Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you to all the people who pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge their continual request for us to join them as joint custodians, respecting and caring for this place, a beautiful place that we all love, and respecting and caring for each other. I note that all councillors are in attendance except for Councillor Jess Phillips, who is an apology due to a family matter, and we have Councillor Finzel online. May we have a move or a second for the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 21st of November. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to move, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, who seconded it. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Thank you. That's carried. Can we have a move or a second of the minutes of the special meeting held on 5th of December, and resumed by 12th of December? So moved. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Next are petitions. Councillor Lorentson, I'm glad you have a petition. Councillor Lorentson: I do have a petition. Thank you. The petition is for a safe pedestrian crossing on Eumundi Noosa Noosa Road between Beckmans Road roundabout and Rennie Street roundabout.
00:01:00 And I would like to present the petition to the CEO and request that he follow up and accept the petition. Mayor Wilkie: I have a second for that. Councillor Lorentson: Second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell, thank you. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. There are no presentations. We have three deputations. These were deputations that are historic. They were lodged in the early part of the year. We've since changed the standing orders that deputations cannot be heard on development applications when the matter is before the Council. The matter is not before us today. So we're allowing the deputations to be heard. So first up, we have the applicant, Rick Duncan. Thank you. On behalf of the Northern SEQ Distributor Retail Authority, trading as Unity Water, welcome
00:02:00 to the lectern. Rick, present your deputation. You have 15 minutes. Thank you. Rhett Duncan: Good morning, Mayor Wilkie, Councillors Finzel, Lorentson, Phillips, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Unity Water is the water and wastewater services provider in the Noosa region. My name is Rick Duncan, and in my role as Executive Manager, Customer Delivery, the operation and the maintenance of our network is my responsibility. This is our third deputation in relation to the proposed development at Noosa Springs. And we remain firm in our opposition to this proposed location of the new hotel development. This deputation is based on the current application. However, we understand that a further extension of the decision period to the 24th of December of this year is not in place. The proposal is to make minor changes to the application and provide updated advice from
Deputation: RHETT DUNCAN ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN SEQ ¶
00:03:00 a number of experts with respect to ecology, odour, noise, visual amenity and bushfire. Unity Water has no visibility of these proposed changes or the potential impact that these may have on planned operations. Once we have an understanding of the impact of these minor changes, we would welcome an opportunity to discuss them with you. I would now like to take this opportunity to brief Council on the impacts to operation of the plant prior to a decision being made on this application. Unity Water is an essential services provider, lawfully operating water and wastewater services for the Noosa community. The Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant has been in operation on the current site since the 1970s, where it was operated by Council. The entire Noosa Sewage network consists of 418 kilometres of sewer mains, 10,319 maintenance holes. And 114 pump stations, all configured to transport sewage to this specific location,
00:04:00 which has been operating successfully for over 50 years. The plant can't be picked up and relocated without enormous cost and years of disruption to all sewage services for the Noosa residents, the community and its hundreds of thousands of annual visitors. When the plant needed upgrading in 1995, Council made a conscious decision to shift the plant closer to the southern and the western property boundaries, maximising the distance to the existing residential developments to the north. This is consistent with the recommendations in the Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned by Noosa Council to keep sensitive receptors more than 400 metres away from the treatment plant. There doesn't seem to be any reason to change this and increase the risk of odour impact by introducing more sensitive receptors within the 400 metre distance from the plant. This is consistent with the recommendations in the Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned However, the current development locates the swimming pool and the outdoor amenities approximately 150 metres from the sewage treatment plant site boundary and approximately 200 metres
00:05:00 from existing odour generating processes. Planned operations haven't changed. In fact, there's greater treatment occurring today as the Noosa community population grows and visitor numbers continue to increase year on year. The Noosa treatment plant operates within its licence capacity. However, the Noosa treatment plant operates within its licence capacity. The Noosa treatment plant is subject to significant peak loading during holiday periods. Meaning the highest risk of odour is during peak holiday occupancy at the proposed development. Approval of the proposed Noosa Springs development could also put Council in direct conflict with the State Planning Policy, July 2017, which seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. So what's this 2.5 odour unit contour line and what does it actually mean? Well, there's been a lot of discussion about this. We have had a lot of discussion and a lot of focus on this 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling, much of it being with our proper context and understanding of what it actually means.
00:06:00 Firstly, the applicant would like you to think that the 2.5 odour unit contour is a hard and fast line, beyond which there are no odour issues. This is not the case. The odour modelling exercise and the 2.5 odour unit contour are simply scientific means of assessing the risk. It's not the law and it does not release unity water from its obligations under the law. The Environmental Protection Act and the June 2024 legislative changes specifically focus on odour, meaning odour is now treated as an environmental nuisance and may constitute serious or material environmental harm. This is the law and it carries both financial penalties and potential imprisonment. But I'll come back to the law in a bit more detail shortly. Secondly, a crucial point to note is the 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling is a modelling estimate based on a point in time when data was captured nine years ago in 2016.
00:07:00 It's not a single hard line where people experience odour on one side of the line and no odour on the other side. In fact, think of the contour like a windsock, not an impenetrable barrier. The modelling outcome will shift with the prevailing weather conditions, like wind direction and body temperature. It's sensitive to the density of surrounding vegetation and impacted by the operational conditions of the plant, which change throughout any given day. The 2.5 odour unit contour you see is therefore an average of all the modelling predictions based on the data used. In some scenarios, the 2.5 odour unit contour will be closer to the treatment plant and in other scenarios it will be further from and potentially beyond the proposed development. Recent information received from the previous plant operator confirmed that since the upgrade was completed in 1997, there have been 12 odour complaints from neighbouring residences recorded by the plant, all of which stem from beyond the 2.5 odour unit contour line.
00:08:00 In fact, six of those are from the 1.25 odour unit contour line based on the 2016 odour modelling provided by this Council as part of this application. Another consideration is if vegetation densities change over time, such as clearing prior to construction. This may render the modelling invalid, as one of the core variables used in the modelling has now significantly changed. Our climate is also changing, bringing into question the validity of nine-year-old data collected in 2016. Now odour modelling only considers the quantifiable experience being something people might smell, but does not distinguish the type of odour or take into account how different people might react and respond to the smell. Importantly, the contour line modelling does not take into account or consider in any way what is unquantifiable. And by this I mean the variations in daily planned operations, changes in daily weather and individual sensitivities to smell,
00:09:00 the actual lived experience of being close to an operational sewage treatment plant. Thirdly, the odour modelling is based on the predicted 1 hour 99.5th percentile ground level concentration of odour. We do not know what the 100th percentile contours look like. By using the 99.5th percentile, the model is saying that odour will be experienced for 44 hours in a year. Now this may not sound like a lot, however I refer to my earlier comment about the greatest risk of odour occurring during peak holiday season. Imagine a fully booked hotel in peak summer holiday season, guests sitting by the pool smelling the odour from the plant for 8 hours as they are trying to enjoy their relaxing holiday. Although by modelling the 99.5th percentile, the developers have met the 2013 DETSI modelling guidelines. Council, the Noosa community and Unity Water should also be presented with the case at the 100th percentile,
00:10:00 which is the actual worst case scenario, as this may present a very serious risk. This would allow an assessment of operational risks in a worst case scenario event. Even if the frequency of issues is low, an odour event can still exist and any exposure may be considered unacceptable. This situation is the unquantifiable. There must be a balanced approach to risk that looks at both the quantifiable and the unquantifiable, which is the lived experience for visitors and guests. So as I mentioned earlier, the changes to the Environmental Protection Act passed in June 2024 now mean that odour is treated even more significantly under the Act and environmental nuisance may now constitute serious material environmental harm. A new offence in fact has been created under section 391 of the Act in relation to contravention of general environmental duty while undertaking an activity
00:11:00 where the contravention causes or is likely to cause serious or material harm, specifically odour. Penalties related to this offence include financial penalties and even up to two years of imprisonment. If this development is improved, Council is putting sensitive receptors right back into the frame and on the doorstep of the modelled odour contour line. Council is placing the reverse amenity risk back onto Unity Water and therefore back onto our customers. Even worse than this, Unity Water could also be faced with a civil suit from Noosa Springs if odour causes an impact on their hotel business and forecast occupancy rates. Remember my point about modelling versus lived experience. It only takes one individual to complain about their lived experience of staying at the hotel during an odourous event and the regulator will have cause to investigate. At that point it won't matter what any modelling at the 99.5 percentile says because the lived experience of that complainant dictates what happens next.
00:12:00 Unity Water knows this first hand from experience at one of our sewage pump station sites where one complainant, new to the adjacent property in 2020, resulted in an over $1 million upgrade and the subsequent legal matter that remains ongoing today. The pump station in question have operated without complaint in the middle of suburbia surrounded by three properties for over 40 years. The operational and financial implications of one person's lived experience and the reaction to odour can have far reaching impacts on our business. And we all know the power of social media today where a single complaint can quickly escalate into a do not stay at a stinky hotel message. I cannot more firmly put on the record that the combination of enforced reverse amenity the unknown lived experience could result in action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution, costly plan modifications and financial loss
00:13:00 resulting from defending and or potentially settling a civil case. Noosa Council as a shareholder in Unity Water would also be directly impacted by this outcome. We don't have a blank cheque for upgrades or for defending legal actions that are preventable. In our last two deputations I referenced the cost of new odour control equipment at the Marumba Downs Treatment Plant in 2010 as a direct result of urban encroachment and that cost was $38 million in 2010. What that cost would amount to today, I can't hazard a guess. So in closing, Unity Water is an essential services provider. We operate responsibly and lawfully for the benefit of Noosa residents and community. We support development that promotes sustainable and responsible economic growth but we oppose the proposed location of this development because it locates new sensitive receptors closer to existing sewage treatment operations.
00:14:00 The assertion that odour contour modelling at the 99.5th percentile is justifiable as a balanced approach to risk assessment is misleading. It only takes one complainant with a negative lived experience at the new hotel to expose Unity Water to the potential enormous reputational and financial risks and serious legal ramifications. These can be prevented by Council backing its 1995 decision to establish a 400 metre buffer zone and to also comply with state planning policy regarding encroachment by incompatible development. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unity Water that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost Unity Water's Noosa customers, Noosa Council and Unity Water as a unit water shareholder tens of millions of dollars and severely limit our ability to meet future growth. The conditions proposed to be applied in approval, although with good intent,
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 actually further increase the very serious risks to Unity Water, to Noosa Council as a shareholder and to our customers. These risks can be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in its current location in the first place. Unity Water are asking Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. Again, I ask Council if the scenario was reversed, would Council approve a new sewage treatment plant with a 99.5th percentile odour contour right on the doorstep of existing luxury accommodation where the outdoor recreation facilities for that luxury accommodation fell well within that contour line? Thank you. Thank you, Mr Duncan. Mayor Wilkie: Next deputation, we have Kim Petrovic. And John Cochrane with another deputation on the Noosa Springs proposed development. Welcome, Kim and John. You have 15 minutes. Thank you.
00:16:00 Kim Petrovic: Thank you, Mayor, CEO and councillors for allowing us the opportunity to speak at the final ordinary meeting of 2024. My name is Kim Petrovic, a resident of Noosa Springs and I represent numerous residents who have submitted concerns regarding the hotel development at Noosa Springs in its current and previous formats. We've got seven basic concerns. The first one, outdated reports. Many consultant reports, for example, the odour, traffic, noise, parking, fire evacuation relied upon the applicant are out, are outdated, with some dating back to 2016 and 2017. These reports fail to account for significant developments such as the construction of Park Ridge Estate and Elysium, which together represent over 50% of the properties directly affected by the proposed hotel. We urge the council to mandate updated independent reports
Deputation: KIM PETROVIC ¶
00:17:00 that reflect current realities, including increased population, amplified events and the council's proposed rezoning of the Park Ridge Estate from tourist accommodation to high density residential. The MCU application has been prepared on the basis that Park Ridge Estate was already zoned as tourist accommodation. Outdated data cannot support informed decision making. Two, the bushfires. Links Drive is situated within a high potential bushfire intensity zone, presenting serious evacuation challenges due to its single access road. The Queensland Fire and Emergency Services do not recognise Amy Creek Road as a safe evacuation option. Their concerns contrast with statements made by planning staff at the P&E meeting of 11 June 2024
00:18:00 who suggested hotel buildings could shelter evacuees. This disparity raises critical questions about the safety of all residents and guests during emergencies. Third, the applicant survey. The applicant survey is fundamentally flawed. It relied on a small, non-representative sample, including non-residents and visitors, without targeting those directly affected by the development. Furthermore, the methodology was unqualified, with misleading assumptions, for example, attributing mutual responses as being supportive. We called for a professionally conducted independent survey to accurately capture residents' views. Four, planning and engagement issues. We reject the applicant's dismissal of over 400 resident objections as near standardized responses and the similar comments made by planning staff
00:19:00 at the P&E meeting of 11 June 2024. The notification period strategically set during the Christmas season limited meaningful community engagement. Requests for deadline extensions were denied and inadequate signage obscured the process further. Our concerns remain unaddressed despite multiple submissions and petitions demonstrating informed and genuine opposition. Five, community discussion forums. The forums held by the applicant on 24 June and 1 July 2024 revealed inconsistencies and a lack of concrete assurances. Claims linking the golf club's viability to the hotel's success lacked substantiated commitments. Additionally, aspirational statements about the five-star hotel
00:20:00 failed to address the broader community's concerns. The absence of measurable outcomes continues to undermine trust in this proposal. Six, mental health impacts. The proposed development risks disrupting the community's sense of security and peace, leading to increased stress and mental health concerns among residents. The displacement of key facilities such as pilates, physio, school holiday camps and junior tennis programs further compounds this stress. These activities are vital for community wellbeing and their loss will be deeply felt. Seven, developers' history and transparency. The applicant's history, including delays and changes in prior projects such as Icon Milton and Hope Island, raises concerns about their reliability and intentions.
00:21:00 Approving this major change of use application without clear guarantees risks exacerbating unresolved issues, potentially allowing for expansion beyond what is currently proposed. In summary, this proposal does not adequately address critical zoning, safety and community concerns that have been raised over the past three years. The updated reports, flawed survey methodology and lack of transparency undermine its credibility. We urge Councillors to prioritise the wellbeing and the voices of the residents who will bear the direct consequences of this development. It is worth noting here that tourism only supports one third of the Noosa economy and the application does not assist Council in any way to achieve its desired health goals.
00:22:00 We respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous decision to refuse this application as taken by the general committee on 17 July 2020. John Cochrane: Thank you, Councillors, for the opportunity to address this meeting. My submission is in regard to the Noosa Springs Hotel. My name is John Cochrane and I live in Noosa Springs. The objections to this application are broadly based and cover many issues. I am reminded that the application will not be submitted until it is paid with good intentions. I have no reason to doubt the applicant's good intentions, but the Planning Act does not list good intentions as a relevant matter. The Act is quite clear that a person's personal circumstances, financial or otherwise, are not relevant matters. Why is this important? Well, the applicant has chosen this development form over one which would comply with the Noosa Plan 2020 for financial reasons. We have proven that a smaller scale development could be constructed on land zone for the purpose
00:23:00 of complying with all controls. The strategy used to support the application relies on good intentions and the interpretation of relevant matters as defined in the Planning Act. However, we do not believe that the matters raised in the application as relevant are sustainable. Are they matters of public, not private interest? We do not believe so. The application restricts public use and amenity to affect private gain. The simple equation is over a three year construction program in broad numbers loss, 45,000 tennis coaching places, loss, 23,000 Pilates and physiotherapy places, gain, no extra tennis courts, gain, no extra golfing or ancillary facilities, loss, public access and amenity. Two, does the application satisfy a planning need? We say no, particularly now that there is approval in place for a better located hotel at Settlers Cove. Three, are current assessment benchmarks relevant? We say no. A higher level of impact assessment
00:24:00 would be appropriate given the rezoning of the adjacent Parkridge site for high density residential. Four, are the assessment benchmarks based on material errors? We do not believe so. Nor, is Honour Judge Wilkinson of KC in guidance states, they may include matters which mitigate for and against approval. We believe that there are a multitude of relevant matters mitigating against approval of this application. Indeed, relevant matters may also include amenity impacts and environmental impacts. It is important to note that amenity impacts include not only the effect of the place on the census but also the residents' subjective perception of the locality. Key takeaway here is that if relevant matters are to decide an application they must have weight and they must include consideration of both positive and negative impacts. We are here today because the applicant has delayed the final decision on the application after Council voted to refuse.
00:25:00 The applicant's amended submission seeks to persuade Council that there are sufficient grounds to reverse the prior decision. We believe that the amended application brings no new information but simply reiterates prior statements by the applicant. We also note that this submission contains only minimal changes to the proposed design and no mitigation of impact outlined in Council's motion to refuse. This application is full of inconsistency and potentially unforeseen consequences except that potential consequences are not all that law disguised. The applicant has stated that tourist accommodation density control would yield 15,240 square metres of floor area whereas the hotel only contains 10,280. As the current scheme is cited mostly on open space recreation zoned land there is a considerable portion of land zoned tourist accommodation available for future development. If the argument is accepted a further application for an additional
00:26:00 5,000 square metres of hotel to be built over the existing car park area could be lodged. It would comply with clock ratio controls and zoning. The site cover calculation is a little murkier. The planners report has concluded that the site cover will only comply if the site is aggregated. That's an aggregation of both TAZ and OSR zones. In fact the site cover on the OSR zoning is two and a half times the amount of 10%. This zoning of approximately 15,000 square metres would yield 1,500 square metres of site cover. However the application cites 3,800 square metres of building on the OSR zone. The only acknowledgement of this non-compliance in the planning report is it is acknowledged that the extent of site cover does not comply with the existing map for recreation and open space zone when considered in isolation. However the building and structures do not detrimentally reduce the usability of open space or dominate the site. Well that is a matter of opinion and hardly a sound basis to overturn a principle
00:27:00 of density control. Further the only planning justification given is the assumption that the only basis for the OSR zone is the ODEC contour. No rigorous planning assessment can justify acceptance of such a gross non-compliance with the planning controls for zoning without reference to all objectives of the zone. These are not addressed. Further if in the future one was asked to assess an application on the basis of an initial plan site cover relating to the TAZ would yield approximately 9,200 square metres of site area. What the developer is potentially asking council to do is to approve a building outside the allowable zone in order to make available land in the proper zone for possible future development. 5,000 square metres of additional allowable floor space would equate to 100 rooms based on 30%
00:28:00 travel and engineering and a room size accruement to those proposed in the current application. So the hotel could be 206 rooms with little possibility of refusal. Even if the applicant were to reduce the size of this hotel in this application and shuffle it around on the OSR zoning all they are really doing is banking clock ratio and site cover for future application. 2. Potential change of use by future application. The proposer will approve gain consent to construct a facility which includes an overscaled foyer with attributes which would make it enormously attractive to operate as a function space. A commercial kitchen and backup house provision will be on the scale of service appropriate to breakfast for 200 guests. It is of little comfort that these uses are carved out by conditioning at this stage. It would only be a matter of a further application to achieve a fully independent facility capable of operating to the exclusion of the existing golf club. You must remember the hotel will be leased to a fully independent operator.
00:29:00 The suggestion that the management system expressed by the applicant can be maintained is fanciful albeit another different intention. In closing let's be clear what the applicant is asking of Council. I have one parcel for you. I would like to build a hotel on the open space zoned land. The only reason I can give for doing so is that it will be bigger and better than it might be if sited on the tourist zoned land. So Council will you put aside your properly made plan your environmental overlay the warnings of uniquely water the multiple environmental and social impacts and concerns of many residents so we can build a bigger and more profitable hotel than we might otherwise be able to build. In this application we have no new information a real danger of future unforeseen development and no real reason to request that Council has altered their previous position on the hotel. Thank you Council. Thank you Mr Cochrane.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Mayor Wilkie: Our third and last dedication also on Noosa Springs is from Christy Kim on behalf of the Noosa Springs Tennis Club. Welcome Christy. Christy Kim: Hi. Thank you so much. Good morning Mayor, CEO and Councilors. My name is Christy Kim. I'm a local here in Noosa. Sorry I'm a bit nervous. Today I am here to communicate concerns around the proposed hotel development at Noosa Springs on behalf of the tennis community Noosa Springs Tennis Club has developed significantly over the last 20 years. It is a very much appreciated facility that is enjoyed by Noosa Springs members, junior tennis players, mothers groups, fathers groups and interstate tennis enthusiasts. Currently there are 210 junior tennis players and 140 adult players who participate in wonderful programs
00:31:00 offered at this thriving sporting club every week. That's 210 junior tennis players. Programs offered at Noosa Springs include private tennis lessons, pop shop squads, elite squads, adult sessions, female training groups, tennis camps and more. Just a few months ago two of the under 11 female tennis players that train in our club were selected to represent Queensland in a major event against New South Wales. There were only 16 girls out of the whole state that were selected. Two of them were our girls. We have many aspiring young athletes, tennis players starting to make a name for themselves in ranked tournaments, not just locally but on a state and national level which has been made possible due to the professional programs offered at Noosa Springs and due to the dedicated caring coaches who facilitate exceptional training methods. Should the
00:32:00 tennis courts become unavailable it would not only impact obviously everyone's sessions but it would not be possible for our tennis players to go to other clubs. Other tennis clubs could not absorb the immense quantity and quality of training sessions that are currently being provided to the players at Noosa Springs. Some of our junior players train like twice a day. There are wait lists everywhere. For private lessons and squat intake at other tennis clubs junior players would crawl out of the sport, would have their sporting pathways taken away from them and also coaches would leave their jobs. Harry who operates outside the box gym which is located at the back of the tennis courts at Noosa Springs has become a very important business to the Noosa community. He works with children, youth, adults, seniors and aspiring athletes to improve
00:33:00 strength, fitness, confidence and overall well-being. Harry probably most importantly offers a kid fit academy during the holiday periods between 9am and 3pm where children can be outside off screens in a safe place while staying active. During these days Harry has an average of 40-50 children that get dropped off there by their parents. I spoke with many parents and I always do because I'm always there with my kids as they were dropping their kids off earlier this week I'm so sorry. Most of the parents told me that it allowed them to actually continue working through the holiday period. As you all know some of the private schools take two months off over the Christmas break and times are tough. It's extremely difficult for parents who must work due to the cost of living so he's like a saviour for local families
00:34:00 who can continue working. Finally, there is Burn Pilates and Physio a wonderful business that supports our community in so many ways. The Burn Pilates and Physio studio have approximately 160 people attend each week. Over 48 weeks this is over 7,000 users per year. With many of these people from Noosa Springs in Byron's which has an ageing population many of these users will be affected by the proposed development. They attend these important sessions as a pathway to healthy ageing and the programs perform both physical and psychological practices. Such sessions help our ageing community with functional autonomy, life satisfaction and sleep quality. Removing such important programs will have adverse impacts on our beautiful community. This development will remove all of these recreational
00:35:00 activities which are currently used by Noosa community and significantly impact our community in a detrimental way. The proposed development will also mean that the dreams of our children, some of our children at those tennis clubs are aspiring to compete in our Olympics in Brisbane. This will all be destroyed. If this development is successful, we respectfully request that you maintain the decision to deny this application as taken by the General Committee on the 17th of July, 2023. And I have to be genuinely honest, like if our tennis community is pulled apart, it will never be the same again. Like that place is just, if you come to one of the training days, which is every day, there are literally 80 kids on the floor. They cannot be absorbed by other clubs. There are weightless everywhere.
00:36:00 Just won't happen. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms. King. Next up, we have an application of two questions from Deborah Walsh. Walsh would like to come to the podium and ask her questions, which will be answered by Trent Bright, our director of corporate services. Deborah Walsh: Good morning. I'm Deborah Walsh. I have two questions. The first question is, what is council's framework for outsourcing work to contractors and consultants, including key criteria such as value for money, contracting practices and policies, aligned with appropriate council plans, identification of risks, feedback on lessons learned, community engagement, including with Kabi Bloodline Elders, and comparison to internal council
Deputation: - KRISTY KING ON BEHALF OF NOOSA SPRINGS TENNIS ¶
00:37:00 employee expertise to undertake the work. Speaker 4: Thanks, Deborah. I'm happy I can help answer some of these questions. The framework for outsourcing any goods and services extends to the entire life cycle of any project or service, and consideration can be given to sourcing at both the planning and execution stages of any of those activities or projects. The planning stage focuses on service planning, workforce planning, project planning, and also budget deliberations leading to that. Now, during delivery, it's considered in terms of procurement and contract management. Now, with particular focus on the services that it undertakes, service plan not only articulates aspects such as service frequency and where those services occur, but also articulates council's decision on how those services are delivered in the delivery model and resourcing of those services.
00:38:00 Now, those service plans are adopted each year with the council's budget. It's a document that's called our service catalogue, and it's a document that's been placed, lifeguards, as they reach the end of their contract, they are reviewed to determine whether the scope and the sourcing model is appropriate. Now, given this is undertaken on a case-by-case basis for major services and a focus on how high value outsourcing arrangements, and as discussed last month at the ordinary meeting for November 2024, there's a great opportunity for council to discuss that. That's the significant opportunity discussed last month. Now, in terms of procurement, the procurement of goods and services by council is carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act, 2009, and the Local Government Regulation, 2012. More specifically,
00:39:00 when procuring goods and services, council officers must have regard to the sound contracting principles that are detailed in the Act. And, Thank you. Deborah Walsh: The second question, which I think is sort of more relevant, does Council keep a registered contract with the local government? Do you think there is a proper register of approved external consultants and contractors and a register of internal expertise of staff? And if so, how often are these registered reviews, registered, reviewed and updated,
00:40:00 and what is the process for undertaking this? Thank you Deborah. Speaker 4: Council does have a number of registers related to outsourcing arrangements at different levels. So in terms of the start of the procurement process, are panel arrangements. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council does rely on panels or registers of pre-qualified or preferred suppliers. Now Council will utilise these panels to undertake many of its procurement arrangements, particularly for the larger and medium to small arrangements. These panels are both established by independent industry bodies, such as LocalWide, and also for some specialised Council registers with a specific focus to ensure that Council can utilise and support local businesses where possible. For interest, it's worth noting that during the 23-24 financial year, over half of the goods and services Council outsourced were from local contractors based within the New South Gympie and Sunshine Coast regions.
00:41:00 Is that hard? Hard. Over hard. The pre-qualification process for these panels follows the Act's requirements for sound contracting principles and value for money. So it ensures that any business that we engage with through these panel arrangements has sufficient experience, insurance and standards, such as safety and environment, before Council engages them for work. And these panel arrangements are reviewed and updated annually, both the industry body ones and our panels. Now for any business listening online or interested in being listed in these panel arrangements, New South Wales Council's website and the Neighbouring Council's websites have information as to how businesses can list on these panels. In terms of executed contracts, under provisions of the Local Government Act and Local Government Regulation, Council reports all its large value contracts and tenders, valued at $200,000 and above, on its website under the Tenders and Procurement page.
00:42:00 Now that does not extend to small to medium-sized contracts, which is many of our smaller arrangements and engagements. It's purely focused on the large contracts. And this register is updated for each new contract. In terms of workforce, and you mentioned about workforce in your question, Council's new corporate plan articulates the need to develop a workforce capability plan. This plan, once we develop it over the next year, across the organisation, will provide us with a consistent baseline in determining any risks or opportunities. With the size, scale and expertise of that workforce, that may be currently supplemented through external arrangements such as contractors, labour hire, subcontractors and consultants. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Trent Grail. Thank you, Deborah. The second application of two questions is from Mr John Cochrane. John Cochrane: Mr Cochrane, the podium is yours. Thank you.
Public question: JOHN COCHRANE ¶
00:43:00 My apologies about the rather arcane nature of this first question, but it is relevant downstream in the planning terms. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Cochrane, your questions will be answered by Richard MacGillivray, our Director of Development and Regulation. John Cochrane: Thank you. May I read the background material first, or just the question? The question is, what is the definition of the structure used in determining site cover under the Minister Plan 2020? How is this definition derived? And what guidelines are used to ensure consistency in the application of the term? Speaker 5: Thank you very much for your question, John. The term structure is not defined in the Planning Act 2016. The Planning Regulations 2017 were in the Minister Plan 2020, as you've highlighted. However, the definition of site cover is in the Planning Regulations 2017, which specifies certain buildings and structures that are excluded from site cover calculations. These exclusions include buildings or structures. These include structures and landscaped or open space areas, such as gazebos or shade structures.
00:44:00 Basements completely below ground level, used for car parking. The eaves of the building and sun shades. As a result, these buildings and structures are not included in the calculation of site cover. However, to ensure consistency, Council officers have historically included structures greater than a metre in height, greater than a metre above ground level in these calculations. Items such as fences, retaining walls and poles are not included. The recent Council-endorsed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 do now include an editor's note that aligns with this approach to provide greater clarity regarding this provision. Thank you. John Cochrane: And my second question is specifically with regard to MCU 210110, the Noosa Springs Hotel. And I would like to read the background of this if I may. Because it is significant in terms of the answering the question. Mayor Wilkie: Are we going to be hearing anything other than what we heard during the 15-minute deputations, Mr Coffin?
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 John Cochrane: Yes. Yes, indeed. Well allowed. Well, the associated background material is the applicant states in the application that deliveries and waste collection activity are expected to occur at the existing clubhouse and hence no significant noise impact. The reasons is significant. The significant policy is the rezoning of Park Ridge to High Density Residential, which is materially affected by any waste pollutants in the area. In this case, why is there a need to assess the suitability of refuse truck access to the proposed loading dock in the trap of the court? The above statement is correct. How is the waste transported to the existing loading dock? Bearing in mind that most commercial waste facilities will use minimum 60, 640 litre bins. These bins would need to be wheeled up a 1 in 10 ramp at the loading dock and then down a spur road at the existing loading dock a distance of over 100 metres. The waste management process has considerable visual, olfactory and noise impacts on adjacent high density residential areas such as Park Ridge. The architectural drawings indicate a facility which is inconsistent with the applicant's statement.
00:46:00 So my question is specifically, how is waste management to be carried out in the New Springs Hotel? Specifically, where are the bins located and what size are they? How is waste transported to the bins? How is noise associated with the bins mitigated? Is the glass crusher proposed? And where do garbage trucks access the bins? Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr Cochrane, for that. So your query seeks specific advice about a development application currently under assessment and that may be subject to further changes from the applicant. What we will do is arrange for a planning office to assist you with some queries about waste management for the application and can also direct you to the current relevant application information. Which is available on the Council's PD online website. I hope that assists. Thank you, John. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Cochrane. Thank you, Mr MacGillivray. Our last application with only one question is from Mary Nance Forster. Deborah Walsh: Ms Forster, go.
00:47:00 Ms Forster. Can I ask a question? I beg your pardon. Sorry, Kim. Mayor Wilkie: I jumped again on Mary. My apologies. Kim Petrovich. You have two questions. You know the way. Thank you. Sorry, Ms Petrovich. You're all right. Kim Petrovic: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: And your questions are going to be, again, answered by Richard MacGillivray, Director of Development and Regulation. Thank you, Richard. Kim Petrovic: My first question is basically around the concerns that the community has in relation to the multiple extensions that have been granted to the applicant. And the second question, which is this, it's really quite timely too, is failure of planning staff to put an application and an extension approval up on the planning portal in a timely manner. So my question is, when does a request to extend the decision period cease to be dealt
Public question: KIM PETROVIC ¶
00:48:00 with by way of a delegated authority and brought to Council's attention? And if so, when does the request to extend the decision period cease to be dealt with by the Council? And also, in the case of multiple rolling approvals to extend the decision, at what point does it become the Council's decision to determine if these approvals should be issued rather than being issued by the development assessment manager? And I'd really like some follow-up action taken on this. Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Kim, for your question. Council officers are responsible for assessing development applications in line with legislative requirements. Extending the decision-making period is an operational decision made during the assessment process, similar to the issuing of an information request, extending an information response period or sending a further advice letter. Agreeing to extend the decision-making period is part of the assessment process and is not a decision on the application itself. Additionally, extensions to the decision-making period are often only requested and agreed to where the applicant has advised they intend to take steps to address or respond to issues raised during the assessment process.
00:49:00 Councillors are brief from time to time or on request on the status of applications that have significant community interest. And I appreciate your comment about documents being uploaded timely and I'll ensure that staff make sure that those documents are accurately updated on the PDOM. I'll be back on line as soon as possible as well. Thank you. Kim Petrovic: So my second question is does the rezoning of the adjacent Park Ridge estate as high density residential materially affect the assessment of the hotel? Speaker 5: Thank you again Kim for your question. While specific advice cannot be provided about an application currently under assessment, I can confirm that the rezoning of the adjacent Park Ridge estate does not materially affect the assessment of the proposed Hotel of Noosa Spring. The application is impact assessable and must be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016 Planning Regulations and the DA rules.
00:50:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Mr Fitzgerald. Thank you Mr McDonaghy. Now again, Mary Nance-Hawson, for real this time. And your questions will be answered by Shaun Walsh, our Director of Infrastructure. Okay, thanks. Thank you Mary. Speaker 2: My question pertains to the Cloud Hotel which has now been approved and the traffic infrastructure around it. So my question is can Banksia Avenue and Banksia Avenue North be connected in order to provide a third route from New Junction to the Cloud Hotel in Serenity Close in order to alleviate traffic congestion on Grant Street and also to provide a third exit in case of emergencies such as a bushfire?
Public question: MARY NANCE FORSTER ¶
00:51:00 Director Walsh: Thank you. Thank you for the question. Council's traffic engineers have assessed the proposed Cloud development application and considered the use of Grant Street and Katerina Street as being appropriate for traffic generated by the proposal. The proposal to connect Banksia Avenue North and Banksia Avenue needs more consideration as it may have an unintended impact on the network, potentially altering current traffic patterns and increasing demand on surrounding streets. As a result, a comprehensive analysis of the redistribution of traffic flow will need to be conducted to identify and address any potential congestion points, delays or plastic issues. In particular, the rack running of vehicles and local streets to avoid traffic congestion in New Junction needs careful consideration. Fortunately, it's noted that Council has commenced an update on the Lucid Traffic Study that considers traffic networks and functionality across the Shire using updated traffic filters.
00:52:00 Council can commit to raising this proposal to connect Banksia Avenue with Council's traffic study consultants and determine any benefit or impact, respecting that study in June next year. Any changes to the local traffic network can then be considered in a holistic manner. And any changes fully considered by Council and future community engagement are necessitated by any changes. Thank you for raising this possible traffic improvement for our future consideration. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Worcester. We now come to item 9. There are no mayoral minutes. There are no notified motions. Deborah Walsh: Can we have a comfort break? Mayor Wilkie: Councilors, would you like five minutes? Speaker 3: Thank you. We'll adjourn for five minutes.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 All right, we'll bring the mayor to order. All right, we'll bring the mayor to order. Mayor Wilkie: We are now up to Item 11, Consideration of Committee Reports. Planning and Environment Committee Reports. 7.1 was referred to the General Committee.
01:01:00 7.2, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, October 2024. We have a mover and seconder for the Planning and Environment Committee Recommendations. So moved. Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener: Seconded. Does Councillor Lorentson have a... No, sorry, wrong. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for the Planning and P&E Committee Reports, please. I beg your pardon. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: That's unanimous. Services and Organisation Committee. 7.1, Mayor's Attendance and Representation of Council for the Council of Mayors, SEQ Overseas Delegation 2025 International Travel. 7.2 was the Council Attendance at Sunshine Coast Precinct Transport Security Meeting. 7.3, Strategic Asset Management Plan 2024-2030. 7.4 was the Privacy Policy Review. May I have a mover and a seconder for the Services and Organisation Committee recommendation to give.
01:02:00 Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. We come now to General Committee Reports, which was 7.1, Material Change of Use, Function Facility 658, Louis Basso Drive, Ringtail Creek. And Councillor Lorentson has a conflict of interest. Councillor Lorentson: I have a conflict of interest. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers, in a personal capacity for legal advice on one single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you.
01:03:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I move the standard resolution regarding to that Councillor Lorentson participates in votes on this matter, because Councillor believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Mayor Wilkie: Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, I just had a question. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, we've got Councillor Wilson has seconded that, and now... I don't wish to speak, sir. You don't wish to speak? You wish to speak, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Finzel, you may ask your question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just as an abundance of caution, I was on site yesterday with the applicants. As you're well aware, the issue around this conflict of interest was asked. Just ensuring that there is... That Councillor Lorentson can confirm that you have no other relationship with this gentleman outside of a professional working relationship.
01:04:00 Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Do you meet him on any other occasions? Are you friends? Do you go away together? I'm just asking, given the applicants raised that on site yesterday. Councillor Lorentson: No problem. Happy to answer that. I know Pat Rogers just through community groups. He's a member of the Noosa Chamber of Commerce, and met him on numerous occasions, again, in work capacity only. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Councillor Finzel, do you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: No. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to pose the question. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson did not vote. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will move the alternative... Well, the amended recommendation that staff provided to the general committee. If I can have that up, I believe I will need to read out the changes, even though they
01:05:00 were discussed by the committee. And if you just flick through to the amendments, just so we all recall what those amendments were. The first one is an amendment to Condition 8, which is a clarification avoiding to include the use of approved function facility is limited to the hours of 11am to 10pm, inclusive of provisions of amplified music slash sound, renumbering, and then in Number 11, a minimum of one bus must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests. Then again in New Condition 15, with approved function facility use being specific in regard to amplified music.
01:06:00 In Question 16, it was talking about noise from site operations and specifically adding associated with the function facility use. New Condition 17, which suggests the event manager and or one on-day controller must ensure the noise levels generated by the function facility use are continuously monitored in real time to protect the immunity of nearby sensitive receptors and ensure compliance with relevant noise standards. We then go down to New Condition 22, which is the function facility use must always comply with the approved environmental noise level impact assessment and noise management plan. There might be one more, is there? And Condition 26, the function facility use must always comply with the approved operational management plan. Oh, there was another one. It's about the environmental restorations. That must be further down. There we go. Thank you.
01:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So this is the inclusion of a new condition, the land area, Condition 2054, the land area identified as vegetation community 4 on the approved plan titled Ecological Values Plan EV01 revision 1, date 25th of 6, 24, found in the ecological assessment report version 1, must be rehabilitated slash revegetated. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an operational works approval. And the planning scheme policy 2, landscape. The works must include the following. Works A, the works concentrate on incorporating tree and shrub species that diversify the vegetation community in accordance with regional ecosystem 12.3.2 and 12.3.1. B, control all weed species listed in the following standards and legislation. One, declared plans under Land Protection and Biodiversity Act 2014 and subordinate regulation 2016. Two, Schedule 1, 2 and non-scheduled invasive species listed in the following standards and
01:08:00 We've had the opportunity now for those councils who wish to go out on site to get an appreciation of the context of where the specific use is being proposed on the site. It is one that will be difficult for some councillors to support because we are aware that the submissions made by our surrounding residents were generally or completely ones that raised areas of concern. It is however a straightforward application.
01:09:00 Our role when we're assessing development applications is a role stipulated by the Planning Act. It is not a political role. We when we assess an application must be bound by the same rules of the set down by the Minister as staff do. We can assess this application in accordance with the Act which is about the benchmarks in the planning scheme or any other relevant matter. The staff report clearly shows that the acceptable outcomes and performance outcomes and overall strategic objectives in relation to a range of things have been met. There is no aspect that I can see in the report that has areas of grey. There is no aspect where staff have had to exercise any form of discretion in considering the application. The submitters generally have concerns around the potential impacts on their amenity and the potential impacts on the environment.
01:10:00 So we have had both our staff and expert advice that through the way that the proposal is conditioned that the noise and light amenity will not be of any significance. In fact the noise emanating at the border from this use would be significantly less than a car driving along the main road. We have and particularly with the addition of the noise and light amenity to the main road in the environmental restoration put in conditions that will ensure that the environment is not only conserved but conserved and rehabilitated to increase the natural values of the property in question. So councillors it is a use envisaged by the planning scheme. It is a use that has been able to demonstrate complies with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. We as the assessment manager need to assess some of the issues that have been raised in
01:11:00 relation to that compliance and in my view while it may be something that the general vision of the community doesn't support in that locality it is something that is envisaged and complies with the relevant parameters of the planning scheme therefore it needs to be approved. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel: I have a question. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Mr Chair. After going over the property yesterday we went along a drive along the main road along the large drive through the property to the site where the dam is and where the proposed function centre will be. My understanding is that there has to be a road constructed to the centre. My question to the staff is, is that where the easement would be? Mayor Wilkie: Is that more than easement? Thank you. Councillor Finzel we will get the staff to the table to answer your question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Mr Chair.
01:12:00 Thank you Mr Chair. The reason I do ask this question is around you know when you're doing a road building we have to like preserve cultural heritage and I'm just wondering what if we're moving forward with this construction of what I understand to be a road what the ramifications are. But I'm looking forward to hearing from the staff around this road construction. Thank you Mr Chair. Speaker 1: There's existing tracks on the property. My apologies. There's existing tracks on the property. I'm not sure which figure that would be in the report. And those tracks are to be upgraded to a standard that will be suitable for buses, for firefighting appliances. So when we use the word roads.
01:13:00 It's not like a new road that you'd be expecting to drive off on in the public domain. We have requested that those roads be sealed. Now, they're primarily existing roads. There is like a circular route near where the function building is located, which there'll be a connection in a new network to create a connection in that area. In terms of easements, there's no easements that's actually going over the roads. What we're requiring is actually a covenant over a vegetated area. They're separate issues. Councillor Finzel: Okay, thank you. So, if it's an upgrade to a standard for buses and safety vehicles and things like this to traverse, my question then comes back to the Cultural Heritage Act looking at when roads get built. I mean, I'm not an expert on this. I'm just wondering, given the land, its location and significance next to Ringtail,
01:14:00 given it's been an agricultural use for a long term... Good question, please, Councillor. So, the question is, is there any condition for the building of this upgrade to the standard to ensure any cultural things of significance that may be found through the construction, are protected? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, the applicant outside of the Planning Act has obligations to meet the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, which requires the duty of care for the applicant to take reasonable steps to ensure that no artefacts of cultural significance, if identified, must be notified to the department and ensure that they are protected. And to ensure that they don't have an adverse impact on any cultural heritage.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 So, there is a separate provision. It sits outside of the Assessment Planning Act process and is separately regulated through the State Department for that. So, they have a duty of care. They have to comply with it at all times, undertaking any works. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Another question following on from that. Then, to mitigate risk and ensure that the protocol is adhered to, is there a need for the process? Can we condition that? Speaker 5: Through the Chair. We can't specifically condition it because it's a requirement under a separate piece of legislation. We do have advice notes included in our decision notices that make applicants acutely aware of their obligations under the Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage Act provisions. Councillor Finzel: So, just trying to understand the process. So, prior to any upgrade to the building, is there a need for a separate piece of legislation or work on this infrastructure project?
01:16:00 I don't know the process. Does that need to be checked prior to commencement? Or is it only when and if something's found on site? Speaker 5: Through the Chair. There's a duty of care. So, prior to the works commencing, that the applicant must discharge that duty of care. There's a range of steps and guidelines that the Department has published that make landowners and developers aware of how things are going. And how they must meet those obligations. So, before they undertake and during the process of site preparation works, they'll need to undertake those steps in accordance with the Act guidelines. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I have a few amendments that I'd like to try. The first is, amend conditions eight and nine to read the following. The first is, amend conditions eight and nine to read the following. A, functions are limited to the hours of 11am to 7pm, Monday to Thursday, inclusive
01:17:00 of provisions of amplified music and sound. B, 11am to 10pm, Friday to Saturday and Sundays, followed by gazetted Queensland public holiday, inclusive of provisions of amplified music and sound. C, a maximum of three events per week. And D, a maximum of 90 sessions per week. And E, a maximum of six events per year. Nine all-staff and guests must have vacated the premises by A, 8pm Monday to Thursday, and B, 10pm Friday to Saturday and Sundays, followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday. Mayor Wilkie: Is anyone willing to second that? Deborah Walsh: I second for the purpose of debate. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson, Councillor Morrison. Deborah Walsh: Ok. Councillor Lorentson: I want to start by saying. Reiterating what Councillor Stockwell said earlier, that the applicant's done exactly what the planning scheme has allowed him to do.
01:18:00 In 2020, it was the Noosa plan that made a function facility consistent land use in the rural zone. Our role here today is to minimise the impacts of this lawful use as much as possible through reasonable and effective conditions. Our job is to bring the voices of the community that we've met to this table, and particularly those voices of the adjoining landowners and the local residents that live in close proximity to this site. The amendment I've proposed is, in my opinion, reasonable and reflects our commitment to our community. Firstly, it gives residents some certainty by capping the number of events to a maximum of three per week, so they have certainty that there's not going to be an influx of, say, five or six events in any given week.
01:19:00 Restricting the hours of operation. So, restricting the hours of operation, 11 to 7, Monday to Thursday, and 11 to 10pm on Friday, Saturday, and then Sundays, only when Queensland Gazette had public holidays, to me strikes a fair balance. The amendment... supports the business, while also protecting residents' quality of life and residents' well-being. The later hours, from Friday to Sunday, allow the business to operate during its busiest and most viable days, while maintaining restrictions during the quieter weekdays. I go back to unrestricted style of operations. I think it's important that we first provide the community, um, time to understand how this business is going to function, and time to assess its impact.
01:20:00 Um, allowing the operations from 11 to 10 every day denies residents this opportunity. Um, again, um, if the impacts are proved to be manageable, the applicant can always come back to Council and seek an extension of, um, hours. I want to raise this because it's... relevant, I think, to the application, but last week, um, Council's met with residents, uh, of Kin Kin. And... every single day, these, um, residents, uh... Mayor Wilkie: Oh, Councillor Morrison, I'm going to rule that out of order. It's a totally separate issue. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, so, today, what I'm asking is for us to basically respect or strike some sort of balance between the operations of the business. Understanding that it has a lawful, um, right to operate, and also respect the well-being, um, and wishes of our community.
01:21:00 Um, so, I hope you support what's in front of you. Mayor Wilkie: Questions, Councillors? Councillor Finzel: Senator Chair? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. I just have a question, uh, with looking at conditioning, uh, the hours of operation. Um, maybe this is the planning staff, through the Chair. I was of the understanding that, um, we don't consider the impacts of, like, the business, like, their business plan. I'm raising this because, uh, the applicants on site yesterday, um, communicated that the condition to reduce number of hours would not be, um, like, conducive to, uh, making their business plan viable. Are these conditions, are we heading down the right track on these? Or how does this work? Mayor Wilkie: I guess, uh, I guess, Councillor Finzel, I'm not, I might have to, uh, rule that question out of order.
01:22:00 Because the staff can't say whether or not the, these will make the business unviable or not. That's, uh, probably a judgement call for Councillors. Is there any advice you can give about how the applicant may respond to a change like this? Speaker 5: Correct. Um, just in terms of, um, the comments around the, the commercial viability. It's not a planning consideration as, as such, from our perspective. Um, the comment we would make, um, uh, we understand is that the, um, the applicant has, um, has concerns. Obviously, they've applied for the hours that they have, have sought. And, and staff have assessed that against the relevant benchmarks. Um, the risks of revised hours is, is whether that will be challenged by the applicant in terms of a potential appeal or submission of representations. Um, so Council staff have put forward the recommendation based on what was put before them.
01:23:00 And they've assessed that against the current benchmarks with the relevant technical reports. Um, so their view is that the hours proposed in the report, um, um, meet the scheme requirements. Um, and a reduction, um, um, could be subject to a challenge. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Um, the, I think what can be done. Councillor Finzel was, uh, perhaps requesting was the staff have put up a set of conditions which they believe is reasonable and relevant. A reduction in hours to this extent, um, is less reasonable and less relevant and therefore is open to challenge. Question? Is that correct? I agree. Speaker 1: Uh, through the Chair. Yes, I, I, I would agree. I just, if I may just note that condition six on the approval details, um, the number of events that are, are to occur throughout the year and, and the number of guests that are to attend reflective of what the applicants proposed, um, that equates to 96 events per year.
01:24:00 That, that is what they're proposing. Um, and in terms of the hours, they actually did extend for longer hours than what we have conditioned. Um, as a result of the acoustic review, there was a slight modification to pull in the operating hours in half an hour at the end of the day, um, to align with the, the required acoustic, um, requirements. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Um, a question. Um. Question. If the amendment is supported, does the applicant have the opportunity to come back to Council and apply for an extension of hours? Speaker 1: Um, through the Chair, certainly, um, the, the first mechanism the applicant would have would be to make representations to a decision of Council, which would seek modification or changes to any approved conditions.
01:25:00 Um, alternatively, um, they could seek an appeal, or if they did accept it, they could, you know, apply for an extension of hours. Seek to change conditions down the track. Mayor Wilkie: Councils wish to speak to the amendment. Councillor Finzel: I have another question through the Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: If I may. Thank you. Given it was put forward that we ask for an extension for this meeting, given we're having these discussions today around conditions and certain things, did the applicant show any consideration to extend the opportunity to give further consideration to the meeting in, was that January? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, staff engaged with the applicant in relation to the request to extend the decision-making period by agreement.
01:26:00 They did not agree to that request. And the decision date is due on the 20th of December. So, yeah, they haven't formally agreed to extend the decision-making date beyond the 20th of December at this stage. Councillor Finzel: And to refresh my memory, can you please tell me what happens in the process? Does that mean a deemed refusal? Speaker 5: Through the Chair. Through the Chair. So, if a decision is not made within the... In the statutory timeframe, because this is an impact-assessable development application, the applicant may seek a deemed refusal if a decision is not made on the application. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Look, I'm going to make a few comments about the amendments proposed related to what we discovered when we went on site yesterday.
01:27:00 These amendments relate primarily to the impacts, seek to further minimise potential impacts on the residents, which is primarily about impacts on rural amenity and the sound experienced on site. The conditions applied are extremely rigorous and stringent and put the applicant to considerable expense, but I think they're merited. Given our commitment to minimise, we're going to continue to do our best to address the impact on the residents in the area. The site itself is rather large. It's a thousand, sorry, a hundred hectares, and even though the nearest sensitive receptor or house is 670 metres as the crow flies, it is in between the proposed site and that house, there are many hills and orchards. There's not a direct line of sight.
01:28:00 So it is reasonable to accept the Acoustic Consultant's report that there will be very little sound impact on the nearby residents. The applicants have said they only require 96 events per year, which is one, maybe two a week, and they say they occur on Friday, Saturday nights. Now, I know that's consistent with what could be allowed with this, but I think it also gives residents false hope that the applicant is not going to come back and make representations to this or appeal it, because most of the events are going to be on Friday, Saturday night anyway. And I think it's slightly confusing because the conditions as they stand say a maximum of 96 events per year. This amendment also says a maximum of three events per week.
01:29:00 So, I think it's a little confusing. So, it creates uncertainty that residents could expect three events per week, when the intention of the applicant is certainly nothing like that. It's 96 events per year. The conditions as they are are very stringent, very robust. I think this amendment will be overturned on a representation to conditions, or an appeal. I don't want to give the residents any false hope. So, I'm not going to support this amendment, because I think the conditions already are extremely stringent. And those of us that went out on site yesterday and seen the topography, seen the distances involved, seen what stands between the potential site, the design that's proposed, glass walls enclosed, function centre, will be,
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 will be assured that the conditions are stringent enough, and there has to be good reason to impose a lesser operating hours. And I just don't think, nothing that I saw there would indicate that preventing them going beyond 7pm on some nights would be merited and certainly not challenged. Councillor Lorentson: A question through the Chair. Yes. Thank you. Richard, is it possible that... Through the Chair. Oh, sorry, through the Chair. Is it possible that there may in fact be four or five events in any given week, given that there are periods that are slower and periods that are busier and... Yeah, good question. Speaker 5: Yeah, through the Chair. Yeah, that's, that's correct. So, different times of year, there may be more or less.
01:31:00 There may be more events occurring, and then other times of the year, there may be no events. So, the applicant obviously, as the conditions are presented, to give flexibility to win in the frequency of those events throughout the year. So, it won't be 1.8 events every week throughout the year to meet the 96th. The applicant will have the flexibility to maybe have more on one week and less on another week as the conditions are designed. Councillor Lorentson: So, just to clarify. So, there may be some weeks where there could be, say, four or five events, possibly six events. Monday, Tuesday... Councillor Finzel: Sorry to interrupt. I can't hear Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, just in terms of clarity, is it possible that the applicant or this proposed function centre may actually entertain five to six functions on Monday, Tuesday?
01:32:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is exactly the same question being asked in a different way. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Point of order is sustained. Speaker 5: Through the Chair, yeah. So, as I mentioned earlier, the flexibility exists. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Councillors? Any further questions? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Just a question. Just to clarify that, you know, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, if this condition to reduce the number of hours to try and protect amenity, which I believe is the intent of Councillor Lorentson, and we haven't got the applicants at the table for further conversation and we've got to make the decision, what's the process for the applicant to seek to change the hours if it's not viable for their business, aside
01:33:00 from appeal? Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So, your question is if, if this amendment is supported and the applicant doesn't support the change of hours, what, what avenues are open to them, is that correct, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Aside, aside from appeal, is there, they can just come in and talk to planning staff or how does that work? Speaker 1: Patrick? Through the Chair, they can seek to make representations once Council makes a decision on the application and seek a negotiated decision notice. Or, or, or a change to the application. They are aware of suggested modified hours and have indicated to staff that they're not supportive of restrictions on their operating hours. I believe they did make a comment where they would be agreeable to three days per week, but that would only be on the basis of being able to operate on a Sunday and the public holiday as well, which is contrary to our recommendation. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes?
01:34:00 Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Um, I wouldn't be supportive of all of those conditions or amendments. Um, I would be supportive of reduced hours to 9pm on Monday to Thursday, um, making that more consistent with our entertainment facility in residential zones. Um, and noting that this is a wedding facility, um, I'm not that it's seasonal, I'm not that I'd like them imposing any restriction on three events per week is probably, um, unfair. At the same time, noting it's probably a lie that they would have more than three anyway, given the amount of time it takes to set up and pack down after each event. So that's hopefully something that's a consideration too. Thank you. Thank you. John Cochrane: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson: Um, Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Um, yep. I, I wanted to play with this amendment because I think Councillor Wilkie, what we heard
01:35:00 around the table is there is a possibility that there will be events on a Monday, on a Tuesday running until 10 o'clock, um, and the intent of the motion was simply to try to strike some sort of balance and respect, um, the adjoining neighbours, um, and representations that they've made. Um, I, I'm happy for this one to fall and I have another one that I'd like to present. I suppose as well. Thank you. Put the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Those in favour? It's Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie. Where are you standing on this one, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Um, against. Mayor Wilkie: Against. Amendments lost. Councillor Lorentson, you wish to try another amendment? Councillor Lorentson: Um, yes. Number eight. We choose use of approved, um, amending condition H1. Use of approved function facility is limited to the hours of 11am to 10pm inclusive
01:36:00 of provision of amplified music and sound. B, a maximum of three events per week. And C, maximum of 96 events per calendar year. Mayor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that one. Councillor Finzel: We need a second for debate. Mayor Wilkie: Um, Councillor Finzel will do it. Pursue for the second of the original motion. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Uh, I think the risk we have today is the risk of this going to appeal courts. So, um, again, I acknowledge that the applicant has a lawful right to operate and those rights are given to him under the amended NUSA plan in 2020. Um, I've actually run this proposal with the applicant. Um, and spoken to planning staff on this one. Simply, it's to be very clear that it is a maximum of three events per week.
01:37:00 Um, not five events per week. Um, again, our job today is to mitigate any potential, um, adverse impacts to the community. And I think if they have some certainty around how many events are allowed per give, given week, um, at least they can be, rest assured that at least four days a week they're sleeping. Um, so, at, at the moment, the current amendment allows. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel, could you turn off your microphone? Could you mute please? We're going to echo. Sorry, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. So, currently the amendment allows for 96 events per year. It doesn't actually specify how these events can be distributed. And I think there's, that can lead to confusion and concerns about multiple events occurring during busy weeks. By introducing a weekly cap, we eliminate ambiguity and allow or ensure that our residents
01:38:00 are not subjected to unpredictable influx of events. Um, I just think this makes the condition clear and is one step towards sort of balancing, um, residential's, uh, residents' right to quiet enjoyment and respecting the rural environment, um, that this proposal would provide. Mayor Wilkie: Question to staff, is this consistent with what the applicant has said, they only intend to have one to two events per week? Speaker 1: Through the Chair, no, the applicants have asked for capacity to have events throughout the week, not to have a limit on the number of events. They did say that they would accept three, but that was only on the basis of being able to also have events on the Sundays and public holidays. At the moment they are not allowed, the conditions don't allow them to do that, the proposed conditions.
01:39:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The amendment has the potential to, well if it was accepted, to change the way it operated. There would be, for example, opportunities to use this facility, I believe the concept was not just weddings for long lunches. Say if you had a business event in Noosa Heads, then there may be an option to come and have lunch out here. In fact, limiting to three days may actually push more night time activity, rather than saying, oh okay, if we can have a few day time activities, we might only have one in the week. The other thing it's based on is the concept that the level of impact on residents is significant. And as we heard, the background noise level is equivalent to this place without anyone talking, and five decibels is just a little bit above that.
01:40:00 So the need for us to stipulate a number of times a week is probably limiting the degree of flexibility that may have the perverse impact of leading to more night time activities. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: I'm just noting that we have been provided with an overview of anticipated scheduled events for the calendar year, and even in the busiest months of the wedding season, it's looking like less than ten per month, which is an average of less than three anyway. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Wilson. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? No. Thank you. Thank you. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and those against? Against. Councillor Wilkie, Wilson, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie. The amendment's lost.
01:41:00 Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have another amendment. Yes. Amendment 11. A minimum of one bus with a seating capacity. A minimum of one bus with a seating capacity of 20 to 50 persons must be provided for events which have over 50 guests. And two buses, each with a seating capacity of 30 to 50 persons, must be provided for events which have over 100 guests. Mayor Wilkie: That's the first time we've seen this, so we'll just absorb that. A minimum of one bus with a seating capacity of 20 to 50 persons must be provided for events which have over 50 guests. And two buses, each with a seating capacity of 30 to 50 persons, must be provided for events which have over 100 guests.
01:42:00 Is someone willing to second this amendment? No. It looks like the amendment has failed for loss of a seconder. Do you have another amendment, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: I do. So, new condition 28. And apologies, this was distributed early this morning. When I received the wording, I did submit this request very, very early this morning. When I woke up at 4 o'clock. 28, the operational management plan must be reviewed and updated every three years from the date of this approval. One, the review must assess the effectiveness of the current operational management plan in
01:43:00 achieving its objectives. B, consider any changes in operational practices, regulatory requirements and environmental conditions. Two, the updated operational management plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority within 30 days of the review completion. Three, the submission must include a summary of the review process, key findings and any proposed changes to the operational management plan. And four, the updated operational management plan must be implemented within 30 days of approval by Council. Councillor Finzel: Happy to support the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I think the wording explains the intent. I think it's important, again, to respect the early submissions that were made by adjoining residents and those living in close proximity to this proposal.
01:44:00 I think it's really important that we at least review whether or not the operational management plan does achieve its objectives and whether there is any opportunity to consider any changes in the operational plan if it doesn't. Again, I talk about, you know, lessons from the past and we, and everyone around this table knows what I'm referring to and I am going to raise Kin Kin, but the lessons from the past. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: This application. No worries. Councillor Lorentson: Separate matter please. So I think we have an obligation as councillors to understand that businesses, especially those in rural areas and those in small communities, have or should have a social contract with this community. And I think a review of an operational plan is a really great opportunity for the owners
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 and the community to meet and to work together. So I think it's really important that we respect that social contract. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Just a question. Councillor Finzel: Question through the Chair. Mayor Wilkie: We've got Councillor Stockwell on his feet. Councillor Finzel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I know in circulating this amendment staff did have some issues that need to be considered in regard to this amendment, in regard to what an operational plan does in terms of regulating compliance condition and the process of doing it. Could the staff please outline some of those? Through the Chair. Speaker 1: So the operational management. Operational management plan relates to the operation of the events that are occurring on the site. How they're to be managed effectively. It's not a mechanism to require or to regulate compliance with conditions of the approval.
01:46:00 That's a separate matter, stand-alone, which council will enforce. And yeah, any review of the operational management plan is a separate matter, stand-alone, which shouldn't include the opportunity to amend or include new conditions. That's the position. Councillor Finzel: Question to the planning staff. Councillor Finzel. You mentioned. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: You've got the floor. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Through the Chair to the staff. You've just answered that question saying regulate compliance conditions. I think conditions fall outside of this amendment. How would those conditions be addressed if there was an intensification of heavy, rigid vehicles along the road, given the upgrades linked to the development, including the widening of turning vehicles in and out of the venue site?
01:47:00 How do we address that if it's outside of this conditioning now? How do we regulate that? How do we regulate that moving forward? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, so what I understand you're talking about other heavy, rigid vehicles accessing the site, like farm equipment or machinery, or are you referring to? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Intensification of any vehicles in relation to the site and the general usage of Louis Vaso Drive. How do we, I guess what we're trying to do, and we're not to mention it, but we all know the elephant in the room. How do we have a way that we can regulate and then change and manage potential intensification of heavy vehicle movements in and out of the venue and along Louis Vaso Road? Because we don't want to see a situation where-
01:48:00 Mayor Wilkie: Sounds like commentary, Councillor Finzel. We'll let the question be answered. Speaker 5: Through the Chair. Thank you. So the applicant is being assessed on its merits in terms of the nature of the likely vehicles related to the activity. Obviously that's referenced buses in some cases and also private vehicles. It's also of relevance to note that the site is a rural and active macadamia farm, so it's envisaged that there's likely to be heavy machinery associated with those farming activities accessing the site, but also across Louis Vaso Drive. Thank you. So we're looking at a road which it's designed to manage as well. So hopefully that answers your question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, but through the Chair, it actually doesn't give me clarification. Given that farm machinery already has access in and out of that site, and there hasn't
01:49:00 previously been a need to upgrade the road for returning left and right access to those vehicles. I'm trying to protect the amenities- Mayor Wilkie: So you're making, you're arguing now, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Could you cut to the question, please? Well, the question has not been adequately answered. Is there a way we can regulate as a Council and mitigate the risks around intensification of vehicles entering in and out of that site? Speaker 5: Well, the question is, is there a way we can regulate as a Council and mitigate the So I'd point out as part of the application material is referred to SARA, which is the State Assessment Referral Agency, as Louis Bezzo is a state-controlled road. So they're the administering authority for all activity assessment on development applications that access off their road.
01:50:00 So they are the appropriate department that assess and make decisions around development proposals and how that impacts on the safety and the efficiency of road operations. They have approved the proposal subject to stringent conditions about increasing shoulders to make it more safer than it currently is for access of vehicles to and from the subject site. Council is unable to regulate activity on that road because it's not within our jurisdiction. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Question through the Chair. Speaker 5: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Just to clarify then, so currently there is no need to upgrade the road there through SARA. And just wondering if conditioning of the buses has the need to... Mayor Wilkie: Point of order. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel, we have a point of order.
01:51:00 Councillor Wilson: What is relevant to the amendment to update an operational management plan? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Finzel, the point of order has been sustained and that is we're addressing an amendment about an operational management plan review. So we'll leave your question about the road until after this matter has been dealt with. I have a question. My apologies to the table. That's alright, Councillor Finzel. In the operational management plan, it says... That the operational management plan will be reviewed after each event to ensure the company can continually meet the client's requirements whilst maintaining council permit guidelines. So my question is, does either this review after three years or after every event have anything to do with council changing the conditions of approval?
01:52:00 Speaker 1: Thank you. Through the Chair, any change to conditions would need to be part of an amendment proposal. We couldn't just change... Impose. Impose conditions. I think the comments about the review after every event is more around a performance assessment, how they've done themselves in light of their operational management plan, where I think the condition is actually talking about reviewing the robustness of the actual structure of the operational management plan to ensure that it is an effective document in managing the operations going forward. Speaker 5: Can I also add... Councillor MacGillivray. Yeah, sorry. Can I also add just a... Director MacGillivray. Thank you, though. In support of Patrick's comments, too, I think the important element about a review process, too, is that over time, and noting that development approvals run with the land, is that over time, there might be new technologies that have evolved that might, you know, could be introduced that would help to limit further, any issues or impacts or concerns.
01:53:00 So, this gives a mechanism, potentially, for that to be reviewed, and Council will need to endorse whether there's some changes that may enhance the operational and further minimise any potential impacts from the use, as well. Speaker 1: So, if I may make a comment. Patrick, through the Chair, make a comment. I'm not sure whether the term conditions at 1.2 is causing concern, and whether... I'm not sure whether Council is interpreting that would provide an ability for conditions to be changed, because that's not the intent of that word. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: What is the intent of the word? Speaker 1: Well, it's... I suppose it's the environmental conditions that apply to the site, in terms of maybe changes to operations or changes to what's happening in the site. But from an environmental point of view, and whether there's a need to review traffic management, car parking, where patrons can go, things like that.
01:54:00 That's what I... That's the intent of that term there. Can this work? And would it be helpful? Through the Chair, I think there's validity in providing... in requiring the applicant or the operator to review their operations, in a three-year time period, or three years. I think it is timely enough. And as Richard said, new technologies may come on board that enable them to operate to a higher standard. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to speak in favour of the amendment. We've just heard it can be done. It's prudent. The review after every event is... It's basically about the events themselves, whereas this is about the whole operation.
01:55:00 The operational management plan ought to be reviewed periodically. It gives us an opportunity to see how it is running. So, as a prudent safeguard, I'm in favour of this amendment. Councillor Finzel: Can I speak to the amendment through the Chair? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, Councillor Fenswell. Councillor Finzel: Actually, can I ask a question? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Firstly, if Councillor Laurencet, if she'd be willing to make that two yearly. And the way things escalate and intensification of development headed towards this hinterland. And secondly, I'd like a definition from the planning staff. Because in my mind, I believe that the environment...
01:56:00 What's your question, please, Councillor Fenswell? My question is, is the characteristics and the social economic aesthetic of the community also included under the definition of environment in relation to planning? Speaker 1: Through the Chair, that's not the intent of the word environmental in this drafted condition. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for the clarification. Mayor Wilkie: There was a question to Councillor Laurencet about whether you would accept two years from the date of this approval. Councillor Lorentson: I actually had sought advice on that. What is considered reasonable, whether it was annually two years or three years, and the advice from the staff was three years would be considered a reasonable period. So, that's... Again, at the risk of this not ending up in planning and environment, or might actually,
01:57:00 before I get to that, throw the question at the planning staff. Speaker 1: Well, through the Chair, ultimately it's a decision for Councillors to make, but I think annually would be prohibitive. I think four years would be too long. Two or three years, I think, is something that the operator could work with. Thank you, Patrick. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Laurencet? Thank you. In that case, I'm happy to change to two years, if that's in agreeance with the planning staff. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, just to clarify, did you say three years was... Did you say two or three years? Speaker 1: Either two or three years, I think, would be reasonable. Councillor Lorentson: Can I request... Can I request just a minor change to the wording, and put that to order? Yes, that's a vote for Councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. The request has been to change the vote to two years.
01:58:00 As opposed to three years. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? I think, generally, we're going to use the process of changing the amendment when it has a substantive impact on the intent, on the amendment. This does have a substantive impact if you can work through it in the process, if people are... I can do that. Deborah Walsh: Yep. Mayor Wilkie: Yep. There's not a consensus, so we'll let this amendment pass or fail. Yep. So... Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just have one question. The way it's worded to me is it's just enforcing a long-term review of the individual review. There is no trigger there for Council to require any change to the operational plan? There's not a trigger there for Council to require any change to the operational plan? Is there an approval process? Oh, I see there is approval by Council. Deborah Walsh: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And updated every three years from this date of this approval? Yeah, it's interesting, because the conditions in the section four, you talk about approval
01:59:00 by Council, but there is no requirement for it to be approved in the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Is that a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh yeah, I can't see anything in the amendment that requires us to approve it, other than We're going to, but there's nothing in the wording that suggests it's submitted for approval. Speaker 1: It does in the first sentence. Yes, sorry, through the Chair, point two, the operational plan must be submitted to the Bramlett Planning Authority within 30 days of the review completion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, sorry, I'm still disagreeing. It's still just submitting it. If we want it to be approved, the wording for approval should be in the headlong. Okay, well, if... Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Patrick? Speaker 1: Well, I thought that was suitable, the existing wording, but if Council seek to change it, I'll amend it all to that.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question one would be... What edit have you changed to reflect the point you just made? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, I would probably just suggest the updated operational management plan must be submitted to the Bramlett Planning Authority for approval within 30 days of the review completion. Councillor Lorentson: For approval. And number two, B2. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, so is the meeting happy for that change to be made? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I think the intent here is to try and mitigate reverse amenity risk. Will this... Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Finzel, the question was, are you happy for the words for approval to be inserted?
02:01:00 Are you happy for the words for approval to be inserted into part two of the amendment, the other councillors are in? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Do you have another question? Councillor Finzel: Yes, I do. I'm just trying to make sure that the wording reflects what I believe is the intent is to address reverse amenity risk into the future. To the planning staff, to the Chair, do you think this is the right word? Or is that another method? Speaker 5: Through the Chair, yes, as drafted, yes, it's more appropriate in light of it's clear about the requirement for an approval of the review that occurs. In terms of the comments about reverse amenity, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of this particular thing,
02:02:00 knowing that's the situation. It's the situation where the residents would be impacting on the operator of the function facilities. So, I'm not too sure how that would be of assistance. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson, if you wish to close. Sorry, did you just close, Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: No, only just to re-argue or rewrite the amendment so that it reflects two years, a two-year review, not a three-year review. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: We're going to let this form leave. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson is closed. So, we put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. Councillors? Deborah Walsh: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy with three. It's unanimous. Deborah Walsh: Yay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any other amendments? Okay, we go back to the original motion to which only Councillor Stockwell has spoken.
02:03:00 Any other amendments? Okay. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close? I'll speak. Councillor Wegener. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just let the girls catch up to me. Councillor Lorentson: Is there another amendment? Councillor Finzel: Three to the Chair. I'm unable to hear Councillor Wegener. Mayor Wilkie: No one's speaking at the moment, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Nothing wrong with your hearing. Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Kim Petrovic: Thank you. Deborah Walsh: Any substantive motion? Mayor Wilkie: The substantive motion was moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Deborah Walsh: Does this stand? I'll just catch on. Yes.
02:06:00 Mayor Wilkie: Good to go. Okay. So we're back to the original motion with the changes. And only Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak to Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Residents living in the walls are unexpected to live surrounded by nature and normal activities. So we're going to move to the 2020 plan. A function facility became consistent use in the rural zone and impact accessible. We talk often about expanding the NUSA plan. I think in this case the plan puts us in a neutral situation. And we are granted personal delivery with that planning. The plan is never perfect and has to evolve and adapt to meet needs. Hence the many moments recently passed. One of those was to tone down this original rule. A function centre is consistent use in the future. Only in conjunction with nature. But this application has been legitimately made under the current NUSA 2020 plan.
02:07:00 And the impacts raised by planners in respect of noise, traffic, road and road conditions have been addressed with conditions, operating hours, operating plans, etc. So on paper, this ticks every box. But I do totally understand and relate to residents' concerns. An application can meet all of the criteria of the planning scheme. But that doesn't mean we all agree with the planning scheme. And the outcome of that. In this application, both the rural zone code and entertainment activities codes are relevant. If we were assessing a rural activity, such as a farm, under the rural activities code, we would find P04, customers and clients do not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. And A04 says, customers or clients do not attend the site outside the hours of 7am to 6pm daily. But when we're looking at a function centre, and usually we wouldn't ignore the fact that people normally anticipate in a rural zone, the entertainment activities code is relevant
02:08:00 instead. Which allows for later operating hours. No one living in a rural zone would really expect this use. The report refers to AO 12.5 and the fact that the site is not adjoining land in a residential zone. But I'd argue it's a much more sensitive zone to noise. But it just isn't mentioned in that because the planning doesn't anticipate such use. PO 12 says, entertainment activities operate within a time frame that avoids negative impacts on the surrounding area and sensitive land uses. AO 12.1 says, operation of the entertainment activity is limited to between the hours of 7am and 9pm, seven days per week, on any site that adjoins residential zones. It doesn't refer to the rural zone. And so because it's not mentioned, we go to AO 12.5. Where the site is located. It says it's not adjoining land in a residential zone and not otherwise specified above. The entertainment activities will operate only between 7am, 10pm, Sunday to Thursday.
02:09:00 I think. In my other days. So by putting us into the 10pm everyday is in keeping with the entertainment activities code. Which, surprisingly, is allowing greater activity in a more sensitive zone. I'm told the planning rate for AO 12.5 and AO 12.5 is about the same as AO 12.5 and AO Specify the zones that are residential zones. And the rural zone is not listed as a residential zone. Which is probably a surprise to many, wasn't it? I can see that residents living in the rural zone would have had the expectation that they are shielded from noisy impacts at night and businesses operating until 10pm. With a literal interpretation of the planning scheme, this application makes it criteria. But I think. I don't really understand the consequences that the residents of Ringtell Creek will accept. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilson. Do councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes?
02:10:00 Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor Wegener: You go ahead. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah. I think the question around this planning scheme. Yes. Councillor Wilson is correct in saying, you know, it's ticked boxes. But how does the community expectations fit into the process? I don't know. I think we've hit a point in history where, you know, not just in Noosanshire but across the probably state of Australia and beyond, is this increase in conflicting uses of neighbourhood, residential areas, our urban areas, including our rural areas. I think this provides us a good opportunity to reassess our planning scheme and have a look at like moving forward into the future. Can we do better? Kim Petrovic: Yes. Councillor Finzel: I think amenity is not a concept that can be considered the abstract. It is in part formed by the content of the site and it surrounds by reasonableness.
02:11:00 So my question is, is this reasonable that the operation and this business is a fit for this area? And how do we measure that? And what may be the unintended consequences of TML road upgrades that potentially increase use of heavy vehicles and traffic through our hinterland? I think we also have to take into consideration the interpretation of the environment in relation to planning, including ecosystems and their parks, including people and communities. Natural and physical resources. Social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions that are affected by this development application.
02:12:00 As Councillor Wilson alluded to, like we need to be considering where are the gaps and how do we make sure that the weighting of our community, noting that they put in 30 properly made submissions against this development due to some intangibles around pleasure, enjoyment, peace, serenity. I think it's time to have a conversation of how do we measure these things and how do we make sure that our community has a voice in this decision. I think moving forward, this provides a perfect opportunity for collaborative solutions moving forward. Given that the DEP I believe is heading towards moving intensification from the coast towards
02:13:00 the hinterland, I think this provides us a perfect opportunity to collaborate between council, individuals, community organisations and business to make sure that we have a safe environment for all of us, including all levels of government, to ensure that we work together to retain our lifestyles and also invite and promote suitably based businesses where we collectively are all at the table and that there is a balance around inclusive community engagement around development. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. I wanted to just say I support Councillor Lorentson's amendment concerning operational plan review. This is an urban activity which is moving into the hinterland and I think it's arguably inconsistent with the strategic framework of the use of Plan 2020.
02:14:00 So I'm glad that we are going to monitor this. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I'll speak to this. The developer has acted in a way that I don't think is appropriate. It's entirely within the bounds of what the Noosa Plan allows. My issue today has never been with the applicant, but with the amendments that were made to the Noosa Plan in 2020, which designated a function facility as a consistent use in a quiet, rural zone. And this decision may have consequences for the surrounding community. Key concern is that, for me, was that the adjoining property owners have no access to the Noosa Plan, and the plans that were proposed in 2020 were happening. As we heard on Monday, the amendments were publicly notified and advertised in compliance with statutory notice requirements. However, this raises an important question, to me at least, should we be changing the
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 way we consult on Planning Scheme amendments? Should we be advocating for mandatory direct notification to all properties impacted by proposed changes to the Noosa Plan, which will ensure that affected residents have no Receive a notice delivered to their door with confirmation of receipt. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Additionally, should we be considering amending the Noosa plan. Point of order, we're veering way off topic here. We're talking about a planning scheme amendment process, we're not talking about the development application. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, point of order is upheld. Councillor Lorentson. No worries. The applicant purchased a property based on the Noosa plan's designation of a function facility as a consistent use. Our responsibility today's councillors was to mitigate the negative impacts within the framework of the planning scheme. We fought hard and we tried. I tried to impose two buses, try to reduce hours. Unfortunately they didn't
02:16:00 receive majority support but the most important one which is the operational management plan review did. So I believe the conditions imposed along with that additional condition agreed upon today. Strikes a good balance. The applicant has designed the project with measures to minimise disruption and encouragingly two of the property owners are actually long-term Noosa residents and I know that they understand clearly the value of maintaining a good reputation within our community. These measures that have been imposed within the within the development conditions and the applicant's commitment to being a responsible neighbour I think will help mitigate the impacts on the surrounding properties. I think where I'm sort of sitting is that we can't, the situation is really
02:17:00 unfortunate but it can't be undone. If this application is refused, the matter will most certainly proceed to court and that'll cost rate pays tens of thousands of dollars. And likely resulting in an approval and possibly we may lose the conditions that we fought hard today for. I don't believe that will serve the interest of the applicant who has acted in good faith back nor the residents by giving them a false expectation of success. Our role today is to act in the best interest of the community by imposing enforceable and effective conditions and I think by approving the recommendation in front of us today we can ensure the impacts are minimised and we also avoid unnecessary legal costs and false expectations for our objecting residents. I think the right course of
02:18:00 action today is to approve the recommendation before us. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close. I do. I think the part of this issue is expressed by a number of councillors. I think Councillor Wilson talked about resident expectations, Councillor Finzel community expectations, Councillor Lorentson went so far to say quiet rural zone and in Noosa most people would have the perception that the rural zone is for quiet rural living and that perception isn't correct. The rural zone is generally something that is quite noisy. It's just in fact because we only have a limited set of zones we can go by, there's only two options in the rural area. A rural zone which allows for a range of noisy uses and environment management and conservation. Now the people living in this area highly value those aspects which
02:19:00 would be around environment management and conservation and one of the options available to landowners is actually to voluntarily ask us to rezone their property and if this progressively happens we can actually turn more of the rural area into the sort of retreats that many people live in the rural area for. But the rural zone isn't necessarily quiet. It isn't, as Councillor Wilson pointed out, a residential zone. It's historically primarily where our food grows. Councillor Wegener mentioned it's a urban use and function centres historically are not. It's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. They're not. But if we take out the word function centre and say wedding venue I think the vast majority of every wedding I've been to in my life has been in a rural or a conservation area. I was married in a rural area. My niece was. And so perhaps it's also
02:20:00 then this application may serve as a useful approval in that it may infuse the viability of our food producers into the rural areas, into the rural areas and then these people's All these are the types of food that are being used by giving them an additional use. And certainly my own research a decade ago showed in our area along the Central Coast and very similar areas that nearly all food production occurs where a second source of income occurs. If you just try and start up a new primary production without a second source of income, generally it fails. So yes, it does challenge the perception of the surrounding residents, it does challenge their vision of what their area should be used for, but hopefully with the conditions it can actually also demonstrate that we can use the rural area for a mix of uses and it can not be done in a way that impacts residents but actually adds to what we're trying to achieve. And certainly having new venues for people to get married in the hinterland was one of
02:21:00 the aims in terms of the strategic framework of the 2020 scheme. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Put the motion. Those in favour? That's... Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Against. Mayor Wilkie: Against. Councillor Finzel. The motion is carried. We now go to item 8.1. Thank you staff. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. November 2024, 8.2, Regional Arts Development Fund RATF Grant Recommendations Annual Round. Councillor Wegener, do you have a declaration? Councillor Wegener: Yes, I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to Artist Residency Noosa Natural Ecology, as my son has a connection with this project and may derive a benefit from this grant funding. As a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
02:22:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. We have a mover and a seconder for the motion, please. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 3: Wait a second. Mayor Wilkie: We've got Councillor Stockwell, Beecher with Punch, Councillor Finzel. Do we have any discussion on this motion? All in favour? That's carried. Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's carried unanimously. May Councillor Wegener may return to the meeting. Aye, thank you. 8.3 is the climate change response plan implementation update. 8.4 is the application for other changes to development approval, integrated permit culture designed organic orchard and golf course complex to include group farm stay, accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at Kabby Road, Cootharaba. 9.1 was a confidential item, planning an environment court appeal, number 1219 of 2020 application
02:23:00 for multiple dwellings detached house. And reconfiguration of one lot into two lots at 27 Tunga Heights, Noosa, Heads. Now, can I have a mover and seconder of the general committee recommendations to be adopted, except we're dealt with separately, please. Councillor Wilson: I will move the last motion of the year. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. And I'll second that. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have no ordinary meeting. Yes. No reports. We have no confidential items. Thank you, everyone. That brings you to the last ordinary meeting of the year. The next ordinary meeting will be at the Noosa Council Chambers on Thursday, 23rd of January at 10am. I declare the meeting closed at 12.25pm. And thank you, everybody, for your attendance and contributions. Not just today, but the whole year.
02:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Finzel.