Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting of the 23rd of October. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we're meeting, and that is the Kabi Kabi people, and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging. We have apologies from Councillor Joe Jarusevic and Councillor Tom Wegener. We have in attendance Mayor Stewart, Councillor Amelia Lorentson, myself, and we have two councillors on the line in Councillor Karen Finzel, Councillor Brian Stockwell. And we need a resolution. I'll move it. The resolution moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. The motion is that in accordance with Section 254 of the Local Government Regulation, councillors Finzel and Stockwell are approved to attend the meeting dated today via Microsoft Teams. Any discussion?
00:01:00 No. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have no presentations. We have no deputations. Items referred from the committees include the first one is Zero Emissions Noosa Zen Inc. Grant Funding Agreement, which was referred from the Planning and Administration Committee. The second one is the Environment Committee, dated 10th October 2023 by Councillor Joe Jarusevic, who is not here. But Kim and Bec, would you care to talk us through the report, please? Oh, sorry. Thank you. I've just reminded you. We need to confirm the minutes from last month's General Committee meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to move that. I'll second. Councillor Wilkie: That's moved by Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Stewart. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Karen, I'll need to see whether you've got your hand up or not. Could you go to camera, please? Councillor Finzel: There's a technical issue with the camera. I'm happy to say yes.
00:02:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Or your hand, the hand symbol would be fine. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. It's on the screen, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Karen. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Now we've come to the ZEN Emissions Noosa Grant Funding Agreement. And we have Kim Rawlings, our Director of Sustainability and Strategy, online, and also Bec. Oh, we have Annie Nolan present. So who's going to talk to the Resort, the report? The Resort. The Resort. Councillor Lorentson: The Resort. Speaker 10: I'll have to talk to her. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Okay. Speaker 10: Good afternoon, everybody. The report you have in front of you is regarding the partnership agreement with Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. And it basically outlines a three-year partnership with Noosa, sorry, Zero Emissions Noosa, and goes through the funding requirements, the reporting, the reporting requirements, intellectual
00:03:00 property, obligations of each party, indemnity, termination of the agreement, dispute resolution, general provisions, and insurances. So just as a bit of background, ZEN Inc. has been our preeminent community group really involved in helping the community to reduce emissions right from 2016 when they first started. They're a very, very professional group. They use a science-based approach to actually undertake the projects that they deliver to the overall Noosa community. To help reduce emissions. Their strategy is very much looking at two major emission sources in the community, which are stationary energy, or electricity, and transport energy as well. And to that, to address those two emission sources, they have developed a number of programs
00:04:00 with council support through our climate change response grant program, as well as actually looking for other funding through other grant opportunities, such as the climate change response grant program, such as the recent Department of Environment, State Government Department on Sustainability, to actually put together an overarching roadmap of where community batteries could potentially go right throughout Noosa Shire. In terms of the transport emissions reductions that they do, they run the very, very popular and very successful EV Expo on a yearly basis that has brought significant environmental benefits to the Noosa community. Now, Zeniq, I just wanted to quickly run through some statistics here. In that, they have a number of links to our corporate plan. And they have, through their volunteer hours, they believe that they add at least $350,000
00:05:00 to the community, to the Noosa community, on an annual basis through all their various projects. And they have a number of links to our partner agreements. So, this report is actually asking that we authorise the Director of Strategy and Environment to execute the partner agreement, and to authorise her to also make minor changes to the partnership agreement. And we actually note the annual funding contribution to be determined as part of the yearly budget process. And for this year, the funding has actually been allocated in this year's budget for the Speaker 3: project. Speaker 10: At the planning and environment meeting, it was noted that the report should also consider a conflict of interest clause. And so, what we are suggesting that a simple version of what could be included in this agreement is that in connection with any actual potential or perceived conflict of interest
00:06:00 in relation to activities undertaken in relation to this agreement, Zeniq must disclose all existence of that interest clause. And disclose all material facts to Council. And that, we believe, will cover it. Councillor Wilkie: And just to clarify, that would be covered by Part B of the recommendation, that you would be authorising the Director of Strategy and Environment to make minor changes to the partnership agreement prior to execution. That's correct, yes. Thank you. Questions, Councillors? Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. First of all, thank you for that inclusion. I thought it was important to add. In terms of funding, there are other volunteer organisations that I believe would also benefit from this sort of funding partnerships. Is that part of Council's consideration? I know that we're reviewing our community grants. There's a lot of volunteer organisations that really run a risk of burnout.
00:07:00 So, has that been mentioned? Has that been discussed at Council level? Speaker 10: This isn't part of this report. Councillor Lorentson: No. Speaker 10: And we have to defer that question. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Speaker 10: I'm not aware of that. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. No worries. Speaker 10: But I would defer to Kim or Rebecca to answer that question. Okay. Speaker 5: I'm happy to make comment through the Chair. Thanks, Kim. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 5: Kim Rawlings here, Councillor Lorentson. Yeah, absolutely. There are a lot of volunteer organisations, and we know many of our volunteer organisations are under pressure in terms of recruitment for membership and the volunteer hours they do. This model is something that we have started to look at more. We have a partnership arrangement with the Noosa Biosphere Foundation, and now we have a partnership arrangement with a setting organisation. It is a model that we will continue to look at around assisting organisations.
00:08:00 We are very much aligned with the outcomes that Council are trying to achieve through various strategies anyway. We also have our alliance grants that exist through our community grants program, and the alliance and the environment grants program, sorry, both the community and the environment grants. And the alliance grants are very much around multi-year opportunities to help sort of capacity of organisations. Councillor Finzel: So there are a couple of avenues. Speaker 5: Okay. One that exists and one that we will continue to explore. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Kim. Thank you. Any other Councillors on the line have any questions? No. Does someone care to move the motion? Move Councillor Lorentson. We have a seconder. Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just to say really just a big shout out and a big thank you to the Zen Inc volunteers, and just reiterating what you said before, Annie.
00:09:00 They've donated 79,000 hours of in-kind time, which works out to a total value of $350,000. That's huge. And their efforts and achievements do get noticed at Council and community level. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I agree. I think, you know, this is an organisation that does a lot for our community. The success of the Electric Vehicle Expo, it just gets bigger and bigger and better and better. They were instrumental in the success in the community battery, which is a $500,000 grant to our community. And as Annie has said, this is already in the budget. It's already been accounted for, so there's no additional expenditure that we're having to outlay at the moment. So I agree. I think the volunteers do a huge, huge amount of heavy lifting for our community and very
00:10:00 grateful and happy to support. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Can the councillors on the line wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: No, thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I'd just like to add to the comments made by Councillor Stewart and Laurenson. The work of Zen Inc is very professional and very high standard. They have a lot of people with a high level of acumen. The work that they do are actually helping both businesses, enrich the business and the residential community by mainly conversion to solar, which means that money that was otherwise being exported outside the Shire to energy providers is staying in the pockets of the businesses and residences, enriching the local community and economy. So for the small investment, it's money well spent. Councillor Lorentson you wish to close? No thank you. Okay put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you Annie. Thanks Annie.
00:11:00 Next item 5.2 is application for material change of use, hardware and trade supplies at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. That's referred from the Planning and Environment Committee and we have Director of Compliance and Regulation Richard MacGillivray, Manager of Planning Patrick Murphy and also Head Planner Nadine Gordon. Teams all here. Yes. This was referred due to the significance of the matter and there's some disagreement with the recommendation. So Nadine could you give us an overview please. Sorry just getting a little note ready. Speaker 4: Okay good afternoon everyone. This is an application for material change of use for hardware and trade centre supplies at 178 Eumundi Noosa Noosaville Road.
00:12:00 It's the very northern portion of the Bunnings site which is currently vegetated. So it's not facing Noosaville Road. It's actually down on Gateway Drive. Opposite or near the kitchen place which I've forgotten what it's called. This is a proposal for a new building. Resident Hero. Sorry. Resident Hero. Resident Hero that's correct. Yes. So it's an application for a two storey building on the site. It has a total floor area of 1,087 square metres across two levels. The proposal is for timber and trade supplies predominantly for professional building. The applicant has indicated that it's a different target market than the existing Bunnings Warehouse. So Bunnings Warehouse is the existing one. This is called Bunnings Trade. So there are two different entities operating this as such.
00:13:00 There is some duplication of items to minimise that sort of crossing to the two buildings. But basically there will be a different external appearance and branding. There is a single elevator on site so it's not as retail friendly as the existing Bunnings Warehouse. It has a different website and it focuses on higher quality items such as more expensive power tools etc. The applicant has indicated and if you want me to quickly. So Bunnings Warehouse currently has a range of things such as tools and hardware, garden supplies. Whereas Bunnings Trade will be focused on product ranges for the construction industry, commercial standard power tools and equipment, insulation and timber. And it includes sections that can only be accessed by trade customers who hold a power plant account. So the existing trade section is to be retained in the existing Bunnings Warehouse. The original Bunnings Warehouse was approved by Sunshine Coast Council under a board approval there.
00:14:00 It was approved previously as retail business type 4 showroom, retail business type 6 hardware and retail business type 7 garden and lifestyle centre. This existing proposal is for a new building on that vacant area. The scheme indicates a maximum height of 10 metres. This building is over that 10 metres at 12 metres. Approximately the front third of the building will be at 12 metres. And then the back of it as the site slopes up. And it's back built to provide the ramps. That will then comply around 100% around the 8 metres. We understand the applicant has indicated that the height is needed for the trade activities. Which includes access from trades with trailers and higher vehicles. Plus they also need it for higher levels of pilot storage. There's also a significant cross fall and it is an industrial site.
00:15:00 So there is extensive effort proposed. It is slightly lower than the surrounding sites. And if we note the site directly to the north on Vision Court. It was approved for an industrial development on a approximately 2 metre high, 2 metre high plus retaining area. With an existing building that's over 7 metres. So this new building is consistent or slightly lower than the height of that Vision Court building to the north. The setback of this proposed Bunnings building is also slightly behind that Vision Court building as well. I also note that previously we talked about signage. And there were concerns about the existing Bunnings being over our signage requirements. The signage was approved for the existing Bunnings site under a court order. There is a maximum area of signage required.
00:16:00 So this building in terms of its signage really can't have any more signage in accordance with that approval. Unless they change that court order. Alternatively if they subdivide the site. Which there is a reconfiguration of a lot of approval to subdivide this portion off. They could apply for new signage under our existing local law. Which would limit the amount of signage. There is a condition recommended for approval for a muted colour scheme. That's condition 7. Included in that. And basically staff are recommending approval of the application. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I can't see the councillors online. Thank you. Question. Karen. Councillor Finzel: Yes thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for your feedback Nadine. I just have a question about the height of the existing Bunnings building. Is that 12 metres? Speaker 4: No I don't believe so. Councillor Finzel: How do you know the height of that?
00:17:00 Speaker 4: I think it would be 10 Karen. I don't believe it's over height. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry Nadine in the report it says existing Bunnings store 12 metres from natural ground level. Councillor Finzel: Oh okay. Alright. Sorry I didn't hear that Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Karen in answer to your question in the report it says existing Bunnings store 12 metres from natural ground level. Councillor Finzel: Is that the existing building Mr Chair? Councillor Wilkie: Is that the one you were asking about? Yes the existing Bunnings is 12 metres from natural ground level. Speaker 4: And 9.5 from finish level. 12. Councillor Finzel: And where is the fall of the ground level on the existing building? Is that towards the back of the block or the front? Speaker 4: That would be the, it would have a similar fall Karen. Yes it would be falling from the eastern side. Down to the gateway drive side. So it would fall east down to west.
00:18:00 Councillor Finzel: I do have concerns about the bulk on a gateway coming into Noosa with two buildings on that site side by side. Can you talk to me a bit about how we're going to address that? Please. Speaker 4: Could you just have a quick show of those. The email first? No not the email. The Streetscape views. I just sent a couple of Streetscape views. This one for the. Just the. Sorry. That's right. That'd be great. So this is just a, this is just Google Streetscape this morning. So but it gives a good indication. So Karen this is actually just in front of the existing access into Bunnings. So you can look down. Oops. Sorry. You can. That's right. Where those two arrows, right hand arrows are. That's the second access into the site.
00:19:00 This is well down from Eumundi Noosa Road and the roundabout. So where the existing vegetation is on the right, the talk in front of that van, that vegetation will be cleared and the building will be going. You can just see a lift behind of the. Existing buildings of Vision Court. So this isn't really readily visible from Eumundi Noosa Road. Do you want to look at my next one? That's further down. That's the existing. Again, this is Google Street View. You can see the retaining wall on the right hand side. So there is now a seven metre high industrial building on that one. And then yes, we've got resident hero, which is. You can see the retaining wall on the right hand side. The next industrial building down the road. I think my next one is probably. Oh, that's just a shot of that as well. Showing you the scale. And this is what's opposite the site. And that's probably.
00:20:00 Oh, you could go down. So you can see. This is the elevation. This is the northern elevation. And about the front third of that building will be over the 12 metres. And then it all slopes up. And you can see the back of the site will be pretty much consistent with height. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Brian, do you have a question? You're muted. Mayor Stewart: Brian, you're muted. Councillor Wilkie: You're on mute with Brian. Speaker 6: Yes. I think I heard. Said that this building. What? This building. This building will be not higher than the one to the north. But if I look at figure six, it appears to be at least a metre higher. Speaker 6: Can you clarify that, please, to the starting point? The top part of figure six. Speaker 4: Page 14. The pitch is slightly higher.
00:21:00 But it's pretty much consistent with that. The character and amenity of the area. And that existing building. But they can take out the pitch and make it a flat building. And a wooded one. And that's the kind of thing that we would comply. Sorry. It'll be lower. Sorry. Brian? Sure. So as I've previously communicated, the big concern to me is we've highlighted the height of that retaining wall. For this development to have its driveway along the boundary, we'd have a similar height of retaining wall plus a blank seven-metre-high wall. And that would be the dominant view as you drive down the street. Councillor Wilkie: To me, I have difficulty seeing that meeting. Could you move to a question, please? Brian, could you move to a question, please? Sorry. Speaker 6: I didn't hear that. Councillor Wilkie: Could you move to a question, please? Is there a question here?
00:22:00 All right. So is that correct, then? Is there going to be, for the northern driveway, a two and a half, at least, metre retaining wall plus a blank seven-metre-high wall? Is there any articulation? And is there any scope to landscape it? Speaker 4: Can we go back to that street view, please? The one just roll up. Keep going up. I think that one. So, Brian, there'll be a... In front... So a lot of that existing vegetation needs to be retained. There will be a... The building itself is set back six to nine metres. So we have the ability from...to provide landscaping and street trees within the frontage, which would be...which would provide some screening when you're coming down Gateway Drive. I agree that there will be significant cut and retaining structures on the northern
00:23:00 boundary of the site to the existing building. They are...that cut will...and that building will be set back again to the frontage. So it will be set back again at least six metres from the road. So there is the opportunity to provide some landscaping from this viewpoint within the frontage of the site. Speaker 6: If I can have a further...question. I've had a look at the landscape plan and it...and I...I thought it indicated all existing vegetation in that area was going to go and they'd replant a few trees. And I...I thought it indicated all existing vegetation in that area was going to go and Speaker 6: there would be quite a few...a few years before any vegetation could possibly screen it. Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. I haven't...sorry. Nadine, I have in front of me just a...a response or information request and there's
00:24:00 a picture of a tiered landscape buffer. Yes. So it's three tiered and they have addressed, I think, the landscaping quite well. Speaker 9: We...we have...we have explored whether they could retain the existing vegetation at the front of the premises so that...to...to...the new...the new path that's required to be constructed and other accesses. It's not possible to keep the new...the existing vegetation at the front. So therefore we'll be requiring some of the...the landscaping plan and obviously landscape...street trees...planting in the biobasin as well. Speaker 8: And there's also...worth pointing out that when you look down that street, that resident hero building is, let's see, quite visible, quite stark. This building is actually going to be, what, say, about six metres from the plant boundary. I think...I still think that that resident hero is going to be the dominant building when you actually enter that street.
00:25:00 And as you go further into that street, you start...industrial buildings are probably the dominant feature that you get consistent with what you're expecting in an industrial environment. Councillor Wilkie: How high is the resident hero building? Speaker 4: I would assume it's around...probably the 10th. Also noting that, again, we're talking about the...the built form and the associated earthworks with it. I mean, this is a sloping site. It is industrial...it is zone industry. Generally, we flatten sites to allow industry to...to occur. So they are doing a...a significant cut on the site. We will have the...the driveways tapering out. We will have the driveways tapering on either side. If they reduce the height, they will still have this retaining wall and the existing building will still be visible. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to test a motion, please, that I... Councillor Finzel: Sorry, the...sorry, I have a question. I just didn't hear the end of that comment. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, yes. Oh, sorry. We'll get the end of the comment. Speaker 4: The end of the...sorry. Sorry, Karen.
00:26:00 So if they reduce the height to comply... Yes. ...you know, if they take the two metres out, that wall will still be there. Yes. They...they will still be proposing that accessway and driveway along that boundary. Yeah. So the height won't change that presentation. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: In reference to your previous comment, can the height be reduced if we remove the pitch? Speaker 4: It comes down by about half a metre, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Okay. And how do we condition that? Speaker 4: We can condition it to require amended plans. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to test a motion. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Well, I think that helps us bring in line with the planning scheme, given it is inconsistent with the height and the bulk, as per page 39 of the report. So I would like to see that conditioned to bring down that height. I think it's important that we... Councillor Wilkie: Karen. Karen, we're doing questions at the moment. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yes, okay.
00:27:00 Well, I'm just asking, how do we put the condition on? Do we need to move an amendment now? Councillor Wilkie: Well, I'm proposing I move a motion as a starting point, which addresses the height issue. So I'd like to move a motion that was provided earlier, please. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. That's the whole motion. Now the motion I provided was, the motion as provided by staff with the addition in red. I'm not moving an amendment, I'm moving a motion, because it's the first proposal.
00:28:00 Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question through the chair? Yes, Karen. Given I was talking about an amendment and you've put this motion on the table, is this the right order to go through, given I was talking about a motion before you approved the application up? Councillor Wilkie: Absolutely, because before you can provide an amendment, you need a motion to start with, and I'm starting with a motion, which you're free to amend.
00:29:00 You can just give us a second. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, we're getting there except instead of saying with condition 13 building height
00:30:00 to be amended to read, just say with condition 13 building height to read. Okay, so the motion is that Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dating 10 October 2023 regarding... The application number MCU 220051 for a development permanent for material change of use, hardware and trade supplies situated at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville and A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment 1 with condition 13 building height to read the maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres above the ground level including the exposed portion of the external facade of the building where excavation is undertaken. And B, note the report is provided in accordance with section 635 of the Planning Act 2016.
00:31:00 We have a seconder for that, please. Councillor Finzel: Through the Chair, just before we proceed, before they get seconded, can we amend that to also address the areas where it doesn't comply to our transport strategy with regards to bicycle spaces and end of trip facilities? Councillor Wilkie: That's not the answer to your question, no, the appropriate time would be for the motion which is now seconded to be, I'll speak to it, then if you wish to amend this motion, you can add the changes you'd like to see Councillor Finzel as an amendment, that would be the correct process. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, I didn't hear anyone second the motion. Councillor Wilkie: That's all right, it's been seconded by Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Councillor, the reason I've moved this is because the Planning Scheme stipulates 10
00:32:00 metres in this area, in this zone. The surrounding buildings are 10 metres, with the exception of the existing Bunnings building, which is 12 metres in height, that was approved under a Planning Scheme appeal under the Sunshine Coast Councillor, but the difference is that the existing Bunnings store, its impact on the streetscape is lessened because it's so far back from the street, it is a long, long way back from the street, and there is significant landscaping. The intention of the Planning Scheme and the height limit is to make sure that there's not an overly domineering impact on the streetscape of a building facade. To have an over-height building so close to the street would have a negative impact on the street amenity. It's over height, there's not as much potential for landscaping to mitigate the impact
00:33:00 on the street, streetscape. Ten metres is the height of the surrounding buildings, such as Resident Hero, Officeworks, 11 to 13 Vision Court, and the Gateway Drive frontage buildings on the opposite side at all 10 metres or less. This just makes it consistent with what's there already. We can't do much about the 12 metre high existing Bunnings building, because it was approved under the Sunshine Coast Council, who did resist the 12 metre height, but that was mitigated by it being so far back from the streetscape. I think it's important that we do what we can to mitigate the impact on the streetscape of an oversized building. There's no real, in my opinion, valid reason for allowing an obviously over-height building
00:34:00 in this location when all the others are 10 metres. That's the reason for the motion for your consideration. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Mr Chair, I think Councillor Stockwell has her hand up. Councillor Wilkie: I'm sorry. Councillor Stockwell, you've got your hand up. Speaker 6: Yes. I've got a question. I think you may have misinterpreted the height of this building. The actual wording is 12 metres from natural ground level and nine and a half metres from finished ground level. It's starkly confirmed that when we look at the Bunnings building, we see a nine and a half metre building rather than a 12 metre building, and that is two and a half metres lower than the height in this particular application. Councillor Lorentson: Can I? Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Can I? I have a question. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Karen has her hand up as well. She's been waiting patiently. Councillor Finzel.
00:35:00 Councillor Finzel, you're on mute. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just a clarification from Councillor Stockwell through the Chair. Can he clarify, was his comment in relation to the existing Bunnings building or the proposed application building? Speaker 6: The existing Bunnings building. The existing Bunnings building. The existing Bunnings building is 12 metres from natural ground level but only nine and a half from the finished ground level, so the appearance is nine and a half metres, not the application. So it gives you a sense of the difference in height. Speaker 6: The existing application would be two and a half metres higher than the front of the existing building. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for the clarification, and I guess that's where we can condition to remove the pitch, so we can bring that down another metre. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. Councillor Morrison. Question to Nadine. So I just probably need just some clarification because I'm looking at a streetscape elevation
00:36:00 that's provided in the report. I'm also looking at just the performance outcome number eight of the medium impact industry zone. So the building height of the development is two storeys, and it's also, and please correct me, this is my understanding. It's consistent with the building height of the neighbouring development, 11 Vision Court. And when I'm looking at the streetscape, the application or the building height will be consistent with the existing adjoining development in Vision Court. So there'll be no difference. Am I reading this right? No. Speaker 4: That was staff's interpretation of the performance outcome. So we've recommended approval on the basis that it was consistent. Councillor Lorentson: There's no difference.
00:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor to staff, can you explain why you tried to negotiate 10 metres from, with the applicant? Speaker 4: No. Height in Noosa is a very controversial matter. We generally stick very closely to our heights, and we're challenged with it every day. We go to court regularly. We go to court regularly. So we did try and negotiate with the applicant, especially after our initial discussions at the planning environment meeting. I did ask the applicant whether they would consider amending. I even thought if they could amend the frontage, that maybe that might alleviate some of the councillor's concerns. So my staff recommendation was that I supported the proposal, but I have noted that several of the councillors were against it. They were concerned. So I felt that, yes, it was a consistent approach in terms of what was next door. We also had the landscaping next door. So there is, on the existing Bunnings site, that existing building is set right back.
00:38:00 So we end up with this building, which has some landscaping in the front. So I felt it was appropriately screened and appropriate to the street. But I did try and negotiate on the basis of trying to get an even better outcome for the site. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Just a question. If the two metres is brought down by two metres, what are the impacts? Do you know, I guess it may be a question for you, about the impacts that would have on the business in the sense of what it could, because I know in some of the media, they've been quoted as saying, help people by providing a wider range of timber and trade products for customers and improve the overall offer to the local community. So I guess my question is, if we do reduce it by two metres, is our community suffering in the fact that they, you know, won't, they can't actually provide the services that. Speaker 4: I'd be, I'd be making assumptions. Mayor Stewart: Yeah.
00:39:00 Okay. I thought, I thought so. Speaker 4: Yes. They've indicated, they've been quite, quite strong and in saying that, that's for their stacking heights, that's for the pallets, that's to, that's their current business plan. So we don't know if they could make it work for the building at 10 metres. I have also, they, we, we did talk about whether things could be lowered, further excavation and levels. Sure. And so we, we have investigated that. Yeah. They did indicate that, you know, there are minimum requirements. Sure. Again, at grade with vehicles, with trucks, but also vehicles with trailers, getting them through. So we start mucking about with levels. Sure. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Ah, I have. It's a question, the performance outcome on Building 5, is that related to a code-specific industrial zone? Speaker 6: Are you given the Building 5 performance outcome? It's POA?
00:40:00 Speaker 4: Yes, I believe so. Oh, no, it's a zone code. Yes, it is a zone code. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Just coming back to your last point through the Chair to the staff, during this process, was an architectural planner or design advocacy panel asked for their opinion around the architectural design? And also, secondly, given that you feel the removal of the pitch impacts the business, how do you support that? Speaker 4: I haven't recommended reduction in the height, Karen, so I can't comment on that. In terms of the architect getting somebody from the panel, the development wasn't considered to be of such a sufficient scale to warrant getting an architect involved in reviewing it.
00:41:00 Speaker 8: And they would, I would not recall any time it was at an architect reviewing an industrial building. Councillor Finzel: Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So, Nadine, again, just purposes of clarity, you said before that you were trying to seek better outcomes with negotiating the 12 metre height. In terms of bulk and scale, and again, I'm not sure if this is a good question for you, but if I go to existing developments, is it, the report indicates that you're actually quite satisfied that it was in keeping with an industrial zone and the bulk and scale of other industrial buildings within the precinct and that the height was consistent and on a streetscape level was consistent with the property on Vision Street.
00:42:00 So, again, I'm... That's correct. Okay. So, that was your professional advice and report. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, you've got a question? Speaker 6: No, I'll speak to the motion. I'll support it. The performance outcome, the building height performance outcome is quite clear. The application can't meet the acceptable outcome, which is the height. So, therefore, it has to meet the height of the building. I'll look from A to F. There are some key areas where I have a different point of view. Do you think it will dominate, usually dominate the street and surrounding spaces? I don't believe it responds to the property of the site and minimises cut and fill where we're on a sloping site. Speaker 6: I think, and while I think we've got conditions there that will achieve a better articulation,
00:43:00 I don't think it will. I'm particularly concerned that it is actually 1.7 metres higher than the development to the north. I'm looking at their revised architectural plans and the RL is 22.83 and the RL of this building is 22. Sorry, 20. Speaker 6: I better zoom it out again. Sorry. Speaker 4: 22.5. Speaker 6: Fetch. Speaker 9: 22.5. Fetch. Fetch. It's got a line through, but I believe the top of the venture drive thing reads at 20.83 and the top of this building reads 22.525. So there's an substantial increase in height. And therefore, I don't believe it doesn't need to form a tech cut. I don't think it needs it. I think reducing it to 10 metres is something that we perhaps might not be able to subtract yet.
00:44:00 I think the big issue for me is that with an extra 1.7 metres next door and the fact that the front of the building won't give an appearance of 12 metres for some time until we get lots of trees going in front. But more importantly, that northern driveway. The northern driveway will be a particularly ugly vista. The diagram shows a tree there, but that tree is actually behind the building. The driveway will have a retaining wall similar to what we saw for the neighbouring block. And then it will have a 7 metre high blank wall. There's no conditions requiring any of that. So to me, the overall design doesn't need to form a tech cut. Councillor Lorentson: I think the motion as it sits will help address that. Can I, through the... Chair, please request and possibly proceed your motion. That's an important point for me, whether the existing adjoining property is or isn't going to be consistent with the proposal in front of us.
00:45:00 Can I ask for clarification? Is Councillor Stockwell correct in saying that it's going to be 1.7 metres below the proposal? Speaker 4: I'll need to clarify that. I'll have to pull the plans and make sure in terms of before I respond to really clarify. Councillor Lorentson: Can we do that by Thursday night when we revisit it? Yeah, I'd like that information before I arrive to any decision, please. Thank you. Speaker 8: I think just on that, Councillor Williamson, because there's a pitch to the building, the highest point, you know, you're talking about a small hybrid building where it's actually at its highest, where the buildings are sort of adjacent to each other, they are generally consistent. I think the Bunnings building is slightly higher, but as the bridge goes up over a certain, you know, a reasonable distance, that increase in height gets exacerbated.
00:46:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay, so it is higher. Councillor Finzel: So, through the Chair then, with regards to the pitch, if, for example, Patrick, it's conditioned to remove the pitch, what will be the reduction in that where you've said it's exacerbated? Speaker 8: Well, at the corner of the... Councillor Finzel: Will that help with the bulk and the visual amenity? Speaker 8: Yeah, the northern corner of the building, I think the RL is 21.325 and at its maximum height is 22.525. So, there's 1.2 metres height difference, so there could be a reduction, I would suggest, of approximately a metre, that could be achieved. Councillor Wilkie: By removing the pitch? By removing the pitch, yeah. Councillor Finzel: I support removal of the pitch, because then if that brings us to closest compliance to the planning scheme and it helps address what Councillor Stockwell has raised in terms of bulk and amenity, yeah, I would support that.
00:47:00 Speaker 8: I think we've really brought it closer to 11 metres, I mean, at that sort of point. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Which is not the... Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, Councillor Finzel, that was a question, wasn't it, or are you wishing to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Well, I'm not going to support the motion in its current format, because I would like to, further down the track, propose that we condition the building to remove the pitch to address the bulk. Councillor Wilkie: All right, is this you speaking to the motion now, Karen? Councillor Finzel: Yes, yes, I'm speaking to the motion. Okay. I won't support the motion for the reasons I've just stated, in terms of bulk, visual amenity, and the height, to try and get greater compliance to the planning scheme, including hopefully that can address perhaps some articulation with the roof form, and with variation to the current plan in relation to the pitch, perhaps if we get a flat roof, that might address the compliance under a new plan.
00:48:00 Councillor Wilkie: All right. So, Karen, can I suggest you move an amendment to part a, that would be perhaps along the lines of Condition 13, Building Height to... Well, actually, I can't put words in your mouth. It would be an amendment... Yes. ... to... Councillor Finzel: If we can reduce the building height through conditioning, removal of the pitch. Okay. I'm not sure how to word it because I'm not a planner.
00:49:00 Sort of along the way of what Patrick said about the height, I think if we can lose that one metre and condition that by amending with a very different roof form and we can reach closer to compliance. Councillor Wilkie: OK. Councillor Finzel: If someone can help me with the wording, I'd really appreciate it. Councillor Wilkie: So, Councillor Finzel, so perhaps the amendment could read the maximum height of the development must not exceed 11 metres above the ground level, including the exposed portion of the external facade of the building where excavation is undertaken. This to be achieved by lowering the pitch of the roof. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Patrick, can I invite your feedback around the technical way that's written to achieve the compliance? Is that OK in your opinion? Speaker 9: We could just word it in a way that we require them to remove the pitch. So, instead of it being a pitch roof, it results in a flat roof.
00:50:00 OK. Councillor Wilkie: So, the building design. Speaker 4: Are you wanting it at 10 or 11? Councillor Wilkie: Well, that's the thing. 10. Councillor Finzel: If we can get to 10. So, we've got compliance with the planning stage. Councillor Wilkie: That's what I'm proposing. Speaker 9: Yeah, that's what's proposed. Councillor Wilkie: I'm proposing, Karen. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just can't read what's in front of me. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, you can't read the screen? Councillor Finzel: It's really small. OK. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Well, that's essentially what's being proposed. If you're wanting it reduced to 10 metres by lowering the pitch of the roof. But if I understood correctly, the staff were saying if you took the pitch out, it would only reduce it down to 11 metres. Speaker 9: Yes, that's correct. Councillor Wilkie: It would still be over, Karen, if they removed the pitch of the roof, lowered the pitch. Councillor Finzel: So, how do we, what do we need to do to get to compliance? Councillor Wilkie: Well, this is the motion. That's the motion. The motion that's before you, which is to, that the maximum height of the development must not exceed 10 metres
00:51:00 will achieve compliance with the planning scheme. Councillor Finzel: Oh, right. Yes. Yeah, that's correct. Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: OK. OK. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I have another question, Nadine. So, again, I'm sort of sitting here not as an expert and talking to professionals yourselves and Patrick and Richard who assessed the application over a long period of time and arrived at this decision. Recommendation. Recommendation for a decision here. So, my question to you is, I'm guessing that you've already had these conversations with the applicant. Can you run through the response? So, I'm sort of running off a little bit what Claire was saying just before. Is there an economic or a physical or trade reason
00:52:00 why they've put in 12 metres? As you referenced, you know, from trailers and trailers and it's a bulk trade complex. I think we're forgetting what this is actually doing. So, my question to you is, have you posed that question about reduction and what was the response given by the applicant during your long time in this space of getting this application to council? Speaker 4: Basically, their response was that they required the height. So, when you look inside too, there's about a six, it's over six metres clear from what their top being. So, they've indicated that that must be their pallet stacking height. And they've indicated to me that that's what they worked with. So, again, I'm not an expert in . So, again, I'm going on that's what they have indicated that they would like. I don't know if it can come down. I don't know if it affects their business plan.
00:53:00 Councillor Lorentson: Could we ask that question before Thursday's meeting? Speaker 4: They have come back. As I said, every time I've asked, they have pushed back and said no, that this is what they want. Yes. And they've given their reasonings in terms of the street scale and what's proposed and what's existing. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Of course, applicants want a higher height. But why did you believe 10 metres would give a better outcome? Speaker 4: I suppose, again, yeah, look, again, I think it is a commercial, it's an industrial building. And I thought there could have been some change to the frontage, which could have made it a little bit more modern rather than a, it's quite an industrial building, but we are in an industrial area. So, as a planner, I always like to play around and try and get a better outcome at the front, something that's, I suppose, has a more aesthetic look. And that's what I was, I would have liked to achieve, but again, it is an industrial area. We've got maybe tilt-up slabs, which have very limited articulation to them.
00:54:00 So, this has got a range of materials. It's got different colour schemes. They've put windows in there that they didn't want to put in originally. We're requiring an eave. So, I thought there might have been an ability to perhaps reduce it at the front and perhaps have a higher level at the back. But whether that functions for them, I don't know. Councillor Wilkie: I have another question about the muted tones that you've conditioned. Yes. Are they acceptable to those conditions? Speaker 4: Have they pushed back against that? Their comment to me was that they believe that the green and the white to be of a muted tone. Okay. Again, we have our signage policy, our signage local law that talks about you can't have corporate colours. So, the money screen will probably be a future issue for us. But again, they were very, they were sort of quite clear about wanting to use a white colour.
00:55:00 Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Excuse me, Mr Chair. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel Online is having a hard time to see. So, she's asking if we could please send a screenshot of the wording of the motion. Speaker 3: Okay. Is that? Mayor Stewart: She said that. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. The headshot of Councillor Stockwell has been removed off the motion. So, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can you see it now, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes, I can. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Stewart: So, Mr Chair, do we have a procedural? I don't understand. No. We don't. So, we're debating this one first. Yes. And then we're going to proceed. No. Councillor Lorentson: No. No. I was wanting to. The information. I was wanting to make a procedural motion just to allow the applicant who has spent some considerable time with planners, if I could just get some information before Thursday's meeting before I arrive at least at a decision. Speaker 4: That's about the height? Councillor Lorentson: About the height. Speaker 4: About the height of next door. Councillor Lorentson: And? And also, no, just why the 12 metres.
00:56:00 He was insistent on the 12 metres. Yes. What were the reasons? I really wanted to understand that. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillors, we have a procedural motion to defer the matter to Thursday so that more information can be provided regarding the height of surrounding buildings in relation to what's proposed. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Is that correct, Councillor Morrison? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Why 12 metres? Yes. Is it a logistic? Is it because the machinery? I just want to understand what are the implications of going back down to 10 metres? Speaker 9: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: More information about height? Councillor Wilkie: More information about height of surrounding buildings?
00:57:00 Yes. And reasons for the 12 metre height? Yes. Okay. And the reasons why applicant wants the 12 metres height? Speaker 9: And you'll note, Councillor, from the site profile, so essentially it will be the first half-third of the buildings come down about two metres, and then there'll be a sort of transition stage. So potentially you may end up with a staggered building, so one slightly lower front and then it drops and goes up. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. No. No. No. Just more information. No. Give more information. Just more information, please. Yes. So that will be circulated via email prior to that. Very good. Thank you, Director. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a seconder for the procedural motion, please. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me. Can I just put a question to the staff? Yes. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr Chair. On page 41 of 75, it says the buildings in the area range in highest fires, and it
00:58:00 said that Vision Court 11 to 13 was conditioned to 10 metres. Speaker 4: That's also got the retaining wall underneath it, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Speaker 4: I'd like to just clarify the height of that retaining wall with the building on top of it. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's what I was seeking. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for the procedural motion, please. Councillor Finzel: I can't second it. Can I? Councillor Wilkie: No. There will have to be either Councillor Stockwell or Councillor Finzel. Councillor Stockwell or Finzel, are you prepared to second the procedural motion, please? Yes. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: It's all right. It's all right. Councillor Finzel: All right. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the procedural motion to a vote.
00:59:00 Those in favour? I can't see. Yes. Yes. Councillor Stockwell, I can't. Yes. That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Thank you, staff. Mayor Stewart: We have another planning matter. Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Mr Day. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Cindy. And Patrick. And welcome Tara. Mayor Stewart: May I open your mouth please? Councillor Wilkie: No, this is the STA deferral. This is the change to development permit for a material change of use for short-term accommodation at 515 Coroy Nusa Road in Biwa, wanting to increase the opportunity for eight to 16 people, I believe. The applicant has asked for the matter to be deferred. But if you can talk us through it, that would be great. Speaker 3: Tara. The deferral request for the application. Councillor Wilkie: Perhaps the application, because it's maybe the first time people in the gallery may have heard of it or people listening may have heard of it. Speaker 3: So the Institute for Material Change and Use for Short-Term Relations approved last year for this property.
01:00:00 So the original application was for five bedrooms and ten guests on site at any one time. Through the assessment process, there was some negotiations with the applicant to bring it down to eight guests, which would count for standard conditioning regarding STAs in these areas. So that was approved with the five bedrooms and the eight guests. So the applicant is now obliged to do a minor change to increase the number of bedrooms from five to six and increase the number of people on site from eight to 16. So on recommended refusal for the application, through the assessment process, it was determined that the change doesn't actually constitute a minor change. So the development assessment rules include what constitutes a minor change. It's where the development isn't considered to be substantially different. In terms of this particular development, we believe that the known impacts of the development
01:01:00 have increased through this application process. So we've determined that it's not actually a minor change. It should come in as an elder change. That's how this process works. Additionally, in terms of the scale of the development, it's not considered that it's small scale in terms of the context of the area, the locality that it's in. It's predominantly rural and rural residential development in that area. So you're looking at your stock standard drying houses in that location. So we consider that 16 people on site at any one time, potentially 16 vehicles at any one time, isn't consistent with what you would get in those areas in terms of, say, family and drying houses. Mayor Stewart: So we've not considered that. It's just a clarification. It's only for our records. Page 46 says the original application was considered by Council at the ordinary meeting on the 20th of April 2020. And then on the next page you've got 20 April 2023. Speaker 3: So the original would have been 2023, sorry?
01:02:00 Mayor Stewart: Yeah, so that should be 2023. Councillor Lorentson: Can I do another pick up? I think it's actually the 27th of April 2023. Not the 20th of April, just for clarity. So I went looking for it, is the reason why. Anyway, the applicant has made a request. Good point. Councillor Wilkie: That's right. Thank you. Speaker 3: So the applicant's consultant has requested to defer until next round. So last week I was thinking that this wasn't going to make it to the general committee, so we've spoken to Russell Green from IG Strategic and he said it would go to the November round. In the meantime it made it to the general committee meeting, so Russell's got some concerns he hasn't had a chance to review it before and to get to his comment about it. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a mover and a seconder for the motion to move? Councillor Stewart, seconder Councillor Lorentson. I'll be the second. Sorry Kerri, just a bit slow off the mark.
01:03:00 Any discussion? Councillor Lorentson: A quick question. No, Mr Chair. Thank you, Karen. Councillor Lorentson has a question. Just a quick question. There's additional comments on the report on page five that the property's been advertised online, that it doesn't contrary treat the conditions of the approval. It's also not been issued an approval under the local law and it's now subject to short stay letting local law team for further investigation. General question, what are the consequences or implications of not complying with our short stay local law? Speaker 8: Yeah, so the Z would investigate the matter. It's sort of tied in with, to some degree, with this application, because councils are very able to increase in the amount of
01:04:00 numbers. So 16, then it would be reasonable to put out the approval order to put in a change application to the local law to increase the numbers. If council's not agreeable, then there would need to be some compliance action taken. My understanding is that the local law approval hasn't even been issued in this state. So that's the first point of view that we need to get an approval under local law, an application for approval made, and that application should be received from where council goes with this, with this application. Again, if council doesn't agree to increase it, we'd be seeking an application for the April. If they don't comply with that, if they don't, with that request, then we can take some influence with action under the local law, which aims is from issuing an infringement. And we can also move forward with a request, you know, to put forward that the application probably be suspended or cancelled. There are
01:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: other options that are available to us. So I'm confused. So we're considering a, an application that hasn't complied with our local law and that's okay. It's not okay. They're in breach of the local law. Yeah. And does that take necessary steps in terms of the Speaker 9: local law element? So as it stands, they haven't approved the law up to date and they need to be approved for what they're doing at the moment. I guess what Patrick's highlighted in the report is that they're currently advertising from what they need, what they have approved for. So that requires an investigation. So there's two elements to it. That needs an investigation and that'll Councillor Lorentson: happen separately to a separate application. So the process is run differently, not concurrently. Councillor Wilkie: Yep. Okay. Good question. Thank you, councillor Lorentson. Any further discussion or questions on the
01:06:00 motion to defer? All in favour? Councillor Finzel. Yes. Thank you. That's carried unanimously. You're welcome. Thank you, Tara. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you guys. Thank you, Richard. Next item, 6.2, Noosa Waters lock and wear, new fees and charges for access devices. And we have Liam Tracy and- Mr Chairman. I'm sorry. Michael Balestra. Oh, excuse me. Mr Chairman. Speaker 6: Yes. Councillor Stockwell. I'm out. Hang on. I'm going to have to leave the meeting. I am fading past, so I shall leave you there. But if you just want to acknowledge that I left the meeting at this Councillor Wilkie: point in time, please. I just want to check we'll have a quorum. We'll have, councillor Stewart will be out for conflict of interest. So it's myself. Oh, okay. Myself, Amelia and Karen, which is, unless if- Yes. If we don't have you, Brian, we don't have a quorum. Okay. Well, I'll just- Speaker 6: Can you hang in there? Okay. I'll stay in the night. I might be absent just for a few minutes.
01:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. We'll note that you're on. Well, councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I've been declared. I, councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I've declared a conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Noosa Waters lock and wear, new fees and charges for access devices as I am a resident of Noosa Waters and contribute to the levy and regularly utilise the Noosa Waters lock and wear system. As a result of my conflict of interest, I'll now leave the meeting room for the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor Stewart. Okay. Liam and Michael, would you like to come to the table and talk us through this report, please? Hello, Mr. Chair. Hello, Mr. Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Hello, Liam. What are we looking at here with these new devices? Speaker 1: So as part of the upgrade, we had an opportunity to upgrade the access system for the lock and wear. So this new system will allow residents the option of purchasing a wireless access remote,
01:08:00 which will bring it in line with other locks on the coast. So we brought this upgrade in talks with Noosa Waters Residents Association, and basically the current system only allows card access. So with the upgrade, you'll still have access to manoeuvre through the lock with a card, which will be in the shape of a fob now. But residents will also have the option of purchasing a wireless remote, where they'll be able to not go up to the card readers, they'll just be able to drive through and action the lock with the wireless remote. So we're just proposing to include this in council's recent targets. Councillor Wilkie: Great. This is all part of the upgrade to the Noosa lock and wear system. How's that going? Speaker 1: Yeah, it's going well. Currently on program. The gates have been removed, the old actuators and motors, and the new gates will be installed next week. And we're on track for opening on November
01:09:00 13th, this previous year, our line. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any questions, councillors, for staff? This is Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Hi, Liam. Hi. Thank you for the report. As an old Noosa Water resident, most residents have a boat and need access in and out of the lock and wear. I note in the report that the residents were consulted by the Noosa Waters Residents Association. So my question to you is, are all residents members of the association? Speaker 1: I'm not actually too sure about that, but I know that they did meet with them and discuss that, and that's how this issue was brought up with meeting with the residents. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Can I ask that? Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 2: My understanding is no, they're not. But we do operate through the association as the central
01:10:00 point for us. Again, this is an opt-in exercise, so they still have the five-wheel car, that's included in their current fees. They've already got one, continue on as. If they want a second one, it'll cost them $90. If they want to go to the remote, it'll cost them $191. Fantastic. That's basically the system. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I'm thinking some of them might not be able to get in and out if they don't know about it. Speaker 1: And it's outlined in here, but it's as per the current department guidelines for it, and you do need to have two vote registered to have two access devices. So you can have a combination of mob or wireless, but to have two access devices, you do need to have a second registered vessel. Councillor Wilkie: Fantastic. Thank you very much. I can't see online counsellors. Do you have any questions for staff?
01:11:00 Councillor Finzel: I have no questions. I'm just going to go to the next one. Do you have any questions for staff? I have no questions. I'd like to thank Liam for the report. It's comprehensive, and I think it's probably well overdue, and I'm sure the residents are really excited to get up to speed and have this upgraded to match what's in other areas. So thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Great. Would someone care to move the motion? I'd be happy to move it. Councillor Lorentson? I'd be happy to move it. Seconded Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. No. Councillor Wilkie: All in favour? That's carried. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, thank you for hanging in there. Please recover. Get well. Are we right from here on? Yes. We've got a quorum now for the financial reports, now that Councillor Stewart has returned. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, you have a question? Councillor Finzel: Oh, sorry. That was my hand raised for the motion before us. I have removed it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Okay.
01:12:00 Thank you, Liam. Thank you, Michael. Well done. Thank you, guys. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Liam. Councillor Wilkie: Next is the financial performance report, and we have Director of Corporate Services, Trent Graff, to talk us through it in the absence of Pauline. Mr Trent, please go ahead and talk us through it. Speaker 7: Good afternoon, councillors. I'm presenting to you this afternoon the financial performance report for September 2023, which marks one quarter through the financial year. So, funding performance for September is positive. Operating revenues are outperforming the forecast, and operating expenditures are slightly under forecast at this one-quarter mark in the financial year. Now, as we break that down further, operating revenue is $1.6 million of our budget, and that's a mix of $978,000 due to interest revenue, which we'll unpack more shortly, $700,000 from goods and services,
01:13:00 which is a mix of base disposal fees, as well as revenue from all of our parks, which is $138,000, and from our other communities, facilities such as the NAC, the J, and Leicester Centre. Noting that those facilities do have offsetting additional costs associated with maintenance and operating. There's an additional $2,000 for operational grants, again, noting that they will have an expenditure requirement associated with them later in the financial year. In terms of fees and charges, they are slightly below budget, of $39,000. That's due to parking fees, timing of fees through our initial seniors, as well as regulatory from building, plumbing, building assessment. In terms of operating expenditure, we have $299,000 underspent year-to-date. That's a combination
01:14:00 of employee costs, which are $491,000 on budget, and insurance and services, which is $169,000 over budget. That leaves us with a total of $299,000 over budget. That leaves us with a net operating position, as at September, of $1.9 million of our budget forecast estimates. Now, noting that our BR1 budget, adopted budget, is a deficit position, what we will do is propose for BR2 is this additional upside will bring Council back into, hopefully, a surplus position for the BR2 budget as it is adopted later in the financial year. In terms of containment or constraint of those cash funds and surpluses, $1.1 million of the surplus is unconstrained from our general revenue. There is $0.7 million related to business operations such as holiday parks and waste, and there is $200,000 from levies. Now, we've worked through some of
01:15:00 the deep dives in the report. Tourism and economic development levy remains on budget year-to-date. Spend, sorry, not spending. Tourism and economic development spend. As with previous orders, we also have two deep dives in the report. One is our legal cost summary, which shows a deep dive that legal costs are currently low budget. Again, early in the financial year, and it may fluctuate, depending on the progress of legal matters such as development appeals. And the other deep dive is in relation to cash requirements, which we'll talk about shortly. Capital revenue is in relation to cash requirements, which we'll talk about shortly. Capital revenue is above budget due to some significant grants in advance. Excuse me. Bridges renewal. Now, that's in the bushfire. NQRA disaster funding, and all those funds are sitting constrained in our cash reserves until they're spent later in the year.
01:16:00 Now, in regards to our cash holdings, we currently have $135 million in cash reserves. Now, noting that of that funding, $58 million is restricted in terms of unspent grants, levies, disaster recovery, and landfill rehabilitation. There's $29 million committed over the next year to undertaking capital works, and they're required to hold $28 million to meet our three-month cash cover requirements. And there is $18 million in what we call working capital, which is to fund the rest of the council operations during the year. That leaves a forecast of $2 million for long-term unrestricted available cash, which is lower. In our previous quarter, we reported a $5 million, and that is due to our forecast of our operating circles for the last financial year being slightly lower. Our base budget where we adopted a slight draw on capital works for new and up-grade works, and coming into VR2, anticipated
01:17:00 post-graduations for capital works for projects such as our VHS and the SEMP provision. And at this stage, we've closed the council's financial performance performance from. Questions, councillor? Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I do. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Trent. Always very comprehensive. Could you elaborate a bit on the 1.1 general operating surplus, please? Speaker 7: Sure. As you will see in the report, whilst we have a total council operating surplus, there are elements of our operations that are the cash, if you will, that are in the VHS and the SEMP provision. If we do have a surplus or unspent, that cash is constrained. So, for example, if we don't spend all of our levies in the financial year, that cash gets set aside. If we generate surplus from our waste activities, the intent is under our reserves and cash policy, those funds get set aside to
01:18:00 invest in increased diversion and recovery activities for our waste business. And what that does leave is what we call a general business, which is general operations for business areas such as environment operations, civil works, finance, my area, HR, those sort of libraries and galleries, all those core areas of expenditure. In terms of general revenue, it's our general rate, our interest revenue and our fees and charges. And that nets off to 1 million dollars. Mayor Stewart: And the 58 million held in restricted cash? Restricted cash? Yeah. Can you talk to that too? Yeah, because there's 58 million seems like a lot of money. Yes. Just an explanation. Sure. Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm going to do the break, James. Glasses back on. That helps me see you again. So we have a, we restrict our cash under our reserves and restricted cash policy. We have externally restricted cash and internally. And what we do is there are
01:19:00 certain cash elements of that 58 million that are required under the Local Government Act Registration. And so that's that unspent levy money from prior years. It's developer contributions for any trunk infrastructure charges to developers. Unspent grants and subsidies, because we need to ensure that those grants are received and used for the purpose required. That external restricted cash is nearly 38 million. Then in terms of internally restricted cash and council's decision on what it would restrict, there's 3.6 million dollars of cash under the Local Government Act. There's 3.5 million dollars of a disaster, natural disaster emergency fund. There's 3.5 million dollars of plant replacement. We have timing on our plants and our fleet replacement. We've got quite a lead time for securing particularly equipment like packers and excavators. That's what's happened from prior year. There's 10 million dollars
01:20:00 in waste, which is primarily for rehabilitation of the landfill cell, which is occurring this year and next year. There's some significant site rehabilitation on the farm itself. And some other minor restricted cash, which is 10 million dollars for smaller parts of work, such as environmental offsets, etc. Mayor Stewart: And Trent, we're still pretty high in our cash expense cover. We're supposed to have over three months, and we've actually got 14.6. And we've been consecutively high for a number of months. Speaker 4: Sure. Mayor Stewart: So we're carrying more cash, or we're carrying fair worth of cash. Does that come back into the reasons that we have to for the expenses that we're still going to incur? Speaker 7: Sure, I think I can answer that. So the cash cover is currently four eminences per month in total, if you look at the ratios for that report. If you take out the externally restricted, which is the legislative requirement of the cash for those that aren't spent in grants,
01:21:00 it comes back to 10 months cash cover. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 7: You take out the internally restricted for that disaster rehabilitation, etc. And we're only down to marginally over three months. If you consider that, there's 28 million, which is our three months cash cover, which is the requirements that if you had a disaster or a major sustainability matter, that gives Council operating for three months and legislative requirements. We only had two million dollars over and above that for cash. Mayor Stewart: So we're probably where we should be. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 7: So I do understand that face-based things like a lot. When you consider the amount of grants in advance, we're about to kick off major works as we commence some of the disaster rehabilitation around the Shire, particularly around Black Mountain, and some of the other grant funds and our waste levy funds that we've received in the past, we're holding that for three to five years before we come more on that. So there's a lot of cash that is contained and not free cash to spend.
01:22:00 Thank you. Mayor Stewart: No, no, no. I have a few more, but I was going to let everyone else crack and I'll come back. Councillor Wilkie: Sure. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of, I'll just continue where Claire's left, unrestricted free cash, two million dollars. Is that enough? I've been in Council four years now, and I think it started at about nine. Should we be worried? Speaker 7: Councillor, this year as part of the budget process, we, our cash cover and our consideration of cash requirements features quite heavily. We actually start with our liquidity requirements and we start the discussion through the budget process, set our requirements in the report. It sets the target for how much we should be spending on capital works, and also ensures that when we have our reviews for what works get included and what works get deferred, that cash availability is the threshold to ensure we have enough cash.
01:23:00 The challenge for us as an organisation, a small council, is those capital works do have more free cash to side, and it's generating a larger surplus. To generate a larger surplus, it means higher rate rise. So it's important through the budget process, as we do each year, we find the right balance between charging a sustainable rate rise and then free cash for capital works. The importance is that balance of ensuring that our priorities for new and upgraded works are appropriate. So it's important to meet the needs of the organisation. And just to close with that, every second year is part of our funding requirement. If we want to borrow loans for our Queensland Treasury funding authority, they only take a credit review for more than four years. Last, I believe, every review since we've been delegated every second year, we've remained sound with the movement of that work. So there's no decline in our sustainability as an organisation, depending if we remain with a very small level of sustainability.
01:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And that's what I was hoping you were going to say. In terms of the tourism and economic development investment summary, so tourism and economic development is funded through the general rate. But who actually pays? Everyone? Or can you give some clarity? A question that's always asked. Before it was really clearly articulated, you had a levy and it was the tourist operators that paid towards the levy. Speaker 7: Yes. So if you wind that to the unwind of the tourism and economic levy, what we did was at the time when that levy was unbound, and we moved it in the general rate, the piece of work we did at the same time was to adjust what we call a rate in the dollar or a category rate charges for non-residential rates. So not just transitory, but obviously commercial, industrial, extractive. All non-residential property owners that were otherwise paying the tourism and economic
01:25:00 levy, their rate in the dollar charge was increased. So essentially the general rate was increased to match. That is why, it's one of the reasons why there is a relativity or pricing difference in our rates and charges between what is a residential property and what is a non-residential property. Now we don't, because it's general rate, we don't constrain the difference and we don't constrain any unspent funds at the end of the year, like we just talked about for trade funds, but the differential in the rate still exists between residential and non-residential. And one of the reasons is that levy that moved across into the general rate three years ago. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I'm still a little bit confused Trent, sorry. So everyone pays, is that what you're saying? Speaker 7: It is part of the general rate, but the rating structure, the way the levy is being charged for different properties, there is a higher charge for commercial than
01:26:00 on residential embedded within that, is the funding indirectly, even though it's part of the general fund, the reason there is a difference in price is because of that Councillor Lorentson: So it's absorbing that levy through our rates, okay, got it. Speaker 7: It is still generally allocated, but in terms of the pricing structure, there is a higher pricing structure to reflect that. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Just to go back to a question that was asked earlier, how much free cash did we begin this term with and now we've got two million? Speaker 7: We've had a lot of emergent works and we've had, if I can take on notice, there's a couple of elements in there. One is obviously during the election term, we have paid off, we paid off early in the election term, $10 million of debt. Speaker 9: That's right. Speaker 7: That was in year two. In year three, we went through a process of actually refinancing our debt and the interest
01:27:00 rates were the lowest. We refinanced what was previously held at six to seven percent interest rates and we refixed it at 3.2 percent, I believe, which has fixed up for 20 years, so it's obviously set us up for some very sound financial sustainability in the future. Councillor Wilkie: Was that the second time we paid off a large amount? Speaker 7: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 7: Now, obviously, over the last 12 months, we've had, in 12, 18 months, not just us, but the entire building sector has experienced significant supply chain price increase pressures and that has been some of the key drivers behind that margin erosion of the remaining free cash. Now, as a process, the organisation shows capital less effective and through the capital budget review, it evaluates the price increase pressures with delivery prices. And where the project should proceed or get people ready to ensure that overall you don't
01:28:00 continue to absorb price increases if there are cost pressures on materials such as steel or concrete or timber, we'll reassess the scope and timing of other works around to ensure that we keep that financial sustainability buffer of our cash. Mayor Stewart: We've also delivered the largest debt and capital infrastructure projects in the history of New South Wales Council in its term, which we've hired. Yeah. I've got a couple more questions. Thank you. On page 75, I'm looking at the top three where we've incurred additional expenditures. The top three, when I say that the most significant increase is Trent, so contributions, donations, sponsorship and prizes, legal expenses and software and maintenance. Can you just talk me through those because when I just looked down that list, that was where it caught my eye. Speaker 7: Sure. You can just scroll down the table for me now, please. Top three.
01:29:00 Okay. Mayor Stewart: Starting with the contributions, donations, sponsorships and prizes. Sure. Speaker 7: So in terms of contributions, that can be primarily related to our grant programs. So obviously, we had a grant program on the agenda this morning. The variation you'll find in relation to the grant programs that we'll be tiling, but I'll confirm that and come back to you. Our grant programs are set each year. So when we allocate a certain amount of funding for a particular grant program, whether that's SEM or whether that's community grants or our environment grants, that amount is fixed. So if we've got a variance there, that would be a timing assumption on when we were bidding and giving that money back to the community groups. Okay. So that hopefully should just be a timing assumption. Yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 7: The second one was in relation to software and subscriptions, software and maintenance. Yep. That is in relation to, it's a couple of matters there. One is council is currently as a vacant position in the role of our ICT manager.
01:30:00 Yep. Who we are about to commence another round of robust recruitment as of tomorrow morning. So fingers crossed and looking forward to this process commencing. But to ensure that the security and particularly cyber security of our network and our systems remains robust, one doesn't need to look too far from any news article on any given day to see any cyber incidents. We've supplemented that gap in senior IT to implement expertise with consultants. We have a, through our contracts in place, through our consultancies, we have firms that we already have in the books who have been supporting and supplementing the expertise gap by using those consultants over the last few months. Mayor Stewart: And coming back to that was one of the major themes of the local government conference was cyber security and the fact that all councils across Queensland have just been absolutely inundated. With cyber security threats. So it's a very, you know, it's an emerging issue. It's real problem across all of Queensland. The third one's legal.
01:31:00 Speaker 7: So as we mentioned that the forecasting that we do a lot of work internally, you'll see the deep dive we put in the report today, where even though we're marginally above year to date, we're still not forecasting a full year position, anticipating legal expenses being over budget. And we'll continue to monitor that. If it's at such point, particularly through the second quarter review, and it's looking behind, we'll bring a further report guide into that and address that through a budget review if needed in the future. Speaker 6: Cool. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Trent, I have a question about expenditure for permanent staff salaries and wages underspent $916,000 due to position vacancies, partially offset by spend on casual staff. But I made this question. How many staff are we, how many staff are we down? Can you quantify that? Speaker 2: It's actually a really difficult question to answer on a daily basis, but I don't have
01:32:00 the exact numbers with me. Councillor Wilkie: We're keeping costs down. Get one back on the treadmill to the generator. Speaker 2: But we are experiencing like every, like every business, like every council, a reasonable turnover. We've reduced our turnover of staff in recent times, so we're happy with that. But then we're seeing, just as Trent said, you know, we're still looking for a manager for ICT, which we've been out to market once, twice, so far. So we're looking at a different method. We're out in the market for a manager of P&C, within the culture, as well at the moment. So while those positions, and they're usually high level positions in organisations, so whilst they're not being built, then that's where the savings or the difference in the money is. And then we're looking to supplement that with consultants or contractors where we can to make sure that we keep our coverage, keep the business ticking over.
01:33:00 So it's just, unfortunately, it's just part of doing business at the moment. People move on. We've done a lot of work over the last 12, 18 months to stem the flow, and we think we're on the right path there. But it's still happening. It's just part of the business, part of the nature of the world. Councillor Wilkie: During the last year, our former CEO qualified about 100 staff, 100 vacancies you're trying to fare. Is it, have we improved on that situation since then? Speaker 2: My understanding is we've improved, but again, when you say 100 staff, there's casual staff, there's all sorts of staff in that. It's not 100 out of 500 staff or 450 staff. That's not the... You know, it's not quite that simple. But in terms of permanent staff, yes, there are some gaps, and there's constant gaps that we're looking to fill. But again, it's having the right people back to fill those positions as well.
01:34:00 It's difficult. It's just a hard market. Councillor Wilkie: And how many staff are able to live in Noosa Shire? What percentage of our staff live outside of the Shire? Speaker 2: I think the majority of our staff live out of the Shire now. The majority? I think it's, yeah, you were close to that, close to half the number. Speaker 7: Okay, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Karen, do you have any questions? Yes, Karen, you've got your hand up. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Firstly, thank you for the report and your comprehensive responses, Trent, today to the questions. We have, the councillors, have just returned from the LGAQ annual conference. There was a panel discussion which was quite rigorous around cost shifting at the conference, which was really interesting, and how those costs often come back to local council. Can you tell me a little bit about what processes we have in place or risk mitigation to try and minimise the impacts of cost shifting around?
01:35:00 Sure. Thank you. Speaker 7: I think the key for us as an organisation is the way we budget and the approach we take. And this has been subject to previous years independent QAO, the Queensland Audit Office review. When we start the budget process, what Noosa Council has, which a lot of councillors don't have at this point, is a robust service level catalogue. So our starting point for any of the doers in an organisation when we start the budget process is to look at everything we do. Whether that's the opening hours of the facility, the library, to the amount of hectares of bushland that we're maintaining, to fire reserves and trail clearing around that, to all of our activities. And obviously within each of those there's a risk of service level increase or service level creep. And sometimes that's necessary to ensure a safe or sustainable service delivery. Other times it can be cost shifting between other agencies or other properties.
01:36:00 That then helps us inform any requests through the budget process, which we start very early in the piece in December at an officer level, to quantify that increase and ensure there's a budget bid for that and we've got the cost implications clear on the table because that comes at, to prioritise any service level increase or cost shift comes at the expense of either a rate increase. Or priority of funds elsewhere. So we bring that through the budget process each year. Does that help Karen? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thanks Trent. Just going on from that, some of the discussion was around, say for example, if we get funding from a project for infrastructure bill, for example, from several different buckets of money. Where do we then constrain capital?
01:37:00 Do we look at cash or, I don't know, look at how we then cost and manage the life of the infrastructure? Do we have to pull that then from our own budget or is there a way that we can try and get that through the budget or get that constrained? Speaker 7: I can answer that as well, Councillor. You'll find in our financial sustainability policy, which is part of the process behind the budget, it talks about whole and wide costing. And what we require for all of our major projects as part of the feasibility stage, and then beyond that once we have detailed design, is a whole of life cost exercise so that we know before we make the decision on a major piece of infrastructure, with England Playground might be a good example of that, or a recent one that's being constructed, or the Prism Beach Community House, or a number of larger ones that were constructed over the last few years. Before we get to commencing the construction, before we make the final decision to proceed with the project, we have already identified what the cost is of operating and maintaining
01:38:00 that facility and what the depreciation or what the asset degradation is that we need to put aside so that we have enough money in 10, 20, 30 years to rehabilitate and replace the components of the asset. So the moment that decision is made, we embed that in the budget. In our 10-year financial plan, so we're aware of it, particularly for large scale ones, because the cost increase could be, isn't $10,000 here, $10,000 there, it could be triple $300,000, which could be up to a half percent pay rise. So we embed that early so that it's informed, the commitment for the cost increase is there and it's transparent through the feasibility, that's what it's going to cost to run long-term. Councillor Finzel: Thanks Trent, that's a great response, thank you, with clarity, it's good, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone care to move the motion? I will. Councillor Stewart? Happy to move it. Seconded by Councillor Finzel.
01:39:00 Mayor Stewart: Thank you, thanks Trent, always very comprehensive and really good to explain about that, the cash holdings and what's restricted because people would see these huge numbers, but there is background to that where there is restrictions. Restricted cash that are required to have, there's also restricted cash that are required to have internally, there's also a lot of upcoming emergent works that we need, so we're probably running the money about that $2 million and coming back to what we should be in regard to our cash expense cover, which I always look at, again our target is more than three months, we've got 14.6, but you're saying when you bring that back together, it is at about, a bit over the three months, so about five, six months, so we're in a good position there. We have a lot on, and this is, we sat a little bit at risk on the weekend, sorry on the weekend, on Friday, feels like the weekend, and there is a huge amount that you guys take on your shoulders, so I want to thank you and Pauline on the finance team because there is so many
01:40:00 aspects of this business. And there's the holiday parks and the waste. I also think we need a shout out because I believe they're at $700,000 increase in their revenue over the last little bit, which was noted, so I think that's also fantastic. I know Kyrone and Robin have been working really hard in that space for revenue generation, which is great to see. Thank you for answering my questions that I had, and always appreciate the report. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Williamson. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to acknowledge yourself, Pauline, and your team too, Trent. We don't speak enough or express our gratitude enough. Monster job you guys have got, and it's a big business. Every time I come to an ordinary meeting, it's the, what's the word, I'm overwhelmed by what this organisation does. You know, a billion dollars' worth of assets, we've turned over a plethora of land, we've
01:41:00 lost $100 million per annum, I think our staff are around the 500 mark. Thank you, and can you just, you know, express to your team our gratitude. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. No further comments. Just following on from Councillor Lorentson, just our thanks back to the staff. We value and appreciate the work they do. And if you could just express that to everyone, that would be fantastic. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: One of the other things that became clear during the local government conference was that over half the local government councils in Queensland, 46, run deficit budgets and struggle to meet their costs. We're not in that position. We have sound financial outlook position. Thanks mainly because of the practices you've put in place and your predecessors, Trent.
01:42:00 So thank you very much. Councillor Stewart, would you like to close? No. I put the motion to those in favour. That is unanimous. Mayor Stewart: Oh, hang on, we haven't got Karen. Oh, yes, she can get in. Yes, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: There's no confidential session. Declare the meeting closed. Thank you, Councillors. Thank you, Mr CEO. Thank you, Trent. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Trent. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Morgan. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Karen.
8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
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.