going into the river system is under our control, i.e. someone in a boat throwing something out of the boat. Councillor Wilkie: This is a question, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor Jurisevic: The question's coming, Councillor Wilkie. Can we clarify within that element of what areas Council can control waste entering the river from, i.e. whether it's coming through a stormwater system, the areas that we will manage litre entering the river from, as opposed to litre in general entering the river system, because we couldn't stop anything blowing into the river either. Councillor Wilkie: This is a question. That's an aspiration, isn't it? Yeah, so... Not a campaign.

01:32:00 Speaker 3: That's right. So I think we... I think there's two aspects to it. I think there is an aspirational element to it around zero litre in our river, and, you know, that flows through to education campaigns, to our recreation... Councillor Jurisevic: I thought I was heading to you next. Thank you. Speaker 3: You know, so I think there's an aspirational element that should be maintained in the river. But I think in terms of detail, we can clarify that what also can be controlled at the Council level. But I think there's two aspects that need to be said. Councillor Jurisevic: And that was my second part of my question was, yes, I mean, aspirationally, education is a fundamental part of that, making people understand their role and relationship with the river is, you come to enjoy, don't destroy, that sort of mindset, Brandy's words, which I think everybody should live by when enjoying the environment. But I think that the language there that zero litre enters the Noosa River system is just a bit too nonspecific with regards to what we can manage and what we intend to facilitate through education, in other words.

01:33:00 That can be just a little bit... I think it's a bit breached. If that can be expanded, I think it'll be an improvement. Speaker 2: Absolutely. And I think that with a lot of these initiatives, what we see is that they evolve over time as well. We're only at the beginning point of scoping some of these things out. So I think it will become clearer exactly what we're trying to achieve with each initiative as we get to work on the particular projects that it's... Councillor Jurisevic: It also means if we're controlling the elements that we can control, we can then focus on the other areas where litter's coming from and education's a key part of that. Councillor Finzel: Catherine Finzel. Thank you. Thank you for the overview. That was good. I've just got a question then around comments you made around statutory head of power under the Department of Environment and Science, and also in the report about a conservation park. Now, I've had community contact me with concerns about regulation and balance to all users

01:34:00 and everyone having opportunity for inclusivity and use of the river. Can you just talk to me a bit about how that's going to happen with this idea of governance? Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. So the river plan has an implementation action that says consider the mechanism of a conservation park under the Nature Conservation Act for the fish habitat areas in the river. There has been some confusion, and I've been contacted also, Councillor Finzel, about that act and that head of power, because the marine zone... Marine Parks Act... ...also has what's called a conservation zone. Okay. So there was some misunderstanding that we were talking about a marine park conservation zone, which is a far more strict and limiting legislative head of power. That's not what we're talking about. Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay.

01:35:00 Speaker 3: Thank you for that. So it's... And you can see the confusion. Yeah. One's called conservation park, one's called conservation zone. Yeah. Easily confused. Yeah. So what we are looking at is the... Under the Nature Conservation Act, the conservation park that we have, there are examples of conservation parks around Queensland that have... provide the local government with a level of... a greater level of management and authority over those areas, because we would operate as a trustee. A management plan would need to be developed for the conservation park, and that would need to be done in collaboration with the local government. Yeah. Obviously, the Department of Environment, but with stakeholders of the river. So commercial users, rep users, interested parties. So there's quite a bit of work to be done to get to that point. So at the moment, we're just saying, let's consider it as a mechanism. A mechanism that would give council some more... At the moment, we don't have any jurisdiction really in the river. That's been an issue over many years, to try and deal with such things like encroachments,

01:36:00 or anchoring and mooring, or derelict vessels, or things like that. This would give us a seat at the table, via the management plan. This mechanism, we specifically looked at, because it does allow for coexistence of commercial use. So it specifically says... We can have it here somewhere. In the principles of the conservation... Have you got it there? Speaker 2: Yeah. So providing explicit recognition that all current... That's the root of the issue. Yeah. Regulations and management principles are retained, and that existing commercial provision can continue that, being arbitrary, efficient, statability. I just wanted to add to what Kim was saying there as well. We learned from the 2019 draft plan review that the community and others, I think state government agencies, were not too happy with the idea of council taking over. What a tradition of state government responsibilities.

01:37:00 So we definitely want to avoid that. That perception. And I think this model that we're looking at is really about setting up an arrangement so that we can continue to the state government agencies in a more, I guess, structured way. We've been doing it with MSQ for the past couple of years. And it goes to show how much work is involved in each of these relationships. And we really need a mechanism around how we continue that engagement with the board. Councillor Wilkie: Certainly. Amy, I would just like to add to that. I think that the agency can email and suggest that it might be some confusion, but thinking that the council's going to take over management of those sections of the river. No, that's not the intention. That's not the case. It's at least, as you say, a seat at the table that the agencies that are responsible for that. That's exactly right. Speaker 2: And council members. They've all got very different focuses and, I guess, areas that they see as their responsibility, and it's quite different.

01:38:00 So it's about getting that holistic approach. Maritime Safety Queensland are obviously very concerned with safety. DES is more concerned about ecological conditions. So we're trying to get that arrangement in place for each of them. Speaker 3: Frank, just to, sorry, before we go to the next question. So the Nature Conservation Act specifically outlines management principles for conservation parts. It might be worth discussing that. Yeah. It gives a good sense of what can occur in management in a conservation park. Yeah. So conservation parks manage to conserve and preserve the area's cultural and natural resources and their values. Provide for permanent conservation of the area's natural condition to the greatest possible extent. Provide opportunities for educational and recreational activities in a way consistent with the area's values. And ensure that any commercial use of the area's natural resources, including fishing and grazing, can be provided to the conservation park.

01:39:00 So it's a good mechanism to balance all of these things. Councillor Wilkie: And you said it's clear in the report that it's going to be applied to the fish habitat areas. Yes. Could you explain how far they extend? Where they exist currently? So what areas are they looking at? Speaker 2: Yeah. You might need to help me out here. It's about, I think, 80 or 90 percent. Yeah. It's quite a significant amount. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So what's excluded? Speaker 3: What's excluded is the area from probably about here down to ... The river now. Yeah. So the ... all the foreshore areas where the commercial and recreational ... On the south of the river. Noosaville foreshore area. Yeah. That area is excluded. There is a fish habitat area around the centre part of the river, but the foreshore areas are excluded. Yeah. That's right. So yeah. That's probably the most ... most of the rivers covered by fish habitat area already. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: So just again, just getting my head around all this, conservation parks.

01:40:00 At the moment, we've got DAF and DES and all these state agencies that determine what recreational activities are sustainable and what are harmful. One example is the fact that now council is getting involved. Does that mean that if we deem something not sustainable, e.g. commercial fishing, then we can override Department of Environment and Service, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries? No. So can we ... No. Okay. Speaker 3: No. So if there are concerns that the council have got about activities that are happening in that space, then we would have those conversations with the state departments. But the head of power for sustainable fisheries is wind.

01:41:00 Definitely. Absolutely. And that would absolutely not change. They regulate, they license, they set quotas, they determine what's sustainable. And they're looking at that all the time, annually, about what's sustainable. That remit would not shift to council. That would stay with the state. And the same with permits for approvals in the fish habitat area. That would stay with fisheries. So those heads of power wouldn't change. But it just gives us a seat at the table from a management perspective. At the moment, we don't have one. Councillor Lorentson: But Kim, again, excuse me for interrupting. Are we saying that? State? State aren't doing or aren't capable of doing their job. Why aren't we just leaving it to them to do their job? Why are we stepping in? Have they failed? Speaker 3: We're not stepping in to manage commercial fisheries. That's not what this is about. This is about saying there's a large portion of Noosa River that warrants conservation.

01:42:00 And the council should have a seat at the table to deal with some of the issues. We don't at the moment. And things that come into council, which often do, they bounce around about whose jurisdiction is this? Again, what head of power is this? Whether it's about delving the boats or whether it's about pollution, whether it's about pollution. This would give us a seat at that table. And there would be a management plan that's where we could actually have more say in how those things are managed. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So the NSERAC committee that folded in March this year. So two years, 14 members, really good cross-section diversity representation of all water users. Was this plan, and in particular the conservation park, was that discussed and more importantly endorsed by the committee? Speaker 3: No, it wasn't discussed or endorsed by the committee.

01:43:00 That wasn't the remit of that committee. No, it wasn't. Mayor Stewart: Can I ask a question? The conservation park. If that gives us a seat at the table and gives us a voice. I mean, we're still beholden though to Big Brother, aren't we? We're still, the state is still the overarching. Speaker 3: That's right. Mayor Stewart: Group responsible. Speaker 3: On certain issues. There's a different number of different agencies responsible for different things. Mayor Stewart: So I'm just wondering, the conservation park, how would that, I know you said we have a seat at the table, but you worked with state to get the permits for the oysters. That was obviously required state approvals. So how would a conservation park and sitting at the table, how would that differ from where we are now? Speaker 2: I guess it's a formalised arrangement, whereas at the moment it's sort of just through our advocacy efforts that we've managed to, for example, work with MSQ. So it puts, I think, a form of governance around it.

01:44:00 Mayor Stewart: I guess my point is we have a seat at the table with the MSQ. We're co-chairs for the nursery of the state. We've got a advisory group. We're still beholden to state. They're still the ones who make the final decision. So whether or not we advocate, whether or not we've got a seat at the table. Speaker 3: This goes beyond a seat at the table. So we've had a seat at the table with MSQ, but ultimately they're the arbiter of the issues. And another term of the way forward, yes, we're heading forward. This would, this vests more in council in terms of having the management plan in place where there'd be shared objectives or goals and action for what needs to happen or what should happen in the conservation plan. That would be developed by council and signed off by other agencies. Mayor Stewart: So the conservation park, if council was to engage or go down this track, when that's being set up, does that go to community consultation? Speaker 3: It would be an engagement process, absolutely, to develop a management plan, yes.

01:45:00 Mayor Stewart: With all the people who are noted? Speaker 3: With all the stakeholders. All the stakeholders. Yeah, with whoever's got an interest in that space. Yep. And the management plan would be developed collaboratively with engagement, yes. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell and then Councillor Fitzgerald. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to give you the background. So, historically, I've sat as a State Government representative, both for DNR and the Department of Primary and Interest Securities, unless you ever plan working groups. They've always been aligned on the goodwill of State Government to implement what was largely seen as a council plan, even though the initial one was launched All of these are not licensed by the Minister. That goodwill waxes and wanes with each individual staff members and individual departments over time. When you have committed people on no state government, you do get action. There are some actions that have been there since

01:46:00 the very first river plan that haven't been progressed because they haven't had the minute and the goodwill. Is my understanding right that the conservation park and it's It's a management plan then becomes not just a council head of power but also gives the state government the management plan which they have to respond to. So for example, we talk about fisheries from a recreational or a commercial. Most of the fisheries modelling is done on a regional level. What the conservation park may give us the head of power to say no we want to do a local fish assessment to work out local fishing rules that reflect the objectives of the conservation park. So it does give us that ability to set in place a more structured formal governance mechanism to achieve those long standing aims of the Noosa River Plan. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes it does give us a more formal mechanism beyond Coorville.

01:47:00 Councillor Lorentson: Just as a clarification, maybe Brian or Kim, so are we saying that local, that under this management that we can use our own local scientists as opposed to state scientists or commonwealth scientists and they can determine what's sustainable, what's harmful. Is that what I've sort of understood? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm using the example of fisheries. Yep. Most of the fisheries management is based on regional assessment of stock. Look, they wouldn't probably have a mullet stock in the Noosa River for example. This one we might want to do our own set of commercial and recreational fish species and say actually this is probably the local management regime. It just gives you that head of power where you can get all the state government to say to meet these objectives we do a bit more analysis. Councillor Lorentson: So we can then as a council deem say fishing as unsustainable?

01:48:00 No, it still can't override. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's just about giving a more formal structure, governance structure in place to get to the point where the state government regulation reflects the aspirations of the community as expressed in the River Plan. Speaker 3: The River Plan also talks about sustainable fisheries. I mean this is, the driver behind the conservation plan is not commercial fishing. I think that we just found ourselves in that space. The River Plan also talks about commercial fisheries. The River Plan also talks about sustainable commercial fisheries. And you know council over the years has our approach to influence sustainable fisheries has been advocacy through the fishing reform process. And there's been significant reform of fisheries across the state and our local fisheries, our local commercial fisheries have felt that reform. You know there's been a tightening, tightening, tightening. And quotas and everything.

01:49:00 So that would still stick with the state government to determine what's sustainable, what quotas are, licenses, all of those things. That would not sit with us. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of recreational fisher persons, what would be the impact? Speaker 3: Well at the moment it's not regulated, rec fishing. But there are catch limits. Yeah there are catch limits. It is still a state issue. You know at some stage we have talked about doing a recreation fishing strategy. But you know it's not something that we're currently looking at doing. Speaker 2: I think one of the actions as well is to develop a dedicated monitoring and evaluation research program to support this. Because I think we don't have a very good sense of the baseline with some of these matters at the moment. So rec fishing, we don't have a good understanding of what impact that's having. So yeah having that dedicated monitoring program I think in place will help us be able to monitor things better over time.

01:50:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finstone has been very patient. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Mr Chair. Given there's a lot of conversation around governance, formal structures and conversations around this moving forward. Given our investment in transparency to our community. And promising to be an outward facing council and gendering trust given the history over the river. I'm interested in when we're looking at governance and agencies and you know everyone on the table playing in the space. Who is going to be like in terms of whatever comes out of this. Who is going to then be the people that regulate and for example give out fines. For breaches of whatever across all of the many things. At the moment we've got MSQ for example. They're short staffed. I understand that they're regulated by the number of hours that's given through their recruitment process.

01:51:00 And you know contracts of employment. So they're limited to the number of hours that they can be on the river policing it. Moving forward these are really vital questions about it's all good to like talk about governance. How are we going to deliver good governance. And what's the plan around how this is going to be regulated. And also the administration of that moving forward. So that it is clearly communicated back to our community. Like for example if someone's you know exceeding I don't know speed limits in your in your zone. And your management plan for your conservation park. Who's policing that. Is there a point where your local council is going to be regulating and handing out fines or. Speaker 3: It's still in MSQ. Councillor Finzel: It's still in MSQ. Yeah. Speaker 2: You've been having workshops with MSQ to work out what this might look like moving forward though. And it's sort of tossed it back into the court that council could play a bigger role in some of the compliance activities.

01:52:00 But I think it really sits with the state government agency. And we need to advocate and they have enough resources to do it. Councillor Finzel: So yeah. Question. Thank you. Back through the chair. So then when we talk about compliance. And they've called on local council. Or we have a role to play in that. What do you envisage that role is around compliance. Speaker 2: So at the moment the only commitment we have suggested is that our local laws offices could play a greater role in terms of being shipping inspectors. So we're still in the process of working out what council support might look like. But the head of power sits with staff. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Only a supporting role. Only a supporting role. Speaker 3: Like the conversation we had about TUR North Shore and how councils like the law offices would have a supporting role. But ultimately not the authority.

01:53:00 So that's what's being talked about. Local laws potentially having a supporting role. We've also talked about the river ranger program. And as you would know, Kabi Kabi Corporation has been seeking land and sea ranger funding for the river catchment. And they would like to, you know, if they're successful, like to have a presence on the Moosa River around education, cultural values, those sorts of things. So there's, the intention is that we have a stronger presence. Probably mainly around education, compliance and support, supporting the agencies. But the heads of power to find the speeding and things like that, that sits with NSQ, not with us. Councillor Jurisevic: So from the educational perspective, things like fishing line bins and things like that. Yes. And the community to utilise, understand what they're there for, where they're located and actually utilising them. Ensuring their equity. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Just coming back to the conservation park, I'm just noting some of the Queensland legislation

01:54:00 that's noted in this report. And it says, this is page 91 of the report. It's 19 of the report 91 of our agenda. It says significant parts of the catchments, fresh waters and estuary are designated high ecological value under the Environmental Protection Water Policy 2009 Act. The management intent for these waters is to maintain them as underdeveloped. Now, if the idea is to protect those fish habitats areas that are already status quo, doesn't that legislation right there protect it? And what are we over-regulating by then having the conservation park deemed? I mean, is it necessary if we've got legislation that already, state legislation that is our big brother, that already actually deems these areas protected and unusable? Speaker 3: It's not that the areas are unusable. You can see that our areas are very highly... Mayor Stewart: Well, sorry. Speaker 3: So there are layers... Undeveloped. There are layers and layers of legislation.

01:55:00 And there are also a range of agencies involved in management of the river. So yes, there are multiple layers. It's fish habitat area. There's limitations of what you can do with the fish habitat area. The challenge for us is we currently, Council don't currently have a seat at that table in terms of any legislative power. So issues, and I can tell you from experience of being in this organisation for many years about trying to get clear direction on issues in the river, and you would all know, you've all experienced being part of the NSTRAC and trying to get action on certain things is very... It's been very challenging around this. This mechanism gives us a greater opportunity to have a greater say in what happens in the Noosa River catchment. Mayor Stewart: So does it give us an additional head of power? Is that what you're saying? Speaker 3: It will give it. It does give us a legislative head of power. Mayor Stewart: So that means that we then as a council or councillors can determine, have more say of

01:56:00 what can and can't transpire in the river irrespective of what the state deems? Speaker 3: If you're alluding to whether we can say or not commercial fishing is appropriate or not, that's not what this is about. It's not... We don't... We can't override state legislation. State legislation sits there. They have the remit. So this is not about overriding state legislation at all. But it is about saying there are a range of objectives that we are wanting to achieve for our river and have been met. We've been wanting to achieve now for just under 20 plus years and have struggled to get some of them in place. This puts us in a much better position by having some legislative power around achieving some of those things. Councillor Jurisevic: Would an example of that be rehabilitation of seagrass, seagrass and mangroves? Speaker 3: Yeah, all of those sorts of things. Managing erosion.

01:57:00 Managing... Erosion management. Yes, there's another one. Mayor Stewart: But isn't that what we're doing with the Keepit and Kin Kin projects and all the projects we're doing in the Oyster Reefs? I mean, we've got kilometres worth of reefs in the... Isn't that already what we're doing? I'm just wondering why, you know, the adoption of this has to include a conservation park when it seems to me that... I understand the seat at the table. But the legislation is clear that it's state government. State government will override anyone at the table anyway. And is it necessary when we have protection measures already in place? Speaker 2: So the actioning of the plan is actually to consider this. We haven't gone right down the rabbit warren in terms of understanding all the ins and outs of what this might look like, but you see, as one option, it could be a good governance model for us moving forward. Speaker 3: And it's put to you for consideration. As officers, we think it's a good mechanism, we think it's a good balancing mechanism. We've taken into account all the feedback over many years around trying to get outcomes

01:58:00 in our river. And so we think this is a good mechanism. It's now put to you for consideration. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Jo. Councillor Finzel has another question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I do acknowledge that we do need a call of action. 20 years to keep something on the table and kicking the ball down the road is like incredulous to me. And I do acknowledge there is a big lot of people engaged, but yeah, for good governance, we do need to make some serious decisions. In terms of good fiscal management, in terms of transparency and engendering trust in our community, given our history and what's gone on in the river before my time here and during, I think we've really got to look at when you say we've got to look at what's going on in the river, we're not going down the rabbit hole, but we need some transparency around what does that mean? Just today when you raised that around local laws having a role in compliance, the question is then this would have to go to budget to consider through the Chair and how do you

01:59:00 see that and what's going to be the impact on our staffing that's already, we're at capacity as an organisation, how are we going to acknowledge that and bring that to budget and how many years down the track, we've seen how long it's taken with STA, putting officers in that for compliance, writing, all that, there's to me a lot, a large volume and body of work. Do you think one of the reasons we need this management plan when you talk about securing funding, is that funding going to be used for what purpose? For implementation of the actions in this plan. Yes. Yes. For the implementation and requirements? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes absolutely, like the plan very clearly says, at the moment the council are investing over $350,000 in the river for actions and projects and studies, and you know, we're already

02:00:00 investing a substantial amount in the river. The plan very clearly says any future implementation actions are subject to budget consideration, absolutely. So that will come back through council as it does annually around anything we invest in our waterways for your consideration. One of the, like Amy mentioned at the beginning, we need a catchment action plan in place to start to attract funding from state and federal agencies for our catchment. If we compare, and I don't have the figures here but I know we've looked at them briefly, compare the amount of investment that other surrounding catchment like Mary Catchment, for instance, get because they've had strong catchment management plans in place for some time, it's substantially different. We don't, we don't have the ability to attract that funding. Not having a clear catchment action plan is one of the advantages to that. We know of two funding streams already available that require a catchment action plan to have to be in place to attract that funding.

02:01:00 So we will be working really diligently and working on something at the moment in terms of the investment strategy for South East Queensland and the New Zealand rivers to try and attract that external funding. To help us achieve a whole lot of these implementation actions. Councillor Wilkie: Pamela, you had a question? Councillor Lorentson: I've got a few but I'll start with this one. The peer review, a note on page 149, that the draft catchment management plan was provided to Alluvium Consultancy, the Nature Conservancy, Marine Restoration and Oceans Project Coordinator, a local ecologist and former NR stakeholder advisory committee member and Noosa District Landcare for the purposes of peer review. My question is the former NR stakeholder advisory committee member, was that a rep from either the recreational fishes or commercial fishing group?

02:02:00 Because the rest seem to be like in the conservation or environmental group. Was there a bit of diversity in that selection? Speaker 2: So the intention of the peer review is very much to do a scientific review of the plan and in terms of the threats and community values, where do we really need to focus our efforts. It's not intended to be a community consultation review process. We've deliberately selected scientists and people that work in that space in our community catchment management. Mayor Stewart: I guess the concern with that though, Amy, is part of this plan talks about jetties and pontoons, public and private. It talks about public safety. I mean, these are all things that are beyond a scientific research person's interest. Speaker 2: Yeah, so as you know, we have those dedicated workshops on the recreational boating facilities study, which MSQ commissioned and we're continuing engagement with MSQ with regards to that.

02:03:00 We have been meeting with the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance to talk about some of these matters. So the intention is, moving forward, absolutely we will continue to engage with the community on the specific areas of interest that they have. Councillor Wilkie: Karen, do you have another question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I just have a question. Where does Noosa Shire sit in the Noosa River catchment? Where do we, geographically, where do we fit in that Mary River catchment area? Speaker 2: So one third of the Shire is the Mary River catchment and the other two thirds is the River catchment. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The whole of the catchment is in the Shire. Councillor Finzel: The whole of the Noosa River catchment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, except for the... Councillor Jurisevic: The bit up north, is it? The bit up north. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, Mo. Councillor Finzel: Is that why we've had trouble attracting funding from a higher level?

02:04:00 Because we don't have a plan. Speaker 8: Oh, because we haven't had a plan. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's, just to clarify, that's the difference in the River plan that we've had in the past and what we've developed here. It's not just a River plan, it's now a River catchment plan. Councillor Wegener: It's a whole of the catchment. Councillor Jurisevic: Incorporating all of those inflows and things where Council has remit to actually undertake erosion control management and all of those sort of things that we haven't had a plan for in the past. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I mean, I didn't want to test it, but they're not much. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I will test this. And as I'm doing this, I'm on DAF's site reading the Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027, and I'm looking at it going, what's wrong with it? Is this plan... Nothing wrong with it. So, nothing wrong. So, does this plan circumvent that? Like, I'm just full of questions at the moment, Kim. So, it's not... Because that looks great to me, and I've read the management plan too.

02:05:00 So, this is aligned, meant to circumvent. Where... Speaker 3: No, I don't know how much clearer I can say it. Yeah, please. No, you see it over us. Sustainable Fisheries is regulated by the state. Okay. Under the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy, they've had a review and reform agenda for a number of years to move to what's deemed sustainable fisheries, and they're looking at it all the time. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. They've got... Speaker 3: So, this... Our plan does not circumvent that. Correct. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Just needed clarity. You get regular updates from them with regard to... Okay. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question while you're ready to go, because I've got a question I'm still looking at. Yep. Just on page 22, 94 of the agenda, 22 of the report. I think that's right. It might be the other way around. Page... Yeah, 94 of the agenda. Oh, yeah. It's... We talk here about the Kabi Kabi. It's critical that the Indigenous historical, cultural, environmental, and conservation heritage... This will be achieved by ensuring Kabi Kabi are your key partners.

02:06:00 Absolutely, they should be. What has their involvement been in the past, and what's their advice going forward? What involvement have they had in the past, and what's their advice going forward? Speaker 2: That predates my time. But I understand Jane Madden was liaising with them when she was developing the 2019 draft. I think we've had a particular model of engagement in place with the Kabi Kabi for the past two years. I think it is. But, unfortunately, that has to move forward. It hasn't been working too well. And so we've now moved to more of a distributed engagement approach, and that seems to be working better. We had a dedicated workshop with them on this river plan. They also shared, in confidence with us, their health country plan, which sets out their aspirations. So, yeah, it's very much an important priority for us to ensure they're properly engaged.

02:07:00 Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener: Right. Tom, do you have a question? Yes. Just the following one. Does Kabi Kabi, or the native title, cover the river? Cover the water areas as well? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Can we have a second for Amelia's motion, please, to test it? I'm having a second for debate. Seconded by Councillor Finzel for purpose of debate. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I'd like to move a procedural motion to defer this matter to the next round of meetings, to allow councillors and other stakeholders an opportunity to discuss this matter. We need to consider the details and implications of the draft Noosa River Catchment Plan and provide feedback. And I do so because I've spoken to two members from NSERAC and members from the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance, all who have raised some concerns about the draft. And today, a lot of my questions have been answered.

02:08:00 But deferring it to the next round of meetings. This round of meeting allows them that same opportunity, excuse me, allows them that same opportunity. I acknowledge NSERAC was wound up earlier this year, but I think out of respect to the representatives of the committee and to their wealth of knowledge, there were 40 members who essentially represented every water user. Noosa River water user. So I think it would be just the right thing to do to invite them for feedback and ideally endorsement of the draft, of the draft plan. As you know, we've all witnessed just now, there are lots of issues, implied unknown implications, confusion, concerns. So the deferrals.

02:09:00 Not only to allow. Feedback from the NSERAC, but it's also to allow counsellors and what I'd be requesting is a further workshop for all the counsellors, again, to understand the details. This is the first time the draft has come to our attention, the full draft. And I've got, you know, as everyone can see, a thousand and I, and I look at detail and I need to be certain. I need to be certain that, A, that all river stakeholders maintain equitable access to the river and that all the key players partake in this draft. It's important and it is certainly exciting. It's a plan that needs to be endorsed, but I just think we've waited so long. Can we just allow another month so that we can dispel, confirm, whatever. Just. Just the unknowns or what I call the confusion.

02:10:00 So I'll leave it to the table. But my request is defer the motion for the next round of meetings to allow all players and counsellors to have a say and understand again the details and implications of what's been put before us. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Morrison. Councillor Jay, any questions? Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to this document, what is the level of community engagement that we've had to be able to achieve? Speaker 2: We've had two rounds of public consultation that occurred for the 2019 draft. We've had three counsellor workshops, one of which was squarely focused on the MSQ stuff. But nonetheless, we've had, as you can see, all those different groups being consulted in the development of this version of the plan. It has been, as you can see, we've had two rounds of public consultation that occurred for the 2019 draft.

02:11:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And as you said earlier, there's ongoing communications with the Baiting and Fishing Alliance. Speaker 2: That's correct. That's the intention. Speaker 3: With all the stakeholders. Councillor Jurisevic: With all stakeholders. Yeah. Speaker 3: There's a lot of, there's a lot of implementation. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the one that counsellor, counsellor specifically mentioned. That's why I mentioned that. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll be supporting the deferral motion. We've had six years of consultations leading up to this point. Motioned in January 2017 to review it and put the nursery plan into a whole catchment management framework as generally outlined by the staff report at the time. And to undertake stakeholder analysis to determine a proper way forward in terms of community engagement. We have had multiple forms of community engagement. We should, as counsellors, have really clearly understood what the issues facing the river is and what our aspirations for the river are.

02:12:00 We have currently got a report that has been workshopped. And I'm quite clear where it's all come from because we've had the chance to workshop the key elements of this draft. To suggest a small group that no longer exists should have a final say over what has been thousands of hours of community engagement. And I'm quite clear that the need for a new community consultation to me is an affront to the others. It's time for political leadership. I certainly have a clear idea of what the outcome to the Noosa River should be. And I believe the plan that has been put before us is a professional plan that respects the input and views of the broad range of the community and is based on achieving best practices. I don't believe we should be in the same position as we were this time last term of putting it off. We were in a position to be able to adopt it in late 2019, early 2020, and we decided

02:13:00 we'd put it off and avoid doing it before the election. We need to do it now. I don't need any more advice from the community. I'm quite aware of what the different points of view are. I'm quite aware of what the science is. And I'm quite aware of what the overwhelming majority of the community want for the Noosa River. And I believe this plan will help us achieve it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Strickland. Mayor Stewart: I do support the deferral for one month. Councillor Stockwell, we weren't here in 2017. We weren't here in 2019. We weren't part of that draft river plan in 2019. This is the first time, as of this weekend, I have seen this plan in full use. I understand that there have been groups engaged. And it is a great plan. There are fantastic things to this plan. And you should be commended on it. Sorry. I'm saying something positive.

02:14:00 You should be commended on it. The staff should be commended on all their hard work. But if I have questions, and Councillor Lorentson has questions, and we're fielding questions, one month. We're not asking Councillor Stockwell to defer this to March, to April. We're asking for one month. So, Kim, what you've told us, and I don't even want to look at you because I'm going to lead it this way. What Kim's told us at this table makes sense. It puts our minds at ease. It puts any concerns raised to bed. However, that needs to be dispelled. And not everyone in the community watches this meeting. We know that. That needs to be able to be achieved or expelled to the community at large. I feel that we've waited this long. What is one month? And we can have it back. We can provide that information to our community. The information we've heard at the table today. And the main thing, we need all buy-in from all the community.

02:15:00 That's what this is about. It's about our community, about the best interests of our community. It's about to be completely transparent to our community. They should be across all the facts and the justification and the reasoning. And as I said, it all makes sense. It's a great plan. But it needs to be communicated, I believe, in more detail with the broader members of our community who do have those concerns. I think the number one problem, the number one concern, and it was very clear when I sat as an observer on NSERAC, and it was a bipartisan agreement, was the liveaboards. The effluent coming from the liveaboards. Was the moorings. Was the anchorage. Was getting rid of those eyesores in our river. You can't do that in the Mooroochee River. You can't just go and park your boat. You can do it in the Noosa River. That's the number one thing that we should be focusing on. The effluent coming from that is a disgrace. It affects our safety of our people swimming.

02:16:00 It affects our environment. That is what we should be focused on. Now that's noticed here at 30, 3.3, item 30, 31, and 32. That should be front. That should be number one. So it's documented and it's noted, and I understand MSQ are working in that space, which is great. And that's been achieved through the hard work of Amy, and the NSERAC, and MSQ. Larry, you chair that. And this plan, as I said, is a good one. But I just think one month, it doesn't, it won't hurt. In fact, I think it'll actually give full support and full credence to a plan that is very good. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, MSQ. Chair. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify a couple of things said there. Who was responsible for all of those elements that were mentioned by Councillor Stewart with regard to river boards, moorings, dumping in the river, and all of those things?

02:17:00 Components. Speaker 2: Within the plan, you mean? Yeah. So the plan has been developed using the 2019 draft, the public consultation period, the input from river committee members, to all those other stakeholders. And who's responsible? Councillor Jurisevic: Who's responsible for administering? MSQ. State agencies? Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: That's clear. Speaker 3: But, Jo, as you know, we've, you know, to get the, you know, to get the, you know, the section, we've taken a lot of work from this council. Councillor Jurisevic: I get it. Yes, yeah. I get it. Just that doesn't change though, does it. Those elements still be with them. No, no. Our role to, as is articulated in this, is to continue to advocate and continue to get a close, a better relationship to try and ensure that those, those matters are addressed and continue to be addressed by those state agencies. Speaker 2: That's correct, at the operational level I have fortnightly catch-ups with the MSQ officer to make sure that we're ticking things over locally as well.

02:18:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, can I ask a question? Just follow up with Jo. One of the action claims I think, what I read in the report, was to continue to work with MSQ to regulate the management of anchoring, mooring and liverboards in the Noosa River. And the status was subject to future budget consideration. So, is that contrary to what I understood the Noosa River Advisory Committee had already done that and now it's up to MSQ to implement the plan? So, why are we continuing to work and why is their budget sort of allocated for that? I thought that was done and dusted. Speaker 2: So, they're still working through the machinery of government process. They've asked us. They've asked us to have another workshop with them soon, I don't know when, so we've had one already, as I mentioned, to look at what role does Council need to play in supporting them to implement these reforms.

02:19:00 Speaker 3: And I think we'll have to continue to keep working with them, to keep the presence here, to keep the investment here, I think we're just going to have to keep at that. Councillor Lorentson: I agree, because the pressure is working. Yeah, absolutely. Councillor Jurisevic: And Council Oriston alluded to where my next question was going and that is, the actions within this plan are to continue to work and negotiate with those state agencies for implementation of better actions or further actions with regard to the concerns that have been raised by NSERAC and the community at large over many, many years with regard to derelicts and all that stuff. So, I'm happy that those issues are addressed quite clearly and articulated quite well within this plan. Councillor Wilkie: And I note this in the staff recommendation that there's the implementation will involve more stakeholder engagement and consultation. As an involving partnership with key stakeholders and that will involve explanation of what certain actions are meant, similar discussions that we've had, and also minor edits.

02:20:00 So, I suggest it's a dynamic relationship that we're going to be having with the community. Speaker 3: This is a roadmap, you know, it's got, it has to be a collaborative effort. You know, we've got a swag of state agencies, we've got jurisdiction here, we've got a multitude of uses. So, anything that, you know, we go to implement is going to have to be a co-design, collaborative approach. And that, you know, I'm pretty comfortable that the plan says that in a number of ways. It says that right up front. Councillor Jurisevic: It's a partnership, there are many people involved. Speaker 3: It says it in the outcome statements that, you know, collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement is a fundamental tenet. And then it lists the partners in every action. So, it's very embedded in terms of partnership. Partnering and engagement. This just provides us a roadmap and a head of power to actually move into implementation. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll speak to this particular motion.

02:21:00 I really appreciate where this is coming from because this is a very important document. A lot of detail. It's a very significant piece of work. It'll take a lot of time to develop. And it's very difficult to get across all the detail. There's so many ranges. But there is opportunity between now and the ordinary meeting on Thursday night for councillors that have any outstanding questions to sit down to staff. If staff think it's merited, we can have another briefing session, similar to the one we had on June 22nd, where we talk through the key actions. No questions are off the table. We've got the final draft before us. We can thrash that up between now and Thursday. But I agree. This is a leadership pursuit. After so many years, we've had a period of consultation during this term. There's been targeted stakeholder consultation.

02:22:00 I agree with what's been said. It is a fantastic document. It will, if we endorse it, this round of meetings, allow staff to start applying for the funding. And unlike other catchments in South East Queensland, Noosa doesn't have a river catchment plan. And if we're waiting for all to get buy-in from all members of the community, it's not going to happen because there's so many diverse stakeholders involved. And therein lies the difficulty for decision makers such as us. You're never going to get consensus on something like this. There'll be some things that various stakeholders will like and those won't, and vice versa. So seeking to delay this to get a consensus, I think, is a bit unrealistic. I think the staff recommendations suggest ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders to have the sort of discussions we've had today at this table about the suggested action to consider a conservation plan and what that means.

02:23:00 The benefits, pros, cons, and dispel the uncertainties. I think this is a great invitation to a conversation with the key stakeholders. This is a great piece of work. I think this is a great piece of work. I'm in favour of showing leadership, backing the process so far, putting it out, endorsing it, letting the staff get on with applying for the much needed funding and having those conversations with stakeholders. And any councillors that do have outstanding questions, to seek the time, one on one, take hours if you need it, to get the detail you need before Thursday night. So for those reasons, because we've got a lot of other work we need to understand. So, for that reason, I won't be supporting this motion to defer to an LMI, because I don't know where that might lead, but would it lead to another, because it's, would there be more dissension that it leads to further delights.

02:24:00 So, I'll be voting against. Council Leader? Councillor Wegener: Guess what, I'm interested in silts going into the river. I thought we were joined this evening that the plan, you know, actually addressed that, and it brought the Deriverella situation up, so if you didn't join us. I'm sorry, point of order? Councillor Finzel: Yep, I'm calling a point of order. What before us now, the Speaker is not speaking to the motion. The motion is we're discussing whether or not we're going to allow an extension of time to give community members further conversation. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, it's a very good point of order, and it's upheld. Can you speak to the motion to defer, or not? Councillor Wegener: I think there is an urgency to get this plan over the line, because I think that we need to just, we need to get hammering down dirt roads, changing our aspects of dealing with those, all sorts of things need to get into action.

02:25:00 I'm so happy that the plan addresses those, and so, as you say, there's a lot of different aspects that people are interested in, and that happens. It might have been a primary focus, and we've been waiting on this for a really long time, and I'd love to see it get implemented ASAP, because I think it's, you know, it needs to happen, it needs to get moving on this. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Whittemore. Speaker 2: I'd just like to add something as well. There's been a lot of work happening internally on this as well, and I really want to acknowledge all the other areas of council that have contributed to this, because it's about trying to get our own house in order as well. So, by having that plan there, it means all the areas of council committed to the same thing. We're not working at odds with each other. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.

02:26:00 Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: No, can I close, or not? No, I can do it. Sorry, I'm thinking about you. No, you can do it. Jo, I can do it. Councillor Finzel: Oh, jeez. Happy for you to go, Councillor. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm not going to support this. Mentions of other stakeholders. An opportunity to consider the new housing plan. We've had umpteen opportunities for all stakeholders to have an input into the draft Noosa River capital plan. I appreciate that not everyone will agree with every element of the plan. I don't think we get that with any plan that we undertake. But I, like Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wilkie, have been through this for a number of years, going forward, and heard much input from all the stakeholders over a long, long time. And I think I commend staff that the draft plan is here, ready for implementation. It means it's been, to be at this point, it's been through stakeholder engagement.

02:27:00 It's been through the level of council workshops and support. It's been through the studies and all the, and all the like. And I think the time to act is, is now. Councillor Wilkie: I have a question of staff. Out of respect for some of the concerns that your council has had about not being asked to move, is it possible to have a scheduled briefing time between now and Thursday where we all can attend and add our questions and answers? Speaker 1: I think this is up to you. If you can clear your diaries, you do it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Through the chair. Thank you everyone for your voices at the table today. I appreciate what's been done and I acknowledge the volume of work that's been undertaken and I do respect that. I understand the volume of engagement over the years. But when we're here today talking about leadership, good decision making, leadership to me is

02:28:00 about being flexible. We've got community. It's not about me understanding deeper the rabbit holes. It's about me being flexible. It's about giving voice to our community that has contacted me when they've seen this report with some concerns. I have not been here for all the iterations and when we talk about purposeful leadership and political acumen, I'm more for anyone for a call to action for something that has gone on for so long. So I support this motion. Because what it's giving is opportunity for community who we serve and we're outward facing to, given good leadership is about acknowledging failure and conflicts in the past that hopefully by giving one month, we can actually give to our community a better voice and understanding

02:29:00 around what's gone on in the river, given the historical, sometimes not positive outcomes that have gone on through this council and previous councils with regard to community engagement. So I support this motion. We're asking for four weeks, only four weeks to alleviate the concerns that have been raised to, through the Mayor, Amelia, myself, and I'm sure you've all received the emails, surely we can afford our community four more weeks to help have a bit of narrative and conversation rather than further down the track when we are being bombarded. Because where is the transparency? How is this happening? How are we administrating this? You heard the questions asked at the table today. I would prefer to be more proactive than have to be reactive further down the track.

02:30:00 So I support this and I thank Councillor Amelia for bringing this to the table today. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I will. I'm going to close by actually quoting a former NSERAC committee member. They said, public policy must be transparent, consultative and allow players to have a say. That's what this deferral motion is about. It's about us honouring our commitment. To transparency, to consultative purposes, and to genuine community engagement. That's what leadership is to me. Fear of further dissension is not a reason not to defer this.

02:31:00 Fear of further dissension should be a reason to actually support this motion to defer for one month. Maybe we've missed something. We need to keep an open mind and we need to allow every player an opportunity to have their say. It doesn't mean we're going to agree to it. It doesn't mean I'm not going to approve the plan. I love the plan. My concern is that we've waited so long. What's another four weeks? I just think the risk of not allowing proper time to consult with the members of the community that have approached us is the wrong decision. The draft has been out, but the members that I've spoken to said it was the first time they had ever heard of a consultation.

02:32:00 We need to know, does the community actually want a legislated marine park? What are the implications for pro-fisherman rec users and those users caught outside conservation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is a point of order that, no, it's not. It's clarification. We just mentioned a marine park and that's not intended. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, excuse me. Conservation. Excuse me. Conservation park. So again, the opportunity we've just been given over the last hour to have a lot of our questions answered and our concerns settled, and they have been settled. I think we owe that to the community as well. So I hope that someone will reconsider their decision and allow this motion to go through. Councillor Wilkie: Well spoken, Councillor Lorentson.

02:33:00 If the motion goes in favour? I'll reconsider. Councillor Stewart, Lorentson, Derisovic, and Larson. Thank you. Finzel? Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Against? Councillors Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. The motion is carried and the motion has been deferred. Next item is the financial performance report. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Trent. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Not regret, thank you. Hello, Trent. Welcome. Just note that Karen's left the room.

02:34:00 Could you give us an overview of the financial performance report? She's back. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Good afternoon, Councillors. The Egenia sketchs... August 2023... Council The numbers presented in the report are the revised budget, or Budget Review 1, which includes all Taeoro representative so the... You'll notice in the report that the net budget position accounts for the $1.3 billion operating costs above budget expectations. This is a mix of $27 million of general or unrestricted operating funds and a further $0.6 of constrained funds through levies, waste, and commercial business activities. It is now comprising that $1.3 billion of return, $0.9 million of that is revenue above budget.

02:35:00 There's a number of movements up and down on that. Overall, we were seeing revenue and sales, grants, upside is offsetting rates, revenue, and fees being on the budget. In more detail, we'll see that federal rates is $193,000 on the budget to date. It's a combination of take-up of discount, timing, valuation changes where rate payers have queried and reviewed their VCV valuation with the Department of Resources, and the take-up of potential rebate. That is offset, as I mentioned, more interest revenue, which is above budget, or equal pay above budget due to the additional interest revenue we're getting from holding cash funds for prior return of the loan. Also to note, sales are up in terms of holiday parks and community facilities fees. Noting those fees are often offset with corresponding direct costs for commissioning and operating costs for those facilities.

02:36:00 So you'll see that feature through the operating costs. In terms of expenses, two months through the financial year, salaries and wages are tracking slightly under budget due to vacant positions. But you'll also note that this is partially offset by an increase in casualty rates. There are some minor movements between business areas in terms of timing of their spending at this early stage of the financial year. In terms of capital, Capital Works and their supporting grants and external funding of an ambitious $52 million capital program is largely tracking in line with budget at this early stage. Which you will see will accordingly Capital Works and Equal Opportunity Rewards for the first quarter of the course next month. We'll close off in terms of cash.

02:37:00 Cash Council has just issued its biannual rates. So August position is the peak in the cash cycle for Council. It's $141 million sitting in cash. It's important to note the majority of that is working capital for the next six months. Between now and then we'll reissue the rates in January. And also a significant amount of restricted cash. For example, QRA funding for the Black Mountain Recovery and other disaster recovery grants. Which we have received in the past financial year. But you will note that we do a quarterly deep dive in our restricted cash. So we provide that through the reports. And that is the executive summary for the August. Thanks, Pat. Councillor Jurisevic: You went over the general rate being $193k below year-to-date budget. That's not something we often see when we're looking at the rates and levies. You mentioned the pensioner discounts. But the pensioner discounts, from my recollection, were accounted in the budget.

02:38:00 And shouldn't be impacting on the bottom line of general rate. We had that factored in to our calculation of the general rate return, did we not? Speaker 7: The accommodation of the impact of some of the calculations on the full take-up. But also there's been an increase in some of those as well. It's not the key driver. But I thought the transparency would include the fact that there's a combination. Councillor Jurisevic: So we didn't actually get the figure right? We've recalculated? Speaker 7: We've recalculated. Councillor Jurisevic: OK. And the other element there with regard to those land revaluations. Do people then defer payment to their rates until that land revaluation occurs? Or are they still required to pay their rates and then receive a discount if their land valuation alters as a result of a request of the State? I'm just trying to ascertain, yeah, if there's a lag in payment of those rates as a result of that deferral for land.

02:39:00 If you can, that would be... Just trying to understand how that works in the process. Speaker 7: The important part is, as you know, that it's well within the powers of rate payers as those valuations come out every year, and why annually that they can query those with the Department of Resources, and then we recalculate the rates accordingly. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm just wondering whether that puts a hold on them paying their rates or until that revaluation has occurred, that's all. Councillor Wilkie: Any other questions, councillors? Mayor Stewart: I have a question. Trent, thank you. Always a very comprehensive report. The cash expense cover, we're at 15.4 months. That's, I mean, it's always pretty high, but that's a lot higher than it has been. Sure. Speaker 7: One of the things we need to do, obviously one of the improvements we can do for that is that is our total cash position. So in terms of a best practice approach, we break out what is our free cash or our unrestricted cash for our everyday operations in our working capital,

02:40:00 versus that cash which is restricted. The reason why it's sitting so high, the comment I made earlier about the cash balance with restricted cash and grants in advance, when you look at factors such as the prepayment that QRA have come through on a number of disaster recovery, as well as prepayment for state waste levies, they are one that over the next five years to residential, domestic and residential waste generators, that's all sitting in restricted cash. And the unspent levies, there's a significant amount of that cash that is restricted. When you consider just the unrestricted component, which is your day-to-day operating, it's well within that three to six month gap. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. The counterbalance of that is that there's a higher balance in the bank account and interest earning on that higher balance until that money is expended on it. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Trevor. Any other questions for staff? I'm pretty good at handling that. Can we move the motion? Yeah, I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Elizabeth.

02:41:00 Second. Seconded by Mayor Stewart. Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, thank you for the ongoing work of the finance staff. You can see clearly in our day-to-day financial performance summary that we're on track for above budget in all elements, and I think the sound financial position speaks for itself. Thank you for all the efforts in keeping us in check. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors speak? Thank you. Thank you, Trane. Thank you, Trane. All those in favour? Thank you, Trane. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Trane. Next item is the year in review. The year in review. What a big year it's been, hasn't it, Larry? Mayor Stewart: Goodness me. Councillor Jurisevic: I feel tired just reading it. I just think of Cactus Island every time I hear that. Speaker 1: Okay. I'll give you a quick summary, and then I've got three directors here as well, so if you've got questions for them. This report really has been provided by the staff and the directors in line with our corporate plan. It runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.

02:42:00 I would say, right up front, it is a good effort. As you know, our CEO, Scott Waters, was with us for the majority of this period, but left in May of this year, 2023, so I've been acting in that role since. And so to pull together this report and to pull together the work that's involved in this report is really, really amazing. It's a great effort from the whole of the organisation, led by the executive team. So commendations, I guess, to those people across the whole staff, but certainly to the leadership group as well. As you say, it is a massive amount of work, and for my part, it's a privilege to lead the organisation. So when you look at it, when you pull it apart like this, you see the amount that actually Councillor Wilkie: is happening behind the scenes. Speaker 1: A lot of it comes to this table. A large majority of it doesn't come to this table. So there are many things that are happening. So based on the...

02:43:00 It's based on the previous corporate plan, so it's directed to that corporate plan, and as we know, we've created a new corporate plan during this period, which is the corporate plan that we're now working forward on for the 2023-2024 budget. The five themes of the corporate plan are Noosa environment, Noosa community, Noosa economy, and long-term planning and excellence as a council. So that's the way the report is geared, and talks to those particular themes of the corporate plan. As I said, it's compiled by the departments, based on their branch plans, which is the plans that they work off individually. Then there's the operational plan, which is our organisation across the operational plan for the organisation, which then feeds back up into the corporate plan. I've pulled out 10 different plans. There's 10 highlights for the year, but obviously, they are just some of the year. And so I'm more than happy to take feedback on those as well, as to whether they are considered

02:44:00 the 10 highlights. This also has to go into our annual report as well. So in terms of the highlights, there's other things in here that you think need to be certainly brought to the surface, and higher to the surface, and I'm more than happy to take that. I'll take you through those top 10 if I can. The first one being the rebuilding of our quite impacted communities. As we've seen, that's just a massive piece of work that's ongoing. Unfortunately, it's taken us a lot of time to get through some of those pieces, because it's just, you know, we weren't the only ones impacted. Getting the right people on the job, and making sure that we do it properly, and do it correctly, and work with QRA, who are our major funders in this. The budget is somewhere close to $100 million. It's a massive piece of work that we need to consider. Our overall budget as an organisation, but our infrastructure budget is, you know, $50

02:45:00 million, their amounts. So to have $100 million overlaid on top of our capital works is massive. The corporate plan now. It's now in place. That took a massive amount of work to get to that point as well, from our staff, right through the staff. We've got a lot of work to do. But again, we need to give the thanks and support to our directors who have really pulled it together. So it really is Kim and Kerri, who were the main drivers in the end of that document, obviously with you as councillors. So that's a 23, it's a five year plan, from 23 to 2028. Infrastructure achievements. So we've delivered the largest capital works this year, $43 million. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: So again, didn't quite hit the absolute number. There's some that roll over, but again, some of that is also in stuff that we can't deliver in the 12 month period. So it rolls over into the current financial year.

6.2 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2023 ¶

▶ 02:45:24

02:46:00 So that's been a massive piece of work. And again, just ongoing. You go downstairs to our infrastructure team and it's just a constant reel. It's rolling. Councillor Wilkie: And trying to get through all the work that's there. Speaker 1: Our new council brand, which we see around the place. Some of our venues have now taken up that branding. And I personally think it's a great brand. It's a great thing. Change for us. It just refreshes exactly what we do and what we stand for. And I think you'll see more of that as it comes out. So again, it's just been a large piece of work that goes on. But I think that's a really key piece for us to, say, reflect on. This is where we're now going forward. And it is looking forward. It's a brand. The health is looking forward. It's clean. It's fresh. And it's quite dynamic, I think. And usable. Stable financial management, as we've just heard. If you go to any of these conferences with local government, there are a number of local

02:47:00 governments who really do struggle to keep their head above water. And or aren't able to keep their head above water at times. And I think that's something that we've seen here through a whole lot of change. But we are, you know, we're a reasonably small council in a lot of respects. And to be able to do what we do and deliver what we do and keep ourselves in the financial position we're at is a real credit to everybody involved. We've also implemented our SPARC values. So our supportive, passionate, accountable, respectful and committed values, which we've now rolled out. And Scott Waters was very much the leader of that. Pushing that through. And of course the staff in endorsing and accepting and living those values. And that's very much now starting to show great value to the organisation. Housing strategy. We all know that's a piece of work.

02:48:00 And we spoke to that on Friday at a meeting. But it's, or a presentation. The housing strategy is something that we've been working on for a long time. And it's something that we've done to give us not dissimilar to Gruber Plan. Gives us a path forward. Gives us something to hang everything on. As we get these challenges that we're now currently facing with the housing issues of affordable housing and the likes in every area of Australia. So I think that's a big piece of work. The strategy is something that's really to accept that and to have that as our baseline. Yep. To utilise as really important. Fire management. As we know, we've now been through the floods. We're into a fire issue. And just while I'm sitting here, there's bees going off. Bee wire, I've spilled some. Yep. I've got them too. Got them over the weekend. So everything is okay up there. But that's just an indication of what we're potentially, you know, across Queensland.

02:49:00 Not just us, but across many areas. But we've got 178 bushland reserves, covering over three and a half, nearly three and a half thousand hectares. We've got a plan in place. We've been able to do a whole lot of planned burns. And we've increased, as we've noted in our media in recent times, we've actually increased our capacity to do those planned burns. We don't deliver the firefighting exercise. We have people. Our job is to help and support. If there's a fire, it's Kufus and the local authorities that make over in that area. But we do have the ability, or have the, with all of our technology that we're putting in place now, we have the ability to support and do a lot. So that's a huge piece of work. And it's keeping our community as safe as we possibly can. The Living Well Nurser is a program which offers the residents free and low-cost access to a range of health and wellbeing activities, which again, is just a, it's a great thing

02:50:00 for us to be able to do. And again, within our financial ability and our service ability. So I think, again, it's a great marker in front of what we're doing. Excuse me. Thank you. And then the last one in here, but it's certainly, there's no order of number, is our climate change resilience. And there's been a huge amount of work, not to mention with the CHAP, the zero emissions exercise. The work that we're doing with our community factories, rolling that out. And just continuing to look at new ways and better ways to deal with the climate change that potentially is coming our way, or everybody's way. So we need to put ourselves in a just possible position to do that. And I think that we're achieving that. We have to live in the means that we have. Councillor Jurisevic: Fair the tent. Speaker 1: As I say, there's multitude more. But it's, this is just a quick highlight of everything that's going on.

02:51:00 If everybody's, anybody's got any questions, then I'm more than happy. Moving forward, I keep saying it, and it's even made it kind of difficult to get into the vernacular of the organisation, but we are trying to get on with it. And the idea is to support our staff to be able to get on with it. And it seems that we are. If you look at the amount of work that's happening here, clearing the path for our staff to just be able to get on with their jobs is a really important piece. And that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a huge direction that we, that we're trying to move across the organisation as we go forward. Thank you, Larry. Mayor Stewart: Questions? Ms Stewart. I was going to say, I was happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie: It's, yeah. Move, move, Ms Stewart. Second, Ms Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, thank you, Larry. I was, I had all the 10 written down, but I've also got some others. I won't rehash the 10 that you've gone through, but it just shows that there is, I mean, I was tired. It's late last night, but I was tired reading this. So, there is a huge amount of work and the staff should be very much congratulated and please pass on our thanks and appreciation because there is so much to this.

02:52:00 And as I say all the time for small council, we certainly continue to back well above our average. So, please pass on our appreciation and to all the directors too, to each of their groups. On top of the 10 highlights, these are just a few things I picked out as well. We've got more land, 42% of land under conservation, which is more than ever before. We've upgraded our Noosa trail network. We've got a new mobile library service and we've got the two new vending kiosks, making our library services more accessible. We've had the shade cell erected over the 25 metre pool at the knack and the starting blocks upgraded from the 50 metre pool to world aquatics rated equipment. We've had ongoing maintenance and upgrade works at the J and the leisure centre. We've had over 3 million in funding secured through six different funding programs for sports strategy and development from our great sports strategy and development team led by Brad, Amanda and Margaret. The Olive Donaldson pavilion at Tewantin has delivered an upgrade and a pump track at Sundial

02:53:00 Park. Our sports strategy and development team are also supporting or have supported community groups and some of 360,000 for community led projects across the Shire, looking at LED lighting upgrades, field renovations, fencing and irrigation. Our same sports strategy and development team have delivered or are working on five different planning projects with an approximate value of $480,000. This includes the Regen Feasibility and the Noosa District Sports Complex LMP, Cooroy Sports Complex Redevelopment and Fencing Project, a non-powered water sport project and commencement of Noosa Leisure Centre Needs Assessment Project. We've engaged and supported over 1,650 seniors from across the Noosa Shire who accessed one or more of our services. I think that's such a great number. It's a huge amount of people we have serviced. Over 50,000 hours of service have been provided from individual care, home cleaning to in-home support services. Our Peregian Digital Hub, thanks to Chris Bowden and all the team down there with the new AI Lab, state of the art, they are leading the FireTech Connect program down there and

6.3 YEAR IN REVIEW - 2022/23 ¶

▶ 02:53:36

02:54:00 it really is world class. We've adopted the Small Business Friendly Charter. We've worked so hard in grant money to develop an industry and employment action plan for Noosa Shire. We've had the Destination Management Plan draft is out for consultation. The Noosa Business Roundtable's continued. We've had planning scheme amendments sent to the state government, a short stay team established to administer local law and a whopping amount of capital infrastructure projects on page 119 onwards. So really well done. That's again, that's just a snapshot. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Right, thank you. Any other councillors, Mr Smith? Jones? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, more like 110. Yeah. Mr CEO, or 210 or 310. Yeah, yeah. Like the Mayor over there, re-reading it again over the weekend, you know, I was exhausted. Never ending. And the Mayor's probably mentioned a few that I'll mention again next year because

02:55:00 they don't culminate until the, until this financial year, so this is. Anybody doubts the diversity and the complexity of work that Council undertakes, it's like no other business that you can ever imagine. The length, breadth and scope of commitment to the community here is overwhelming to say the least. And I commend the CEO, the former CEO, the acting CEO, all of the directors, all of the staff. They're involved in achieving the outcomes for the last financial year. Thank you very much to all. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, John. Councillor Finzel: Anybody else, Mr Smith? Karen? I'll go on, yeah. I just would like to reiterate everything that's been done in the table. We had community tell us they wanted a call to action, so I think this can show where the call of action's been. I'd just like to mention the Cooroora Trail upgrade, which was great to see that opened

02:56:00 and, you know, getting a lot of users. I think we're here in about 500 or 600 a week going through there, which is fantastic, giving us that connectivity between the towns and the hinterland. And also, what I'd like to see too is the activation of community with health and wellbeing. The programs we've got out there to engage, you know, all levels of our community and interests is, it's really great to see that being delivered and being embraced by the community. So, a big thank you to everyone that's worked hard in the space. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Brian? Yeah, since he put out a challenge about his top 10, I haven't looked at it. Oh, here we go. Here we go. Where's the PowerPoint? The first thing I got was two of the 10 are internally focused. They're both good initiatives. Spark and the brand. So, the brand is an artifact about where we're heading. Which I think can be, if you're saying it's informing the annual plan to me, that's

02:57:00 an entity itself. And I thought, well, then what's missing? So, I went to what the top five community values of the Livability Survey. Elements of the natural environment, number one. Protecting the natural environment, two. Conditions of public open space, number three. Landscape and public open space, number four. Very good. They're missing from the top 10. So, when we do look at how we prioritise, let's put it through the lens of the community rather than through the lens of the organisation. Councillor Jurisevic: Good point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But other than that, it gives us a lot done. Councillor Lorentson: Good point. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: I'll keep mine brief. We often get told what we don't do. So, it's really refreshing to really understand what we do do, and we do it really well. I think most corporations' biggest asset, definitely, it's people. We are only as good or as great as the people that support the work this council does.

02:58:00 I was at a meeting this morning with the Noosa Junction Association, and they spoke so highly of a recent experience with our waste staff, and I walked away really quite proud. So, in terms of, you know... Our values, supportive, passionate, accountable, respectable, and committed. We have a team of great people that make this organisation great. So, thank you to our executives, our staff, acting CEO and ex-CEO. I think we've got a lot to be proud of. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Tom? Councillor Wegener: Just quickly. First, about that, Brian mentioned lenses. Second, I think that the spark is there. It's really important. I'm so honoured that the crew, that the staff, have taken that, and we ran with what Scott mentioned, and of course, Larry, you've taken that, and continued on with it.

02:59:00 And I think that that's actually really reforming the way we think about things. And one of the... Another highlight of the year was actually when Claire said, when Kairon was in the room and the way his team was in here, and Kairon had these big ideas, and what we need to do, and, you know, how he stuck down, and Claire said, well, you know, that's your job. That's what you need to do. And that's so it's kind of a nimble council, is that we were actually able to change that, give Kairon, put him into a place where he could actually make a difference, put our aspirations to get the rubber on the road. So, yeah. And obviously, everybody worked so hard, I'm so proud of the staff. Driving around also, I look at the roundabouts, and the incredible land, and how well it's managed. Just, it's beautiful. And you drive into Noosa, you know it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I think it's all been said. The council provides a service, but it's not just a service. It's hundreds of services. Yes. On a daily basis.

03:00:00 Yeah. Some major projects, as the Mayor listed them all. Thank you, Larry. And please pass on my thanks to the executive team, the managers, and all the line staff as well. They're the ones that made Diamond's Council board. Thank you. Mayor Stewart, do you want to say something? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I will. Well, I want to thank you too, Larry, because you came on board, you know, when you were uncertain. So, I want to thank you for all your support, and for really driving the organisation forward. I know you've got a huge amount of respect among the staff, and you certainly have a huge amount of respect around this table. So, I want to thank you as well. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Well, certainly. Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. We've got some items for today. We've got some commercial and confidence matters that need to be discussed. So, we'll take, yeah, keep the suggestion now. We'll take a five minute. Oh, we should have moved it. Moved it.

03:01:00 Oh, that's a good idea. We'll move into confidential session. So, move. Someone care to move that? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll make the motion. That's good. No question. Council note. The report by the CEO. That's the one? That's the year in review. That's the previous one. We've done that. Speaker 2: I'm just going to move it across. Oh, okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 245J3G of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing commercial matters involving a local government for which public discussion would be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government for report 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. Councillor Wilkie: We need to remove discussing aid, just discussing commercial matters. Councillor Jurisevic: Commercial matters, yes. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Jurisevic: Have a second. Second of Amelia. Discussing more than one. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Second of Amelia. All in favour? That's unanimous. We are in, I do want to take a five minute break. Yes. I'll stop the break.

03:02:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Just wait. Councillor Lorentson: Food. How much more food can I eat? Councillor Jurisevic: We should have made the five minute break commercial confidence. Councillor Wegener: Or is it three? How are we doing? Councillor Finzel: Is it three? Individual. Councillor Wilkie: One at a time. Councillor Finzel: Oh, separate? Yes. Who's going to tell you? Two. Two. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, welcome back everybody. We now have some recommendations before us for approval. Someone can move this one about the contract for parks and gardens.

03:03:00 So moved. Moved by Councillor Gillespie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Speaker 6: All in favour? Councillor Wilkie: It's unanimous. Next item is the decision to settle an appeal before the court. Someone can move this one. Moved by Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? It's carried. Councillor Finzel: Is that you, Natalis? Councillor Wilkie: Is that you, Natalis? Yes. Yes. Speaker 2: She put it in. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

03:04:00 Thank you Mr Chair, thank you, well done, thank you, thank you, thanks Linda, thanks Vicky.

7.1 CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO. CN00209 - CLEANING OF OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC AMENITIES ¶

▶ 04:09:29

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.

7.2 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D14 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (20 UNITS) - MCU22/0031 & OPERATIONAL WORKS CLEARING OF VEGETATION - OPW22/0062 AT 11C CHURCH STREET, POMONA ¶

▶ 04:10:07

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.

7.3 CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 – CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGMENT SERVICES FOR 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION ¶

▶ 04:10:31

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 ¶

▶ 04:11:00

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.