Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Our appreciation and knowledge that we are on Kabi Kabi country and pay respects to Elders past, present and emerging and just relate to the emerging leaders who recently with us signed the Kabi Kabi commitment and reflect on some of the words in there that talks about Noosa is a place of great cultural and spiritual significance. It's a place of shadows from the guardian trees. It connects us all and draws us together from around the world. And their commitment suggests that the key to custodianship is having the humility and respect to care for and protect that which sustains us in return. So, something to keep in mind as we go through today's business. The first item, we note that we are all in attendance and we move on to the confirmation of minutes. We have someone who wishes to move the confirmation of minutes. So we move to Councillor Lorentson and second to Councillor Phillips.
1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:01:00 I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We did have a deputation on the agenda but the deputy has advised that they are unable to make it today. So we move then on to item 7 and there's one item referred from the committee. It's a MCU 24 0084 for a material change of use for a function facility 658 Louis Basso Drive, Ringtail Creek. And we have several representatives of the planning group. We've got the assessment team here and Patrick, are you going to give us the overview? Matthew will give us the overview. Matthew will give us the overview. Speaker 11: Good afternoon councillors and staff. Yes, so this application is for a material change of use of premises for a function facility and it's for the purpose of holding small scale functions, weddings and events.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6.1 Deputation - Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No 2 Applicant: Nick Cooke Speakers - Nick Cooke ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7.1 MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK ¶
00:02:00 The uses proposed operate between 11am and 10.30pm and cater for a maximum of 150 guests. The applicant advised that the proposed function facility is intended to be undertaken in accordance with an approved operational management plan. And the key operational features of the proposed function facility are as follows. So maximum of 96 events per year, 72 estimated to be weddings and then with the max 150 guests the average might be 80 to 100 persons. It's also estimated that 70 to 80% of guests to be chauffeured to an event and that's through two buses. The primary issues that were associated with the development that we have assessed the application against, is the land use, noise, traffic and protection of the site's environmental values.
00:03:00 First and foremost, the proposal is a consistent land use in the rural zone, and from a noise management perspective and environmental noise impact assessment aussi. The proposal was submitted and peer reviewed in support of the proposed development and the recommendations from that have been conditioned to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the relevant noise criteria. So the submission and approval of a noise management plan was a key recommendation and the construction of a 1.8 metre high by 30 metre long acoustic barrier, parallel to the adjoining house at 642 Louis Basso Drive. It's been conditioned that noise from the site inclusive of patrons and or amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels.
00:04:00 LEEQ adjusted for 15 minutes and external to any off-site residents. So that's external to any off-site residents. All guests must be vacated from the premises by no later than 10.30pm. And functions must not occur Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday. From a traffic perspective, a traffic impact assessment was carried out by a registered professional engineer. And the State Assessment and Referral Agency has conditioned upgrades to Louis Basso Drive, which is a state controlled road. The access has been conditioned by Council's engineers to be sealed to address dust and noise.
00:05:00 It was also recommended that the site's environmental values be protected through environmental covenants. And environmental impacts have been addressed. In the submitted ecological report and stormwater management plan. The application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that this use can occur on site. With potential amenity impacts being mitigated through implementation of recommendations of the associated management plans or conditions. It's recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we received by email some suggested amended conditions. Would you like to walk us through that Patrick? Certainly can. Councillor Lorentson: Can I, excuse me, through the chair. Would it be possible to start with questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'd like the staff to do the attachment of that please first.
00:06:00 So we can just see what is, how the staff have suggested a change and then we can ask questions after that. Speaker 12: So it is an amended set of conditions to go with the recommendation. The first change is to condition eight. A number of the conditions seek to augment the existing amenity conditions. For example, condition eight, just to tighten it up, making it clear that it's the use of the function facility, is limited to the hours of 11am to 10pm including provision of amplified music sound. Because the site's also used for agricultural pursuits, we just wanted to make sure it was quite clear as to what the condition related to. There's inclusion of a new condition, condition 11, which requires a minimum of one bus must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests. Subject to some of the discussion at the planning environment committee meeting and a discussion with the applicant.
00:07:00 It was agreed that this would be a suitable condition to include. Conditions 15 and 16, just clarifying that the conditions are. Related to the function facility use. And then condition 17 is a new condition stating that the event manager and or on day controller must ensure that noise levels generated by the function facility use are continuously monitored in real time to protect the amenity of nearby sensitive receptors and ensure compliance with the relevant noise standards. Again, just augmenting the existing noise conditions further discussion at planning environment committee meeting. It was agreed to insert that condition. Then new condition 22. Just again, providing that clarity. We talk about an amended plan being operational. Sorry, a environmental noise level impact assessment and noise management plans being required.
00:08:00 But there really should be conditions in the approval requiring compliance with those documents. So that's been included as well. And similarly, new condition 23. Condition 54 is a new condition. And this condition embellishes the requirement for the covenant and also now requiring that there be rehabilitation occurring in the area identified as vegetation community for. And detailing the types of rehabilitation works to be provided. And the final change was to the last condition, which is now condition 65. And it was just providing that clarity. The condition was, I think, there might have been some confusion with the condition considering that portable toilets were provided.
00:09:00 It was considered sensible to remove that word permanent from that condition. Speaker 13: Thank you. Speaker 12: And I'll just note that we do have our environmental noise consultant available for questions today. Paul King. He's online. Our acoustic consultant. My apologies. Paul King. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Welcome, Paul. So, questions? Councillor Lorentson: Just two questions that I asked in the planning environment meeting that I'm seeking answers to. So, Patrick, the first was in terms of the environment. And the second was in terms of the Council did receive confirmation from Auspost that each letter sent to the adjoining property owners was delivered. The question is, is there a requirement that they be received? Speaker 13: I'm happy to answer that. So, in terms of the requirement under the Act is that they've got to take the reasonable
00:10:00 steps to issue that correspondence to the adjoining parties. So, we have had formal correspondence or formal advice back from Australia Post that each of the properties adjoining the properties did have a registered post with the correspondence issued to each of those property owners. Australia Post have advised that each of those properties were delivered and have provided Matt with the details of that and they're seeking to follow up in an email with that confirmation. In our view, the applicant has discharged their duty under the Act by meeting that requirement. If there's a situation where a party, it has been delivered, but they're saying they haven't received it, then that's a situation beyond our ability to require any further steps, I guess, beyond that. So, technically, they've met their obligation under the Act, which is to issue that to the
00:11:00 properties and to get advice from Australia Post that it has been delivered. Councillor Lorentson: And the other question that I was seeking an answer, which I asked on, at the planning environment meeting, was in relation to the amendments made to the Noosa Plan in 2020. So, it was under those amendments that a function facility was defined as a consistent use. It had historically been an inconsistent use. And my question was against that. So, I asked again around notification. And I asked whether the adjoining residents were notified during the amendment process with the 2020 Noosa Plan. Were they notified and were they made aware of the change in the definition of function facilities? Yeah. Speaker 13: So, all residents were made aware. There wasn't a letter box dropped to all residents in the rural or interland areas in relation to particular changes, but there was region-wide public notification which occurred in relation
00:12:00 to the changes. But no specific letters were sent to individual landowners in relation to the changes as such. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question of the acoustic consultant. Yeah, Paul, could you help us understand what condition 14 says, amplified music associated with the previous, must not operate outside, sorry, no, 15, must not exceed the 39 DBA L.A. No. And what if, if the new EQ adjusted 15 minutes external to any offsite residents, noise sensitive receiver. Could you break that down into layman's terms please about what that means and what's the relevance to 15 minutes? Thanks. Okay. So, the intended condition is to set a numerical value that can be measured. Or to regulate its use.
00:13:00 In terms of the LEQ, which is the descriptor, the Speaker 9: So that's in acoustic terms the energy average noise level. So it's not just a straight average because noise is a logarithmic scale in terms of looking at different levels. It's an energy average level. The 15 minutes comes from state legislation. The Environmental Protection Act defines 15 minutes as a minimum monitoring period, a setting for determining compliance. There are longer periods for different type events. Road traffic noise, for example, has an 18 hour period. But a 15 minute period during the day and evening period, so 7am to 10pm, is deemed as an appropriate averaging period to assess the noise impact of a time varying use. For example, a function facility, many different operations, a supermarket, a fast food, something like that, so 15 minutes is an appropriate period. If we were looking at activities of music and such after 10 o'clock at night,
00:14:00 then shorter averaging times may be provided. And we'd be looking at sleep disturbance criteria, so Lmax criteria, which would relate to one second impacts. But in this case, the 39 decibels are LEQ, so energy average. The ADJ adjust, which means you have to adjust the noise if it's got any specific tonal or impulse characteristics. So a lot of low frequency noise. If you determine there's a lot of low frequency noise, then you add a penalty. If you measure 37, for example, and it's a lot of low frequency, you add 5 to it, so that would make the number 42, which would be non-compliant with the 39. So the conditions set in a way that captures both the characteristics of the noise and the level of the noise. Speaker 9: And the 15 minute averaging period is, I believe, based on my experience, an appropriate period during which to assess impact of noise at the time
00:15:00 such as a function facility upon residential amenity. In terms of the 39, if you want me to explain what 39 decibels means, probably where you're sitting in the council chambers, I've sat there before in front of you, if no one was talking, if I wasn't talking, it was just the air conditioning that you could faintly hear, that's somewhere between 35 and 40 decibels. So a boardroom, a private office, is somewhere between 35 and 40. If I was sitting across the table from the councillor, talking to you at a distance of about 1.5 metres, that would be a noise level of 60 to 65 decibels. So there's a big difference between normal conversational speech at 65, Speaker 9: and the limit we're talking about here, which is 39. So 39 is quite a low noise level, is the point I'm trying to make.
00:16:00 But that's based upon the consult's measurements of existing ambient noise levels, the background noise level in the locality, measured at two locations. So we're setting the criteria to not exceed that by more than 5 decibels. That's where the 39 comes from. The 5 dB exceedance or 5 dB increase is an accepted metric by which that level of change in noise level is not deemed offensive to the majority of the population. So 39 decibels, I feel, is an appropriate limit for operations to 10 pm. If it was to operate after 10 pm, then lower noise levels would apply. But the later conditions have been drafted, the function use finishes at 10, then everyone has to go on and leave by 10.30. Mayor Wilkie: So Paul, are you saying that the noise levels would have to be lower? The noise levels would have to be monitored for a minimum of 15 minutes and found to be higher than 39 decibels for 15 minutes
00:17:00 for it to be deemed to be in breach? Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I have a question, and thank you that we've got time for this. It might be for you, Richard. I'm not quite sure. It's around noise. Can you talk me through how Council investigate or conduct a noise complaint investigation, maybe on a Saturday evening at 10.30 at night? How would this happen in real life? Speaker 13: In real life, in terms of monitoring. So the first thing, and as you'll note in the package of conditions, there's a range of different tools around complaint management procedures. So the onus around voluntary compliance is one that seeks that the parties take reasonable steps to manage and monitor noise and particular complaints is the first word of call. So that requires them, if there's issues raised, for them to A, keep a log of those requests, and B, take appropriate action to respond to that.
00:18:00 If those issues persist, then they're able to be escalated to Council, who would then go and investigate those particular noise issues. If there's a situation where we're getting concerns raised in the evening, Council does have the ability to set up noise monitoring equipment and can take readings late at night if it needs to. That would involve staff needing to work outside their normal hours to do that. Sometimes that does happen, though, for a range of reasons, particularly our environmental health officers who deal with a range of issues under the Environmental Protection Act, which sometimes they do include issues that arise after normal hours. So we can address those from a time-to-time basis. But in most cases, we would be seeking to put the onus of that responsibility back on the applicant to respond to the initial requirements. There is also a condition in the application which, if we do get reasonable complaints that are raised, that are substantiated complaints,
00:19:00 we can require the applicant to prepare a separate independent acoustic report to go into further detail around the particular nature of the issues being raised and whether or not further mitigation may be required or not. So there's an extra layer of, I guess, protection included in this recommendation. If there are issues that do arise, we can require them to do further investigation and get a further independent report, and then Council will evaluate and assess the recommendations and findings of that report. And that may require further additional works to be done or further acoustic treatment to be done to manage additional noise if it's found to occur if complaints are substantiated. Councillor Phillips: So just to follow up, thank you, then the onus is on the applicant for the conditions, but then given that it's weddings, so it'll be different hosts each time, how does that play a part in...
00:20:00 I think hopefully you get... Speaker 13: Yeah, so the approval runs with the land, so essentially the land holder or the applicant who owns obviously the permit, so the business owner, is responsible for compliance with all of those conditions at all times. So whilst they might have other parties coming to the site and having fun and yahooing, ultimately the responsibility rests with the land owner and the operator in terms of ensuring compliance with those approval requirements. So they're ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with those activities, and they must ensure that the guests that are on site are well aware of those obligations and requirements. Otherwise, they'll be the ones that will, you know, potentially could receive the fines or further enforcement action if breaches are confirmed. Councillor Phillips: OK. And one more question there. Since given that some noise complaints go through to police rather than to us, how are we going to assure that we're not...
00:21:00 we're being told about complaints that are coming in there that may go straight through to Police Link instead of through... Speaker 13: Yeah, look, we have a close working relationship with the QPS in Noosa, so we liaise with them often. So if there's issues that they're receiving in relation to particular land use activity, they're quite often relaying that on to us. So we might undertake a joint inspection or we might take over and advise them. We're happy to deal with those particular requests moving forward. And we would take action against the owner, I guess, to ensure that they've taken all reasonable steps to address those issues from arising with the police need to attend in the first place. Ms Wilson. Councillor Wilson: If there were continued breaches and we did have to go to that mitigation acoustic treatments that you talked about, how long might that process take and does that mean that the functions continue in the meantime? Speaker 13: Good question.
00:22:00 So, look, there isn't a standard set of time. I guess it all comes down to the facts and circumstances of the nature of the breaches at the time and what's founded through every... evidence and data gathering. There are instances where you may require them to undertake certain treatment. There may be a situation where you require them to withhold having any further events until we get to the bottom of this particular issue. There's the powers. We can seek an injunction if we need to if there's clear, blatant disregard for their conditions and the operator is seeking just to... continue to exceed the requirements that have been set upon them. So, there's no one-fits-all solution as such. We would need to go through a process and a reasonable process in relation to the nature and scale of the issues raised and take reasonable steps to work through those. And that will depend on the scale
00:23:00 and nature of the impacts created from that and the level of exceedance, maybe, of the conditions that are imposed as well. And so, there are... There's sort of the different, I guess, compliance tools that Council has at its disposal right from a verbal warning to a... right through to a potential prosecution or an injunction against the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Through the Chair, just a question to the... Mr Paul Keane around power generator. What is the decimal reading for power generator? Speaker 9: Good question. So, a number was used as part of the assessment. Again, the operator of the power generator on the site has to comply with the overall noise limits that we've set. So, the 39 decibels. It falls within that because it's part of the operation of the site.
00:24:00 Different noise levels. So, sorry, they've got a... They adopted a noise level for a generator of 60 decibels at a distance of eight metres. So, that's equivalent to about 75 decibels at three metres. So, that's... That's a reasonable generator but with an acoustic enclosure. So, it wouldn't be a garden variety generator you went and bought from Bunnings. It would need to be something and you can buy or you can hire generators that come in acoustic enclosures with proper exhausts but they're not that noisy at all. So, the emergency ones, I think, were out during storms and the like. So, it would... Speaker 9: It can be designed to achieve an appropriate noise level, I suppose, if you're quite in trouble. Speaker 12: Can I just add to that? The facility will be connected to the mains power. The generator will only be used in backup circumstances.
00:25:00 When we met with the operator on site, that was conveyed to us. Councillor Finzel: So, following on from that, just to make sure then that the power generator on site is that you consider it will properly condition that, that it meets the requirements as per Mr Paul King's response around it's not one that we bought by from Bunnings. Is it adequately conditioned that in the circumstances it has to be engaged and use the generator at that, it will meet the noise requirements in your plan? Speaker 12: Well, the condition does... does include the requirement for all noise from the site operation to comply with the condition. There's not... Councillor Finzel: But with exact... exactly with the type of power generator on site that it is? Speaker 12: We haven't got a condition specific to a power generator or a type of power generator. Councillor Finzel: Are we able to do that?
00:26:00 Speaker 12: If Councillors would like to include that condition, it could be included. Councillor Finzel: Well, I think it could mitigate risk moving forward. Speaker 12: Okay. No, we'd have to make a condition. Speaker 9: Oh, that's my call. Well, if you want to put it to the... No one's moved any further. Oh, okay. Councillor Finzel: We're just collecting information at the moment. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question. You have a question, Councillor Wilkie? It's about the land rehabilitation. Condition 32 talks about a vegetation protection covenant to be registered against the title of the property, which is considered important by neighbours. But it does go on to say if a provision included in the covenant is refused registration by the relevant titles authority, a substitute provision must be included in the document, which is nearly as practical, addresses the objective sought by the requisition
00:27:00 or refused provision. Could you give us an example? What a substitute provision might be if the conditions of the covenant are refused registration? Speaker 3: We're lucky. We use a standard terms document. So that's a bit of a coverall condition in case someone new starts, I guess, in land titles and doesn't like something in our standard terms and needs to add something different. In all the years I've worked, I've never seen the need for that condition to be required. Mostly because we have a standard terms document that we've signed off on. Mayor Wilkie: vegetation protection covenant will be registered. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I'd like to get an understanding of the change to the 2020 plan scheme, which first allowed function facilities as a consistent use and then in the rural zone, and then the subsequent amendment, which is set only in conjunction with tourism, nature-based tourism.
00:28:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So is that something that Director Kim would like to answer? Councillor Wilson: Could you repeat the question? Yes. I'd like to understand the process or the reasoning for a function facility to be first treated as consistent in the rural zone from the 2020 plan and then the recent amendment that's just been proposed that would make that only if in conjunction with nature-based tourism. Director Rawlings: So as part of these random, these amendments, you'll recall that the short stay monitoring report was one of the key strategic pieces of work that was undertaken. And there was a raft of amendments done, proposed around sort of strengthening short stay, including some changes in the rural precincts. And one of those was needing to ensure that there were residents on site when you do short stays.
00:29:00 So nature-based tourism requires residents on site. And linking function facilities was part of that consideration. Also protecting rural lands from sort of isolated, non-related type uses. So there was a review to link those facilities. You know, where there's nature-based tourism, where there's someone on site, then you could also have a function facility. That was sort of the thinking. That was done, you know, two and a half, three years ago. Now that kind of thinking and drafting. But that was the intent behind it. Councillor Wilson: So based on nature-based tourism being a small scale business with minimal effects to the environment, is this type of function facility what was anticipated to be the use of that land? So would we, would we,
00:30:00 the objective of having nature-based tourism consistent with a function facility, would we anticipate that being something as large as 150 guests, that type of facility? Director Rawlings: I haven't got into the detail of this application. I need to be upfront. So I haven't looked at it from a detail perspective. Speaker 13: Yeah. There is clearly a, so the scheme amendments are clearly seeking a policy shift, I guess, from the 2020 planning scheme, which made a function facility on its own a consistent use. Whereas the current scheme amendments are basically seeking that it is consistent only where in conjunction with nature-based tourism. So it has to have a nexus with tourism, natural-based tourism of the land as such, which generally, you know, would be something that's got a direct connection with operational nature-based activities, I guess. So it's more specific rather than function facilities of broader land use definition. So there certainly is an intention to narrow the scope moving forward.
00:31:00 However, I would say obviously the timing for this application being lodged, which was essentially pretty much a parallel at the time that the scheme amendments were being advertised. So the applicant was under the guise of the 2020 plan. So it was really unaware when they were doing, preparing their application that there were changes afoot. Which obviously started drafting at least a couple of years ago now. Director Rawlings: We also have had some historic function facilities in the hinterland that as standalone have not worked over time. So, you know, it was considered, you know, to do them in conjunction with nature-based, you know, makes a bit more holistic kind of development. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So I've had email from the adjoining property owners
00:32:00 and none of them were made or none of them were aware of the changes in the 2020 plan. And I think I asked this question at the planning environment course. Given the significance of the change and potential impacts to the adjoining land owners, what can they do? Speaker 13: In terms of this application? Councillor Lorentson: In terms, in terms of addressing, not lack of notification, but they were made unaware of the changes in the planning scheme in 2020. We spoke last time at statute of limitation. I think there was 12 months where they could make a claim for adverse impacts caused to changes in a planning scheme. Given they had no idea about it until this application has come forward, what, what can they do? They're just, again,
00:33:00 taken back by the significance of the application. It's said small in scale, but we're talking seven day a week function facility that's going to accommodate up to 150 people. Director Rawlings: Talk me to just make a comment on that. Yeah. Yeah. So the, during the 2020 planning scheme, the 2020 planning scheme was five years in the making. We consulted at least four times across the whole community, across those, those four and a half years in the development. There was, it was the most significant community engagement that this council had undertaken in, in over a decade. So there was, there was TV ads, there was radio ads, there was, there was so much notification about the Noosa plan. And it was a new, it was a new planning scheme. So there were hundreds of changes, thousands of changes.
00:34:00 In fact, there was, there was a hundred changes to levels of assessment that happened between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme, pretty much across all land uses. So there was absolutely an incredible amount of engagement and, and awareness raising that, that, that happened at the time. You know, I just, I will say that about that process. It was incredibly significant in terms of notification and, and engagement. And, you know, at the time, and I, you know, I talked a little bit about this last week, planning schemes are dynamic. They change depending on the, the policy issues that the council of the day wanted to achieve. You know, the, the NUSA plan, it was a new planning scheme, so it was addressing everything. But there was also a very strong push to allow more to happen in our rural areas at the time. You know, so to encourage dispersal, tourism dispersal, from a lot of pressure from the coast. So there was quite a bit of a push,
00:35:00 policy push to allow more to happen in the rural areas. So, a number of changes were made to our rural zones and land uses to allow a raft of things to happen at that time. This, this was one of them. And then, since then, we've had a, you know, quite a bit of a shift around short stay and nature base. So, you know, there's been another review that doesn't answer the question of what they can do. But I just wanted to get on the record that it was incredibly comprehensive, and across a number of years, in terms of the engagement and notification process. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Another question, so through the Chair, to circle back, because I just probably need a little bit more clarity around the noise for a second. And to get to my question, I'll just give like a real reality. On a Saturday night at 9.30, pretty high chance, QPS won't be attending Ringtail Creek for a noise complaint. That's reality. Is the onus of proof on Council to prove they exceeded 93 dispels,
00:36:00 or for them to, sorry. 39. 39. Or for them, for us to prove, or them to disprove? Where's the onus? Speaker 13: So, the, the, obviously, the obligation to disprove is, for them to meet the condition risks with the applicant, the owner. The onus to demonstrate they haven't met that lies with Council, or another party who wants to potentially initiate their own action. So, so if there's sufficient evidence, and admissible evidence that can demonstrate that someone has breached their conditions, then that can be used to take action. So in the, in the case of if we were out there and got notified of that, and let's say it was successive Saturday nights at nine o'clock, there was an exceedance there, we could potentially set up some equipment, some testing equipment. We could go out and do some of our own monitoring from those sensitive receptors. And if we deem that they've exceeded their noise requirements,
00:37:00 then we could take compliance action against them in relation to that. So, so the obligation to meet that risk with the applicant to, to prove that there's an offence or a breach is, is up to Council to take action against that for a breach. So, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: from recollection in the conditions it, and I think it's in their operation or their acoustic plan, there's real time sound monitoring and noise limiting devices. Yeah. Is it taken from that that they have a responsibility to provide us with the results of that monitoring? Yeah. Speaker 13: And we can, we can ask for copies of that information. That would be a normal first step. So obviously, as I mentioned earlier with a complaint management procedure is okay if there was an issue. Have you been made aware of an issue from say a resident about the noise? What did you do? Can we have access to your real lifetime monitoring data? And we'll evaluate that and make sure it's sort of quality controlled and robust.
00:38:00 If that continues, then we may want to undertake our own further testing to validate if their data is accurate or whether or not, whether or not the situations we have exceeded the 39 DBA at the next, at the neighbouring sensitive receiver. So the owners will be seeking back on the applicant to get copies of records of what actions and reasonable actions have they taken, noting that police are not likely to turn up at 9.30 on a Saturday. We'll be seeking to put that obligation back on the applicant. And then if we're not satisfied that they're continually, continuously maintaining that, we might do our own independent testing. But, we've tried to put enough robustness around the measures with the applicant. It has to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent that from getting to that point where the neighbours are concerned by doing this testing. So they get alerted themselves whether there's an exceedance and ensure that they can manage those impacts back down to an acceptable level. Councillor Wilson: Thanks. How much weight is given to submissions from the public participation process,
00:39:00 given that all of the submissions from the public participation process, including submissions from people who were in the Ringtail Creek area, were opposing the equalisation? Speaker 12: Well, yeah. I mean, in terms of weight, we need to look at the planning scheme requirements. We need to take the advice of our experts. And certainly the matters which are raised by the submissions need to all be reviewed. And as you can see, they're detailed in our report. And I think given a balanced response, and certainly those responses are based upon the evidence that we have through the operational management plan and the acoustic consultants' recommendations. Councillor Wilson: So, can I just follow up on that with our noise expert, please? Just to talk us through a bit more in layman's terms of how that assessment is actually made.
00:40:00 Specifically, we're just cycling in the hinterland where, as you can see, it's really about not just the level of noise, but the type of noise, how that's taken into account. So, being able to hear a conversation from a long distance away in the hinterland, and then anticipating the high levels of talking and having fun that we expect from this facility, how that actually is measured or assessed in the hinterland. Speaker 9: So, as I said before, the applicant's consultant, undertook long-term noise monitoring at two locations. So, for seven days at each location. So, put noise data loggers out. So, that recorded what the existing noise levels are during the day, evening, and night periods. In terms of setting the noise levels to assess the use against, quite often we adopt what's called the background noise level,
00:41:00 the noise level that's exceeded 90% of the time. In this case, we went one step further. We were able to assess the use against, what's called the rating background level. So, it's the 10th percentile of the background noise level. So, it's like, almost like the average minimum noise level. So, we use that as the noise floor, Speaker 9: upon which to set the criteria of five above that. So, to answer your question more clearly, we've taken account of what the existing noise levels in the area. It's fairly quiet, as would be expected, and the criteria is allowed to be five above that. For example, if we were looking at a service station at Noosa Junction, the background noise level there would be more like 45 to 55, during the evening and nighttime period, Speaker 9: between 55 and 45. So, the criteria would be five above that, if we were looking at a service station. So, by taking account of what the ambient noise environment is, manage the use,
00:42:00 so it's not exceeding it by more than five. So, what that means, and this function centre, the nearest house I've been familiar with, is about 617 metres away. That's the house to the north. Other houses are between 800 metres and over a kilometre away. That's quite a distance. You would not be able to understand a conversation at that distance, let alone hear it. Now, if someone's yelling loudly, and the wind is blowing from the function centre towards someone's house, you might hear something. But the important test, sorry, the important point to make is that audibility is not the test. Speaker 9: If audibility was the test in the pre-Champion period, we couldn't develop much in the state of Queensland. So, it's allowed to be five above background, which means you may discern it outside your house, but you should be able to hear it inside your house. So, it would be, I'm sorry, I would have said, I've recommended quite stringent noise limits, and there's quite comprehensive conditions here Speaker 9: to regulate this function facility,
00:43:00 based on my experience with many other function facilities over many years. So, there are a lot of conditions here in the attempt to provide certainty to both the local residents, the councillor, and the operator, so they know what their requirements are to protect the amenity of the surrounding residents. And just one more thing I'll tell you, I know there is a condition that, Speaker 9: at the moment, I've got amplified music, the noise limits, but we've also said use of the generator must be controlled at all times to comply with the noise limits of the approved noise report. So, Patrick, I agree with what you said before, you know, the conditions have been all of the sources back to the environment noise report, and we've got the overarching condition, which sets the 39 dB noise limit. So, and then the operational management plan, which then is another layer on top again, Speaker 9: as to how they manage it, and then the complaints response procedure, just to finish up,
00:44:00 sorry I'm talking a bit, the complaints response procedure also has a requirement that any complaints are made available to council if requested. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just to follow up on that, from my experience, 34 decibels is a fairly standard thing for a rural environment. Did it include any, like where they've monitored the road noise further away from the site? And in terms of comparing, what's the likely sound to residents close to the road of the car going by past in terms of decibels? Speaker 9: Certainly, so the noise limit was well away from Louisvazot Drive, there was one in the middle of the site and one towards the function centre. So, houses closer to Louisvazot Drive, let's say within, if there's a house within 200 metres of Louisvazot Drive, passing traffic noise would be more in the order of Speaker 9: 50 to 70 decibels as a peak for a noisy car going past. The background noise levels
00:45:00 would be higher than the 34 that's been measured here, depending on proximity to the road. So, they've been quite conservative Speaker 9: in where they've undertaken the monitoring, which is why I was satisfied that the conditions protect the amenity of the surrounding residents, including those that are closer to Louisvazot Drive and would have a slightly higher ambient noise environment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do you have any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: I have some questions. Thank you through the chair. In terms of the jetty, residents have asked, is the jetty that's located or constructed near the lake, will it be lit up and are there any conditions set around lighting given sensitive environmental environment?
00:46:00 Speaker 12: The jetty may be lit, but there is a lighting amenity condition and Paul, you might be able to give a bit more specifics around AS4282, the control of it. Yeah. Speaker 9: So, I also assisted by writing these lighting conditions. So, lighting associated with the use must be designed, sited, installed, tested to comply with the Australian Standard. Now, Speaker 9: the Australian Standard 4282 is about the control of the intrusive effects of outdoor lighting. So, it's specific to outdoor lighting. So, what it means is that any outdoor lighting they use on site must meet two specific criteria relating to spill light from the site and two, the glare of the light, so the visible glare of the light from external to the site. And I suppose there's a third limit which also relates to sky clock, which is something more concerned about your coastal location. So, in this case,
00:47:00 AS4282, again, a bit like Speaker 9: what the existing lighting environment is. So, quite simply, out there, it's dark, very dark. There's no artificial lighting in my updated individual houses. So, the lighting requirements are based upon dark surrounds that they shall not exceed levels of one lux beyond the boundary of the site. Given where the function centre is located, well away from the site boundaries, well away from any neighbours, they should readily be able to achieve that in terms of light spill and in terms of light glare, so visible light from external to the site. That's a simple design matter of using appropriate light fittings, directional aiming of fittings, not using gamma-type floodlights to light things up, using low manicure height lights and focusing any lights which would be to the car park and the lawn areas to those areas. So, Speaker 9: I think, in this case, the condition is robust in that it sets what needs to be met and then there's the further condition that requires certification that they comply
00:48:00 with that standard and that would, I expect, be prior to commencement use. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Any more questions, Councillor Robertson? Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure if it can be conditioned but is there any way we can, as part of the operational management plan, include some certainties, probably the word that I'm looking for, for residents living adjoining property? I know that there's going to be a complaint process if there's a noise but an understanding of what are the consequences if there are breaches and if it's a level one breach, a level two breach, a level three breach and a process, a timeframe, just to give them some surety that as a council we will address compliance issues and breaches.
00:49:00 Good question. Whether it's a noting report, I'm unsure but it just seems the conversation we're having around the table is, it's a process and a half. So, we know with just other noise issues, whether it's from the junction, we know that this is, this is quite difficult for a resident that's impacted to actually go through the process. Are they going to be turning up with their own noise monitors? Is the onus back on them? Do they have to prove? It's he says, she says. Speaker 13: Obviously, this is the challenge where you've got a situation where the use hasn't happened. So, you're basing it off essentially the technical assessment, the work that's been done to demonstrate how they're going to be adverse impacts or not. Obviously, as Paul's outlined, he's done a very robust assessment
00:50:00 against all of the relevant standards and is comfortable with what the applicants put forward in terms of the operation that those noise impacts will be within the acceptable tolerances. The operational management plan, and I guess this is the point around the conditions, there's been a lot of investment around the conditions to give a surety around that the obligations and the onus on the operator are very substantial and significant that they have to meet to ensure that there aren't those impacts. So, there's a number of steps and you'll see in the operational management plan which has a significant sort of steps and elements that they must need to step through in order to operate, as well as including proper operational measures. They need to have a person on site responsible at all times. They must keep a copy of all complaints. They must do real time monitoring and testing. So, there's a real rigorous process. I guess what you're seeking is if they exceed,
00:51:00 how do we, is there an ability for them to still immediately stop or for us to intervene? And there are tools. I mean, obviously, we can issue fines. We can seek injunctions and things, which is a pretty extreme measure. In the first case, as I outlined earlier to Councillor Jess, in relation to the process, we would generally look to contact the owner around their records and have they been undertaking all reasonable necessary steps as per their operational management plan. Because that is essentially setting up the process for how they need to manage that site to ensure that the residents aren't adversely impacted. And we'll need to investigate those to make sure that they've done all the necessary steps possible. We don't have the ability as such to say you've exceeded once, you need to completely stop. That's a challenging issue for us because, you know, in the event of an approval,
00:52:00 there's an approval there. We can require further acoustic testing to be done and works to be undertaken if there are issues. So it puts the obligation back on the applicant. And if there are, as I mentioned earlier, ongoing breaches or successive exceedances, we can take action in the form of enforcement action or even prosecute if it gets significant where the parties aren't complying. So there are tools available to us. Like with all land uses as well that have approval subject to a raft of conditions, we can take steps to address those if they do occur. But ultimately, you know, this operational management plan puts the obligation back on the applicant to take all of these steps to get to that point where they can manage those impacts before they become a problem for the residents. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Just in terms of potable water on the site, in terms of I understand
00:53:00 there's going to be a condition for tanks to 46,000 litres. Based on some questions raised by residents, I'm just wondering how that's going to be managed. Is that sufficient water if there's a fire? And secondly, if we have a drought, how will that impact the significant increase of, you know, trucks per day, six days a week? Speaker 12: My understanding is there are tanks on site and, Will, I'm not sure if you can help me, if the bushfire management plan requires a tank separate from the potable water supply? Speaker 2: Yep. So, the availability of reliable static water supply for firefighting purposes is required to be provided in the form of a minimum 10,000 litres. The water tank is to be located within 10 metres of any building.
00:54:00 And there's also an additional 10,000 litres of static water to be provided at the machinery shed for the shelter in place location. So they're going to have separate 10,000 litre water tanks for purely firefighting purposes only separate to that of a portable water source. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could they also be an extreme event to be using the dams as well? Absolutely. Which would be mega litres by the look of it. Councillor Finzel: So just another question to the Chair following on from that. If they're going to be using the dam, they'll be a pump. How is that conditioned in terms of noise mitigation? Speaker 13: Just to Paul's further point. So all noise from the site is wrapped up in the 39 dBA limit. So whether it's the generator or a pump, they basically still cannot exceed that 39 dBA. So anything associated with function facility uses must not exceed
00:55:00 that 39 dBA. So whether they need to enclose it to meet that obligation or not is on them to ensure that they meet that 39 dBA. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Rural fireys would have their own pump and they go to the dams more and they can't run out of the tank. Or the helicopters would be certainly out of the dam. Paul, did you have Speaker 13: anything to add to that comment of mine? Is that pretty much covered it off? Or have you got anything added around the generators as well and the pumps? Speaker 9: Yeah, you're right Richard. So we had the amp pump as your entertainment. We've got the generator. But then we had the catch all condition which was noise from site operation inclusive of patrons amplified music must not exceed Mayor Wilkie: You're pretty confident that 39 DBA is a realistic limit. You've described it as the equivalent of us sitting in this room here listening to the air conditioning, which is pretty low.
00:56:00 Could you talk us through what is it about the distances from the nearest homes and the topography that makes you confident in that assessment and that level, which is very quiet? Speaker 9: So, the primary noise that's going to be affecting from this use that I focused on in the second part of what I did was the use of the driveway. So, the only time that anything gets near 39 decibels at a residence from the predictions that were undertaken relates to use of the driveway. So, that's where it's within, I think it's less than 100 metres of a... a house. So, that's why a noise barrier was put in plus. So, in a lot of cases, the noise predictions are less than...
00:57:00 Speaker 9: are less than... so, people noise is less than 28 decibels. Equipment music is 35, but that's assuming they're playing fairly loud music. Noise from car park activity would be 8.5 decibels. So, they're all quite small components. The highest noise... the use, but the limited limits of the operation of this really relates to the driveway and traffic on the driveway. Speaker 9: So, in terms of this, the topography, the land, remember, sort of falls in different directions, but the low point is the length. The nearest houses to the north, I think I wrote down were 670 metres away, to the west about 1,100 metres away, and 870 metres to the south. That's quite a distance. I'm involved in a lot of function centres that are in rural hinterland areas in the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, that have houses within 200 metres of them. They are able to manage their operations and comply.
00:58:00 So, in this case, I feel that there is more than adequate separation, and they're in quiet rural areas, as is this. Um... Speaker 9: And in those cases, I've acted for both councils, and I've been able to manage them. And the operators, I've played both sides of the fence, so I understand the issues. But I think, here, given the separation distances from the function centre itself, it's well-placed in a rural area. It has appropriate buffers. So, the planning scheme that makes a function centre consistent, or potentially consistent, this is one of the better sites for where one could be located, as compared to, I see, many which are within a couple of hundred metres of houses. Um... And it really depends on how they operate. In some of those, they need to be all totally in a building. Um... This is a building that's a marquee structure, I believe. Um... They haven't paid any account of that, but controlling the noise involved will have some effect.
00:59:00 So, this has been quite conservative. Speaker 9: So, this is one I can be quite confident about, that can protect, or maintain the energy of the surrounding residents. Yes, there'll be some noise audible at times, but it's well-sighted. And well-conditioned. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Can I move a motion to defer the matter until councillors have attended on-site? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You may. I'll second it. I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie. You can talk. Councillor Wilson: Um... I just... Much as I, um, fully respect your expertise, I think it would be, um, really useful for the councillors to actually get out and be able to see the topography of the site, really understand, um, where the function will be... Function centre will be located, and all of the different aspects of what we've talked about today, um, before making this important decision. Director Rawlings: So, we're deferring the matter to the ordinary meeting? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Uh, to the ordinary meeting?
01:00:00 Director Rawlings: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Can we move the motion? Director Rawlings: Can we move the motion? We haven't moved the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. It has been moved and seconded. It'll be the... Are people... Oh, there's also a suggestion that, um... Oh, I can do that in a minute. Um... So, are people happy to add the words, uh, defer until the ordinary meeting, um, as part of that motion? Councillor Wegener: It has been moved and seconded. Is that actually a motion? Because we're... Yeah, because... We're going to vote on the word during the meeting anyway. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but that is deferring any... Councillor Wegener: That is a motion. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a procedural motion. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: It's a procedural... So, it's an adjournment that doesn't mean... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is... This is a procedural motion. It means nothing will be moved today, basically. So... Any recommendations as to the order? That will be debated on Thursday. Mm. Mayor Wilkie: The weather might be quite important. Check number of hours? It's just to be... There is flooding out there.
01:01:00 Councillor Wilson: Uh, so... Is it worth then not stating the... The date and saying... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, uh... Councillor Wilson: We need to put a date in. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This... Councillor Wilson: For... It's up to you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you want to move that without the date? Or do you... You're the mover. Speaker 9: That's... There will be generally... Councillor Wilson: I can't think of something. It was, uh... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, because there's something that... I'm going to not include the date, because you didn't move it that way. We have. Yeah. No. Cathy, I'll do it. Thanks. Councillor Wilson: It was to defer the... No. Oh, sorry. Councillor Wilson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You've moved your motion. I've accepted it. Yep. Going back to the original one. Uh, you can talk to that. And if there's any amendments, we can do it from there. Otherwise, we're just going round in circles. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: What was the original wording? Councillor Wilson: I think it was pending councillors being able to attend the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy? Councillor Wilson: Yeah.
01:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like to talk to that? Councillor Wilson: No. We've got to settle this, don't we? Mm-hmm. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Uh, it's always better to have a date for the meetings deferred to, but I support this because it's important, uh, that we actually see the site in question. We need to satisfy ourselves, um, of the conditions. And I think, uh, looking at the topography, the distances involved, will give us a better understanding of how such an operation might impact on the surrounding residential sort of rule. Which is, um, a critical thrust of all these conditions as far as I'm concerned. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question in terms of statutory time limits for decisions. Um, where are we at with regard to this particular development? Speaker 12: Uh, due the 20th of December. Uh, it's a impact accessible application, so it would only go deemed refused.
01:03:00 Yeah. Speaker 13: Yeah. We could seek an extension. By agreement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Desirably to keep within statutory time limits. That's right. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, can I just listen to what Richard, um, just said, that we can seek an extension? Speaker 13: By agreement, yes. So obviously extend the timeframe, the decision-making timeframe. So at this stage, its decision date is due, um, of the 20th, did you say, Patrick? Of December, yes. Of December. Um, but the parties can agree by agreement to, to extend that, um, to a, to a further date. To allow us to make a decision within the statutory timeframe. But the, the ramifications, to Patrick's point, if we don't make a decision, doesn't mean we still can't make a decision after that date. It's just that the applicant, um, can seek a deemed refusal, but there's no deemed approval provisions that will lie against impact accessible. Can I just say the one question, um, in relation to, I understand there's an inspection, um,
01:04:00 range. Are councillors, are all the councillors attending, or some, or all? I've just wondered. All councillors. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: All conflicting, any other conflicting meeting. Sorry? And the weather. Speaker 13: And the weather. So they may, they may, I guess based on once councillors have attended, then we can work out when the appropriate date might be to convene. Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The CEO has just pointed out under our new by, uh, Standing Orders 313A, uh, the motion must specify a time or date to which the debate shall be deferred. So we can put a line through this motion and try again. Mayor Wilkie: I vote against it. I know. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't accept it. It just would drill out a few bells. Yeah. So do you want to try again, Councillor Wilson? And put in a date? Councillor Wilson: Um. Yes. So am I putting this as out of order, or? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. The, the motion was ruled out of order by the Chair. Just so I can appear to be tough. Yeah.
01:05:00 Councillor Wilson: Okay. I'll try again. Um. Seeking to defer the matter until the January general meeting. Oh. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question. Would that have a deemed refusal? No. No. Unless the parties agree. May I? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So she's moved that. Well, Councillor Wilson has moved that. Councillor Wilson: So the reason I've. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. I'll second. Second Councillor Phillips. Councillor Wilson: Um. So to talk to that, I'm just concerned about the ordinary meeting being only three days away. Not all councillors being able to attend the site in that time. And as the CAO pointed out, we may all be, um, restricted from going due to weather conditions. So this would give us a fair amount of time to be able to attend the site. Mayor Wilkie: I would speak against it because I would much prefer it be deferred the matter to the
01:06:00 December ordinary meeting, which is later this week, because that would be the appropriate time to determine the next course of action. Give staff time. Give staff time to see if the applicant is agreeable to extending the decision making period. If we just defer to the January, it automatically places, gives the applicant a deemed refusal, which I think is not due process. It's not fair. Um, and, uh, it places all parties at a disadvantage. So I would, um, strenuously urge my colleagues not to support this. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Um, through the Chair. Richard, can you explain the implications if this is deferred, um, to the January meeting? Um, Mayor Wilkie, um, talked about it is a deemed refusal. Can you explain in terms of process, does that mean the applicant has to restart the
01:07:00 process or does he appeal the, appeal the refusal? Is it, um. No. Speaker 13: So they have to apply for a deemed refusal. So they can apply for a deemed refusal. They can apply for a decision. Um, um, if we don't make that within statutory timeframe. My advice would, would be is, um, is to stick within the timeframe. So I agree with Mayor Wilkie's comment around, um, a deferral to this ordinary on the basis that we can then have a conversation with the applicant to agree to extend that, um, based on giving councillors more time to make a decision at the ordinary meeting. That way we're acting within our statutory timeframe. And we can have some dialogue with them around potential extensions if they're required beyond, um, beyond the ordinary meeting date this week. So the risk is if we make a decision and they apply for a deemed refusal, you know, we're in a situation where a decision is made on the application, um, because we haven't made it. The applicant can, not that I think that's highly likely, but I'm just giving councillors
01:08:00 advice that we're outside of our statutory timeframe and those risks are available. Um, and, and may exist. So my preference would be is that we stay within the statutory timeframe and we can reconvene, um, to make a decision on the Thursday ordinary meeting within the timeframe. And then if they're agreeable to need more time based on, um, discussions that evolve between now and then, then we can do that. Councillor Lorentson: So question again, can this same motion be raised on Thursday if, um, not all the councillors are available? And, um, if rain, if there's rain, we're, we're not able to, yeah. Speaker 13: We can certainly raise that with the applicant, um, if they'll agree to give more time. Mayor Wilkie: And principally if the applicant agrees. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, you were at order, you were talking to. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, I'm not helping to answer the questions. Thanks. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question?
01:09:00 Mayor Wilkie: You may. Councillor Phillips: Um, through the Chair, given that Richard spent, or the team spent a bit of time, I would imagine, with the applicant, do we feel that they will understand that we can't hold the rain and that there's three days till the ordinary if this, um, if we need a little bit more time to get out to side to make a really informed decision? Speaker 7: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Um, do you feel that, without speaking on their behalf, that it would be acceptable to do that? Speaker 13: Um, I can't probably speak for the applicant in terms they will agree, um, noting they might have their own commercial pressures and timeframes, but what we will do is encourage them to allow you to have that benefit of the doubt to have procedural fairness to hear from them directly, um, and be able to attend the site to understand the nature and locality of the application, um, you're making an important decision on. So we'll relay that. I can't give you any guarantees because, um, I can't speak on their behalf, but certainly
01:10:00 the team will engage with them following the meeting. Um, and no doubt they'll be probably watching this, um, meeting discussion as well, so have an understanding of, um, the need to, um, allow councillors some time to attend and, um, view the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'm not going to support this motion, though. I think, um, we have to be clear on what our role is, um, when we're deciding impact assessment. Speaker 12: Did you second it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I haven't been seconded. I did second it. Yeah, Councillor Phillips seconded it. Thank you. Um, the, the, the role of us is to determine whether the relevant benchmarks in the scheme have been met, and the advice is from staff is it has. I don't believe there's any benefit. I think it's a very important matter relating to Paying Regulation 2017 that of impact. So the only thing we're doing by going at the site and seeing is, is there any other relevant matter under the Act?
01:11:00 And there's very few potential relevant matters that aren't covered by the potential planning scheme. Basically just getting councillors to have an understanding. But we're not the ones that have to determine whether the site can meet the benchmarks. Except we've already got professional advice that the application meets the benchmarks. So while it is always good to get a feel for the land, it's not essential to making the appropriate decision on this matter. Um, I think it's important also that we do have benchmarks or performance indicators that we look at on a regular basis. And one of those is, do we decide applications within the relevant timeframe? Um, and it's one that this council's quite often criticised for, for not meeting, that things take too long. And so it, it's really important to understand that sometimes it's hard, we have to make hard decisions and deferring it, it's not always of benefit to all parties, including the reputation of council. So I don't think, um, a deferral till January is a good move.
01:12:00 Does anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Wegener: Council Wigner? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Councillor Wegener: Uh, I, I agree with, um, with the chair. Um, I, we just got a statement. I stick to process and, and this is the process of, of, I, I think that do your vote today on the general meeting and can be re-prosecuted at the, the ordinary meeting. People can, can go out to the property if they like. I, I can't make Wednesday, sorry, back in Brisbane for the medical reasons. Um, so, but, but I, I really don't think pressing things out like this, um, matters. Can we all, we can re-prosecute at the ordinary. You, you can change votes between now and then. This is just a today. That this vote shows where we are as, as council, but it can change by the ordinary. Is that right? Speaker 12: Chair? Councillor Phillips: I'll speak very quickly just in for, um, given that I can't be there, um, to cite for ordinary,
01:13:00 but I do appreciate the conversation around the table and respect to the decisions, but, um, yeah, I do, I will support, um, the procedural motion. Thanks. Councillor Finzel: Any last comment? I'll just brief with comment. I, I will support the, the motion. Um, I think given the, um, concern around the community and make sure that we've got it right, especially around the conditioning and different things that we've discussed today, um, I'm happy to support the motion, um, just to make sure that we do have, we, you know, feel satisfied with our due diligence at all levels, not in, just in relation to the statutory, um, time requirements. I'm happy to support it. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Uh, Councillor Lorentson, I think you're in, hasn't spoken. Councillor Lorentson: Um, so the motion is, what's the date that we've put forward? Speaker 11: January 16th. January.
01:14:00 January 16th. Councillor Lorentson: Um. Okay. Um. I think just because of the significance of the matter and for all of us to feel comfortable, um, with, with information that's been presented around the table and in respect of the community that are sitting here in the audience, I think the right thing to do is to defer, consideration, um, to see whether there are other impacts that haven't been captured, um, in the reports. So I'm happy to support this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Okay, would you like to exercise your right of reply, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: I can close, is that correct? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, so that's technically your close is the right of reply, so you reply to the debate around the table rather than... Yeah. Councillor Wilson: So I do think there may be other relevant matters that we can consider at a site visit, one of those being whether it's in the public interest and the impact on residential amenity, which we've heard about through the submissions.
01:15:00 So I do believe that it would be a fair process for all, so to hear from the applicant, but also to have visited the site to understand and consider the resident's position as well. So given the weather and the short period of time, I think that gives us enough time to do all of those things. And I hope that the applicant will be agreeable to that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so I'll put the motion. Those in favour, is Councillor Wilson, Phillips, Wegener, Lorentson and Finzel. Those against, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell. So the motion is deferred. We move on to the next item of the agenda. Speaker 13: Thanks, Paul. Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr King.
01:16:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the next item is Section 8 of the agenda, Lengthy Planners. That's a report direct to General Committee, and the first item there is the financial report for November 2024. And we welcome Pauline to the table, our Manager of Finance. And Fred is here too, the Director. Yes. Bye. If you'd like to give us an Executive Summary, thanks, Pauline. Speaker 6: Good afternoon, Councillors. So financial performance for the month of November continues to be positive, with operating revenues continuing to outperform our forecast, and operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is $2.3 million above budget, and that's been driven by $1.1 million in interest revenue, $500,000 from sales of goods and services, almost $600,000 from grant programs, $113,000 from rates and levies, and $72,000 from other revenue.
8 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – NOV 2024 ¶
01:17:00 This has been offset, however, from Lollapalooza forecast fees and charges of $127,000, with development assessment and local law fees and charges currently under budget. This has been offset partially by over budget fees and charges from building and plumbing compliance. Operating revenue is $318,000 under budget. With employee costs reported marginally underspent due to the offset of Council's vacancy reinvestment dividend. Materials and services are $158,000 underspent. We have underspend in waste, arts and culture, development assessment and ICT, or information technology, which have been offset by some overspends in holiday parks, which is largely commissioned due to increased revenue, civil operations, and fleet. Overall Council's year-to-date operating position at November is $2.6 million above budget,
01:18:00 which will be utilised to fund emergent expenditure and offset the forecast deficit adopted at Budget Review 1. Capital revenue is $4 million above budget due to the timing of the receipt of QRA disaster funding and the local roads and community infrastructure program funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget year-to-date, by $25.7 million, with $16.2 million relating to disaster projects, and $9.5 million relating to Council's base capital program, with the variance of these programs largely driven by delays in project delivery and some budget profiling. Council is currently holding $101.3 million in cash reserves, with $30 million invested in higher yielding term deposits. You will note that this month's report also includes the quarterly dissection of Council's cash holdings.
01:19:00 This is comprised of $44.9 million in restrictive funds, which can be broken into $22.2 million relating to externally restricted funds, such as unspent levies and separate charges, the advance payment of grant funds, the advance payment of multiple years of waste levy subsidy, to offset residential domestic waste that would be subject to waste levy, and developer contributions for trunk infrastructure and environmental offsets. $22.6 million relates to internally restricted funds. This includes things like natural disaster rehabilitation, which is equivalent to 5% of Council's general rates, and is in accordance with Council's management of surplus cash policy. This ensures that in the event of a disaster, Council has the capacity to fund immediate rehabilitation works, irrespective of whether it has the ability to secure federal or state disaster funding. Furthermore, there's $3.4 million for fleet replacement.
01:20:00 This ensures Council is able to finance its ongoing replacement of Council's plant and fleet, and is funded through unspent depreciation. In recent years, this has been higher due to the impacts of COVID and ongoing supply chain issues around the delivery of our Council vehicles and plant. This is also endorsed under Council's management of restricted cash policy. A further $12.8 million for the provision of future landfill rehabilitation works, which includes things like cell capping, site remediation and post closure costs, with the landfill end of life currently forecast to 2058. In this regard, Council is committed to maintaining intergenerational equity, by holding cash reserves specifically for the remediation of the landfill site. This approach ensures that future ratepayers are not burdened with the costs associated with waste management or remediation efforts initiated by previous generations. There is a further $1.5 million for commercial operation reserves.
01:21:00 This is funding Council's commercial business activities, and is used to reinvest back into those businesses for infrastructure works or enhancement. There's a further $1.3 million in revegetation offsets, NUSA senior reserves and land development reserves. So they're the two components of our restrictive funds. There is a further $11.3 million in our cash holdings that relate to capital projects which have carried over from prior years, as well as current year projects, which are still to be delivered and are funded by depreciation or cash reserves. Council is committed to holding the equivalent of three months cash cover, which is $28.8 million, to ensure it can meet its financial sustainability requirements. and meet its ongoing and emergent financial demands, which is a key component to solvency. This leaves us currently with $6.9 million in unrestricted surplus cash. This cash is available to fund emergent or new capital works projects
01:22:00 and allows Council to leverage grant funding opportunities by funding any co-contribution requirements. It should be noted there is no funding to replenish this unrestricted cash component unless Council generates a surplus operating position. At this stage of the financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track and, however, is subject to any emergent issues that may arise. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks. Do we have any further questions? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have. Consultancy fees in materials and services. I note that we've spent $1.66 million last year, 2024, and the current budget for 2025 is $1.989. My question is, why do we anticipate an additional $300,000 in consultancy fees
01:23:00 and which projects or departments are currently engaging consultants and is this information easily accessible? Speaker 6: I don't have that much detail around that. It's available to me right now, so I'd have to take that on notice. But I certainly can provide you with some information around that. That would be great. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? Councillor Lorentson: In terms of transitory rating, we've only had it once sort of taken out of the report and some details around how much revenue we're actually generating from the transitory rating. Can I make a request maybe for the next report to have that information sort of taken out just to give us an idea of how much in rates are we generating from transitory rating? Speaker 6: Did you want to go? Speaker 10: Through the Chair. Can I potentially suggest that in terms of completeness
01:24:00 that what we used to do in previous terms, we would provide a biannual rating report. It would come through to you after the rates had been run. Just given other priorities for meeting rounds, that hasn't happened in the last year or two. But we can bundle a breakdown of the general rate and some of the statistics around general rate through the future report. So it would probably most likely be after the rate run has completed. So we're talking probably late February, depending on the February meeting round or the February or March. But what you would get then is a complete picture of the revenue generated across all rating categories, the level of arrears and any other key statistics around your rates in entirety across all your land uses would be my suggested approach. So you've seen the complete picture. Councillor Lorentson: Will that biannual report, Trent, will that also separate business-related revenue?
01:25:00 It would be great to have a look at how much money are we getting from residential and how much money is being generated from tourist-related businesses or businesses in general. Is that easy to do or am I putting...? Speaker 10: Limited to the land uses that are provided by the Department of Natural Resources on their land use categories. So obviously the assumption on whether a type of business is primarily just commercial or tourism is not the breakdown we have. So it would be, for example, residential would be residential and then short-term residential and non-PPR residential. It would be agricultural. In terms of the level of breakdown in that commercial-industrial, I'd have to take that on notice and confirm that it would be subject to that because otherwise it would be a manual and subjective exercise for us to go through the few thousand...
01:26:00 Councillor Lorentson: Like the fees and charges. It might be a little bit messy. OK, I'll just leave it as an idea only. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Can we move it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Move Council Wilkie. I'll second it. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for an excellent reporting. On the way, you've also given a breakdown on restricted and unrestricted cash. Very helpful. And conservative budgeting is serving as well. So thank you. Speaker 13: Other people wish to talk to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just thought it was very nice of the Director to commit to do something in February and March. I'm glad you noticed that. OK, Council Wilkie, did you wish to close? No, thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you.
01:27:00 Speaker 8: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the next item is the Regional Arts Development Fund, RADF, Grant Recommendations for the 2024-25 Annual Round. And we have a declaration by Councillor Wink. Councillor Wegener: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I will provide the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter. I, Councillor Wigand, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to arts, residency, NUSA, natural ecology, as my son has a connection to this project and may derive a benefit from its grant funding. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you, Councillor Wigand. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And while Councillor Wigand is looking out, we have a Manager of Arts and Culture, Paul Brinkman,
8.2 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2024/25 ANNUAL ROUND ¶
01:28:00 who has joined us, as well as Director Contini. Paul, would you like to give us an overview, please? Thank you. Speaker 8: Good afternoon, Councillors. This report makes recommendations for funding for the 2025 year of the Regional Arts Development Fund grant program, a partnership between NUSA Council and Arts Queensland. The 2025 RADF grant round is the first round where the program has changed from biannual to an annual round, with maximum funding available per application rising from $7,500 to $10,000. This change is in response to industry need and will see this vital funding program stay relevant for the many creatives living and working in the region. This round, we received 29 applications requesting a total of $150,138 of funding. After assessing all applications, the assessment committee recommends seven applications for funding, totalling $50,585 of support.
01:29:00 The seven applications are Spencer David, Tiny Mountains, Tiny Worlds Film Event for $5,900, Aaron Linden, Ouroboros Short Film for $10,000, Tess Miller, Ceramics Residency for $8,900, Jordan Neil, The Pursuit by Dual Content Exhibition and Workshop Program, $7,000, Simone Zappellon-Leo Residency at the Icelandic Textile Centre for $4,000, Pomona and District Community House Harmonising Spaces Music Event and Workshops for $4,785, and finally Tony Wells, the SCCA Residency Program for $10,000. All projects will commence from January 2025 and be completed within a 12-month period. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have any questions? We wish to move it. Councillor Finzel: Happy to move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Moved by our representative on the committee, Councillor Finzel and seconded by Councillor Lorentson.
01:30:00 Would you like to talk to the motion? Councillor Finzel: Only briefly. I think this is a fabulous opportunity and process that we undertake on a regular basis to give opportunity to our artists and creatives to contribute in a positive way to the development of creative arts and associated business in the Shire and also brings health and wellbeing and connectivity to all our residents and visitors alike to the region. So I think it's a really positive program and it's worth every bit of economic development and funding that we can make available to bring about a wonderful opportunity in our Shire and globally. We see a few of our recipients recently having the opportunity to travel overseas and bring back that learned experience and bring that to our community at a local level. So I really support this and as the RADF chair on the committee, I'm really happy to be a part of such a great growth
01:31:00 in the sector in our region. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Do you wish to argue with anything that's been said? Speaker 9: No, not today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Mr Chairman, we have 10 minutes. We may have a 10 minute adjournment. Speaker 7: Thank you.
01:44:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, councillors, we're back in session. Before we move on to the next item, we did have an oversight in the last item, and it's noted that in the planning environment meeting that Councillor Lorentson did declare a conflict of interest, a declarable conflict of interest in relation to a dealing she had with a local solicitor once.
01:45:00 It was at the planning environment meeting agreed that she could stay in the room. There is no need to vote on the matter because the matter has been deferred, but it will just be in the amendments as being noted that when she became aware of the oversight, it was brought to the meeting's attention. All good. So we'll move on to item 8.3, Climate Change Response Plan Implementation Update. Welcome Cheyenne and Sion from the Climate Change Team and their director, Kim Rawlings. Speaker 1: Thank you. Hello, Chair. Hello, everyone.
01:46:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Hello, Sion. And Sion, I believe you're giving us the executive summary. Speaker 1: I will do that. Thank you very much for your time. This is a report on the actions that are imposed within... within that plan. The plan directly responds to a climate emergency that was declared by this council in 2019, so this is our plan for responding to climate emergency going forward. It addresses broad themes related to leadership and governance, emissions reduction, sustainable transport, natural environment, sustainable agriculture, resilient communities, and waste management. To say it is a big plan is an understatement. It covers very many areas of council's operations. This report speaks broadly to the targets and strategic priorities under each theme and highlights what has been achieved and what requires further attention.
8.3 CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE ¶
01:47:00 As I mentioned, it covers a period starting 2021 and ending at the end of the last financial year. We are working on a process of reporting more frequently so that reports of this nature don't have to cover so much and be so much for you all to read and for us to write, so that's a development coming for the future. The Climate Change Response Plan identifies 20 strategic priorities, 17 targets, and 58 actions under eight themes. It has a five-year life-threatening agenda. The eight themes in the plan include strong leadership and governance, which looks at council's advocacy, regional partnerships, and our organizational approach to climate change. Energy efficiency and renewable energy, which looks at how we mitigate the negative effects that are causing climate change.
01:48:00 Clean, low-emission industries, which looks at how we support local business and industry in their transition to zero emissions and circular economy. Sustainable transport, which looks at the transition to electrification and supports the uptake of public transport and active transport. Healthy and resilient natural systems and carbon draw down, which addresses how we conserve, protect, and enhance the natural environment. Sustainable agriculture and food systems, which looks at the effects of agriculture and food. This look at the effects of agriculture on the climate and encourages sustainable practices in these areas. Resistance older and more, that is a goal for this plan, a commitment that is to continue to develop, enhance skills, and build shopping. Resilient and Adaptive Communities and Built Environments, which support community capacity to be resilient in the face of a changing climate and supports the development of built environment that incorporates best practices for climate resilience. And finally, Zero Waste and Circular Economy, which looks at how our community deals with waste and how we deal with emissions resulting from waste creation and management at our Resource Recovery Centre.
01:49:00 Through the strategic priorities and actions outlined in the plan, Council is striving to lead by example, support and inspire others, and demonstrate best practice in responding to this significant and growing climate emergency. And our response includes working towards achieving net zero emissions for Council operations, transition to 100% renewable power for Council buildings and facilities, driving clean, low-emission industry, innovative technology and solutions that address the climate crisis. Supporting a climate-ready community that considers climate change in day-to-day and business decisions. Facilitating sustainable, resilient and adaptive communities, buildings and infrastructure to help reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce emissions.
01:50:00 Partnering with First Nations people to embed indigenous knowledge and science into decisions. Enable adaptation and prioritise intergenerational wellbeing and holistic sustainability. Supporting vulnerable populations, ensuring inclusion in solutions and equitable access to opportunities and benefits. Accelerating this transition to sustainable transport, enhancing ecosystem health, adaptive capacity and carbon drawdown and to improve biodiversity in our region. Growing and distributing food locally and sustainably. Enabled by sustainable land management and regenerative farming practices. And achieving a zero-waste, circular economy. Through this report, we have identified that 23 of 37 targets and strategic priorities are either well-progressed or are on track. And we think that that is a huge achievement, not just for our team, but for other teams across Council who have contributed to this.
01:51:00 It also acknowledges that there is still a lot of work to do in this space. Addressing climate change risks continues to be at the forefront of need for us and we will continue to work on this to the end of this plan and beyond. So there are several areas that need special attention, including embedding climate knowledge and action across Council. Building community resilience. Advancing sustainable transport. Building sustainable food systems. Supporting long-term water security measures. Encouraging sustainable building design. And diverting food and organic waste from the landfill. So that's a bit of a high-level overview. And I'd like to just share a few highlights from the report so you get a sense of what the achievements have been to date.
01:52:00 So that's a bit of a high-level overview. I'd first like to acknowledge former staff, Rebecca Britton and Annie Nolan, who were part of our team for many years and contributed significantly to the creation of this plan, as well as to advancing many actions that are in this plan. Also want to acknowledge contributions from staff in the areas of economic development, transport, waste, environment services, infrastructure services, and in our branch, strategy and sustainability, for contributing. So I'll just leave that to you, Rebecca, and we'll continue to work on those data as well as progressing actions that are in this plan. The challenge for us really is in addressing risk and mitigating the effects of climate change. We have over 500 staff in this organization and over 56,000 people living in this Shire, so the challenge of embedding and educating and supporting transition to sustainable behavior is a huge challenge. And we acknowledge that we're only really just beginning this work.
01:53:00 We have begun an embedding program at Noosa Council by convening a sustainability working group and progressing the development of the sustainability framework. A comprehensive embedding program of climate risk management and holistic sustainability is in development and we hope to come back and present that to the Council soon in the future. We've been partnering with key organizations in our region, leading education and research organizations and regional governments, local governments to progress an understanding of what our regional approach should be to climate change. And we've leveraged Council-based budgets for roughly four times the amount from grant funds from state and federal sources, reducing the burden on rate payers and scaling the size of our response despite staff resources. Thank you. So we've seen a lot of challenges. In the energy space, Council has achieved over 750 kilowatts of solar on our Council buildings, and close to 50 percent of energy connections in Noosa Shire have solar PV systems that accounts for almost 30,000 kilowatts of solar produced by the community in Noosa, which is pretty significant, I think.
01:54:00 The council's carbon footprint continues to reduce. We've seen a 20% reduction since the 2016 baseline, and we expect to have a carbon footprint report for the last financial year coming soon, as well as a net zero roadmap to meet our 2026 target. We continue to make progress in the transport sector, with continued investment in the Go Noosa program, installation of new cycling and walking paths, and I mention this one because transport is responsible for approximately 33% of our community's emissions, but we acknowledge that this area requires further attention, in particular around the transition to electricity.
01:55:00 We also want to highlight Noosa's reputation as a place that values and protects the natural environment, and this has been noted with an increase in the area that's managed for its environmental value, and an increase in the voluntary conservation agreements and land for wildlife partnerships. And so this is a significant contribution to carbon drawdown for our Shire. Some key priorities for us to advance, developing the roadmap for net zero emissions, which will provide a direction on Council's investment approach to achieve net zero emissions, and in particular a focus on transformations at our landfill facility, in line with the new waste strategy.
01:56:00 Developing a carbon offset policy and guideline to guide decision making around self-generated offsets through environmental change. And then the environmental restoration, and potential purchase of third party offsets where appropriate. Securing funding to deliver and direct substantial emissions reduction for the Noosa landfill. Continuing to partner with First Nations as joint custodians of the Noosa region. And there are many others, but I may ask Shay, if you'd like to add any to that list. That's very comprehensive. Thank you so much. I have a long list, so I won't speak too much. I would like to open up to any questions, though, so we can speak specifically to those. Councillor Lorentson: Our climate change response plan has a target of net zero emissions by 2026. Will we get there? Speaker 1: Great question, and I know that our team is working on a plan for that, and that will be presented to Council early next year.
01:57:00 Is that accurate to say? Mayor Wilkie: Is it true that councils that don't have landfills are easily a change between net zero through offsets and emissions reduction? If we sold off our landfills, what are the results? Go a long way towards net zero. Director Rawlings: Yeah, landfills definitely are a major contributor. 60% of us. Significant contributor. So yes, organisations that don't have landfills, it's everywhere. It's easier to get there, so yeah, there are still some challenges for us to meet that target, but what we are committed to is a really clear strategy to move towards zero, and that will come to you early in the new year. Speaker 4: It won't make it easy if we were to sell it off. It'd still be difficult, but it'll be easier work.
01:58:00 Speaker 5: For sure. Speaker 4: But look, I can see the risks that the landfills... It's a big opportunity, right? For example, composting and biochar, that has huge benefits for agriculture and soil health, which, you know, we can leverage, rather than looking at it as just a problem, we look at the opportunity with the solutions at landfill. Mayor Wilkie: Just, if you can quantify, the 750 kilowatts of solar on council buildings, how much does that save ratepayers each year over electricity costs? Take it on notice. Speaker 4: Well, we can take that on notice, Frank. Yeah. And we'll get back to you. Director Rawlings: We do have those figures, but just not at hand. Speaker 4: Not at hand. Councillor Wegener: I love this quote. It says, evidence shows that sustained and transformative action are needed for an effective response that is commensurate with the level of risk faced, meaning that we need to, you look at what the risk is, and then we actually should, because they're pretty big risks, what do we need to do?
01:59:00 And it has to be commensurate to that, you know, kind of a balance. First question is, it's such a wide program. I mean, you know, there's certain places, certain groups. Waste has a very narrow target, or, you know, narrower target, where your actual remit is massive, is wide. Council Wignall, are we getting to a question? Yes, we are. How are you, do you feel confident that you're able to address such a wide range of issues? Because there is so many. Like, you're pulling them together. Speaker 1: Yeah, well, one of the high priorities on my workload is to do this council embedding program. Which is about bringing all the stakeholders together and having this conversation as one conversation. And asking us not to work in silos anymore, but to address challenges and find solutions collaboratively. And I really believe that that will tip the scale in favor of finding real solutions to the huge risk and issue that we face.
02:00:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, I couldn't agree more with that. I think over the last three years working at Council, the realization is that, you know, with three permanent staff in our team, we can only do so much. But if we can embed and disseminate the knowledge and understanding to influence all council decision making and policy making, I think we'll really scale the way we respond for our community. Councillor Wegener: And the green drinks, are you going to maintain that? Because I found that that was one place where you could, all of a sudden, everybody's talking to each other freely, you know, outside of the meeting. But you'd have many, many more. You'd have many, many different representatives from different parts of Council and the community groups there. Speaker 1: I believe that's a program that's run by an officer in the economic development team. And I do understand that those green drinks events are ongoing. But I agree that networking and getting together socially provides an opportunity to tackle some of these issues that we don't often get to do in professional space.
02:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It might be worth clarifying to the general public that green drinks isn't what we have at St. Patrick's Day. Speaker 4: It's a networking opportunity. And it's very important given that we need to work together collectively with all our partners across community and internally to be able to respond to the climate challenge. Councillor Wegener: Maybe I'll just talk to, so it's not a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We haven't had a motion yet, so you can't talk. Councillor Wegener: I'll forward it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You'll move it? I'll move it, yes. I'll second it. You can talk tonight. Councillor Wegener: This is fantastic that, I lost my thought there. Ann Kennedy's group.
02:02:00 ZEN. ZEN. Zero Emissions NISA. They're a group. I look at what you're doing because it's such a wide, wide, wide remit. And then I look at the community groups that are very, very active in that role. And Zero Emissions NISA has been enormously successful. I mean, they do something that we give back and the whole junction all of a sudden, Sunshine Beach Road, is cut off so that we can have the Zero Emissions Day. That is an example of a community group that has really stepped up. I'd love to see other community groups that are interested, my thing is agriculture, to do that, to step up and be a part of that. I think the Open the Gate group. That's a really important thing that used to bring people to the farm areas. I think, as I just spoke about, we have our waste department putting in composting, a composting unit, and hopefully putting a biochar unit next to that. And my gosh, but I think as that plan goes forward, we need to be looking at the agriculture side over here and trying to find a market for that compost already.
02:03:00 You have to be thinking way ahead. So that we don't have a mountain of compost growing and no market for it. There's just so many aspects. And I think working with community groups, going back to Zen, going back to, I might just kind of blank there a bit. And there's lots of others. But it is so fantastic. But that's where the green drinks and coming together and really having these lively conversations as a community away from the silos within council is really important. And you are doing it. So I commend you on that. On being able to actually address such a wide remit and successfully overall the balance done very, very well. So congratulations. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. I note that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just... I'll let you speak next. But while Councillor Lonson is speaking, could you bring up figure three in the report for us? Councillor Lonson. Councillor Lorentson: It's a question. Sorry. I know that the plan is going to be reviewed in 2026.
02:04:00 So my question... And sort of following up from where Tom was, we've got 20 strategic priorities, 58 actions under eight themes. How do factors like rising cost of living, inflation, resourcing challenges, and also changing demographics, will, as part of the review, will there be an opportunity maybe to... Narrow the scope to, say, critical priorities such as infrastructure, which is what is probably my area of most interest in this space? Stormwater, ageing infrastructure, impacts on our roads, transports, and I think that's stuff that community can also relate to. Will there be an opportunity as part of the review to actually go out to community and understand, you know, 2021 is a very different world even today, 2024.
02:05:00 So will we have an opportunity to go back out to community and just make sure that the plan reflects current values, current priorities, and whether there is an opportunity to narrow the scope? Speaker 4: I'm happy to speak to that, Madam Chair. We'll be looking at reviewing the climate change response plan in 2026 because it's a five-year plan. Councillor Lorentson: It's five years. Speaker 4: Yeah. And so there's potentially an opportunity there. As you might note that we, in the corporate plan, 2023 to 2028, we have the goal of creating a resilient strategy, which is one of our five high-level strategies that guides all our plans. And in that, I would imagine there'd be a lot of work to be done. I think that there would be significant and good consultation with the community and engagement.
02:06:00 In terms of resilient and sustainable infrastructure being a high priority, it definitely is. We're currently working on an asset vulnerability assessment as part of the local government infrastructure plan, looking at multi-hazard climate risk to public assets and infrastructure, as well as updating the NUSA design principles to help guide the community and key stakeholders towards more resilient design. So I think we'll continue to focus on that in this plan, but yes, opportunities for engaging the community. Again, I mean, we do it on a project-by-project basis, as you know, but we'll also hopefully with the resilient strategy and the climate change response plan, do it again. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Question, please. In relation to the Go NUSA program, so I'll probably just close onto this, are we, probably two parts. We've had some resourcing changes in the Go NUSA program, so is that still looking like
02:07:00 it's going to have its capabilities next year? And the reason why I want to ask this is we have those deputations on linking cycle pathways to schools, and that was one of the things that was identified about infrastructure and paths across Yumanji Road and those areas to the schools. So I'll get to my question. Okay. Mr Chair, how is that information related into this plan? How does it keep connecting? Speaker 1: Well, just broadly, the plan speaks to supporting multimodal transport, and as well as the uptake of public transit. I can't speak directly to your question around staff resourcing. From what I know in writing this report, because this report finishes at the end of Finance Day. We don't have any data in here to say where we're at currently, or where we're going
02:08:00 forward. Speaker 4: It's definitely, the Go NUSA program would be one that we would encourage strongly to continue from our end. But we can take that on notice and speak to the sustainable transport team under the infrastructure planning unit to get advice on that point. And then the linkages, as Sion said, multimodal transport, sustainable transport and clean transport options are huge. So definitely supporting the walking and cycling strategy that Council has is part of this plan. Councillor Phillips: I'll probably just phrase what, because I didn't actually ask that properly. We had those, you know, people were saying we would actually encourage our kids to ride to school, but there was gaps in the network to assist is pretty much what I was getting at. Yeah. Director Rawlings: So each year Council considers the Go NUSA program and the funding and prioritisation of that. And I know there's some discussions at the moment about the transport levy and traffic.
02:09:00 Yes. Speaker 9: Translates the government's determination of 50 cent fares. Director Rawlings: 50 cent fares. Yeah. So there's, there'll be some further considerations, probably as part of the budget process. Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. Year to year councillors on that. Yeah. And as you know, also through the budget process, we look at filling in the gaps. You know, that's one of the key things about those missing links between walking and cycling. And I know infrastructure services have been applying for a number of grants to do local walking plans to get further investment to fill in some of those gaps. So they are, you know, two big key priorities. Yeah. But you're right, we have had some resource challenges in the traffic transport team. So. Thank you. Speaker 11: Thanks. So. Councillor Lorentson: Just another question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I, when I was sort of playing around and just reading the report, is it Brisbane City Council that have a public disclosure statement?
02:10:00 And I remember reading it. I did look at it. And it was really good. So it was pretty much, how does council walk the talk? And it went through all the number of employees. And I wish I had that number at the top of my head. But it's thousands. And how many, how they get to work. Whether they walk, they ride bikes. And that information is, I think it's every year they do this public disclosure on climate response. Is that something that we're looking at? Or. Speaker 4: Yes. Definitely. Yes. As part of forthcoming environment social governance, ESG reporting requirements. Not for local government, but for businesses. Yes. Yes. And the sustainability standards board, we are looking at that for potentially next annual review, but our annual report, but we have to discuss that internally further with governments. But yes, definitely looking at that, Amelia, I think it's best practice and we would like to get that. Councillor Lorentson: And I think it went through from photocopying the reduction, but it was, and it's stuff
02:11:00 that we're doing, but it was so readable and just a beautiful statement. Yeah. Speaker 4: Sounds good. We'll definitely look. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 4: We have the carbon footprint for last financial year coming out soon. So together with Heather, we'll be back early in the new year to talk about that with council and at least be transparent and open and accountable on the carbon footprint for last financial year. That's one place to start. But yes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So actually that's to be put up. So initially that, that's a, I think it's state government funded program delivered through LGAQ. And they initially had the external consultant Donovan, I forgot his last name. Speaker 4: Donovan Burton. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Is those annual reviews, are they still done externally or is that based on our own assessment? Speaker 4: So we've done an assessment, my predecessor in the adaptational grant dinner did an assessment.
02:12:00 I want to say it was 2018. And then I did another assessment as part of the regional climate action roadmap in 2022. And then. This more recent data is from LGAQ from Donovan Burton. They had actually consult, got him as a consultant to have a look at every council in Queensland. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So when it was first rolled out, Noosa council was pretty high in the pack. Are we aware whether we're still high in the pack or whether others have taken us over? Speaker 4: I believe we are from what I've heard. But I can share the reports with you, which do have some benchmarking associated with it. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move on to talk to it. Councillors, our roles are really responsible for the governance. I want you to think about how much you've thought about the governance and implementation of the climate response plan since the last election. A lot.
02:13:00 And now I'm going to read the risk report. Climate change is identified as only one of two extreme risks in council's risk and opportunities for climate change. So one of only two extreme risks. And in my view, first time this term that we're starting to think about it. I'm not saying the staff haven't continually tried to implement the plan and there's identified a great lot of work. But if we're serious about our role as the strategic leaders of this organisation, climate risks should be a monthly review. Speaker 1: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to go on. Normally I don't even, you know, I scan the risk and opportunity section. It's normally quite dry. But let's read what the risks are. The level of risk to council and the community continues to grow. It's not getting better. It's growing. As global emissions increase and impacts begin to be felt, governments at all levels,
02:14:00 business, households and community each have important complementary and shared responsibilities in adapting to climate change and addressing the cause of climate change. Climate change through emissions reduction. There are risks to council not to continue to implement or adequately resource the climate change response plan. This includes risk to lives. And my view was in 2019, we were out there, climate emergency. We had the 2019-20 bushfires across Australia. And then I think that was the turning point for the society more generally. Everyone understood the climate change. And then I think that was the turning point for the society more generally. Climate change costs lives. Heat stress is probably the biggest threat in our ageing community. But it's not just lives. It's our livelihoods, our health, our well-being, our food supply chains, economic disruption, disruption to critical infrastructure, and the loss of biodiversity and natural values that underpin the livability in Noosa. The increasing frequency and severity of climate hazards, including flooding, sea level rise,
02:15:00 bushfires, droughts, landslides, extreme heat, severe storms, and cyclones are evident in the succession of local disasters in recent years. I won't keep on going. But if we as leaders of this organisation can't maintain the focus, then we are passing on a legacy of risk. Now, as I said, we have done some good stuff. The transition to net zero will be an interesting plan because it will be challenging. We have one, you know, major opportunity to make a step change. We have to make a big change out of the landfill, which I hope will prove to be a viable option. But to me, we need to constantly think, how much time do we spend on day-to-day operational issues of current importance? Because how much time do we spend setting up this organisation so that in 10 and 25 years
02:16:00 people aren't losing their lives to climate change impacts? All the time. And to me, it's a salisbury lesson. But it's also, it's good to look at the opportunities. And as we've seen, the Economic Development Department have the fun part of this, they get to have green drinks and talk about the opportunities because solving the ongoing emissions issue is really about rejigging our economy to be a carbon neutral economy. It's about looking at all the fantastic technologies and technologies that we've got available It's about looking at how renewable energy can replace stationary coal-fired stations. There's numerous opportunities and I'd like to thank all those staff, including the two that were mentioned. Rebecca, who has just left, and Annie were the powerhouses in this for many years and they did a great job of getting the climate change response plan up
02:17:00 and going. And our new team have the great job of trying to get the organisation up and going in implementing it. So I commend the review and look forward to our continued and regular review of how we're going to address this risk. Mayor Wilkie: Just in case the Chairman has got the fear of God, this Council's focus on adapting to climate change. Thank you for preparing for climate change and I'm referring specifically to the extremes that were mentioned. Bushfire, drought, floods, increased severity of storms, cyclones. Perhaps it's because Councillor Phillips and I are involved in the Local Disaster Management Group and the CEO and key staff are from across the organisation. I'd just like to reassure people that there is a continual focus on the adaptive capacities of this organisation
02:18:00 and also the emergency services, not only in this Shire, but the region and I dare say across the nation. The awareness of the increased risk from climate change is very much front of mind. And also, as we've heard from Sion and Cheyenne and Kim across the organisation, there's more work to be done in embedding that awareness across the organisation. Councillor Stockwell's comments about being aware, the councillor's comments about being aware of what's happening across the level and having discussions about that is well made and perhaps I can bring more to the discussions about what happens at the LDMG level and we can be more curious about the work of this hard-working team. Councillor Phillips: I have one more question please and it probably goes hand in hand with what you've both stated. I was reading about the community battery part in the report and I guess my question
02:19:00 is where would staff recommend councillors play maybe more advocacy to state through LGIQ? It seems like Noose is fighting the fight harder than other places. What can we do that pivots maybe what we're doing here and then what we can actually leave as we can pull higher so we're not, it's not just on us to be... I hope that I answered that Director Rawlings: properly. Feel free to jump in but there's often a range of topical issues, the community battery was one this year and there was some great advocacy done by Noosa Council and we had other organisations join us around tariffs and things and we've had some success in that space. And in the past we've put, this council's put particular motions to LGIQ around legislative changes to enable particular outcomes. And I think it's really important that we're
02:20:00 able to do that. I think it's important for residents to try and reduce emissions and things like that. So there are a raft of things that we try and stay on top of. We do staff submissions into changes and we bring forward key advocacy issues. There are, we are part of a South East Queensland alliance that we are sharing information now and doing joint advocacy. So there is quite a bit happening in terms of what's in the space and what's not in the space in terms of specifics. Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree for sure Kim. I'd say thank you for asking Jess and we definitely could use support in raising our voice to the state and federal level because a lot of the challenges will have to be addressed at that level. We have two governance sort of committees at Noosa Council. We have the program steering group for climate change response as well as the community reference group.
02:21:00 We're hoping to reinvigorate both next year and through that we will have a specific agenda item on advocacy opportunities that we can share with councillors to take forward. That would make a lot of sense if you agree. Councillor Phillips: I'll try to ask a question through it because my statement, it may come first around just a family, my family putting solar on to significantly try and help. And now it's almost pointless, the tariff I get back. So my point is like I'd really like some help maybe in where we can advocate stronger in that space because it is a state and federal for them to step up in that. I hope I've clearly articulated a question there. Speaker 4: No, good point. Yeah, now it's a state. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: I know but I just wanted to do a question at the end as well. Finish with what do you think? Yeah. Yeah. Very good point. Thank you.
02:22:00 Can I? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we are in debate. You've got an answer to the question that wasn't asked? Speaker 1: Well, I have a kind of response to that because I think the community battery is a really important project for Noosa Shire. It's innovative, it's pioneering, it's going to be one of a kind for this state where all other community batteries are owned and operated by Energex or Ergon, whereas the Noosa community battery would be one of a kind for this state. So it's a real opportunity for us to be able to utilize, as I mentioned, a huge community solar array to soak up solar energy that is generated during daylight hours and redistribute that to the community to provide resilience, emissions reduction, and cost reduction. So I think any opportunity that we see for there to advocate for this to progress and for other opportunities similar to this to progress, I would look forward to that.
02:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would anyone else like to speak? Speak to the motion. Councillor Wilson: Can I note that you've raised this graph, that most of those add up to 99, not 100. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That'll be rounding errors. Speaker 4: Yeah, probably rounding errors, but I'll check with LGAQ. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, it was external. Councillor Lorentson: I'll quickly speak. Opportunity used quite a lot around this table, and I agree, total opportunity. As a councillor, I think where I see it is, how do we take the burden away from rate payers? And this is the opportunity. How do we source external funding in this space of climate change? How do we improve efficiency so we can pass the benefits to our community? How do we provide opportunity? How do we provide affordable living? I think this is the opportunity that these plans present.
02:24:00 And, you know, and again, for me, it's about how do we leverage grant funding to improve, keep going back to stormwater, Burgess Creek, what's happening over there, our drainage systems, clean water, clean air. So this is the space we need to be. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Don't go anywhere. Thank you so much. Yeah, I mean, we really do appreciate your time today, thanks everybody for what you've done, both on the payer side and those on the national side, And then we have the Food and Agriculture Committee, which is understandable considering that, after what Amelia just said about advocacy and reducing emissions, which is a huge one, and then the emergency response for fire, flood, everything else.
02:25:00 And then what I talk about is empowering community, which is another part of the remit, which is going to Elaine Bradley and the Mary Valley Farmers, where when the pandemic hit, they saw they're just a little group growing organic foods. And then they realized that a lot of the people weren't coming to Pomona Market to pick up their veggies because of the pandemic, so they set up a phone tree. And actually that phone tree saved lives because everybody had the mandate to call 10 people every day. And so there was a constant calling going around to make sure that everybody's okay and everybody had enough food and little things like that. So I think that a big part of the job is actually empowering community in a way. So that's just as important as advocating for funding from the federal government. So I really appreciate your job. I'm glad that there is a climate change response plan and that you're doing your job, and it's fantastic.
02:26:00 Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll take the vote on that matter. I was waiting. Speaker 9: What's everybody waiting for? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's carried unanimously. Speaker 4: Thank you, councillor. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, chair. Thank you very much, guys. Very comprehensive. I think it was a wet weekend. I'd just like to say there's no truth in the rumour that it's been raining every day since I cooked solar on the roof of my house. Actually, this is true. So the next item is an application for change to development approval 12637DA, integrated permaculture design. Organic orchard and golf course complex, 18 holes, to include group farmstay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road, Cootharaba.
Deputation: NICK COOKE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.4 131998.981211.5 APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA ¶
02:27:00 Can we welcome back Richard, the director, Patrick, the manager, and you also have the court right here, Nadine, thank you, and Will, our environment officer associated with development control. And I take it, Nadine, you'll be giving us your answer. Speaker 5: I'll give you a brief overview, yes, if you'd like that. Good afternoon, councillors. Good afternoon, Nadine. Good afternoon. I'm really excited. Thank you, and Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Okay, today we're going to consider a report that was initially considered by the previous council, was presented to council at the P&E meeting of 12th of September 2023. And it was for an other change to an existing approval. The existing approval is a golf course approval which was approved as a permaculture golf course.
02:28:00 The 2023 application proposed a group farmstay type accommodation in conjunction with the existing golf course across the site. This original application proposed to cater for weekend groups and school holiday use for up to 299 people. The application was considered at the Council P&E meeting. The proposal had four distinct areas. The first area was a communal area centred around the existing golf clubhouse. That had an area of 2,330 square metres and it included offices, meeting rooms, reception, kitchen and a dining hall of 543 square metres and a covered communal sports hall of 945 square metres. The second part of that application comprised three villages.
02:29:00 Village 1 had an area of gross floor area of 1,365 square metres. It included a central dining area, secondary dining area, kitchen and three enclosed activities and shared accommodation for 84 people. The second village had an area of 1,735 square metres. It also included a communal area centred around the existing golf clubhouse. That had an area of 1,330 square metres and it included a central dining area, secondary dining area, kitchen and three enclosed activities and shared accommodation for 44 people. The third village proposed on the site had an area of 915 square metres. It included a central dining area, a kitchen, three enclosed activities and shared accommodation for 54 people. The applicant just indicated that approximately 50 staff would be engaged in running this activity. And that the vision for this facility, and I quote, is to provide a farm-to-plate visitor accommodation experience for groups interested in permaculture.
02:30:00 The proposal adds a farm stay to the existing golf course and expands the existing permaculture farming practices to include a centropic market garden with paddock grazing areas. Staff didn't support the application for a number of reasons and recommended refusal on the basis that it was contrary to the SEQ regional plan as it didn't promote, it was considered to alienate agricultural land. It was also inconsistent with the strategic framework of the Noosa plan as it would permanently alienate land that was mapped as agricultural land conservation area. The accommodation component was going to become the more predominant use than the agricultural land and it was not a small scale and the setting comprising three villages and ancillary facilities was not small scale and was on a small local road. It was also contrary to a number of outcomes and performance outcomes of the Noosa plan.
02:31:00 Again, it was alienating agricultural land. It was not a small scale. The traffic. It was also large and also the scale was large and the last one, it didn't meet the bushfire hazard code which required a secondary access. The applicant was considered by council and the applicant recommended that the matter be held over to enable further discussions with staff. Since that time, so that was September 23, there have been a number of discussions with the applicant with the application form. It was only amended in October 2024, where the applicant reduced the development down to 88 beds, that 88 beds is 80 for the patrons plus 8 for staff, 8 teacher beds, sorry, and the further plans were submitted in November and December, which located the development outside all the mapped hazard area.
02:32:00 This revised proposal substantially reduces the footprint of the development. Compared to the original development. So previously we had a proposal for 299 persons. We now have a proposal for 88 persons. We've also reduced the GFA from 8,325 square metres down to 1,150 square metres. The communal building which involved a multi-purpose hall has also been removed and the existing clubhouse retained. The previous development was quite a bit of a challenge. We had quite a substantial construction with large buildings proposed with walkways. There were several slab on ground construction matters. This development now is using lightweight materials. So we've got buildings on platforms, well actually they're clamping tents, which is the applicant's term.
02:33:00 And they are tents on a suspended platform with generally canvas sides. All of the work previously. There were some. Some works proposed in the waterway that's been removed and there is a provision of an emergency fire access trail along the southern boundary connecting to Cootharaba Downs Road. Following this submission of this revised information, we did refer, especially the bushfire, to an external bushfire consultant who has peer reviewed it and has basically indicated that the proposal presents an acceptable level of risk of bushfire harm to people and property. We have, as a result of that, we're recommending approval of the application and we've included a number of conditions relating specifically to the use that it also has to be of lightweight construction, which can be removed so it won't alienate the agricultural land in the future. There is some clearing required for the emergency access.
02:34:00 So sort of offsetting that, we've included a vegetation covenant over the core koala habitat areas. We've also required, we've conditioned that fire access trail along the southern boundary to be provided and only to be used for emergency, emergency evacuation. And I've got another thing, but I can't read my writing. So basically, we've recommended approval of the application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. So questions to start. Councillor Lorentson: Nadine, how did the applicant go from 299 to 80,000? Did that have anything to do with the definition of what was considered small in scale or was that something negotiated between yourself and the applicant? Speaker 5: It was, so we were looking at the visitor accommodation code and in the code, it talks about a maximum GFA for those types of activities of 1500. It does talk about a maximum size of a central facility of 250.
02:35:00 It was something we basically, we did negotiate down to. And it took us a while to get there. So 88 wasn't their first number. Speaker 7: So yeah. Speaker 5: So it was really just a negotiation and trying to get something, again, small scale, something that we saw is what the planning scheme was looking for. Councillor Lorentson: We identified, I think, the first time around that group of kids camping in a high bushfire area. Yes. And that was exposing all of the use. So did that number have anything to do with evacuation processes? Speaker 5: That's been a major consideration for us. We have, and that's why we actually went out to get a peer review of the revised information. We have actually conditioned a requirement for two buses to remain on site while the use is in operation to ensure that the site can be evacuated at any time.
02:36:00 So I suppose that number sort of fits roughly around that side. Because if they are busing in kids, that's, we believe, two buses should cater for that. Most staff would travel by car. And there's an onsite manager who, he'd have his own vehicle as well. So yeah, that's been a big issue for us to make sure that we got right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Fantastic. So just a question on the buses. I read that. Is it mandatory there'd be two buses even if it's a smaller group? Like, is it the way you read it? Like, I understand if it's full of, you know, two buses full of kids. But if it's, and is it only related to group, when it's group booking rather than, you know, weekends which might be individuals? Speaker 5: It's not supposed to be really individuals, by the way. So it is supposed to be groups. All groups. It's supposed to be groups. We don't want it as sort of an individual type activity because that's more coming along
02:37:00 in short term. It's supposed to be, and that's how it was indicated to us, that it would be groups coming to utilise the site. And it's that farm to plate. So it's all related to the agricultural activities. So you have a group. They go there and they, they're supposed to be able to, I think, pick the food. They cook the food. And they have activities associated with that. But that's a good point about the bus. Well, it actually just says, actually, I must say, I haven't numbed it, I've said bus is capable of evacuating all patrons during an emergency event to remain on site. They don't need to be flexible to themselves. Speaker 13: They could be minivans. It's a smaller group, potentially. Speaker 5: Yes. And again, it's really putting it back on them. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Sorry. Speaker 5: Yeah. I think we were talking about two previously and going, what would we need? Other questions? Councillor Phillips: Just one quick question around the fire access trail. Just to refresh my memory, did it, was Council getting it appropriately cleared and usable?
02:38:00 And then are we then maintaining it? Speaker 5: So we've, we've required the track to be related to the fire access trail. We've required the track to be located to as far as possible onto the applicant's land. So if you could bring up, where on the page that is, if you could bring up of the report. We have it in the bushfire section. Or maybe, did I put it in? There is a plan. Speaker 12: You might be able to talk to Peter on this. There is a plan. Figure one. Just talk to it. Go over to the, to the screen. Speaker 5: If we go figure one on, basically, it's in attachment two. Yeah. Speaker 4: Attachment two. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Speaker 4: Sorry. Councillor Wilson: Sorry.
02:39:00 Speaker 5: So basically, there's, if we go a little bit further down. That one will do. All right. Speaker 12: No. Speaker 5: No. No. That one doesn't do. Speaker 12: Figure six, maybe. Keep going. Speaker 13: Keep going. Keep going. There's an aerial photo. Speaker 5: Yeah. Oh, I've missed it on my page. Councillor Lorentson: That one. Speaker 5: That one. So you can see the blue line. So, so road 176. It goes all the way here to here. So that's Council Road. This is actually of a driveway standard. So we've asked the applicant to minimise works required. They have to bring the access back through their property. And they'll pop out here. And there's approximately 170 metres that they will have to construct of road.
02:40:00 Speaker 11: And. Speaker 5: And then, yes, we would have to. The road. It's of a. It's of a. I don't even know. It's not a gravel standard. So they will have to construct that portion, about 170 square. 170 metres. They will have to construct it to a R.E.P.E.Q. standard, which then Council, yes, we would have to maintain. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it would be serving two properties then? Speaker 5: It would be serving two properties, yes, which is not great. No. So. However. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The people who would probably be maintaining it now would probably think it's a good idea. Potentially. Look, it's. Speaker 5: We. We. Again, we have thought about this. They. The applicant could apply. There is a current permaculture golf course operating on the site. So they came to us and said for emergency purposes they would like to put a emergency vehicle track along here. We would probably have to agree to that. Because it does make sense.
02:41:00 It's giving a secondary access. There, as I said, there's already an activity approved on the site. We have limited it to there is exempt clearing. Now we've looked into quite thoroughly as well about the extent of clearing that they can undertake along that boundary. And the condition has been limited to reflect the amount of clearing that is exempted development under the Act. Councillor Lorentson: Can I note my understanding the access trail will only be used in emergency situations. Yes. And it's got to be gated and not available as a general secondary access point. That's correct. So it's only under emergency situations. That's correct. Speaker 13: Yeah. Correct. Great. Councillor Lorentson: And that's. And at the moment buses can't go through it. Is that correct? No. Not at all. No. Not at all. Yeah. It's. It's. It's a condition of the application to allow access for buses. Great. That's correct. Yes. Okay.
02:42:00 Speaker 13: And I think it's worth pointing out too isn't it Nadine that there's also a condition restricting them being able to use the site and is it extreme and. Catastrophic. Catastrophic. Catastrophic. Conditions. So. So when. As we know that the dial on the fire. So when they're at those two sort of peak periods there's a condition they require that they don't host that and again these are proactive measures to stop potentially being people being in an environment when the risk levels are high. So that's again further unlikely to need these emergency provisions are to be used because we're trying to avoid having people in a high risk situation when you know those risks are apparent. When those. When those fire risk levels are such at an extreme level. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could you. Could you refer to the point of truth for that fire rating because obviously some rural
02:43:00 fires. Great areas do their own and then there's the bomb one. Is it. Is it. Speaker 3: Bureau of Meteorology is the. Yeah. The item on that we've required them to address this part of the. Rather than just the. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah because it. What a great condition. That might be the bureau might do a whole regional one where we've just had a holy moraine but. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of events. So there's 88 beds. Does that mean 88 people or does. Yes. Speaker 5: That's right. Councillor Lorentson: So we have a maximum. Yes. Speaker 5: If there's a condition. Yes. So there's a condition there. We've also conditioned that. So it's the way they've indicated it. There are 80 beds. There are no staff. The kids tents are double bunks. The teachers tents are single beds. But we've also got a condition that no staff are to as in other staff who might come to do I suppose cooking, cleaning, whatever.
02:44:00 They can't live on the site. And as I said they're in the bottom sort of corner of the site. There's an existing managers residence on the site as well. So there is someone who will be maintaining the farm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you're thinking about why staff couldn't live there? Speaker 5: Again we're talking about scale and intensity. So they that's actually what they indicated to us in the original application that they would be providing employment for people in the local surrounding areas that this site would be for the accommodation of the teachers and then they'll draw on people in the surrounding area to and basically again we're reducing the risk on the site. There is an existing house on the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I'm just thinking in other uses we've encouraged staff and applicants to actually have staff accommodation because of the housing crisis. Yeah. Speaker 5: Again yeah but as I said they're looking for, well there would be nothing if it's based on farming. Remember this isn't, we're in a rural zone. So we're trying to make sure that agriculture is our main activity. So if they put in workers accommodation that was serving the farm I think that would be
02:45:00 okay. But again you know that's, that's again the primary purpose is the agricultural activities and this is being linked in to it's, it's improving I suppose. Councillor Wegener: Council Wigley you had a question? Yes. With the, the clubhouse that's there now and is that, that's going to stay according to the report? That's correct yes. Will it be used by the permaculture people? Speaker 5: So they've indicated that because this is again they'll be, they're going to have to keep school camps and, and groups coming that that would be an additional activity that the groups coming can undertake. So it's, it's a permaculture golf course because it's got the orchards through it. So but yeah it's really will be retained as another activity for people attending the site. Councillor Wegener: So the golf, so the golf club stays. Yes. Before it was going to be, with the last application it was going to be torn down. Speaker 5: It was going to be totally removed but in it's stead it was being replaced with a very large reception,
02:46:00 office, it was a very commercial sized building going on there. I think there was another kitchen and dining area that could fit basically the 300 people on the site. Plus there was a, a multi-purpose basketball court next door to it as well with massive, sorry, with massive toilet facilities. So it was a, it was a very large site. A substantial building, Tom. So this will be torn down. The golf course is not, is not open to the public when the camp's in, in use because of course they'll have children or school groups there. Okay. Councillor Wegener: May, may I move the? Councillor Lorentson: Oh may. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'll second. Okay. Councillor Wegener: And I'm, I'm very excited about this and if we're going to the strategic framework, this is exactly what Noosa has been aspiring for in the hinterland and referencing the new agricultural paradigm. I'm just going to read directly from the strategic framework.
02:47:00 This includes ancillary, my tongue, ancillary rural industries to support production, investment and diversification, for example, farm processing, farm gate sales, cooking schools, and value-adding food production, as well as agro-tourism, low-impact homestays, rural and nature-based accommodation, retreats, and lifestyle and leisure, leisure experiences. And so with the, the hinterland and the, these properties, I just love that going down this route. I think it's really important for this. This is what we do as a biosphere, is we live in harmony with nature. Conservation is one thing. Living in harmony in nature. And, and, and utilizing our wildly degraded farmland in, in, in an economically viable way is actually the mandate of the biosphere. That's what we, that's what we want to do, is, is, is be able to create income and create
02:48:00 value from land. Conservation, creating value from land, but leaving the whole land piece to the next generation better than we found it. And so by doing this, by the permaculture park there, it's just, just seems perfectly consistent with our biosphere and with our, our own strategic framework and our intent to moving, going forward as NUSA. That makes different, a NUSA different by nature. Councillor Phillips: I just have one more question for the chair, please. Just the traffic impact road works. Councils, senior engineers reviewed the revised proposal, provided the following comments. There's a bit here about an intersection upgrade to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to support heavy vehicles and buses. Would you mind just maybe talking you through that bit. That's for Kabi Kabi. Speaker 5: That's for coming out the other way. Yes. If you go, if we go up to, if you go, maybe it's on figure one.
02:49:00 So that, so that's coming in from the western side. So that intersection needs to be upgraded. The road needs to be upgraded. And the intersection needs to be upgraded. No it's not there. So it's the one coming out and yes it will be upgraded and that the applicant has to do that as well and it has to be passing lanes and unfortunately there is some vegetation that would be required to be removed in that road reserve. Councillor Phillips: And my last question back to that little fire access trail. When we look at that, does that actually fit the rural fire truck? That might be a real simple question and I know that small gap of 170 metres or whatever it was it's definitely going to fit. Speaker 5: Oh no, so it's a 10 metre wide. Speaker 3: Yeah, so we've got a 10 metre width to work with, so within that 10 metres we'll be able to fit a rural fire truck and full access for the bus and then it'll come out onto Road 176 which is a full road with road reserve there
02:50:00 which they can construct the road as required as per that VEQ. Councillor Phillips: Great, thank you. Any more questions? Councillor Wegener: Question? Question. With the golf course as an ancillary use to the permaculture, is it realistic to think that you could maintain a golf course for 88 school camping kids as an ancillary use? It just seems wildly out of balance. Speaker 5: It's currently being maintained now. If you actually look at the area photos and go out on site, the golf course is currently operating. It's fully maintained at the moment and I'm not quite sure what their current patronage is. Councillor Wegener: So it is gone from there, it's still a business. Speaker 5: Yeah, if you go out there you see it, it's beautifully mown. Okay, I didn't know that. Yeah, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so just to clarify, the golf course is a separate approval not reliant on this, so it has conditions? Speaker 5: We've, sorry.
02:51:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Or are you combining the conditions? Speaker 5: It's an other change, so the applicant didn't request any changes to the original approval, so the original conditions of the permaculture golf course still change, and then there's a whole new set of conditions as part of that approval, which will just run. It's additional? It's additional, it's an additional. Councillor Wegener: As long as it doesn't supersede. Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, because before it was going to, the golf house was going to go and it was all going to be the perfect, so now it's substantially different because the golf course is still running in conjunction with the ADA. Speaker 5: It was always planned with the old one, it was still going to run and. It's a small number of holes. Yes, well they were removing, I think, I think there were three or four holes on the north eastern portion, on the opposite side to where this one is. That's where another village was proposed. There was a couple of golf holes there. So it was probably, it was going to be a smaller golf club, golf course, sorry.
02:52:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll take the question. Question, sorry. I'll take the question next. I, like Councillor Wegener, have always liked the concept. I do really appreciate the effort the staff have gone through to get to a size and scale and a location that overcomes the range of constraints for a golf course. So this nature of development, it is one of the few areas where we have really good quality soils mapping and it is definitely good quality agricultural land. So moving to the clamping tents, which are not a permanent alienation of agri-land, is a good thing that, you know, in the location that hasn't, adversely affected by bushfire hazard to a scale that is probably, you know, there's not many school groups bigger than 88 anyway. You know, it's probably a whole year level in most, even large schools. And as Councillor Tom said, embedding education in the real world of local agriculture is a
02:53:00 really important thing. If you looked at our last report on climate response planning, it was an area where we were behind what we said we were doing. It's not an area that we've done a lot of in terms of the importance of local food in climate, particularly in a disaster scenario. Where, where, you know, in even, you know, regional chain, regional size disasters can spoil the food chain. But if you can imagine if it's a larger one, our global food supply chains can be really impacted. I think it's, it is really important to understand that Noosa's future agriculturally isn't the same as Gatton. Just protecting the land. Considering the land. The level of subdivision that's historically occurred is really, it's hard to make a single property commercially viable. So I did a bit of research on this a decade ago and, you know, the number one thing for
02:54:00 farmers in these peri-oven areas is we need to have a second source of income. So having this mixed use on site is really part of a sustainable future for food production. Recognising like the function centre that, you know, that scale of the macadamia farm is probably not commercially viable. So it is how we can balance maintaining our food production capacity, but also ensuring those who own the land can make a living. So in this case, it's owned by a foundation or a not-for-profit organisation, a charitable trust, whatever it is. And it is actually building capacity both into our local schools and any other schools that we have. And it's not just about local food. So it is, to me, a good development. Councillor Lorentson: Question for the Chair. Question. So in September 2023, the applicant actually stopped the clock. Can I ask, and then over the last 12 months, further negotiations, can I ask, when you
02:55:00 stopped the clock, do you still, because it's still, you know, it's been a long, long time since the applicant's told of the changes? And is there an opportunity for the residents to make any submissions? Or are the submissions from the very first application the only ones that are considered as part of the application? That's correct. That is correct. Yes. Okay. So the adjoining neighbours at this point, are they aware that this has been resubmitted with a revised scale? Speaker 5: No. They haven't been formally notified? No. Okay. So again, we're looking at this, however, as we've said. This is... A continuation. Exempt clearing. Speaker 12: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The DA rules govern the steps in the process for assessing an application.
02:56:00 Yeah. And there's sometimes you can have to go back to the beginning and, you know, reissue an information notice and potentially issue a new information request and go back through notification. When matters are raised through the information request or through further advice from Council that seek changes to the application, and then they're made, it allows the application to continue. Yeah. Yeah. Makes sense. Speaker 13: If they respond to the matters that have been raised through that process. That's right. They're in response to those matters. That's the scale and the issues around bushfire, which the applicant is supposed to stop and address. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the application. I'm also really excited and pleased that this outcome's been achieved. At the time, my recollection was that most, if not all, the Councils were in support of the vision. It was simply the scale and potential risk that...
02:57:00 Yeah. ...that were not supported, but the vision was. And, you know, the applicants listening, I want to reach out and say thank you for not giving up on their dream. This is what Noosa needs. And this will have enormous community benefit. It aligns with our strategy and who we are. And I think it... Part of the negotiation or the further negotiations over the last 12 months, what's in front of us shows a real respect and understanding of both the values of who we are as a community and also the Noosa plan. So I'm... I can't wait to see this actually in its complete face. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to it very quickly and really historically, young people have been able to talk about Googa from Good Shepherd. I see it as another awesome history writing for young people.
02:58:00 And I hope... I hear my kids and their friends talking about school camp here. If it gives Googa a run for its money, that's awesome. So, yeah. Thank you for what we've seen and the presentation over there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Councillor Wilson: There's a huge difference between what was originally presented and what we're seeing now. So, yeah. Well done, everyone. Thank you. Director Rawlings: Thank you for coming. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I think it's a really great outcome. Like, they cast a vision and everyone's worked together to get an outcome. So I think that's a really good indication how when people come together and collaborate for great ideas around the table. I'm really excited for young people that get the opportunity that if they're coming from a city to, you know, come completely way out to the country and have that first-hand experience
02:59:00 and have that first-hand experience. Some of them may never have had that. So I think when we talk about envisioning for our future and sustainability for our future generations, I think this is a fine example of how we can actually embed that. And so, you know, just a big thank you to the staff and the applicants that, you know, worked together. That's a significant scaling down, but we've been able to achieve the outcome. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. I think the council has done a really good job. The councillors have covered all the issues really well. And again, it's another great example of what can happen when applicants work collaboratively with professional planning staff. So congratulations again. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just before I ask the councillor whether he wishes to reply, I did mean to mention and commend staff attachment to the further report. It doesn't always happen, but the staff have changed their recommendation and the further report clearly identifies the grounds for improvement.
03:00:00 Which I think is, for me, very valuable to see the logic. And I suppose for those people who didn't make submissions, I can also follow that logic through. Councillor Wegener: So thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener, would you like to pose? Councillor Wegener: I too would like to thank staff for the approval on the site. I would, to be honest, I would love to see it become successful and more successful and have the golf course gobbled up by permaculture farmland. I think it would vastly increase the value to the Noosa Shire having cooks and farmers and a very vibrant space out there. It reminds me of the farm in Byron Bay. You know, how that went from, you know, the dilapidated cow pasture to a vibrant, vibrant money-making place for employing many, many, many locals. So I see this as a fantastic step forward. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put to the vote. Those in favour? That would be being enormous.
03:01:00 And I've got all the hard questions at the end. Councillor Lorentson: Merry Christmas. Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Good job, guys. Speaker 5: My bushfire. My bushfire man. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So our next item is actually a planning environment court appeal, which is identified as a confidential session. Could I have someone to move the motion? Move. Seconded by Councillor Lauriton. Councillor Phillips: I'll second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Phillips. And basically we're closing the meeting to the public based on the standard provisions within the Act dealing because we're discussing legal advice. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Just wait for the...
9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
9.1 CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 1219 OF 2020 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, DETACHED HOUSE AND RECONFUGURATION OF A LOT (1 LOT INTO 2 LOTS) AT 27 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA HEADS ¶
03:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. In respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 12-19 of 2020, Council delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution.
03:30:00 Second of Council, Wilkie. I don't have anything to say. Does anyone else wish to have anything to say? I put the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. We've reached the end of our committee meeting at 4.02pm. Thank you for all your deliberations and contributions, Councils and staff. Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks, Captain. Speaker 13: Well done, Captain. Thank you, Captain. Good stuff on children.
10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.