General Committee - 16 September 2024 Transcript

1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:02:13

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

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:02:16

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

3 PRESENTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:02:39

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

4 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:02:42

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

5 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES ¶

▶ 00:02:44

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

5.1 51988.2770.02 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT FOR INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT - 31 BUTLER STREET, TEWANTIN (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 September 2024 - Item 5.1) ¶

▶ 00:02:50· Carried unanimously 6-0 from council's minutes

00:03:00 Councillor Phillips: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Councillor Phillips provided the following declaration to the meeting. I, Councillor Jessica Phillips, declare I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my close family friend, Fran Sudlier, is on the building subcommittee and a long-term member of the Tewantin Netball Courts. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because the position she holds is not a decision-maker, nor is she an executive member. Neither I nor my family friend stand to gain a personal or material benefit from the decision over and above what any other club member would gain. 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.

00:04:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move that Councillor Phillips participates and votes on this matter, as Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Wilson. Who's to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, certainly. No. Okay. Warren Vader. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. That's carried unanimously. Right. We have a team here, Director of Regulation, the comments, Richard MacGillivray, Patrick Murphy and Tara Norwood. Could you give us a run for the show? The report, please, Tara. Speaker 1: So the applicant is seeking a minor change to a 1988 town planning consent to remove the existing netball clubhouse and relocate it to the northern car parking area. So the Noosa Council endorsed the Noosa District Sports Complex Master Plan in 2020, which included a recommendation to widen the internal road that runs through from McKinnon Drive.

00:05:00 As part of that widening, the existing clubhouse will need to be relocated to make way for that road widening. So the proposed changes are generally consistent with the Noosa Plan 2020 requirements. However, the development does propose a reduced front setback to McKinnon Drive with the planning scheme requiring a 20 metre setback and the proposal being 6.9 metres from McKinnon Drive and the building is also in excess of the scheme's 15 metre wall length requirement. So the location of the building is in an area of McKinnon Drive that has a particularly wide road reserve, so it's approximately 22 metres from the road edge to the property boundary. So the building will be set back nearly 29 metres from the edge of McKinnon Drive. In addition, the proposed, the applicant has also included information regarding landscaping along that McKinnon Drive boundary. And we have included a condition in the recommendation requiring a minimum of 60 metres of that frontage to include additional landscaping to what's already existing.

00:06:00 In regards to the 15 metre wall length, the proposed building is a maximum of 28.25 metres from the road edge to what's already existing. The building is 5.3 metres in height, so it has been raised, it has previously had some flood damage, so the building's been raised to mitigate any issues with flood. The proposal includes open verandas along the western and southern elevations of the building. It is acknowledged that the eastern elevation that faces the internal road only has three areas of openings at the moment. It has a disability access ramp along the southern portion of the building. We have included additional landscaping requirements to screen that building a little bit, both from the internal road and from McKinnon Drive. So these are additional, some changes to conditions that were provided last week to councillors as a result of some concerns that were raised in the P&E.

00:07:00 So that has been included with the recommendation, I believe. Mayor Wilkie: I don't know if that was about screening of the eastern summit and things like that. That was an explanation. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 3: So the recommendation has been amended. The additional conditions were provided to councillors should they wish to choose to put forward an alternate motion with those additional conditions. So Cathy has a copy of those conditions. And essentially condition 18 has been amended to separate out and make more specific the requirement for the eastern elevation. So the next part of the project is the elevation of the building to not be of a single colour, to now contain a mixture of colours and lightweight materials to that elevation. There's also some changes that have been provided to the landscaping conditions.

00:08:00 The plans would be annotated to require two areas to have additional landscape screening. Those one area would be the area of the building that's going to be the most densely populated, and that area is adjacent to part of the eastern elevation building, a portion of the building that's not abutted by car parking. And then there's also an additional area just to the right as you enter the site, which is currently vacant. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify, the reasons for those changes since last week was that the council is actually the applicant in this case? Speaker 3: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: This is applying to certain sort of conditions that we would want to extend that. That's correct. Questions, councillors or staff? Councillor Wilkerson. Councillor Lorentson: I think it's a question, and maybe a little bit of commentary also. But I'm just noticing that with a lot of our development applications, staff and councillors

00:09:00 are taking on the responsibility of, you know, conditioning development applications to meet NUSA design principles. I'm wondering if there's anything that you would like to add to that? I think there's a design review panel. Is planning, so I don't know if this is a conversation to take out of this planning meeting. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Do you have any questions specifically to the conditions of the building? Councillor Phillips: Yes, I have a question from last week. Condition for the extra screening. Will this still meet requirements from our CIFTED report with screening there? Speaker 1: Kathleen, can I just get you to bring up the plan? Let's try. Speaker 3: So just to reiterate, at this point in time, this is not the officer recommendation. We've provided conditions as part of the original report, and we've provided these amended conditions to the councillor. And as I said, if councillors choose to move the alternate conditions, they would need

00:10:00 to do that. But just to explain the CIFTED requirements. Mayor Wilkie: And just for those who don't know, could you explain what that actually means? Speaker 1: It's crime prevention. Crime prevention. Speaker 2: Safety by design. Speaker 1: Yeah. Safety by design. Yeah. So essentially the areas shown up here are where the additional screening is proposed. So in terms of sight lines and things like that, we don't think it would raise any issues around, you know, safety or things like that. So I'm not sure if anybody has a different opinion in terms of that. But we thought those areas were there along that boundary there, away from the car park. So we didn't believe it. Visible from the road. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Just for the benefit of those who didn't listen to the Planning and Environment Committee discussion we had, in terms of the setback, the proposed development is 6.9 metres setback

00:11:00 from the Kin and Drive boundary, as opposed to the required 20 metres. So we're not sure what that means. Can you go over the reasons how this reduced setback is considered a minor variation in this case? And how does this compare with previous development applications such as the Stockwell Kindergarten development? Speaker 1: So I guess in terms of this one, it is in an area that has a significantly wider road reserve. So at 22 metres from the road boundary, generally the setback is looking at the setback from the road. So given the width of the road reserve, the setback is looking at the width of the road reserve. The report provides, I guess, a justification for that reduced setback, given that it's approximately 30 metres from the edge of that road. In terms of the... Speaker 3: Yeah. So just in terms of any setback variation or any variation to the scheme that's proposed, we'll assess it on its merits at that time. And so you need to look at the specifics and the site conditions as to whether it would

00:12:00 be reasonable. In terms of the Stockwell development, I don't think it would be appropriate to comment on that at this point in time, considering there is an appeal afoot on that matter. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Right. Anyone happy to move the... I'll move. Move Councillor Jeffs. Sorry. Move the inventor. Speaker 6: One second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, are we moving with the amendments? Yes. Post-taff recommendation. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So it's moved, Councillor Phillips, seconded by Councillor Wood. We'll make a motion. Yes. We'll speak to the motion, Jess.

00:13:00 Councillor Phillips: Thank you for all the detailed report and the... I'm excited to see our local sporting facilities get new and improved equipment for our young people. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions? We'll speak to the motion. Thank you, staff. Look, the News and Airport Association will be waiting a long time for this. It'll be a new flood-proof clubhouse, 210 square metres, 10 new unisex toilets, which have been waiting for a long time, a social room, first aid meeting rooms and a store, accessible ramps to all students. It'll be a welcome addition to the grandstand seating, 68 cover parks, a wider road through and safer road through the facility itself. It'll be a welcome addition to this great community club. Thank you. Anybody on the line wish to speak? Jess, do you wish to close? No, thank you. Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Karen?

00:14:00 Yes. Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is application for a minor change to development approvals for a seafood kiosk, 185 Wiley Road, Noosaville, referred from the Planning and Environment Committee for further consideration. Tara, you're up. Thank you. Speaker 1: So the applicant has lodged a minor change to two existing approvals, seeking to change the use from the existing takeaway seafood kiosk to a bakery. The existing building includes both the commercial component and a dwelling that's attached. The applicant has advised that two of the employees, being the bakers, will be residing on site in the dwelling. There's no external changes proposed to the building. However, there are some internal refits and an extension to the existing commercial use of seven square metres, which would reduce the attached dwelling size. The applicant has stated that they will be up to five staff on site at any time, with two bakers on site from 4.30 and 5.00am, and two front of house staff on site from 4.30

5.2 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 APPPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR A SEAFOOD KIOSK AT 185 WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (Referred from Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 September 2024 - Item 5.2) ¶

▶ 00:14:12· Carried 4-2 · 1 division from council's minutes

00:15:00 and 7.30am, with a third front of house staff member during the busy appearance from 6.30am. Originally, initially, the applicant is proposing to open Wednesday to Sunday from 6am to 5pm, and looking to increase to seven days per week, if the business permits. The proposal includes two on-site car parts to the rear of the building. However, it is noted that they would be required for the dwelling that's on site, so there's no on-site parking proposed for the building. The applicant is requesting approval for on-site dining for up to 10 people in the outdoor area that's on the frontage of the site. So, the report is recommending refusal for this one, as it's considered that the proposal results in substantially different development, and as such does not constitute a minor change. So, the planning legislation defines what substantially different development is, which

00:16:00 includes introducing new uses or impacts, or increasing the severity of the development or severity of the existing impacts. So, the existing approval is for a kiosk, which was defined as a refreshment service under the 1973 scheme when this was originally approved, whilst the bakery was separately defined as a service shop. So, as the uses were separately defined under the, at the time of the approval, the bakery is not interchangeable with the takeaway under the existing approval. The applicant is therefore proposing to introduce a new use on the site. Additionally, the existing approval specifically contains a new use on the site. So, the proposal to include on-site dining with significantly different operating hours, starting from 6am, is likely to generate additional noise impacts and increase car parking demands, compared to the existing use on-site. So, it's noted that the minor change application also doesn't require public notification. So, by not going out for notification, it doesn't afford the community the opportunity to make comment on the proposal.

00:17:00 The proposal is therefore considered to be substantive, and the proposal is therefore considered to be a potentially different development, and as such does not meet the criteria for a minor change application. The applicant's been informed on a number of occasions that council officers do not consider the use to be minor change, and it was recommended that the application be withdrawn. The applicant has requested to proceed to decision. So, given the proposal does not constitute a minor change, the officer recommendation is to report, in the report, is to refuse the application. Mayor Wilkie: And just to clarify, it's beside itself its own residential? Correct. It's surrounded by a green residential area? Yes. And because of these changes from operating hours, which Kiosk was open from 2am, opening from 6am, outside dining for 10 people, it's considered this may have an impact on the residential neighborhood, and therefore the residents deserve it to be... The application also is another change, which means that the public notification may have an opportunity to have a comment.

00:18:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: And if the council decided to approve it through that process, conditions could be imposed to minimise the impact on the residential neighborhood. Correct. Thank you. Questions, councillors? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have a few. Did the applicant email or phone council seeking advice prior to submitting the application in 2023? Speaker 3: There were some discussions between council and the council. There were some discussions between the planning consultant and a member of the planning team. At that time, no plans were provided. It was a relatively high-level conversation. The officer has advised that they did advise the applicant that they had concerns with what was being proposed. This is quite a complex matter. There's a lot of interrogation of the approvals and the previous schemes that are required

00:19:00 to be proposed. There's a lot of discussion about whether or not to enable proper assessment, and that was not the nature of those conversations. My understanding is the applicant advised that they would put in a minor change and see how it ran through the process. Speaker 2: If I can just add to that point, too, the applicant's always got the opportunity to seek formal written advice regarding prior to lodging an application to make sure that they've gone through the correct pathway, or a formal pre-lodgement meeting, which minutes are attached to those meetings. The applicant, in this case, did not proceed to obtain either of those two options. As Patrick alluded to, there was just a phone call, which is very informal and hard for a planning officer to make a detailed advice or consideration regarding a complex proposal of this nature over a phone call. Councillor Lorentson: Did Council accept fees for the minor change application when the applicant put the submission in 2023? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Correct.

00:20:00 Councillor Lorentson: After how long did Council notify the applicant that the proposed change could not be considered a minor change? Speaker 3: It was, well, there were some discussions that took place before February of this year, because there was legal, a letter from the applicant's lawyer that came in late January, to which a written response was provided in February. Notwithstanding, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't affect the assessment of the officers. The hurdle that's required to be overcome about whether there's a minor change or not, doesn't get impacted by the process that was undertaken to that point. Speaker 2: None of the Planning Act, it is an applicant-driven process, so an applicant can lodge any application under the Planning Scheme at any time, if they choose to do so. Council is required to assess that application. Obviously, as this application did progress, staff did identify that there were issues that needed to be addressed. There were some issues with the proposal, and the fact is it hadn't gone through the

00:21:00 correct statutory process, which should have been through another change or a new material change in use to adopt an application, and made the applicant aware when they became aware themselves through that process. So, unless it's prohibited development, the applicant can lodge an application. We must accept it, and then proceed to what our lawyer can assess. Councillor Phillips: I have a question. How much does it cost an applicant to put in a minor change? Speaker 3: It would likely be approximately $2,000, between $2,000 and $8,000. Councillor Phillips: Okay. And just to follow up then, how much does it cost for a other application? Speaker 2: More. We haven't got the fees, but we can certainly provide the advice back on what the fees would be. They do range based on the scale and nature of the proposal, and there is a fee not applied for it in that instance. Speaker 3: The fees are generally to reflect the cost for the council to provide the assessment

00:22:00 of the application. In this circumstance, where the application has been afoot for over 12 months, and there's been a lot of officer time spent assessing this application and communicating with the applicant, providing council reports, I would say that that money has been lost out. Councillor Phillips: So, another question then, to follow up from that. What's our obligations around how long it takes us to assess an application for a minor application and for another? Speaker 3: Minor change, we have 20 business days to decide it, but it does not go deemed approved. It's the applicant to move forward on a deemed refusal. In terms of another change, it falls back to the statutory process. It's required. So, it would be, we would have 35 business days to assess it, but you need to exclude

00:23:00 from that the timeframe for which the applicant responds to the information request, and the time it takes for notification to occur. There's also an allowance for an additional 10 business days to consider any submissions. If it was an impact-assessable application, the application would not go deemed approved. At the end of those 35 business days, if it wasn't assessed, again, it would be incumbent on the applicant to seek a deemed refusal. It's not uncommon for officers to request an extension of time to assess an application where there's complexities involved. Councillor Phillips: And so, did we do that for this case? Because we were over the 20 days. Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. Yeah. And there is the ability to extend the timeframes within agreement with the applicant. Or they can also choose to elect to stop the clock, which essentially

00:24:00 ceases any assessment timeframes, particularly during the decision period, where the applicant and the council officer can assess and discuss and negotiate particular issues as well, which has happened, obviously, in this particular case. So, the application is still within statutory timeframes as such, but there's an ability for the applicant to either extend or stop the clock while they're seeking to do so. So, it's not uncommon for the applicant to make amendments or have a further discussion with council officers. Mayor Wilkie: But it's still within the 20-day statutory timeframes? Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. 35 business days to make a decision on a development application. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. In terms of cost, there's also ancillary costs. So, it's not just the application fee. Am I correct to say that there was, council requested an information fee for the application request, followed by two more information requests that required the applicant to provide or review designs which they engaged a consultant in providing?

00:25:00 Speaker 3: That would be true. And that's a standard part of the process. So, we can give advice, and we consider it's not a minor change, but the applicant can still push forward with the application. And it's also incumbent on us to assess the cost of the application. So, we can assess all elements of the application before making a decision on it. Councillor Phillips: I have another question. In relation to the exacerbation of impact, how do we get data to say that the seafood kiosk had so much impact? And how do we get data to know that this is going to be an exacerbation with a patisserie? Speaker 3: We don't have data in that regard. We need to do our own assessment. So, we don't have data in that regard.

00:26:00 I think it's important. There's a couple of hurdles that they need to get over in terms of whether it's a minor change or not. And one of those is whether a new use has been introduced. And as Tara has explained, the two uses were separately defined under the scheme at the time in which they were, the approvals were issued. So, to go from the seafood kiosk to the bakery is a completely different use. So, they don't cross that hurdle. So, that's one element of a substantially different development, which they don't meet. They don't need to not meet any other criteria for it not to be a minor change. We say it doesn't meet that, but we also say that there'll be new impacts. And we've had to base that upon our understanding of how the premise was operating and how it was allowed to operate through its conditions and now what it's seeking to introduce. So, you don't need data when they're not allowed to have people on site. And then they're allowed to have people on site.

00:27:00 That's quite a black and white assessment. Councillor Phillips: And another question just around if it turns into a residential property, how would we go or how do they go about demolition of a commercial and the cost involved in rehabilitating that site for a residential? Speaker 3: It has existing dwelling on the site in terms of if they wanted to redevelop that site, that would incur similar costs to anyone that has a house on their site and wants to demolish and rebuild. It would be part of the opportunity to develop that land. This decision does not require them to demolish the building. They can continue to operate under the existing approvals that they have. Councillor Phillips: So, to clarify, what was the decision? What we're saying is you can put a fish and chip shop there because it's always been that,

00:28:00 but you can't put a patisserie. Speaker 2: That's the legal approval that exists there. There's an approval for the seafood kiosk which has been identified through the report. That's the use that can continue in accordance with that approval. However, because the planning scheme and the series of planning schemes prior to the Noosa plan have identified the zoning for that site to be residential, in this case medium density, that is the intended strategic land use intent for that particular location, notwithstanding acknowledging that there is an approval there for a specific use which can continue to occur. But once that comes to an end and has been abandoned through the planning scheme and seeking that it's reverted to residential. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Locke. Councillor Lorentson: I'm still trying to understand. The severity of impacts changing fish and chip shop to a bakery. Under the Noosa plan 2020, both a kiosk and a bakery are defined as a food and drink premise.

00:29:00 So, if both uses are defined similarly, again, what are the practical differences in their impacts on the community? Speaker 2: Councillor, it's, as mentioned, because when the approval was issued, the approval was specifically for a seafood kiosk. You can't then infer that it's a new use of food and drink out of the current scheme. If they did apply for a food and drink outlet under the current scheme, it would be in fact accessible and consistent use. And that would go through a formal public notification process. They haven't done that. They've sought a minor change against an application to various seafood kiosks. And obviously, that's what's put before us today. Mayor Wilkie: So, either of those pathways, the other change or significant change, is that the food and drink outlet would involve public notification. Correct. So then, because it's a residential area, everyone who lives there has an opportunity to stay, including on the change of use, which would involve the opening and operating from

00:30:00 6am, as opposed to currently 2pm. Correct. Speaker 3: Yes, correct. And the introduction of, the introduction of patients eating on site, which they currently cannot do. Speaker 2: As opposed to just a takeaway. That's right. And importantly, from a land use planning perspective, the planning schemes, the NUSA plan and prior planning schemes, hasn't sought to recognise a commercial node on this particular location. Whilst it respects there's an approval for the seafood kiosk, there has been a strategic intention to zone that premises for a commercial use, long term. Obviously, there are some nearby commercial zoned premises, which are used for commercial purposes. This has been sought to be used for residential accommodation. Notwithstanding this historical approval, it can continue as long as it's not abandoned. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions?

00:31:00 Councillor Edwards. Councillor Wilson: Yes. Given that the property hasn't been used for seafood in some years, at what point would it become abandoned? Speaker 2: Abandonment under the Funding Act is a complex sort of legal term. In terms of when seafood is used, it's a legal term. The use has become abandoned. It comes down to a whole range of different factors, and there isn't any specific time threshold when a use becomes abandoned. The officers have gone through and obviously had discussions with the applicant around the history and the change of ownership. Shortly after the recent ownership by the applicant who's lodged this application, they've sought to make this change. And whilst it's currently not being used for a seafood kiosk, we would evaluate that over time. And obviously understand the intention from the applicants of whether there was an intention to reconvince that. And we would monitor that. But there isn't a hard and fast rule around timing. Certainly, if further time had passed, and maybe a year or two, and there was still no

00:32:00 commencement of that use, and the owners had decided that's not what they wanted to do, and converted it just back to residential accommodation, then you would consider that the use couldn't be abandoned. Staff have also mentioned that the commercial kitchen in there hasn't been modified or changed. So some of those things are still factors in it. So there were adjustments and modifications to remove that infrastructure within the building, so the commercial cooking facilities. That could be an intention that abandonment has happened, because they've made an intentional decision to remove the infrastructure required for that use. So there's a range of factors, and it's not, unfortunately, a very clear-cut rule around when abandonment happens. There's instances for different types of uses where they can be mothballed or stalled for a number of years, and it doesn't necessarily mean abandonment has occurred. But at this stage, we've put an opinion that we don't believe the use has been abandoned

00:33:00 at this stage. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, you had a question? You there, Councillor Finzel? You're on mute. Councillor Finzel: Yes, my question's been answered. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: If there are no other questions, I'll move the recommendation. I'm happy to second. I second it. Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Thank you, staff, for the report. Very complex matter. I've no, personally speaking, I've no objection to this site being operated as a patisserie. I don't think it's a good idea. It's a great, you know, a great property quality offering. But if it's going to start, if the intention is to start operating from 6am in the morning and have onsite dining, I know it's, if it was to be approved, it would be extremely popular with cyclists and groups of runners.

00:34:00 I'm probably one of them. And I think the big, it's a residential area. The neighbour of the police deserves the right to have a say to a publicly notified process about how they feel about those change impacts. And so I'm in favour of this going through another change process. This is the incorrect process. I do note that the applicant didn't seek written advice, formal written advice, in response to their questions or a pre-audit from me. So very difficult, complex matter. But I support the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. A question. Just a question. In terms of seating, outdoor seating, we can condition the application if it was to be approved to not allow outdoor seating and to even prohibit seating between six and eight or people outside in the balcony area between six and eight.

00:35:00 We have that ability to condition the application. Yes. Or is that correct? You do. Speaker 3: Again, we'd still say yes or no. So the issue of introducing new use is occurring, contrary to the definition of the substantial Speaker 2: digital development. And we would suggest that councillors are aware of the advice sought in relation to the use that's been applied for, which is, does it meet the minor change test? And therefore, there's risks that if we don't follow the correct statutory process, there could be adverse ramifications from that change. So I would suggest that if council was to choose to support the current proposal, noting it hasn't gone through the correct statutory process. Mayor Wilkie: Any other further discussion? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to this. The applicant did seek advice from council officers before lodging their application.

00:36:00 It wasn't written, nor was it formal. On the 4th of May, 2023, the applicant emailed the Planning Officer. And they sought advice on what application was required to be lodged. On the 5th of May, the applicant emailed Planning Officers, again requesting feedback on the application. On the 11th of May, 2023, they were allegedly advised by phone, by the council officers, that the proposed change was likely to be minor. Although not written advice, although not formal, the applicant did act on this. And they submitted a minor change to the application. Which council accepted. The applicant paid the fees as requested by council. And then the council issued an information request, followed by two additional ones. I think it was eight months later, my calculations, that the applicant was told that the change could no longer be considered minor.

00:37:00 And given that the applicant did rely, right or wrong, on the verbal advice provided by council officers. It seems, in my opinion, unfair to refuse that. The current view is that the application should be refused because the proposed change, transforming a fish and chip takeaway into a bakery, allegedly constitutes a substantially different development with concerns over increased impacts. Councillors, the owners are taking over a food premise that has been operating for a long time, over 40 years. What they're doing is modifying the kitchen for a bakery. Their adjoining neighbours are supportive and excited. In fact, this morning, we received eight letters of support by all the surrounding and adjoining neighbours. The proposed bakery is, in my opinion, a natural continuation of the existing use. That is, food and drink.

00:38:00 Compared to the busy and successful seafood kiosk, it's, in my opinion, unlikely to cause any additional impacts in the future. It may even result in fewer impacts, given the nature of a bakery's operation. In 1973, the council at the time, the councillors, they all sat around this table as we are doing today, and they approved the current use, despite conflicts with the planning scheme. Did those councillors make a mistake in affording some flexibility? Did they make a mistake in supporting a small business? Did they make a mistake in providing employment for our residents? The question I ask around this table is, why can't we do the same? Seafood kiosk was approved in 1973, despite conflicts with the planning scheme. It was located in an area zoned residential A, not commercial.

00:39:00 This demonstrates that past councils made decisions that weren't strictly in line with the officers' recommendations. As a 2024 council, we have the same authority to approve the bakery today. There have been no complaints that I've understood in the last 40 years. We have eight adjoining, surrounding neighbours in support. I ask that we follow the example of previous councils, showing flexibility and support to this small business. As I see it, we have two options. Approve the application because the applicants relied on it. Approve the application because the applicants relied on it. The owners who have invested in a business that has been idle for 18 months without income, and have paid council fees and ancillary cost, will lose even more money, while ratepayers

00:40:00 foot the bill to shut down a small local business. I approve the application because it aligns with current planning definitions and fairness and common-sense principles. The owners who have invested in a business that has been idle for 18 months without income Councils, we have more significant planning issues and matters to focus on than whether a fish and chip shop should be allowed to sell patisseries and cakes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, you have a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I've got a question for Mayor and Councillor Lorentson. Under what part of the Act do you suggest that councillors, industry councillors, have the ability to override ministerial development assessment bills which suggests we can't consider this a minor change? Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell, I think we're entering into a realm of legal debate and legal opinion.

00:41:00 My understanding is that council did seek legal advice. I'm actually unsure whether that advice was actually shared with the applicant and I'll raise that at the ordinary meeting this Thursday. The applicant also sought legal advice which was contrary to the opinion given by council, at Noosa Council's Council. So I won't answer that question. I'm sitting around a table as a community representative, not as a lawyer, even though I am trained legally. Mayor Wilkie: Question for staff. There's quite an extraordinary comment made there that staff advise the applicant that this is a minor change. Is there any validity to that? Speaker 3: Having spoken to the coordinator of Planning and People's Party to the conversations at that time, it's my understanding that it wasn't explicitly stated that it was a minor change application. There was some debate about what application should be submitted and it was the applicant who said they would submit a minor change and see how it would go.

00:42:00 Mayor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak in motion? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Can I speak? Did I get in first? Councillor Phillips. Thanks. I'm going to speak on social aspects from this because I've lived here long enough to remember the water slide and Pizza Hut on the corner of where some young guys is now. So quite a while. When I look at that street and I've spent my whole life, I look at it from the AFL grounds, famous farmers market, the theatre, famous restaurants now, a resort. I think it's part of the natural progression of that street to have a local family business operate a patisserie from there. 506 staff, I think they said that they could employ with the patisserie baker on site living there.

00:43:00 I can't sit here and not support local business and honour the local business. I'd honestly say that with all the considerations that you've put in front of me, I've seen that street, I know what the community expect from that street, and I think they would be very supportive of seeing a yummy patisserie there. I just, yeah, it begs to also, the question that I've constantly had now around why we watch applicants go through such a lengthy process, take a lot of money from them, the applicants are a young family with young kids, and I believe if they have a successful business, they will probably put that money straight back into our economy. And so, therefore, I can't support the staff's refusal of the application. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Stockwell.

00:44:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. There's a range of questions that Councillor Lorentson put. I won't give them all other than to say that we have unequivocal staff advice, and unequivocal legal advice, that this use cannot be approved under the application as submitted. To suggest, Councillor Laws, that the flexibility to override the requirements of the Planning Act, is a fallacy. To suggest you do it in the interest of business, is not an argument. Simply put, councillors do not have the legal ability to approve this application. It is fairly black and white. You can rely on some advice from the applicant, which our staff, our legal advisers, and myself

00:45:00 after a fair career in planning, suggest has not, in fact, been able to do. It is not that a lawful, non-conforming use can be transformed in the way that is being proposed in this application that can be done as a minor change. A lawful, non-conforming use is specific to the use that was approved at the time. It was specific to a seafood kiosk. You can't use the existing definition to suggest that there was a lawful, non-conforming use right to be used. It never has. It wasn't under the Act in 1989 and 1990 when this matter was last considered. It was, contrary to what Councillor Lorentson has said, it was quite a controversial matter in that time, which is identified in this report. It is zoned for residential.

00:46:00 And didn't the councillors in 1973 do the right thing or the wrong thing? It's hard to say, because what they approved was for the residents to drive us home. It was a small seafood operation in scale at the time. But certainly that four different pieces of legislation come through to control our ability as the assessment manager since that time. And it is clear, from the advice given, that the application as submitted cannot be approved. To do so, a motion, in my opinion, would be ultra vires and staff could not give it any force or effect. So there is only one option in this case. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's to support it. And that is to support this motion. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Are there any councillors wishing to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel, are you wishing to speak? Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. I do not wish to speak to the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Yes? No. No.

00:47:00 Okay. Councillor Wilson? Councillor Phillips: No. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. I think the important point here is that we need to make sure that we have the right to be informed and given the opportunity to be publicly notified about if a business next door to them or in their neighbourhood is going to stay operating from 6am in the morning and all the impacts that will have. I'm sure we'd all love to see a patisserie there. But this is about giving the residents the opportunity to have their say and appropriate conditions to be able to be imposed if it is necessary. It is. To minimise the impacts. We all want to see local business prosper. I think the residents from any neighbourhood, it's the principle on this occasion, that it ought to be applied everywhere. So for that reason, I'm supporting this staff recommendation. I put it to the vote. Those in favour?

00:48:00 Councillor Wilson? Yes. Councillor Wilkie? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? No. Against? Councillor Phillips? Councillor Lorentson? The motion is carried. Next item, thank you. The next item is local government domestic and family violence prevention champions network. And to talk about that we have Paul Brinkman. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Rob and Paul, could you give us a rundown on what we're looking at here for this week?

5.3 Local Government Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Champions Network (Referred from Services & Organisation Committee dated 10 September 2024 - Item 5.2) ¶

▶ 00:48:23· Carried unanimously 6-0 from council's minutes

00:49:00 It hasn't become a domestic family violence prevention challenge everywhere it is, and it was being asked by the Minister of Justice. Councillor Wilson: I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I am a volunteer director of Kayak Ltd Maroochydore, a charity that supports victims of domestic violence amongst other services. While Kayak is not the subject of the decision being made today to appoint a councillor to an observer role in the network, I note that matters discussed in the network's meeting, in future, may be relevant to Kayak's operations. I share this information for transparency and to support my nomination for the position, having an interest and experience in this area. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because Kayak is not the subject of today's decision, and I am able to remain impartial.

00:50:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the discussion. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson? Councillor Lorentson: I am happy to move that Councillor Wilson participates and votes on this matter, because the council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision, that Councillor Wilson will be able to remain impartial, and that a reasonable person would trust that a final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilson: And I will second. Councillor Lorentson: Seconded by Councillor Phillips. Good. Oh. Sorry, let's just get the wording right. Mayor Wilkie: There's some wording, let's... Councillor Lorentson: We have to remain impartial. Mayor Wilkie: We're impartial. And a reasonable person will trust the final decision that was made in that public interest. Yes. Second, Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to speak to that? Councillor Lorentson: I need to thank Councillor Wilson for being open and transparent.

00:51:00 I don't think this was necessary, but I really appreciate and respect you laying that on the table. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: See, I'll second that exercise in an overabundance of caution. An overabundance of caution. Yes. And thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Paul Winkler. I'll put it to vote. Those in favour? Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Speaker 4: Good afternoon, councillors. The Queensland Government established the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Council to support greater community understanding about domestic and family violence, and to challenge the values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours that trivialise, excuse, and perpetuate this abuse. Working at the primary prevention level, the Prevention Council partners with government, business, and community stakeholders to champion local community-led action and leadership in creating social change.

00:52:00 Through enhanced education, understanding, and place-based responses, the Prevention Council supports all Queenslanders to play their part in ending domestic and family violence. This report seeks endorsement for three members from Noosa Council as representatives on the Local Government Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Champions Network, two council staff, and one councillor representative. We seek the nomination of that councillor. Questions, councillors? Councillor Phillips: I have a question, please. We've received the letter on the 12th of April, 2024. There's three meetings this year. We've missed one meeting this year. I'm not on the 16th of July. Can you just explain to me how long, how come it's taken so long for this to sit with council? Speaker 4: I'll have to take that on notice to get back to you. I'm an active director at the moment, so I don't have that information. Mayor Wilkie: Sure. Question. Has this prevented council staff from participating?

00:53:00 Speaker 4: Again, I have to take that on notice. Mayor Wilkie: Has it affected the work of the organisation? Speaker 4: This is a position on the network to be able to listen to the network. It's not a voting situation. It's a position on there to show council support of the network. So no, we wouldn't have any changes in regards to the work that the network has done today. Speaker 5: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I move that we appoint councillor Nicola Wilson and two staff members from Community Development and Urban Culture. First, the councillors representing it on the network. I'll second. Seconded, councillor Phillips. As councillor Wilson pointed out, she does have experience in this field in a voluntary capacity as a director of a body that already works in this sphere. She has an interest in that. She has some knowledge on it. Even though it's only an observer role, I'm sure she'll be able to understand what's

00:54:00 going on there and be able to report back and inform the other councillors according to that. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I would like to speak to the motion. First of all, I'd like to thank councillor Nicola for putting her common mission forward. I think given her experience and her interest in the matter, she'd be welcome to speak to us as well. I think it's really important that we put as many opportunities before us in a timely manner to be involved in this space at whatever capacity, given the national crisis that's been declared around violence against women. So I do think councillor Nicola for putting her hand up, and I'm looking forward to moving the other track with some good input around how we can support that.

00:55:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor Finzel. Anyone else wish to speak? According to the vote, those in favour? Councillor Wilson. Yes. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson. Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Stockwell. That's your names. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Paul. Next item is reports direct to the general committee, which is the financial performance report. Manager, Morning Colour Financial Services Manager. How are you? Good thanks for coming. How will the tracking be going? Speaker 7: Okay, good afternoon Councillors. Financial performance for the month of August is positive with operating revenues outperforming forecast

6 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE ¶

▶ 00:55:19

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

6.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – AUGUST 2024 ¶

▶ 00:55:24· Carried unanimously 6-0 from council's minutes

00:56:00 and operating expenditure under budget at this early stage of the new financial year. Budget review 1 was adopted at the August meeting round and is reflected in the August financial reports that have been presented to you. Operating revenue is $722,000 above budget and this comprises $303,000 relating to interest revenue and $268,000 from the sale of goods and services from holidays. In addition to $184,000 relating to current programs that have been received year to date. This has been offset by lower than forecast rates and levies income of $27,000. Fees and charges of $33,000 which relate to development assessment and building and plumbing. Operating expenditure is $840,000 underspent with $253,000 relating to development assessment and building and plumbing. This is related to employee expenses and $579,000 relating to materials and services.

00:57:00 Overall Council's year to date operating position at August 2024 is $1.5 million above budget and this will be utilised to offset forecast deficit adopted at the hour 1. Capital revenue is above budget due to the timing of the receipt of QIA disaster funding and local roads and community infrastructure program funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget $10.5 million and that relates to delivery of disasters. Council is currently holding $123 million in cash reserves with $30.5 million invested in higher yearly term deposits. Cash is at its high point in the cycle with receipts from the first rates from being received in August. This position will degrade through to the 30 June 2024 as business as usual operations occur and capital and grant programs are delivered throughout the year. Again, at this early stage of financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track.

00:58:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Pauline. Questions, councillors? Councillor Wilson: In our materials and services where we've got a little bit of an underspend at the moment, do you expect that to be a timing difference and it will catch up later or might we have a realised... Speaker 7: At this stage it would appear to be more of a timing difference due to the profiling of budget and based on the programs of work that the business areas are doing. We will continue to profile budget based on updates that we receive on, but at this stage it looks like timing. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: With the delay in the destination management plan, when are we scheduled to review the Tourism and Noosa agreement? Speaker 7: So as far as I'm aware, off the top of my head, the Tourism and Noosa agreement is due to be renewed by the end of this year. So this financial year is set to be for June 2025. So it was a two year extension on the original one, which ends at the end of this financial year.

00:59:00 Councillor Lorentson: Question. In terms of a change of government, what are the potential risk and opportunities associated with a change of government and how might this impact funding, regulations or policy shifts affecting Council's financial and sustainability operations? Difficult question. Difficult question is trending through the CEO. Speaker 5: At this point in time, it's impossible for us to give answers to that because we don't know. In relation, we don't know what the policies necessarily will affect. We do what we can to sustain ourselves. We put this money where we don't have it right now. So that's the best I can do. That's all I can do at this point. We don't know what future is in front of us.

01:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: The revenue for the holiday parks is consistently above budget. What's going on there? Have we come to an initial sense? I just really don't understand. Speaker 7: When we do the budget, we always budget conservatively based on our previously historic performance. So there is generally some room and that allows for things to emerge through the year. So if we budget and do push targets, that means that emerging issues can't be dealt with. We don't know until obviously the year unravels how that will perform, whether the economy starts to impact some of that revenue. So at this stage, it is performing above budget. But that has been historically trained, yes, to be above budget. Mayor Wilkie: And the increase in interest rates have been, compared to the supplementary rate payer funds, in cash, so the returns on rate payers' money, are we, what do you think, what's the forward position is like in that regard? Speaker 7: At this, well, based on reserve pay, at this stage, it's likely to fall, but not until probably later next year.

01:01:00 So we are kind of maximising our interest revenues. And some of the delay in capital gains is also helping to amplify cash balances. So at this stage, we're seeing around 5% and above at this stage in terms of investment in our cash, which is higher than we had originally budgeted for. We expected that it would fall. Mayor Wilkie: Any other questions for anyone? Councillor Finzel: Yes, please, Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: The sales of goods and services are to make waste management phases below budget. Can you just talk to us a little bit about what's going on there in that space? Speaker 7: Yeah, sure. So I've spoken to the Minister... Councillor Finzel: Waste management phase? Speaker 7: Yep. So in terms of sales of goods and services, Councillor? Yes. So in that respect, there's a delay they've had in terms of their timing of their operational budget of sales and metal sales. So they were anticipating a larger sale of metal.

01:02:00 I think that's just a timing issue at this stage. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Is there any shortfall with the sale of the steel? Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Could you say that again, please, Councillor Finzel? You're breaking up. Can you speak closer to the microphone, if possible? Please. Sure. Councillor Finzel: I'm just interested in how that's being addressed with the thoughtful and the fees, where they might be broken? Is there a process or a projected how they're going to work in that space to get us up to speed with the projected budget? Speaker 7: Sure. So based on the information I have, it's purely a timing delay. So they were expecting it to occur earlier in the year. It hasn't occurred yet. So they're expecting it will occur. They still have the metal to sell. They just haven't happened yet. Yep. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Any other further questions for staff? Councillor Lorentson? A question that hasn't been asked

01:03:00 and was always asked at every ordinary meeting. What keeps you up at night, Pauline? And in terms of immediate risk, and that's why I raised the issue of a change of government before. Can I ask? Speaker 7: I think that probably it's delivering the grant funding programs with the constraints and resourcing that we have. We have quite a large capital program. In terms of how we get that done, Speaker 1: probably it's the biggest thing at the moment. Speaker 7: But in terms of cash flow, it's not a concern. We have funded. It's not there. It's more just a delivery for the organisation. Councillor Lorentson: So your question, it doesn't relate to human resourcing, or is it the capacity of the organisation to deliver? Speaker 7: Yes. OK. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I made a question to Sarah. How are we going in the recruitment space in terms of tracking staff? Speaker 5: In terms of the finance part, we're a little short-handed at the moment. There's no question about that. And we've been out to market a couple of times, as it's very difficult to get appropriately trained

01:04:00 and skilled people in this area. So we're continuing to do that. So is anybody watching or listening? Mine won't. No, please. But it's very difficult to find for some good weather reason. But it's difficult to find the people to take it up. And I guess the organisation's a lot. The organisation is... It's in particular industries in different areas. We're having trouble or we find it difficult to attract the right people. But in other areas, there's the funding. So I think if you'd ask me a question about financing, I think we're far against some of that now. We're down the track. We're in a bit of a dead position. I think we're in a bit of a dead position. I think we're in a bit of a dead position. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a follow-up question from that? Internal performance, like, what sort of training do we do

01:05:00 to even encourage, you know, someone to move up through the organisation if we can't outsource? Speaker 5: Well, we... We look to promote in general where possible, actually. I think that's one of the main advantages of being a multi-skilled, multi-disciplined organisation are opportunities for people to move across and up in the organisation. Some of this is entirely skilled... Speaker 7: Which is what happened with me. I progressed from a previous position to this after recruitment. So, OK. This is... Speaker 5: Yeah, this is a skill that we're struggling to find. And when we look in the newspaper or in the newspaper log or anything, we're looking for employees. Other councils are also struggling to find people who are doing this project that was not in Noosaville. We do... We provide Australians with care. We identify people who are not moving through

01:06:00 and they're training through, because that's certainly the best way to go. Councillor Phillips: And then, so, I guess a general question around, like, do we have anyone from our staffing in our schools promoting our workplace within our local community? Speaker 7: I was going to say, I'm also about schools, but definitely university. Yeah. And I'm definitely different. Speaker 1: I've been coming on... Speaker 7: OK. Thanks. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions or comments? If someone would move the motion, please. Move to Council of Wilsons, seconded by Council of Ireson. Council of Wilsons, speak. Councillor Wilson: Not much. Just thank you for another thorough report and for all the answers to your questions. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Colleen. Thank you, Colleen. The report's always extensive and highly detailed, and it's really appreciated how when Council has asked for further information,

01:07:00 we're always willing to provide an added to the already extensive financial report. We've got a lot of indicators going on, so thank you. That's that. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: No. Mayor Wilkie: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Speaker 5: This report obviously has gained quite a bit of attention and interest, so I'll just keep it that way until we move forward and I know there aren't any new motions that have been proposed, so we can talk about this. This report provides an update on the legislative changes introduced by local government.

6.2 REVISED STANDING ORDERS & OTHER RELATED POLICIES & PROCEDURES ¶

▶ 01:07:21· Carried unanimously 6-0 · 3 divisions from council's minutes

01:08:00 It includes amendments related to the model meeting procedures, addressing changes to meeting procedures, councillor contact and investigation processes. Councillors are required to adopt these amendments, which are included in this report and in the standing order changes, and documented there. And it's taken this opportunity to conduct a general review of the Standing Orders Council Meetings Policy, and there's been quite a bit of change over that period, if you look back at the way we conduct meetings now with online and the likes. This report seeks to adopt a revised Standing Orders Council Meetings Policy, along with the supporting procedures and policies to strengthen governance, transparency and conduct within council meetings. Just to highlight a number of, and I'll just go through them in summary.

01:09:00 To the Standing Orders, other than the adopted model meeting procedures, which we are, we all go to today night, and all councils do. The first one is petitions. The major change there is that we've taken our, sort of referred to in the Standing Orders, but we've made it a specific procedure, a standalone procedure. We could go for a number of these. The petition could be submitted, the major changes to this, the petition could be submitted a few days prior to the meeting. Previously there was no amendment of the requirement. The reason for that is to allow the staff to make sure that it's properly formed and properly presented, the petition, prior to it being made on the table at a meeting. And the use of the template provided by council is encouraged. In terms of the public question time, the major changes are now a standalone procedure, replacing the current public question time guideline.

01:10:00 The major change there, or that we're proposing, and again these are recommendations for debate from the decision, these are recommendations from the officers, must be submitted five days, five business days, prior to the ordinary meetings, which is previously three days. In terms of notified motions, the major change there, and it stays within the Standing Orders, so it's not a procedure because it's not taken out as a separate piece. The major change, any notified motion that commits council to expenditure in excess of $10,000, inclusive of staff resource and the entire passport for a council report, where a notified motion is likely to commit council to significant expenditure not included in the adopted budget, the notified motion must only call for referral to and for council's consideration as part of its future year's annual budget process.

01:11:00 The second piece to that and I know it's, again, gaining some public interest and I recognise the people in the audience here today, is the piece from section 18.8 for a noticed motion where the the Office of the Attorney This has been through three workshops and has been, this is proposed, again it's a proposal it's only a recommendation, again for debate and for decision, it's proposed because what we're looking to do as a CEO is not to gag, not to hold back, but simply to try to as an organisation, organising and running this business is to ensure that we continue to deliver and there's operations and offices we continue to deliver in line with the agreed operational plan, corporate plan and our regular branch plans so we continue to operate on an annual basis.

01:12:00 So it's really just to ensure and allow us to ensure that that happens. Again this is up for discussion today but I just wanted to make sure that that's the reasoning. There are a number of councils, so this is not something that we've dreamed up, there are a number of councils that actually already operate under these rules. So it's just something again, it's a recommendation for the council to decide and it's something that again as CEO and as officers we believe that it just gives us some level of control over making sure that we continue on the path that we all agreed from the start of the year in terms of our operating business. Deliverables for that for that year. Um the next one is um public question time.

01:13:00 And the last one is deputations sorry. So the major changes there are it's now a standalone procedure. The deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before council are not permitted. Topics should be local government matters. Council has an opportunity to respond to deputations during the meeting. Maximum of three deputations per meeting. Maximum of four deputations per calendar year per applicant or group. And a maximum of five minutes per deputation. So they they are the changes that are proposed. Questions councillors? Councillor Lorentson: Um in terms of notified motions um how many notified motions have been brought forward this term? How many notified motions were brought forward last term and by whom?

01:14:00 I have the answers. I'll address it in my speech. I wasn't linked. I didn't mean to catch you out um CEO. It was a very honest question. Mayor Wilkie: Any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: Um in terms of benchmarking of standing orders. Has there been any benchmarking of our standing orders against other councillors of similar size and budget particularly third tier councils? Speaker 5: Absolutely. Yep. We have done that. We've brought that to the table in terms of the workshops that we've had with all councillors. And um yes we have benchmarked across across a range of councillors not just in Queensland but across Australia. Speaker 6: Yep. It has been uh subject to uh workshop number one and two. Okay.

01:15:00 Mayor Wilkie: Careful. Councillor Wilson: As part of that benchmarking what was the um general um findings about deputations from other councils of whether they allow them and for how long? Speaker 5: A number of councils don't actually have deputations that don't allow them and it ranges from 3 minutes up to 15 minutes. In the um the model reading procedures um it um it says for example 15 minutes and it doesn't say it doesn't give any exact just in terms of exact. Councillor Phillips: I have a question. Just in relation to deputations. Thanks. Um why are we looking at a change? What was the driving? Speaker 5: From a personal experience and feedback that the 15 minutes um is a long time to do and there has also been some discussion around um the interpretation of the existing standing orders

01:16:00 which say five three minutes. So it's whether the 15 minutes of three times five minutes or whether 15 minutes per deputation is not it's not clear. We've had discussions around the table on that that it isn't clear and everybody has their own interpretation of that so it's really time to bring to the table and again it's it's over to the discussion. Mayor Wilkie: Mr. CEO at the Pomona community meeting I want to know if there's some feedback about uh the capacity for the council to provide answers to the questions and issues raised in deputations. Is that part of what's? Speaker 5: Well. It's not to not to get an answer here not to get any debate but it is to provide if there's something that's that's um that needs clarification then that that ability then is provided in this um in this change. Councillor Phillips: Thank you just another question apart from a deputation then in question time when can community stand in front of councillors and provide how they feel about their community

01:17:00 if we don't have that? No no but what what's another example where how else can they online give their community a voice you mean in a formal meeting session if we if there's no 15-minute deputation or a change to that what's another way our community can talk to councillors in a formal setting where we're all sitting in a room apart from organizing Mayor Wilkie: meetings with councillors. Councillor Phillips: But another one like we're online there's I guess there's not I don't think another time is there? Speaker 5: No we're not talking about deputations all we're saying is we've reduced them so actually we have more deputations. I've had one um argument on all that now. I think that's just that's a position that we're proposing again if you want to change that

01:18:00 and go to service it's certainly a right answer. Mayor Wilkie: So is it proposing three deputations instead of one? I don't think it's going to be five or six deputations. Speaker 5: We're saying if we do no we don't need deputations. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Regarding deputations what do the best practice examples provided by the state say about deputation times and limits? Speaker 6: The best practice guide does not provide exact advice on that it just provides an example which is 50 minutes for deputations but it doesn't really really venture into different formats or whether that should be per a deputation or provides it doesn't provide any advice of the time frame allocated in accounting into deputation. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of confusion there was discussion that it was confusing what was uploaded on the website. Our standing orders and is the council standing

01:19:00 orders are they clear or are they also is it also written confusingly? My understanding the standing orders provided by council are very clear that it's 15 minutes per speaker. Am I correct? Currently yes. Speaker 5: For deputations? Councillor Lorentson: For deputations. Speaker 5: That's the piece that's been part of our discussion. It's not each council has had. Officers have a different interpretation of that and that's what we want to clarify. So it's 15 minutes or it's three by five minutes. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask can we can we have the section of our standing orders read? Because have you got a copy there Nicola? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So the standing orders. Councillor Wilson: The relevant parts are 17.2. The CEO and receiving an application for deputation,

01:20:00 chairperson, I'm going to skip ahead a bit here. So this is for if it's one person. Where it has been determined the deputation will be heard. A convenient time should be arranged for that purpose and an appropriate time period allowed. So it doesn't actually state how many minutes. 17.4 starts with for deputations comprising three or more persons. A deputation shall be given adequate opportunity to explain the purpose of the deputation. Generally no longer than 15 minutes unless decided otherwise by the meeting. So that 15 minutes is specifically in the paragraph that talks about deputations comprising three or more persons. Councillor Lorentson: So that aligns with the state definition which is to allow appropriate reasonable time for the community to make their deputation. Mayor Wilkie: Just to go to the question, that's 17.4 deputations comprising three or more persons. Only three persons shall be able to be addressed.

01:21:00 Unless the council discerns otherwise. And this is where it also says generally no longer than 15 minutes. That's why some councillors were confused as to whether that's five minutes per deputation or 15 minutes per deputation. That's the source of the confusion which I hope to clarify today. Through the chair. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just to add some clarity around it. And certainly, you know, we don't want the intent out there in the community to look like we're in any way minimising or diluting our dep right. You know, there is, you know, no way that we're going to be standing for that. So I've just laid in front of me, I've got the best practice example under the state development, best practice standing orders under Deputation 7, 7.2. It actually says in there, I will read the last bit of paragraph.

01:22:00 The CEO will inform the deputation of the determination in writing where it has been determined that the deputation will be heard. A convenient time will be arranged for that purpose and an appropriate time allowed. And then in brackets, they've got e.g. 15 minutes. Yes. In 7.3, following on from that, the deputation is comprised of three or more persons. Only three persons shall be at liberty to address the local government meeting. Excuse me. Only councillors at the meeting determine otherwise by resolution. Speaker 7: Excuse me. Councillor Finzel: A deputation shall be given an adequate opportunity to explain the purpose of the deputation. So I think, you know, what we need to be looking at today, we need to, you know, in terms of trust in our community, to reassure them, you know,

01:23:00 we are not minimising democracy, which is really concerning, but we need to be very careful with this. We need to be very carefully considering today the wording. And we've put it in the standing orders. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, Karen, do you have a question? It's just been raised, yeah. Do you want to move to a question or is that? Councillor Finzel: You were providing an answer to an earlier question. I was providing the clarify, people asked, I think I'll clarify the question. The answer to the question was put forth reading the standing orders. I'm just adding extra information into that. Because the, I've then read this document, there's practice of standing orders through the state government

01:24:00 to try and help inform this meeting today around how we set clarity in the wording of the standing orders. So for the general questions that there's no, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Do you want to move your motion? I'd like to move my alternate motion, please. Thank you, Councillor Morris. Could I please have that on the screen? That council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer, to the general meeting dated 16 September 2024, regarding the amendment of Noosa Council standing orders and other relevant policies and procedures and A, adopt updated standing orders for council meetings policy provided at attachment one and repeal current standing order policy adopted November 2020, subject to the amendment of the updated standing orders section 18. Notified motions to delete the following words. 18.8, the CEO may reject a notice of motion,

01:25:00 which A, does not relate to the objectives, roles and function of council as outlined in the annual operational and corporate plan. B, is vague or unclear in intention. C, is identical or substantially similar to notified motion that has been considered by the council and lost in the preceding six months. D, is outside the powers of council. E, relates to an operational service request or relates to a matter that can be handled under delegation. And F, is a matter subject to a council decision-making process which has commenced but is not yet complete. B, adopt the new petition procedure provided at attachment two. C, adopt the new deputation procedure provided at attachment three, subject to the amendments of items one, two and three. And the deletion of item five as follows. One, up to 15 minutes will be allocated per deputation at each meeting for members of the community to present deputations.

01:26:00 A maximum of three deputations per meeting are allowed. Three, the applicant must provide council with the deputation topic and sufficient background material whereby the CEO, on receiving an application for deputation, shall notify the chairperson who in conjunction with the CEO shall determine whether the deputation may be heard. The CEO shall inform the applicant of the determination in writing. Deletion of number five, that four deputations per calendar year by the same applicant group will be allowed. Deletion of number six, deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications before council are not permitted and replaced with deputations on specific development applications or other statutory applications under council officers' assessment are not allowed. Deputations will only be permitted on applications reported to council

01:27:00 for determination. D, adopt the new public question time procedures provided in attachment four and thereby repeal current public question time guidelines adopted on 17 October 2019. And E, adopt the councillor investigation policy attachment seven and repeal current councillor investigation policy as adopted on 19 November 2020. Firstly, I'd like to request that the chair allows me some leniency. My speech is just under six minutes, not five. The alternate motion in front of us seeks to protect the democratic rights of councillors and those of the community. It seeks to uphold the current standing orders about notified motions and deputations which comply with the Local Government Act

01:28:00 and the principles of democratic representation, community engagement and transparency as mandated by section 4 of the Local Government Act. The proposed changes to the standing orders specifically concerned deputations and notified motions beg the question, what problem are we trying to solve or who are we trying to stop? The current system has functioned well for years. For example, I brought to council two significant notified motions on Burgess Creek last year without any issues. Over the past five years, other than myself, only one other councillor, Councillor Stockwell, has moved notified motions. This highlights that the standing orders have upheld a fair and democratic process. During this term of council, I have so far moved two notified motions. A notified motion requesting the council policy position on shark nets and drumlines.

01:29:00 A notified motion requesting an extension to the consultation period of the Noosa Plan amendments. And one notified motion requesting the trial of rescue tubes on remote beaches to be considered this Thursday. It seems, in my opinion, more than coincidental that now, as these motions increase, we're seeing a push to limit them or me. Am I personally the problem? Or is it the precedent I'm setting by actively representing community concerns through notified motions? Either way, I will not allow my democratic rights as a councillor to be eroded. As councillors, we are elected to bring forward community concerns and emerging issues. And we must fight to retain the right to do so. We cannot, and I will not, relinquish that responsibility to the CEO, nor will I accept the CEO or administration having the power to veto councillors' motions.

01:30:00 The fight is about safeguarding the democratic rights of all councillors, and the community we serve, and the democratic rights of our community to be heard. The residents of Noosa elect councillors to represent their interests independently in council. The proposed changes to the orders, in my opinion, threaten to silence this independent voice. Currently, the councillors can submit notified motions with seven days' notice, and the chairperson has already the authority to rule a motion out of order, if it falls outside council's jurisdiction. The proposed changes, however, go beyond this and would, one, restrict notified motions to those aligning only with the operational and corporate plans. Two, grant the CEO the authority to refuse the motions deemed not to meet these criteria. And three, limit councillors' ability to propose new initiatives outside of these plans.

01:31:00 This would, in my opinion, stifle innovation and restrict councillors' ability to address emergencies. CEO's role is to implement council policies, not to dictate which issues councillors can raise. These changes, in my opinion, contradict the Local Government Act. Section 13 gives the CEO authority over operational management, but nowhere in the Act does it restrict a councillor's right to move motions. Section 12 states that councillors must represent the current and future interests of residents, and, furthermore, Section 4 of the Local Government Act emphasises democratic representation, transparency and community engagement, principles that the proposed changes, in my opinion, would undermine. In regards to deputations, limiting deputations to five minutes and restricting their frequency weakens the public's ability to be heard.

01:32:00 The cornerstone of democracy is the people's right to speak and participate in decisions affecting their lives. As councillors, we are accountable to our community, not just to administration. Actually, not to the administration. Reducing the type of public deputation is, to me, an unjustifiable attack on residents' democratic rights. As elected representatives, we must protect the democratic right to bring forward notified motions and to ensure that deputations remain transparent and an accessible platform for public participation. This includes allowing applicants of development applications to have their say. Equity must be upheld in all aspects of democracy. That's how democratic processes work. Through fairness and equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. We are not here to serve the CEO or the administration.

01:33:00 We are here to serve the people who elected us. I ask that you support the alternative motion that protects the democratic rights of councillors and the democratic rights of the community we serve. Mayor Wilkie: Advice from Governors. Do these proposed changes in any way reach any aspect of our government? Thank you, Guy from Governors. I'd like to move an amendment. It reads, adopt the updated Standing Orders to Council Meetings Policy divided at Attachment 1 and appeal current Standing Orders Policy with the updated Standing Orders Section 18 notified motions to be amended to read.

01:34:00 Councillors are encouraged to lodge notices of motion, which relate to the objectives, roles and functions of the councillors outlined in the annual operation and corporate plan, are clear in intention, are not identical or substantially similar to a notified motion that has been considered by the council and lost in the preceding six months, are not outside the powers of council, do not relate to an operational service request or a matter that can be handled under delegation, are not matters subject to a council decision-making process, which is commenced but is not yet complete. May I have a seconder for that, please? Speaker 7: I'll second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson, thank you. Look, councillors, I believe this is entirely consistent with the first motion that we're considering, which goes to the heart of the powers that both the mayor and councillors have and the CEO has.

01:35:00 There's a general feeling that the proposed changes to notified motions places too much power in the hands of the CEO and takes that away from the mayor and elected body. At the same time, we do want to encourage outcomes, notified motions that are focused and relevant, and don't waste rat payers' money and staff time. So this is not a mandatory requirement, but councillors ought to be encouraged to lodge notices of motion which do these things, but we don't need to give the CEO veto power over these things in order to achieve them. So that's the reason for moving this amended motion. It gives some guidance to councillors.

01:36:00 Without diminishing the power of the mayor and the elected body, or imbuing the CEOs that the CEO would sort of proceed to be an unacceptable level of authority over the councillor body. That's the reason for moving it. Councillor Wilson, questions? Councillor Wilson: Could I ask a question to the CEO? Yes. What other opportunities do councillors have to present items for discussion or consideration other than a notified motion? Speaker 5: We also have a council discussion forum, which is where councillors can bring ideas for reports, or for clarification, or discussion done at the CPS. We have really limited set of forums for all that. So if it's a basic report with some statistics or some data, then that's the type of... That's where that often comes through. But yes, that's the other option for us.

01:37:00 Councillor Wilson: And if there were emerging issues that we're aware of in the community, both councillors and staff would be able to add items to the agenda? Speaker 5: Absolutely. That we don't concede yet. And there's also opportunity to come directly to me for reports, and then we can have that discussion and bring it to an alarm. I don't know how to put it in this forum. Mayor Wilkie: So you're saying if councillors have emerging issues, councillors wish to address, they can request a report from the CPS, either directly or through the councillor's discussion forum. Yes. They don't need to use an alarm. That's the only process. That's right. Any other questions, councillors, pertaining to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak against the amendment in front of us. Again, I sit here and question, are we attempting to erode or limit our ability to bring a notified motion at the moment that power sits with us?

01:38:00 Also, I'd like to reiterate that the current standing orders state that the chair has the ability to rule a notified motion out of order. He can rule that it's not within the jurisdiction of council. Alternatively, if it does get seconded, then it's against again, the ability of the councillors to either reject, call it out, say it's ultra-virus or not support. So we have that ability already within our standing orders. I think the amendment in front of us, again, is an erosion of our rights and I, for one, will not sit here and accept. Mayor Wilkie: And the councillors wish to speak to the amendment. Councillor Finzel: Just a clarification I want. Because I can't see the screen. Has this motion at the beginning been seconded to this motion? Mayor Wilkie: Yes.

01:39:00 Councillor Finzel: Can you please remind me who was that? Mayor Wilkie: Nicola, councillor Niska Will. Sorry, the original motion. Councillor Finzel: Is this the amendment or the original motion? Mayor Wilkie: No, this is the amendment. So the original motion was moved by councillor Amelia, seconded by councillor Jessica Phillips. And then the amendment was moved by myself, seconded by councillor Wilson. And the amendment is asked, substituting words that say councillors are encouraged to lodge notices of motion which relate to the objective's roles in function of the councillor's care and their intention. And, yeah, they're not mandatory. Can you see that or not? Councillor Finzel: I can't see that, no. Mayor Wilkie: Is there any way we can make the screen violet? She's got the screen. She's got the screen. Councillor Finzel: The screen's being shared. Mayor Wilkie: The screen's being shared, Karen. Councillor Wilson: We clarify that that's taken out. Thank you.

01:40:00 The item above that gives the CEO the... Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah, so this is taking out the CEO's ability to veto a notice of motion on these grounds. It's just general guidelines. It's become general non-mandatory guidelines for councillors for when they're lodging a notified motion that is relevant and focused. That's the purpose of that. So any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Well, there's... Yeah. I... I just wanted to make a quick comment on the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Could you speak closer to the microphone, please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do apologise. Is that better? Yes. Correct.

01:41:00 As a person who has been a recidivist of notices of motion, I'm quite happy with what the staff have recommended, but I'm also happy to leave it in our own hands. The important things with notices of motion is whether or not they're appropriate and whether or not they're effective. They do bring a matter more urgently through to the meetings. What happens when they are misused is we make decisions without the full and informed basis of a report, which we know has caused issues in the past. The issue of the Burgess Creek taking staff off planned activities for many months, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: such that the corporate planning performance criteria in that area were not met, is an example. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. Go ahead. Councillor Finzel: Sorry. I didn't hear that. Okay. Sorry. Whoever's interrupted, Councillor Stockwell, I didn't hear that comment clearly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I show up? Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: It's just a reminder to go.

01:42:00 Microphones are very sensitive. You can assist us by referring to my talk and that would be really helpful. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Stockwell. The issue with the notice of motion is that it doesn't go through all the normal processes that our budget deliberations, for example, go through. So I completely understand the desire of staff Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to ensure that they're not used to, I suppose, have a knee-jerk reaction to something. But this, once again, your amendment is a preferable one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It does take us and put the responsibilities back on Council, so I'm happy to support it. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Phillips: Question. Speaker 6: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: So your amendment is not suggesting any changes to the report suggesting we reduce deputation time. No, this is only to do with...

01:43:00 You're just taking the section from... Just clarify for me. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry. This is only to do with notified motions. Yep. It removes the CEO's power to veto motions based on these conditions. This turns it into something Council's to consider in a non-mandatory way that if you want to lodge a notified motion, consider them being along these lines. But you can still go ahead... It doesn't limit your capacity to lodge a notified motion at all and it does not give the CEO the power to veto a motion, even if they're contrary to these conditions. Councillor Phillips: And, sorry, just to clarify then, in relation to Amelia's, it's going to come back up to this. Mayor Wilkie: And it doesn't change Amelia's at all. So it's still... Councillor Phillips: Except for this section, aye. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, yeah. So it takes... The CEO will still not be able to veto a notice of motion

01:44:00 based on these grounds. Councillor Lorentson: Can I... Through the Chair, can I actually... Question? Yes, question. You said it doesn't change A. It does change A. Sorry, this is a debate. OK. Mayor Wilkie: We've had this up. Councillor Lorentson: Question? Question through the Chair to the CEO. Can you confirm, currently, councillors have the ability to rule out a notified motion? Is that correct? Yes. Under the current standing orders? So, in your opinion, is the amendment in front of us redundant? That ability is... Speaker 5: I don't think it is. My interpretation of it is that it's just clarifying it, prior to giving some parameters around what the notice of motion should include, or should not include, in terms of how it's going,

01:45:00 prior to coming up to a council meeting, which, again, I think, will be... If it goes this way, then it will still come back to the Mayor, who has the ability. Yes. And then, the council will also be able to... Councillor Lorentson: So, through the CEO, I've got all my motions here, all over the place. I've had a bit of experience in notified motion. Can I ask, the process that I've been engaging with you, prior to actually putting my notified motion out, it actually captures a lot of what's in front of us. That if the intent is not clear, whether it's outside jurisdiction, there is already a process in place that's been quite effective... Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: ...that doesn't need replacing. And it's... Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Yes, please. Through the Chair. Through the CEO.

01:46:00 Is there a definitive timeline when we have to have the scanning orders wrapped up? Speaker 5: No. Not definitive. We do need to include or accept the changes from the government. There are a lot of other changes that we're proposing are our changes. So, there is no absolute deadline. No more reality. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: So, apart from adopting the legislative changes, is that... Speaker 5: You could go there, Councillor, yes. So, Councillor Finzel: yeah, so we could do, like, put forward a proposal that we ratify the legislative changes that meet us within that requirement. And then, separate the other patterns under our standing orders for council meetings. So, to maybe move to another meeting time.

01:47:00 I just feel that this wording, which is really significant, and which has caused, you know, a lot of angst in the community, and with the view of engendering trust and excellence in council, and certainly around governance, and given that, you know, we've got new councillors on board. Councillor Lorentson: That's a good question. Sorry. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. My question is, well, perhaps I could put a procedural motion onto the table, that we just move this, and defer this until another meeting, at the next general meeting in October. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So, Councillor Finzel has moved a procedural motion to defer the matter to the October meeting. Yes, that's correct. You don't need... You don't need a seconder. Okay.

01:48:00 So, defer the matter to the October meeting, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to allow... Mayor Wilkie: Point of order, Mr Chair. Yes. What's the point of order? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you read the standing orders, you do need a seconder. Okay. Well, Mayor Wilkie: we'll just get the motion right first. It's the new ones that matter. No, it's the new ones. Okay. So, I'm ahead of myself. Defer the matter to the October meeting round, to allow further... To allow, what, further council discussion on the matter. Karen? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, not... Yes, that's part of it. But I think we need to be very specific, and I can see... I just don't think right now, wording through the debate, on these very challenging, you know, and broad matters before us, it's not comfortable with... It appears we're just meeting on the spot. We've got two councillors that haven't said well.

01:49:00 We've got a councillor who's away. We've got two new councillors. We've got the community that is really being stirred up by this, you know, with this feeling that our democratic rights are being diminished. I just feel that we need to get real clarity, on the wording that we put in our standing orders. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: We'll get a seconder for this. Is anyone prepared to second the motion? It looks like it's lapsed for one and a seconder, Karen. It looks like all councillors have... Councillor Finzel: Is that correct, that that needs a seconder for procedural motion? Mayor Wilkie: I believe so. Chelsea, we currently need a seconder for procedural motion, don't we? Councillor Finzel: Okay, well, I want to put it on record then. Okay, I've tried to stand up for the people right in the community that contacted me and given that there's no actual time frame for when this needs to be done, I'd give them any support even to bring it to the date I might have.

01:50:00 Alright Karen, point noted. Thank you Liz. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so we go back to the amendments. Okay, so that's what I wanted to say. We go back to the amendment, which only myself, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell have spoken to. Karen, do you have any further questions about the amendment? Councillor Finzel: No questions about the amendment, I think. Alright. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. I'll close. Councillors, this does not in any way erode a councillor's right to lodge a Notified Motion.

01:51:00 It's non-mandatory. It supports the position taken in the original motion that the CEO should not have the right to veto Notified Motions. It's entirely supportive of that position. It's to provide some guidance to councillors, not councillors about how a Notified Motion could be put and remain focused and relevant to the local government and how it would be effective. Indeed, as Councillor Lorentson has said, this typifies and clarifies for future councils the type of discussions that are had between a CEO and the councillor about how to put a Notified Motion into place. This is not about us councillors, it's about practices, good practices that will be, future councillors will be the beneficiary of.

01:52:00 So, I ask that you support this amendment. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wilkie. Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel. I'll use my casting vote. It's carried. Speaker 5: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: We go back to the original motion. Councillor Finzel: Just, excuse me, through the chair. Yeah. Just prior to, like, writing in the reason why that it's not a Notified Motion, it's that procedural motion up in the minutes says that it was for councillor discussion. It actually wasn't actually finished, what wording that I wanted in that.

01:53:00 It wasn't just about councillor discussion. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Finzel: It was also looked at the wording and get it precise and put it back against also the other legislation and act to make sure that we've got it right. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Noted, councillor. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Is it just for, because I think by looking because it doesn't actually reflect what I have to say. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Well, we can amend the minutes to reflect that. Councillor Is it just for, because I think by looking because it doesn't actually reflect Councillor Finzel: All of it. Sure. Thank you. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So we can, to allow further discussion to get the wording right on motions. Okay, I think the wording covers that. Get the wording right for those changes. Okay, we'll move on. We're back to the original motion to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken. Any other councillors who should speak to this motion?

01:54:00 Can we have the full motion? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I can't support the motion. There have been significant issues in terms of both lack of clarity in the existing standing orders and in terms of the impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of our meetings. In essence, the standing orders are how we set up our system of meetings to get... informed and deliberative decisions. The addition of deputations for the first time, in my understanding, in 2019, followed 109 years of local democracy without deputations, suggests putting in a reasonable time frame to clarify what was always intended in 2019 is no way to managing democracy.

01:55:00 There are a myriad of ways for people to participate in local government. We have many opportunities for community consultation. We have coffee chats. This is one way to get an issue on the public record. It's by no means the only way. The existing standing orders with respect to deputations are unclear. I'm certainly one of those people who never expected an individual to be given 15 minutes

01:56:00 to talk when the discussion before we adopted them was that it was a total of 15 minutes and up to three people. I think what was proposed in this draft after three different workshops does reflect the original intent. Having sat through a number of deputations, they all raise issues of public concern, but I in no way think that giving people the challenge of refining what they're presenting, to be concise in five minutes, as councillors are required to do, with the option for the chair to provide an extension if there isn't, is certainly an improvement in terms of our meeting. I think that a range of issues are to be addressed. As presented in the draft to address existing issues that have occurred, I didn't support the extension of time because I've been raising the need to reduce standing orders since

01:57:00 Scott Borders was CEO. It was very apparent. We've had a range of inefficiencies and problems associated with the lack of clarity and I believe that this motion actually undoes quite a lot of the review, quite a lot of the consensus Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that we achieved. I'm major points in those three workshops, hence I won't support the substantive motion. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment that the deputations will be conducted in accordance with the following procedural document. One 15 minutes in total will be allocated to each meeting for members of the community to present deputations. Maximum of five minutes will be allocated to a deputation with an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of councillors and the maximum of three deputations for the meeting allowed. Can I have a second for that please?

01:58:00 Thank you councillor Finzel. Thank you councillors, this clarifies the problem we had before about 15 minutes being allocated and three speakers, currently one person can speak 15 minutes, one deputation usually for the meeting. This allows, it increases access and equity of access to three deputations per meeting. And upon request to the chair and the councillors, there's nothing to say that those deputations can't be 5, 10, maybe even 15 minutes each anyway, upon request. It clarifies the wording. So this is not about limiting and reducing the number of deputations, it clarifies the wording. It's actually about increasing access to more than one person per deputation.

01:59:00 To allow at least three, to allow three if that's required. And also, if they want to have to speak for more than five minutes, they can do so. It also responds to feedback we got from the Pomona Ordinary Meeting where the residents said they were really, they enjoyed hearing the immediate response to the feedback we got from the staff. So questions are provided and the staff provide a written answer and that's read out. They were saying, why wasn't the same done for that very articulate deputation that occurred at that meeting? And the deputations that had questions and requests of council in it, the current standing orders does not allow the council to provide an immediate response to those questions or requests that are contained within a deputation. So this, this is not about limiting and reducing the number of deputations per meeting, it's

02:00:00 about increasing the capacity to allow that response to occur. And it also allows each deputation to be longer than five minutes upon request. We're not limiting it to five minutes, we're saying, if you want more time, have more time. Instead of one per 15 minutes, we're saying, at least, let's have a maximum of three. It's actually increasing the access. But we're all on the same page here. We're all on the same page. We're all for democratic inclusion. We all learned a lot through hearing back from our residents. To any argument here that infuse that certain councils are against democratic inclusion, trying to shut down democracy or block council's capacity for the community, or capacity to have a say to notified motions or deputations is misleading the community. This is about actually increasing equity of access.

02:01:00 And I think that's what we need to do. So I hope you support this amendment. Councillor Phillips: I have a question, Mr Mayor. Yeah. The wording upon request suggests that... Question? Yeah, question is, upon request, in my opinion, the interpretation means that that could then be rejected. A request is, could suggest that you could say no. Mayor Wilkie: Is that a question or a comment? Councillor Phillips: It's a question. Could the wording upon request... Suggest that we can say no. Mayor Wilkie: Well, we haven't today. In terms of councils being allowed to speak longer than privately, we just allow it. So does the wording... So what... What wording would you like to see there? An extension of time allowed upon request. Like... Councillor Phillips: In my... And that's what I'm... In my opinion, upon request says... Mayor Wilkie: Well, it doesn't say allowed or refused upon request.

02:02:00 It says, allowed or refused upon request. So... Councillor Lorentson: Would you prefer definitive... Definitely allowed upon request? Just remove the words upon request, I think, is what's been asked. An extension of time allowed upon request. To the meeting. Councillor Finzel: That can be by resolution. Mayor Wilkie: The purpose of it is, like, it has to be in response to a request. Perhaps the resident needs to ask for it, to receive it. Councillor Phillips: Why not? Why are we asking our community to ask to speak to us upon request? Why... To... For longer time. I... As a new councillor, I've enjoyed... Well, I mean, we can... Mayor Wilkie: We can... We can allocate unlimited time. But it's... Councillor Phillips: No, I've... Yeah. I just, again, went back to my original question about why do we need to change 15 minutes. Because, in my opinion, my... As a new councillor, I haven't had an issue...

02:03:00 Okay. ...with my 15 minutes. Mayor Wilkie: In answer to your question, it's about clarifying the standing... Existing standing orders, which say up to three deputations, 15 minutes an hour. So does that mean five minutes each? Or 15... It's clarifying... That's the... That's why we're doing it. Councillor Phillips: But then it's reducing someone to five minutes. Because 15 minutes, to me, says we could listen to three 15-minute deputations, and that would take 45 minutes. Mayor Wilkie: It could. But that's... But we've had three people speak to it in a deputation five minutes each previously. So it's clarifying. But anyway, you don't need to support it. You can... You can speak against it if you want. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: Just a couple of questions. I'm confused with the amendment in front of us and what you said, Councillor Wilkie. So you mentioned that the amendment will allow council staff to respond to any questions put forward through a deputation. Is that correct?

02:04:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. So how is that captured in the amendment? Mayor Wilkie: Well, it says adopt the new deputation. The new deputation procedure provided in Attachment 3 with the procedure to be amended to read 15 minutes in total. So the deputation procedure as written as provided in Attachment 3 with the conditions contained within that... Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: ...would be adopted aboard this change that 15 minutes in total would be allocated with an extension of time...to allow an extension of time for people to talk longer than five minutes if they wanted to. Yeah. Yeah. So I think it's important that people, if they want to speak more than five minutes, we're not against that. But it's about saying rather than one deputation, we can have three for as long as people want to speak. But they have to say, my deputation is 10 minutes, my deputation is 15 minutes. Can I do that?

02:05:00 And then... Councillor Lorentson: So a question... Okay. A question through the Chair. Don't we already afford that opportunity through an individual deputation? So if someone in a group wants to speak more than five minutes, they can just write and request an individual deputation of 15 minutes. Mayor Wilkie: They can request... Yeah, they can... Upon request, yes. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So I'm just processing this. Okay. So they have that option at the moment. So if this doesn't go up, someone who wants to speak over five minutes can ask to present an individual deputation. Which allows them 15 minutes to speak. Mayor Wilkie: If they want to... Councillor Lorentson: Up to 15 minutes to speak. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: And it's saying an extension of time allowed upon request to the meeting chair and by consent of the councillors. And I don't think councillors will say no. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, Mr Chair.

02:06:00 Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Fensale. Yes. And then... Councillor Finzel: Oh, a couple of things. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Sorry to make the rough. We've been at this for two hours, and I think that's reasonable. Secondly, while we're on the break, we're just not committed, but at some point, I've been looking at a record of motions to be seconded, and there, under receipt for motion 15.2, are exemptions of the rule for needing a second, as of the 26th of July, 2024. Can we please follow that back? Mayor Wilkie: Okay, well, we'll adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes, and we'll, are councillors okay to adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes, discussion is? Councillor Lorentson: Can I just make a recommendation that we vote on this amendment before adjourning, given that we're in the middle of discussion? Mayor Wilkie: Okay, we're gonna finish this amendment. Lyne, you've got your hand up, and then Councillor Wilson.

02:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think if Councillor Finzel's question is one of process, and her previous procedural motion is valid, because I'm not aware of any changes on the 25th of July, then we couldn't proceed to a vote on this. So we do need that question answered. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, it clarifies the 26th of July. Speaker 5: Absolutely requires a seconder. It does require a seconder. What procedural motion? What's it? The procedural motion. The procedural motion has the new vote, the new standing orders have not been accepted. So these are the standing orders. Mayor Wilkie: We need to adopt the new standing orders to get a seconder calendar. Councillor Finzel: I brought the standing orders, okay, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so we'll continue on with this amendment before we break, and any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment? I have a question.

02:08:00 Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilson: Yes, I was just, can't be, sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Nicola had a question. Councillor Wilson: So when somebody is applying to make a deputation, are we not now saying that they need to provide the script? So has that been taken out? Mayor Wilkie: No. Councillor Wilson: They do need to provide the script? Mayor Wilkie: Well, that's included in the resolution. Councillor Wilson: Because at the time of writing that script, they would need to know whether they're writing the script for five minutes or for longer. And so at that point, we'd need more time. I believe in the discipline of trying to write a well-researched and concise speech. But I do see that sometimes somebody would need to go over. But at what point are they asking for that extension of time? Is it at the point where they're preparing for the meeting or when they're in the meeting? It would be either or. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. If they're writing and they've got, because there are calculators that can, like a 15-minute speech is about 2,000 words,

02:09:00 so there are ways of working out the approximate time to be taken. And if, you know, so you'd be able to give some, an indicative time when you're applying to have a deputation. And if it happens to be going over time, because of, you might be speaking slowly, more slowly, during the deputation, you can ask to go over. That's it. Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair. Yes. Can I just note, I think there is a mistake. So part of the alternate motion that I've moved forward actually deletes the word providing a script. I think that's too onerous. That's not changing it. And that, so what I've asked is sufficient background material. Just wanted to clarify that, yeah. Is there anything changing this? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Sorry. I can see. So I don't even need the time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, you've got one. Yeah. Can I ask a question through the Chair?

02:10:00 Okay. Have we ever stopped a group from speaking over 15 minutes? I don't think so. No. So we've always afforded some leniency. Yeah. In terms of a five-minute rule. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And it's normally the Chair's looking at, and we might say, well, your 15 minutes is up, would you like, you know, time to continue, and we'll pause it. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: All right. Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think in the discussion there has been some statements that need to be clarified, and I'll ask you as the mover. As your amendment suggests consent by Council, this can only refer to the fact that the council at the meeting itself. Is that correct? Mayor Wilkie: Well.

02:11:00 Well, I'm hoping it's a catch-all. So certainly at the meeting itself. Certainly at the meeting itself, there's, that's when all councillors are present. But the Chair has the right to approve. The application to have, to host a deputation comes from the Chair. So that hasn't changed. But if it, if it goes over in the meeting, we normally include the councillors in the, in the, in seeking consent for the deputation to continue. So I was hoping it would be a catch-all. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll speak to it. Yeah. I'm, I'm happy to support the amendment. I don't think it relates to prior to the meeting.

02:12:00 I don't think, because that would be a change to the deputation procedure. As someone who's known to have incurred the wrath of, of Chairman, if I'm speaking too long, and it might not have been this council, probably was the last, and definitely the one before, where I've talked over time and been asked to wrap it up. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know that I talk a lot better and get my points across a lot clearer if I do keep to time. I think we are actually doing deputations a great service by telling them prepare a five-minute speech. Because as Councillor Wilson talked about, there is a degree of rigour. He's mentioned about 700 words. That's only two pages of writing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's very few issues that can't be very well described within two pages of writing.

02:13:00 My experience appears to be different to most of the councillors. I find that providing 15 minutes means we hear a lot of padding around the key issues. And frequently, including from professionals who've given us deputations, we can hear the same point repeated three times. Two times. It is not providing for good, clear communication, giving people the challenge of refining their points to a five-minute speech, which is a challenge that we provide ourselves, I think, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: is a step in the right direction for democracy. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Councillor Phillips. I'd like to speak, especially since my previous job, I've been a member of the National Expert Communicator as a police negotiator. Good, clear communication isn't defined by time. It's if the person on the receiving end understands what is being said.

02:14:00 I can't support reducing the time our community have to present to us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, are we reducing the time allowed for the community to speak in this amendment? Mayor Wilkie: I will answer it by saying if they still want 15 minutes they can upon request. It's not about reducing the time, it's about allowing more deputations to take place at each meeting, three instead of one. Allowing more people to participate, that's the purpose. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I will just to repeat what I've already said. This is an erosion of our community's democratic rights.

02:15:00 We should be allowing more opportunities. Not less opportunity. For them to partake in decisions that impact and affect their lives. Totally against the amendment in front of us. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask a question to the man please? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Just to clarify, so you're putting the 15 minutes in. It provides greater opportunity for more people to speak. Within the time frame. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, that is correct. Councillor Finzel: So it's a point of democracy and giving greater diversity and voice to more people. You're saying we put this opportunity to come and speak. Originally it took five minutes. It can be expanded upon.

02:16:00 Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Provide then greater opportunity for more people on different subjects across the Shire. I don't want to say. Mayor Wilkie: That's absolutely correct, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: So is that an affidavit information? Is that only at the ordinary meeting? Mayor Wilkie: No, deputations can occur at the general committee meeting or the ordinary committee meeting. I'll just ask. Councillor Wilson: This is always the same with that. Any other agenda commitments? Mayor Wilkie: I think it's just in. I think it's just in. Just as a general and the ordinary, there's two opportunities at each meeting round. Okay. So potentially six people per meeting round as opposed to two. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So that does provide voice at the table for every community to come and speak. Speaker 6: Exclude council special meeting. Mayor Wilkie: And a special meeting.

02:17:00 No. Exclude. No. Okay. Yes. Councillor Finzel: No special meeting, I believe. Mayor Wilkie: Does that help, Councillor Finzel? No. Councillor Finzel: Yes, it does. Thank you. I think, I don't think that the, I don't think the wording is well worded, which is why I tried to put brake on this, because this is where the evidence is coming from our community. And it's brought, you know, a lot of unrest. And that support, we're sort of all doing this on the hop, in my opinion. But we do support the idea of supporting democracy by giving greater opportunity for people to support diversity on different subjects. Because of how you propose this. So I will support the motion, because I believe it does support the democratic opportunity for people to come and give voice. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Can I ask a question through the chair? Sorry. Can I ask? Yes. Yes. My question is to Mayor Wilkie.

02:18:00 Yes. I'm still confused. What was broken with our executive order? What was broken with the existing standard orders? And what is the problem we seek to fix? Has this been an issue before? Like, have we shut down people from speaking? Because we've had a list of 10 people putting their hand up for deputations. Mayor Wilkie: In answer to your question, there's, no one's been shut down from speaking. We know we've shut down people from speaking. We want to increase the number of people that can speak for 15 minutes. And the problem we're trying to solve is the lack of clarity in 17.4, which talks about the deputations comprising three or more persons. Only three persons shall be allowed to address the purpose of the deputation, generally no longer than 15 minutes. So it's clarifying how those 15 minutes are to be, could be used, should be used. But this amendment allows, acknowledges that some deputations need more than five minutes.

02:19:00 And that they can speak for longer than five minutes if they want to. We're having more people have more opportunity to use the deputation time provided at both the ordinary and the general meeting. It's not about shutting down democracy. Okay. Council, anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wilson: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I think the problem we were trying to fix here was clarity, and I'm not sure that that's, that this motion was. I'm not sure that that just solves that by having five minutes, but an extension of whether it's upon request. So I think we just need to be really clear about is it five minutes, is it 15, and then expect our community members to be able to prepare for whichever it is. Personally, I don't mind listening to a 15 minute presentation, but I would like to encourage members of the community to not necessarily use up all that time if they don't actually need it. I think we just had a great example from Councillor Lorentson today of how much you can actually fit into a five minute speech if it's well crafted and when somebody actually rehearses their speech rather than just base it on a word count so that they know if they can deliver it in five minutes.

02:20:00 So I think I would speak against this motion because I don't think it actually fixes the problem that we need to be actually really clear which how many minutes somebody should prepare for and when we should allow extra time. Having said that, this opportunity to make a deputation is a way of introducing a topic to council. It's not the end of the story and the speaker does have an opportunity to provide more information after the meeting. And of course, ask for meetings with councillors as well. But just on the basis of clarification, I think we've not reached a resolution yet. Mayor Wilkie: Question, how would the amendment need to be changed to satisfy what you're seeking?

02:21:00 Would it have to be only 15 minutes or five minutes and no latitude to extended meetings? Is that what you're suggesting? Councillor Wilson: Not necessarily a latitude, but we're kind of saying, if you ask for it, you're going to get more time so that they didn't clarify it. Councillor Lorentson: So again, just purposes of clarity, the existing standing orders allows leniency to be afforded to anyone speaking. Again, we don't shut, we don't shut, we have never, in my experience in five years, we've never shut someone down after 15 minutes. Mayor Wilkie: Absolutely, absolutely not. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And if a member of a group wants to speak for 15 minutes, they can do so individually by submitting an individual deputation. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. This does not preclude that from happening. Councillor Wilson: Okay, I'll come back to that. Okay. I think the problem we're trying to fix is 17.2 says where an application for deputation is received, an appropriate time period is allowed.

02:22:00 And that's what we haven't defined is what that appropriate time period is. Because the 17.4 issue is about three people. Mayor Wilkie: So I think there's six that will clarify that. Councillor Finzel: The problem that we can't dissolve here, even when you look at the state. This is a question. Mayor Wilkie: This is a question, councillor. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Is this, all right. Is this a question then to councillor Nicola, if she would consider then putting some other wording on the C Clapham patient, because I support the idea that we need really clear and concise information for our community. This is where the answers come in. I'm not going to disappoint anyone else. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. That's a question to you. Councillor Finzel: It's a question to councillor Nicola. I don't know if she would like to change the word.

02:23:00 Mayor Wilkie: Well, okay. No. No, she doesn't mind. So we'll test the amendment, let it stand before. And we can, there's no limit to the amount of amendments that councillors can move on this issue unless we move the original motion. So councillor Finzel, councillor Wilson, councillor Stockwell, myself, we're free to move amendments to get this wording right on this issue in this meeting. So look, again, I'll repeat. This is not about shutting democracy down. This is about actually increasing access for more people during the council's deportation times and seeking to give some clarity and latitude around the time allocated to the speakers. That's all we're seeking to do. And please see it as a good starting point. We can amend this either during this meeting or on Thursday's ordinary meeting if we need to. But I think this is a step forward. I think this is a step in the right direction and I hope you'll support it. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour?

02:24:00 Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Against? Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips. I'll use my casting vote to carry that. And we can test this all again on Thursday. And get the wording that everyone's happy with. So we go back now to the original motion, which has been amended. And so far, it's only Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell have spoken to it. Councillor Finzel: Excuse me. Before we proceed forward, I'll be happy to have that 15 minute break. Councillor Lorentson: Can we just finish this? I think it's only fair. Can we just finish this? People in the gallery should just finish this report. Mayor Wilkie: Well, it's not, it's not unanimous that we have a break at the moment, Councillor Finzel.

02:25:00 So. Sure. Councillor Finzel: I respect that. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So, any other councillors wish to speak to this amended motion, the motion now for us? I'll speak to it. Look, this is a very complicated issue. We're all on board in terms of wanting to get this done. We're all on board in terms of wanting to increase democratic representation and inclusion, and clarify any uncertainties in the standing orders about this. It's not perfect. It's obviously that there's perhaps more work that needs to be done before we get the wording right. But I'm going to support this as it stands. So if there's any more work that can be done before Thursday night, I suggest councillors have a look at some wording that we can test on Thursday night. I think this is a step in the right direction. And I'm going to be supporting the motion as it stands.

02:26:00 Councillor Stockwell, you've got your hand up. You've got a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have got a question. I don't know if the appropriate staff in the room is on. You can be on notice on Thursday. I've just re-read it and noticed the applications on specific development applications and other statutory applications under council assessments. Not allowed is being taken out. Yes. Is there staff in the room that can talk to the legal risk? Or is that something that they can take on notice to give us a definitive advice as Deputy Mayor Stockwell: to the requirements under law and the risks of having deputations? Mayor Wilkie: In answer to your question, we've got Director of Regulation and Compliance, Richard MacGillivray, here. Brian, he can answer your question. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, councillor. Just in relation to development assessment matters, the planning at the DA assessment rules have a clear process for assessing and deciding applications. And the rules are specifically designed to ensure procedural fairness occurs.

02:27:00 And by that, I mean for impact-assessable development applications, there is a very clear process for community input into that process. That balances the obligations of the applicant and others. We've got a very clear process for all the relevant parties, so that all of the common material, and I say common material being all the material relied on through all of that feedback, both from the applicant side, the community and any other relevant party that may wish to put a submission and can be fully considered and then presented to council. The risk of through deputations is, the fact is that there is no right of reply, so procedural fairness risks do apply. And that's not a claim. There is no ability for parties to clarify any inaccurate information particularly just prior to an important decision being made by full council so the advice is that it's not appropriate for deputations on development related matters given there is a formal process that's very clearly outlined through the planning act and the DA assessment rules for the community and for the applicant and for all parties to have their say through the development process.

02:28:00 There's also significant risks from appeals, third party appeals and the applicant and community groups having a rights of appeal and if there is information that's not substantiated or accurate that can lead to potentially costly appeals if decisions are made based on misinformation or inaccurate information that cannot be validated prior to a decision being made. It's also relevant to point out too, councillors would need to be aware of the potential for lobbying which could occur leading up to a decision being made as well, noting the act's requirements regarding influencing decisions being made.

02:29:00 So it's in the interest of all parties that the correct process through the planning act and the DA assessment rules are followed for development related matters so that all parties have a fair ability to make decisions. It's also relevant to point out that all parties have a fair ability to put their submissions and thoughts and views on development related matters through the correct statutory process. Mayor Wilkie: Can I ask you a question councillor Stockwell? Yes, I will move the amendment. Can I please just ask a question? I will just get the amendment. Yes, councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm sorry, I was going to move the amendment, there was a direct negative I can't do that so I'll wait till Thursday night. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of lobbying, my understanding under the definition that lobbying only applies to registered lobbyists and registered lobbyists have to be recorded under council's register.

02:30:00 So that risk, it's not there if they're registered lobbyists. Is that correct? Speaker 2: My advice is that they don't have to be registered lobbyists to lobby. So there may be parties that haven't advised you that they may be lobbying. The provisions under the Act relate to the ability of them seeking to influence a decision. So you might be lobbied by a party without knowing you're actually being lobbied because they're seeking to influence that decision. So I guess what I would say without providing any specific advice for council is you just need to be very careful through that process of whether you're being lobbied against or to influence a particular decision. And the first question would be is to ask the question of the parties in terms of are they seeking to influence, are they lobbyists as well? Because sometimes they might not disclose that with you as well. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask one more question through the chair?

02:31:00 So if the, if that was, if the deletion was reinstated and that we don't allow developers or applicants to come to present deputations, my concerns are would that then prohibit residents opposing or supporting the application from making deputations on the application? Speaker 2: I mean, what I would say is that. Residents or all the applicants have the ability to provide submissions through the formal notification process. So that's where the parties can provide their, their feedback on particular applications through a formal process. And that then can be considered holistically as part of the common material that's presented to full council. That's, that's the normal process that should be followed under the, under the Act. And if one party has the ability to have a deputation, the other one doesn't,

02:32:00 that may impact on their, their rights to an appeal potentially because they might be relying on particular information provided through that deputation that may have influenced particular outcome of an application. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is if we prohibit applicants from making a deputation, if there's a development application seeking determination in council, do we then prohibit residents from making a deputation? Opposing or supporting the application? That's my question. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Speaker 2: So my, and apologies for that, Councillor. My advice would be that for all parties, that's right. So not for one specific group, the applicant or the whole community or another party, is that we don't have deputations for any of those parties. And the correct process to provide feedback is through the informal notification process. Thank you.

02:33:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie have spoken to this motion. Anyone else wish to speak before we go to a final vote on this? This will have the status of a recommendation that will go to Thursday's ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilson: Sorry, I have a question. Count of questions. Does that make C5 inconsistent with what Richard just advised? Mayor Wilkie: No, because this is suggesting, oh yes it does, yes it does. And Councillor Stockwell, if I can venture an opinion, because this is a multi-part motion, changing one aspect of it via an amendment would not be negating the whole thrust of the motion. So an amendment would be...

02:34:00 ...allowed to be tested, if you wish to do so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was too happy to. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's that. I would just move that. Oh, sorry. Is it number five that we're talking about here? Sorry, you went to start. It will be. Mayor Wilkie: It will be, Brian. Can you see the screen? Cathy's... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I'm just moving too quick. Sorry. Can I get the original motion, and I'll tell you what to type. How's that? Councillor Lorentson: That's it, that's it there. Mayor Wilkie: She's printed the original. Okay. It's always there. Which reads, deputations, that item C... No, that... Can you read it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That item C, the amendment's delete number five. Councillor Lorentson: Well, okay. And reinstate the original.

02:35:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay. All right. Look, I'll... I'll second that for the purpose of debate. No need to talk about it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought the director outlined the reasons why we would want to vary the motion in this regard quite eloquently. I think it's a good point. Councillor Lorentson: I will speak to this one because it did challenge me a little bit. My concern was that the reality is that we get sent information for and against non-stop on every application. That we as councillors have a duty of care to do due diligence and prohibiting a deputation by

02:36:00 an applicant then prohibits our community's right to make a deputation for or against. To me this is an equity issue. We can't on one hand say, you know, democratic processes only apply to certain people. Equity is equity. So again, I was challenged on this one but on the principles of equity and fairness I am not going to support the amendment in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: Can the councillors speak to the amendment? Questions? This would allow deputations on development applications from either the applicants and

02:37:00 community groups. This amendment would mean that understanding orders, there could be deputations from both applicants and community groups, residents, on development applications for the community groups which are live before that particular council meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's the opposite. Mr Mayor, I'm sorry, did I miss something? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: You state the opposite. The original motion was proposing to take this out. My amendment puts it. So your amendment would prevent deputations. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

02:38:00 So Brian's amendment prevents deputations from occurring when there's a live application from community or from community or the developer or applicants. Councillor Lorentson: It goes back to the original wording. Mayor Wilkie: So deputations on specific development applications and other statutory applications of the Board of Councils would not be permitted if you support this amendment. Councillor Finzel: Okay, so I'm going to take a question. Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: So, I'm just trying to think of the changes. The deputation on this amendment are not permitted. So is that aligned with our policy for councillors that we're...

02:39:00 Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, that was a cough. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, I'm just not able to reword that. Mayor Wilkie: Hold on. Councillor Lorentson: Can I step in and maybe suggest the wording deputations on specific development applications. Reported to council for determination. I'm not... Oh, actually, no. It is covered, yeah. Speaker 2: Can I just add some information? I think where Councillor Finzel was seeking to ask the question was in relation to the councillor's policy for engagement... Yes, thank you. ...in the process. So that process is still okay. And then once the agenda is released, there is the ability for councillors to seek information, go into site inspection, talk with community residents through that normal process.

02:40:00 So this doesn't seem to remove any of those abilities for councillors to seek all the information necessary to be informed to make a decision. This is just in relation to, you know, just prior to a decision being made where we have no ability for right of way. Right of way or responses which we end up in a bit of a difficult situation and make decisions based on information at that stage. So just, does that help answer that question, councillor? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. Then I'm just wondering, do we need to clarify that those deputations can only come once implied given our policy restrictions? Mayor Wilkie: Karen, in answer to your question, this only applies to the deputations during meetings. It's not referring to the councillor's right to meet with applicants once the report is released outside of council. Yes.

02:41:00 Does that help? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors have any questions about this change? Okay, so I'll put the... Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson said she would oppose basing on the equity and fairness. Staff's clear advice was not to do this would threaten the procedural fairness of the process to the point where either a submitter or an applicant could pursue legal means to take action against council's decision based on procedural unfairness. It is an unlawful decision. It always has been very risky. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We specifically discussed this when the 2019 changes to the Standing Orders allowed deputations.

02:42:00 The CEO at the time said it doesn't need to be mentioned because we would never allow them to happen. It hasn't been allowed to happen. It's not something that I believe should be allowed to happen for all the reasons that the Director outlined. Mayor Wilkie: Can I have a question? No. You can answer that. Okay. I'm sorry. We'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Stockwell. Against? Councillor Finzel: Yes. I'm a yes. Mayor Wilkie: I'm for it. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: And against? Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. The motion's... The amendments carried becomes part of the motion. And we now go back to the original motion. And to which only three councillors have spoken. That's Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wilkie.

02:43:00 Are there any other councillors who wish to speak in favour of or against this motion or move any further amendments to this complicated motion? Councillor Finzel: That's the question that's been made to clarify. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Can we start with the motion? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, you can make changes. Changes can be made at the ordinary meeting before it goes to the final vote, absolutely. And you can make further amendments today if you wish, councillor. Councillor Finzel: Fantastic. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, looking forward to it. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, looking forward to it. Mayor Wilkie: Alright, okay. Any other councillors wish to speak to this motion that's before us? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I will close and I'll keep it really brief.

02:44:00 A little bit confused and a little bit sad that we today have potentially, and this is not a final decision, but potentially diluted some of our rights as councillors by inclusion or restrictions in terms of parameters. We set ourselves parameters that already exist. So I'm challenged a little bit. Inclusion. I'm going to close. I found a really good quote. It's ex-president of the US Obama, President Obama. And he says, democracy works, but we got to want it. Not during an election year, but all the days in between. And I think that captured the essence of what's happened today in the discussion. That we've had today. Democracy also means that every voice is heard. So I think I'd like to leave that thought with all the councillors around the table as we deliberate what has been discussed today.

02:45:00 And then Thursday, come to the table with clearer minds and include or exclude anything that's been discussed today. I'm voting clearly in favour of the alternative. It upholds our democratic rights of councillors. And again, it upholds the democratic rights of the community that we serve. Mayor Wilkie: Let's put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's councillors Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie. Against? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, are you against or for, Karen? Councillor Finzel: I am for. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so that's unanimous.

02:46:00 We're voting on the motion. Councillor Finzel: I'm sorry, I'm watching the time. Yes, it's four. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, four. So that's unanimous. That's the last item on the agenda. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. We've got a confidential item now. So thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your patience and interest here today. We're going to be moving into a confirmation session. So I'll adjourn the meeting in a short term. Yes? Everyone else here? Okay. You're on. Okay. Welcome back, everybody. We've now moved... It's been reopened after a short adjournment. We've now moved to a confidential item. This is an appeal relating to a refusal... No, hang on. Confidential. Confidential. I know, but I'm just telling you... I'm sorry, one moment. I was reading out the writing just before this. Material changes used in short term accommodation at 561 Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin.

7 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶

▶ 02:46:22

02:47:00 And we'll need to go into closed session for this because it's a discussion of sensitive legal advice relating to an appeal. So I'll move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing legal advice relating to an appeal for item 7.1. Appeal 1997-2024 relating to a refusal of MCU 230101. Material changes used for short term accommodation 561 Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. May I have a second for that, please? Yes. Councillor Wilson, thank you. All in favour? Councillors is on line. Are you in favour? Yes. Councillor Stockwell? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. So this is unanimous. May we go into closed session? We have a motion to move. Councillor Lorentson: One second.

02:48:00 Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move that in respect to Planning and Environment Court Bill 1997-2024, Council through the General Committee meeting dated 16 September 2024, the Council will move to the Council to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. I have a seconder to that. Councillor Lorentson, thank you. All in any discussion? All in favour? Just tell us just before you do. Yes. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The way you read it out, sorry I was being frantic, is it delegates or delegate? Mayor Wilkie: Well, I said delegate. Councillor delegates. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. No, I think that's correct. We can change the motion to reflect what you said. Mayor Wilkie: Well, Council is a single. So it's delegate.

02:49:00 Delegates. Thank you. Delegates. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Delegates. All right. Happy now Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Sorry. I just . Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: All in favour? Yes. That's Councillor Lorentson, Phillips, Wilkie, Stockwell, Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Against? Councillor Wilson? That's carried. That's the last item on the agenda. Thank you everyone for your attendance and contributions today and your patience and your discipline. I declare the meeting closed at 3.50pm. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you Ted.

7.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - APPEAL 1997 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSAL OF MCU23/0101 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN ¶

▶ 03:00:31· Carried 5-1 · 1 division from council's minutes

Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.

8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 03:20:04

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.