Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: Where motions are finalised as decisions of the local government. There's opportunity for us all to meet and discuss issues and questions you may have after formal proceedings at some time. I'd like to thank the staff who went to considerable effort to find a venue that was available at this time, acquire the technology to ensure internet connection and live streaming capacity, and organise the consultation material and make themselves available. So thank you staff. We hope to continue bringing these meetings to the community and venues across the Shire and we'll learn a lot from how things go tonight. The matters on the agenda tonight were debated and approved at the Planning and Environment Committee, Service and Organisation Committee last week, and the General Committee meeting on Monday, and only have the weight of recommendations until they are passed at tonight's statutory meeting. These lead-up committee meetings are generally where all the main discussion and debate takes place. Ordinary meeting structure allows for public participation in the form of deputations, and we have one of those tonight,
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:01:00 and formal questions which were submitted and will be answered by staff. The nursing community is familiar with and have always respected formal meeting procedures, and we're grateful for your attendance tonight. First item is attendance and apologies, and I note that all councillors are attending, but we do have Councillor Lorentson who is on leave in North Queensland and is attending by Teams. Councillor Lorentson, can you hear us? I can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Now we need to have a motion that will allow Councillor Lorentson to attend by Teams. It's up on the screen there. I can't quite read that print from this distance. It says, I move that in accordance with section 254 of the Local Government Regulation, Councillor Lorentson is approved to attend the meeting dated June 20, 2013. Can I have a seconder for that please? I'll second. Seconded, Councillor Phillips. All in favour? Carried unanimously.
00:02:00 Can I have a mover and a seconder of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 16th of May. Councillor Finzel: May be moved. Mayor Wilkie: Moved, Councillor Finzel. It's seconded. Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? In favour. Carried unanimously. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the minutes of the special meeting held on 3rd of June? Councillor Phillips: Now moved. Mayor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. There are no mayoral minutes. Are there any petitions? Councillor Wegener, do you have a petition? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Wegener: We have a petition for an off-leash fenced dog area in Cooroy. Usually we have the paper copy.
00:03:00 Then we have a petition with the dog. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that, please. I'll be the seconder. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Any discussion? You're with me. Councillor Wegener: Do I? Councillor Wegener: Don't need to. Yeah. No, it's just a very, very popular thing, and we're looking at plans and places to put it. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Councillor Lorentson, are you in favour of that? Yes. Thank you. We have no notified motions. We have no presentations. We have one deputation from Mr Nick Cook. Mr Cook, would you like to come to the podium and present your deputation, please? We've got 15 minutes for you. Councillor Wegener: All right.
00:04:00 Nick Cook: Good evening. My name is Nick Cook, and I'm the Vice President of Saviors England. We're a community conference. We're an organisation that was formed in 2020 to advocate for and represent the community in regards to the impacts, the significant impacts of the community quarry and the heavy haulage that comes through our communities. We need to think of a way to get us to rehab here. Councillor Wegener: He needs a new microphone. I hope he gets a new microphone. Nick Cook: All right. I'll try and yell. How about... Speaker 1: Turn the camera around. That's better. That's better. All right. Let's start again. Nick Cook: Okay. Good evening. My name is Nick Cook, and I'm the Vice President of Saviors England. We're a community non-profit organisation that was co-operated in 2020 to advocate for and
7.1 Applicant: SAVE NOOSA HINTERLAND - NICK COOKE Topic: Heavy Vehicle Haulage in Noosa Hinterland ¶
00:05:00 represent the community in regards to the Kin Kin Quarry and the heavy haulage that comes through our town. Tonight, I'm here to outline some issues relating to the quarry operations, and if you have any technical knowledge, and the impacts, as well as bring to the attention of some issues to Council, and some tangible solutions that can be impacted immediately. Essentially, this is a call for action across the board, but also a call for advocacy at other levels of government. I think it's the perfect time to make this invitation because we have a new Council, a new Mayor, and I'd like to make sure that everyone knows what we're doing in this space, and what we would like Council to do in this space. So let's start with a quick outline of the quarry. It was approved in 1987, which many may know, but it doesn't all go back to that approval date. There's been several amendments to the approval of the QMP since that time, some of which we won't review. Corpus Resources took over this quarry in 2020, and since that date, we've had a significant increase in operations and impacts to our towns.
00:06:00 The operations are six days a week, six till six, Monday to Friday, and Saturdays seven till five. Also, they can blast from nine till three, as per the QMP quarry management plan, with no limits on blasting. We see up to 288 quarry truck movements a day at capacity throughout towns, and there has been days where we haven't reached this capacity already, and with the expansion currently proposed, this is something we're going to get into the rules quite quickly. This quarry is located 22 kilometres away from the highway, unlike other quarries that are located fairly close. If you look a bit more much, you'll see that they're mostly within one to five kms. This one is 22 kms over a mountain range and through multiple towns. As I said, there's 288 quarry truck movements a day, and it's based five minutes up from the quarry. So that number doesn't include trucks traveling to the quarry. So at capacity, we can actually have a quarry truck every few minutes.
00:07:00 That's trucks going to and from, and we all know, a lot of, most of us are from around here. We've experienced this. And I just wanted to say that this impacts more than just Kin Kin, which you'll often see from media releases. It's actually mostly people like Kin Kin, Pomona, Cr Anne, Peregian, Cooroy, Darragh, Lorraine, Poyne. Yes. The improved haulage route is actually from Chefsons Lane, Kin Kin, down Pomona Kin Kin Road, all the way to Bruce Highway. In fact, it goes right past this hall that we're standing in. It impacts our Kinders, our schools, our school buses, our skateparks, our parks, our walking trails, our Noosa trails. In fact, seven of the eight Noosa trails at some point traverse the haulage route. It also impacts a lot of businesses on the haulage route, including parents down. So it's really important for us to know that we are protecting our koi management plan. The Koi Management Plan is a document, a very long document, that regulates the use of the koi. Unfortunately, in the last few years, Council have made the decision not to issue infringements
00:08:00 of the Koi Management Plan during Council's court case against the operator. This is something that we want to see reversed immediately because the Koi Management Plan is the only document really at Council's disposal to protect us, and to protect our health, A lot of the burden has been left on the community to do that and that's something we want to see change. We also want to see loopholes in the QMP amended and there's many of them. In fact there was a change in 2016 which was actually passed by council resolution that diluted the efficacy of the quarry management plan by putting it in a clause that says that the operator should operate generally in accordance with the QMP. And so we need to tighten those things up so that council can adequately protect the community. There's a whole bunch of things that count over the quarry grants and by-by including not riding trucks before the improved operating hours which most of us know is happening quite regularly.
00:09:00 Trucks are coming through here at 5.30 in the morning and they queue up on Chepstons Lane. Another one that they should be doing is they should maintain 300 metres distance on Chepstons Lane. They should maintain a 60 metre distance on the open roads. There's a whole bunch of QMP stipulations. Stockpile heights, dust, dust mitigation. These are the levers council can pull to regulate this quarry. And in the beginning we were told the strategy to deal with this quarry, or one of them, was to make it unviable. And the only way to make it unviable is to enforce the QMP and issue infringements. So as I said council made the decision not to issue infringements during the court case. So essentially for the last few years there's been no infringements issued. With the exception recently of an approved structure that we raised to council. So we're continually pushed back on this decision and we've even tried to seek a statement of reasons under the Judicial Review Act to seek the specifics of this decision and the material fact on which the decision was based.
00:10:00 Because essentially the reasoning was we don't want to better the discretion of the judge who is unbiased. We've also received legal advice that we believe that this is not an appropriate action. And that it would not compromise the council's court case. Unfortunately to my request for a statement of reasons I've received the substandard response saying that my decision that I quoted, that is not to enforce the QMP during the court case, didn't exist. Despite the fact that I have statements from council confirming this from staff. That I have no standing, I'm not in a group party and you won't be dealing with me anymore. This is a problem and it's why I'm raising it now. So that this new council can address it and move forward from it. Because we can't keep having blockades that prevent us from being able to advocate and protect our community. So as I said approximately a year later, council did end up enforcing a breach of the QMP. An unapproved structure which is currently in court.
00:11:00 So obviously the legal advice has been thrown out. The monitoring of the quarry. We would like staff or a dedicated staff member to have to regulate the quarry and monitor the quarry. So the burden isn't on us to be attending every blast. To be capturing the breaches of the QMP through town. A lot of the evidence that was submitted to the court on behalf of the council is actually from residents, affidavits as well. And I think that what needs to happen is take the burden off us and ensure that someone is there just like you've got with SGA's and regulate this one business because of the blockades. I wanted to move on to out of this role, Newson Council can take particularly in regards to Pomona Kin Kin Road and the deficiencies that have just come out of Pomona Kin Kin Road road review. It's actually quite damning. Of the 95 kerbs on Pomona Kin Kin Road, 35 are insufficient to accommodate the length of the truck. So we're talking 19 metres plus. Many councils may not know about this.
00:12:00 In fact, the community might know about this. It should actually be front page news on every news article. So what do they mean by they can't stay in their own lane? TMR say that it means that there are no clearance envelopes to maintain. The 19 metres semi-trailers cannot negotiate the movement without physically running off the stilt pavement, running into oncoming lanes, or coming in from one of the benefits objects such as the kerb clobber or sign. So we need council to advocate to the state government to use their power list under section 46 of the Transport Infrastructure Act to limit truck movements by length because of these dangers. This is not something council can do, but it's an advocacy role we can take. Also, what something is in council's remit is national heavy vehicle regulated guidelines issuing permits. This is something we brought up with council before we brought up our response. Basically, local roads require a permit issued by council
00:13:00 in collaboration with the road manager in collaboration with the national heavy vehicle regulated guidelines. The national heavy vehicle regulated law requires road managers and road authorities to have regard to these guidelines and we believe they have no regard because they wouldn't be given out consistently on local roads with impacts. Some of the risks that are identified in the criteria are damage to the road infrastructure, which we obviously have, adverse impacts on the community arising from noise, emissions, traffic congestion and other matters, poses a significant risk to public safety. We take all of the criteria that the local permits are continually issued. So, some of the local roads are Sheppartons Lane, so if you could limit trucks on that road and then limit them across the rest of the haulage route. Also, some road in Pomona, which have a lot of members which are regularly impacted on the roads, also the road the school's on, and Pioneer Road. Some of the limits that you can pull, you can impose conditions, restrict permit duration. I believe it's about 12 months at the moment. You can restrict the frequency of permit trips
00:14:00 and you can also flat out put a mass restriction on the road, which is something we've been calling for for some time. Consider alternate routes. If you cannot mitigate these risks, you can take them off the roads and ultimately evaluate the feasibility and basically the road manager and council can decide not to give consent to these permits at all, which is probably where this needs to go. Now, this is very important, especially considering the plans for the quarry to expand and the impact it's going to have on the community. There's currently an EPDCA referral for approximately 9.3 bike hectares of matter clearing of matters of national environmental significance. This is EPPs listed protected habitat. Habitat listed as critical to the survival of the koala. Now, this expansion was envisioned in the original and written by council, so they've allowed, they've approved this. However, I won't go into the QMP in detail, and I think that there could be some legal levers that council could pull to re-evaluate
00:15:00 whether this construction can go ahead. The QMP says that the quarry management plan has generally reflected the original 1991 plan where appropriate. However, the 1991 plan was schematic. It did not address how to access the resources and was based on a broader context. That's directly from the QMP. It then goes on to say that activities carried out within this area will be subject to statutory processes for change to approvals, having regard to the extent of the change proposed. And it then goes on and on the map, which shows where they want to extract from. It says this area is subject to additional assessment and change allocation. So, if it is required, essentially this could be huge. This could open up the approval, and it could potentially shut down the quarry altogether. So, so far, the council have, after we've raised, we've found out about this clearing, council took an advocacy role and wrote to the Federal Environment Assembly, which we absolutely love them, but we believe there could be more that could be done to actually stop the expansion altogether.
00:16:00 And as I said, the expansion, just to show, 2021, 380,000 tonne extraction. 2022, 433,000 tonnes. And 2023, we're at 620,000 tonnes. In other words, over one million tonnes a year. So, we're very close to capacity. And once we are at capacity, we will, like I said, have a drug every few minutes. Some of the other things the council can take is review the key resource area designation of the logging question, which may come up for review in the state government. That would potentially remove the industry, the key, you know, resource industry and what allows it to be mined. State road, limits on state roads, as I said, section 46. Advocacy to the state for crossings and traffic calming measures on TMR roads in the hinterland. This road, so we can implement it immediately. Advocacy to DES to regulate the dust, the poor abrasion on site
00:17:00 and the environmental impacts. In fact, this clearing may also require some state government approval. So, council can step in and make sure that that actually gets to the state government. That would be good. Advocacy to Southeast Queensland border because the Lake Macdonald Dam upgrade is going ahead and is, there is the potential that all resources could get this contract and we could face increased borrower operations for our town for the next four to five years for this one project. This is where I think council need to advocate on behalf of the community and set this out this Queensland border. You need to not allow this. Look at the deficiencies of Pomona Kin Kin Road. Look at the impact it's already having on the community Several key stakeholders started, including us, we were the main stakeholder, we had over 650 members we were representing, we were urgently called for those roundtables to reconvene under a new man, Frank Wilkie, and we asked for the roundtables to be in terms of reference, and a reference group set up to actually action the concerns that we raised in these roundtables, because all too often, we were bringing these concerns to the roundtable, and nothing happened.
00:18:00 So, let's tighten that process and bring all the players to the table so that we can have some genuine and tangible outcomes. So, in conclusion, we hope council take on this message and immediately work to mitigate the impacts of the Kin Kin Quarry beyond the current court case. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: That brings us to item eight, consideration of committee reports. The first, Audit and Risk Committee Report. The Audit and Risk Committee is a subcommittee consisting of staff, two councillors and external, and independent board members who oversee finance, governance, risk, asset management, and other internal matters.
00:19:00 Committee recommendations pertain to item one. Audit and committee briefing paper and interim report. Queensland Audit Office and KPMG. Item two, 2024 interim report from the Queensland Audit Office. Item three, shell financial statements and end of financial year update. Item four, update of council's strategic risk register. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations to be adopted, please. Councillor Wegener: I'll move it. Mayor Wilkie: Move, Councillor Wilson. Seconded, Councillor Finnezel. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. We now come to Planning and Environment Committee reports. Committee recommendations. Item 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 were all referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Item 5.4, application for a minor change to a development approval for a material change of use of premises. Commercial business type 3 veterinary surgery at 69 Mary Street, Noosaville was approved.
8.1 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE REPORT - 31 MAY 2024 ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 11 JUNE 2024 ¶
00:20:00 Item 5.5 was referred to the General Committee due to significance of the issue. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the Planning and Environment Committee recommendations? Moved. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded by? Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel again. Any discussion? All in favour? It's carried unanimously. Come to the Services and Organisation Committee. Speaker 1: A million times. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. A million times. We'll just leave it to you to speak up when we ask for the vote. Are you comfortable doing that? No worries. It will be. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. 8.3, Services and Organisation Committee reports. First one, proposed trustee lease renewals to the Sound Park, Whambi Place, which is about the renewal of areas for outside dining, was approved. Item 5.2, Noosaville Shire Council specialised supplier list, which is an updated list of
8.3 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 11 JUNE 2024 ¶
00:21:00 external suppliers for specialised services. Item 5.3, contract number T-Trip Quadruple 067, which is a register of pre-qualified suppliers for provision of trade services. Again, this is an updated list of external suppliers of trade services to Council. Item 7.1 was a confidential item, Eumundi Noosa Noosa Road landfill transfer station operation by Noosa Council, which related to the management of the resource recovery centre. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations? The adopted. Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Seconded? Councillor Wegener. Aye. Are we all in favour? In favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. Now we now come to the General Committee reports. The first one is MCU 230101, which is an application for short-term accommodation at 561 Gympie Road, Kin Kin, which was recommended for refusal by councillors on amenity in other regions.
00:22:00 We have a... Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to move an amended motion for refusal. Councillor Wegener: Yes, please. Councillor Wegener: And... I'll have to go over there and read it off the screen. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. It's just been recently amended. Nick Cook: Yeah. Okay. That one's separate document. Councillor Wegener: I see it. That's good. And that's going to be nixed to hard act to follow. Just a sec. Thank you. I move that council note to report... I don't have to read that. Yes. I move that council note to report by senior development planner to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 11th of June, 2024, regarding application number MCU23-01-01 for a development permit for a material change of use, short-term accommodation, situated at 561 Gympie Road, Kin Kin.
8.4 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 17 JUNE 2024 ¶
00:23:00 And... A, refuse the application for the following reasons. One, the proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6, Agriculture and Rural-Based Activities of the Strategic Framework as... A, it does not protect agricultural land from encroachment from urban development... B, short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry requirement. Which supports production, investment, and diversification. Two, the proposal is not consistent with 3.2.6, Tourism of the Strategic Framework as... It does not provide for high-quality nature-based and rural tourism experiences. B, short-term accommodation is not an ancillary rural industry which supports production, investment, and diversification. Three, the proposal is not consistent with 3.3.3, Housing Choice of the Strategic Framework as... A, it does not protect the rural neighborhood from short-term visitor accommodation that
00:24:00 would impact on the amenity of the Zoyka residence. Four, the proposal does not comply with the Purpose and Overall Outcome 2.I of the Rural Zone Code as... A, it does not provide for rural uses or activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with existing and future ZOIs. B, it does not provide for rural uses or activities or other uses and activities that are compatible with the character and environmental features of the zone. C, visitor accommodation in its proposed form does not complement rural uses or promote the sustainable use of rural land. Five, the use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with 3.2.6, and Performance Outcome 2.J, and Performance Outcome P.O.4 of the Rural Zone Code as
00:25:00 it is not compatible with rural activities and will detract from the rural amenity of the adjoining property. Six, the use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with Performance Outcome P.O.8 of the Rural Zone Code as the proposed location of the dwelling within 200 meters of mapped agricultural land conservation area is not sufficiently consistent with the overall outcome 2.G, and Performance Outcome P.O. and P.O.2 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as A, the site is within 250 meters of mapped agricultural land conservation area, which is intended for intensive animal industry, intensive horticulture, or rural industry
00:26:00 uses. B, the site is within 100 meters of mapped agricultural land conservation area, which These are the main items for the materials that will be used. C, it will make an impact on the ability of rural landlords to carry out agricultural pursuits. D, it will result in conflicts with nearby land uses. E, it will detract from the character and amenity of the local area. 8. The use of premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with the performant Outcome PO-25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as it will result in an unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of likely increases in noise to adjoining properties. 9. The use is inconsistent with the Mesa Housing Strategy 2022 Keep Mesa Homes Item 7.7 to ensure that short term accommodation in the hinterland is complementary to housing on-site and not at the expense of housing.
00:27:00 Whole House Short-Term Rentals should be limited to infrequent letting on the Owner's Principal Place of Residence. 10. The use is inconsistent with the Music Council short-term rental agenda. The Short-Term Accommodation Monitoring Report 2022 as A, short-term accommodation without a permanent resident remaining on-site compromises future housing supply for permanent residents. B, short-term accommodation of an entire dwelling house compromises adequate long-term housing staff being available to meet the diverse needs of Council of Noosant, Shires, current and future residents, consistent with Noosant Council's adopted housing strategy 2022. And C, short-term accommodation does not reinforce the purpose and outcomes to be achieved by the development within the rural zone for rural pursuits, particularly agriculture uses and complementary value-add uses and housing for permanent residents.
00:28:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Can we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Stockwell will second that. Councillor Wegener, do you need to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: I might just say something really quick. One code we didn't mention was the Noosant Climate Change Response Plan. And one of the key themes is resilient and adaptive communities and built environments. And I believe climate change response has to do with community. And we think of the Murray River country harvest up here that comes and brings vegetables in every Saturday morning and sell to the markets there. Councillor Wegener: And you have Elaine Bradley. And so they're growing locally produced food. And over COVID, they had to shut down, of course. And they realized that a lot of the people that bought the foods, well, they had to bring them to the properties. They found that they were very isolated. So the growers started a phone tree where they would call up.
00:29:00 Every person in the group would call 10 people who called 10 people and really canvas the whole area to make sure that everybody was still, you know, around and feeling connected with community. And that is community. And I think that by refusing STAs in the Hincheland in these two cases, we continue to build on the concept of community in the Hincheland and other places. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Okay, I'll put, you wish to close again? No. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Item 5.2 is another development application for material change of use for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road. Cootharaba also refused on the grounds of impact on amenity and other grounds.
00:30:00 Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, to save Councillor Wegener's voice, I'm going to move this one. Just for clarity. To explain, when we have a motion that's different to what's on the agenda, the protocol is to read it out so everyone's aware of what's being said. I'm not going to do that because many of these grounds for refusal are replicates of what was just there. They might be in a different order. I will read out the headline rather than the detail. The Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated in Leinster June regarding application number there for a development permit for material change of use for short-term accommodation situated at 428 Cootharaba Road, Cootharaba. To refuse the application on the following reasons. The first one is the proposal is inconsistent with the tourism, with 3.26 tourism of the treated framework for those reasons which we previously heard. Number two, the proposal is not consistent with 3.3.3 housing choices.
00:31:00 The proposal does not comply with the purpose overall outcomes of the Rural Zone Code and there's three items there which Council we can previously read out in his refusal motion. Number four, the use of premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with performance outcome PO4 of the Rural Zone Code for the reasons previously stated. Number five, the use of the premises for short-term accommodation is not consistent with performance outcome PO25 of the Rural Zone Code. Number six, and this is a new one so I will read it out. This block is in the middle of a vegetated area. Number six says the proposal does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes 2A, B, and E of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as it does not avoid or mitigate the potential adverse impact of bushfire on people and property.
00:32:00 B, the proposal is divisible and does not comply with the purpose and overall outcomes 2A, at risk from bushfire hazard and it is not compatible with the nature of the hazard. C, the risk to people, property and the natural involvement from bushfire hazard is not minimised. D, the development unduly burdens disaster management response and recovery capacity and capabilities. Number seven, the proposal does not comply with performance outcome PO1 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code. A, the development may materially increase the number of people congregating on the premises who are unfamiliar with locality. And as such, increasing risk to safety of people and property from the adverse impacts of bushfire. Eight is the proposal does not comply with performance outcome PO6 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as A, safe access and egress to the development for emergency vehicles and personnel has not been demonstrated. B, easy and safe evacuation of residents and premises and access by emergency services has not been demonstrated. Go on to number nine, which is the same reason.
00:33:00 Reason regarding it's inconsistent with the housing strategy 2022. Number 10, for the same reason as outlined by Councillor Wegener, is inconsistent with Noosa Council short term accommodation monitoring report. Mayor Wilkie: May we have a seconder for that, please? Seconder, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell is to speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will briefly. Yes. Much similar grounds for refusal on this one. It is a slightly different location, so the significant focus on the rural productive nature of the Kin Kin Road block here is slightly less and more focus on the fact that it is a house in the middle of a high bushfire hazard area with the only access and ingress through a small farm track out to the main road through, once again, high bushfire hazard. So that becomes a more significant issue in terms of the reason why you wouldn't want to bring people into this location, particularly, for example, if they come from a big city and never had to deal with a wildfire in a rural environment before. So for all those reasons, I do believe there is sufficient justification to refuse the
00:34:00 proposal. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Director Walsh: Aye. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: That's carried unanimously. Item 5.3 is the MCU220094 development application for a childcare centre at 28 Heming Creek Road, Noosaville, which was refused on the ground. The application is on an inappropriate site and would not include a 10 metre vegetated buffer to the development as required by a court-ordered settlement. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I am going to move the same recommendation as occurred in the General Committee. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for that, please, for the purpose of debate? Look, I'll second it for the purpose of debate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we did have this debate on Monday. This is a site that, under the current planning scheme, has a childcare centre as an inconsistent use. But as we heard on Monday, the draft amendments are proposing that a childcare centre would
00:35:00 be an acceptable use in the locality. There is a number of grounds of refusal that were outlined. The most predominant one of them, which is when we did the overall precinct plan and which is proposed to be set within the draft amendments to the planning scheme, we clearly showed a 10 metre landscape buffer on this lot and the two adjoining lots. The proposal, as it sits, only provides for a 4 metre buffer. The overall development intent for the Noosa Shire Business Centre, which most people know as Noosa Civic, is for it to be a park-like environment. So when you go along Walter Hay Drive or Eany Creek, you don't realise the scale of development behind it. That's what we're trying to maintain throughout this development. This particular site, while the childcare centre itself is a small-scale building, the Zane does allow immediately behind it quite considerable buildings of scale and bulk, which a full 10 metre buffer would achieve the desired outcome, where a 4 metre one would
00:36:00 not. So for those reasons, I propose that the recommendation from the General Committee was the right one. Mayor Wilkie: Now that people wish to speak to the motion, Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor Phillips: I promised the community I'd apply common sense to my position, and so I'd like to speak on this matter because I see a need for a childcare facility in this area. That is because my whole career has been based in essential services, a community that elected me, many of which have spoken about their support of the common sense approach I take, and although I hear the grounds for refusal, I cannot overlook the essential need for a childcare facility in this area. And so I'm not going to ramble on because my point is made that I don't support refusing this application.
00:37:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY. I tongue at it often. Councillor CASSIDY.
00:38:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour of the refusal, that's Councillor Finzel, Wilson, Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson, I'll say against. Those against. Councillor Phillips. Sorry, Councillor Lorentson, where do you stand on this matter? The same as I did at the general meeting. Okay, so against is Councillor Phillips and Councillor Lorentson. That's carried. Thank you. Thank you. Item 5.4 is a further report. MCU application for material change of use, resort complex and ancillary bar, food and drink outlet, outdoor sport, recreation and club at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heights. Councillor Finzel.
00:39:00 Councillor Finzel: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I provide the following declaration to the meeting of declarable conflict of interest in this matter. 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 Parkridge 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 the 2020 election campaign 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 Robert McCready.
00:40:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for your declarable conflict of interest declaration. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the standard motion that Councillor Finzel be allowed to stay in the meeting and vote on the matter. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder. We have a seconder, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Stockwell used to speak to the motion. Okay. Anyone wish to speak to the motion? Put it to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Please note that Councillor Finzel did not vote. Councillor Finzel may remain in the room. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Now we have a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the same motion that was moved in General Committee. That is to defer. Mayor Wilkie: That is. Yes. We have a seconder for the deferral motion, please. Councillor Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? No. Put it to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Item 6.1 is a Euro ring tile conservation project.
00:41:00 This is in regards to the project that has delivered an additional 2,400 hectares to National Park, part of a larger network connecting Kulin to Kalula National Parks. Item 6.2 is the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries' shark control program. The recommended Council policy position is that we support the Department in their ongoing trials of alternative technologies and strategies to minimise bycatch in shark bites. Item 6.3, 2024-25 fees and charges which are required to be adopted ahead of the June 28 budget to allow businesses to forward plan ahead of the new financial year. Item 6.4 is the financial performance report for the month of May. Item 6.5, the Regional Arts Development Fund RADF grant recommendations for 2024. Item 6.6, 2024-5, community program funding, community project grants. Councillor Finzel, did you have a declaration? Yes, of course.
00:42:00 Councillor Finzel: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Finzel, provide the following declaration to the meeting. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest with the local government. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declaration of interest in this matter in relation to Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club grant application, which is before us tonight. Lee McCready has recently been elected as the president of this club. Mr Robert McCready sits in a decision-making capacity on the Peregian Beach Surf Life Saving Club subcommittee. Mr McCready is married to Lee McCready who worked as a volunteer in the 2020 future Noosa election campaign, which is no longer an entity. Mr McCready and Ms McCready are not related parties, nor are they close associates, and therefore I do not believe this COI satisfies the requirements of the act, as I do not stand to gain benefit or loss in relation to the matter that is no greater than the benefit
00:43:00 or loss of a significant proportion of persons in the local government area stand to gain or lose. However, in the public interest and full transparency of the matter, I do not stand to gain benefit or loss in relation to the matter, as I believe 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 on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have a seconder for that motion, please. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. No need to talk. We'll put it to the vote. That's unanimous. Councillor Finzel did not vote. Now we have a mover and a seconder for the committee recommendation, please. Councillor Wilson. Seconder, Councillor Phillips. Any discussion? Will those grants be approved? It's all in favour? Against? That's carried unanimously.
00:44:00 You didn't hear Councillor Lorentson again. Councillor Wegener: Sorry? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Amelia. 6.7, Community Funding Program, Community Project Grants, Round 1, Infrastructure. Item 6.8, Years 2024 to 2025, Community Program Funding, Community Project Grants, Round 1, Equipment. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Councillor Phillips: I also would like to, in accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Phillips, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. As I was the President of Cooroy Gymnastics Club until September 2023 and as my parents were also Foundation members. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I and my parents are no longer involved in any capacity in the Cooroy Gymnastics Club and therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room
00:45:00 however I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the discussion. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a mover of the motion please? Councillor Finzel and seconded by Councillor Wilson. By a shade you got there first, Councillor Finzel. Any discussion? All in favour? Councillor Phillips may remain in the room and Councillor Phillips did not vote. Can we have a mover and a seconder for the committee recommendation about these grants? Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Wiganer. Thank you. Any discussion? No. All in favour? That's carried, unanimous. Sorry Amelia, we didn't hear you. Any favour? Thank you Amelia. 6.9, 2024-25 Community Program Funding Community Project Grants Round 1 Events. Councillor Wiganer. Councillor Wegener: I have a conflict of interest and in accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009.
00:46:00 Councillor Wiganer is not present. We provided the following declaration at the meeting with a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. I, Councillor Wiganer, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the funding recommendation to Noosa International Surfilm Festival. I am a member of the Noosa International Surfilm Festival Committee and as a result of my conflict Councillor Wegener: of interest, I will now leave the meeting room as the matter is considered and voted Deputy Mayor Stockwell: on. Just a query, Councillor Wiganer, before you go. You have it as a declarable conflict of interest although you are on the committee. Are you in an executive and decision-making role in that committee? Councillor Wegener: No, just a committee member. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does it make decisions? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I would suggest that the declaration be changed to prescribe conflict of interest. Yes. Okay. Director Walsh: I'm happy with that. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Same result. Yes, same result. Thank you, Tom. We won't leave you out in the cold too long.
00:47:00 Outside. Thank you. Councillor Wiganer has left the hall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Happy to move the recommendation. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Seconder, please. Seconder, Councillor Jess Phillips. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favour? Any nay-none. Thank you. That's carried. Councillor Wiganer can be invited back in from the cold to rejoin the meeting. Thank you. Moved and seconded by the committee recommendation, oh sorry, oh 610, Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Round 1 Overview, 611, Environment and Climate Change Grants, Environment Project Grants Round 19, Climate Change Response Grants Round 4, Councillor Stockwell.
00:48:00 No, I don't need to redo that. Okay. Well, it's just a note on the minutes. Yep. Yep. Okay, it's been noted. Item 612, one year extension of three year alliance grant agreements. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I'm sure you all know the position of the act that I'm now declaring under, which is that in this meeting I wish to inform you that I've prescribed conflict of interest of the proposed funding allocations to the Noosa Lions Football Club. I'm the current president of the Noosa Lions Football Club. As a result of my conflict, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and moved on. Mayor Wilkie: Out into the cold. Move for a second for the motion, please. Moved by Councillor Wegener, seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Please invite Councillor Stockwell back into the meeting.
00:49:00 Can we have every take? Okay, item 7.1, which was a confidential item, which is not for public release. Contract number RP00637, register of pre-qualified suppliers for the plant, hire of plant and equipment. Commonly known as dry hire. Item 7.2 was confidential, not for public release. Contract number RP00436, register of pre-qualified suppliers for the hire of plant and operator, commonly known as wet hire. Can I have a mover and seconder for the general committee recommendations to be adopted, except if dealt with separately. I'll move it, just to prove I was here and get on the record.
00:50:00 Can we have a seconder, please? Councillor Wilson. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have no reports direct to the ordinary meeting. We have no confidential items. That brings us to public question time. We have four formal submissions to public question time. Item 11.1 is from Mr Craig Vela. Mr Vela is not here tonight, so I ask our Director of Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings, to read his question 1 and provide Council's response. And I ask our Acting Director of Infrastructure, Shaun Walsh, to read Mr Vela's second question and provide the response. Thank you, Kim and Shaun, if you'd like to come over to the... Kim? Can you project? Sure. Okay. Director Rawlings: Thanks, Councillor Wilkie. So, Craig Vela's question is, given considerable community concerns with the concept of a conservation park,
11.1 Craig Vella ¶
00:51:00 over the Noosa River, please advise the origins of turning the fish habitat areas of the Noosa River into a conservation park. Without supplying an individual name, was it a state agency, council staff, a councillor, or another person that proposed the concept? So, thank you, Mr Vela, for that question. The response is, one of the complexities of managing the Noosa River system and catchment is that it is governed by a range of agencies, each with different responsibilities and legislative, regulatory, planning and community roles. For catchment management to be effective, there needs to be a concerted and coordinated approach across all agencies and stakeholders. For the past 20 years, Council has explored a range of mechanisms to achieve integrated management and collaborative arrangements for the Noosa River catchment.
00:52:00 Most river catchments and many other local governments grapple with this, and there are a range of models that exist. Council has explored many of these models, and various ideas have come from various sources, both within Council and from our community. The most recent idea of a conservation park as another management model to explore or consider was first suggested by the Noosa Parks Association. Council officers did some initial investigation, noting that like other models previously explored, it was worthy of further consideration. Council officers therefore then recommended it be included for investigation and consideration in the river plan. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Kim. Mr Walsh. Director Walsh: Question two, also from Craig Vela. The question is, could the sustainable transport levy, which is budgeted to raise $933,000, for the 2023-2024 draft budget, be used to repair and or reconstruct the on-land component of the boat ramp and associated car and trailer parking at Hilton Esplanade,
00:53:00 or at any other boat ramp in the Noosa Shire? If not, then why? So, thank you, Craig, or Chico, as he likes to be known by. So, the response is, the sustainable transport levy contributes towards the cost associated with the range of transport services and initiatives that have the purpose of reducing traffic congestion and demand on Noosa's road network. This levy currently funds Council's Go Noosa initiatives, including free bus services during peak times, satellite parking areas, car parking studies associated with demand management, such as the car parking technology trial implemented in the 2023-2024 Christmas period. The levy is being fully expended at the present, and funding for any new car parking initiatives would either need the levy to rise, or existing services to be curtailed.
00:54:00 If levy funding was made available in the future for water transport, the most aligned use of the sustainable transport levy would be associated with on-water public transport, including jetties for future public ferries, if that was a desired option, as well as supporting satellite car parking spaces for patrons of a public ferry. Rather than construction of car parking and trailer parking for private use of the boat ramp. Incidentally, it is noted that Council has recently undertaken sealing and line marking of the existing boat ramp car park at Noosaville, as part of its ongoing funding allocations and commitment to asset renewal and maintenance. In terms of future upgrades, the optimal funding mechanism for boat ramp and associated car and trailer parking is grant funding, underpinned by the use of Council's asset renewal budget. To be able to seek grant funding, Council would ideally have shovel-ready projects to meet submission obligations
00:55:00 of the State and Federal Government as they arise. Council has recently commenced the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan to assist in having shovel-ready plans for the Noosaville boat ramp. But note that more planning work needs to be done at other boat ramp and parking locations in the Shire, such as Tewantin. We will continue to provide budget allocations for future years to allow that work to commence. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Sean. Next question is from Mr Andrew McCarthy. Mr McCarthy is not here in person tonight. So I ask our Director of Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings to read his questions and provide Council's response. Thank you, Kim. This is our Acting CEO, Mr Larry Sengstock. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: This is our Acting CEO, Mr Andrew McCarthy. Having regard to the following commentary made by NSQ General Manager, Mr Kel Dillon, appearing in Noosa today on the 10th of May, 2024, where are the State marine regulator?
11.2 Andrew McCarthy ¶
00:56:00 No one else is and we intend to regulate the Noosa River through proper zoning and planning, recognising that it is an important resource for the State and maximising its use for all people, not limiting it. Will Noosa Council remove all references to vessel restoration? These are all restrictions from the draft Noosa River Management Plan and all other Council plans and documentation that exist both now and in the future. The response to Mr McCarthy. Management of the Noosa River involves a number of stakeholders working collaboratively to address complex issues that surround the environmental, cultural, commercial and recreational elements of the river. The river is a dynamic system where actions and impacts need to be considered in an interrelated manner rather than in isolation. Examples of this include riparian vegetation impact and bank erosion caused by excessive boat wash, downstream public health issues from illegal waste discharge and altered flood regimes from increased system siltation from the upper catchment.
00:57:00 Catchment management requires collaboration and working together to manage the situation. There are multiple agencies with varying responsibilities across the river, many of which have interrelationships with others both in terms of planning, regulation and management. Noosa Council will continue to have an advocacy, partnering and collaborative role with all key stakeholders to ensure the strategic goals of Council and the community as articulated in key strategies are considered by stakeholders in various agencies. When making decisions and reviewing current activities. Council will continue to work closely with and have an advocacy role with MSQ to ensure there is safe and equitable access for all uses of the river whilst ensuring the environmental values of the river and catchment are maintained.
00:58:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Next question from Nick Lusko. Speaker 1: No, this is Andrew McCarthy. Mayor Wilkie: Oh sorry, another from Andrew McCarthy. Speaker 1: Mr McCarthy says, Second question. Yes, thank you. Through the Chair. Thank you. Mr Sengstock. It's been almost eight months since the October 2023 draft Noosa River Catchment Management Plan procedural motion requiring the Council to undertake full community and stakeholder consultation and report back with final and fully costed NRCMP in July 2024. We have seen no community consultation on this plan. Does that mean the Noosa Council will ignore the October 2023 procedural motion in favour of Council of Stockwell's December 2023 Notified Motion Accelerated River Action? If so, what is the value of a Council procedural motion?
00:59:00 The response, Council have not ignored the motion from Council from October. The motion of October, however, unfortunately did not adequately take into account the impact of timing as a result of caretaker period, election and induction of new Council taking approximately five to six months collectively. As previously advised, Council staff have been working with the new Council as part of a comprehensive induction process to bring new Councillors up to speed across a large array of information and projects. The River Plan is but one of these issues amongst many our new Council is seeking to consider and determine a way forward on. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. We have a question from Mr Nick Lusko. Mr Lusko is not here in person tonight. So I'll ask our Director of Strategy and Environment, Kim Rawlings, to read his question and provide Council's response. Thank you, Kim. Director Rawlings: Thanks, Nick, for your question. The question is, it's around the conservation park.
11.3 Nick Hluszko ¶
01:00:00 If Noosa Council did not ask the Department of Environment and Science to indicate support or otherwise for the conservation park, as was reported at the ordinary meeting of May 16, 2024, why then had Noosa Council already prepared and submitted a two-page draft fact sheet titled Conservation Park FAQs to the Department of Environment and Science on 27 September 2023, seeking assistance with the content of the fact sheet that included the following notation, such as local laws officers supporting Maritime Safety Queensland as registered shipping inspectors. In circumstances where Noosa Council had not consulted with MSQ about the issue, nor had disclosed to Noosa ratepayers that Noosa Council would be asking them to pay for local laws officers to be registered shipping inspectors, particularly during the current cost of living crisis. So in response to that question, I think, firstly, we need to be clear and accurate about the question asked at the ordinary meeting on 16 May.
01:01:00 It was, has Council contacted the relevant State Authority for the conservation park? And secondly, has Council received any information from the Department of Environment and Science to see if they would approve a conservation park over the Noosa River? And as previously answered to that question, the answer was no, as this would have been pre-emptive to the process required to explore and consider a conservation park. So in saying that, given there was community confusion about the conservation park concept at the time, and the misinformation that was being shared, Council thought it would be useful to draft a fact sheet on what a conservation park is. And what process would be required to be undertaken if this idea was to be considered at some stage as part of the overall river plan. To ensure that draft fact sheet accurately reflected the required State Government process, Council, of course, contacted the Department and sought their input and advice from the relevant State Government Department on its drafting. As a result of the deferral motion of last year, the draft fact sheet was not completed
01:02:00 at the time. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Next item is a question from Mrs Shirley Noosanty. Mrs Noosanty is not here tonight. I'll ask Acting Director of Infrastructure, Shaun Walsh, to read the question and provide the response, please. Director Walsh: Thanks for the question, Shirley. The first question is, I am an 81-year-old local resident who has lived in Noosa and paid rates since 1969. I enjoy spending time at the Noosaville waterfront every week and many times during the year with my family for picnics and barbecues. Why, as part of the Noosaville foreshore master plan, does the Noosa Council want to use our own rates to limit residents' access to the river by taking away over 100 riverside car parks? Does this action reflect a covert Noosa Council policy to reduce the car park numbers at key locations around our Shire, as Council did at the Surf Club at Christmas?
11.4 Shirley Nocente ¶
01:03:00 So thank you for the question, Shirley. So the answer is as follows. Council has prepared the draft Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan for community consultation. Council welcomes diverse views from the community as part of the consultation program for the draft plan to help set the optimal direction for this cherished foreshore and will certainly consider these views as part of its final deliberations. A key consideration for the community and Council is the opportunity to create more green space along this beautiful shore. Noosa Council is committed to building a beautiful water edge for community enjoyment, which it can achieve through relocation of car parking spaces from the foreshore to nearby locations. The draft master plan proposes several locations for the relocation of car parking spaces, but it is noted that drop-off areas and disabled car parking spaces will need to be provided. In terms of the broader Noosa Council program about car parking management, Council is
01:04:00 committed to encouraging all residents and visitors to improve the quality of their facilities and to embrace public and active transport to reduce congestion as part of its indoors transportation strategy. Rather than trying to accommodate peak time car parking demand, which would be at the loss of open space and further exasperate traffic congestion. Council is also committed to ensuring all our foreshores and public spaces are as attractive as possible as part of our Noosa character and experience, which is coveted by residents and visitors. The second question by Shirley is as follows. I was lucky enough to live opposite the Lions Park in Noosaville during the 1970s, and my family has been fortunate to grow up around our beautiful river during that time and since. Why does the Noosa Council plan to forever ruin the feel and soul of this special place, our beloved Noosaville foreshore, with its overly elaborate plans including fake sand
01:05:00 dunes that will be used to build a new waterway? Why does the Noosa Council plan to take up valuable picnic areas and separate the grass and riverbank spaces, making it impossible for parents to keep an eye on their kids? Doesn't Council believe that our Noosaville foreshore is beautiful as it is and only requires the lightest touch? So, thank you Shirley for that question. So, the answer is Council has prepared the draft Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan for community consultation and welcomes diverse views from the community as part of the program. For the draft plan to help set optimal direction for this cherished foreshore and will certainly consider these views as part of its final deliberations. A key challenge for the foreshore is increasing erosion and tidal inundation arising from climate change. Early feedback from the community sought nature-based solutions to enhance the parklands and the draft plan proposes naturalised coastal protection barriers such as low sand mounds and living sea walls to help preserve the natural environment.
01:06:00 This will protect the public areas of the foreshore from ongoing erosion in the future, whereas do nothing increases the risk of loss of this valuable community space. Council already undertakes sand nourishment along the foreshore to halt erosion and this is an extension of that program. The draft program also proposes wide beaches, lookout points and improved graded entries to the beach areas to maximise access. Low planting is proposed on the land's low sand mounds to protect the public areas from erosion, to maintain visibility and provide resilience to the river's edge. In terms of foreshore planning, it is noted that the current landscaping, pathways, beach shelters and seating walls, now so valued and accepted by the community, were established by Council 25 years ago as part of an infrastructure planning process. It is hard to imagine the foreshore now without those facilities. It is time for Council to plan for the future, that help manage coastal and tidal issues, plan for more green space for community use, plan for new and replacement toilets, playgrounds
01:07:00 and shelters, as well as locate wider paths that better manage the significant number of residents and visitors now using the foreshore. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Shaun. That comes to the end of the formal proceedings. The next ordinary meeting will be held at 5pm on Thursday 18 July 2024 at Council Chambers in Tewantin. I deeply appreciate you all coming out here tonight. It's been fantastic having you here with us. We hope to do it again and again. I declare the meeting closed at 6.08pm. Please join us for discussion and refreshment. Thank you everyone.
12 NEXT MEETING ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.