Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So welcome to the June General Committee meeting. We welcome all councillors around the table, staff and those members in the gallery. There is full attendance and no apologies. The next item we will move on to is the confirmation of innocence. But before we do that it is a tip that we acknowledge that we're here as the ongoing custodians of this part of the world, the English Shire, which for thousands of years was the place where the Kabi Kabi looked after the assets that we now have certain responsibility over. We acknowledge that recently they extended an offer to join with all people in the English Shire to make a commitment to that custodianship. And when we make our decision today it would be great to think of the long term implications just as the traditional owners of this country did in their deliberations. So confirmation of minutes. We have the confirmation of minutes. The next item we will move to is the confirmation of last month's General Committee. Can we have a mover for that item?
00:01:00 Councillor Lorentson: I move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will second it. Moved by Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. I'm presuming there is no discussion. All those in favour? That is unanimous. We have no presentations. Although we do have a deputation. The deputation is Georgie from Stockwell Developments. Georgie, if you'd like to make your motion. Please make your way for the lectern and address council on the issue which relates to an application which is before council today in shorthand a childcare centre at the Noosa Business Centre. Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for having me along today. Apologies, I did plan to be here last week but circumstances led to that not appearing. So, Stockwell has a long history with the Noosa Business Centre, working with council to develop Master Plan 2 back in the early 2000s after the 927 Strategic Plan and Master Plan 1.
00:02:00 And we obtained the development approval for Noosa Civic including that business precinct and showroom in 2003. And really that was all about the first stage for the business centre to deliver on the long held aspiration of the Noosa Business Centre. And that was to develop council on the community which was to broaden the economic base of Noosa. At that time, back in 2003 when we did the first stage, we dedicated over 10 hectares of land as council owned open space. And provided extensive covenants along what is Deane Creek Road which existed back then and the now Walter Hay Drive which was delivered as part of main roads and Stockwell and council funding back in that first stage opening in 2006. All of that was captured in an infrastructure agreement which was executed in 2003. So today I just wanted to talk to you about the child care centre that we've proposed on lot 4 which has a staff recommendation for refusal.
00:03:00 And I understand having read the report and the discussions with the council officers, obviously we're disappointed that that's where we are. But we are where we are. And we have worked actually very hard to ensure that that's where we are. Noosa style, architecture of Noosa style in a park like setting. The proposal is for 96 place child care. And we have an operator, unfortunately Damien Vaughan from Sanctuary Child Care couldn't be here with us. The child care is intended to provide places, much needed places for the Noosa community. But specifically the nexus is with the business centre. So to be able to provide child care for people working and living in that broader Noosa business centre. Providing a child care in the village mixed use.
00:04:00 And I know that that was a topic discussed previously in the county environment meeting. For me the child care proposal that we've proposed for lot 4 delivers it really as a Noosa style built form. Stand alone within a bush land setting and a park like setting along Honkman Drive. To deliver something in the village mixed use precinct to my mind would be at the upper level. And so you're talking about a very different facility. That's not to say it can't be done. But it's certainly something that would be delivered in a city environment as opposed to a Noosa environment. We notified the proposal and we didn't receive any submissions against it or indeed for it. There was one that came outside the public notification period. So our proposal seeks to deliver as I mentioned that child care in accordance with that park like setting. So what we've done is we have, the Noosa plan requires a 4 metre minimum built form setback from Honkman Drive.
00:05:00 That's a new planning scheme. We've provided a 10 metre built form setback and we've landscaped heavily the first 4 metres of that in the proposal. And you can see that in the application and in the renders that were provided as well. As part of the application. The Honkman Drive landscape garden beds that were required as part of the subdivision approval. They're what's on the ground now. They are predominantly small shrubs with a few larger, you know, ground cover with some selected saplings. And that's compliance with the conditions of the subdivision approval. The landscaping proposed as part of the child care is very different. And really we've, as I said, we've worked very hard to deliver Noosa the park like setting. Whilst being able to maintain land for employment generating uses. Which is what the business centre is about. Having been a part of the subdivision approval. The reason that the 10 metres was provided with land spec garden beds along Honkman Drive.
00:06:00 Is because that land in there required bulk earthworks to deliver the required topography of the road and the storm water drainage on the site. And so understandably. And supported by us. We wanted an outcome that didn't leave the site exposed until those lots were developed. As I mentioned the child care proposal. We've got a 10 metre setback to the built form. Versus the 4 metres required under the plan. And we've got a 4 metre deep planted garden bed along the majority of the site. We do have a detention basin at the front. And we've included or incorporated into that. And really made it a feature in the landscape. With a seat to provide against, you know, accidental encroachment. And then a pedestrian boardwalk over to connect from the pathway at the eastern spine of the open space covenant. Across to the child care. We've redesigned the proposal. It was mentioned at the planning environment meeting.
00:07:00 We've got a subdivision, an ROL, a reconfiguration of lot to realign that proposed boundary by 2 metres. We already did 2 metres. Back before we lodged the application. So we did that. Well actually, went after we lodged the application. But we did that before the plans were sealed for the subdivision. Because we knew we needed a bit more space. The other thing that I referenced is the infrastructure agreement back in 2003. And what that required was essentially for Stockwell to deliver the up front with the first stage of development. The road and open space infrastructure for the ultimate development. There's a clause 10 in that infrastructure agreement. That provides immunity for future stages in respect of those elements. And that was really, and the clause actually captures that the intent was to provide both council and the landowner that certainty about what the outcome would be given so much of it was done up front. Clause 10 is the clause under the infrastructure agreement.
00:08:00 It says the Shire Business Centre shall be developed in accordance with master plan 2. In stages consistent with the needs of the community. Clause 10.1 talks about what that stage 1 comprises and the future stages. The development application relates to stage 1 of the Shire Business Centre being a retail centre. With 18,300 square metres of total use area. Showroom home maker of 7,000 total use area. And commercial business component of not more than 5,000 total use area. Future stages of the business. The Shire Business Centre on the land is contemplated by master plan 2. And future stages of the Shire Business Centre on land other than the land as contemplated by master plan 2. And that was just referencing the fact that there were two different landowners at that point in time that owned the parcels that comprised the business centre. Clause 10.2 says in temporary stage 1 and future stages. This agreement is intended to give the applicant certainty as to the contributions and or infrastructure charges that will be payable by it or its successors entitled in respect of stage 1 and future stages.
00:09:00 Of the Shire Business Centre on the land. And also to give the council the correlative certainty as to the contribution to the community that will be made by the applicant. It goes on in 10.3 to talk about the extent of immunity of future stages to the Shire Business Centre on the land. From future infrastructure and conditions and charges. And that basically provides for in fact I'm going to read it out I've got time. Subject to clause 10.3 provided that the intensity of development of a future stage does not exceed master plan 2. And subject to the provisions of the clause is 6.2.3 which is about road demand and external road network. And 10.4 which is about water and sewer. The council agrees that having regard to the contributions and physical infrastructure provided for in this agreement. And the conditions of approval in respect of roads, cycleways, parks, open space, nature conservation, public recreational facilities. Land cycle and pedestrian parkways, bushland preservation, urban drainage, water quality or waterway management.
00:10:00 The applicant and its successors entitled shall not be required in respect of future stages of the Shire Business Centre. On the land to undertake work pay contributions by way of conditions imposed on any application. On account of nor to pay infrastructure charges levied in accordance with the act for works external to the land relating to all of those things. If it was council's intent. To provide a 10 metre buffer to Hofmann Drive. That would have been captured in the infrastructure agreement. The intent was to provide a 10 metre buffer to Eney Creek Road and Walterhay Drive. The intent was to provide development within a park-like setting. We believe and remain committed to the fact that our proposal does that. We've made accommodations. We've worked with the council officers to do that. Yes, we acknowledge the buyer retention. We've turned that into a feature. We've redesigned the centre. We've put in a reconfiguration of lot.
00:11:00 And I ask you, what is the 10 metres going to give the Noosa community? That 4 metres of a landscape, lush landscape setback and 10 metres of built form setback doesn't achieve. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillors, on our agenda we have two further deputations noted. As you're aware, there'll be a... ..a procedural motion with regard to item 4 in section 5 of the committee, which means that those two deputations will not proceed. So, we move now on to item 5 for matters referred to the committee. And the... ..the first one is in regard to MCU 23010, application for short-term accommodation at 561 Ginty Kin Kin Road. Kin Kin. And could we have an overview of this application?
00:12:00 Sure. All right. Speaker 1: So, this application was lodged. It's treated as impact assessment due to the lot size. So, the proposal's on a lot that is only 2.25 hectares. Noosa plan requires anything under 4 hectares to treat it for impact assessment. So, the proposal is for short-term accommodation. Inside an existing dwelling house. The dwelling house is two storeys and four bedrooms. The proposal didn't include a number of people on site at any one time. So, there is a condition in the recommendation limiting the number to eight. There was one submission received in favour of the proposal. So, that was from a neighbour not adjoining, but approximately 370 metres to the north of the current...of the dwelling house. The proposal is recommended for approval. It's throughout the report. We let sections of the planning scheme that are relevant to short-term accommodation in
00:13:00 rural areas. The proposal is small in scale and is consistent with the rural zone code requirements and the visitor accommodation requirements. There's also a section in the scheme that references the current planning scheme amendment that are under public notification at the moment and does state that the scheme is under consideration in terms of the CODI principle. It's believed that the planning scheme amendments aren't far enough advanced at this point in time to take into consideration the proposed changes which would make short-term accommodation in a primary dwelling an inconsistently similar to that. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to move a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just waiting for that to go up to the screen so we can read it as you can read it out. Councillor Wegener: Thanks. Okay. I'll read it off my paper here. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6. Excuse me. Yes, sir. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You need to start from the very top. Oh. Councillor Wegener: Yep. That's right.
00:14:00 The Council note the report by Senior Development Planner to the Environment, to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11th June 2024 regarding application number MCU23 slash 0.01 slash 0101 for a development permit for material of changes. Thank you. Short-term accommodation situated at 561 Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin, and A, refuse the application for the following reasons. The proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6 agriculture and rural-based activities of the strategic intent because it does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and would compromise productivity. B. Short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment, and diversification. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Rural Activity Code
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 as it is A. not a rural activity operated in a sustainable manner which conserves the productive characteristics of rural land and protects the amenity of surrounding premises. B. Short-term accommodation is not an innovative and sustainable agricultural enterprise. C. Short-term accommodation does not support local production of food and beverage products. 3. The proposal does not comply with the performance outcome PO3 and PO4 of the Rural Activities Code as it is not consistent with the zone, locality, character of the area in which the site is located and guests will adversely affect the amenity of neighboring residents. 4. The proposal does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes of the Rural Zone Code as it does not provide for rural uses and activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with A. existing and future rural uses and activities and the character and environment features of the zone
00:16:00 and B. visitor accommodation which complements the rural uses and promotes the sustainable use of the Rural Act. 5. The use of the premises for short term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes and performance outcomes PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as it is not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of adjoining properties. 6. The use of the premises for a short term accommodation is not consistent with the overall outcomes 2G and performance outcomes PO1 and PO2 of a joint property, and the use is not applicable The first part of the visitor accommodation code as A, it will impact on the availability of rural landowners to carry out agricultural pursuits. B, it will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. C, it will detract from the character and amenity of the local area.
00:17:00 Seven, the use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with performance outcome PO25 of the visitor accommodation code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of likely increase in noise of adjoining property. And eight, it's not consistent with the NUSA housing strategy 2022, keep NUSA home, item 7.7. And 7.7 states, ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on-site. And not at the expense of housing, whole house short-term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of owner's principal place of residence. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Before I ask for a seconder, I think there is one or two typographical issues. In three, can we look at the word and after PO4? I believe as verbally stated by Councillor Wegener, that should be an of rather than an
00:18:00 and. Councillor Wilson: So, yep, yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, the next one. And there, the next one. Councillor Wilson: Sorry. After PO4. Oh, yes. Oh, okay. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then when we look at the last ground for refusal. Councillor Wilson: Eight. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think inconsistent is one word. Rather than inconsistent, first word. Councillor Wilson: Oh. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I ask Councillor Wegener whether the use is inconsistent or the application is inconsistent, whether that was the use or the application is inconsistent. Inconsistent. Yeah. So, what is inconsistent? You haven't got what's inconsistent. The use is inconsistent? Yeah, the use is inconsistent. Yes. You just put the before then. Okay. The use. Yeah. Like the previous.
00:19:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. I think that. I'm happy to second it for the debate. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wegener: The floor is yours. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Brian, for your punctuation. There's a lot of codes that I read out there. But the most important part is the very beginning that I read, which is the strategic intent. Because the strategic intent is at the beginning of the town plan and it's what we look at. It is the highest authority and all of the codes that I read have to align themselves with the strategic plan. That's the way it works. The hierarchy. And I'm going to read what the strategic intent says in long form here. It won't take long. Agriculture is an important industry sector for the local and regional economy and employment. Agricultural land is protected from encroachment from urban and rural residential development and other incompatible activities that would compromise productivity. Agriculture will need to adapt to a changing climate and be flexible and innovative in
00:20:00 the face of changing conditions over time. This includes ancillary rural industries to support production, investment and diversification. For example, on-farm processing, farm gate sales, cooking schools and value-adding food production as well as agritourism, low-impact homestays, rural and nature-based accommodation, retreats and lifestyle and leisure expenses. This STA application must be clearly linked to rural pursuits like agritourism or low-impact homestays. The STA application before us has no such links. It is simply an urban pursuit dropped on a rural property and as such is inconsistent with the town's strategic plan. So the strategic plan there, if it doesn't link in with the intent for rural areas, then it's inconsistent.
00:21:00 And that's that. And then of course we come to our own housing strategy that we all voted on, went through complete public consultation and I'm going to read it again, I'll vary the paragraph concerning rural houses. Ensure that short-term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing onsite, not at the expense of housing. Whole house short-term rentals should be limited to infrequent letting of the owner's principal place of residence. And again, this is called the housing strategy Keep Noosa Home. And the very opening sentence is Noosa Shire Council is greatly concerned by the housing crisis currently gripping the Shire. This is having a significant social and economic impact on the community. So we have a use, an application. That is inconsistent with the town plan and it's inconsistent with our strategy.
00:22:00 And these are our words. And are we going to follow our words or are we going to follow our actions? And actions speak louder than words. And to approve an STA on this rural property will, it will is inconsistent. It is pushing out our residents. It is taking our residents and saying, okay, you may leave now. This is a nice property. It's an STA. And as we said, as one of the former mayors once said, we want to keep the best lands in Noosa for the residents. And the whole short-term accommodation economy pushes people out of the best residents become the STAs. And we turn into an accommodation economy, not our smart biosphere economy where we want production on local land. We want local jobs. We want to keep residents in Noosa, not expel them.
00:23:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone else wish to address the resolution? Mayor Wilkie: I have some questions of staff. Sure. This is an entirely reasonable grounds for refusal. And you've helped Councillor Wegener put it together. Could you talk through each of the dot points here and, and their application to this particular resolution? So we start with the... Why you've selected these as potential grounds for refusal? Speaker 10: Well, they were prepared in consultation with Councillor Wegener. So he provided me with a range of provisions within the scheme that he wanted to incorporate into grounds of refusal. So it wasn't like I've specifically gone to the aspects of the scheme to, to prepare those grounds. And essentially, I've just used them as grounds for refusal.
00:24:00 As a ground, so to speak. It's, it's, I do know, you know, our strategic intent, it talks about, has a range of intentions that it talks about. And it does talk about our intention, strategic intention, which goes to agricultural land and our rural uses. It also talks about industrial land. It also talks about tourism. So there's a lot, it talks about a whole range of things. So, and, and there will be times when, when you read those individually, they will seem to conflict with, with each other. And I think that's borne out through the scheme and things like the tables of assessments and our codes that we have. Noting that the, the use of SDA is a consistent use within the tables of assessment. So it wouldn't be true to say that it was an inconsistent use. I mean, by definition, it is a consistent use. And there are a number of comments within the scheme that, that talk about SDA and
00:25:00 how, and, and, and tourism within our hinterland areas. So we've got provisions that talk about SDA being excluded from medium and low density residential zones. They don't say it must be excluded from, from rural land. So just, you know, the way the scheme is constructed, you've got to be careful not just focus on a particular sentence or need to look at the scheme in a broader context. So I think in terms of the intent, again, you, looking more broadly, you will see there is an intent for there to be SDA and that there'd be some diversification of where our tourists are housed and moving them away from the coastal areas into our rural areas. I don't believe that the rural activity code is a, is a reasonable code to include within the grounds. The purpose of the rural activity code is that it's a reasonable code to include within the grounds that rural activities are established and operated in a sustainable manner. That's the opening sentence.
00:26:00 For me, the code talks about, you know, genuine rural activities that are to occur within a rural area and how they're, how they're to operate. And that it's not, it's not a code that's talking about how SDA should be regulated. In terms of, you know, a lot of the other provisions talk about amenity and the environmental impacts and, and the impacts upon agricultural activity. I think the report has already gone there to demonstrate that, you know, there is a separation from this property to other properties that will allow for the amenity, you know, softening of the amenity impacts, but also with conditions around how it is to be used, also addressing amenity impacts. In terms of agricultural pursuits, this is a land parcel that 2.2 million people have in two hectares, so it would be fair to say we have very limited agricultural potential.
00:27:00 It appears historically, looking at photos, that it hasn't been used for agricultural pursuits. It's more of a lifestyle property and that the surrounding premises also do not have any actual agricultural activities occurring on the, the one property has got a driveway that sort of dissects a site which comes towards this subject site. So again, I don't think that's the case. I think that the agricultural elements of the grounds of refusal are reasonable. I might have touched on one of the points in it, agriculture, amenity, and character, as I talked about, but again, I don't think there's any change to the character of the area through this use. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that satisfied with your question, Councillor Wilkie? Mayor Wilkie: There was reference to the, there's a housing strategy, you know, oh, that's an extra condition, that was mentioned earlier. That was added. Can you talk about the relevance of the Noosa housing strategy to the planning scheme as
00:28:00 it currently stands? Well, it's not incorporated into the scheme. Speaker 10: It's not referenced in the scheme. The report actually references the tourism strategy and that is actually incorporated into the strategic intent. There's comments, there's comments in the strategic intent around tourism, and it talks about, in his own point of view, that it's not incorporated into the scheme. There's a number of statements that are within the scheme that are born from actual tourism strategy. But as I said, the housing strategy is not included or referenced in the scheme. Mayor Wilkie: Could you talk about how the housing strategy is referenced and recognised in the planning scheme amendments? Speaker 10: Well, yes. Mayor Wilkie: It's certainly acknowledged that it is, and with the proposed... In relation to rural SDAs? Speaker 10: Yeah.
00:29:00 And certainly in relation to rural SDAs, seeking that there's not a loss of housing attributed to the use of rural SDAs, and that rural SDAs are supported in circumstances where the existing residence is maintained for a principal place of residence, and that accommodation occurs ancillary to that. So in cabins or within the home, such as one hosted. So it does move away from where the scheme is currently positioned. Yes. And puts a lot more restriction around the use of rural properties for short-term accommodation. That certainly is recognised. And as Tara alluded to, we consider it's too early in the process of the scheme amendments to incorporate that into our decision making. As per the coding principle. As per the coding principle. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Could I just have a subsequent on that one? We can't... The coding principle. But from the broader development assessment process, once it went from code to impact, we can consider any other relevant matter.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 There's an adopted position of council in the housing strategy, so that could be considered a relevant matter, couldn't it? Councillor Lorentson: It could be considered a relevant matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So under... That's section 63 of the Planning Act. Under that, we do have the discretionary power, if there's a planning need, and other plans that are relevant matters. So we've established a planning need, which is a housing crisis. Was that considered as part of the decision? We seem to have placed a lot of weight on the coding principle, and perhaps not enough on this discretionary power conferred under the Planning Act? Speaker 9: Well, I was just going to add, and so in terms of the coding principle itself, the case law around how the coding principle applies is quite clear, that at the time an application is launched and progresses through the application process, it must be first assessed against the current planning scheme, as an effect, and obviously, this application, when it's
00:31:00 a decision, will stay well before the current scheme amendments were advertised. So if you were in the applicant's shoes, you'd be thinking, these are the planning rules and guidelines I've followed right through to this very last process, and it's only at the 11th hour that the goalposts, and I'll use the goalposts to have changed where it is, and the scheme amendments have shifted, those requirements to make it an inconsistent use. So I guess from an administrative point of view, the coding principle, the provisions that the applicant's applied for is the scheme as is, and that's what they've given way for. The team haven't provided any specific weight to their housing strategy per se, because it's not referenced in the planning scheme yet, but I agree with your point around other relevant matters. There's a broader consideration for, in fact, assessable development proposals that can be considered as part of the decision-making, and we're going to balance the staff and
00:32:00 persistence application against the scheme, and look forward to the recommendation that they have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did you have any further questions? Mayor Wilkie: No, I'll think about what I've just heard. Thank you. Anyone else have a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I have a question. Mayor Wilkie: Question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Given the planning scheme amendments excluded a rule. Was any weight given to the ECDEV strategy, where under our corporate plan, one of our objectives is to support community and industry sectors to deliver key outcomes, and based on what Councillor Wegener has brought to the table today, can you tell us, A, was any weight given to the ECDEV strategy, and or B, was it, and where are we at with that in terms of talking strategies around the planning scheme amendments? Speaker 10: No, no weight was given to that document. As Richard said, we've primarily considered our planning scheme as current form, knowing
00:33:00 that this is a consistent use under the current planning scheme, so that's primarily on the basis of our assessment. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I've got a couple, and you have talked about the book. So this particular location is within what you now call the agricultural land conservation area. So it's got an overlay that says this land is suitable for agriculture. That's right? Speaker 10: It has the agricultural land overlay applied to it. In terms of the suitability for agriculture, that is something that really needs to be borne out. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's site assessment, correct?
00:34:00 Speaker 10: That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It used to be a principle that you looked after the agricultural land, not tried, because it wasn't an argument that, you know, because people could just say, well, I'll do a white upon it, so I'll do a stronger farm and so something. Okay. And by being impact-assessable, if we were to go down the route that Councillor Wegener's gone, it is a valid consideration to weigh the strategic outcomes for rural and productive purposes versus the strategic outcome for tourism. That is a valid consideration on this particular site. Is that right, Bill? Well, it is. Speaker 10: Well, the impact assessment allows us to consider the entire scheme. So yes, that would be very nice. Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion.
00:35:00 This raises a really interesting question, because in 2020, Councillor Wegener and myself, the majority of councillors around this table, voted in favour of the Noosa 2020 planning scheme, which made STAs in the rural zone a consistent use and made an inconsistent use in the low density areas. In fact, in the rural areas, we saw a significant increase in STAs in the high density residential zone. And there are higher order aspects of the planning scheme, which saw us start to refuse STA applications in the medium and high density residential zones, which are meant to be predominantly for residents. We had the housing strategy, 2022, talked about the impact of STAs and how we need to limit them. And we also had the STA monitoring report, which also informed us of how STAs are impacting on residential amenity and also housing availability. And our planning scheme amendments reflect that. They're out for public consultation at the moment.
00:36:00 They are suggesting that homes in the rural zones ought to be for residential purposes only, and that short term accommodation ought to be ancillary, that being cabins or home hosted accommodation. So that's the process. Now, I might be getting ahead of myself here, but long term, this is the direction we're heading in. And long term, we would like every rural property in the hinterland to have a permanent resident and perhaps have ancillary uses for short term accommodation. Then this motion before us allows us to do that. It's where we're headed. It may be a bit of a gamble in terms of the application of the Cody principle or our discretionary powers that we approve it now. But I'm looking favourably on this motion because it is where we intend to go in the future.
00:37:00 And within a year, this could be law. So the outcome we're seeking could be standard practice out there if the amendments are approved. So I'm looking favourably upon this motion, but I need to hear other arguments before I make up my final mind. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to try just a small amendment to reflect what advice we've received just previously. And that was to remove item 3 and renumber the rest accordingly. So then item 3 referred to the Rural Activities Code, which is to remove item 3 and renumber the rest, which is relevant to rural activities, not to tourism accommodation. So I'm moving that as an amendment, just to remove item 3, because staff advice says it's not relevant. So I think if we're going to debate a motion, we should debate one that is appropriate.
00:38:00 Mayor Wilkie: So you need a seconder for the purpose of the debate? I'm happy to second it. I can't do it because I've already seconded the original motion. Councillor Lorentson: Before I second it, can I ask a question to Patrick? If there is a sentiment amongst all the councillors that we are going to refuse the application before us, would it be more advisable for us to look at the original motion and then request that staff provide the conditions for refusal rather than us working off this draft? Not draft, excuse me. Rather than working off these reasons. Speaker 10: Well, I prepared the wording on this document based upon the provisions that the councillor wanted me to. I also prior to that had prepared some which was more limited. But I'm not, yeah, I don't potentially, you know, want me to go back and have all the
00:39:00 scheme moves as I've already done. I don't have any provisions to look at. We could do that. Mayor Wilkie: And that could be done before Thursday night, even if we debate and pass this as a motion. It might be nice. It was only a recommendation. Councillor Wilson: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: And then revisit. Councillor Lorentson: Revisit on Thursday night? Yep. Councillor Wilson: Can I just have a question? I just have a question. When? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: When? No? This question hasn't been seconded or no? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I will talk to it. So basically, yeah. What Patrick said before sort of rang a bell with me. We shouldn't have grounds of refusal that doesn't meet a rural activities code because it's not for a rural activity. Just a simple one so when we do debate, we debate a motion that hits the right points rather than having one that may not be relevant in there. That's the only reason I moved it. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Wilson: Yes. Speaker 10: Sorry, Councillor.
00:40:00 Tavish is referring to item two as well. Does that also refer to the rural activities code? Does it? Oh, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Once again, I pose the question, are we better to just move the original motion? And if the sentiment is not to support the recommendation to approve, we then seek a reason for approval through the planning officers. Can I ask that question to you, Richard? What is your advice on this? Yes. We're going- Speaker 9: Obviously, this has been drafted up today at the request of Councillor Wegener. So if councillors were to vote on this particular motion, it could be the ability for council officers to refine the grounds in preparation for the meeting on the date. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's the question. So, we've got an option.
00:41:00 We have, it's been moved and seconded. If we either, we can't just do away with it, we can make a further modification to include two as well, or we can just vote on it the way we see fit and proceed. And amend it again. And amend it again. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So this is the motion before us, the amendment before us, we've got to deal with that before we deal with anything else. David, does anyone wish to speak to it? Councillor Phillips: I just want to ask a question, please. Sure. Just to Richard. Can you please expand on just a comment that you made around changing the goalposts, please, for me? Speaker 9: Yes. Yes. So, the comment was in light of the, at the time the application was the application with council. The scheme that is currently in effect is the scheme that they applied under. And, which is obviously a consistent use for short term accommodation. So, they've progressed through the application on the basis that the scheme as is. And it's not until, I guess, just recently with the new scheme amendments that have gone out for public consultation, where that's, I guess, embedded the housing strategy provisions
00:42:00 around seeking to make STA in rural, and rural residential properties in consistent use. We have, I guess, embedded the housing strategy provisions around seeking to make STA in rural, and rural residential properties in consistent use. So, up until the scheme was notified, the applicant was of the understanding that it was a consistent use. No subject to, in fact, assessment under the planning scheme. So, for the applicant, that's what they understood the goalposts were, was the current planning scheme as is. Councillor Phillips: I find it hard, and I work out how to question this, how we can make a decision or debate something with information we have. And that's what we have now when the applicant's put forward what we asked them to originally, which is supported. Does that? Speaker 9: Yeah. And that's, I guess, why I made reference around the coding principle. Because it's not until you get further through that process that more and more weight generally gets given towards those scheme amendments.
00:43:00 Because there's more of an understanding and confidence around those amendments to being embedded as new policy moving forward. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Thank you. So, once those amendments are made, sorry, one more question, then the decision would be slightly different now. But again, my query is, like, we should be making consideration without what's to come, in my mind. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Fair enough. Yeah. That's true. So. If I can just, maybe get to your question. From a purely planning scheme perspective, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the correct legal advice is we can't place weight on the recently advertised amendments. Okay? Mm. However, similarly from a planning perspective, we can place weight on any other relevant matter, and an adopted strategy of council is a relevant matter.
00:44:00 So, the housing strategy outside of the planning scheme amendments does indicate a position of council. So, and that's just for individual councillors to think about. It's not, you know, it's nothing that we can do. But yes, in a pure planning sense, we can't put weight on the, the amended planning scheme that's currently with, being advertised for public. Councillor Wilson: Can we put some weight on the fact that, despite that application of the plan as it is, this property is still being advertised as STA without approval? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that's a good question. So, does the existing potential non-conforming use of the property, are we able to consider that in the assessment of the governor? No, that's a good question. Speaker 1: So, just to clarify, they have ceased advertising the property? Mm. So, I did speak to the consultant on that. That was raised originally. So, they have actually ceased advertising. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Generally, one of the remedies if we do find properties that no matter what they're used for, that's contrary, one of the remedies is generally, well, can you apply for either
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 use? Except to pack the seed. Councillor? Councillor Finzel: Karen. Thank you. So, just for, in the, looking at fairness and equity, a question to the staff. When the applicant put this through, were they aware of the changes and how the impacts would be moving forward, given that they've landed where the goalposts have changed, using your wording? Were they aware that there was potential for it to be discussed, like, I think, strategic matters around a table? Yeah. So, I think what we've got before us here is two things. We've got a planning application that has come through prior to the goalposts moving with the understanding that it could proceed forward with it, you know, there's other matters around as raised from Councillor Phillips, really good question. I guess, were they aware, and to me, the debate is around, you know, the planning scheme
00:46:00 amendments and what was included or excluded for whatever reason. And how we're going to move forward, as opposed to a person that has reasonably put for their application for short-term accommodation under the preceding plan, how it sits. Now, what was the applicant happy with? Were they happy to move forward under that clear understanding? Speaker 1: So, can I just clarify? So, this was actually launched September last year. So, well in advance of the current consultation process. It was held up a little bit, because it did have to go to the state government for a referral, which is why it's taken to this point to actually get to Council. So, it was actually lodged nine months ago. So, I don't believe they've been aware of any of the current scheme changes. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, Tara, did you say that this application had to go to the state government? Speaker 1: Yeah, it's on a state road. State road. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 9: But, and to add to Tara's point, obviously the applicant would have been aware that the housing strategy was endorsed at that point in time.
00:47:00 So, whilst it's not part of the planning scheme, it was actually endorsed by Council. Okay. Councillor Finzel: So, through the Chair, just a question. Did the applicant have the opportunity to withdraw this application prior to the amendments going through public consultation and coming back? Or were they not interested? Speaker 1: So, the application can be withdrawn at any point. There was no advice provided to them to withdraw, because under the current planning scheme it is a consistent issue. So, there was no advice to withdraw the application. Speaker 9: And also noting just to add, so if the proposal was more than four hectares, it would be a code consistent use. That's a good point. So, it's only become intact because of the size of the allotment that's under the four hectares. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Because the question tends to be around the application more generally, I'll call for anyone who wishes to talk to the amendment, which was perhaps the most important thing. It's a little bit limited than any we've sought to take out item three, but that's the amendment we're dealing with.
00:48:00 If no one... Mayor Wilkie: Look, I'll support the amendment because... Are you talking to us? I'll support the amendment because it makes the grounds for refusal more pertinent. It takes out irrelevant grounds. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk? I'll call for a vote. Those in favour? Left unanimous. No, I didn't vote for it. Oh, you didn't? Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilson: I'm not... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I didn't vote for the amendment. So, if you can... I'll read it out now, which is Councillor Finzel, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phillips, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson, and Councillor Stockwell, and against was Councillor Wegener. The amendment becomes the motion. So, I will move a similar amendment to remove the motion. The proposed item two, grounds of refusal item two.
00:49:00 Do I have a seconder? Mayor Wilkie: You have a seconder for the purposes of the debate? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Oh. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. I will only say it's... Obviously, I should have been included in the previous one. Same reasons. Anyone wish to speak? Councillor Wegener: I'm not sure about this. Like, this is... It's clearly relevant to the strategic intent, and my argument is based on the strategic intent is what limits the STF's ability to move forward. So, I don't... I see it as the... As a part of...
00:50:00 I was going to say the vibe of the thing, but no. It... I'm not... I'm just not sure that... Why does it... Why is it taken out? When it's in the town plan, and it relates to rural properties, and this is a... an STA going onto a rural property, it seems to be perfectly relevant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, if I can pose that as a question. Is the rural activities code something that's applied to all uses within the rural area, or is it a code applied to only rural in nature? Speaker 10: Applied to those activities that are rural in nature. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And a short-term accommodation in a rural area isn't considered a rural activity? No. Does that answer your... Councillor Wegener: Well, yes. That absolutely answers my point, because it's not... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know you're debating staff now, Councillor Lee. Councillor Wegener: You just... Councillor Wegener. You just said... Councillor Wegener. Yes, sir. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You have talked to the motion. You didn't pose it as a question. So, you've used your allotment of speaking to the amendment. Okay. And I will raise it when it becomes the amendment. Can I ask a question? Councillor Lorentson: A question. Can I ask a question?
00:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll let Councillor Wegener have a question. Sorry. Councillor Wegener: You... You say, so, an STA is not consistent with rural activities. You just said that. You say, because... You just made my argument. Because you said that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener, please... Talk to us. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Talk to us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That is a question. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. It is a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, can you reword it so it's not part of the argument? Councillor Wegener: Is an STA a rural activity? Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask the same question I've asked about three times. Is there a better way to go with this to refuse the notion in front of us, go back to the original, have a discussion about the original and if the sentiment is to refuse the approval or the
00:52:00 recommendation put by staff then allow council planners to put the reasons for refusal. I feel that we're going the wrong way around. We're talking about process now, we've got an amendment before us. But that's my question and that'll help inform the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you cancel with me? I will allow one more time. I think we've already addressed, but that would be an alternative way to address this issue. We could do that afterwards. Mayor Wilkie: As said before, we could approve this motion to refuse and staff could refine it by Thursday night as well, but alternatively. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? Are the amendments just to remove the second grant of refusal which related to rural activities? Mayor Wilkie: I support the amendment because it's consistent with staff advice. It helps make the grounds for refusal more pertinent and defensible.
00:53:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Lorentson and Stockwell. And those against? There's Councillor Wilson and Wegener. The illiterate of councillors. Okay. The amendment passed becomes now the motion. So councillors, it's now time to talk to the motion. And the only person, I believe, I didn't make a record, was Councillor Wegener who has spoken to the motion. Mayor Wilkie: So we've got the amended, the change motion in front of us. Mr Chairman? I just need to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That looks right to me with the renumbering. Yes. I'm on to it.
00:54:00 Okay, I think that's all there in front of us now. Would anyone like to talk to the motion? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I am going to speak to the motion and provided that what's in front of us will get tweaked before we come to the ordinary meeting. I'm happy to support Councillor Wegener's motion. I'm going to start with a sentence I've already started using this term and one that I'm going to continue using.
00:55:00 Community sentiment is the most valuable indicator of the potential impact of our decisions on the lives of our residents. As councillors, we've got a responsibility to not only listen to our residents, but also to adhere to our community's position. Approving more short-term accommodation goes against the community's clear stance on this issue. The Housing Needs Assessment Study and the draft amendments to our plan reflect this sentiment, as should our decision here today. We cannot, as Councillor Wegener said, amid a housing crisis, support this application. We must prioritise affordable long-term housing. I also want to make reference that we can rely, in my opinion, on the Planning Act, which allows us to deviate and rely on the discretionary powers conferred under Section 63.
00:56:00 Point of order, Mr Chairman. Mayor Wilkie: Can I just ask that the Speaker directly comment through the adopted staff? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, excuse me. Because they've done their job. Sorry. And I'd like to remind the councillors we can exercise what's called discretionary powers under Section 63. Section 63 of the Planning Act, because there is a planning need, we need housing. We're in a housing crisis, and other relevant matters under Section 45B of the Planning Act, and that recognises that community and social benefits outweigh the reasons for recommending approval for this application. Also, and in closing, it serves in the public interest. To refuse this application, then approve it. So, I'm not going to support the application, acknowledging that the applicant can still
00:57:00 short-term let his property for 60 days, or a maximum of four days a year, and can house host and potentially have some eco-cabins there. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else like to speak? Well, I'll speak. I'm going to start with saying that the planning logic that is in the staff report is quite supportable. But I've always been uneasy about this particular site, and the fact that it is impact-assessable triggered by the size of the land being not an acceptable asset. That means we then can view the broader planning scheme. And I did allude to it before. In the planning scheme, we have got strategic outcomes for tourism, but we've certainly got
00:58:00 other strategic outcomes for rural land, and primary production. There's one asset of this shire that you can't create any more of, and that's agricultural land. This site itself, while being small, is mapped as being having agricultural consequences. But across the road, there's quite a sizable portion of land with good quality agricultural land. And so, does a change from a resident living in a rural area, perhaps not practising anything other than having a house cow or a horse, to constant changing temporary visitors have any likelihood that the reverse amenity effect will have an adverse effect on any potential use of the ag land? And to me, the answer is probably yes. There's another part of this particular lot that also, in my mind, looking at it, if I say this is in one of the most rural parts of the shire, it's quite close to our northern
00:59:00 boundary. It is within an area that is less rural lifestyle. It's large blocks, a lot of grazing. And to me, there probably is merit in that. And to me, there is merit in putting more weight on the agricultural outcome versus the short-term outcome. And for that reason, on this particular application, I can support the motion put forward by Councillor Wigna as amended. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wegener, would you like to close? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener, would you like to close? Councillor Wegener, would you like to close? There's a, there's a, I'll tell a story of the Murray River Growers and during the, you know, they're at the Pomona market, so they bring all the food down.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll remind you, in closing, you can only rebut or refer to matters of the debate that have already occurred. Councillor Wegener: Oh, good point. Okay. No, I've got nothing to say. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd love to hear that story later. Yeah, I'll tell you the story later. As much as I like your story. So you're happy to close? You're closed, yeah. Okay. I'll have, I'll put the motion to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. So we move on to item 5.2, which is mature change of use for development application for a short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, Cootharaba. Could we have an overview, please? Speaker 1: So, again, this is a short-term accommodation in an existing dwelling house. Also, due to the lot size being under four hectares, so, hence the impact assessment, so this lot is 3.16 hectares. There's no work proposed as part of the application, so no new access or any building work to the dwelling.
01:01:00 The dwelling is two bedroom, and they're proposing to have a maximum of four people on site. There is a fair bit of the site is mapped as biodiversity. There is no ag land mapped on this property. The recommendation is for approval, similarly, in terms of the coding principle, the planning staff believes it's too premature to take into consideration the current planning scheme amendments. There is standard conditions included in the recommendation to possess an amendment in place. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have a motion? Councillor Wegener: I'd like to make an alternative motion to refuse this. And it's the same motion as before? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor, we're going to use staying with the motion from the last item that you moved, or the motion that was passed? Councillor Wegener: Let's go with the motion that was passed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so we don't need to read that out again.
01:02:00 We know what it is, so would you like to talk to the motion? I'll second it. Oh, yeah, that's a good idea. Councillor Wegener: This property is not an agricultural property, but it is still in the rural zone. And we are looking at creating rural pursuits, ecotourism, all those sorts of things where you have residents making a living on the land, which is the exact opposite of having STA residents on the land. And this property actually has neighbors. And neighbors, the definition of a neighbor or neighborhood is neighbors come to your house. Well, it could come next door or whatever the house is. And if it turns into an STA, it's no longer a neighbor. It's no longer a neighborhood. When you have strangers coming in and out of a property, it's no longer your neighbor. And we want to maintain a sense of a neighborhood, even though it's a rural property.
01:03:00 And there's not a lot of neighbors. You still have neighbors. And they're there when you look at the map. So this is inconsistent, once again, with the NISA housing strategy because you are replacing housing with STAs. And it's inconsistent with the same strategic plan because it doesn't incorporate any sort of rural activity on it, which is essential. If it doesn't have a rural pursuit. Then it does not. It is not consistent with the town plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. So would anyone else like to speak to this motion? Mayor Wilkie: I think we're heading in the same direction as we did in the last, the last matter, Mr. Chairman. So I'll be supporting the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Could I ask for figure one from the Payne-Walsh's report to be brought up, please?
01:04:00 Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm actually not supporting this, I don't believe it's round or accurate, there's no way you can have a look at that block with the biodiversity overlaying all over it, the rear of the site has riparian corridor, this is not a site where the highest inversion uses agriculture at all, it's good, it's good. If you look, there's a connection quite strongly through this site and over to the north-east end to Otteri Bar, the site, from a planting sense, is best protected for its natural values, the site is not one that short-term, that any of those blocks surrounding with an agricultural environment, even if it was a fairly intense horticulture, would have an impact on this site in the course of a year.
01:05:00 So in this instance, I don't think those grounds stack up, I don't think the specific location was mentioned in the overview, it's not like the last application which was on mapped overlay of agricultural land, and while I still think the best outcome is to retain a house and to have short-term accommodation and ancillary use, I don't think the grounds will be put up for the last site.
01:06:00 So, we'll stack up, I ask if this motion was to fall over I have an alternative approach which was approving it as a temporary development permit for a period of three years, at which time we can reconsider it based on whether there's been any impacts on the current policy settings. Mayor Wilkie: We can address that on Thursday night, if you wish to. Question to staff. But, under the current planning settings, should this application be refused, would the applicants could apply to have a home hosted accommodation here in CABIS? Councillor Wegener: Correct. Mayor Wilkie: So some sort of eco-tourism is still possible on the site, consistent with the current planning scheme and also the agreements on the line. Thank you.
01:07:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak really briefly to this. I think consistency in decision making is paramount. And I think the decision for me today is, are we in a housing crisis or not? And if we are, we should be supporting the application in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Motion. Councillor Lorentson: Motion in front of us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we speak? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Phillips, Finzel, Wegener and Lorentson. Those against? So, okay. The motion has moved towards carried. We move on to item 5.3. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an alternate motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we can have the overview of the subject.
01:08:00 Oh, wait a minute. Yes, that's right. So we're looking at item 3. This is a moot 2 of change of use 22.094. Developed an application for a child in December 2018, Peregian, Noosaville. And we have the Dean stepping up to the plate to give us an overview. Speaker 12: Good afternoon, everyone. This is an application for material change of use. This is the application that Georgie spoke to earlier this afternoon. This is an application for a childcare centre for up to 96 children, 17 staff in a single-store building along Hofmann Drive. As you're aware, there is a bit of history to the creation of the subdivision. It was created in 2018 when three lots were created as part of a reconfiguration application with the subjects in the field. And a negotiated outcome which required a 10-metre buffer, landscape buffer, to Hofmann Drive. The Noosaville plan indicates that the childcare centre is an inconsistent and impact accessible
01:09:00 use in this zone. And council staff have prepared a report that doesn't support the application based on the non-compliance with the planning scheme and the non-provision of the 10-metre landscape setback as required by the reconfiguration application. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Langevin. Councillor Langevin. Mayor Wilkie: Can I ask another question or something? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Langevin. Councillor Langevin. Councillor Langevin. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an alternate motion that council note the report by the coordinator planning to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 11th of June 2024 regarding application number MCU 22 0094 for material change of use for a childcare centre for up to 96 children, situated at 28 Eney Creek Road, Noosaville and request staff to bring forward a revised report to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 9th of July 2024 detailing conditions for approval.
01:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have a seconder for that motion. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'm moving this alternate motion to approve a childcare application to the Planning and Environment Committee based on the recognition of economic, community and social benefits associated with the proposed development. And I'm going to list my reasons. Childcare centre is vital to our community. It offers essential services and employment opportunities that our residents and workforce desperately need. Establishing the centre will create jobs, support the influx of professionals, particularly with three new medical centres being built nearby. Childcare centres also play a crucial role in supporting women by enabling them to participate
01:11:00 in the workforce. Access to reliable and affordable childcare allows women to go back to work, continue their careers and continue their education. This maximises the talent and potential of childcare centres. Childcare centres also play a crucial role in supporting women in the workforce, driving economic growth and innovation. Refusing this application because it does not provide the required 10 metre landscape buffer zone, a provision that was settled back in 2020, a decision that I asked this question at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting, a decision that's not final and not binding, is not, in my opinion, a valid reason. Reducing this buffer zone to four metres will not compromise the new centre. This is a character, nor will it detract from the business centre's visual appeal. The other grounds for refusal, in my opinion, are equally unconvincing. This proposal is not about creating something our community does not want.
01:12:00 It's actually the opposite. It's about addressing the pressing needs of our community. The economic and social benefits of this childcare centre far outweigh the constraints of our current Planning Act. We face a shortage of workers in the hospitality and retail sectors. Providing accessible childcare will attract and retain staff in these industries, directly contributing to the growth of the Noosa economy and improving our gross regional product. The proposal is planned to accommodate 96 children with the area of open spaces that have to be regulated to ensure a safe and conducive environment. This capacity is essential, as 96 is the minimum number of children required to make the centre economically feasible. We heard this, again, at the Planning and Environment Committee. Necessary changes have been made to address this requirement, ensuring the project's viability and sustainability. The Planning Scheme doesn't consider economic viability of a business, but we as councillors
01:13:00 should. We should consider whether a business is economically viable, because the long-term sustainability and prosperity of our community depend on the success of its local businesses. Economically viable businesses contribute to the local economy. They provide employment opportunities, they attract further investment, and they create a resilient local economy that can better withstand economic fluctuations. Last week, we met with our business leaders in our Business Roundtable, and we spoke of diversification. We spoke of our Small Business Friendly Charter, and growing our GRP. The development proposal aligns with our commitment to supporting small business, our commitment to diversifying our economy, and our commitment to growing our GRP, and yet more reasons to support these applications. Council is refusing an essential service for our community, based, in my view, on
01:14:00 minor planning provisions does not outweigh these compelling reasons to approve it. I ask that we walk the talk and demonstrate our commitment to our community, and again approve this essential service in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Question to Scar. Is it correctly zoned land in the Mississippi that will allow this community to benefit from the economic, social, community, and environmental benefits and jobs? Yes, there is. Speaker 12: The land directly to the north is the Village Mixed Use Zone, and a child care centre is a consistent use in that zone. Mayor Wilkie: So this community will not be denied economic, social, community benefits over a child care centre if it was provided from the direct zone? That is correct. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask, just following up on that, a couple of questions. How long did this application in front of us take from start to finish?
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Speaker 12: It took it a fair while, because it was a long process. The applicant, we did advise the applicant along the way that we won't support all of it. There was a pre-login meeting that was undertaken with Council staff, where they were advised that there was a requirement for a 10-metre landscape setback. It took a while for a response to the, for the applicant to respond to the information request. And during that response time, there were considerable discussions with the City Council that the applicant began indicating their concerns with the proposal. So, yeah, and there was a public notification period in there as well. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Nidhi. So, if this proposal is not supported, how long will it be before we see a child care centre at Noosa City? There's land designed for it, but how long would that be before that's actually realised? Speaker 12: I don't know.
01:16:00 That would be up to the developer, or someone else to... Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. So, if this application was supported, how long before we would realistically see this up and running? Speaker 12: Again, that's something you have to talk to the developer, noting that the approval lasts for six years. They might not do anything for six years. They might construct it in five years' time. I don't know. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say that if the applicant was to engage with staff for an application on the Corrections Owners site, if the process may be... That's a good question. It would take a while less time and... Speaker 12: The process would take... Yeah, it would be an impact assessment application. Very generally, in a consistent design, it could take anything around six months. Mayor Wilkie: I also heard that... Could you explain the weight of this report? There's a court-ordered outcome that there'd be a 10-metre landscape buffer. If... Could you put that in context, please? Speaker 10: So, the reconfiguration, which was lodged in 2018, and then...
01:17:00 Which is what Council had settled on the Bill. That condition was applied as part of the settlement agreement between the parties. And the purpose was to create the Parkwayak City. I think, just to go back a bit, it's important to clarify that under the draft scheme amendments, this site is actually... The childcare centre will be a consistent use on this site, so the scheme will change. There is a... I think it's important that the lot area be under 4,000 square metres for it to be co-accessible. This lot is over 4,000 square metres, so in the new scheme it would be a consistent impact accessible application. I think it's important that transparency for that. Speaker 12: And to note on that, there's also a requirement in the draft amendments for a 10-metre landscape. Mayor Wilkie: So if the 10-metre landscaped buffer was able to be retained, looking ahead to where the thing seems to be going,
01:18:00 that would be a desirable outcome? Speaker 10: It certainly would be a desirable outcome. And with the land undeveloped to the north, there is an availability to amend lot boundaries to increase the area that might be used. While the 10-metre landscape might be able to be compensated for within this lot. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So on this specific issue, because in the dedication we had reference to the infrastructure plan, my understanding is that a scheme requirement for a landscape buffer does not trigger the definition of infrastructure like an open space community. Would that be true? Speaker 10: Yes, so landscaping is not an infrastructure. The infrastructure agreement and the position that's been put forward by the applicant
01:19:00 about our inability to apply the 10-metre buffer has been reviewed by our lawyers and the advice is that it is a reasonable condition for a range of factors. I'm not sure I really necessarily get onto that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no, that was my key point of advice. It's not an infrastructure, so the local infrastructure plan may not help and bring disagreements with respect to the development of this application. Speaker 10: The previous infrastructure agreement at Delta referred to an open space, bring disagreements between open space and landscape, but there's not any other elements. Other questions? Councillor Phillips: Thank you. In the zone you say multi-use zone, is there a lot large enough to facilitate same size childcare? Speaker 12: It's a large lot, the ones in the north, so yes, there is.
01:20:00 Thank you. Speaker 10: It's approximately four hectares in area. Yes. We have an application over at Carralee for a range of uses, generally aligned with the main schemes you take with the site. They haven't incorporated childcare in that current application. They haven't? They have not. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Speaker 10: Okay. But there'd be room for one, would there? Well, the four hectares in the area, it's not certainly a very large site if they was really big or what they were composing, yes. Speaker 12: Figure nine of the report shows the, I'm not quite sure what page that's on, but if you go through the nine, that shows the initial application that's been lodged. It's in actually, it's in the report. You open the, you actually open the, yeah, it's actually online work. Is that yeah, just in there? Yeah. Question? No.
01:21:00 Oh, I was going to touch on, sorry. Yeah it's online. Figure, figure nine. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Does anyone else's system vary slightly? . . Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: That would be fine. Speaker 12: Yeah. Yeah. It's just about 3.3.2. All that does is give you, oh no, you've gone into Mr. Screams.
01:22:00 Councillor Wilson: So while we're doing that, we won't put any compression, we'll come back to that because it's just a, do I have any other questions? Just looking at the plans, very much of the area was taken up by the partners, is there any, would you talk through the one share of children and staff's parking or are there any other alternatives? So we didn't accommodate drop-offs or anything like that, so we decided not to drop-off to the parking lot. Speaker 12: The car parking is actually below the funding planning scheme requirements. Our traffic consultant, we have an external traffic consultant. He's reviewed it and he considers that that slight reduction in numbers is appropriate for the use as proposed. Yes, I've heard the child care centres have a pitch where they turn over quickly, so this is actually a couple of spaces short, so I don't think we'd be supportive of going in with their loan. Speaker 10: And it does have a number of tandem spaces, which reduces the amount of area required for car parking, and that would be in recognition of that staff.
01:23:00 Using those and that quick use of the car parks wouldn't go up at all, so in many circumstances we wouldn't accept so much tandem spaces, but with this use it's been recommended. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of number of car parks, it's three, is that correct? They've gone from 27 car parks and the recommendation's 30, so it is minor, yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so we have the overall layout there, and the point you were making to that particular diagram? Speaker 12: So this is our subject lot here, and these ones are included in the business zone, and this is the lot to the south, which is the village mixed use zone. So this is the current application we've got in, we have been in discussions talking about this application, or an information request, or further advices on this one, but this area down here, we've got no application over, and that's also part of the village mixed
01:24:00 use zone. Okay, so there is a site that has got no application over it and is available for development. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, do we have any other questions? Yep, I've got a couple more questions. There was a representation that was made in the deputation in terms of offerings, that this childcare centre in a park-like environment is a different offering to the development. Can you talk to that please, Nadine? Speaker 12: I can only interpret what I heard, my understanding is if they put it in the current application, the comment was that it would be in an upstairs situation. If we can go back to that, this concept we've currently got in, you can, so it's offices up the top, car parking, on this application next door.
01:25:00 I believe we've got a couple more questions. George, you were talking about there would be a childcare centre, they'd put it on the upper level, not a vacant area of land. Councillor Lorentson: So can I ask, would the centre support more than one childcare centre, and I'm sort of trying to gauge in terms of workers, professional staff, people living, like this is a city. How many people are anticipated to be working and living in this precinct? I don't know. Speaker 12: Actually off the top of my head, no I don't know, I'd like to come back to you, but again there is, we're not, we are supportive of a childcare centre occurring in the civic area, we've just got some concerns with the design and the layout of this one. It's more along those lines. So we support a childcare centre in this area, and we support the civic. Councillor Lorentson: So I've looked at the tracking application, and in terms of needs and competing interests
01:26:00 with other childcare centres, it seems that this doesn't conflict or compete with these existing childcare centres. Is there a need for more childcare centres? Speaker 12: I haven't gone into that. As I said, it's a, in the other zones it's a consistent use, and noting that the draft amendments all sides flag that this use will be consistent in the future, there is a provision for a childcare centre to be established in the Noosaville civic area. So yes, I'm assuming that there is a need for an additional centre in that, and there is a provision under the current zoning for a childcare centre to be situated in the Village Mixed Use Zone. Councillor Lorentson: And just one more question following up on that. The pressures from, you know, all the conversation with our drafts, the South East Queensland regional plan. So there is an expectation that we are going, we will be somehow accommodating extra accommodation.
01:27:00 Again, was that a factor that was considered as part of the application? Speaker 10: I think we certainly considered it as a need for the childcare centre. I think that's reflected through our planning scheme. I think the issue is that the applicant has chosen to put it on the part of the site that the scheme didn't support. There was advice in the free lodgement meeting that there was going to be an issue with the 10 metre setback. The applicant chose to proceed with this site, noting that there was significant area available for the development at that time. That's still available. They're proposing a visit of mixed use development that's still not a large portion of area that could accommodate this development. So, you know, to go back to your point, certainly we recognise and would like to see additional HLK centre developed within this, within this area. But as long as it fit accords with the requirements in this area.
01:28:00 Questions? Mayor Wilkie: We had a deputation from the applicant earlier and there was a range of points made. Are there any points of clarification that the campaigning team would like to make regarding what was presented to the councillors? Any points of clarification? Speaker 10: I would just reiterate that we have had legal advice which supports the inclusion of the HLK centre. We would like to have the provision within the scheme and the condition that would require the 10 metre setback. I'd probably, there was a comment made that the purpose of the 10 metre setback was to almost imply some screening in the interim. It was certainly more than that. It was about the character that we'll try to create when this site was actually developed. That the vegetated outcomes were the dominant form and not the built form. So I would probably disagree with that. Okay. Speaker 9: And the other comment I would make is obviously this is the first application over three lots. You'll see that front onto the road. So any decision made on this application regarding the vegetated buffer is likely to
01:29:00 follow a similar suit for those other allotments. Noting that once the precedent is set for what that buffer looks like it would be difficult for council to then require a high standard on those other development sites as well. Councillor Wilson: Okay. And the other comment I would make is obviously this is the first application over Councillor Phillips: I just just a question because I got a little lost when there was a mention of upstairs. So did you mention that there's going to be a child you're suggesting a child care upstairs? Speaker 12: I said I can only give you my interpretation of what was said at the deputation. So I believe the comment was made that the if there was to be a child care centre put on the village mixed use lot or sorry portion of the site that it would be upstairs and not in a park like setting. So this is a it's a two-story development. At the moment there's a proposal for a cinema and some sort of indoor entertainment. I'm assuming the comment was to be made that they would put it
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 in an upper level and it wouldn't have a park like setting. That's my interpretation of what was said. We can seek some clarification if you require on that. Maybe that would be good because Councillor Phillips: it makes sense that you wouldn't want a child care inside a building where we want our young Speaker 12: people out in the summertime. That's right and that's what we're saying there is that portion above the three lots that is not at the moment the subject of an application and there could be the provision of a child care centre in that location. It doesn't necessarily have to go into Councillor Phillips: the built form. And that is that what the rate three on there? Sorry that you're speaking on and Speaker 12: no so I'm talking about so the current development application that we're in is over here and there's this this area here which doesn't have a any proposal for development on it. We're dealing this is our subject lot here. What size is the lot above that then? It's that's about four it's probably
01:31:00 about eight. Could be that's yeah total is a total projection. Yeah thank you. Okay and it could be Mayor Wilkie: okay. Councillor Wilkie. I'll speak to the motion. Look I cannot support this motion because Noosa has had a great history and reputation for fulfilling its economic social community needs fulfilling its economic social and community needs in a responsible and planned and coordinated way in accordance with the Noosa planning scheme. Of course we need a child care centre but there is land adjacent to it which is more appropriately zoned and also because we place in Noosa we place a high value on the natural look and feel and vegetated buffers, especially ones that are a result of court order mediation are an integral part of that. I would like to see a child care centre in the in the Noosa Civic. We of course we all want the economic social
01:32:00 and community benefits but there is land where that can occur and we can keep the vegetated buffer. I would be open to any a compromise perhaps where the 10 meter vegetated buffer could be retained given that that's where the planning scheme is heading but for the purpose where we are exactly right here and now I can't support this motion that's before us with the information before me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I sorry just anyone else wish to speak no if you've got a question. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question here um just a question uh Patrick and Nadine have we spoken to the applicant and um asked if they were well firstly whether council is negotiable on a 10 meter buffer zone and whether they're negotiable on their four meter buffer zone is there opportunity to negotiate um that
01:33:00 and if so can we throw the question to the applicant before the ordinary meeting on Thursday. Speaker 12: I have spoken many times um to during during the process we were very clear in terms of the requirement for a 10 meter landscape buffer and yes I spoke to the applicant last week and asked if they would be uh would be they would be prepared to lend the application for a setback and they indicated no they believe they've achieved the park bike setting that's required and a good Deputy Mayor Stockwell: development outcome. Okay can I speak to the motion you may uh in support of councillor Councillor Phillips: Clarence's motion uh because I believe I put my community hat on and if we were to ask around what's more important the 10 meter buffer or the extra traffic congestion driving from over at this business precinct to the nearest vacancy of child care facilities is across the other side of the Shire and so as a mum of young kids and and looking at this from that perspective I would like to
01:34:00 support that this is a much-needed project and I would like to support that this is a much-needed facility in in this area and so I believe that supporting it I'm I'm supporting working parents employed in the area and also enhancing the overall functionality and appeal of the precinct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Well I'll speak to it um councillors it is a very unusual situation and while we just had the argument about why not to apply for the 10 meter buffer, it's a very unusual situation and why we don't want to go into the short term. This is different. Council's considered this site and put out the public interview that it's suitable for a child care centre. So we have at the moment a council position that says the use is suited so it's not
01:35:00 that we need to debate the child care centre. We need to debate the quality of development that has been set out for this site for many years. The fact that the Noosa Business Centre can't be seen from Hofmann Drive, I mean Walter Hay Drive and from um Indy Creek Road is a result of exactly the same condition. It's about establishing standards to achieve an outcome that as was said by staff, where the experience when you're driving through here is one of the natural environment not the one of the built form. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that we're not putting up the white flag. And that's the key issue. That's the key ground for refusal. And that's the key thing we've got to consider. This wasn't just a condition on a reconfiguration of the lot. It is a proposed condition of the draft scheme that this council has out in front of the public at this very moment. To vote against what is currently out for public consultation
01:36:00 is putting up the white flag before you're raised at full height. So for me I can't support the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I'll close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else want to speak? Yep you may close. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to run through some of the benefits. The child care intends to service young working families within the immediate area. It will complement the existing future activities that will be contained in the development plan. The development plan will be a part of the development. It will contribute to the functionality of the whole business centre. It will provide additional employment opportunities. It will provide employees of the centre and the existing new civic centre convenient child care services. There's a medical centre that's been approved. There's two others that have been approved. And that's going to provide them with well located and convenient child care services. The building is architecturally designed.
01:37:00 And has a built form that complements the strong character of Noosa with significant landscaping of four meters. There are no adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby residential neighbourhoods given the distances away and that the building provides screening from outdoor play. The site is clear from any significant environment features. And just on a simple basis, working mums need it. Young families need it. They need it now not in six years, not in 10 years. They need it now. So approving this application is not just about accommodating deviations of the planning scheme. I respect the planning scheme. Approving this application is about recognising the broader impact and benefits that a child is going to have to live with.
01:38:00 So I urge everyone to consider these factors and make a decision that aligns with our goals of sustainable development and community well-being. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. Those against? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell. Do we have an alternate motion? I'll move the staff recommendation. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Wegener was a seconder. Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: Look, as I said before, the Noosa community is renowned for meeting all its social, economic and community needs in an environmentally responsible way, according to the planning scheme, a planned way that looks to the future.
01:39:00 It doesn't, that respects especially court-ordered mediated settlements about vegetative buffers. The vegetative buffer around the largest commercial development in Noosa, which is the Noosa Civic Site, is essential to not negatively impacting on the amenity that we all enjoy. And so for the reasons that we've heard from staff and... And in the last debate, I'm supporting the refusal of this application. And also the fact that the childcare centre can be accommodated on land that's very close by. It's not as if, if it's not built here, it won't be built anywhere. Yeah, so I support this motion. Okay. Other people wish to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson.
01:40:00 Councillor Wilson: Yeah, that was a very difficult one. I do support having a childcare centre in the area. And it's been demonstrated that there's land surrounding this site that could be used to ensure that the site is big enough to support the business. I don't believe that we can take into account the actual viability. So if the, if the business needs there to be 96 children, and I totally understand the reasons of how that's actually allocated across, the, the indoor centre, then need to find a site that's big enough to achieve that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question actually. In the buildings mixed with this new zone, the current heightened stories and that proposed, am I right is that that zone immediately behind this was one of the areas that's currently being advertised as a potential for an incentive to go to an extra store?
01:41:00 I haven't heard that. Okay, okay. I'm going to make the statement there. I'll talk to it. I'll have to go back to you on that. Yeah. My, my belief is that this is one of the areas immediately behind here where we are in visiting. There may be a bonus for an additional storey for affordable housing. I might be wrong. But the principle still is that the zone behind may have a much bigger and bulkier building. So when we're looking at the vista from the road, we're not just looking at the vista from what this is. And I agree that high quality design element of the, of the childcare centre. We're looking at the role of that buffer to give you an overall impression of the site. And is it one of a park like setting or is it one of a large bulky building? So to me, it's really important to set the standards up front. I do think there is some wiggle room on this site. Like we've been told that the fire retention basin can only go in that site. It's got a driveway beside.
01:42:00 So yes, it's logical to be flexible in that regard. But there is also options to be more flexible in the other design. We see at the moment that we've got four metres rather than 10 going to lawn. I don't know childcare safety rules, but I do know there's a large movement of exposing young children to nature based play. Is there a, is there a compromise there that the 10 metres could include some element of nature based play? I do believe that the requirement is about establishing vegetation in that buffer, similar to what was there previously to get that visual buffer. So to me, it is about standing firm on the quality of development. I have no argument with the need argument. That is one that can generate special consideration. But at this stage, I don't think that the, just a proposal of a certain size, which is, has proven to be in excess of what that particular lot can sustain within the scheme, is a good enough argument to approve it.
01:43:00 Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I'd like to first of all thank all the councillors and what they've put to the table today. It's a really challenging decision before us. And all of us support from what I heard around the table, the community use, the benefit to the community, especially families that will rely on childcare centres as one of the options to provide care for children as they participate in employment to support their economic responsibilities. And we also acknowledge the very difficult economic times that we are experiencing. Given the court ordered mediation, that has taken place in the consistency and in support of the plan, and also economically looking after our own public purse to make sure that we are making
01:44:00 good decisions economically as well. I feel that I have to agree with the recommendation from the staff, but then by no means limits my support of a childcare centre now and into the future. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All good? I'll put the motion to a vote. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener and Stockwell. And those opposed to the motion is Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. Councillors, we're going to have a five-minute break as we have an issue to resolve before the next item. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
105 minutes in ¶
01:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have come to understand that JFP Urban Consultants, on behalf of Altum Property Group, who are the developers of Park Ridge Noosa Springs, made a submission against the Noosa Springs Hotel development. Since then the matter has changed given Altum Property Group has withdrawn the submission. Lee McCready, who is associated with Altum, was involved as a volunteer with my 2020 election campaign with Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Lee and Rob McCready.
01:59:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting room on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you, Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any questions of Councillor Finzel? No? Do we have anyone wishing to move either of the options, which one is to allow Councillor Finzel to stay and participate or to ask her to leave? Councillor Wilson: I move that she can stay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so it's moved. Option A there is a move by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Phillips. Do you wish to talk to the matter? No. No? No. Does anyone else? That's unanimous. And Councillor Finzel did not vote. Thank you. So to this matter I will refer to the CEO.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Can you give us an update on this matter, please? Or the Director. Speaker 9: The Director is directly involved. Thank you, Councillors. So further report has been prepared for the creates committee. The applicant has put forward a request for a deferral decision on this particular case. The applicant has committed to undertake some further actions including investigation and consideration of potential further changes to the proposal in light of the proposed reasons for refusals as put forward in the general committee report this proposal of last year and to undertake further community engagement and consultation with other relevant stakeholders as part of this. So the requested deferral of the decision to a future meeting date. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. And there is, should we be agreeable to that, the recommendation is on the screen. Would someone like to do that or would you like to move on? Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move it that council note the further report by the manager development assessment to the planning and environment committee meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding application MCU 21 slash 0110 for a development permit for a material change of use, resort complex and ancillary bar.
02:01:00 Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club, minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads, and defer this matter to a future meeting round as the applicant has requested to extend the decision making period pursuant to section 22 of the development assessment rules. We are seconded by Councillor Finzel. Do you wish to talk to the motion? Yeah, I'll say something just really briefly. I hope the applicant is genuine in their commitment to working collaboratively with the community, Unity Water, and the council to address the concerns that were raised as grounds for refusal.
02:02:00 I also hope that our community, Unity Water, will also genuinely commit. to working with the applicant, and I hope we can engage in meaningful negotiations to reach a mutually beneficial outcome, rather than resorting to court proceedings. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone else wish to talk to the matter? I presume you don't want to close, Councillor Larkin? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I will, because I've left out a sentence. I want to actually also say that a new hotel in Noosa is desired. And it is needed. But it has to be built so that it does not negatively impact on the lives of our residents, and meets community expectations and values. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm not quite sure if you were rebutting any of your opening remarks, but I understand that.
02:03:00 I'll take a vote on that matter. That's carried unanimously. Okay, our next item is Report Directed to General Committee. I'm the new role, Ringtail Conservation Project. And I would like to acknowledge some people who have been heavily involved in this project for many years. Michael Gloucester from the Noosa Parks Association. Our ex-CEO who carried on the role with the Transition Committee, Brett DeChastel. We have ex-Mayor Noel Clayford, ex-Mayor Tony Wellington, and extraordinaire of Landcare, Phil Moran. Adam, I'm quite sure of his name. Josh, passenger. Anne, I hand over to you. Director Rawlings: Thanks, councillors. I feel very privileged to be at your table for this very significant report and this very significant milestone. As the report outlines, you know, probably the most significant project, environmental project in Noosa for the last 20 years.
02:04:00 I'm not going to steal Brett's thunder. But I do want to welcome Brett DeChastel to the table. Brett was the author of the attached report. Brett also former CEO and was instrumental in steering this project through its course, navigating the partnerships and holding everyone together to achieve an incredibly significant outcome. And I also would like to acknowledge the very significant people in the room. Noel, Michael, Tony and Phil, who all played different but equally significant roles in this incredible project. So Brett will actually summarise the attached report and then open to any questions. Speaker 5: Hopefully no hard questions. It would be funny to be sitting in the chair again after all these years. Yeah, a bit like Kim, I just want to, I guess, acknowledge this is a milestone in this project.
02:05:00 The transition committee has just finished after five or six years of operation. But milestones is always good to reflect. And I do want to acknowledge, as Kim said, the great work undertaken by Noosa Parks Association in kicking off this project many years ago from a concept stage and also pulling together all the stakeholders in one room and doing all the homework on that. So we wouldn't have got to where we are today without that input. This project, unlike many council projects, is a really long term goal. Too often we do projects of 12 months or two years or three years. This has been going for probably six or seven years now. The MOU was done with the state government back in 2017, just before the state election, which put all the parties on the same page about what they were trying to achieve. And that converted into contracts that were drawn up in 2018. And been worked through since that time. So the good news is that all of those contracts have been honoured.
02:06:00 All the timeframes have been met. All the payments have been made. All the tenure issues have been worked through. Pretty significant project. We used the transition committee. We've got the final report from the transition committee, which has input from all the transition committee members to highlight, tell the story really about why the project has been successful, what it's achieved. How the transition committee worked. The problems it was dealing with, trying to solve. And also about some of the outcomes. So pretty impressive piece of work. And I think I've said recently, as you can tell, I've been around a bit, lost a bit of hair over the years. But this is probably one of the most significant projects I've worked on in local government. And given me a great sense of personal pride. So the current state of play is that just over a thousand hectares of this area, has already been put into National Park. And the final tranche, which is about 1,300, just over 1,400 hectares, is currently being tabled in Parliament as of this week.
02:07:00 And we'll be going into National Park probably early August. That's the last step in that process. So we'll end up with an additional 2,400 hectares of National Park. Which stretches from, I might use this term to describe it to my wife. You know, you're going down McKinnon Drive and you hit the TN section to turn right to go to Bullring Point. From that corner all the way to the other side of Pomona. You take that big sway right through the middle. It's a really significant piece of land. The other good part about this project, I guess, is that with many of the environmental acquisitions the Council has made or contributed to over the years, we're trying to preserve existing good parts of the land. What this does, if you like, is push back a bit. And say, look, we've got some forestry areas. And the forestry company, HQ Plantations, were outstanding to deal with. They were really pragmatic, as was the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, through the forestry guys there.
02:08:00 Because how do we recognise that there's some really valuable timber resources that they have planted, both pine and hardwood? How can we take that off and enable them to have their commercial return? That's like a crop. And then how do we have a processing place to regenerate that land over time back into national park status? So the ability to do that's been a really tricky project with so many different stakeholders. But this project has been characterised by a very high level of trust between all the parties. Really good working relationships established from the transition committee. And ultimately achieved some great outcomes. Already there's been 131,000 plantations. In this area. With another 180,000 to come in the next three to four years. And that's been funded through Green Fleet, who came to the project in 2021.
02:09:00 Together with the Kabi Kabi people, looking at how they can get carbon offsets. And generate some more funding to be able to put into replanting. So it's been a great project. And in the report, we've prepared it, I guess, so that other communities and organisations can have a look and say, well, why was this project successful? What was the things that made it successful? And it was about the scale. The regional scale. That regional connectivity. Getting value for money in terms of cost of the acquisition. But also the ability to build common grounds for people to have really good strong working relationships. Even though they're coming from different areas. You had environment groups in the room with harvest companies. Plantation companies. And three different government departments who don't necessarily always see eye to eye. And just get them together and to bring on new partners through the project as well. It's been a great, great result.
02:10:00 And as I said, this report to the council really highlights this milestone where the transition committee's role has finished with our last meeting. Present this report to council. And what happens now is the final parcel of land goes to the national park. And there's still some planning to happen over the next three or so years funded by Greenflea. But the amount of work that's been done. I just want to draw council's attention to council staff over the years. They've also made a big contribution. Peter Milne and Dave Burrows, some of our environmental staff who have tramped every square metre of this land and given a lot of good advice. And like all of us were pleasantly surprised about the amount of natural regrowth that's occurred. So, that can take any hopefully easy questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In terms of the project. So, does anyone have questions? Mayor Wilkie: Greg, can you talk about some of the uses of this land? It's going to national park.
02:11:00 But there are, there's trials through there. Can you just speak to some of the current and potential future uses? Yeah. The actual uses. Speaker 5: Yeah. Obviously, like any national park, we've probably built a management plan. So, we've got one being developed. The north is one for the national park. There'll be the need for QPWS to develop a management plan for this area. I'm sure council is hoping for at that stage. As you know, there's already quite a lot of tracks and trails through this area. And I actually think there's more opportunities for tracks and trails here. Probably because there's a lot of internal access roads or trails and tracks that are already there from the logging roads. So, you can do something really good with that area. And certainly, QPWS have been very open with council previously to look at the Pomona to Cooran Trail. I know back at the moment, they're working on the Pomona to Lake MacDonald Trail. People are working on that at the moment. So, yeah, it's a great opportunity to continue to be available to the community for public
02:12:00 access for that recreation. Particularly retired CEOs can enjoy Lake MacDonald Trail. Councillor Wilson: It's important. Speaker 5: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Rhonda. Hey, Brett. So, I think it was 2021 when the Kabi Kabi people collaborated with Greenfleet and Noosa Landcare. I just want to sort of understand what specific types of training and employment opportunities are envisaged for the Kabi people through this collaboration? Speaker 5: Yeah. So, the council wasn't a party to that agreement. It was a separate agreement done as an indigenous land use agreement between Greenfleet and Kabi Kabi. They have arrangements under that. I'm generally aware of it, but it's not. It's a commercial arrangement. But there's provisions in there that Greenfleet, through their contractor, Landcare, who are doing the planning, will undertake cultural awareness training. They'll undertake cultural assessments of the sites before planning is undertaken.
02:13:00 And they'll look to employ young Kabi Kabi staff and train them up in terms of Landcare activities and those types of things. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Any others? Would someone like to move a motion? Move the motion. Okay. Okay. A staff recommendation. And seconded by Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel. Oh, look. Mayor Wilkie: All I can do is really congratulate and thank the people that were responsible for bringing this forward thinking legacy project forward. They're in the room here. I'm happy to identify them. And I'm happy to share the opportunity and create the relationships between HQ Plantations and the state government departments. I'm there, Tony, for leading us through the initial stages of that. Noel Mayer. Mayor Noel for being there always. Bill Moran for his work with Landcare and rehabilitating the site.
02:14:00 You, Brett, for everyone, and especially for negotiating a complicated web of relationships at a high level between HQ Plantations and a multitude of state government departments. It's rare to see a project of this scope and complexity get up. The beneficiaries are the broader community. Everyone involved is pretty much done on a voluntary basis and it's for the greater good. And it's immensely satisfying to have played a small part as councillors. It's come before us before and we've noted the importance and supported it, supported the project. And I can only imagine how proud you all feel at bringing this to fruition. And again, please accept congratulations and thanks on behalf of this current Minister of Council for everything we've done for this community and future generations.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Can I just speak to just one part of, and you know I wasn't involved in the whole process, but I note in the report, and I made a note of it, that there was a risk. A risk for both council and NPA. That they were paying for something that may not have eventuated. And that took a little bit of ingenuity and just sheer guts. And again, great example of collaboration and calculated risk. And understanding the, the, the, it was, you know, high risk but high return. And Brett, I'm going to throw this as a question rather than trying to explain. Can you explain what happened in terms of, you know, the money being held in a trust? I'll leave that for explanation for you. Speaker 5: So one of the things was that, is essentially granted was that State Government, Council and NPA
02:16:00 would grab a further money edge to acquire the plantation right for HQP. HQ Plantations wanted their money up front, which was $3.5 million. But of course that then needed for us to take part to say, well, how do we know if this land is going to be green in the National Park in the future? And there's a legal provision called federating discretion whereby it is impossible to contractually bind a Minister of the Crown to exercise the discretion at some stage in the future. You can't do that. So we had to find a way to work through how to give us some protection in case their change of government, Minister changed in mind, the project went off the rails. We would secure our money back if the land didn't become in the National Park. In other words, we didn't get what we were paying for. And we came up with an arrangement where the State may still hold $3.5 million.
02:17:00 They still hold out funding in a trust account in Brisbane. And that can only get paid out to the State. They can only draw down on that once that final tranche of land in August goes into National Park. So that's when they get their funding. So we've held that secure. If for any reason it goes off the rails and that land doesn't go to the National Park, we actually get that money back. So it was a way of doing that. And the really good kicker is that we put a provision in the agreement that there is interest paying on that amount as well. So that at the conclusion, when that money is taken out, any interest will be allocated by the State Government to koala-related projects in the Noosa Shire area. We don't know how much that's going to be yet. My envelope of calculations is probably somewhere around $150,000 to $200,000. It will come out as a side benefit from the arrangement. Councillor Wilson: Win-win-win.
02:18:00 Councillor Wegener: Well, carrying on from that. Well, first I want to thank you for this incredible achievement. And it's something that we probably will take for granted very quickly, but we never should. My question is the institutional memory and the institutional learnings from what you've done. I'm hoping that they're not lost on us and we can continue that sort of brave action. You know, you're looking at a huge problem and saying, what can we do? Let's fix this. Do you have any advice for us, Council, here on how we can maintain and uphold your standards, your ability? What is the right word? Paradigm? What you've done. Speaker 5: Be brave, be bold in a nutshell. And it's about taking calculated risks.
02:19:00 I remember on the CR after de-amalgamation, we had a series of principles we used around 2014. One of them was be brave but not stupid. So it's the same thing with this is that you've got to take a risk, but don't be silly about it. Calculate a risk, work out how you can ameliorate that risk as much as you can, so you can't be risk immune, but be very sensible about how you're taking it. Councillor Lorentson: Be brave, not stupid. And I remember that I'll quote you on that bit. It's great. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'd just like to reiterate, be brave, not stupid. I think it's a real benefit back to our whole community. At the time, I wasn't involved in politics, but a long-term resident in the hinterland. And I remember going to the meetings. The community consultation, because there was some concern about like, what did this really mean?
02:20:00 What was the impact? And it's fantastic to be here today and be part of that. And also noting that today it's been announced that the Kabi people have been successful and recognised formally by the Federal Court as the native title holders of land and water on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. So I think that's sort of pretty amazing that we're here today. Talking about the benefits of the project here, and then where we sit in parallel in history today. So I think that's quite significant. Thank you for your courage and your boldness to go forward. Thank you, everyone. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson, would you like to talk? Councillor Wilson: No, just congratulations and thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's actually, it is a fairly historic moment. When you read the report, you get a sense of the scale and diversity of activity.
02:21:00 And many people appreciate living in Noosa. Many people understand the history. Too few people understand that what we enjoy as a lifestyle is underpinned largely by the ability of a small group of people with incredible strategic foresight, who have the tenacity, the commitment, who have the high-level advocacy skills that over the decades have continued to add to our natural area of state in a protected form in a way that makes Noosa different by nature. It is true that the people sitting in our audience have spent decades achieving an outcome which we all enjoy. And it's not just all about being green. When we did a very detailed look at the National Wellbeing Survey in 2016 and 2020 Council, where we got a lot of our residents participating,
02:22:00 the Noosa level of health and wellbeing was significantly above the national and understate average. And a number of the key criteria that we scored really well on was the sense of place linked to nature. And there is no doubt. It's not just the good-looking older people who do mountain biking. Councillor Wilson: There will be mountain biking that will enjoy this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There will be the bush walkers, the bird watchers. There will be the people who just feel at home as they drive past. And to me, in an era, you know, when people think advocacy is about creating nonsense social media storms, they should pull back, look at what they want to achieve and work out how they're going to achieve it in the next ten years. Because this one is a very long-term agenda. I have mentioned before, when I used to run this a decade ago with university students, I identified the key bit of the regional biodiversity corridors missing. About 90% of the students in first-year university would identify this particular tract. So it is a major achievement for biodiversity perspective.
02:23:00 It prepares us for migration of species. It's a major achievement from a recreational and enjoyment of nature-based activity and health and wellbeing. And it wouldn't have been possible without very bold decisions in Council. But there's some other, quite a few hundred other key players. It was a dollar for dollar for dollar sort of deal in terms of Council putting in what Noosa Parks put in. And Noosa Parks wouldn't have the extraordinary amount of money that they put into this if they didn't have hundreds of volunteers working at the info centre down at the National Park. So it's all those people who come here to live or were born here who have the commitment to go and give their volunteers hours to generate funds that then builds a better place for the next generation. And we have to acknowledge those. It's also a great opportunity for research. And we've already seen the use of drone technology to identify koalas and in fact a lot more koalas in this tract than we thought.
02:24:00 And also probably getting an idea that maybe some of the current policy settings read koalas might be quite right because there's more often in the regrowth rather than in the remnants. So do we have sufficient planning provisions to cover the regrowth? The only thing I'd like to finish off with is a bit full circle. There's someone else sitting in this room, the Director of Community Services, who in the 1980s was walking down the Ural Forest Drive with me in one of our legendary protests to try and stop this being cleared for the pine plantation in the first place. And, you know, being old enough now, over 30 years later, to see it returned to the National Park is a great achievement. So well done. I will put the motion. Can I just finish? You've removed the motion, so you certainly can. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Look, I just want to finish by putting the scale of this project into some perspective for anyone who may be watching.
02:25:00 The Noosa Heads section of the National Park adjacent to Main Beach that most people know as Noosa National Park is roughly 240 hectares in size. This parcel that we're talking about today is 10 times that size, at 2,400 hectares, which means that there's a continuous link between the Noosa Heads section, Tewantin Forest, Ural Ringtail and the Coorool National Park now. It's an amazing achievement. As I said before, it was done in a voluntary capacity. We did it for the broader community and future generations. That's why you are respected elders. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now we'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's carried unanimously. Well done. Thank you, Brett. Good to see you all again. The answer to those two questions. Councillor Wilson: Well done, boys. Mayor Wilkie: Now we'll just adjourn briefly to see them out. Yeah, we'll just...
02:26:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: See you later. We'll just let the carriage... Will you hold this for us? Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the next item, item 6.2, is the Draft Shark Control Programme, Reckoning Men Council Policies Vision. Alright, thank you. Speaker 11: David, do you want to give the overview? Yeah, for sure, give a quick overview of the reports. Obviously there was a Council workshop that was held a couple of weeks ago now,
02:27:00 so you do have a fair bit of background to the Shark Control Programme and Council's involvement to date and where we see us moving forward with the programme as Council. But basically the objectives of this report is to allow Council to develop a policy position on the Draft Shark Control Programme. It's also important for Council to consider how much we want to be involved in the programme, so there's a huge opportunity for Council to support that in terms of Shark Smart Awareness Programmes. We've done a little bit of that work before. I've worked already with the Department. I also see Council as a key opportunity here to represent the community's views on the Draft Shark Control Programme as well. It should be noted that the Draft Shark Control Programme and the associated Queensland Shark Management Plan has the objectives of moving towards technological advances in the Shark Programme
02:28:00 to reduce potential bycatch concerns that some community members may have. The other thing to note too is that Council does actually hold some responsibilities in shark risk management outside of the Draft Shark Control Programme as well. I'll touch upon that a little later in the talk. Just to give a little bit of a context of the overall situation here, we're approaching the whale migration season and over the last few years it's quite common knowledge that that can spark some community concerns regarding the risks of whale entanglement and other species entanglement in the shark fishing year. In context, we have around 30,000 humpback whales that migrate past Noosa each year. Across the Queensland Shark Control Programme, which runs from the Tweed all the way up to North Queensland, so there's some, not 100% sure of it, basically from Bundaberg South to the Tweed
02:29:00 where we get the whales passing through. There's on average less than six entanglements per year. However, we do often observe them off the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast borders and that has a lot to do with the track of the whales in relation to the continental shark and the Easter Shine current. To date, Council has not held a policy position on the Draft Shark Control Programme, but as I mentioned earlier, Environmental Services has actively supported DAP under their Queensland Shark Management Plan in paving the way, I guess, for alternative solutions for, you know, to lower that bycatch potential of the program. Most notably, last year, Environmental Services and Noosa Biosphere supported a DAP Surf Smart Programme, which was all about educating ocean users, in particular surfers and tourism operators, how to be a little bit more shark smart and responsible around our waterways and ocean beaches. And that obviously paves the way,
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 to, you know, I guess, harness education as a shark control measure. So, following on from this information here, obviously a Notice of Motion was passed by Council on the 16th of May and that was to achieve the following outcomes. A Council to adopt a policy position on the Shark Control Programme, including the identification of all roles and responsibilities of Council under the Shark Control Programme. B, Council to increase advocacy and support to the State Shark Control Programme. And that's obviously with the objectives of moving towards, yeah, technological advances and the smarter shark, shark control technologies, I guess. It was also noted that Council should look to increase the support to the State in the continuous evaluation of technological advancements in the Shark Control Programme,
02:31:00 to, again, further reduce that by cash potential. Now, that could be an expansion of drone trials or, as I said, shark smart community awareness programmes. At the workshop that was held with Councillors and the executive team a couple of weeks ago, we had Programme Coordinators from the Shark Control Programme come in and give a presentation on the actual shark control methods, how they, what the set-up of the equipment is of Noosa and how they're moving towards outcomes under the Shark Management Plan, which is up for review in this year and following into next year. We'll look at some of the outcomes that will come from that piece of work. They also noted that the lead agency, in terms of taking care of all these trials and looking to what the future looks like, is actually the Shark Control Programme Scientific Advisory Working Group. So that's a panel that sits alongside DAP and recommends these changes to the programme
02:32:00 as they review the results of the trials that have been undertaken for the past five years. It should be noted that, obviously, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, DAP, are the lead agency in the Shark Control Programme. So Council does sit only in the positions of, you know, supporting areas of the program, such as Shark Smart Awareness Programmes and assisting DAP to, you know, carry out some of these trials on equipment and alternative gear to include in the Shark Control Programme. But we also do play, obviously, a really important part in representing the community's views on the Shark Control Programme to DAP. It's not something that we've done in the past because we haven't had the policy position on the program and that's why we get to go, I guess. As I noted earlier, there are other shark risk areas that Council is responsible for outside of the DAP Shark Control Programme.
02:33:00 One is, I guess, our timely and effective response to whale stranding events. So it's well documented that, you know, whale carcass strandings or live strandings even on our beaches are almost always associated with large predatory sharks. Council does need to have the ability to respond to those events timely and efficiently to reduce that impact to swimmers, potentially. The second area is also the consideration of dangerous marine animal advisory signage, bull sharks in brackets, in our Council-managed canal systems. So following on from other Council's moves over the last sort of five to ten years since there were some fatal attacks in canals in the Gold Coast, which I'm sure everyone is aware of, there is the opportunity for Council to consider doing an advisory signage investigation across our Council-managed canal systems. So to the recommendations of the report.
02:34:00 I'll read them out to detail. That Council, A, note the report by Environmental Services to the General Committee meeting dated 17th of June regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAP Shark Control Programme. B, adopt the following policy position at, One, Council continues to support the DAP Shark Control Programme under the Queensland Shark Management Plan with the vision of the Shark Control Programme transitioning to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the Noosa LGA. Two, Council to continue to work alongside DAP to explore further opportunities to actively support shark smart educational programmes and alternative management by mitigation trials where appropriate. And then Council should note the other shark management responsibilities that I just explained, which include, One, marine animal stranding response, noting the shore requires resourcing for equipment, materials and staff training,
02:35:00 and the use of contractors to enable the Council to effectively respond to stranding events. Two, consideration of a signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed councils, canal systems only, Noosa waters effectively. I'll probably leave it there, given the workshop was there and the report is in front of everyone, but more than happy to field any questions. Director Rawlings: Just before, just to add a minor issue, but in reference to when the report refers to ES, there is an abbreviation in the report, that's Environmental Services. Tewantin. Our team, our team, just for clarification, and I think there's also a reference in there, thanks for pointing that out to one of the councillors, to IS, which is our infrastructure services team. Apologies for the full expansion of the team's names in there. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, Dave, there's often questions about moving the shark
02:36:00 during the wild migration season. Forgive me if I missed it when we had a presentation from DAP, but do they, what are the reasons for, for them being reluctant to move the shark nets from their current position? Has it chosen, like, a certain minimum distance offshore that they have to abide by, or? Speaker 11: Yeah, for sure. So, there's a few things. I guess there's two factors there. There's the total removal of nets, which is not what you're asking for, but the reason that's not done at this present time, to my understanding, is they obviously haven't undertaken any of the trials and founds a proven effective alternative. Regarding the actual relocation of the nets, so either moving them inshore, offshore, to the site, whatever it might be. To minimise the chance of strainings. Yeah, exactly. So, my understanding is that it's obviously not an exact science. The nets are set in specific locations for a number of factors. I have an email here, actually, from Councillor Amelia that DAP sent through
02:37:00 actually responding to that query. There's a few points there, but in summary, they're set to certain water depths. You know, for issues like swimmer safety, so they can't be so close to the shore. They need to be in a certain depth, so that breaking waves and storm events don't push them onto the beach. They're also... The equipment is targeting sharks, so it's also, what I understand, set in specific locations where they're more likely to catch bull sharks off the Noosa area. A few issues like that, but there is a list here that I can forward on to you, if you want to find out a bit more detail. Yeah, thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So clear. Speaker 11: I'll just... Councillor Kinsley. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councillor Lorentson for raising this at the previous meeting so that we could get to this position where we are today. Just a... And the councillors for supporting that around the table. Just a question. With regards to this position, now gives what council the opportunity to take it out for community engagement
02:38:00 or consultation? Did I hear that right, or...? Speaker 11: No, that's my understanding. It's simply being able to, I guess... You may be able to put it into better words, Kim, but... Yes. Director Rawlings: So, no, that's not... It's... What the... Our... The officer's recommendation is that council's position is to continue to support DAPH in the Shelf Control Management Program and to take part in the... In the review of the Shelf Management Plan, which will happen next year. DAPH have advised us that they are continuing the current trials. They'll be evaluating their current trials. And once they've done evaluation of their current trials, they're going to review the Shelf Management Plan. We'll have an opportunity for input to that process at that time. But it's a DAPH-run process. It's not a council-run process. So it's not something we go out to community consultation on. I'm not sure whether DAPH
02:39:00 do community consultation on the Shelf Management Plan, Dave? Speaker 11: Yeah, they definitely do. But I do see the opportunity to add to that where, you know, a lot of the first options for our local community is council. So we're in a position to, I guess, help... Help communicate those community concerns or, you know, some people are in favour of NETS, whatever it might be, to DAPH in a formal way. It's a little bit difficult to do that if we don't have a policy position on the program, I think. And that clear...clear information that, you know, who manages it and where council steps in in terms of supporting or trying to change things in the future. So... Councillor Finzel: OK. Thank you. So just following on from that then, what would be the process if community want to engage and have their say? Yeah. How is that going to work? Is that...? Well, I think Speaker 11: where we would play the role, which we do with other activities, is that when DAPH head out to community consultation on these things, that's an opportunity for council to have that point of position
02:40:00 and...and put that information out there to the community on our...on DAPH's behalf. So we're the... I guess, the mediator between DAPH and the community, which is just another avenue where we can do it. Director Rawlings: Yeah. The SHARC management plan is the avenue the state leads. Oh, OK. So what we... Like Dave said, what we would do is when that process starts, we would encourage our community to have a say in that and we could promote that and provide opportunities, you know, and I'm sure DAPH will probably do some engagement exercises, you know, requests that they come and do something up here to talk to our community. That would be the most appropriate mechanism. Speaker 11: I think it's important to remember too, as far as I'm concerned, we're all trying to get to the same goal as well. Speaker 12: And I think Speaker 11: if we can demonstrate to the community that we are in favour of, you know, smarter, more scientifically based outcomes, factoring in all the considerations, you know, that's a good achievement. So if we can help get there
02:41:00 and help the community play that part as well and help DAPH and Council to get to that end result, then, yeah, it's just a great thing as well, isn't it? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. So just following on that, thank you. So to clarify then, you said Council had, you know, a focus and a role to play. Yeah. So is that predominantly the focus that Council wants to take? Or are there other responsibilities? Speaker 11: I think there's a few responsibilities. There's the education side of things. So DAPH have a SharkSmart program. Council, there's opportunities there for Council to increase the reach of that program to the Noosa community. And that actually helps moving towards those alternative technologies because behaviour change is an alternative shark-like mitigation technology. So there's education side of things. There's obviously
02:42:00 the community review and feedback and comments which Council will facilitate. And then the third aspect too is I guess to an extent where appropriate assisting DAPH undertake those trials. So drone surveys, whatever it might be, there's a few things that obviously Council can't play a role in, you know, needless to say. But there's scope there. So those three main areas where I see that we could support DAPH moving forward in the community. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 11: No worries. Councillor Lorentson: Just a quick question. Who has the authority to authorise the seasonal removal of wild nets in Noosa? Speaker 11: That would be the State Government. Not DAPH. It would be the State. I'm not exactly sure what they will, but the State can tell DAPH whether or not that's appropriate and that will come out of the review of the Shark Management Plan.
02:43:00 Just going to add something but I'll leave it for later. Director Rawlings: The Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries have advised that they might be making any changes to any of the current arrangements until they've evaluated, completed the evaluation of all the technology trials. And that's not just technology trials that are happening in Noosa. They're happening right up in Queensland, the Queensland eastern coast. And all of the evaluation of those different technologies and trials will influence, you know, any changes that are made as part of the Shark Management Plan next year. Speaker 11: May I just add to that too? We see potential alternatives that aren't being explored at the moment. We can suggest to DAPH or get a response from DAPH about whether that's an option for them to explore. So, for example, the relocation of the nets to different areas in Noosa. It's not actually a trial that they're undertaking under the Shark Management Plan.
02:44:00 They have given reasons why it may or may not be appropriate. But in terms of actual trials, to my knowledge, it hasn't occurred. So it's not really on the cards within that Shark Management Plan review. We can certainly go advocate to the state and say, hey, we'd like to explore this option or if you would just give us a response basically. So there were Councillor Lorentson: three action items that was included as part of my modified motion, David. That was one of them. And the second one was about, you know, exploring electronic cables in South Africa. So they will, just from your response just now, they will be actioned. And do we leave those three actions with you? Speaker 11: Yeah, that'll be up to my managers and directors who they see feasible to do that work. But I would imagine that that's, yeah, would be environmental services responsible to do that if it was supported. So. Speaker 7: Yeah, I'll respond just a little bit more detail Councillor Lorentson. And if there's good ideas
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 out there that aren't being explored, like the cables from South Africa, then yes, we can put that through to DAP to explore. We won't be exploring the effectiveness of those. We'll put it to staff to say, here's an alternative solution which you might be interested in exploring. Director Rawlings: And DAP, they do advise that they are looking at those technologies. They've had early findings from them and they're, you know, so they are definitely looking at them. Just on that, Mayor Wilkie: the early findings were that they were ineffective is what I've heard the DAP officer say. Director Rawlings: That's right. No, Jim, they said early findings. The cables. Mayor Wilkie: The ones that are on the CV. Director Rawlings: Yeah. Yeah. There were some issues with them. Yeah. But yeah, they also said they were early findings. Okay. So they're waiting to see. Yes. So we know they are looking at those. But yeah, we can, you know, Dave particularly has Mayor Wilkie: a very good relationship Director Rawlings: with the team. So anything that, you know, any ideas, we can definitely
02:46:00 put forward to DAP if we're happy to continue to do that. I mean advocacy and partnering are probably the key roles here. So yeah, we'll continue to do that. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. And tagging whales after they've been entangled. Can we identify that as an action item as well? And I just communicate what the community sort of raised with me. I communicate that through you guys. Is that correct? Yeah, for sure. Speaker 11: I see that totally reasonable. Fantastic. Yeah, for sure. And just clarifying that somehow tracking white whales that are released to check on their welfare post-release. Fantastic. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone who wants to move the recommendation? Councillor Lawrington has moved. Do we have a seconder? Seconder Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lawrington. Okay. I'd like to move the recommendation in front of us that Council A, note the report by Environmental Services to the General Meeting dated 17th of June regarding a recommended Council policy position on the DAF Shark Control Program and B,
02:47:00 adopt the following policy position that one, Council continues to support the DAF Shark Control Program SCP under the Queensland Shark Management Plan with the vision of the Shark Control Program transitioning to lower bycatch potential alternatives in waters adjacent to the Noosa and to Council to work alongside DAF to explore further opportunities to actively support shark smart educational programs and alternative bite mitigation trials where appropriate. Is this section C Mayor Wilkie: to Council? Councillor Lorentson: I can't see C. I'm sorry. Excuse me. C, note Council's other shark management responsibilities including one, this role requires resourcing for equipment, materials, and staff training and the use of contractors to enable Council to effectively
02:48:00 respond to straining events and two, consideration of signage investigation relating to dangerous marine animal warnings across Council managed canal systems only. Noosa Waters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you like to say any more? Councillor Lorentson: Yep, I'll speak to the motion in front of us. Firstly, I'm looking forward to the recommendations of the shark control program from the state government that will be open for community consultation later this year. Taking a position now allows us to respond effectively to these recommendations and allow our community a channel to express their values and expectations. I want to thank Council staff and the councillors around the table for the courage to take a position to encourage thoughtful discussions and push the state government for innovative solutions and strategies that protect
02:49:00 both human life and marine life. Solutions that reflect our commitment to safety and environmental stewardship. Our community may never agree on removing the nets entirely, but there is a growing agreement on finding better non-lethal alternatives. This represents the middle path, the way forward. We need to push the state government to invest in research, innovation and evidence-based approaches to shark control. We need to actively engage in state-led trials and they catch and kill marine life, but they do so indiscriminately. It's time that we start to change the focus of our debate and start asking
02:50:00 more profound questions. Do we have the ethical right to use such control methods? Does this outdated approach align with our environmental values or our technological capabilities? What do we owe other creatures and what do we owe the biosphere? This debate concerns more than just safety, it's also about stewardship and it's also about responsibility. We need to commit to a path and lead by example, showing that we can both protect people and the environment with intelligence and compassion. Don't you leave you with a quote that I've found in lots and lots of reading that I do in this area. If human ingenuity can find a middle path where both public safety and ecological integrity are maintained, that should be our aim. Marine species deserve their chance at life to fulfil their ecological function just as
02:51:00 we deserve our safety. And I think, councillors, that should be our very strong aims as participants in our marine community and also as a biosphere. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've just got one question which I will shadow for you in that B2 and C1 Speaker 5: have Deputy Mayor Stockwell: budgetary implications in there. There are comments in the finance section of the report. Can you just clarify where we're at noting that the draft budget isn't publicly filled over this one? Director Rawlings: Yep. So, our, um, they've not been more recommended operational budget. Um, but we have one of our key positions um, that support this work is temporary. Um, so we are seeking for that position to be ongoing um, as part of the budget process. we, uh,
02:52:00 we currently, um, because we have a responsibility about, around responding to marine strandings, we have to use some operational budget to respond to those. They're hard to plan for and predict. Councillor Wilson: So, Director Rawlings: you know, that's one of the, you know, there's many aspects of the work we do that needs reactive and responsive. So we have some operational budget to, to, to do. And we use contractors at the moment. We don't have equipment, um, ourselves to do that work. So we do outsource that work, um, and rely on some operational funding. Um, but for instance if we do the investigation around signage, um, for dangerous marine animals, that will require budget allocation sometime in the future. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mm. Councillor Finzel: Cancel that. Thank you. Just coming off the back of that, a segue into that, I was going to ask a similar question. Um, given I did ask for a response and I may have missed it around a focus of council, I didn't hear any feedback around the animal
02:53:00 stranding response. Can you please give us some further information on that, given it's in C1? Speaker 11: Yeah. Um, sorry, what sort of information were you after, sorry? Well, I didn't hear What we currently do, Director Rawlings: currently, I can't understand what we currently do, because we, this is a service we currently do. Yeah, Councillor Finzel: so when I asked about council focus, sorry, I didn't hear a response around that if we, because I asked what was council focus. So, is this currently a focus that we do and what does that entail? Speaker 11: For sure. So, council is responsible under the Nature Conservation Act for the removal of a deceased animal carcass on a beach. Uh, the state is responsible for that animal until it dies or is euthanized. Um, council, environmental services staff currently attend marine parks training to prepare us to respond to an event whereby either we have a carcass or animal that has to be euthanized by marine parks on our beaches. Um, while Kim mentioned that it, contractors play a key role in that area,
02:54:00 um, you may or may not recall we actually had a contractor intercept a humpback whale carcass just off Newston National Park last year. We had that contractor tell it 10 million miles out into the Commonwealth waters. We had permits to do so. Um, the council does need a level of first response as well. So, we need to be able to have appropriately trained staff and resources to contain a site and effectively respond to managing that carcass, um, you know, before we look into the contractors to actually effectively chop it up and remove it because that's the reality of it. So, that base level of equipment and site containment and staff expertise is I think an area that we do need to grow over time. Um, but, yeah, we'll get there, you know. Um, it's sort of a bit of a new space as well for councils. There was obviously an incident down on the Sunshine Coast that, well, Sunshine Coast Council had a lot of money because they didn't have all the processes in place or the equipment
02:55:00 there. But, yeah, it's not just New South Council that's looking at this. We're involved with all the other SCQ councils and we're all looking at how we're going to get better at this process. Councillor Finzel: So, to clarify then, we don't actually deliver that service to that degree now that you're seeking. That's a projected vision or hope or idea that you want to grow. Speaker 11: There's definitely room for improvement and it will take a while. So, we just need to keep shifting away. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If there's a stranding Speaker 11: tomorrow, we'd be the leader. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, what do we do? Okay. We would be required to be the leader Speaker 7: for sure. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, Speaker 7: I was going to say there's an area of vulnerability at the moment if we're relying on contractors or the goodwill to be able to borrow equipment of adjacent LGAs. If there was a mass stranding of which Noosa was part of, we wouldn't have the ability to be able to respond adequately to do it ourselves if there was a lot of use from those services that we're currently using for other LGAs. And so, the risk
02:56:00 that sits there is potentially a carcass on the beach rotting where we just can't do anything about it because we don't have the ability to be able to respond internally for it. And, we've got staff starting to get trained though. Yeah, we don't have rope chains or relics or that sort of stuff to be able to tow something out. Either tow something off inshore and bury it. We can do some small ones like the tiger shark we had up last year but the large ones were a little bit vulnerable and, you know, strandings, we might not get one for another 15 years and then we won't get a whole bunch of small ones. But it's really unbeatable as to where they're the best risk for life. Councillor Wilson: When carcasses Mayor Wilkie: are located they're usually a great source of food for sharks. Did the contractor have any descriptions of what he was observing when he was towing that carcass out to sea? That might be pertinent to this discussion. Speaker 11: Yeah, exactly. So that carcass was located one nautical mile
02:57:00 north-east of Granite Bay. It was shifting in a westerly direction. It was going easterly that day. So when the contractor intercepted the carcass there was one white shark and around six to eight tigers on that carcass. That carcass was actually towed about three to four nautical miles north-east. The tow had to be aborted due to weather conditions and failing line. The next morning it drifted towards Teewah Beach. We actually worked with Central Coast Council and borrowed a tracker and put it on that carcass so we could track it overnight. When the contractor arrived to the carcass the next morning it was located about one kilometre off the beach and there were sharks on it again. He sat that offshore and the sharks basically followed him Mayor Wilkie: off the shore. Having to speak to this motion is great to clarify Noosa Council's position
02:58:00 supporting the work that DAF are doing. They're acting very responsibly and innovatively looking at all the new technologies that are out there to reduce bycatch and minimise the likelihood of shark bite. And also good to clarify Noosa Council's work they're doing in strandings to reduce the likelihood of shark bite and bycatch. Speaker 11: Yeah I might just add to that so obviously they're sort of two separate subjects but they are interrelated so they're just our recommendations I guess for environmental services. We're going to look at sharks under the shark control program. We also need to consider the other areas that will be Councillor Wegener: counsellors on the table and to the residents what our obligations are, what we can and can't do and so it's good
02:59:00 I think it's very helpful. Councillor Lorentson: So do I. Thank you. Tom. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My two cents worth is it does give a policy of that now but it doesn't say enough when if there's proposals in the next draft that shark management plan or do we consider it again. Like it does by default say we support alternatives lower bycatch potential lower bycatch potential. Councillor Wilson: To me Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just looking at it now going it doesn't have an outcome we seek. And are we saying well because it's not our outcome to plot to me I think there's enough in there to guide staff that perhaps not enough to if they do come back with shark management plan next year that says seasonal removal this wouldn't tell the staff what to have
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 the right proposal. What Director Rawlings: I would suggest is I think you're right and I think it would be as opposite of making this recommendation it would be preemptive on us to suggest anything else given that trials are still ongoing and there is not outcomes of those. We are definitely not the experts in this space. There is a scientific expert group that evaluates this and we should understand the outcomes of that evaluation before having a stronger position on any outcomes. I would suggest that once we know what that is and once they start the shark management program we'll be in a much better position to as a council to have clearer stronger positions. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry Councillor question for you Brian. Are you saying that if DAF
03:01:00 as part of the Queensland Shark Management Plan came back with a proposal to remove shark nets this is what they're proposing we wouldn't we wouldn't have the clarity to support that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think it gives us any clarity. It talks about transition. We support the transition to a lower bycatch potential alternatives. I'm sort of half guessing that the next shark management plan might take a few more steps of myself. Councillor Wilson: It doesn't Deputy Mayor Stockwell: give staff any clearer about whether they should support those or whether we should be whether for example this council wants to put a higher level of priority on safety compared to bycatch than the state. But that's just another report to council when it happens. Mayor Wilkie: Alright when it happens. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Speaker 11: Sorry. It's a tricky one. There's no clear right or wrong answer to this and I think that's why there's so much divide in the community so.
03:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak? If not Councillor Williamson do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I will. I'll make it brief and I'm going to just close by just repeating those probably the two main questions that I think we need to continually ask ourselves. Do shark nets speak on behalf of a group that I sit as an observer? Councillor Phillips: Oh okay Councillor Lorentson: no okay then excuse me through the chair. Okay. We um we as a community need to ensure that our decisions are driven by fact and not fear. That science guides our debate and that our moral responsibility drives our action. While the state manages the nets and drumlines we as a community and as a council have the power to manage the debate and I'll leave it at there. Thank you.
03:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We'll move on to the next item which is almost as riveting. Fees and charges. Councillor Wilson: Thanks guys. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you David. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks guys. Thank you David. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have Councillor Phillips: like a two minute break after this please. Just after this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll have a two minute Councillor Wilson: rest Deputy Mayor Stockwell: of it.
03:09:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy it went out. Mayor Wilkie: Good to Deputy Mayor Stockwell: go. So welcome back councillors. Our next item is in regard to the 2024-25 fees and charges and this is something we generally do in advance to allow those who are reliant on setting fees for their clients to have a heads up what's happening at the end of this month.
03:10:00 So I'll hand it over to our staff, Lucy and me. Speaker 13: The Local Government Act 2009 powers council to generate revenue from fees and charges by fixing a fee by way of local law or resolution. Fees and charges can be set to recover the costs of including regulatory services like planning fees and permits, as well as those based on commercial full cost pricing principles including return on assets and storage for the business activity. Things like waste management. The proposed 2024-25 schedule provides over 1,000 fees and charges which will generate around $26 million in revenue to fund the delivery of council services. Some key points to note for this year's fees and charges.
03:11:00 Some fees may not increase due to regulatory and market demand. Some fees may increase slightly higher due to routing. Operating margins for each business area have been reduced to ensure they are maintained and reliant on business activity. And general rates to fund operations is managed appropriately. Twice yearly council reviews its amended holiday card fees and this is to allow the port of the business of sites 18 months in advance. And this review will extend those fees and charges to the 26th of January, 2016. The Noosa North Shore ferry service, it will be transferring, transitioning to a new provider in July 2024. With the new operator to provide new, larger capacity ferry. As well as the capacity for online ticket purchases and cash and card payments on board. The fees and charges proposed for adoption for the ferry service will apply once the new ferries are operational. But until that point in time, the current 2024 financial year fees will continue to apply.
03:12:00 Pricing to recover the true cost of service provision is necessary to ensure that council generates sufficient revenues from its activities in line with financial needs. It also provides a diversified revenue base and ensures that costs of services provided are equitably borne by those who benefit from them. The proposed 2024-25 fees and charges will come into effect on the 1st of July 2024 once adopted by council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have any questions? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Lorentson. Do you wish to talk to it? Mayor Wilkie: No, no. It's only, it's important that we ratify these fees and charges to give businesses that depend on forward modelling to have as much time as possible to set their budgets for the next financial year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson: Just one, just one question and I'm just trying to find it in the report.
03:13:00 In terms of swimming fees and I understand, you know, it's competitive neutrality and we're not making money out of it. But just, I just did a quick little look, there's 84 drownings in Queensland this year, which was an increase of 25%, 27% increase over the 10 year period. Is there anything, you know, the cost of swimming is a barrier for kids, especially those in families that have cost of living pressures and vulnerable families. As a council or maybe a state initiative, but as a council, can we provide any sort of initiative to encourage every kid to learn how to swim? Kerri? Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. The fees at the Aquatic Centre are based on a range of factors but try to keep them as reasonable as possible and also help offset the costs generally to the rate payer.
03:14:00 We provide in terms of benchmarking with other Aquatic Centres. We are on average with that, so we're not, we're not an expensive Aquatic Centre and we really think about that in terms of the programming. That's why a lot of our programming is actually a value add. So you're actually purchasing that in addition to help keep the general entry fee reasonable. But we do run programs, for example, through the schools. Which help provide access to every child to a swimming education. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, thank you. Speaker 3: I haven't answered your question. Councillor Lorentson: No. So we provide like pension and rebates. I'm wondering if there's something similar or something we can think about. Speaker 3: Well, state government provides a subsidised program.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Councillor Lorentson: Swimming, yeah. Speaker 3: Which, so that you can. That can be used for swimming. It could be used for any number of sports. And we actively encourage that. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Just on the back of that, when I said on the Coroy complex sporting committee out there, there's talk of vouchers back to clubs like in terms of soccer or football for children that like, you know, need that to pay towards their fees. Is there something around that around swimming classes? Speaker 3: So that's the state-based program. Yeah. It's called Sweden. It's for a range of different sports. Oh, okay. Yeah. So they can apply for that. And they need to meet specific criteria. And the state runs that program. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I guess to speak on that as well, the one that doesn't make me feel good is child swimming.
03:16:00 Yeah. So, you know, the school age children is the less, hang on, the average drowning age is far younger than a school age child where they get to go in school hours. So I think that we should really be considering making sure those younger groups, five and under, have got access to be able to go and have affordable swimming lessons. So to sort of support... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're talking about fees and charges here. Are we talking about a service we do or don't currently operate? Speaker 3: We currently operate learn to swim programs, definitely. It's one of our most successful programs for that age bracket. The fees don't go up every year. So we hook them up every second or third year. And that's why on and in the fees and charges, it can look like a significant jump. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question to Trent and Pauline?
03:17:00 Yeah. So, I mean, you mentioned the child swimming program. Is there a possibility next budget review that we can throw that as a counsellor initiative to look at maybe subsidised swimming for families that least can afford it and to ensure that every kid in the Noosa Shire has the opportunity to get swimming lessons? Speaker 8: Through the chair, we can bring that up. The first part would probably be a workshop for all the counsellors to understand the entire board review of the fees and charges and what the different tiers are and the different programs. So you've got a complete picture of the broad array of fees and charges and what the differential is. And if there is appetite for all the counsellors to change that, we can do that at any time during the year. And a budget would be usually the ideal time for us to revise the fees and charges for them. Mayor Wilkie: I appreciate and ask if you could note that. Thank you. Just clarifying. It's $4.10 for a school for the child to access the pool.
03:18:00 $4.30? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Quite a few . Councillor Finzel: Just on the back of that, a question to the CEO via the chair. Is there opportunity, given it has come up today, that we can advocate to higher levels of government to look at, like, more funding to allow our most vulnerable children to go to school, like five and under? I know there's just been a federal paper put out about protecting, you know, women and children at a federal level. Is there a way we can advocate for this to look at specifically swimming programs and access? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand your question, Councillor Tinsley, but once again, we tend to have veered off into a discussion about the merits of subsidised learn to swim, where the matter in front of us is setting the annual fees across the whole organisation. Yes. Councillor Finzel: And I appreciate that, Mr Chair. Thank you. But it was just a yes-no answer. Could we advocate? Councillor Lorentson: I can answer that question.
03:19:00 Sorry, I've ruled. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can. So, we've had the motion moved. Does anyone wish to talk to it? Councillor Wegener: I've got a question. Personal appearances. Personal appearance on page 15. What is that in relation to? Because they're pretty expensive for personal experience and, of course, I want to in on this. Speaker 9: I can maybe speak to that. Yeah. So, under our Environmental Health Team regulate, under the Environmental Health Act, a range of different personal appearance services. So, that might be where you get nose rings, earrings. There's further legislation that's being proposed at the moment where that will include cosmetology. There's further legislation that's being proposed for cosmetic injectables. So, councillors will be required to undertake the licence assessments for things like Botox and cosmetic fillers. But at the moment, yeah, that's part of the inspection of those facilities to make sure
03:20:00 that they're hygienic and clean and meet the appropriate health standards. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 9: So, that's why the fees are reflecting off the cost of service of those particular facilities because there's quite a bit to it. And we've obviously got our qualified staff that are here to inspect and make sure that it's up to scratch. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: People are safe. Councillor Wilson: There you go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. No further questions or talk? If you don't want to close, Councillor Wilkie. I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Okay. We move on to the next item. And that is the May 2024 Financial Performance Report. And once again, thank you. Councillor McAleen. Speaker 13: Good afternoon again, Councillor. So, here today is May 2024. Operating revenues continue to outperform our forecast. And operating expenditures are under forecast year to date. Operating revenue is $2.4 million above budget, which has been driven by interest income of
03:21:00 $1.8 million. Sales of goods and services are $1.6 million. And other revenue of $5.3 million. This has been offset, however, by lower than forecast revenues, fees and charges from development, assessment, building and plumbing compliance, local and community facilities. Operating expenditure is $1.6 million underspent, with $1.5 million of that relating to employee costs as a result of vacancies and the timing of recruitment. Materials and services expenditure is also slightly underspent at $17,000. Overall Council's operating position at May 2024 is almost $4 million above budget. However, Council should note that we have no interest income. We have not yet received advice from the Commonwealth about the financial year 2024-2025 financial assistance grant payment, which we normally would receive in advance. If that pre-payment does not occur prior to 30 June this year, this will impact Council's net operating position. It won't have a cash flow effect, as we've already received this year's grant.
03:22:00 I'm just flagging that it will have an operational effect. Moving on to capital. So year to date, excluding disaster projects, Council has spent 58% of its full year capital program, which equates to a $26.7 million. It has a further $8.6 million currently committed. Year to date, $32.6 million has been spent on the QRA funded disaster projects. Thanks to one of the Councils, Council should note that the cash section of the financial report on page 387 references April, and that should reference May. Okay. Councillor Wilson: That's exactly. Speaker 13: The Council's cash holding at the end of May was $113 million, with $30 million of fixed funds invested in terms of product. Council's cash holding continues to be higher than forecast with advance payment of grants and subsidies, as well as delay in the delivery of Council's capital program and QRA disaster projects. Council's cash balance will continue to decline as the operational expenditure differs through
03:23:00 to the 30th of June. Overall, Council's financial performance continues to be strong, and we expect to be strong with 11 months of the year complete. We are forecasting that Council will end the year with a net operating surplus pending any end of year accounting adjustments. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Questions? I'll start off then, just because I'm looking at the materials in terms of expenditure, and water and sewage charges, which I take as what we were paying. I'm looking at the materials in terms of the expenditure, and water and sewage charges, And it's 131% over. Speaker 13: So we did have a large water leak at Fort Batten Drive, which was over 100,000 times the water. Wow. And it's being rectified as a priority, which has contributed to that as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so it was an undetected water leak, I take it? It wasn't a leak?
03:24:00 Yes. Okay. And I thought it was going to be relating to the trade waste disposal from the kit. Speaker 13: There may be some element of a large component. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Three times that much, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Have there been any other undetected water leakages that have cost Council a significant amount of numbers? Not that I'm aware of. Not that you're aware of, no. Speaker 8: There have been some in prior years. As we recast back the last three or four years. And as we've gone through as meter read, obviously the difference in the volume, we've captured an immediate effect. Not to this extent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I take it it's our problem because they continued a private line out to the toilet or something, is it? Speaker 8: Past the limit. Speaker 13: Past the limit. So it wasn't over multiple quarters or anything, it was detected, but it obviously failed at work. Councillor Lorentson: Other questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No.
03:25:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to ask a question that I think I'm going to continue asking. Consultancy fees. Can we separate consultancy fees in the report? I know it's sort of encapsulated under material and services, but can we understand a little bit better how much we're spending on consultants? And consultancy registers, something that I think I've raised a few times. Is there any appetite for Council? Is there any appetite for Council to look into a consultancy register? Again, just to understand what departments, how much, and whether they're local consultants or whether they're consultants from other. Just sort of a deep dive in consultancy fees. It just seems like that amount just keeps getting higher and higher. Speaker 8: Through the Chair. In terms of reporting, obviously our P&L, if you like, our profit and loss attachment one. Is built on our standard expenditure categories.
03:26:00 So it will, my recommendation is remains as employee costs, materials and services, finance cost appreciation. That is your standard structure. But we do obviously then support that with the attachment pool that has the consultancy breakdown of materials and services in amongst all the other categories. If you would like a deep dive, and we do do regular deep dives into different areas. We can do so, but obviously knowing there are elements of the level of detail in that consultancy. If we delve into the space of which consultants have been engaged or which types of work. That's a contractual and commercial incompetence matter for those consultants if it's not a public tender. But we can obviously break it down by the business area involved. That would be great.
03:27:00 Mayor Wilkie: And a preferred supplier list. Speaker 13: And a mix of those. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, because we're very specific. Specific to the job. Speaker 13: It depends on the product you're marketing. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. That would be great. Yeah, so on page 396 they've got consultancy fees. Separated. Councillor Lorentson: Listed as a separate line item. At $1,749,000. Yeah. It's just a lot. I'd just love to understand that a little bit more. And return on investment also. I don't know how that's gauged. But just to understand, is it worth it? Are we getting bang for buck? Speaker 8: That would be a separate deep dive exercise. Outside of this. Outside of this. It could be a piece of work we could undertake during the first up using this year's data, for example. Yep. And looking and sitting down over the next six months. With our commercial team. And actually having a look at the types of consultancy.
03:28:00 Whether it was niche expertise. The nature or merger work. Or the nature of the requirement to try to put a cost benefit against each of those. But it would be a piece of work. It would take a few months before we could take it offline for you. Councillor Lorentson: Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? If not, we'll move on to the next item. If not, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Are you guys holding up? We're good? Councillor Wilson: It's a long day. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I presume you're not staying around for the Arts Development Fund, are you? Our next item is the Regional Arts Development Fund Grant Recommendations for 2024. Speaker 3: Could I have to think? Yeah. I'll have to think. We've had a long session today.
03:29:00 We're here with the good news part of the day. All right. Speaker 6: Well, councillors, this is a fairly straightforward paper. Many of you have already seen the Regional Arts Development Fund round that we've been processing this year. Round 21. The request is to approve the recommendations of the assessment committee to fund projects with a value of $36,700 as outlined in the assessment committee's recommendations. This is the second round of the current funding that we have, and if approved, this will leave $168 remaining for carryover, which is fairly good out of the total budget of $65,019. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you have any questions, or do we have a mover? Councillor Finzel: Happy to move. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can move. Councillor Spindle. Seconder to click off the march, Mark Wilkie. That's my brother's name. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Spindle? Councillor Finzel: Only quickly. I'm lowering this as the good news end of the afternoon.
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 I mean, it's a great honour and privilege to work in collaboration with community through our grants program to deliver back to community what they seek from us in terms of what they'd like to see delivered. So, it's really great to be a part of that, and hear the report this afternoon, and eventually see all these great programs delivered in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Anyone else? I have a question. Yes, you ma'am. Councillor Lorentson: Hi. In terms of the grant funding program, how do we measure the success of the grant funding program in terms of artist development and community impact? Speaker 6: The Rural Arts Development Fund is a 50-50 split with Arts Queensland. Each of the grant applicants are required to do an acquittal at the end of their grant program. In fact, they are required to do an acquittal at the end of their grant program, in which they complete quite a rigorous assessment of their project, and they self-assess as well on whether they feel that their project has been successful or not.
03:31:00 That then feeds back to our acquittal that we do back to Arts Queensland, and that will influence the funding success for the following year. So, it's quite a detailed process. Councillor Lorentson: And do you ever get self-assessments where the artists say they didn't think it was a great idea? Yes. Seriously? That's great. Yes. Speaker 6: Yes. This is working in a very challenging environment where the dollars are very, very tight for projects. Yes. Artists are extremely used to working with tight budgets. They're nothing. Yes. A lot of things that we are drawing from previous rounds are artist fees. There are set artist fees through organisations like the National and Visual Arts Association. While it's all well and good to set those fees, it can often be very difficult to pay those fees. So, because of that feedback that we've received, that's going to be an emphasis for our next round to make sure that applicants are addressing the fee shortfalls that they're on paying
03:32:00 to their partners and other artists in their program. So, that's an example of the good feedback we get. Thank you. Speaker 3: It's also we have artists who resubmit, who come through for other grounds, and part of what we look at is what is their progress been like previously, so they need to demonstrate through that that they've been able to meet the requirements. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's not true you can do your final report as an interpretive dance is it? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just on the back of that, Paul would you mind just elaborating if you can a little bit about some of that really robust discussion around the RADF committee in terms of delivering funding and programs to community,
03:33:00 and then finding that balance through the narrative. And the struggle between trying to build a sector for economic reasons and innovation through arts, culture and heritage, but that challenge that exists between paying the right amount of money and delivering the programs. Speaker 6: Definitely, thank you for your question. Through the Chair, it's been over three years that the industry has been grappling with setting industry rates. On the one hand, and I'm speaking from the visual arts point of view, but performing arts and other art forms are the same. Often it's very fluid, often in arts projects an amount is put and you have to do something with that amount, and the first thing to go are NARBA rates. So, through the industry it's quite a symbiotic relationship that galleries have with artists, and sometimes that can be abused, which was highlighted through the NARBA review, in where artists have been told, well, we're giving you marketing, so therefore we're not going to pay you a fee because we're benefiting your career by marketing your work.
03:34:00 Or some of the larger galleries saying, well, we're giving you the honour of presenting in our gallery, so therefore we're not going to pay you a fee. Thankfully, that practice has been stamped on, but it's very difficult because that means that more funds need to be found, and those major projects can't be done anymore, and it's very much up to artists to step up and say, well, no, I'm not going to participate in this project because you're not offering me what the industry says you're offering. So we're really excited about new, clearer NARBA rates coming out, and it's the same in the performing arts industry, and a lot of us are now encouraging artists to actually stand up and say, well, no, this is how much it's going to cost me to do this, and it's not negotiable. Speaker 3: Thank you. And the point of the RADF program is, in fact, to support artists as professionals, so it needs to respect appropriately paid artists.
03:35:00 Speaker 6: So we would prefer to support smaller projects that are paying properly, rather than larger big bang projects that, of course, the community benefits from, but just keeps that artist rate below the poverty line. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: And just coming in off the back of that, Stan, just a little bit of information about the changes through the RADF, are you looking at giving a larger lump sum of money and the smaller opportunities throughout the year to deliver? Speaker 6: For sure. So through the Chair, we will be putting a proposal to Council to change the balance of how we currently manage our RADF program. Currently, you can apply for up to $7,500, and we have two around the year. We're looking to change that to doing one round a year at $10,000, but at the same time have a program running up to $2,000 to $2,500 of a quick response grant.
03:36:00 So if an opportunity comes up for an artist that they can quickly jump on, that they might not have known about many months ago, and an extra $2,500 will help them actually take on that, they'll be able to put in a quick response grant, and we'll be able to get back to them in a very short period of time. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll talk, because I think it's a really interesting discussion. We have a cultural plan that talks about trying to build our creative industries, and we're giving out grants, and if we don't, to me, I started thinking about Fair Trade Coffee, about a little single over in the UK, which is Little Red Barn, which talks about the welfare of animals being looked after. We don't think about the same in terms of the welfare of our creative industries. It's sort of like the standards thing that my daughter, when she chose to do creative writing as a university degree, I said, well, couldn't you do a real degree and then come back and actually do that as your hobby?
03:37:00 And after nearly finishing a Master, came back and said, you were right, I should have done that. But it is part of the whole industry problem is that while we all appreciate the creative industries and our whole community is better for it, our society at the moment doesn't remunerate it to the point where it is the vast majority, maybe the top 5-10% get a good living, but other than that, no struggle. It's probably something that does start in little local grants. Councillor Lorentson: Anyone else wish to speak? I have one last question. So do we, once we've given an artist funding, do we then continue that dialogue or support throughout their entire career? So do we understand whether the funding that we gave today or say five years ago, that that artist is now still being supported?
03:38:00 Speaker 6: Definitely. And we do quite a bit of stats around the artists that live and work in our region. We believe that our community is much healthier having creatives living and working in our community. And in order to stop the brain drain or the creative drain out of Noosa, we need to be able to support those artists from their early developmental period through to being able to make a career and put food on the table through their art. So you'll see we're currently working on a creative directory where artists will be able to work on that creative directory in order for us to stimulate more of the commercial aspects of the arts. And so that's a definitive change in our attitude over the last year where we're going to be focusing a lot more on developing our creative industries. Councillor Lorentson: That sounds great. I'm imagining something like the Open Studio book with spectacular representations of the artist's work.
03:39:00 So you're thinking something like that, a directory illustrated? Definitely. Speaker 6: I think our community underestimates just how many very high quality artists are that live and work in Noosa that are internationally well-known, but they're tucked away in their studios. And you don't see them unless there's an opportunity for them to express their skills locally. And when we're not presenting their opportunities to do that, we don't see them. So that's something we're going to be working towards to try and engage more of that community and enable that high professional arts working community to mentor people from our community that are coming up in Noosa. Councillor Finzel: Brilliant. Just on that high note around that, Paul, do you want to give a few minutes? It's really exciting. In the round of grants, the artist from Koran that's going to the Milan fashion show. Do you want to give us a little bit? I think that encapsulates that vision of where we want to take our local artists. Speaker 6: Yeah, definitely. So great example of an artist that lives in Koran but is internationally known.
03:40:00 Works in recycled materials as a fashion designer. She's taking her show over to Milan. She's being taken up by some fashion houses. And after going over there and experiencing that and creating those networks, she'll be coming back and running workshops for local artists in the hinterland creative designers to be a part of that as well. So yeah, fantastic example. Yeah. A counsellor of ways in which we can try, just in a small way, through RADF, to support somebody to take on that fantastic opportunity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do you wish to close, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: I think it's all been said. Just carry on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the vote. Motion to vote. And that's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is another grant round. And it is... Oh, I had it open. It just closed. Councillor Wilson: It's the community project funding.
03:41:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we have three, four items in a row, I think. Or maybe five. All. And we have our community services coordinator. And we have our community services coordinator. Coming up. And are you going to do the opening? Councillor Wilson: Or is there a... Speaker 3: Cheryl will speak to the report directly in front of you. I'm just going to talk briefly through the chair to let you know there's been a change in order from historically how you would have been presenting the grants. So you will now see that you get the individual sub-categories come up to you first, and then the final report, which actually commits to the grant. And the final report is the total funds. So previously, I can see having reflected on it, the report order would have been very difficult had you actually endorsed the first report and then made a change subsequently
03:42:00 that you would have actually endorsed an amount that potentially could have been incorrect. Not that this has happened, but technically it's possible to happen. And so just to constrain that. This is the best way of actually presenting it. But Cheryl will move on. Previously, for our new councillors, we present the community project grants and sub-categories to handle if any councillor has a conflict of interest and needs to then actually leave the room to ensure that we can have a quorum to address that report. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: So through the chair. Speaker 3: We'll do program and projects first. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes. I believe is this section six, item six, that I will want to declare conflict? Thank you.
03:43:00 My councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club grant application, which is before us today, for transparency and public perception. Mr. Rob McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club committee. Mr. McCready is married to Lee McCready, who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 future Noosa election campaign, which is no longer an entity. Mr. Rob McCready is not a related party, nor a close associate, and I do not believe this conflict of interest satisfies the requirements, as I do not stand to gain or benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit or loss of a significant proportion of persons in the local government area to gain or lose. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I believe that I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate
03:44:00 in the decision. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? And I'm not sure who you are. You can answer, but there was an AGM, I think on Sunday, the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club. Would you know, Cheryl, offhand, I know that John Roderick stepped down as the president. Councillor Phillips: Sorry, I'm not aware of that outcome. Councillor Lorentson: Actually I've just got information now, Lee McCready was actually nominated as the president of the Surf Life Saving Club, so I think that perhaps needs to be changed, I've just, Clint just replied. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can have a think about that, but I'm reading Mr Rob McCready is not a related party or a close associate. So really that sentence says I haven't got a declarable conflict of interest, which I
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 agree with. But if Lee McCready is now the president, you would, it would be appropriate to acknowledge that. So is that another declaration? But it's not. The motion can still remain the same, if you like. It would, it just, I would think, could we just add Mr, Mr Rob McCready and Lee McCready Mayor Wilkie: sit in a decision-making capacity. Councillor Finzel: Mr McCready is, so Mr and Mrs Rob and Lee McCready, who are not a related party or close associate. Can we put that? Yeah, at the start of that sentence. Can we include both? Mayor Wilkie: Or we could just go back to the original one about Lee McCready, which is most direct perceived conflict. You don't even need to mention Mr Rob McCready. Councillor Finzel: Well he sits, as we looked that up, didn't we?
03:46:00 He sits in a, like a subcommittee, that is a decision-making committee. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So at least that's true. Yeah, the partner of a person of a declarable conflict doesn't have to be. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So if you just had a declaration about this Lee McCready, that's the most direct perceived conflict, you don't even need to mention Mr Rob McCready. Yeah. No, I agree. No, we do. I think you do. Councillor Wilson: We do. Okay. For the sake of this one, I think you do. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Yes. Because he was in that position when the application for this grant went through. So I think we've got to cover both of that here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can I... I'll have a tie of... I'll read it out. Councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict in this matter in relation to the Bridgin Surf Life Saving Crop Grant application, which is before today for transparency and public participation. We'll stop. Lee McCready. New sentence. Lee McCready. Sorry.
03:47:00 Councillor Wilson: McCready. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Has recently been elected as the president of this club. We'll stop. And then where we're going down, I think with the change of instrument, except for is not, are not related parties. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: So they keep going with this? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It'll have to be. Yeah. Anything else is there? Mr and Mrs McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates. Councillor Wilson: Parties. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we doing this? Yeah. Nor are they close associates. Speaker 5: Close associates. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I didn't believe this. The set aside is... I'm sorry. The act requirements is what you're really saying there? Yeah. Yeah. The requirements of... Councillor Finzel: The act. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Of the act. Of the act. Yeah. As I do not stand to gain a benefit of loss, significant portion of gain. However, it's not although, it's however. The last sentence. However, I seek to declare this interest.
03:48:00 This interest? Yeah. Interest? Yeah, well, you say you haven't got a declarable conflict. I seek to declare this interest. Yeah, so you're just declaring the interest. Um, in the public interest? No, I think, I think it has to be as. Because you've just said they're not a declarable conflict of interest under the Act. That's my problem with the whole declaration. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. I think the wording is perceived, um, sorry, a prescribed conflict. It's not a prescribed but it is a declarable. No, no, no. It's not prescribed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The sentence before. It's not prescribed, it's declarable. It's not prescribed and it's not, and if they're not close associates nor are they related parties and then it's not a, it's not a declarable conflict.
03:49:00 Mayor Wilkie: What about Mr and Mrs McCready are not a related, are not a related, not related parties nor are they close associates? Full stop. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: I'm sorry, what was this? Councillor Finzel: But it is, um. Okay, perhaps given that this has just come to light to the table about, um, Mrs Lee McCready being elected to that position, perhaps I just declare how I am in the personal interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just think you, you, however, in the public interest, I will make this, I'll declare this interest. It's really, you're saying it's what, you think it's below the statutory level, you still don't declare it. Yes. So that's a, you know, public interest. Councillor Lorentson: It's, it's declarable. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Okay. It is declarable. That's right. Yeah. And that's why I'm taking it to the vote in the public interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then after that, however. Councillor Wilson: Go over here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. However, now, however, in the public interest, I will declare this interest as I believe.
03:50:00 Yes. I am able to make it. That's, I think that works. Are you happy with that, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Give me a sec. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club grant application, which is before. Us today. Us today. Full stop. Full stop. Take out transparency and public perception. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Before us. Before us. Councillor Finzel: Oh, maybe I should leave public perception in there. Before us today. Full stop. Councillor Wilson: There you are. Okay. And then leave transparency. Okay. I'm going to take out. Councillor Finzel: Lee McCready has recently been elected as the president of this club. Speaker 5: Yeah. Director Rawlings: Has recently been elected as president of this club.
03:51:00 Councillor Finzel: Mr. Rob McCready sits in a decision making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club Committee. We know that's still a fact. I don't know if that's true. I think it's on the subcommittee. We don't know that now. I don't know if that's true. Councillor Finzel: Okay. We can put subcommittee there. But we don't know if that actually got voted. Councillor Wilson: No. No. Subcommittee? Yeah. That's at the time of this one. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Do we need to note that at the time of the application? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the main thing is the purpose of declaring conflicts of interest is so that the community is aware of your level of relationship and councillors can determine whether they think it's acceptable for you to be in the room. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So, Mr. McCready is married to Lee McCready, who worked as a volunteer on the 2020 Future Noose election campaign, which is no longer an entity. Mr. and Mrs. McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates. And I do not believe...
03:52:00 Oh, well, they are, actually. They are. Councillor Lorentson: And therefore, I do not believe... And therefore, I do not believe... And therefore, I do not believe this presents a conflict of interest, full stop. I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit of a loss of a significant proportion of persons, however, in the public interest and for full transparency, I do not stand to gain a benefit or loss in relation
03:53:00 I request to remain in the meeting, because I believe I am able to make an impartial decision on the matter. Councillor Wilson: What about it? Okay. Councillor Lorentson: However, I will respect it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that's... Mayor Wilkie: Terrifically overwritten. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But we don't need to edit it. Mayor Wilkie: We just need to make sure it's not inaccurate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll fix it by Thursday night. Councillor Finzel, are you happy with that? I think it says... I think it satisfies it. Councillor Finzel: It's overwritten. If we can edit it for the next meeting, given we've done it on the hop with some new information coming to light. Thank you, everyone, for your input. Greatly appreciated. So, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, would anyone like to ask Councillor Finzel to venture or move either of the options in terms of whether she should stay or leave? Councillor Wilson: I'll move that Councillor Finzel participates in votes on this matter. We'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, you... Councillor Wilson: That's my call. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it...
03:54:00 Councillor Wilson: Because Councillor believes that a reasonable person would trust that the financial decision is made in the public interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Or even the final decision. Financial, you see. She's an accountant. Yes. Yes. Have we got a seconder? Yes. Councillor Phillips. Do you need to talk to it? Does anyone wish to talk to it? Can we end it now? Listen, I'll just prolong the agony, please. Councillor Wilson: I already know this one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Please vote on the matter. It's carried unanimously, and Councillor Finzel didn't vote. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Good afternoon, Councillors. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Speaker 4: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and approve the first round of the 2023-24 community project grants for programming projects. Providing an attached one of this report with a total value of $42,055. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and approve the first round of
03:55:00 The grants program assists in delivering Council's strategic goals and objectives. The funding is intended to help community organisations meet community needs, build community skills and resilience, support community connection and develop and maintain community infrastructure. The grants program is administered through an equitable and transparent process whereby funds are awarded to projects which best meet the relevant criteria and represent value to the ratepayers' money. This category is projects and programs as mentioned and they are projects or programs that respond to a specific opportunity or need within the community. Ongoing projects or programs may be funded for a maximum of three times. Previous recipients of ongoing projects or programs that have been funded by Council must reapply each year. So that is to endorse there is attachment 1 of the report to the value of $42,085. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any questions or is someone happy to move it? I'll move it. Move Councillor Wegener. I'm going to second it.
03:56:00 Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Wegener? No, thank you. Would anyone like to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips would. Councillor Phillips: I have a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question? Councillor Phillips: Very quick question. Does the community see this, the itemised of everyone? Fantastic. Can I just say? Speaker 3: The community see it in two ways. It's obviously attached to the report as a part of the report. It's a part of the document and then we have a section on the website which outlines the program and past recipients. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Then my second question is just for future. When the trustee for Ray's foundation, I believe you go and speak with them around the application. I did a bit of a deep dive down a complete around this foundation and I would like to know maybe how staff go in communicating with them for future applications. Just given that it seems like a really great program.
03:57:00 Thanks. Speaker 4: Absolutely. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Before we go, if there's no further questions or discussion, I'll put the matter to the vote. That's carried, you know, so we can move on to the next item. Okay. And this is another grant round and this time we're dealing with infrastructure grants. Speaker 4: Correct. So the purpose of this report is to consider and approve the first round of the 24-25 community project grants for infrastructure as provided in attachment one of this report. The total grant value of $30,000 and infrastructure of building or work or infrastructure improvement projects include new or replacement infrastructure or maintenance of existing infrastructure. This may include both the existing infrastructure as well as the existing construction, as well
03:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy to move? Moved. Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? Mayor Wilkie: It would be very great to support the grant application of $30,000 for the New South Australian Rural Football Club to upgrade the community toilet facilities. They are a successful recipient because these toilet facilities are not just for the club, they're also used by the general public, especially during the farmers market days. It would be a much appreciated upgrade. It was sorely Councillor Wilson: in need of an upgrade. I just remembered, it's not in the report, we did discuss the Deputy Mayor Stockwell: potential of having a condition regarding the toilets to be opened. Does that need to be in the report or the recommendation? Speaker 3: So we have additional conditions which then go into the new robot to be enhanced. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone wish to talk or ask questions? No? Do you want to argue with yourself in closing?
03:59:00 No, I always lose. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to the next item, which is grants involving equipment. Councillor Phillips: Sorry, just before this, I don't have a declarable interest, but for the community watching online, I was the previous president at Cooroy Gymnastics Club. I have no longer any involvement in the club at all. So I just want that very clear. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks for putting it on the table, Councillor. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you tell us how long ago, just because recency is an issue we need to consider? Councillor Phillips: Yes, what year are we, 20? 24. Okay, sorry, I finished my presidency in September 2023, last year. Speaker 11: That's good sense. Councillor Phillips: I don't, yeah, and I didn't have any idea about this grant application, but yes, timing.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, is it relevant? I would think it is. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One of the things we have to consider is the recency of your project. Okay. And I think, only being less than a year, that it might be worthwhile declaring that. Councillor Lorentson: For your benefit, Councillor Forbes. Councillor Phillips: That's why I wanted it. That's why I brought it up. Thank you. What's next? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want me to try and work something? No, just kidding. Yeah, it's declarable, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: We can vote, we can vote on it. Okay, thank you. It's at a minimum, declarable. That's great, yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just, I'm meaning I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I was the President of Croy Gymnastics up until 2023.
04:01:00 Mayor Wilkie: September 23. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: And then. Was the President? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Of Croy Gymnastics. Until September 23. Until September 23. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And then the State? Councillor Wilson: Just leave that. Sorry. Okay. I've got to put a. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. You see how the. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I've got to put a finger ring around that part of the base. Oh, that's okay. Resolution. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. But we have to, we have to go back. You just wiped out the second part of the motion. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Okay. Oh, okay. Yes, the State. We'll get that now. All right. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: We'll get that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no.
04:02:00 Yeah. That goes above that. Yeah. The motion. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: It goes here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So take out the word State. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And add it to the, straight after September 23. That's it? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you happy with that, councillor? Councillor Wilson: Because what reason? Because of the current. Councillor Phillips: I am no longer in any capacity involved in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club, nor are my kids. And I'm not a loner, I'm just not like that. I could also be a loner. Councillor Wilson: Thank you.
04:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're happy with that, Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: As long as I'm just not a loner, I'm just no longer. I'm happy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Has anyone got a question, or would they like to move a recommendation? I'll move. Councillor Wilson: I'll have it as second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's the stay recommendation? Stay recommendation, definitely. So it's moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded by Councillor Finzel. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. You're welcome. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, please? Just, Councillor Phillips, how long were you president of the Cooroy? Two years. Councillor Phillips: Two years. But my family have been foundation members of the club for its entirety from day one. Mayor Wilkie: Are you associated still? No. Councillor Phillips: My mum's not alive and my dad is no longer with the club in any capacity and hasn't been for probably 20 years. No longer. What did you say? If I had to worry about? A very long time. Mayor Wilkie: Mm-hmm. Well, while you're on the roll, you might as well mention your parents for foundation members.
04:04:00 Okay. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm sorry, Councillor, because you can't do that without the agreement of the whole committee or council. Mayor Wilkie: I didn't say it's happening. I said it was worth putting it in. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I know. But we can. It has to. Everyone around the table has to agree to it. Oh, because we're sorry. Councillor Wilson: Because we've already moved to the second. Oh, right. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You know what I'm talking about? Yeah. So would you like that included? Councillor Phillips: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Let's include it. And is everyone happy with that to be included? Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Sorry, Vicky. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we go up there. If you, yeah, put it, use a common rather than a full stop. Councillor Wilson: Oh, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And as my parents were foundation members.
04:05:00 Councillor Wilson: Capital F? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Councillor Wilson: No? Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we happy with that? Councillor Wilson: Should we call the club? Should we put that on there? Mayor Wilkie: I think that's. Because I and my parents are no longer involved. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. Councillor Wilson: Because people still think they're actively involved. Councillor Phillips: I kept it. And my parents. My parents. And my parents are no longer involved in any capacity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Because I and my parents are. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. That does add to the story. Thank you. It does add to the story. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know. Okay, so any other questions or comments? No? I'll put the motion, and that motion is for Councillor Phillips to remain in the room. That's unanimous, and Councillor Phillips did not vote.
04:06:00 Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Kylie, would you like to give an overview? Speaker 4: For the purpose of this report, Council's Motility approved the first round of the 2024 Community Project Grants for Equipment, as provided in attachment 1 of this report, with a total grant value of $36,647.18, and equipment is categories for the purchase of equipment that responds to a specific need, sorry, specific opportunity or need within the community. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone have questions? Does anyone have any questions, or would someone like to move the motion? I'll move the motion. Councillor Wilkie. Second. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Mayor Wilkie: Are you happy? Look, it's great to see that the Cooroy Gymnastics Club will get a new set of $14,000 towards new parallel bars, that the Chamber of Commerce will be able to improve safety and security of the Cooroy Christmas Tree, that the Tall Trees and Koran Art Exhibition will get some equipment, and a strategic planning workshop to help ensure success of the events and their long-term viability,
04:07:00 that the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club will get a new bain-marie for club events and help ensure that we have healthy and safe food to eat at future events, that the Noosa Museum at Pomona will have better access and accessibility and visibility for primary school children and wheelchairs, and that the Hinterland Arts Group Inc. and the Pomona Railway Gallery will get an upgrade to their office technology to help ensure the efficiency of their operations. Which is mainly volunteer run. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Anyone else? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That is, you can vote yes. That is unanimous. Mayor Wilkie: Parents will be proud. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, the next item nine is in regard to community grants for events.
04:08:00 Am I right? Yes. Speaker 3: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like to move it over? I'm just shaking my chair. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. In accordance with Chapter 558 of the Local Government Act 2009, I will provide the following. I don't have to read that. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendations to Noosa International Cirque Film Festival. I am a member of the Noosa International Cirque Film Festival committee. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Mayor Wilkie: And may I say what an absolute delight it is to have an absolute clear and definitive conflict of interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's wonderful. And you're going left, is it? .
04:10:00 Is that the corral? . Okay, I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Carried unanimously. And we'll just wait for Councillor Wegener to come back in the room because I believe the next item is the overview. Is that correct? Councillor Wilson: That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener just paddled back in. . Councillor Lorentson: You're enabling him. Councillor Wilson: That's right. Enjoy the break. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A nice break. Carly. Councillor Phillips: Cheryl. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I call you Carly a lot? Councillor Phillips: Yeah, it's okay. It's been a swell of a time. .
04:11:00 Speaker 4: The purpose of this report is to provide, sorry, the four reports have been presented to Council for this round for community grants funding that provide further details for each grant. A breakdown of those are the events category, so $23,200. Equipment, $36,647.18. Infrastructure of $30,000. Project or programs were $42,085. The total amount recommended is $131,932.18. To break down that, we received 19 applications in that round one. And 14 of them are recommended. The 2024-25 overall proposed budget is $324,780.80. And recommended in this round of funding is $131,932.18. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's been moved. Moved by Councillor Wilkie.
04:12:00 Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Do we wish to discuss anything? Mayor Wilkie: No, thank you, staff, for the way you've broken up these grants. Yeah. Thank you. There's a lot to do. Yes, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the good news is you'll get the pleasure on Thursday night. Oh. Mayor Wilkie: There'll be better practice by then. That's what, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anyone else wish to speak? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you. Thank you. And a short break. Cheryl meets Kylie. I'll be back in a minute. And I will welcome Kim and Ben. Is that right? To talk about the Environment and Climate Change grants. Mayor Wilkie: I think I'm just organising it. Councillor Phillips: Sorry.
04:13:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ben, are you doing the overview? Adele, we do have any conflicts there? No. Speaker 7: We've got two streams of funding which are considered in the same report. They both come under the Environment and Climate Change Resilience grants. We've got the Environment grants which are assessed against the Environment grants policy. Which is based on implementing Council's key environmental strategies, plans and the actions within them that are appropriately delivered through grants. Increased capacity of local groups through a collaborative approach to environmental management. And increased funding directed to environmental activities through opportunities of community groups and organisations to leverage extra funding. And then we've got a range of criteria used to delve into each of those. The Climate Change grants are assessed differently. They're assessed on impacts to mitigate climate change or be able to build resilience to climate change.
04:14:00 And so we assess them differently. We've got two different panels that assess each of the grants. We only have one round of grants for our Environment and Climate Change Resilience grants. So we receive six applications. Two for Environment. Four for Climate Change. The two for Environment were undersubscribed. Our funds were $24,382 which is funded from the Environment levy. We received grant applications totalling $13,293. These are project grants. And so we've got, left over from our grants budget from our Environment levy, we had $11,089. With our Climate Change grants, we... They're funded through general rates. And there was a $50,000 budget allocation. We received grants with a total of $89,806.
255 minutes in ¶
04:15:00 So we're around $39,000 oversubscribed. And so when we've made our assessments against the Climate Change Resilience grants, we're, through recommendations, able to manage the recommended amount to $50,000, which is why we've made some criteria and provided some commentary around what's getting funded and what's not getting funded. So there's two grants for Environment. They were provided in the attachments. There was one for Wildlife Moosa for line and net reduction program, which is an extension of this existing program, which is great because it gets volunteers out on the river. Or we'll say it leverages huge amounts of volunteer in-kind contributions to be able to do a job which, if we were going to resource it, it was Council's responsibility to resource it, and it cost tens of thousands of dollars. So a small amount of project grants received a huge amount of benefit for our entangled wildlife.
04:16:00 The second one was Noosa Landcare. Sorry, I will say that first grant was for a total of $4,755. The second one for our Environment was Noosa Landcare, which is looking to celebrate and educate landholders in the hinterland for environmental practices. And so it's a publication that's been used for a considerable amount of time. And then it's like the $8,533 extension of the recommendation for the Environment. Grants used to fully fund both settings were undersubscribed. Both of them, the assessment panels felt that they met professional criteria to first fully fund them. So we touched up more against the criteria. While I've got the floor, our climate change grants provided a little bit more challenge because we were oversubscribed in there. Look, I'll say all the grant applications were really good and worthy projects.
04:17:00 Some aligned really well with the assessment criteria, and others, while good ideas, might be delayed a little bit. So we've recommended zero emissions Noosa for $29,000 for a energy assessment and upgrades on low income and vulnerable households. Fully funded that program. It met all of the criteria that we were using for climate change resilience grants. Plus, and it wasn't assessed, but it's just got a great social element to it sitting as well. We didn't consider that when we were making the grant application, but it's definitely an added bonus for that one. There were two grant applications, sorry, the second grant application that we were fully funding was the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club for additional solar panels on their Lions Club den. And putting on the solar panels does align really well with climate change grants because part of the criteria is around reducing carbon footprint.
04:18:00 There was another grant application from Noosa Landcare, which was looking at a geomorphology study for Upper Pinbaran Creek to be able to better plan for natural methods to reduce carbon footprint. To reduce siltation and landslip. The connection through to climate change is based on increased weather events and management and land use actions that have been undertaken in that area over the last 100 years exacerbating a lot of the problems for siltation and landslip. And doing a study on the underlying geomorphology, particularly on upper catchment streams, really gives a good indication as to how you, or how a stabilisation project would be determined. Because quite often it's not the overlying soil, it's the underlying geology that will determine what's the best application. We, on assessment, because there was some great climate adaptation,
04:19:00 there wasn't any demonstration for carbon offsets, which is why we scaled that one down and we've nominated a partial funding for that one. There was one project that we recommend, or that officers have recommended not to fund, and that was Sunshine Coast Environment Council for Marine Pollution in Bract Polystyrene Response Coordination and Education project. This is a really good idea. Council is planning on running something similar to this this year, which will be the first step. And so we didn't want to have Council resources doubling up with an environment grant whose idea will be more relevant next year when we've done the base foundation work for this year. So for SCEC it was assessed as a great grant because of the double up that we've got with the Council program, which we've been planning for 18 months at this point in time. We've chosen to not recommend funding that, but we encourage SCEC to put in an application
04:20:00 because it will be very relevant for next year when we've done our waste symposium. Councillor Lorentson: So you explained that to the applicant, Ben, the reasons why they were not successful? Director Rawlings: We've got to get a Council decision first. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, excuse me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just before we do, staff reminded me. Councillors, you'll be aware that the advice we got from the Department recently that if we believe we no longer have a conflict of interest we should put on the public record the reasons for that. So you will note there is a grant proposal from Noosa District Landcare and I wish to inform the meeting that for the past two terms I have declared a conflict of interest as a result of my long association with Noosa District Landcare and its unincorporated forebear. However, having now received more detailed legal advice, it is clear that my circumstances do not meet the definition of a declarable conflict of interest because the organisation is neither a close associate nor a related party under the Local Government Act and therefore I will not be declaring any type of conflict of interest
04:21:00 for this matter or in relation to that group into the future. Okay, so do we have any questions of staff or does someone wish to move the recommendations? Got a question? Yeah, I've got some questions on the Zero Emissions Noosa Project Councillor Wilson: for energy assessments and upgrades for lower income and vulnerable households which sounds like a great initiative. Just a couple of questions. I do know there are some special conditions there but just a couple of things just to clarify. It's looking at 20 homes. Speaker 4: So how will those homes be identified or who will determine which homes would be selected to benefit from this program? Director Rawlings: So the ZENs indicated that they were from agencies like the Salvation Army and Coast to Bay and probably our community development area to actually identify the low income households
04:22:00 and we would consider that appropriate given those agencies. Councillor Wilson: Who specifically will carry out the energy assessments or audits and how would those providers be collected? Director Rawlings: So the grant application included quotes from several suppliers so there are professionals who do energy audits and they will carry out the energy audit process and then the audits will come up with a range of recommendations and it will be the energy auditors that make the recommendations for what changes the households might be able to make. Councillor Wilson: One more. Does Council envisage further ratepayer funding as a consequence of the outcomes from this project or is that 29,000 sufficient? Director Rawlings: Yeah, so to do what the grant outlines it's sufficient. It's both sufficient to do 20 audits and also some low intervention changes so the budget is appropriate and broken down
04:23:00 from that perspective and assessed on that basis. So not at the moment. We don't envisage further funding but obviously if the program is successful it's a great program. So if it's successful and there's evaluation and there's really great outcomes for low income then it's something you want to look at potentially rolling out further. So there may be a conversation in the future. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Any other questions? I've got a couple of questions, Ben. In terms of the grants, how often are the grants offered and how are these grants advertised to the community and potential applicants? Speaker 7: Yeah, we offer grants once per year at the moment and that's something that with the grants per year that we've got coming up we're looking at different options that might make it more accessible or even having rapid assessment grants available for the environment. So at the moment it's one per year to answer that question.
04:24:00 In terms of advertising we send out to our database information in December. We've got grants, grant rounds coming up and then as part of the Community Grants Forum we also advertise an evening information session which is held with Jay early February. Councillor Lorentson: Which is excellent. Yeah. Director Rawlings: So community grants and environment grants are run through the same process. Interesting. So you get the same sort of publishing and notification and advising. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Director Rawlings: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener: And there's also Grant Guru. You get the email from the app, I guess, Grant Guru. I get them. I get it. I was just like, oh my gosh. You know, the grants just get in your computer. Grant Guru. Director Rawlings: It's a platform that Kerri or Cheryl might talk to, but it's a platform that actually scrapes all the potential grants available. Oh, wow. Yeah. So across all levels of government. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's some research. To move it on, I'm happy to move the recommendation.
04:25:00 Councillor Wilson: Second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Finzel. I think we've had a good description in written and verbal form and I think the recommended projects are all worthy of the dollars requested. Anyone else wish to comment? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Now, the next item is a- Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Ben. Director Rawlings: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll invite Kerri and Cheryl. See you. Quick later. Thank you. For the one-year extension of three-year alliance grants. However, I need to declare that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter. In relation to the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lyons Football Club, I am the current president of the Noosa Lyons Football Club. Sorry, you can take that out because this one wasn't a grant. And as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the
04:26:00 matter is discussed. And later on. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So now that the chair has left, we need to appoint another chair. Can I have a nomination, please? Councillor Wegener: I'm happy to do it. I nominate Frank. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, I'm happy to do it. Let me put it to the vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr CEO. Thank you Kerri and Cheryl. Can I have an overview, please? Speaker 4: Yes, sure. This reports to extend the alliance grant funding for sports field maintenance and the halls and community centre grants by one year to synchronise with the other alliance funding programs. So initially these grants were approved for three year alliance agreements from the 1st of July 2021 until the 30th of June 2024. In contrast, the guest of season, signature events and community alliance grants were allocated on a different three year schedule from the 1st of July 2022 to the 30th of June 2025.
04:27:00 The synchronisation provides administrative improvements for the community organisation and council. The extension also allows for the community tenure review and the community grants review to be completed and any relevant changes to be implemented and enacted across all funding programs prior to any new funding agreements to be awarded. This report recommends extending the funding for the sports field maintenance and the community halls centre alliance agreements for an additional year from the 1st of July 2024 until the 30th of June 2025. It is proposed to conduct the three year alliance funding application in early 2025 so that the new, so all agreements are synchronised and will be effective from the 1st of July 2025 with a synchronised cycle moving forward. Mayor Wilkie: That's it. Thank you. Speaker 4: So I should note that there are the amount of slots that are recommended that's in the community halls and centres.
04:28:00 There are 11 that need to be rolled over to the next year. There's a total of $104,834.40 and sport field maintenance there's also 11 groups totaling $203,499.26. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify, this is not an exhaustive list of all the groups that are receiving a three year alliance grant is it? This is just ones that will get the one year extension to synchronise with all the others? Speaker 3: Correct. It is all of the halls and centres and all the sport field maintenance. So it excludes signature events, festive season and community organisations, our significant community organisations. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Questions councillors? Do we have a mover for the motion? Councillor Wilson: I'll move. Mayor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Phillips. I'll second. I'll second. I'll second by Councillor Wilson. Would you speak to the motion? No, thank you.
04:29:00 Okay. Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: It just seems a sensible solution. Great. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the motion all in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Kerri. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you, Kerri. Thank you. So we have Councillor Stockwell back in the room please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So that is the end of the public, open public meeting. We will reconvene again after the next two items we've discussed. We held a confidential session. For those who may be listening online, we will be terminating the webcast. It will be turned back on to adopt any motion that may be forthcoming from the confidential session. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chairman, I'll move that we go into closed session. I'll second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Let's move.
270 minutes in ¶
04:30:00 Councillor Wilkie. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Thank you for the reminder. I presume there's no debate. Those in favour? Unanimously. Thank you. Oh, we need to vote on that. Councillor Ed. That was unanimous. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Welcome back. We're dealing with item 7.1 and it's a confidential not for public use contract, a register of pre-qualified suppliers or hire of plant and equipment. Okay. And if you didn't know, that's commonly known as dry hire. Would anyone like to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson. I'll second it. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: No. It's confidential for reasons outlined in the report that there's negotiations relating to a commercial matter involving the local government for which public discussion would
04:31:00 be likely to prejudice the interests of the local government. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And it was good to see that there is a majority of those in the list that are local to Tewantin and its immediate surrounds. Anyone wish to discuss it further? No? I'll put the motion. Those in favour? And that's unanimous. We move on to 7.2 which is once again a not for public use contract number RP00436, a register of pre-qualified suppliers for hire of plant and equipment. And that's the operator known as West Coho. Do we have someone who wishes to move the motion? Councillor Wegener. And seconded? Councillor Wilson was first off the block. Would you like to talk to the motion, Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: No. All good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All good. Anyone else? Okay. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously.
04:32:00 And the meeting is now closed at 5.14pm. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you to CDR. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Bye bye. Ultimately.