1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So welcome councillors and everyone in the gallery to the General Committee meeting for March 2025. I declare the meeting open. We have all councillors present except councillor Wegener is attending by teams and will vote electronically. We now move on to the acknowledgement of country and today we're going to consider the Pomona placemaking plans. I thought it might be appropriate to use the words of Norman Bond, the Chair and Director of Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation and he said we acknowledge our ancestors and elders who over thousands of years have cared for country as skilled land shapers and placemakers with deep knowledge and connection to these landforms, waterways and rainforests. Country is where we connect with each other and our ancestors. It is where we are at peace and find strength
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:01:00 and connection with our community and by working together and embracing community we can protect our shared values and aspirations for a healthy and sustainable future. So I think that's a wonderful sentiment to consider as we move through today's agenda. We next have confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move? That's moved councillor. Which minutes are we moving? We're moving the minutes of the February General Committee meeting. Happy to second it Mr. Chair. Thank you for being accurate in your. Sorry who was the mover? Moved councillor Morrison, second councillor Wilkie and I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. There are no presentations nor are there any deputations. There was nothing
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
5 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8 REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 MCU24/0074 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AND SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION (16 UNITS) AT 203 & 207 GYMPIE TERRACE, NOOSAVILLE ¶
00:02:00 referred from committee. Therefore we move straight on to section 8 which is report direct to general committee and the first item is MCU 24 0074, develop an application for material change of use for food and drink outlet and short-term accommodation. Sixteen units at 203, 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. And we have the Director, the Manager and the Assessing Officer from Development Control here. Andrew Gaffney will give us an executive summary of the report. Yes, thank you Chairman. Today we have for consideration a material change of use application for short-term accommodation and food and drink outlet at the property at 203 to 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. Speaker 1: The site is a large site. It's one of the sort of catalyst sites within Noosaville being 3,750 square metres in area and being that size has significant frontages to Thomas Street, Gympie Terrace and Albus Street. The existing development at the site includes a single and two-storey commercial developments as
00:03:00 the existing development at the site includes a single and two-storey commercial developments as on the 203 Gympie Terrace property and a former car wash and fuel station on the 207 Gympie Terrace property. All of that existing development will be removed as part of the redevelopment process for the proposed use. Looking at the proposal, the ground level of the development will include four short-term accommodation, four food and drink outlets located at the corner of Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace which is in accordance with the local plan intention to activate that corner of the site. There will also be one short-term accommodation unit on the northeast
00:04:00 corner of Albert and Gympie Terrace. The next two levels of the development will be comprising the short-term accommodation development across those two levels. So as mentioned a total of 16 units ranging in I guess density from one to four bedrooms. The development also includes a basement which will accommodate a total of 45 basement car parks and 11 ground-level car parks adjacent to the site's southern side boundary. So a total of 56 on-site car parking spaces. The streets to Gympie Terrace will be improved by including an additional three car parking spaces complementing the existing three spaces on Gympie Terrace. So a total of six on- street car parking spaces front in Gympie Terrace plus eight motorcycle
00:05:00 spaces on Gympie Terrace and then another six spaces on Albert Street which are currently not formalized. So that's the current plan. It's formalizing both street frontages with on-street car parks. So that's the general sort of format of the development. The proposed development application requests variations to the planning scheme for a number of different aspects primarily relating to building heights, the inclusion of rooftop terraces, two rooftop terraces at the upper level setbacks to all frontages, site coverage and waste management of the development. With regarding to building heights, the proposed maximum
00:06:00 building height as outlined under the tourist accommodation design code which this the entire site is located within the tourist accommodation design code and both uses being code accessible. The building height maximum is required to be a maximum of 12 meters from ground level. The current proposal exceeds that height to a total of 13.9 meters to the top of the actual pergolas on the top of the roof and then decreases to a maximum roof facia height of 10.2 meters or 11.5 meters above ground level. So when looking at the actual
00:07:00 height of the building when compared to either ground level or the raised ground level due to flood levels I think the proposed development would present as a maximum height of 11.5 meters from ground level. So a general assessment is that the existing development to the west of the site which includes the DeBos building combined with the current proposed height, the building height is generally considered to be an acceptable form of development in the height for the Deputy Mayor Stockwell: property. Just on that point may I ask a question? We normally wait till we finish the Mayor Wilkie: questions. So is that a no? That's a no. Well I'm going to. You can answer it. It is generally done that we don't. It is a relatively informal meeting. Thank you for your latitude Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify the point you made about height. The question about the point you made about height is saying because that is a flood prone area the buildings are allowed to be built up at what height?
00:08:00 Speaker 1: An extra 1.5 meters from ground level? The ground level at the moment ranges between approximately 1.5 to 1.7. Which makes the total height high. But that is consistent with what has been allowed with all other buildings adjoining and surrounding that particular development. That's right. Thank you Mr. Chair. I think that was an important point to clarify. It was. Thank you. The buildings are required to actually meet a minimum floor level of 2.7 RL to be above flood level. Which means that if there is a flood level of 2.7 RL to be above flood parking top of slab is required to be about 1 meter above ground level at the moment. So that's why the actual the building presents higher as an overall height compared to the maximum height of 12 meters. Thank you. The next variance to the planning scheme requested by the applicant relates to setbacks. The tourist accommodation zone code requires that the general format of setbacks
00:09:00 are six meters for the first and second floor up for the first and second floor and eight meters for the third level which is the maximum building height for the for the zone. The way the design works is that the there are a range of setbacks to each frontage. So technically the development that will the development does not comply with with setbacks because it moves in and out of that sort of range. I think looking at the way on Thomas Street for example the existing development sets to the boundary there has been a bit of flexibility given regarding the closest sort of tendency to the existing development to allow for a decreased setback from the six meters to interface with existing development to the south. So in that circumstance the the setback ranges from 3.5 to 6 meters at the corner which is in compliance with the setback at ground level.
00:10:00 However the tendencies also include substantial setbacks to all to the Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street frontages to allow for that intention of using those ground level spaces for pedestrians and to allow for that ability to have an interactive space between the full path and the raised ground level. So generally speaking the the ground level setbacks are considered to be satisfactory to the frontages to Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street. The development also further increases at the second and third level from six to eight metres, which is supported. The development also includes a number of contained planters at these levels, which slightly comes into those setbacks, but given that it will be improved with, I guess, elevated container plantings, we are supporting that architectural treatment.
00:11:00 The setbacks to Albert Street are five metres, generally five metres to the actual first floor, and then eight metres to the second floor, which is supported for that sort of profile of setback from the street. There is a reduced setback at ground level to accommodate a communal open space involving a pool, a small pool and sort of communal open space. There is a small recreation space associated with the pool, but again that would be an expected facility for a short-term accommodation development at ground level. So we are supportive of that setback in this instance as well. The other variation to the scheme that the applicant has sought involves site coverage. Up to a maximum of 53 per cent,
00:12:00 the current site coverage allows, is 45 per cent. We believe that the increase up to 53 per cent is acceptable in this instance, given the fact that the overall outcomes sought under the Local Plan have been achieved. The building is articulated. It includes a number of building recesses to all street frontages. The development is required to deal with approximately 178 lineal metres of street frontages, which would be challenging. They have articulated the building. They have broken up the building form and basically the urban design reflects the sort of form which is supported under the Local Plan Code and the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code. So even though there has been a lifting of the site coverage in this instance, we believe that the overall outcome of the development is satisfactory, complies with the Local Plan outcome and is supported.
00:13:00 The final, I guess, variance to the scheme is the issue of waste management. The applicant would like to retain the current, I guess, format of on-street collection. The existing development has progressed over the years, initially approved for development back in 1970. Slide additions and building extensions have allowed to occur over the years, as outlined in the report. Which has allowed the continued collection of waste from on-street. This development is a catalyst project. It has three street frontages and we believe has sufficient room and space to accommodate a onsite garbage collection, which is in accordance with the planning scheme policy for waste collection. So at the moment, we are requiring that the development maintain
00:14:00 an arrangement of onsite collection to push the development to a more contemporary and, you know, a better outcome for the on-street presentation of the development, rather than having bins on-street. Councillor Lorentson: That's it. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have questions? Councillor Lorentson: I'll start. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to... Councillor Wegener: I've got a simple question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Go ahead, Tom. Go ahead, Council Wigner. Councillor Wegener: With the setbacks, you know, relating to sidewalk dining, some of the ground floor tenants or restaurants, how would that, how would that affect, would the leniency affect the ability of the sidewalk dining to kind of move out into that open space, which is more of a sidewalk or a pedestrian crossing?
00:15:00 That's a good question. That's a good question. Speaker 1: Oh, move the, beyond the site boundary, Councillor, or...? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: The project at the moment does not anticipate, I guess, external dining into the pedestrian area. Speaker 4: I suppose... The challenge too is with the increase in elevation, Councillor, as a result of the levels required to meet flood immunity, so essentially this development needs to support the commercial use of the water. So you're not, I think there's some of the illustrations there, I'm trying to find the best one for you, which probably articulates that in the report. Yeah. Probably... Councillor Wegener: I'm not worried about the actual sidewalk, you know, the sidewalks for pedestrians as well, but on the upper level, you know, above the flood zone, in front of the shops. Speaker 5: So there is, there is a capacity for pedestrian dining in that area.
00:16:00 Towards the end of the report, you'll see some renders. That are looking north on Thomas Street. And it shows that there are awnings that are provided. Which will allow for activated outdoor dining and protection from the elements. Speaker 1: And I think the actual, the terrace levels have a very generous setback to the glazing line of about 11 metres on Gympie Terrace. So it's a substantial outdoor area which can be used for... For outdoor dining. The applicant has designated outdoor dining spaces for each tenancy. So you know, there, there is a mix of outdoor dining as well as, you know, fairly accessible areas for pedestrians to, to come and go. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Just one, yeah, just my concern is that kind of a bistro seat situation where it moves all the way out. Maybe even, you know, a little bit further than people anticipated.
00:17:00 Whether it was a dining area. Councillor Wegener: Getting this theorem is taking over more space than where the pedestrians are being through the tables then. Just highlighting that as a potential. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we can keep to the questions, please, rather than the concerns, until we're in debate, please, Councillor Wegener. Speaker 5: Can we just sort of add a couple of points? Andrew, you've prepared an amended recommendation due to some numerical... Speaker 1: That's right. There were some typographic errors in some of the, I guess, building height and some of the car parking numbers which were picked up at a late stage. I sent an updated report to Cathy this morning just to highlight those spaces, those errors. Speaker 5: Specifically Condition 6, the internal use area has been increased from 446 square metres to 451 in the condition. Condition 9, it previously referred to 2.4 metres, it should actually have referred to 2.2 metres.
00:18:00 And Condition 40 referred to 57 car spaces, but it should have referred to 56 spaces. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, can I just flag that I'm happy to move the motion with these changes, technical changes, attached as part of the initial motion, if that's helpful. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's not passed. We don't need to do that. Councillor Lorentson, you had a question? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, I've got a few questions. Firstly, most of us have met with the applicant, and we've also received some emails from the applicant in relation to waste and recycling collection. The question I want to ask you is that email requests, the email requests that you've received, what are the results? I would like deletion of condition 61 and would like the collection to be on site, sorry, on street, not on site.
00:19:00 And there are reasons in a nutshell that it's neither safe nor operationally efficient for waste and recycling bins to be collected on site. My question is have we done a detailed risk assessment on the proposed on site waste collection in relation to the issues that they've raised in terms of pedestrian safety and manoeuvring challenges? Speaker 5: It might be time to ask. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can have the manager of waste. Speaker 5: We've got the manager of waste. We've also got the senior development engineer who's done some work. With our infrastructure area on some manoeuvrability through the site. Excellent, thank you. And I'll just ask Dan to come up. So through the course of the application, when the application was originally submitted, the applicant proposed to have on site waste collection.
00:20:00 In response to an information request, the form of the development was modified. That form of the development is generally consistent with what's before you now. And at that time, the applicant proposed that the waste collection occur off site as opposed to on site. We weren't supportive of that, noting the scheme seeks for on site collection, noting it is a greenfield site where they're starting again. So there's opportunity for this development to be designed in a manner that accommodates on site collection. And also noting, I think it's important to note the site is benefiting from increased site cover. But that shouldn't be at the expense of providing on site servicing and other matters that need to be addressed on site. So you've done some work with our, Dan was involved in the assessment of the application and looked at the plans that were submitted by the applicant.
00:21:00 He's identified some, I suppose irregularities in terms of some of the information that's been provided. But also done, we've done our own assessment. As well. And Dan can probably talk to some of the images that he's provided to Cathy. And Kyrone can probably talk to the broader sort of strategic intent that we're seeking to achieve with the waste management in the area. Speaker 11: Sure. So I guess just initially the applicant's consulting engineer record provided council with a set of vehicle turning parts for a heavy, rigid vehicle. Those turn parts demonstrated that the vehicle could safely enter the site from. Albert Street, manoeuvre through the site and safely exit onto Thomas Street. Those plans, like I said, were prepared by ReCorp, the project RPEQ.
00:22:00 Further down the line in the application process, council received additional turn parts for the side loader series B, which is typical of council's waste collection vehicle that would be used to manoeuvre on site. To service on site, sorry. You can see on the screen there that the left turn path for the heavy, rigid vehicle is able to safely manoeuvre through that site and exit onto Thomas Street. And we can see on the right that the side loader series, which is again typical of the waste collection vehicle, is unable to safely exit onto Thomas Street as it takes out the car parks in the median there. I'd like to highlight just the difference between the heavy, rigid vehicle and the waste collection vehicle. The heavy, rigid vehicle is a larger, less manoeuvrable vehicle than the standard waste collection vehicle, which is shorter in length and objectively more manoeuvrable. From engineering's perspective and following our assessment, we believe there's insufficient information to suggest that on-site waste collection isn't possible because a larger vehicle can safely exit onto Thomas Street.
00:23:00 In conjunction with the infrastructure services team, we undertook our own turn path assessment that confirmed that a heavy, rigid vehicle was able to safely manoeuvre through the site and exit onto Thomas Street. Speaker 5: Do you want to talk to that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll get the question in. I think there'll be a few questions that we get. Councillor Phillips: Just to clarify then, when I'm looking at that image, did you have an image of Thomas Street? Yes. There's a car park on the adjoining, not adjoining, the property next, the commercial property next to it, which shows when it's coming out, it actually takes out that car park on both images.
00:24:00 So when these details are done, is there consideration to a car being parked or is there suggestion that that would be a removed car park? Because both of those images shows it'll clip the back of both those car parks. Speaker 11: Yes. So it is noted that that car park is, I wouldn't say oversized, but larger than what a standard car park would be for this sort of area. There may be an opportunity as part of an operational works application to revisit the line marking on Thomas Street to potentially avoid the loss of that car park. Speaker 4: Councillor, can I also just add to that? So we're obviously at the material change of use stage, so there is the ability through what we call the operational work stage, which is where the detailed design comes in, which is where more of the specific analysis and design work is done in terms of can a vehicle safely navigate through there without impacting on existing infrastructure.
00:25:00 It might result in sometimes slight modification to other arrangements and layout to ensure that it can safely navigate through there without any impact. So further detailed work can be done, but I guess what Dan is showing is that the analysis that's been undertaken can show that generally you can get an HRV vehicle, a large vehicle through the site, which is already being serviced for other deliveries and goods through there as well as part of it, so waste can also be serviced within the site. And that would come down to a detailed design stage at operational works. Thank you. So, yes. Councillor Wilson: Another question for the Chair. Would that access necessitate going onto the neighbour's property as well on that driveway and could it cause conflict with incoming vehicles turning into the driveway?
00:26:00 Speaker 11: There's an existing easement just over that access driveway, which provides the opportunity for both of those lots to use that accessway. Okay. So in theory there could potentially be some sort of conflict, but that could easily be managed internally by the site. Councillor Lorentson: So does an easement require consent from both property owners? Speaker 11: That's my understanding. Councillor Lorentson: So what happens in the situation when one property owner declines consent? It's an existing easement. It's an existing easement. That's right. Okay. So it does not require then consent from the adjoining owner if the vehicle traverses over his property line. Speaker 1: So is the easement? The easement's currently approximately four metres wide. So it's sufficiently wide enough. Yeah. Okay. I think the service vehicle could actually be located entirely within the easement and exit the site.
00:27:00 And I think Dan and I spoke briefly about that issue. Previously to basically say that it shouldn't necessarily involve moving onto other sites. Mayor Wilkie: Just a clarifying question, Mr Chair. To staff, are you saying that both these diagrams were provided by the applicant? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: So the first one shows a heavy, rigid vehicle, which is a larger vehicle. The applicant showed that it could traverse the site safely and exit onto Thomas Street safely, without interfering with any car parks or buildings. But further down the track, the applicant provided this diagram showing a movement of the side loader vehicle, which is smaller than the heavy, rigid vehicle. But this one is unable to safely traverse. That's correct.
00:28:00 Okay. Even though it's a smaller vehicle? That is correct. Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah. And we did a... Mayor Wilkie: This is why you're having trouble accepting the veracity of... Speaker 5: That is correct. ...the information. That is correct. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 5: And further studies that have been done by our own internal engineers... Yes. ...to do sweat path diagrams of the heavy, rigid vehicle... Correct. Yeah. ...which Cathy also has, which support the notion that the vehicle can maneuver through the site. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, currently waste collection is on 240 litre bins daily from the footpath. Speaker 3: I believe so. It might have a couple of 1100s, but it may still be 240s. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can answer your question. When we're on site there's 1100 for cardboard recycling and 360 and 240 litre bins on site at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: And what's proposed is larger bins, which will only involve collections a fewer number of times per week.
00:29:00 Speaker 3: Well, the proposal would be daily collections of 1100 size bins, which are a larger entity, from a rear entry truck, which is of the same size that's been proposed as the MRV. Yeah. The rear entry truck is a lower noise truck, so the entry into the vehicle is from a lower height, whereas the side entry truck is from a higher height. Yes. So if you have got glass and bottles from a higher height, you'll actually make more noise. Yeah. So the 1100s are a lower noise vehicle. They are also deemed to be a safer type of vehicle for the way they operate, i.e. the driver has to get out of the vehicle and load the... the bin to the vehicle so that the truck is stationary.
00:30:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And the reason why you're referencing the Noosa Planning Policy Waste Management Code, which requires waste management to occur on site as opposed to on the street is to minimise impact on neighbours and the street, but also you believe the site is sufficiently large to... That's correct. ...enable on-site collection like it is at a range of other businesses. That's correct. ...businesses across the shoreline. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. To follow up on that question, so when we talk about amenity impacts or noise impacts, disturbance from visiting the site is actually on-site collection will have more amenity issues, noise disturbances, than kerbside. Same old question. Yeah. Do you agree that kerbside collection would have less noise disturbances to neighbouring or residents or Twinkies, I think is the resort next door?
00:31:00 They're going to be more impacted if it's on-site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've got a question there. So do you think that on-site will create more noise impacts than on-street? Speaker 3: Well, I mean, without the actual data to check that out in terms of the decibel reading, the decibel at the truck from the site out, the decibel entry to a rear entry would be lower from a rear entry than a side entry. The act of lifting the bin high will create more noise. The length of travel on this drawing, I haven't got that information. I'd have to come back and take that on notice. But I guess the critical fact is the timing of that collection. If the timing of that collection is at 5 o'clock in the morning, then the noise reverberates and travels. We have the ability, as we run the contractor, to change the timing from 6, 7, 8 o'clock in the morning. That's a scheduling ability that we have within Council, and we currently do that.
00:32:00 And that goes through planning as a condition in terms of when we're allowed to schedule and collect on a site. So if planning were to put that on waste as to when we could collect, that could be 7.30, 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock in the morning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. If I could just, while we're in the difference between the two approaches, the initial question was about risk mitigation. I think I recall in the report that you suggested the sidearm at the front of the premises was a high risk. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yeah. In general, we, not only from an amenity point of view, visual amenity point of view, the sidearm action is a riskier activity due to the nature of it. The activity itself. The driver is in a truck. He's focusing on an arm that is going out, picking a bin up and lifting it over the side. We have numerous near misses of that activity currently, and it's across Australia for that activity.
00:33:00 Cyclists, pedestrians and even vehicles. A rear lift truck, effectively the driver has to remove himself from the truck. Typically he goes to the bin and loads the bin from where it's stored and locks it onto the back of the vehicle and it loads the truck from the back of the vehicle. So the vehicle is stationary. He's controlling the arm and the bin as it moves in from a position at the back of the truck. And if it's on site, obviously there's less vehicles, public and bicycles in the vicinity of that truck. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One more with the side lift. Putting aside the historic practice, when you put out a wheelie bin, are you allowed to put it on the road itself or does it have to be on footpath? It should be on the road reserve. Road reserve. You're avoiding the question. Okay. Speaker 5: If I could just add, I mean, we're not, this is a relatively busy area and there's a lot of apartments
00:34:00 and there is an element of noise that's associated with waste collection that's existing in this area. I think our quick look at this was, well, we had a look and I think from the middle of the residence behind, middle of that building to the street in Albert Street, it's about 29 metres, and it's a similar distance to where the bins are located on this subject site. So I think it's not unreasonable change that would be occurring. Speaker 4: And there is a condition there that refers to that. It refers to servicing after 7 o'clock, so no early collection in 7 o'clock is a condition for servicing, which includes other deliveries as well for commercial businesses, food and other things that restaurants might be preparing for the day as well. So all of those vehicles can only enter after 7 o'clock in the morning, which is more reasonable and akin to activity in a centre zone.
00:35:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any other questions? Councillor Finzel: Oh, yes. Councillor Tindall. Oh, thank you. A waste containment area in some places throughout the Shire, 5 to 6 metre high design, that hasn't been recommended for this application. How come we didn't explore that opportunity to have all the waste on site in one single area to contain all the bins and everything? Speaker 1: The separation of the two areas for the waste, the left-hand side deals with the commercial waste. That's located at the back of tenant C4 there, you can see. Then if you move over to the right-hand side of the image, at the back of the, I guess, the communal area, Speaker 11: there is another area of waste collection there for the short-term accommodation component.
00:36:00 So there is two separate sort of areas. Speaker 1: The, why that was probably separated was probably because one separating the actual function of using commercial sort of spaces and staff versus the short-term accommodation, which is purely linked with that component of the building. So I think that was a way of actually just separating the waste areas between the different types of uses proposed for the site. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Speaker 1: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, just, I need a little bit more clarity on the fact, circling back to the easement of the neighbouring property. I just feel a little uncertain how it's sort of on the back of what you had asked. Can you just clarify again? So there's an easement on the neighbouring commercial property and I thought I heard that if there's no consent from them,
00:37:00 to use, then this doesn't work, to be, can you just clarify? Because I feel like that wasn't clear to me. Speaker 5: Well, the easements, my understanding is easements across both properties, going by the aerial photos, it's quite a wide easement that's existing. We'd have to go back to the terms of the easement to see exactly what it grants, but suffice to say that it's being used by both properties at the moment to allow for vehicles to come in and out of both sites. And that's evidenced by aerial photography, which shows car parks to the rear of each building, each site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just to follow up, generally the wording of access easements are broad in nature. They give reciprocal rights for anyone to access their site for all required purposes. It's unlikely that a further consent would be required if that's used, is that right? Speaker 5: I don't believe further consent would be required. And I know we're focusing on waste management,
00:38:00 at the moment there are other vehicles that will be moving through this site, and that has not been raised by the applicant as being a problem. Councillor Phillips: Just one more question then to follow up, because you quoted there was sufficient space for waste collection, and I just want to clarify it's sufficient, because I don't get a lot of confidence out of that word. That was what you said, sufficient. Speaker 11: Sorry, can you just reword? Councillor Phillips: You said, sorry, that there's sufficient space, for waste collection, and I just want to have some confidence in the word sufficient. Speaker 11: The turnpass that we've received and prepared demonstrates that an appropriate sized waste collection vehicle can manoeuvre through the site, stop, be serviced, and exit the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think that may relate to the number of bins, et cetera, so the enclosures, et cetera, as drawn, adequate for the purposes? Speaker 1: That's right. I mean, a typical operation, I would assume, the vehicle will enter from Albert Street, it will stop,
00:39:00 it will collect the short-term accommodation bin room, then proceed out through the southern area and onto Thomas Street. The same sort of arrangement would happen. A truck would come in, collect from the commercial bin room, and then leave. So they don't necessarily have to do any manoeuvring on site. They are travelling in a linear path across the southern boundary. So that's a huge advantage for things like this, because typically developments need to accommodate turning circles and turning points for vehicle, refuse vehicles. So this is a fairly, pretty much as efficient as you can get so far as a traffic refuse vehicle. Councillor Lorentson: And to clarify, an operational works plan will nut out all the details? Correct, Councillor. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: Can I clarify as well? So will the other businesses on Thomas Street continue to have an on-street pick-up? And will that still be around 6am? And then this will be an additional service that comes after 7pm?
00:40:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, we accommodate that now. So we have other developments that we have to go after a certain period of time. It's a scheduling element within our gift with Clearaway and through our contract. Councillor Wilson: But the other businesses on Thomas Street will continue to be serviced on site? Speaker 3: Sorry, on the street. On the street, yeah. Not all of them are on the street. So not completely. That is on-site servicing now as we speak. So other areas, I guess the further development that happens in and around the area, this is our, I guess our development process now. Our brief to go forward is to get more and more off, on-site rather than off-site for various reasons. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say the practice is, where businesses, where possible, waste collection will continue to be on site? It will be on-site. But it's accepted that some tenancies are so small, on-site collection is just not
00:41:00 possible. But the preference with larger sites is on-site. Speaker 3: Exactly. And I think there's several, you know, there's several benefits to on-site and some of which I think we've raised. But there are other ones which are, which are critical, is visual amenity. Typically, we are, we are a very operational business as well. We're collecting a lot of bins, 20,000 to 25,000, 30,000 sometimes a day in Noosa alone. If a truck is slightly late and the person who's putting that bin out is a paid individual from a corporate body, that person tends to and has in the past left the bin out. So typically if it's a daily collection, the norm can become the bin is left out on the street. So the on-site removes one failure mode in the process of collecting waste.
00:42:00 That person is not needed. So you're not relying on a person taking that bin, putting it on the street and then removing it off the street. The rear service 1100 comes onto the site, the driver gets out and takes the bin from the bin store, puts it on the truck and puts it back. One failure mode, which happens regularly even today, is gone. Mayor Wilkie: So there's disruption to the street and the neighbourhood. Exactly. Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Just a follow up question. Next to this development, the kerb, it will still be on the street, so pick up, so they'll still be right next to it. Speaker 3: Correct. Councillor Phillips: Collection. Speaker 3: But different service. Okay. The service, the side, if they're 240s and 360s, there's a side arm, different service. Different type of truck. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Having said that, if the usement's there, and they elected to put an 1100 behind their
00:43:00 premises, they could equally roll that out and put it in, as well as those three shops or whatever that sit in front of them. Is that a question, Mr. Chair? Is that correct? Speaker 3: I think we have taken this approach with other areas and worked with businesses to move towards the on-site collection. We've done this in the junction and other areas. And it works very well. We get the bins off the street, we improve the health and safety and the visual amenity of the street. So it does work. And working with what you just said in terms of getting businesses to identify the same location to put their bins, they actually end up saving some money because they haven't got a person who's taking the bin to the street. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, I'm happy to move. Councillor Lorentson: I have some further questions, if that's all right. Thank you. Car parking. I want to talk a little bit about car parking, given the importance and value that our community place on car parking spaces, particularly in this precinct.
00:44:00 My question is, how many parking spaces are being provided within the boundary for accommodation and retail purposes? If I could have that breakdown. And is there a shortfall of parking spaces within the property boundary? And what's the exact number? Speaker 1: Thanks, Councillor. Yes. The site accommodates 56. 56. In total. Of those 56, 29 spaces are required for the short term accommodation. And that leaves 27 available for the food and drink outlets. There's a shortfall of seven spaces in total. However, there are up to, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I Thank you very much for joining us today, we will now move on to the formalisation of the motorcycle spaces, as well as the creation of an additional formalising of six spaces on Albert Street and three spaces on Gympie Terrace.
00:45:00 So, when compared against the performance outcome of the actual code, the development does provide sufficient car parking for the development. Councillor Lorentson: So, formalising of car spaces on Albert Street, so they're not formalised at the moment? Speaker 1: No, basically at the moment Albert Street is just a formed road, there's no guttering curb and channel, and there's no designated sort of line marked car parking spaces. Councillor Lorentson: So, are we offsetting car parking onto public land? Yes. I'm just wondering, does this align with our public land policy, offsetting car park shortfalls onto public land? Speaker 5: You might be suggesting that we would normally say contributions, in lieu of car parking? Councillor Lorentson: So, we have $72,000, I think, for the shortfall, is that correct?
00:46:00 Speaker 5: If an infrastructure agreement would be required, I'm not sure of the exact dollar value, but in this instance, because of the provision of car spaces in the public realm that are being initiated through this development, we did not request that we enter into an infrastructure agreement for offsetting. Councillor Lorentson: Is that normal practice? Speaker 5: It is not unreasonable to consider the benefit in the public realm for a shortfall in car parking. We did it with Hilton Terrace, the development there on Hilton Terrace. There was some car parking that was provided, you may recall, at the front of the property. We also looked at it with the development that was occurring out at Elm Street, the initial commercial development which occurred out there. There was going to be an improvement in the number of car spaces that were to be provided in Oakville Street and Sedona Street. We did it as well, did we?
00:47:00 Speaker 1: Yes, Sedona. And I think also with this one, there's a number of existing crossovers on Gympie Terrace which are being closed, which will contribute more car parking on the street, which would not have been able to be provided typically. Speaker 4: Councillor, can I just add to the points raised? So there's a holistic approach to looking at the car parking when we've got particularly multiple sites that are being consolidated. So there's actually an efficiency created because all those extra crossovers that would have been required are no longer there. So the parking's been looked at holistically. You're right, you can separate what's within the site itself. But overall, in terms of the uses proposed, the assessment provided, in terms of what the actual demand is, staff are comfortable that on balance there's sufficient parking available for the uses proposed. Councillor Phillips: Just in relation to infrastructure agreements, was there consideration to that with these applicants?
00:48:00 Speaker 5: In terms of? Councillor Phillips: What we're talking about, the streetscaping, any type of, you know, enhanced outside the development application itself? I'm thinking for a short plan, I'm thinking just broader community benefits. Speaker 5: So when, I think you might be alluding to the undergrounding of power. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about. But when there was a pre-lodgement meeting on this one, 22 or 23, the then manager of planning, addressed, there was conversation at the time about the undergrounding of power and maybe entering into a shared agreement with Council on the costs. At that time, there was no real information provided. The applicant was requested to provide further details about cost to enhance that conversation. Sometime later, I was approached by the planning consultant for this application seeking a letter that they could provide to the energy provider.
00:49:00 Around whether we would condition the requirement for underground power. Seeking a letter that would say that we wouldn't and the reasons for it. And I did provide a letter saying that we wouldn't condition it. And that there would be unreasonable condition to do so. There would not be a reasonable relevant condition to require the developer to do that. There's been no further communication in that regard, no. So there's been no cost provided. I think that's something that would sit outside of this proposal. If Council wants to enter into conversations with the developer and to forecast those works and costs from a budget perspective as well. Speaker 4: Can I just add to Patrick's comments too. It's important just to remember that it's a code accessible development application. So it's actually a consistent envisaged use in the planning scheme. So our actual assessment is quite controlled I guess in terms of what we can assess.
00:50:00 And not like other impact accessible applications where we can consider other relevant matters and you know broader community benefit arguments. So essentially our limitations on our assessment are purely to the codes that are triggered through the assessment process. So we are quite confined around what we can get out of the process as such. And we've just got to really assess those performance. Outcomes and benchmarks as well. So that limits the focus and narrowness I guess of our assessment. Given we don't decide within statutory time frames can be a deemed approval. And then we are only obliged to then provide conditions. So hopefully that helps just to address the clarify the comments. Councillor Pindle. Councillor Finzel: Yes just moving away from the issues we've already covered. Just interested in asking some questions about the shade panels. Or the shelter. The planning scheme does ask for you know shade and landscaping to soften the built environment.
00:51:00 Can you talk to me a bit about I believe you've requested them to be removed. Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Given the community values our amenity opportunity to see for you know our elderly population and landscapes. My question is thank you. Why that's been removed. Speaker 1: I think when you look at the intention the development outcomes envisaged under the neighbourhood plan code. Under local plan code. But talk about the corner of Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace being a key corner. It's meant to project a subtropical form of architecture. An openness. A sort of. A permeable space between public and sort of raised tenancies. I think what we're trying to do there is basically provide that sort of visual openness to the corner.
00:52:00 The applicant as a final amendment to the corner set the development back six metres. On the corner of Thomas Street to also assist with providing sight lines through those spaces from Thomas Street. Which is also an outcome intended under the local plan framework. And character plan. So the inclusion of so many shade structures along Gympie Terrace and Thomas Street were basically seen as being another sort of I guess screening or built form along those sort of streetscapes. Which would be preferred to be improved with landscaping rather than structures or screen elements. Which again provides another sort of visual barrier to the actual site between the upper level and the sort of street level. Councillor Finzel: Well in support of the architects seeking for this element to complement the rest of the building. And given we're looking at a really significant site that is you know. Question. Oh okay. Yes.
00:53:00 Is there a way we can include those elements? Because those elements can be used like for example Noosa Junction. Where the landscaping. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll keep with that question. Which one? The one you started with. Is there a way? Is there a way to be retained? Yes. Speaker 5: I think the question was can the elements be included? Yes. Well. Yes. The plans show at least 11. Some plans show more. Some plans or all the plans show the ones on Thomas Street as cantilevering over the property boundary. So that wouldn't be suitable. They do occupy areas for which improved landscaping could be provided. In our opinion. And I think that you don't use. In my mind you don't use built form to soften built form. The Noosa principles are around landscaping. Built form being within a landscaping environment. But at the end of the day it's really for councillors to debate as to whether you consider it's
00:54:00 reasonable to have these structures, the number of them and what you accept. I think we've made it clear our position on it and I think I've sent an email to councillors this morning. Which provides some evidence of, you know, the fact that they'll cover approximately 26% of the site's frontage when you take in other areas that are sterilised through the steps and ramps. Probably another 20%. So almost half the site is occupied by either the structures or these other elements. And it does sit upon a podium. You've got a retaining wall. So I think landscaping in this environment is very important. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I agree. Question through the chair. Sure. When you assess these applications, do you often recommend shrubs and vegetation at varying heights to soften both the built form, for example, like a retaining wall, or the built environment that's had to be put in to address, say, flooding?
00:55:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. So the operational works approval will address the specifics of the landscaping that's required. We'll certainly need to see through the material change of use process. We'll certainly need to see through the material change of use process. Some concepts around landscaping, where it's to be placed, that'll be reviewed by our environment officer, who'll consider whether that's reasonable. And he'll do the work at the operational work stage, as I said, to get that detailed design and those layers of landscaping that's required. Councillor Phillips: Question. I just got a bit confused. How many... Could you... Sorry, Patrick. How many cantilever... Speaker 5: Into... Are used... Well, there's... The ones on... The ones on Thomas Street, there appears to be five on the plan that I'm looking at, and they all extend over the property boundary. Only partially, but not withstanding.
00:56:00 The structure shouldn't be in the public realm. Councillor Phillips: And so to clarify, the condition is to remove the ones that you're... The five? Is that... Speaker 5: No. The condition is to remove them all. So the ones that face Thomas Street and the ones that face Kimpy Terrace are also being removed. Speaker 1: I guess when you look at the placement of those structures as well, they're directly over some of the landscaping beds. So I think in preference, we would prefer the landscaping to thrive rather than be shaded by a number of built form shading devices, which can shade all that sort of space. So we want the landscaping to be thriving landscape. So we'd like to remove those sort of impediments to the actual, the growth of the landscaping along the frontages. Speaker 5: And noting there is awnings that come off the building to provide landscape... That's right. I mean, to provide shade in the podium area. Speaker 1: As part of the terraces on Kimpy Terrace and Thomas Street, the applicant's proposing a
00:57:00 number of pergola structures with retractable awnings that go back and forth. So there is a degree of coverage at that sort of ground level, which can accommodate shade and comfort for people using those spaces. So... Councillor Wilson: Have there been any discussions with the architect on this? So just thinking if it could have been something else he could have proposed or just feel uncomfortable taking something away from a holistic design. So has there been any kind of negotiation on how else we could achieve this effect? Speaker 1: No, not at the stage, Councillor, because I think it's fairly clear under the local plan code, which talks about maintaining clear sightlines between the inside of tenancies and the street. These alternating sort of shade structures, which there wasn't a great deal of information to provide, but I do believe they pivot in response to the movement of the tides or some sort of inter-relationship between the two. I guess depending on what sort of orientation the shade devices would be at, it would create
00:58:00 a degree of screening, which I thought was in conflict with the actual outcome of the codes. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a couple more questions, parking again, back to parking again, community have made it really clear. Question. Point of order, please. There's been a lot of liberty given to other speakers at the table. I've said one sentence and I've already been reprimanded. I also think there's been too much commentary. Sorry. My question. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm the chair of the meeting. You are, Mr Chair. And you have been using questioning, which has highlighted to me sometimes. Thank you. That's my job. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. My question, in terms of providing, has there been any parking provided in the plans for commercial vehicle deliveries? And if not, where would commercial vehicles park and offload?
00:59:00 Speaker 1: Ms Councillor, there is an MRV space within the southern grand level car parking area on the northern side of that car park. So that is where the intended sort of vehicles will arrive from Melbourne Street, park in the MRV space and service the back of the food and drink outlets. That's the intended space. Councillor Lorentson: So that's the designated space. Thank you. Also, in terms of the draft new Seville foreshore infrastructure master plan, which hasn't been endorsed at the moment, do the plans align with community feedback? And I'm thinking more in terms of the widening of the footpaths opposite the development and the scooter parks, which I think there was some concerns raised during the engagement process. Have you aligned your decisions or was there any reference made to the community sentiment around that precinct?
01:00:00 Speaker 1: I think when we were doing the initial consultation with the applicants engaged consultants, it was in the early stages of the foreshore master plan development and like you say, it wasn't adopted. What was fairly clear was that it was meant to be a pedestrian, I guess, access way to the north of the corner. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yep. Speaker 1: And we spoke to the applicant's design team about maybe meshing in with how that might work. And that's why they came up with that sort of broad set of stairs on the corner of Thomas Street and Gympie Terrace to provide a fairly easy transition from the upper level terraces down to the corner and across to the north. So I think from a permeability point of view, that was the way in which the sort of applicant team tried to, you know, future-proof it. And I think that's what we've been working on with the design so that when that sort of final master plan does get adopted, it does provide that connection. Infrastructure services have been aware of what's been going on so far as this application
01:01:00 is concerned and they have been providing support for the way it's gone so far as the layout goes. Councillor Lorentson: Appreciate it. Thank you, Andrew. Question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just before we do, Cathy, there's been a request for one of the latest renderings. It wasn't in the report but it was in this morning's email. Do you have access to those? Which email? Councillor Finzel: Oh, it is in the report? It is in the report on page nine. Speaker 5: I don't know if I sent it to you. I'll forward it to you now. Is it the one? It is in the report. Councillor Finzel: Is that different from the one that's in the report that you emailed us this morning? Sorry, from the chair? Yeah. Speaker 5: The ones with the yellow boxes around? Yes. Yeah. I can forward that to Cathy now to make sure it's the right one. Councillor Finzel: It's the same? Yes. Okay. If that's the same, Cathy, it's on page nine. Oh, in the actual report? Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
01:02:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I thought it was just in the report. Page 9. Attachment 4, page 9, it's got proposed renderings and attachment. Speaker 3: Did you show capitalism? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Speaker 4: Kevin, will we end up?
01:03:00 Yeah. One second. Speaker 4: Attachment. Speaker 10: Attachment. Speaker 8: Which page? Which? That way. Yeah. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So do you have any further questions on that? Councillor Finzel: Yes, I do. Yes. I think it was like for people in the gallery and people at home, and for ourselves, for clarity, when we talk about the structures that needed removing. Can you please clearly talk us through that image to talk about the reason, what's been removed and why? Speaker 1: Mm-hmm. The image shows, basically, a line of landscaping on the left-hand side of the image. That's it.
01:04:00 And that's basically the, I guess, the Thomas Street property frontage along that sort of landscaping edge. To the right of that landscaping, you'll see a pergola structure that is within the actual Thomas Street elevation. And on top of that, you can see a retractable awning device, which will move in and out. And provide some shelter to those external sort of open plaza areas. The two brown structures on the left-hand side of the image are the tied, actuated pivot shade devices, which are, the columns of which are located, I believe, on the frontage. So the actual operable screening element will pivot between being over there, over the road reserve and, I guess, partially within the site itself. So the request is to remove those structures so that the landscaping area beneath it
01:05:00 has an opportunity to accommodate maybe some opportunities for larger planting, which might grow up above that sort of height. The current planting palette would be limited to the smaller plants, which wouldn't interfere with the tied structures. And wouldn't require, I guess, ongoing landscaping work on a regular basis to cut them down and to sort of, you know, ensure that they don't grow up too high. So what's being proposed to be amended is the removal of those structures on the left-hand side of the image. Councillor Lorentson: So, Andrew, in front of me, I've got acceptable outcome number 14B, which states that the development includes detailing and articulation for horizontal emphasis, including awnings, fascia boards, parapet walls and upper level verandas or balconies.
01:06:00 Is not what we're looking at consistent with that outcome? Speaker 1: I would say what's consistent with the outcome is the incorporation of the retractable awning structure. I think once we start to delve and sort of toggle between private and public space, we're sort of, you know, having our cake and eating it too, to a degree. I mean, I think the development satisfies that by providing that retractable structure and providing shade at that grain level. I just think the shade structures provide an unnecessary visual sort of barrier between the private and the public spaces and possibly, you know, restrict the type of planting that can be achieved along those frontages. Just last question. Councillor Lorentson: Is it reasonable or, you know, correct me, is it unreasonable to request maybe an independent architect
01:07:00 to provide some input in this? Because it's, I don't know, just throwing it at you, Andrew, just so that we just get a third party that can give us an idea of whether it's appropriate or whether it compromises the integrity of the big thing. Speaker 5: So the application's code accessible and we had to, I won't say beg, but it was challenging to get it to this meeting. So if it's not decided by the ordinary meeting, it will go deemed approved. Yep. So there might be some limitations in what we can achieve in that timeframe. We did have an architect that reviewed the original, we might have to go back and have a look at what comments they made around works within the frontage. Fantastic, thank you. I would appreciate that. It's most unusual for Council to support something right on the boundary of the development. Mr Chair.
01:08:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Is it one of the fundamental principles of planning that development applications, the infrastructure provided, must be within the property boundary? And the follow-up question, how could NUSA look if we started approving development applications that extended beyond the property boundaries? Speaker 5: Well, we certainly wouldn't seek to approve development outside the property boundary. And yeah, it would be dominant built form, very urban environment. I think my opinion and some of the other perspectives that I provided in my email earlier today, I think those structures are quite dominant when you look at the accumulation of four or five, six of them in one frontage. Very, very dominant built form. And no disrespect, but not overly aesthetically pleasing either in my mind in terms of materiality. Mayor Wilkie: So just to clarify, it's a fundamental principle that developments must be contained within
01:09:00 their property boundaries? Speaker 5: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a question. I'm just wondering, because it is a key site, getting the mix of green landscaping versus screening, looking at trying to reduce the heat of their pavements and all that. If we gave you to Thursday to come up with a condition that gave some flexibility, my view is perhaps the articulation and the fact they moved up and down is creating too many problems, but some form of timber screening as part of the landscaping solution may be with less flexibility. So the question is, is there a possibility to put this decision off with general guidance and do it at the operational work stage? Speaker 5: There is. There potentially is. There is a draft condition that I've provided counsellors themselves. You might like to table that at some point.
01:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that's the only question. I can hear the arguments on both sides. Speaker 4: Yeah. It could be an opportunity to, yeah, to look at some stuff. It could be a balanced outcome to improve the landscaping element and maybe reduce or lessen the sort of physical built form, particularly in that frontage area. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: So yeah, I do have a question. How would Noosa look if we missed the opportunity on a key site to explore opportunities to find a compromise? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, I think you're using questioning for debating. Leave it to the time. My question is... Councillor Finzel: I'll ask... You go. You go. Ask your question. No, it's not. Councillor Phillips: I was going to ask about the amendment. You can go. Okay. Can I get some clarity on how much of this is actually on the road reserve, if that's the sticking point? How much... Speaker 5: Well, it's not the sticking point. The sticking point is the number of them, where they're set back from, what could be provided from their location.
01:11:00 But, I mean, the site... The ground floor plan shows, I think it's five. The render that was up before showed, I think, four. So, you know, we've got plans that are a bit inconsistent with each other, but of those that face Thomas Street, which the ground floor plan, I think, shows five, they partially overhang. So whether it's hundreds of millimetres is probably the extent, three, four hundred millimetres. But notwithstanding, there shouldn't be any encroachment. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Got it. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question then. So, I do have an amendment to address this, but in terms of process of the meeting, does it have to be made first, or...? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think Councillor Whoopi's indicating he'd like to move. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move a motion, Mr Chair. I move that the Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee meeting dated 17 March 2025, regarding this application for a development permit for material change of use, food and drink outlet and short-term accommodation, 16 units,
01:12:00 situated at 203 and 207 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville, and, A, approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment three to the General Committee minutes dated 17 March 2025, updated conditions with errors amended as advised by staff, which we ran through previously, and, B, note the report is provided in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016. Councillor Finzel: And I move to move an amendment. Mayor Wilkie: How about you second it, please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, those slight changes were technical in nature. There were slight errors in the report. It's a code-assessable application. It's here because of our triggers for delegated reports, because it's a significant site. It's a very prominent site. Councillors are wanting this application, such as this, to be brought to the General Committee or the full Council for a decision.
01:13:00 It's, as it says, it's in accordance. It is over height, but so are all the adjoining businesses, because that is a flood-prone area, and the site needs to be elevated to get it above the flood level. I think staff and the applicant work well together to come up with a very attractive design. I'm in favour of the on-site waste collection, which, I think, is a very important aspect which occurs at all, plenty of other sites around the Shire, and when we have the opportunity to ensure that on-site waste collection does occur to minimise impact on the neighbours and streetscape, we ought to do that. We've conditioned that at Carlisle. The other areas, businesses that do this are Noosa Springs, Royal Mail, Noosa Homemaker Centre, Noosa Civic, Coles and Woolworths, Gibsons Road, Showrooms, Sofitel, I believe the Noosa Head Surf Club as well. So it's a well-accepted practice.
01:14:00 It's a responsible practice. If there are any amendments about the shade structures, I'll be keen to hear the arguments for and against, but I think it's a well-designed development, and I think it will improve that site greatly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, Councillor Finzel, would you like to move the movement? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. So Cathy's had some moving there, I do believe. The plan is to amend the number of the tied structures to a maximum of five with each structure to provide shade to a seat. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we have a seconder for that? I'm happy to second it. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I just think we have an opportunity here to find a compromise where we can work together to give an outcome on a key site in the Shire to explore that and to make sure that we have all those opportunities by which we can bring the two elements together,
01:15:00 which I know there's differing opinions around the table in terms of the environment, like growing and plants, versus the built environment. And I believe those two can be successfully melded together so that we can integrate softening, we can integrate landscape, we can integrate the built environment to come together as one to provide those elements. I think this is a really good opportunity. We always say we're different by nature. Let's put that to the test and see are we prepared to look at this element that the architect is seeking to complement the rest of the building and keep the rhythm of the design. So it's pleasing to the eye and, in my opinion, it doesn't obstruct our line of sight. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Yes. Would this amendment replace the design of the Shire? Would it require an amendment to ensure that these Shire structures do not impinge
01:16:00 on public land? Or could that be achieved with the current wording? Speaker 5: I think it would be sensible to include that they must be located within this property, entirely located within the property boundary. Mayor Wilkie: Are you happy with that change? Director Rawlings: Not the change. Councillor Finzel: I'm not the architect. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll leave it to a second amendment. I have a question in relation to that. Now, I'm not the architect. The majority of the development, old development, obviously has awnings that go across the footpath outside the property boundary, which is fairly standard in a commercial precinct. Is the concern here that you've got moving parts and they may be lower than an awning? So what is the concern about that? Speaker 1: You're a bit different. Sorry. Oh, I was going to say, I guess the concerns that we have is that it's fairly clear what the built form is meant to be under the local plan. Yeah. It's meant to be stepped back and ramped up to a six and eight metre setback profile. So we're wanting to remove the fabric from the street so that it's open and it's sort
01:17:00 of more sort of subtropical feel. So as Patrick was saying, the inclusion of all these sort of potentially alternating sort of shade structures sort of just adds more fabric in that sort of space, which wasn't intended under the scheme, given the fact that the applicant's already proposing a retractable awning system on the street. So I think that was the main concern about the tied structures. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify, when you're saying the retractable awning on the street, you're talking about within the property boundary. Within the property boundary, sorry. And when you use the term fabric, are you talking of literal fabric or are you talking about a structure, which is a hard material? Speaker 1: For the retractable awning? Yeah. No, no. The tilt. Oh, the tilt. I believe it's going to be some form of aluminium or wood sort of. Not a fabric. No. Mayor Wilkie: I thought I heard you say fabric. Sorry. Speaker 8: The fabric's in the awning next to the building. Mayor Wilkie: I understand. Thank you for clarifying. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll support the amendment, but I'd probably support the concept of actually making sure
01:18:00 that they are totals in the property. I think, I understand that 11 of them may be overkill. I actually quite like the concept of interspersing shaded public seating for people perhaps not sitting eating a little. I don't know whether they need to be moving up and down. I know that sounds fancy. People will get tied, actuated. But I think having some recycled timber structures amongst trees would actually add to the transparency, not the transparency, but the looking through the trees. I don't know whether they need to be moving up and down, but the looking through into the private space to the public space. And so I'm supporting the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: I'll support the amendment as well and flag that once it becomes part of the motion, I'd
01:19:00 like to add to it that the structures be contained within the property boundary. I agree that shade is one of the most important things. It is a welcome addition, but also would like to see the landscaping flourish in those planter boxes around the outside because it will soften, nothing softens the form of a built structure like landscaping and plants rather than manmade structures. So I'll accept that some structures providing shade is a benefit, but also I would like to see the landscaping flourish. Thank you. And that as we do with all development applications, ensure that they don't infringe on public land. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support. I think it's going to be really an iconic bit of architecture. And I think given the prominence of the site that it would be great to respect the integrity
01:20:00 of the architect and architecture. And I also believe it is consistent. Number 14, I think it is. B, that development includes detailing and articulation for horizontal emphasis, including awnings. And happy to capture that it's within boundary and there is no encroachment. But I'm looking at the external screen in front of us on page 21 of 36 of the report. And tied, actuated screens, recycled hardwood posts, recycled timber battens, outside of aluminium frames. There is a lot of detail and a lot of work and a lot of beauty in this design piece. And I just think, again, we need to respect the integrity of the architect.
01:21:00 I think he's done an excellent job. Councillor Phillips: I'll support very quickly as well, similar to everyone else. I think it's an opportunity to see some, yeah, I trust the, even just looking at the plans, I think it's an opportunity to see some, yeah, I trust the, even just looking at the plans, that the materials that are going to be used are going to be beautiful. It's not, I think it's a really great opportunity for us as a group to have this position. It's quite an iconic spot there. The fact that we've got an opportunity to have the western sun, you know, blocked with tidal awnings, I think I'm quite excited to see what this development will look like and what it gives our community. So yeah, I'm very happy to support that. Councillor Wilson: Happy to support it too. Again, the architects worked really well to try and come up with something of beauty and practicality that fits in with the plan.
01:22:00 He did give his reasoning for, for sort of these structures of bringing that kind of perspective down to the pedestrian level rather than seeing a big built form. So I think, yeah, that's why I wanted to not just remove individual elements of a holistic design that has reason behind it. So I could also see that there's, there's maybe a limit that we need to, to address there. So I'm happy to support this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener, if you would talk to the amendment. Can I say no? No. Councillor Wegener: I don't, I don't need to talk. Yeah, I support the amendment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Would you like to close, Councillor Fitzgerald? Councillor Finzel: No, I think it's all been said. Thank you, Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the amendment, those in favour? Councillor Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous. Yes. Councillor Wilkie can't move an amendment, so I think I'll try.
01:23:00 Speaker 3: It's written there for you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the amendments with the addition of, with the structures to be built within the site boundary. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'm sorry. I think he's seconded. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, you can't. Oh, excuse me. I can't. We'll change that. Thank you. Councillor Timson couldn't second because she's seconded the original motion. Councillor Lorentson: The original motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You should. I don't need to talk to it. As staff are happy that that will give them the appropriate words. Okay. That's fine. Councillor Timson? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just a question regarding that. For staff, then, is that something you will be able to negotiate with the applicant and the architect to make sure that, like, you know, that conditioning, I don't know, the integrity of the site and what the outcomes are going to achieve is retained? Given it's code accessible, like you said, you know, you're also constrained by what you can, you know, bring to the table.
01:24:00 Speaker 5: Well, it's quite prescriptive because it has a maximum number of five. So, I think it's quite easy for us to work with them. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 5: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone wish to talk to it? No? I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? And Councillor Wegener? Yes. That's unanimous. So, the amendment becomes the motion. And at this stage, I believe, only Councillor Wilkie has talked to it. Councillor Wilson: Can I talk to it at a further moment, please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: We've had... I think I'll go straight to the other one. Thanks, Cathy. We've had a fair bit of discussion about waste today. And I know this has been an ongoing issue with this development. My concern is really that given councillors have got this information on the, you know, Thursday afternoon, and we've been going back and forth with questions with the applicant and with the team, that I'm not confident in imposing such specific conditions at this
01:25:00 point. We've got some... We've got some quite conflicting information that's been circulated. So, I guess... And also, being conscious of the timing, we just have to be prepared to approve this application. Therefore, I'm kind of trying to do all these things. I believe there's a little bit open to further negotiation. So, I'm proposing that condition 61 be replaced with, prior to council issuing a development permit for operational works, an amended waste management plan must be submitted to council for approval that investigates both on-street and on-site waste collection. On-site collection should be provided unless it's demonstrated that it cannot occur to satisfaction of the manager of development assessment. The amended waste management plan must be prepared by a city to be qualified first to approve it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we have a second? I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Phillips.
01:26:00 Councillor Wilson: Sorry. I think I already spoke to that in addressing the motion. So, yeah, my reasoning is I think we... There's too much conflicting information for us to really nail this down in the short period that we've had available to us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I've got a question. There's a key sentence there is, on-site collection should be provided unless it's demonstrated that it cannot occur to the satisfaction of the manager of development assessment. I thought what I heard is that you had demonstrated with our senior engineering officer and others that it can occur on-site, so the amendment would be redundant. Am I right? Speaker 5: Yes. We would... We believe that waste can be collected on-site and have pursued that through the engineering methodologies. So, we would not be supportive of this. Councillor Finzel: Through the chair, Councillor Wilson, would you like to change that before we present any further information that's just come along?
01:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: Being moved and seconded. Oh, sorry. I don't think you can. Councillor Finzel: Sorry. So, we can let this lapse and you can raise another one. It's a different wording. Through the chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the... Mayor Wilkie: Mike, I also sent... Oh, sorry. I also... Question. The wording. On-site collection should be provided unless it is demonstrated that it cannot occur to the satisfaction of the manager of development assessment. Hasn't there been submissions made by the applicant that it can't occur? You've tested that information and found that it can occur. So, you have made the assessment already based on the information provided to you that it can occur on-site? That's correct. Speaker 6: Thank you. Sorry. I don't understand. Mayor Wilkie: I'll just clarify that. And the amended Waste Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person who is experienced in waste management.
01:28:00 But is... Would this be someone engaged by the applicant? Speaker 5: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, I think that's part of the existing motion as well, isn't it? Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, this is it. The... From memory, the report suggests that the Waste Management Plan submitted wasn't compliant? And that requirement, that last sentence, was already in these suggested conditions. Speaker 5: With some additional points that you could align with. Councillor Wilson: So you can take out the second sentence and then that would be it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I've been moved and seconded. I don't think you'll get the support of the Council to change it. I'll speak against the amendment. I think there has been extensive consideration of these issues by highly qualified staff.
01:29:00 Councils don't have to do anything other than listen to the qualified staff's advice and come to their own judgement. We saw in the last amendment, it was about an issue of book and deal. Where we did have a slightly different view to planning staff. In this one it is about can the truck move through the site. The answer was yes. Then the advice that I get and what I've read in the report is that on site would be quieter. It would be later in the morning. It would be safer than the sidearm. And hence probably less likely to create committee impacts. So to me these issues have been well ventilated and I believe the staff recommendation is the appropriate way ahead. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it. I won't support it but I do respect the intention of the amendment.
01:30:00 Which reflects just some really careful thoughts. So thank you for bringing that to us Nicola. But I won't support it because I do believe due process has been followed in this regard. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to support it in that what I'm hearing is very conflicting. What I'm reading from experts outside of, in the reports outside of council, contradict the experts in our council. So I am stuck between finding the outcome that would give us confidence. Before I'm happy to vote on not seeing some changes here. So that is why I'll support Councillor Wilson's amendment because I think bushers are trying to achieve
01:31:00 is that we get the clarity on the waste side of things. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question? Development permit for operational works. Can you explain what's involved in getting a permit for operational works? Speaker 11: Yes, so the development application for operational works will just include a more detailed design that's assessed against the relevant codes for the type of work. Essentially development needs to comply with those codes before a permit is issued. So it will include more detailed design. For example looking at, you know, straight line marking and particular earthworks levels and stormwater design and all that sort of thing. So it's a more rigorous design stage that is assessed. Councillor Lorentson: So at that stage will you know the logistics whether or not manoeuvrability challenges or the questions that we've been raised around the table.
01:32:00 He says, she says, recon versus our engineers. Will that get sorted as part of that next process which is the permit for operational works? Speaker 11: Further detail will be provided in that regard. I'd also just like to note that recall of the consulting engineers provided data suggesting that the heavy rigid vehicle can manoeuvre through the site and those same engineers tried to disprove that a smaller vehicle, the waste collection vehicle couldn't. I just feel like that's just an important note there. But yes, further detail will be provided in that regard for the operational works which might include some fine tuning of car parking areas and landscape areas to accommodate those sorts of things. Councillor Lorentson: So what happens in the situation that let's say we've got it wrong and in fact these vehicles can't manoeuvre in the site?
01:33:00 Speaker 11: Well at this point in time there's no evidence to suggest that the vehicle can't manoeuvre through the site in any detail that might trigger a change to the high water. But at this stage the detail we've received and prepared doesn't suggest that the vehicle can't. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I think it's important to also point out we're talking about a site that's going to be cleared. There's no constraint. There's no constraint. So if there needs to be modifications that are made, the applicant can make those modifications to provide the on-site car parking. Whether that's a slight shifting of the footpath or whatever it might be, notwithstanding, the evidence shows that the vehicle can move through the site. Councillor Lorentson: Just one more question. Have we given the applicant enough allowances or flexibility around this development? Speaker 5: Considering we're allowing a 54 per cent site cover and the car parking that we're accepting on the street, I think those are examples of being accommodated through the
01:34:00 process. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a clarifying question? That development is being knocked down, but the one next to it that triggers some of these questions, is that going too? Speaker 5: No, it's not. Councillor Phillips: So I think my question is that is that going to happen? So to this point, won't it... won't this give us clarity about the commercial building next to it and the way it affects that and the landscaping and everything? It's not just the... It's my... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you suggesting that there was a point made that it may interfere with the existing warning of the property to the south? Yeah. Is that something we've considered? Speaker 11: We've considered the existing item to the road говорить of warnings, that sort of thing. I agree. This order does stress that they would be substantially affected. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. Thank you. Look, I appreciate the intent.
01:35:00 Council's wanting to get clarity, but... Is this a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm speaking to the amendment, which is... Talking to an amendment. OK, sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Is that a... Yeah, no, I was thinking you were... Which is the clearest, most unequivocal advice we've got on this has been from council staff who are independent arbiters providing independent advice. They've got no skin in the game here. Nothing to gain or lose. The conflicting advice has come from the developer, the development applicants, consultants, who did modelling with a larger vehicle and said it could make it... It could transverse the site onto Thomas Street quite easily. Sometime later, they provided modelling based on a smaller vehicle which, for some reason, shows that it couldn't make its way
01:36:00 through the site out onto Thomas Street without causing conflict with the rules of traffic. That's the conflicting advice from the development applicants, consultants. Council advice has been clear, independent and unequivocal throughout this whole process. The other question I have that I'll ask, it's a rhetorical one, is why have Noosa Plan Scheme policies that seek to minimise the impact on neighbours, neighbouring properties, in terms of waste collection being on site as opposed to street collection if we don't seek to abide by that at every opportunity? This is going to be an aesthetically very pleasing development. It can demonstrate best practice. I could give you a parallel on-site collection, if there's an opportunity for on-site collection at the festival. The other point I'd like to make is, I can't support this amendment because it gives the applicant false hope and imposes more work on an applicant who is wanting certainty and clarity
01:37:00 to be able to move forward as quickly as possible. It's not fair giving false hope because these decisions have already been made and the advice has been very clear so to date. So I do appreciate what the intent is, but I don't think this will have achieved a good outcome. I can't support this amendment. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question then to the staff. I believe this is an unresolved issue. Is it not between you and the applicant? Speaker 1: It's unresolved in so far as we have requested that they deal with on-site collection. We could, the applicant basically still has continued to, I guess, be able to move forward. It's a request that the bins be collected on the street. So as Dan has mentioned, we have run the sweat paths independently within the engineering section and believe that it can still occur on-site.
01:38:00 I mean, and like we've spoken about, I mean, at this stage, we're looking at, you know, lines on a plan, articulating the applicant's envelopes. We've done the sweat paths based on those parameters and we still believe it works. So if there is some fine-tuning that needs to be done through an operational works permit, we believe that there's a good deal of certainty that it will work. So at this stage, we support the scheme and we support the policy, which requires that the, for a scale of this development, that the garbage is collected on-site. Councillor Finzel: I have a question through the Chair then. So I just have a question. Given, you know, Council has raised the amount of time we're going to address this, go to the site, look all sides of the argument, in terms of, like, negotiating reasonable outcomes, especially from my perspective around that safety, which people can get in and out, like, it's not really clear and you've told us that it is an unresolved issue. I heard that from both sides of the party.
01:39:00 Can we delete Conditions 3 and 61? How does that work out, providing staff then with opportunity to go back to the drawing table and find that resolution? Speaker 4: Councillor, can I just... Is that an option? Can I answer that one there? I mean, so Council's role as assessment manager under the Planning Act, particularly for code and assessable applications, is to assess and decide applications under the Planning Act. Council staff have undertaken their assessment based on the material provided by the applicant and have made their recommendation based on what the scheme is seeking to achieve. That is their role. They've done that very thoroughly and have put their recommendation to you to consider. They have completed their assessment. That's done. It's before you with the recommendation as proposed. So that's what staff are recommending. It's up to the Council as the decision-maker here today to just determine whether they agree with that advice
01:40:00 or wish to amend that. But Council staff are undertaking a very thorough and rigorous assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Does Eleanor wish to talk to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you wish to close, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: No, I think all reports have been made. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the motion... No, the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Wilson: I'll put the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's Councillor Phillips and Wilson. Those against? That's Councillor Lorentson, Finzel, Stockwell, Wilkie and... Wagener. Wagener. The motion's lost. Councillor Phillips: Can I propose a procedural motion at this point? Just for Thursday. And I'll just quickly say why. I got from the Waste Manager that there's some possible things you have to take on notice.
01:41:00 And... But since it's gone... The ordering is Thursday. Is there any issues with that? That the decision is made on that? So it gives time for the Waste Manager to collect those two things on notice? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So... You're open to a procedural motion. A motion to defer has to be seconded, but only the mover gets to talk to it. Mayor Wilkie: No, we all get to talk to it. No. Councillor Lorentson: No, you get to talk to it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's up to you. If it's moved today, it still can be amended on Thursday. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just ask a question through the Chair? What are those issues, Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: I heard a couple of questions around data checks and things that could potentially just give us unquittable confidence in the decision on...
01:42:00 I've got no issue with making a decision today. I was asking, would there be a time between now and Thursday that we could have a decision on the two things that were pointed out around data checking? I didn't want the other one down. Data checking of what? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The noise. Attenuation. Distance. Change in distance. Councillor Phillips: I don't know if it's reasonable. That's why I'm asking if it's... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The question is, would we have any chance of getting an acoustic assessment prior to Thursday? Speaker 4: Probably not. Councillor, can I just add to that? There is a condition that's actually proposed that talks about no impact on amenity as a result of the uses in there. I think it's condition number... Obviously, we'll be assessing as part of the operational works in terms of the detailed design of the mechanics servicing to ensure that the use and activities as a result of use don't provide any adverse impact on amenity. Have you got the number of the condition there, Andrew? Speaker 1: Yes.
01:43:00 It is condition 24 and 25. Speaker 4: Yes. There's already a... And 26. ...provision in there about no adverse impact on amenity, and we can obviously, again, look at that in a bit more detail in the operational works. It's lodged for assessment as well. Sorry. Speaker 1: Excuse me. It was condition 20 under amenity. Councillor Lorentson: The operation of the approved use must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity, including but not limited to noise, amplified music, overlooking light spill or odour enjoyed by surrounding residents, or cause a nuisance, including a noise nuisance. So the onus is on the applicant to comply with that condition. Speaker 5: There's also an incentive for them to do that internally to the site as well as they have accommodation uses themselves. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So we have a motion in progress. Does anyone wish to talk to it? Speaker 4: I thought you said no. What about a seconder? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, no. We haven't been moved.
01:44:00 Speaker 4: So we're not doing it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, the deferral motion won't be moved. Oh, I'll think about it. It was a question about if I do defer. Oh, I'll think about it. Councillor Finzel: Certainly. It's a question of suggestion. Sorry. No, of course. If this, before the debate, how does that affect the date of being refused? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, we haven't got a deferral motion in progress. And I talked about a motion. It's the motion moved by Councillor Wilkie as amended twice. It's now the standard motion that we have. Councillor Phillips: I thought my question was if there was a procedural motion, would there be an opportunity to get that information? And the answer is no. It wasn't moved. It wasn't submitted. Councillor Finzel: So through the chair, I am seeking clarification. What's the date of the decision? The end approval. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The end approval. Speaker 5: The due date of the decision is the 21st of March. The ordinary meeting is on the 20th. So, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So through the chair, has the procedural motion been withdrawn?
01:45:00 Councillor Phillips: It was a question whether I. Thank you. No, I. Councillor Lorentson: I didn't hear the actual . Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Now, as a question to the chair, please. If there was, if we reached the point of deemed approval, is that including the conditions or not? Speaker 4: No. So the applicant can apply for a deemed approval and then council has 10 business days to provide conditions. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I'll talk to the standard motion. Other than the two issues that we've had a little bit of debate on, I think the building form, design, mix of uses is very important. I think it's important. I think it's important. I think it's important that the building is very, very certain to the site. I think the rendering suggests a colour palette that will start to establish a riverside theme. You know, there's nothing more nautical than some weathered timber, whether the recycled timber is going to be weathered. I'm not sure, but there's overgrazed homes. I think the mix of downstairs eating and the commercial components actually reduced from
01:46:00 the existing together with, you know, two storeys of short term is compliant with the structure. I note that the draft amendments to the scheme did look at changing the zone and therefore the desired use. That may result in even further mixed use on this site, which would be a desirable outcome in my opinion. But in terms of the scheme that was applied under, I think it is going to be an asset to the community. And I think activate the open areas on site, but also provide some really nice shaded linkages through to the foreshore. And with the proposed change crossing in that area, I think we'll start to see a whole new vibrancy in Thomas Street as a result. Councillor Lorentson: I have one last question and I only want to ask this because I think it's significant.
01:47:00 The site is more than 2,500 square metres, and my understanding that it triggered a state referral. The development is required to meet water quality objectives under state policy in Council's Water Quality and Drainage Code. And there's a bioretention basin being proposed, and given that, at the moment, any surface runoff, or all roof water drainage, or all the underground pipe network works, at the moment, they're being discharged directly into Noosa River. Just if you can explain how the site's going to be graded, or what drainage systems, or explain a little bit about the bioretention being proposed, because I think it's significantly important in terms of water quality and how this development is going to contribute to better water quality.
01:48:00 Speaker 11: So, yeah, the site's provided with stormwater quality treatment devices in the form of a bioretention basin. There are some secondary treatment devices as well within the site that capture smaller cataracts of the development. The stormwater management plan provided by the applicant addresses the state planning policy outcomes for stormwater quality treatment, and achieves all of those load reduction targets. Additionally, the site doesn't increase the impervious area of the existing site, so there is not enough water. So, there's not going to be further stormwater runoff exiting the site post-development. So, as far as engineering is concerned, the development ticks all those boxes in terms of its stormwater quality and quantity targets. Councillor Lorentson: Interesting. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. I know it's just popped up. Thank you, Councillor Lonsdon. A question through the Chair and the CEO.
01:49:00 We recently, I think, undertook a review of bioretention. When we're looking at the addition of another system like this in this development, where are we placed in terms of ongoing costs and budgets around managing the infrastructure of bioretention bases now and into the future? Speaker 8: I'll refer that to the experts here, the engineers, but the bioretention basin, my understanding, is on site for this actual development. It's not the bioretention bases we're talking about that you're referring to. They're our larger ones that are out in the field for overflowing and for the most part of it. Yeah, that's correct, yeah. This is specific to this particular development. Councillor Finzel: So, does the cost go back to the applicant? Oh, the development, yeah. Oh, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? No? So, Councillor Wolfie, would you like to close the debate?
01:50:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it's all been said. So, I'll let my right to speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, I put the motion. Those in favour? Yes. So, that's carried unanimously. Councillors, we've nearly been going for two hours. Is it time to have a respite and take a short five or ten minutes break?
8.2 MCU23/0090 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – HOTEL (EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOTEL) AND DBW23/0073 - BUILDING WORK (DEMOLITION) AT 118 POINCIANA AVE & 26 DIYAN ST, TEWANTIN ¶
02:01:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a financial interest in a neighbouring property that may be affected by the outcome of this application. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.
02:02:00 Speaker 10: Good afternoon, councillors. This application that we're dealing with, we're dealing with two applications this afternoon. The first deals with the DVW, which relates to demolition of the premises, as we know, is the Royal Mail. The demolition comes to council because it's building works accessible against the planning scheme because of the local heritage character of the site. The second part of the application is a material change of use for extension to the existing hotel. The demolition proposed on the site involves demolition of the liquor land premises out the rear of the site, the front toilets on the corner, on the southeastern corner of the site, some internal renovations, as well as some external renovations mainly to the Poinciana frontage.
02:03:00 The material change of use component relates to the extension to the existing hotel in the form of two new beer gardens. There's the northern beer garden, which... which will go down Deanne Street and Blakesley Street, and then there is a new southern beer garden, which is where the current toilets are, and the Dosser smoking area is on Poinciana Avenue. The beer gardens have quite open pergolas and a landscaped area with paths, and there is a new bar there as well, plus keg rooms. Renovations to the internal renovations, so there's a range of internal renovations, plus the existing 13 units are going to be renovated. At present they don't have... they have a shared toilet, each of those is going to be given their own en-suite. The renovations to the development and the extensions include, as I said, the new beer garden, which required a 2-metre landscape setback around there.
02:04:00 There is also a new car parking area in the corner site of... with an additional 30 spaces to be accessed through the existing car parking area. There was a note on one of the plans, which has been picked up, about a playground. That was an error on one of the plans, and I have actually confirmed with the applicant today that there is no playground proposed, and they're fully aware that their acoustic report does not address a playground, and so they know if they want to put a playground in at a later date, it'll require a change to the application. The proposal has been reviewed against the planning scheme, and generally complies. with the relevant assessment benchmarks. I do note we've included a number of conditions relating to noise. We had... the proposal has been reviewed by our acoustic consultant, who has given us a number of noise conditions relating to decibels, including hours of operation, and also hours relating to when waste management can occur on site.
02:05:00 The beer garden also includes a new... acoustic screen along the back of the beer garden and also then up the western side. There is one door that faces the north, which is only for emergency access only. The back of the beer garden also is covered to address noise as well. There is additional car parking provided. As I said, there's an additional 30 spaces on the corner lot. The development has also been reviewed against our planning scheme, and we had an external consultant review the proposal, initially because the original application was so short in terms of car parking. We're now five car parking spaces short. Our consultant... our external consultant has reviewed it and is happy with those that shortfall, noting that we have received a signed infrastructure agreement from the applicant, agreeable to the payment of a contribution in lieu of provision of car parking for five spaces.
02:06:00 We're going... a number of... in terms of that five... that five spaces shortfall, our consultant also was quite... as I said, was quite happy. There is... there is significant community benefit from this proposal in terms of... we've... we've conditioned a public thoroughfare easement to go from Blakeslee Street, which will allow access to lot... to 96 Poinciana, which is currently... it's our... it's car parking, has to go through the Royal Mail. So the applicant is willing to agree to a public thoroughfare easement, so that will enable them to always access their car parking. Also it will enable pedestrians to continue to go through the site in that north-south orientation. There will be future... there are conditions about, as I've said, noise, acoustic, hours of operation, as well as future operational works applications relating to landscaping and external works that are required for the site.
02:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have questions? Mayor Wilkie: Questions. Submissions, Tewantin. Yes. Could you summarise the key issues in the submissions? Most of... About noise and traffic and... Oh, sorry. Mainly, and then how they will be mitigated in the next... Or addressed, I should say. Speaker 10: Yes, yes. Most of the conditions... There were several conditions received. We did receive a number of conditions. I think in the report it indicates that we received a number of submissions in support of the proposal. We did receive nine objections to the proposal. Most of them talked about the potential concerns relating to car parking and access from the site. A few of them suggested taking access off De Yarn Street. Basically, the planning scheme talks about trying to minimise the number of access points. We're currently going to utilise... The existing in-out system of the existing Blakesley Street car parking, which therefore minimises potential conflicts between traffic
02:08:00 and pedestrians leaving the site. We only have one. The initial application that was advertised was significantly short and there were concerns that there wouldn't be sufficient car parking. The provision of the additional 30 spaces now addresses those aspects. There was some... There were concerns raised about noise and we've got noise from the operations of the beer garden, but we've also got noise about traffic leaving the site. Again, we have an existing car park. We have an existing hotel. We will be requiring... I think we've got some conditions about fencing and landscaping to the external parts of the site to try and minimise those aspects. We've also noted that there will be a complaints management register that will establish a clear process if people do have complaints that we'll be able to look at and they'll be able to deal with complaints
02:09:00 from residents. So they were the main issues, noise and car parking. A couple of them were raising concerns about the loss of the character and making sure we wanted to address the maintenance of the Royal Mail character as well, which we've included conditions. Mayor Wilkie: Can you talk about how the heritage look and feel of the building would be the way to say it? Speaker 10: So most of the... We've included conditions requiring a colour scheme to be provided. We've included a condition requiring reinstatement of a more horizontal balustrade to the front of the building. In the report, you can see the comparison what was there and they've put in vertical slats. We did ask them as part of the information request to ask them to change it. They weren't very keen. However, we have conditioned them. So that approval on the basis of our heritage officer had suggested that that was a key component and more fitting in with the art deco feel of the building.
02:10:00 Councillor Phillips: Question, please. Just in relation to public safety, the closed circuit's television equipment must be installed within the property and along all frontages of the site. Can you just confirm if that would be in the easement as well? All frontages. Would that include that? Speaker 10: No. No. Not how it's worded. No. Speaker 5: So it's for the security cameras to be installed within the property at the frontages. Facing out. Speaker 10: Yeah. At the frontages. Councillor Phillips: Facing out. Yeah. But all frontages won't include the easement? Speaker 10: No. The easement is internal to the site. So the frontages is Poinciana, De Yarn and Blakesley. So we wouldn't be... We haven't got any... The condition doesn't read to reflect that easement. It could be amended to include that easement or the internal car parking layout.
02:11:00 Speaker 4: It's likely that the applicant will have their own measures and secure CCTV of their car around their car park area as well, which is not uncommon for establishments of this sort of nature. But we have specifically conditioned around the public-private interface on those key street areas, which is part of what's been conditioned. Councillor Phillips: Would it be acceptable to condition CCTV and the easement as well? Speaker 10: We could. Yes. Speaker 4: I don't think there's any... Yeah. I don't think there would be any major objection. We could maybe even... Speaker 10: No, we could... Speaker 4: ...consult with the applicant in that regard, noting that, yeah, you'll have the public, general public, potentially accessing that private land but still through an easement. Speaker 10: I'd have to check the privacy side of that because my understanding is in the public realm. So I think that's OK.
02:12:00 It should be fine. It should be fine. That would be my only thing. I don't... 100%. Councillor Phillips: That's OK. You can clarify that. Speaker 10: Yeah. That's the only thing. I don't know. That side of thing. Yeah. We did... We'll get it clarified. Yeah. Councillor Phillips: It does allow it. It does allow it? OK. Speaker 8: So you're getting the decision later. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: We'll get it clarified. Speaker 4: Sort of independence there, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Good. In terms of the beer garden, we have received an email from residents that live in Blakeslee Street requesting opening hours of the beer garden on Fridays and Saturdays to not go beyond 10pm. Can I ask what was the reasoning that we've extended the opening hours to 12 o'clock... To midnight? That's... Is it consistent with other beer gardens or other development applications or is this... I've never seen a beer garden open till midnight. Speaker 10: This is consistent with what our planning scheme says. So for the entertainment and activities code, we've pulled those...
02:13:00 There is a... There's an AO that talks about those operating hours. So when you have a look at the continue... At the condition, condition 21, we talk about the hours of operation of the beer garden areas. So we've got the actual operating hours. Then we've got the acoustic barriers. And then if you go down to condition 26... Yeah. It talks about... Councillor Lorentson: Sorry? Oh, the noise limiting... Speaker 10: Yeah, it talks about the noise limiting system. So that talks about the 70 DBA. And then condition 27 talks about amplified live music must cease to operate in the northern and southern beer gardens by 7pm. So any acoustic music has to stop by 7pm. But yes, people could still be out in the beer garden till later. And then condition 28 also includes provision of acoustic live music to the northern beer garden should be operated such that it does not exceed the 70 DBA.
02:14:00 And I thought they had a CC... Oh, sorry. And that's condition 22. Acoustic live music must not operate after 9pm, Sunday to Thursday, and 10pm, Friday and Saturday. So we've limited the musical side of things and we've put a 70 DBA on it as well. But yes, the beer garden can operate 10pm, Friday and Saturday. Councillor Lorentson: In accordance with our benchmarks in the planning scheme question in terms of car parking so there is a shortfall of five and there has been an infrastructure agreement entered into and I think the shortfall about or the infrastructure agreement is seventy two thousand seventy two seventy four thousand. Again probably similar question to what I just asked before in the meeting beforehand is the value that this community places on car parking. My
02:15:00 question is what's the cumulative impact of car parking shortfalls within the Tewantin precinct and have we actually assessed that number? And are these considerations factored into approval planning of this application in front of us and is there any requirement that we need to ensure that the area the precinct parking infrastructure meets current and future needs. I just keep thinking what's the cumulative impact how many infrastructure agreements have we granted across the whole business precinct and I also always think of Peregian Beach. I'm a bit off topic okay so let's Speaker 10: stick to the questions. So when they first lodged the application they were
02:16:00 quite significantly below Council's requirements. The application was referred to our expert traffic consultant that we use and he came back and indicated to us that it was way under and that we couldn't accept it. We required several more reports from them which was still unsatisfactory and then earlier this year basically it got to the point where again our consultant spoke to them and said it is not enough car parking and so when he's looking at it he's looking at the use he's looking at the surrounding uses he's looking at the intensity of the use when the peaks are going to be the types of people using it. So basically we came back and said his comment to us was it needs to comply with the planning scheme requirements. When they came back and they were five spaces short I checked with him and said are you okay with this and he said yes noting that there will be a lot of people who will be coming from the surrounding area and our planning scheme is based on use area
02:17:00 which means everything is counted. So keg rooms, store rooms, the bar rooms, kitchens, all those areas are included in our calculations and he said considering that where it's located the type of people who are going to be going to it he considered and looking at our surrounding area he was satisfied that the car parking rate that we're proposing under the planning scheme less those five was appropriate. Councillor Finzel: Thank you thank you for the report I just have a question because we all got the email today about amenity with noise issues which is on everyone's agenda and rightly so. I noticed that we're conditioning a amenity complaints management procedure an attachment for item number 29. So can you just tell us a
02:18:00 little bit, you've got a record of all complaints and investigation results including corrective actions must be maintained and made available for inspection at any time upon request by council. Who's going to be sort of regulating that and making sure that the complaint process is you know followed through and we get the results that community feels that you know they have actually been listened to, they have followed the due process and who's sort of, who's like the regulator in that space to ensure that this condition is adhered to. Speaker 10: It will be the planning department so we once we place this condition on on the applicant as part of the DA it becomes yeah it's a condition that must be complied with so if there is a complaint it will go to our compliance section and they will have to investigate and then we'll be able to look into it. Speaker 4: Correct and in addition also noting that the type of use on this particular site would be subject to other approvals and
02:19:00 licenses as well particularly around liquor licensing and they have a range of obligations usually attached to their requirements as well so this sort of multi-layered approach and obviously part of this would notify us if there's a matter that liquor licensing have dealt with and we would be aware of that that's been actioned by liquor licensing particularly so this is about keeping an overarching database I guess of those matters, what's been done, how they've been handled so that council at any point in time receives concerns from our community can seek to view this document and ensure that they've taken all reasonable steps to address and respond to any issues being raised from the community. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chairman I'm happy to move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second it. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for the report. I think this um this project is and not to use term
02:20:00 that was used in the last application a catalytic project. It will revitalize the Tewantin CBD. It's been a topic of conversation for years what's happened in the Royal Mail, when is it going to get a facelift, when is it going to be upgraded. It's a welcome application and it has regard to the Art Deco heritage look and feel of the existing premise. It's had regard to the fact that it is on a well-serviced transport route. People will be arriving and leaving by public transport. Peaks, peak usage times of the hotel will perhaps be night time when there are gaps in public car park and the rest of the CBD. I appreciate the work that's been done to ensure that there is adequate car parking on the site. I
02:21:00 accept the consultants report that there is and I think it's a welcome and long awaited and much-needed facelift to a pivotal a pivotal hotel in the city of Tewantin. And part of Tewantin's heritage. So thank you for the report and I hope it goes ahead as quickly as possible. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Let's talk to the motion. Councillor Finzel: I just have one more question. Just with reference to the email received over the weekend from residents. Just a clarification. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Finzel is in the middle of a question. I'll get to you next. Councillor Finzel: In relation to the car parking on the land deemed not suitable. I'm just seeking clarification. I'm not quite sure if they are referring to a public meeting that was in this area and were told at that time it was out of the remit of the hotel and owned by another entity.
02:22:00 Speaker 10: I'm assuming that's the northern lot which is that to the north of the bottle shop. It's the same owner as the hotel now. Oh, okay. I'm wondering back. It might have been a while back in a separate ownership but it is now under the same ownership. As part of the same hotel ownership. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener was next. Yes, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: With the children's play area, it came up in some letters that that's not a requirement. It's not a part of the permit. Rather, it's something that the hotel plans to do. And if they don't do it, they can't do it. They can't ever turn back on council and say, well, council didn't allow us to do this by any stretch. That's not a possibility. Speaker 10: Yeah. It's not. It seems to be a mistake on one of the plans.
02:23:00 The overall site plan, the lower floor plan, shows it as being beer garden. And then there's a close up on the figure five in the report. And it shows seating and then they've left the text on saying playground. Director Rawlings: Mm-hmm. Speaker 10: And I believe it might have been way back when the application was originally proposed. I think there was talk on Facebook about it being a playground. But I spoke with the applicant this morning and there's no intention at this stage for a playground. And they are fully aware that if they do want to put in a playground, they'll need to amend the application. And definitely noise will need to be considered as part of that. Councillor Wegener: Okay. And then. Yep. Second. Um. The. The time frame for the northern beer garden closing at midnight. Um. What. What. 10 o'clock. It just seems to me 10 o'clock is far more reasonable for.
02:24:00 For that area. Yes. Council considered that. Speaker 10: Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So. Did staff consider an earlier closing time? Speaker 10: Tom. The condition has been imposed. Um. In accordance with the acceptable outcome that's detailed in the entertainment and activities code for this zoning. So we've utilised that. Those requirements under that code. Speaker 5: And being reviewed by our acoustic consultant. Speaker 10: And being reviewed. Our acoustic consultant. Yeah. Also agrees with the conditions that we have imposed. Um. As part of the. Uh. Recommendations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if I can. Have a subsequent one. After 10 o'clock at night. Um. And likely to be conditioned by the legal licensing. The EPA. EB. Whatever. The noise. Does have a higher. Restrictions on above and beyond background noise etc. So. Our acoustic consultant would have taken in the.
02:25:00 He has. Higher requirements. Yep. Speaker 10: He says the 70 DBA is pretty. Um. Yeah. Pretty limiting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And. And to add. Um. 70 DBA after 10? Speaker 10: Uh. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Could I. Could I just test. An amendment. To um. To limit. The. Um. Opening hours till 10. PM. So. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener. Have you provided a. Amendment to the. Staff yet. Because I believe another council may have one that's already. Uh. Typed up and. Ready to go. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Well that's fine. I'll let. I'll let the other councillor. Um. Uh. Present that then. Speaker 5: Councillor Stockwell. Just to clarify. Your 70 DBA. That was in relation to acoustic live music. Oh sorry. Yes. Which is conditioned. Um. To cease by 10. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 10 PM. 10 PM. Yeah. Yeah. I would have thought it would be something like. Uh. 5 decibels or 10 decibels over the background noise. Which is probably close to the 50. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah.
02:26:00 Yeah. So 10 PM Friday, Saturday and 9 PM Sunday to Thursday. Mayor Wilkie: Just clarifying question. It also refers to a 70 DBA limit for amplified sound as well. That's correct. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. It is correct. Speaker 10: Yes. That is correct. Yeah. It's quite a. 70 DBA is what our consultant has said should be the maximum number. Right. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. And that's under a lot. Like a lot K isn't it? Yes. Speaker 10: Under a lot K. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. That's right. Speaker 10: Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So as just a. An analogy. Um. What does 70 decibel sound. What does that equate to? Speaker 8: You didn't tell me. Bring your guitar. Councillor Lorentson: I. From my. Yeah. That's all right. Sorry. I just thought you might. From what I understand. Mayor Wilkie: Me playing my guitar here and you being there. Okay. I think. Speaker 10: I believe so. I. That's. Okay. Don't believe. It'll be. I think it'd be very hard to get any amplified music at 70 DBA. Okay. So it's more acoustic and talking is what you would get. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Quick question. To follow up.
02:27:00 I'll work out how to make this a question. But I just did the quickest look up Facebook on the 10th of February. There was a comment. And I know that Facebook hasn't been peer reviewed yet. But. The. It says we're thrilled to bring the Tawantin community a brand new bistro, sports bar, gaming bar. Yes. Complete with a kids playground. Speaker 10: I spoke to the applicant this morning. Yeah. And they've said no. It's not. There's no playground. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Does that mean Facebook is sometimes misleading? Director Rawlings: Gosh. Speaker 10: I can. If we. We can condition something. We can include a condition if you want to change something to state that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just did a quick search. 70 decibels is normal conversations between 60 and 70. Open office noise, 65 to 75. Alarm clock, 70 to 80. Washing machine, 70. Dish washer, 70. Speaker 10: So it's not very loud. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not very loud. Speaker 10: It's pretty quiet.
02:28:00 Speaker 4: And Councillor, just on that point around the noise, it's important to highlight too, the noise specified as condition is actually an acceptable outcome in the code. So what that means, essentially it's a deemed to comply provision. So once you meet that, generally when you assess against the planning scheme, if you meet an acceptable outcome, you're deemed to comply with the performance outcome. So just giving you a bit of context of how we've come up with the thresholds that are prescriptive in the acceptable outcome of the scheme, which is a deemed to comply. Councillor Lorentson: So does that mean that if legally changed. If it's challenged, that given that it does comply with the news that plan acceptable outcomes, where we might be in a difficult situation to support an amendment, is that correct, Richard? Speaker 4: That would be my advice. Once they meet a deemed to comply provision, you're deemed to automatically meet the accepted performance outcome as listed in the scheme.
02:29:00 Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So Councillor Phillips, did you still wish to test your potential amendment? Councillor Phillips: I'm just working out how to get some clarity around it after that. Thanks. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question in the meantime. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. How would those sound limits compare to sound limits possibly imposed by OLGR? Speaker 10: I think the ones I've looked at for the junction are 75 DBA. I looked at one recently. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And just a process question. Why wasn't OLGR involved in providing advice? Speaker 10: Because this is a planning application. So they will, as part of the liquor licensing, they will come to us and request our comments about this proposal.
02:30:00 And then we'll have to say whether it's got approval. So we will give them a plan of what's being approved. Okay. And then we'll also give them our conditions of hours of operation. Sometimes they... It'll be an interesting one because sometimes they agree with us and sometimes they don't. Mayor Wilkie: So it's possible they may say, oh, it's too restrictive. Yeah. Speaker 10: But then we've got... 75. Yeah. Yeah. But our conditions will still apply because they're going to be conditions of approval. So they can't... They really shouldn't give anything other than what we set as part of our conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Question. So the decibels is in relation to music. When we're talking about an outdoor beer garden and we've got voices that can be louder than 70 decibels. That's a good question. Yeah. Yeah. So circling back to the later night, which will introduce my amendment, I have concerns
02:31:00 that it's not necessarily the music because they've complied with the 70 decibels, but how we improve or maintain amenity for the residents around when the garden potentially could have very loud voices. Good question. Okay. Speaker 10: So I suppose we've had it, as I said, reviewed by our noise consultant. And in terms of the use, the zoning, again, this is a consistent use in the zone. We do have an existing hotel there. He was satisfied in terms of the legislation and the requirements that these conditions and these requirements were sufficient to protect amenity. There are a number of... There's the noise mapping, which shows how the noise fades. And again, it's showing that it is fading as we leave the site before it gets to Blakeslee
02:32:00 Street. So he was specifically asked to look at the noise sources and the impacts on the surrounding residents. And he's satisfied that it complies with relevant legislation and data that he can deal with. So... From the beer garden or from inside? From the beer garden. Speaker 5: You have the acoustic barriers? Speaker 10: From the UC. And that's right. We do have the acoustic barriers. Remember, they go all along the back. And they go along the back and they've got the lid on top on the back side. And then we also have the one that goes along the west as well. Speaker 5: And one on the east portion? Yeah. Speaker 10: There's a low one across. I actually even asked him about the potential impacts on the people on the north shore. And he was not worried at all about that. I thought there might be some concerns about the noise travelling. But he said it complies with the legislative regulations. Councillor Lorentson: So the noise limiting speakers, can you explain and deem how they work?
02:33:00 So I know that Four Pines have a similar system. Yep. And that's... And I think they're always pretty much compliant. Yeah. But we have had issues. And I think a lot of the councils have spoken to residents and use of heads that are impacted by, again, not necessarily music, by people. And beer gardens are very noisy and people speak very loudly. So does a noise limiting speaker, does it...will it pick up if conversations exceed 70 decibels? I don't... Speaker 10: It's just really controlling the noise coming out of the speakers. The music. Yeah. It's not... It's not... It's not a noise reader. It's not a meter that's picking up what the levels are. That would be something different. I can check with our consultant to see...
02:34:00 Okay. And I'll have another look at his report. Councillor Lorentson: Is there opportunity to include a condition that we have some sort of noise monitoring device in the beer garden? That allows us, you know, if there's a complaint made by a neighbour, we can check it against data. Is that a possibility? Speaker 4: There's challenges around some of that. I guess when we've got a scheme that allows particular uses to occur. And obviously, both parties, the applicant's consultant and our independent noise consultant, have evaluated the proposal in terms of whether or not it's going to work. In terms of what's the use and the nature of noise that's likely to emanate, and have considered that the mitigations proposed in terms of acoustic fencing and barriers around it, obviously the hours of operation, that the buffers to residential properties to be considered appropriate. So I guess from an expert perspective, we've sought advice that it's reasonable and sufficient
02:35:00 mitigation has been put in place to manage that. Take your point. Is there an ability to control or have an intervention of... Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Just a monitoring... Concerns. A noise monitoring system outside, just to ensure that the acoustic barriers are doing what they're supposed to do, which is mitigate any noise impacts. Can we investigate that maybe? Yeah. That would be excellent. Yeah. Thank you, Nadine. We did a similar condition for Bounce, I recall. Yeah. They have, they have... With the manager. Yeah. Speaker 4: We'll make some inquiries. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Just to clarify, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Talking to the owner of the management events, doesn't have one complaint. Speaker 10: It's actually, when you actually go to Bounce and you walk around the back of the units, it is actually quite amazing. The actual building just stops at the sound.
02:36:00 I'm too old to hear. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I was having a question. Yeah. Thank you. Just following on from that, and we're referring back to that email received from residents as well. We're talking about mitigating noise and meeting legislation within the beer garden and the barriers. Questions are being raised around the noise outside of the venue. So when headlights, cars starting up, intoxicated people leaving the venue, how is that mitigated moving forward? We haven't really... How does legislation cover that, or...? Speaker 10: So, we've required landscaping and fencing to the car park. So, at the moment, we've got limited landscaping that even goes along the existing car park, along to Blakesley Street. So, we've required additional dense landscaping to be provided there. So, that should help mitigate in terms of the lights. They're all going to be coming out, utilising the existing in and out system as well.
02:37:00 The noise, again, a lot of this, I suppose, anti-social behaviour. I think there's this crossover that we have to be careful with liquor licensing. Liquor licensing has their own requirements, where they have to, under their legislation, they have to provide a safe environment for patrons and staff. If we get too involved in that, my understanding is liquor licensing will flick a lot of... If they can flick anything over to us, they will. So, I think those sort of things... We're dealing with the land use issue. We're dealing with the land use and the management. So, we've looked at the lighting. We've looked at the screening of it. We would be... Yes, I take your point about if we provide security cameras where complaints register. Trying to get, again, the hotel to take more responsibility than trying to legislate for that activity. Speaker 4: And there's different layers as well, as Nadine said, around liquor licensing, obviously
02:38:00 around responsible service of liquor. And there's certain, I guess, processes and requirements in place. But there's also a role too for the police to intervene, particularly in the public realm if there's instances that occur with antisocial behaviour and anything that spills outside of the site itself that could and can be addressed. But tricky from a land use perspective to manage that in advance, I guess. We're dealing with the land use component as opposed to those behavioural elements. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: So, just a question through the Chair, following on from that. Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Following on from that, a question through the CEO. In our corporate plan on page 47, we support strategies and plans around the Nurses Social Strategy, Social Justice Charter and Community Strategy, through to the CEO.
02:39:00 Where are we placed at the moment around that? I don't think we have a strategy or getting budget to get that strategy up and running. Because I think, rightly so, the staff have said this is a planning issue, but to mitigate those- Point of order. Councillor Lorentson: This is not relevant to what we're doing at the moment. Councillor Finzel: I felt we were addressing the social impacts that aren't covered by the planning scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, we are dealing with the perception of social impacts, but we're dealing with the strategic application rather than looking at the future and revising a strategic document. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair, for bringing that to my attention. I'll raise it at the budget meetings. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question in terms of disability access. And thank you for your response. I've sent you a few questions. I would personally, and the question I'm asking is, we haven't got any condition or any statement.
02:40:00 We've got a human rights compatibility statement with our development report. We've got a human rights compatibility statement with our development report. There's been no mention in the report in terms of compliance with Disability Discrimination Act in terms of any work, whether it's footpaths, car parks, building works need to comply with Disability Discrimination Act, given that it's an important priority of Council. I believe it's important that we make a statement that all applications, development applications, should comply with Disability Discrimination Act. My question is, my question is, DDA, where will DDA be assessed and is there opportunity to include it as a standard statement in every development application? Sorry. Speaker 8: I've thrown it at you. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Indeed. Equitable access for all people is very important.
02:41:00 Speaker 10: I sent you that. Response. We have an advisory note that we include with all permits that goes on at the end of it, which indicates that we haven't assessed ... Remember, we're dealing with a land use concept, so the next stage is when they do the further detailed design. It's when they do their building, they'll do their building works, they get their building approval. That's when they really get into the nitty gritty. They do their engineering, they go to those working drawings at next stage, so do their operational works. So, we haven't assessed it for disability compliance. In terms of car parking side of things, that'll be addressed at the operational work stage. Toilet facilities, disabled access, that's what the building certifier is required to do under his legislation. Therefore, that's why it's under an advisory note that goes out with all applications. Councillor Lorentson: And that advisory note, can it be included as part of the reports that we received in council? Speaker 10: I think, again, it's outlining that we haven't assessed it for these requirements,
02:42:00 and that a further application, they must consider it by law. That's what the certifier has to do. He has to make sure it's compliant, and he has to make sure that the right number of toilets and that the disabled access, the ramps, all comply. And legislation changes, so ramps changes, there's all different requirements, widths of doors. That's a constantly changing sort of requirement. So, at this stage, we've been putting it in as advisory notes. Correct, yeah. And it would be quite difficult to put in as a condition. Speaker 4: Yes, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Not as a condition, nor as a statement. Oh, as a statement? In the report? In the report. In the report. Oh, sorry. It's a human rights compatibility statement. It would be great to have some reference to disability discrimination. Act given the importance that we as a community, and as a Council, place on equitable access.
02:43:00 Fair and equitable access. Yeah. Okay, in the report. Speaker 4: Because as Nadine said, that will be included in any decision notice, an advice note to that effect. Councillor Lorentson: So, it is a key point that needs to be addressed. Thank you very much. I just think it's important. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Nadine. Speaker 10: Yeah, that's right. No, that's fine. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe the flip side is true. We can't condition anything that's a Building Act matter. Speaker 10: No. But we can put in the report. Yes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Noted. Speaker 10: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I think Councillor Wilkie is still the only one to talk to the ... Councillor Lorentson: Is it a question through the Chair? Should a procedural motion be moved so that, Nadine, you can find out whether a noise monitoring system ... That's right. Okay. I'd like to move a procedural motion and just wait for the information provided by
02:44:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, you're not going to be specific with the procedural motion if you're going to defer it? Can I ask a question about that? I'll give my list, but ... Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And ... Just move a procedural motion seeking further information to be brought to the ordinary meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That isn't in the wording that's acceptable understanding orders. Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. That's great. Thank you. I'll leave that to the CEO. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, that's been moved. Councillor Monaghan, is there a seconder? Councillor Phillips: I'll second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, Councillor Monaghan ... Councillor Phillips: I just have a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Can't have a question. Okay. So, Councillor Monaghan, you can talk to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, just ... I think that we need to give further consideration to the concerns of the
02:45:00 people that are going to be directly impacted by this development. And they're the residents that live behind in Blakesley Street. And if there's opportunity for us to do better, then we should explore that opportunity. So, if there's opportunity for us to do better, then we should explore that opportunity. I'm just requesting deferment due to the significance of the application in front of us. That we just seek some further information to help provide an informed decision and possibly an opportunity to make a slight amendment to the development application. No questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I'm just thinking about that. Then no one else can talk to the motion. But the standing orders do say that council can ask the question at any time. So, I'm going to say, okay, the motion is passed. That doesn't rule out questions, as long as they are questions. It is a question. Councillor Phillips: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Do you want to go first? Councillor Phillips: Yes, please. Just to clarify, we're getting the noise will be for ...
02:46:00 For voices, not for ... Speaker 10: For voices. So, voice ... So, my ... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, you may answer. Speaker 10: You may answer through the chair. My understanding is to get a comment about the noise from the patrons, whether it was considered in terms of the conditions in the DBA, whether it's appropriate to put a noise meter on site, and potentially would council like the matter of the privacy cameras through the easement to be considered as well? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Yes. Speaker 10: We'll go back to part two. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: So, are there any instances of where crowd noise is measured? In a beer garden? That result in an actual regulation of crowd noise in a beer garden? Like, to what end would it be?
02:47:00 Speaker 4: My understanding would have to be on the outside of the acoustic fence to obviously understand whether the barrier is essentially doing what it's designed to do, which is to attenuate noise. But, I'm not aware of that. I'm aware of many cases where that's been done for crowd noise as such. Possibly festivals and things like that, but that's more around the amplified sort of music side of things. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I shouldn't have allowed that question, because we're dealing with a procedural motion about deferral. Councillor Phillips's question is about what we deferred for, not about the content. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Here's a procedural question. Could that information be provided by the ordinary medium anyway? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Potentially. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, without a deferral? Yes. Oh, look. I'm happy to withdraw the procedural motion. It's already been said. Oh, it's already been said? No. No worries. Mayor Wilkie: And does a procedural motion gag, essentially gag, further debate and questioning on this
02:48:00 issue today? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Yes. If it's deferred. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It stops it. So, I'll put the motion. It goes in favour. Councillor Lorentson: The standing order is also straight. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Excuse me? Councillor Lorentson: Standing order is also straight. You say you've got to include the reason for your deferral. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. So, you haven't put that in the motion? No. So, thank you for interrupting. The reason was to get further information around acoustics and safety. Thank you, Cathy. And I'm going to give Amanda the record. Director Walsh: Sorry. Excuse me. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, we can put the motion. Those in favour? Those against? Yes. So, that's unanimously opposed. So, we go back to the standard motion. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question, Mr Chair. Sure. It's about the interesting topic of CCTV.
02:49:00 What was it, what was the information that would be sought about CCTV right from the Speaker 10: start? It was just whether it could be put internally to view down the easement. We've got the public easement going through the car park at the rear. So, the condition reads it's, the CCTV is to be on the external boundaries of the site. So, this was suggestion whether it can go through the car park. Mayor Wilkie: And you'd have sufficient time between now and the first day to talk to the applicant about that? Yes. And the other one would be about time for you to investigate whether. I just need to. Crowd noise limiting technology is above. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just. Oh, crowd monitoring. Real time noise sensors. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And feeding back into the. Mayor Wilkie: A noise meter. Yes. And it would lead to another condition. That's right. Would it lead to another condition, Councillor? To what end would it? Councillor Lorentson: Maybe it forms part of the complaints management process that there's, that it's data driven.
02:50:00 Yeah. That any complaints correlate to real life information. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And can we include one there to have a face recognition of all council staff on Friday afternoon? Have we got any other questions or discussion on the motion? Mayor Wilkie: Just clarity around the playground again. Yeah. And what would need to happen before a playground would be included in the. Yeah. On that side. So at the moment. As, as Councillor Phillips pointed out, it has been signalled to the community on Facebook that. Yes. That's happening. Councillor Phillips: Yep. It's. By then to not just. It was on the Facebook. Yes. Not just. Hmm. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: The red. Yes. From a. From a. Speaker 10: Yes. Incredible source. Yeah.
02:51:00 And I think it's a, it's a more of a leftover. So confirmation from the applicant this morning was that they have no, they're not proposing a playground and they're fully aware that they would need to update their acoustic report to address that. And they would need to put a change application back to council to, to get a playground on, on the site. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And. Don't go further. Yes. Um. Condition three lists the plans approved. That's correct. Is the playground indicated in any of those plans? Speaker 10: It would have to amend. Um. I think it's. Annotate. Annotate. It just needs one of the plans to be annotated. Yeah. To be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We could have a suggested condition for Thursday. Speaker 10: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: And just some, um, advice about your knowledge of these acoustic barriers.
02:52:00 It's talked about having a minimum surface mass density of 12.5 kilograms per square metre. So that sounds like it's quite dense. Um. Is that an industry standard that they're referring to there? Speaker 10: That was given. Uh. Mayor Wilkie: That condition. Speaker 10: From the acoustic. Was set by our. Consultant. Acoustic consultant. Yeah. Who's indicated that is the minimum that has to be provided. Um. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions or people wish to just talk to the motion? I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Wegener, you have the floor. On the airwaves. Thank. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. I, I think it's a, it's a fantastic development. It's, um, I'm looking forward to, uh, having a beer at the. New Royal Mail. However, um, I, I still help hold reservations about, um, the, the northerly beer garden. And I look at the amenity of the river and the hill overlooking the river and it is one
02:53:00 of the few, if not the only place where there's a clear, clear hill overlooking the river. And the serenity that, that I've enjoyed there, walking past there at night, is, is very nice. It's a, it's a romantic place where young people could be. I, um, I worry that the midnight, um, opening of the northern beer garden with loud voices even may disrupt that utterly amazing amenity. And it's almost a, a spiritual site. I mean, that was the place where the Kabi Kabi lived. It's, it's, where they buried, what I understand, Kabi Kabi. It is a very significant place. So, I, um, I'm very hesitant about giving something that is very popular. It's hard to take away. I would rather go until 10 o'clock and say, oh, it, you know, there, there is the amenity that, um, that I was worried about. It's not a problem. Okay, let it go until 12. But the opposite of going until 12 and pulling it back until 10, I think would be very difficult.
02:54:00 So, um, I just, I think of just the amenity of the beauty of the serenity and the quiet of the river in the very famous Lisa Bend in the river. But, um, so otherwise than that, if, um, there's another, um, uh, councillor that would, that would put forward, you know, I would support that, um, that amendment. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, if we're going to get more conditions relating to noise, would it be more appropriate to do it as a bulk of change on Thursday night? I think so. I think if noise is one of the issues we are going to talk about, it's probably good to encapsulate it into one change. Councillor Phillips: I'm happy with that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Did you hear that councillor Wegener? What I said is because we are, we are predicting or forecasting, we will have some more information about potential for a change to the noise related acoustic conditions that it'd be probably
02:55:00 better to lump all that consideration into one change. But I don't think we should have one discussion rather than having part of it now as by way of the amendment. Okay, fine. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Um, just coming off the back of, um, Councillor Tom's comment around, um, the sacredness of the place and that amenity. Um, I do know we've got Cheyenne in the room. Is, are we allowed to ask questions about, um, how the Kabi Kabi given we've got an agreement with them have been, um, brought along this journey as part of this conversation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we certainly can ask the question whether there has been any engagement on a specific development application. And I think you would probably, yeah. Director Rawlings: From my understanding, there hasn't been any engagement with Kabi Kabi on this development proposal.
02:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll, um, talk to the side. I wanted to talk about is that it is a quite significant local heritage site and when I first started reading about you know vertical versus horizontal handrails I thought oh we're going over the top and then I saw the 1941 picture and realised how strong that horizontal theme was down low and that theirs you know theirs is dark which actually brings out the art deco better than you know the light as it currently is or is proposed. It'd be great if we could get that 1941 car back out front as well.
02:57:00 But it has got a lot of heritage so it's just both for indigenous but you know the first commercial fishing that happened here I believe was during the sawmill strike when the workers were running out of money and they decided to go in and throw the net down the back and take it up to Gympie and I know from all the old Tewantin residents when they met last year they did a, there was one of the researchers do a bit of local history on the site and it has got a fascinating story and has been a key to this community so it's important to get it right. And it's important to also understand the concerns of the neighbouring people who live there but also acknowledge that it has been a site zone for these purposes for many a year and living near a centre has many benefits and one of the slight downsides is it's noisier than living in a quiet suburb. So it is a balancing act and I think the key point that's made is if we put a condition that's in excess of what is an acceptable solution, our opportunity to defend that should it be challenged is probably quite slim.
02:58:00 Councillor Phillips: I'm just going to speak really quickly about one of my favourite sites. I, nearly 40 years ago, would say this. I used to start walking from Ward Street with my family every Saturday night to have a meal at the Royal Mail. So I have a long, long history of memories at the Royal Mail with my late mum and my family and it was one of those opportunities where it felt like everyone got together and shared a meal. So since everyone's touched on the softer part of heritage, yeah, it's a really special time to watch the existing Royal Mail. I have a facelift that I think is really timely, maybe overdue and, yeah, I'm looking forward to being able to share more meals with my kids there now into the future once we have some clarity around, yeah, the amenity part as well.
02:59:00 So, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Anybody else wish to talk? Just to add and I won't repeat what's already been said around the table but this is also an excellent opportunity. To activate the precinct. We're talking about reviving the Royal Mail but we're also talking about activating this untapped diamond we call Tewantin. So I think it's going to have like a domino effect that it'll inspire other businesses to invest more or to redevelop and, you know, it's one of the best precincts in the Shire. So I'm really excited that this development application is going through and thank the applicant for, you know, this is significant investment.
03:00:00 And I also hope between now and Thursday maybe there is some opportunity to address some real amenity issues. I think we have a responsibility to our community to do all that we can to ensure that we need it. We need to mitigate through triggers like conditions and development applications to just minimise any impacts in terms of noise. The gardens are noisy. They're really noisy. I've spent a lot of years in bee gardens. So, again, we must give consideration to residents. They too should be insured. Their rights of quiet enjoyment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I hope it's been noisy in a bee garden.
03:01:00 Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anybody? Councillor Finzel: Just a question given we're talking amenity and opportunity to, you know, embrace further our story, our connection to each other and our place. We've got the public art infrastructure policy coming before us. Has anything been raised around public art within this site or externally? Anything? Speaker 10: No. Councillor Finzel: Is there opportunity for any such thing? Speaker 5: The policy relates to the public places is my, you know, not to the... Councillor Lorentson: No. Oh, I thought it was also a percentage of the infrastructure through... No, it's public. It's a public place. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Through, oh, just... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, there's no... What we're saying, there's no trigger in our planning schedule. No. To require public art. No. Provision of public art. No. Contribution. Councillor Finzel: So, through the public infrastructure. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay.
03:02:00 Anyone else wish to talk? I think we've all... I know you haven't talked yet. Councillor Finzel: Oh, I'm sorry. Look, I just think it's a great opportunity for our community to, yeah, activate the space, continue that story and our history that brings us enjoyment with our families now and into the future. I think it's good to activate the business community and people can come here with confidence, knowing that we're supporting, you know, relevant businesses into our Shire to support both our local economy through tourism and our local businesses. And I think it's a great opportunity for our visitors to the region as well as our residents who really love it. So, the other afternoon I was, you know, out in the hinterland and people were already talking about this development. They knew all about it. It was heritage. They knew about the Tewantin mail. So, I think it's a great opportunity to give it a facelift and support the growth in our area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wilkie, would you like to reply?
03:03:00 Mayor Wilkie: I think councillors have covered the key issues really well. It's about this development will transform and uplift and energise Tewantin significantly. But we're also having strong regard to resident humanity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I put it to the vote. Those in favour? Councillor? Yes. Yes. So, that's unanimous. Noting that Councillor Wilson wasn't in the room. And we can now invite Councillor Wilson back into the room, please. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Our next item is Noosa Council's Organisational Carbon Footprint, financial year 23-24. And we have Cheyenne and? Councillor Lorentson: Heather. Heather. Speaker 3: Heather. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Heather. Heather. Heather. Heather. Heather. Heather.
8.3 Noosa Council Organisational Carbon Footprint FY23/24 ¶
03:04:00 And also Manager of Strategic Claiming, Anita. Welcome back. So who was going to give us an executive summary? Speaker 6: I think our honour falls to me. So this report is the Council's Organisational Carbon Footprint and its Recommended Deployment Noting. Part of the footprint includes Council's expenditure data to date for last financial year and also includes emissions from our supply chain. The footprint was calculated in accordance with climate active methodology and was completed by our third party auditor.
03:05:00 So for last financial year the footprint was determined to be 45,118 tonnes of greenhouse gas. Which is given in tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The majority of emissions came from the landfill at 47%. Next was professional services at 14%, which does include engineering services. And then construction materials and services at 13%. So Council started measuring its footprint since 2016. So that's taken as the baseline year. Since 2016 we've seen a total reduction of 18%. Starting at 55,843 tonnes in 2016. So we have achieved the 18% reduction. We have seen an increase in utility rate related emissions. But this has been offset by the significant reductions in emissions at the landfill. And this is largely due to the gas capture and flaring that occurs there.
03:06:00 If we exclude some of the emissions from our supply chain, which are out of our direct control, we've achieved closer to a 38% reduction in emissions since 2016. Which is similar to other LGAs like the Sunshine Coast, who's sitting at about 40% in direct emissions reduction. So the sustainability and climate change team has just begun working on a comprehensive roadmap and investment strategy. To net zero emissions. And we will present this to Council later in the year. And it will include priority areas to action our emissions reduction further. To deal with our residual emissions that are sitting at about 45,000 tonnes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have questions? Oh well, I'll keep off.
03:07:00 There's some interesting stuff in terms of electricity, which most people think is the most important. In our case, it's only a small component. And we are saving the equivalent of an estimated around $375,000 a year by our solar installations. However, we've gone up by 22% since 2021. Is that real consumption or is that because it's based on how much we spend on electricity? Speaker 6: It's very difficult to say with the data that we've got. The savings that we've estimated are based on as of now. So as of if we have 750 kilowatts of solar now, and it's all utilised. But looking at historical stuff, it's very hard to say when the solar was installed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, no, I'm just talking about, sorry, the table that compares towards the end. And electricity has actually gone up 22% since 2021. So is that because we have been less focused on our energy efficiency?
03:08:00 Or is it because we are opening up, say, new offices? Or is it just because the formulas worked on how much we spend on electricity? Speaker 6: So it's not based on expenditure data. That is based on consumption data. Speaker 2: So there has been an increase. So to clarify, Councillor, that we found that that is a typo in the report. That percentage, it should be 7%. If you look at the difference between the numbers. So that is the one typo we found just before this. Yes, it should be 7%. So apologies for that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And obviously, the good news story is, I think the biggest reduction is waste to landfill as a result of the capturing of the gas. 31%. Mayor Wilkie: Just also on the landfills, our biggest contribution to greenhouse gases. Since 2016, there's been a reduction from 36,000. To about 21,000. Could you talk about, congratulations on the work done.
03:09:00 But can you talk about the key pieces of work that have been done to get that result, that impressive result? Speaker 6: So from what we know, the most, the gas capturing, so the capturing the methane gas and flaring it to CO2 has the largest contribution to that emissions reduction of the landfill. There are other initiatives which the waste team would be better to speak to. But such as the green waste, that kind of thing, which would reduce it. The way green waste is categorised differently when you calculate emissions. So. Mayor Wilkie: Just on the green waste, which came in 2017, I think we were the first to introduce it in Queensland, correct? Director Rawlings: Yes, I think that's right. Mayor Wilkie: So that organic matter no longer goes to landfill if it hadn't gone to landfill to create methane. So now it's not. So that's, could you talk about how significant a reduction in methane production it is from
03:10:00 not having organic matter going into landfill? Speaker 6: So I don't, we don't have the numbers for that at the moment. It's something that we can take a notice and see if we can work that out. Mayor Wilkie: And just for people who might be listening, could you explain why flaring methane, which produces carbon dioxide, is actually a reduction in greenhouse gas, even though we're not It's creating a gas. Speaker 6: Sure. So methane has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, essentially. So the equivalent amount of methane would produce more harmful global warming than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. So, and I think it's about 28 times. So it's significant. Yes. So that's why we convert methane to CO2 as a preference. And just the methane. Mayor Wilkie: And a lot of work's been done in moving towards non-polluting technologies on council operations. Were you able to quantify the amount of savings, for example, that has meant for rate payers over the years because of the installation of solar, for example? Speaker 6: So that's, it is difficult to quantify and we've, based on the 750 kilowatts of solar
03:11:00 that we do have installed across council, that's when if you work out the direct savings that could equate to about $300,000. There are a lot of assumptions that have to go into that. But yeah, it does show that that could be the potential savings from solar. Speaker 2: And that's just one element. Yeah. It should be more than that. Yeah. There's a lot of variables. So it makes it difficult to quantify. Mayor Wilkie: You mentioned the difficulty in actually calculating emissions and other things. Can you talk about the methodology that you use, which is based on expenditure? To help you explain why professional services seem. Yeah. Which we understood were lawyers and accountants. Yes. Initially, before you educated us. Yeah. Just how, just explain the methodology. Speaker 6: So emissions basically are categorised into Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3. Scope 1 are our direct emissions, which for us is basically our landfill.
03:12:00 Scope 2 is predominantly our purchased electricity. And Scope 3 is our, basically the emissions from our supply chain. So that's the base of our supply chain. The best or the only way currently we can estimate that is by using the expenditure data. So we take a general ledger and look where we spent our money. Climate active give us emissions factors, they're called. So it's a way, it's a rate of us converting dollars to carbon dioxide, carbon's equivalent. And this, it depends on the sector that the expenditure is in. So it could be on construction materials, it could be concreting, it could be IT services, it could be cloud storage as part of our IT. Each expenditure items are categorised into the different categories and then an emissions factor tailored to those categories is applied and then you get your carbon dioxide equivalent
03:13:00 out from that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If there wasn't. Councillor Wilson: Oh, just to further clarify. So you could have the same level of activity in the same amount of time. So you could have the same amount of materials and services that you're purchasing, but because prices have gone up, it would convert you to greater emissions. Speaker 6: Although the emissions factors are changed or reviewed periodically. So the assumption is that the increased cost would be factored into that emissions factor. But there would be a lag, essentially, as well. Councillor Wilson: You can't compare like five every year. Director Rawlings: Question please. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. I don't know if this might be more of an infrastructure question. So apologies for this. But the street lighting with the rates one and two and then the rate three separate, my understanding is that the rate three are more network owned, council operated, but
03:14:00 the rates one and two are not. Or maybe it's the other way around. But what my question is, when we're considering our street lighting, how many, how many, how many people need to need to go into LED or to continue this reduction? I don't know if you can try and work out my explanation there or my question through that. Speaker 6: Yes. I think I know. Councillor Phillips: It seems to be that we could do more with the street lighting. Speaker 6: There is more that can be done in the street lighting. We council only owns and operates a very small percentage of the street lights. So it wouldn't make much difference. Whilst it's something, yes, we could absolutely do, it wouldn't make a material difference in our reduction. But it is something that's being looked at. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And other councils have sought to take over the street lighting so they can enhance the implementation of LED lighting, haven't they? Councillor Phillips: Yes. Because we currently sit on an Energex street light and use their, is this the right way
03:15:00 to? Street lighting, so yeah. And then if we had our own, we could not only reduce this, but we can have more control over the LED and our electricity. Yeah. Speaker 6: I mean, Energex have committed to rolling out LEDs. Yeah. Okay. And there is a lot of advocacy going on in that space. So, but yeah. That is definitely something that we can look at. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Great. Follow up question. Let me just, there was, sorry, let me, if everyone wants to jump in. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll do one. It was a bit of a surprise. And it's only, it's in expenditure base. But some actions that I thought led to sequestering carbon in the soil have given us 308 tonnes, which is parks and garden care, mulching, soil preparation and planting. Is that purely something about getting all the people there or is that just, you put it into the system? That's what it spits out?
03:16:00 Councillor Lorentson: Essentially, yes. A bit of both. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because it doesn't make sense when you compare it to say concrete products. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 6: I mean, we do rely on the climate act of having the accurate, as accurate as it can Deputy Mayor Stockwell: be. Yeah. To stand straight. But yeah. So. It appears to be stuff to increase sequestration, but it's got a reasonable signature. Did you? Councillor Phillips: I found it. Increased expenditure on suppliers such as Hazel Brothers, CMC, Civil, KG in the construction of materials. When we go to fuelment, is that a consideration to put back on those companies that we use to buy into our supply chain? Reduction? Is that? Yes. Yes. It definitely. Speaker 6: Sustainable procurement is definitely something that we are looking into to address that. Yeah. So when we come to. Councillor Phillips: Kind of like tendering process. Essentially. They say, well, we want a job here.
03:17:00 This is our. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 8: It's been, it's one of the criteria we have and it's becoming larger or we've been being investigated at the moment in terms of how we do address that further. But some of the larger companies recognise that that's part of what they need to do. Yeah. Other smaller companies would love to do it. I'm sure. But they don't have the agility yet. Councillor Lorentson: I have a couple of questions. Hi. If you want. In terms of costs, lots and lots of data collection and account auditor, accounting auditor, roadmaps of plans. Yeah. And then the level of detail, what's the cost to council and who pays and who does this work? Is it internally, done internally or are we externally outsourcing the accounting or the auditing? Speaker 6: So for last financial year, the one that I've just reported on, that was done by an external.
03:18:00 Councillor Lorentson: Internal? Speaker 6: External. Councillor Lorentson: Independent auditor. Speaker 6: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Independent. Yeah. Speaker 6: It does require in-house resourcing to provide the data. Prior to that, the two previous years were done in-house. I believe it was two. And then the one before that was done again by an external. It is going to be, it's a decision we've got to make as to what the next one, how the next one is produced. And that's internal external. Councillor Lorentson: Do we have an idea of cost, actual costs or can you take that on note? It's around $20,000. It's around $20,000. Okay. So it's not significant. No. Okay. Other question. We're in the process at the moment, I believe, negotiating or finalising employee bargaining agreements. Have we taken the opportunity to align the agreements? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah.
03:19:00 I don't think we can talk about agreements without talking about an actual negotiation. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Through the Chair. Okay. Sorry, I can't ask the question. That's all right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think I know where you're going. And I had a similar idea in my head. But I think it's because of the sensitivity of the confidential negotiations. We can't say what's in or out. Speaker 5: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I think I understand. I understand what you're saying, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you like, the CEO can put what he is. This will be on questions. I'm not sure what the question's going to be. Councillor Lorentson: But I think it's- The question, maybe, yes, I ask the question. Speaker 8: It's very sensitive. It's very sensitive at the moment, Councillor. I just, I think we, unless it's really relevant, I think we'd best not to go there. Councillor Lorentson: It's really relevant. I'll throw the question first, and then you can let me know if it's in or out.
03:20:00 Just opportunities. Is there opportunity to align the agreements with Council's broader mission strategy or sustainability goals? Have we considered incentivising staff to catch public transport, to walk, to cycle, to not provide car allowances? That's the question that I was asking, whether we're using whatever opportunities we have to, for Council to walk the talk, basically. Speaker 8: It's not something that's been captured, necessarily. It's not something we can, and we don't, to be honest, we don't provide a lot of vehicles anyway, or allowances. So, those sorts of things haven't necessarily been part of the negotiations at this point. Speaker 2: Okay. I can speak to embedding. I can speak to embedding. In our operational plan, in our corporate plan, would you have an action in there to
03:21:00 embed climate risk management and sustainability throughout the organisation, and so that would include incentive programmes and working with teams to upskill, to build capacity and capability, to incentivise things like coming to work through active transport, and looking at electric vehicles and the cost reductions available there and things. So, we're looking at all of that, definitely, as part of our embedding roadmap. Director Rawlings: Thank you. We've just run a program, Shay, around electricity usage at home across the organisation. Yeah. Speaker 2: That's a program run by Sian and Jordan from the Economic Development Team. It's called the Energy Flex Program, and it helps Council staff understand how they can reduce their electricity bills and greenhouse gases from their electricity at home. And so, programs like that, we're hoping to roll out en masse in different ways around Council. Okay. Thank you.
03:22:00 Councillor Phillips: My last question, which was just in the finance part of the report. Nurses Council's capital works program also includes an annual 400,000 K budget allocation for emissions reduction projects. Would you be able to tell me more about that? Speaker 6: So, yeah. In the past, we've had a $400,000 budget allocation for emissions reduction projects. We've also had an annual allowance for emissions reduction capital works. So, that allows us to do a lot of our solar installations, a lot of LED rollouts. Director Rawlings: Lighting upgrades, air conditioning upgrades. Yeah. Capital upgrades to all of our buildings. Okay. To reduce emissions. Councillor Phillips: And is that $400,000? So, it says for the financial year 25. Speaker 2: It'll be the last year. Next year. Next financial year, we'll be looking at $400,000. Next year will be the last year that that $400,000 allocation is, yeah, included. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, if I can have a subsequent question, are we going to spend it this year?
03:23:00 Yes. That's the plan. Speaker 2: We have a number of projects identified which we're working on. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. All right. Yes. Question? Question then. Yeah. Thank you for the report. It was, yeah, it's an interesting reading in there. Some things are unexpected and other things were quite surprising in terms of where we thought, like, the emissions would be or, you know, things like that. I would like to talk about, you've asked us to note this report with a future report coming up to us with a roadmap and investment and strategy to net zero emissions. And noticing also in the report the reputational litigation, financial investment risk, strategic and operational risks. Okay. I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in this report, but hopefully it's coming to us. You know, the elephant in the room, I think, is the 2026 target. Just wondering where we're travelling along with actually reaching that to mitigate the risks mentioned in this report.
03:24:00 With that snapshot that was provided through the Griffith University, can we be expecting some type of idea if we're going to be looking at perhaps, you know, some sort of, you know, change in that 2026 target? To me it seems a little bit unreasonable. Maybe this is a question to the CEO. Is it a question or was it? It's a question. It is a question as to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if we can put the question that in looking at a roadmap, will councillors be asked whether they want to retain or change the target of 2026? Director Rawlings: Council, we are bringing forward to you an investment roadmap to try and continue to retain or change the target of 2026. We are looking to reduce our emissions and, yes, as part of that, you will be asked to consider a number of things around, you can see in the report how we're tracking and there's a very short timeframe.
03:25:00 Correct. To 2026. So, yes, you will be asked around a number of things to consider on how we achieve the outcome that the council have been trying to achieve for a number of years. Councillor Finzel: Yes. And will this help us address the necessary, I don't know, what we've got to reach through our requirements for the Local Government Act? How at risk are we at not aligning with that in terms of our targets for the zero emission? Director Rawlings: What specifically the Local Government Act? Well, you have mentioned it in your report under risks and opportunity, the Local Government Councillor Finzel: Act and the agreed roles and responsibilities. Director Rawlings: Can you talk a little bit about that in Australia? So, that refers to our duty of care as a local government to address general risks for our community at the strategic level. Climate change is one of our major risks, so it sits at that level.
03:26:00 There is no, so there are strategic risks around this and the cost if we don't continue to reduce our emissions. It becomes greater to society over time, so we are working towards trying to manage and mitigate those risks. The target that we have set is a local government set target, it's not a legislated target, it's something that Noosa Council has set itself. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Tom. Tom? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener. Yes. Thank you. As a part of the roadmap, I think it's important for us to look at what we're trying to do. We've got a report about last year's emissions sequestration, and as you know, I've been advocating for the sequestration Councillor Wegener: of carbon through biochar and through our composting, because I believe that we could
03:27:00 really sink a lot of carbon that way. Are you investigating that as a part of our roadmap? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, you've answered your own question in that you're asking a question about a roadmap that we haven't got in front of us. We've got a report about last year's emissions. And being a councillor, I'm sure that they will be considered, because you'll be there saying we have to consider them. Speaker 2: I'm happy to answer. Okay. No. We can't avoid that. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, because I'd like to leave before midnight, I'd like to move the recommendation. Speaker 6: Happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well done. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener: So, moved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener. Second. Wilkie. Wilkie, sorry. Sorry. I'll get to you, Councillor Finzel. And I'll just explain, Councillor Wegener, I move that your question was out of order. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the report. It is a very difficult task to quantify these emissions. You've shown us how we're tracking by, according to the best methodology, and that's the best
03:28:00 advice you can give at this time. It makes it clear we've got a lot of work to do. We're not going to meet that 2026 target. So, let's be clear about that. I'm looking forward to the work you're doing and giving us some options to consider, whether it's pushing out the timeframe or how we pay for offsets. I know councils that don't have landfills have a much easier time at reaching net zero. We're taking a response. We're not trying to divest ourselves of that responsibility by selling off our landfill. We're going to be taking some initiatives that will reduce our landfill emissions. And not only this move toward non-polluting technologies and practices will reduce our impact on the environment and our responsibilities for climate change, it's also a discipline that it imposes on this organisation to be more efficient, and there are great savings for ratepayers as well. So thank you for the work, and I look forward to your future report. Speaker 8: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you.
03:29:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Hello. I'll talk to it. There is some really good improvement in areas that we have an ability to fix within current budgetary constraints. I did have a look and I noticed we referred to the carbon reduction officer doing previous assessments, and I thought, that's an out-of-date concept. We should be a carbon reduction organisation where every officer thinks they should be Director Rawlings: a carbon reduction officer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we had a bit of a talk about that. Some of the good areas, those things, the efficiency and thinking about what you buy and how much you use to have paper has significantly reduced in terms of office supplies. There's others where fleet fuel has gone up, but there's a lot in here that's gone up as a result of the increased capital works. So we have this concept. So to me, it's about the ability to make decisions that make the best cost outcomes for carbon
03:30:00 reduction. And I think one of the upcoming agenda items on this meeting will be a test of that. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to add just something. I'm trying to say this nicely. Start with the four P's, people, planet, profit, purpose. And I think that sometimes in our language and reporting, so carbon reports for the ordinary person on the street, carbon footprints may not mean a lot. And I just think we need to... And Mayor Wilkie explained it right. It's really great. It's about efficiencies. It's about cleaner air. It's about the future we want to lead to our children.
03:31:00 And it's about doing what's right. It's about not wasting. It's not sustainable for us to keep going the way we are. So probably what I like is how doing green, good stuff means better business, better efficiency, and on a community level, how that impacts our economy. So I think we need to spend money in core business where it's needed on our roads. And these efficiencies give us the opportunity to do good by the environment, but also the community benefits in terms of better roads, cleaner air, cleaner waterways. And thank you for the report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Councillor Wegener: I'd like to speak.
03:32:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You have the floor. Wigner. Councillor Wegener: Well, considering that the world's biggest economy has abandoned climate change and the goals, sometimes you think that the world is going to end and it's all low. And then I reflect on the Stoic philosophy and reflect on Socrates. And in his trial, he said, when Spartans, when the Spartans had sacked Africa, they walked around like the world was ending in all remorse. And Socrates kept his head up high and he never changed the way he acted because he has absolute values that transgressed or on the other side of actions and local occurrences such as we're facing with climate change. And so he has absolute value. We have an absolute value here in Noosa, and that is our absolute value is we have to give
03:33:00 the next generation a Noosa that is the same or better than the Noosa that we inherited. And that's an absolute. Councillor Wegener: So I really believe that what you're doing, what Cheyenne and the team there is doing with this is very, very important. And we do need to just stick to our goals and stick to our climate change emergency because it's the right thing to do. It is the absolutely correct thing to do. I would like to also just mention that I would love to see the economic development team really get on board with this because I think that we have enormous opportunities through the TIP, through sequestration, I mean, the resource recovery center. Here, this is our advantage, economic advantage that I believe could be utilized a lot more thoroughly. Thank you to the team for doing this wonderful job. And I look forward to the roadmap coming up.
03:34:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor. Director Rawlings: Can I just say the economic development team are on board with this. Speaker 1: That's right. Director Rawlings: Very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: No, thank you. I think it's all been said. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Whelan. Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. If I could. We need a short break. Yes, please. Mayor Wilkie: Everyone. Thank you.
8.4 Pomona Place Plan ¶
03:42:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're on to item 8.5, which is a financial, I know we're not, or 8.4, which is a Pomona placemaking plan. Speaker 9: And do we have a... Yes, me. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a comment. Michelle? Yes, introduce me through the chair. Just declare. I've got a declarable conflict of interest. I, Councillor Lorentson, wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my husband, Chris Lorentzen, is an employee of Page Furnishes Pty Ltd, where he has served as general manager for the past 32 years. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, as there is no personal gain. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room as a result of my conflict of
03:43:00 interest. Speaker 6: Oh, sorry. That's okay. Councillor Lorentson: However... Speaker 8: That's it. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Okay. Do it. Speaker 5: I'll move that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second. Are we moving the... Stay. The motion to stay. And it's been moved by Councillor Phillips and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Phillips: And the reason for staying? Speaker 4: It's been moved by Councillor Phillips and seconded by Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Phillips: That in accordance with section 150 ES of the Local Government Act 2009, and having considered the Council's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Councillor Lorentson may participate and vote on this matter relating to Pomona Placemaking Plan. Councillor Lorentson: Pomona Placemaking Plan. Councillor Phillips: Pomona Placemaking Plan. Relating to the Pomona Placemaking Plan. Mayor Wilkie: And you need a clause. A clause. Sorry, Mr Chair. You're in charge. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A clause in relation to that a reasonable person would consider that she could...
03:44:00 Remain in charge. ...consider and vote on the matter in the public interest. Director Rawlings: I'll just put this here. Councillor Phillips: Yes. Because I do not believe a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias as there is no personal gain or loss involved. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could not. You have to put a not in there. Yes. I just... Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're happy with that. Do you need to talk to it? No? Speaker 3: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone wish to talk or ask questions? Speaker 3: Do we have a seconder for that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconder was Councillor Wilkie. If there... No one wish to talk, I'll put the matter to a vote. Those in favour? Yes. And those against? Opposed? So that was unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson didn't vote. Okay. Now we can proceed to Michelle... Excellent. ...to give us an overview.
03:45:00 Speaker 9: Councillors, today I'd like to present to you the Pomona Place Plan, the final plan for endorsement. The Pomona Place Program commenced in June 2023, after Pomona was endorsed by Council for the location for the placemaking pilot in February in 2023. This report presents the final Pomona Plan for endorsement by Council. The Pomona Place Plan has been prepared in partnership with the Pomona community and is the result of three rounds of community engagement. The first round of engagement was undertaken in August till October in 2023, to determine the visions and values of the Pomona community, as well as asking the community what made Pomona a great place to live and how we could make it even better. Over 500 people participated in the engagement through a range of activities, with 250 people participating. We also had two workshops with community organisations, and we participated in a walk-on country with
03:46:00 the Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation. The Pomona Place Plan engagement summary report was endorsed by Council at its meeting in December 27. The second round of community engagement was undertaken in May till June of 2023... Sorry, 2024. ...where the community were asked to prioritise actions from round one engagement and to confirm the vision statement for the plan. We received over 240 survey responses, with approximately 60 participants attending pop-ups, and separate workshops were also held with community organisations and the Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation. This then allowed us to prepare the final and draft plan, which then underwent a third round of community engagement, from October 18th till November 17th in 2024. The purpose of this round was really to present the draft Pomona Place Plan to the community, to confirm the visions and actions, reflected their aspirations, and to enable community members to nominate to be involved in specific community-led actions.
03:47:00 Council received 40 online submissions to the Place Plan, as well as some submissions via email. We also held a workshop with community organisations to discuss implementation. The final Pomona Place Plan has been developed by the Kabi Kabi Peoples Aboriginal Corporation, based on the community input and responses from all three rounds of community consultation, and has been amended considering those submissions from the most recent round. The majority of changes really focused around providing further clarity, further detail around some actions, some functionality and readability of the document, and strengthening the issue of quarry trucks moving through the village. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have questions? Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair. Were there questions? Are there questions that you were going to ask on behalf of a resident, or not? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not that I can recall. Councillor Lorentson: No? Okay. That's all right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to tell you I wasn't up there, but I can't recall that I was up there.
03:48:00 Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I believe there may be some questions coming to the ordinary meeting. Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Are there questions coming? Yes. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. So, in terms of costs, what are the costs for the Pomona placemaking project in terms of external consultancies? What were the costs of each round of consultation, and what, in terms of value for money and reach of engagement, has that been assessed? Speaker 9: So, the project has come in under its budget through Council. The consultation is ongoing. The consultation, the engagement of the consultants to run all the consultation sessions as well as prepare the document and do the, I guess, the preparation was around $130,000.
03:49:00 Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Other questions? Pomona Men's Shed. I met up with the, some of the members of the Pomona Men's Shed. Joanne. Just recently, a couple of days ago. They, and I could be wrong, so my question is, were they engaged in, as part of this process? Speaker 9: They were certainly invited to all the community organisational workshops and did attend the last workshop we had, while we had one representative from the Pomona Men's Shed, but I guess this is, this is the development of the plan. The process now is implementation, and we're going to be going back out and engaging around the actions in the plan with community groups. So we would love to chat to them. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. There has been some change in committee members. Yep. So that would be excellent. They've reached out and would really love to partake, and more so, they would also like the Men's Shed just to be identified as a important social infrastructure in the community.
03:50:00 They provide a lot in the space of health and wellbeing for men within the Shire and also within the community of Pomona. Thank you. Thanks. Speaker 8: I'm moving, Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're moving again? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Wilkie: Again, midnight approaches. I think it's an enormous amount of work that's gone into this. I really appreciate how the plan has already delivered some quick wins on the ground in the Pomona community. You've outlined them in the report. There's short-term goals in the next one to two years, which some of them are already underway. And I do appreciate it. It is budget dependent on how some of the long-term goals do proceed, and that's the correct procedure. Thank you for your work. It's a wonderful template. And I'm looking forward to it reaching the community scene. And they already are seeing results as they're coming from this process.
03:51:00 So I'm looking forward to it. Councillor Lorentson: I know we're sort of at the end and very tired, but I do want to raise tree planting program. So in 2023, 2024, Council committed to a proactive tree planting program. I've gone through the new plan. Has it been explicitly... I know we've got native trees, and there's all mentions of great vegetation. There's all kinds of plants. Has that tree planting program been explicitly included in the new plan? Speaker 9: Not explicitly, I guess. It falls under that streetscape upgrade action, which is quite broad. And I appreciate, you know, we can't delve down into everything, but I have been working with that department within Council about if there's any opportunity to bring forward those things. We're beginning to do a greening...
03:52:00 Plastic plant? Greening... Plastic plant? We might be able to get some additional, provided we get funding for, we can potentially move that forward as well. But very cognizant of keeping all opportunities open to bring some of these actions forward that the community have been waiting for. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Mayor Wilkie: No, I think everyone's done really well. I've waived my right to speak. Councillor Finzel: I just like to write. Sorry, Karen. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: As a long-term resident of Pomona, I love reading the report. It's a really good reflection of the community. I've tried to step back a little bit so I don't have too big of a conflict. But I think it's fantastic. The community's eagerly awaiting several things that we've reached there, especially going back and re-addressing the quarry trucks, the walking, the crossings,
03:53:00 those things that are high up on people's front of their minds every day as they look at our community. So I'm looking forward to seeing this progress and reach its full potential and especially the bit about the, what was it called, you know, the team, where you get the team, town team together. So, yeah, there's already some generated conversations around that and people are enthusiastically waiting to participate in part of that. So, yeah, I think it's been a great, you know, way of showing how we can do this, how we can do this better. And like Frank said, who's going to be the next, you know. It's one that comes out of the hat to go, let's continue this great work throughout the Shire. So thank you to everyone involved. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm just going to reference, in 2005, there was a Pomona Town Centre precinct plan. What was interesting when I read that was that same priorities then are relevant today. In 2005, they wanted more shade trees.
03:54:00 They wanted more cycleways. They wanted improved public transport. Upgraded traffic. Upgraded the sports facility and a swimming pool. That was 20 years ago. It seems like those same priorities are still very relevant today. So I am placing my confidence in this plan that, unlike the 2005 plan, where not much progress has been made to date, that we can progress those priority actions for Pomona. And I think it's important that we do, because it will give us the confidence and give the community the confidence that we can actually duplicate these programs in other precincts and achieve deliverables. I think the community want outcomes. So I think, you know, the pressure is on us and the town team to deliver and I'm confident we will.
03:55:00 I've enjoyed the process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief. The project was a pilot and we are getting a separate report, but when I read the plan I do, because I lived in Pomona for a couple of years, you really feel that it has captured the essence of both the town but also of what the, you know, what we hear as councillors about what the town wants to be in the future, about what they want to retain and what we can work together to achieve it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think one of the most important things with house planning is you refine it to a point where locals can understand that this is what our place is and we're going to work with council or we're going to work with our community groups to achieve it. I think the process has worked and I think there's good learnings out of it. To me, the best part that I was involved with was just going along to the markets and seeing all the community suggestions up there and everyone walking past and putting where their priorities, it was so clear what was important and what wasn't so important.
03:56:00 And I think one of your learnings was conduct your consultation where people are already at, you know, you'll get much bigger buy-in and that's something we've learned. But yeah, from the, you know, when you read the vision statement, I think most people in Pomona will say, yeah, that is what we want to achieve. And the actions listed under that also go towards achieving it. And so it's well done. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Can I just make a comment? No, you can't. You already spoke. Question? Mayor Wilkie: Oh, wait. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else want to talk? Mayor Wilkie: Wait, am I right? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you right? Sorry. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener? Yes. Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
8.5 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – FEBRUARY 2025 ¶
03:57:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now we move on to 8.5, which is a financial performance report. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Paula. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have the Manager of Funds and the Director of Corporate Services, Aisling Greta. And Pauline, would you like to give us an overview please? Speaker 7: Sure. Good afternoon councillors. So, financial performance for the month of February continues to be positive with operating revenues continuing to outperform forecast and operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is $2.3 million above budget and this has been driven by $1.3 million in interest revenue, $400,000 from sales of goods and services, almost $300,000 from other revenue sources, $200,000 from grant programs
03:58:00 and $190,000 from rates and utility charges. This has been offset however by lower than forecast fees and charges of $200,000. Operating expenditure is $116,000 under budget with employee costs showing as almost break even and that's due to the recruitment of the vacancy savings dividend adopted as part of the budget. Materials and services are $109,000 over budget. This is driven predominantly from civil operations, which is $430,000 over budget year to date, and holiday parks, which is $109,000 over budget. This is driven predominantly from the budget. It should be noted though that holiday parks has offsetting revenue streams to fund that overspend. As we generate more revenue, we also generate additional costs associated with it. We have offsetting those overspends, an underspend in waste of $170,000 and $150,000 underspend in arts and culture, $100,000 underspend in canals and waterways,
03:59:00 and $100,000 in development assessment. Finally, we have an overspend of $109,000 over budget. That's due to the deferral of some capital works that were flagged to be blown funded during the year. Overall Council's year to date operating position at February is $2.4 million of budget, which will be utilised to fund emergent expenditure through to the end of the year. Capital revenue is $8.6 million of our budget, and that's due to the timing of receipts from QRA funding and SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind $32.2 million, with $12 million relating to Council's base capital program, and $20 million relating to disaster projects. Council is currently holding $135.6 million. With the second biannual rates run occurring in February, we are at the second peak for the year in our cash reserves,
04:00:00 and this will diminish through to June. This peak has resulted in Council's investment return showing slightly under target, but this is a respectable return for the year, and we are expected to return to target range as these funds are utilised for operations through to June. Council's financial performance remains on track, and is subject to any emergent issues that arise between now and the end of the financial year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Councillor Finlayson? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Thank you for the report. Good reading as always. I like to watch them when those figures rise and fall. On page four of the report, Council has received notification of the approved... Thank you. ...2024-25 financial assistance grant allocation is less than budgeted. As such, there's a potential for this to impact the 2024-25 operating position if payment of the future year's allocations are not paid in the preceding year. My question is, what steps will be undertaken to ensure
04:01:00 the risk of potential impacts on the 2024-25 operating position are identified and mitigated? Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. So, in terms of the financial assistance grant, we...the government had to...I'm sorry, previously taken the position to advance pay those amounts. In last financial year, they actually missed the payment deadline and didn't pay in June, they paid in July. So, we received that amount in this financial year. However, the amount that we budgeted for was less, about $400,000, and it was flagged, I think, back in 2022 when they did a review of the methodology around the financial assistance grant, that Council would receive approximately 14% less than its existing grant allocation. So, we have eventually seen that occur. In terms of being able to mitigate that risk, we don't actually have a lot of control over the amounts that we get allocated. Noosa is the smallest allocation of financial assistance grants in Queensland, and there's lots of factors that go into determining that, whether
04:02:00 that's remoteness, our population, our rentable properties, our grant funding, those sorts of things all play into that. We are a smaller council in a more urban area, so we do get an allocation that's less. So, in terms of that $400,000 reduction, in terms of this year's current financial position, if we are to receive the advance payment that we would normally receive in June, there will be no impact into this financial year. If that payment was again delayed like it was this year, we would see a half million dollars down. Overall, it is a cash flow thing, so it's just a tiny issue. The issue really is the reduction amount of $400,000, and that would need to be absorbed by Council's reserves and operations. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. So, our capital works is behind what we forecast, but our civil operations materials is over budget. And we've made some changes in BR2 in regard to a range
04:03:00 of things with the operations, but I don't think that's going to be the case for the future. Is the materials and services cost we're doing more than we expected, or is there some other reason? Speaker 7: So, in terms, I don't know if Shaun wants to comment, but I can talk to it if you'd like, or if you want me to talk to it. Director Walsh: You can introduce. Speaker 7: Sure, no worries. So, in terms of the overspending in terms of materials and services versus capital, obviously materials and services are operational, capital is completely separate. Materials and services currently being driven by, I suppose, some programs that may have been not necessarily planned for as well, and we've had additional costs in Arborist, which were higher than we originally intended. We also had cut back the budget again last year to find savings, which hadn't necessarily eventuated at this stage of the year in terms of civil ops. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Didn't we adjust some of that in the BR2? Speaker 7: We didn't adjust that much in BR2 for them. There was an anticipation that potentially it was a timing issue and that it would come back in line, and depending on the management of that through to the end of the year, it still could occur, but at this stage it's showing over budget.
04:04:00 Director Walsh: Yes, so to reflect what Pauline said, there was actually an $870,000 reduction in the civil assets and operation budget last financial year, and the expectation that we could peg down some costs, hopefully we're having a dry year. Unfortunately, that hasn't eventuated. We've had significant vegetation costs and also drainage costs across the Shire, and it's been very challenging. I'll be working, now that's a budget overrun year to date. We have an opportunity to curtail operations, to actually bring it in on budget, or alternatively work with the finance team to see what costs we do need to deliver services adequately. So Brian O'Connor has been in the lead for the last three weeks, the relevant manager, which I'd so look forward to work with him to get a much clearer perspective on what we need to actually finish the year. Councillor Finzel: Just a follow-up question on that. Thank you, Shaun. This has been raised before, especially around with more weather events, and we've got trees coming down and all of that, so it's a question through the Chair and the CEO. At what level through the organisation
04:05:00 then will we address that about, I think this is going to be ongoing, so rather than addressing like weather events. Speaker 8: Yeah, it's a budget issue, and as Shaun said, last year we reduced the budget because we thought we might have a clear year. We hope we have a clear year. Some of those things haven't been chosen, so that's a decision we take as a budget measure each year, and we can't predict necessarily. But we're always striving for efficiencies and better ways of doing things, but those things take time as well, and sometimes they cost money to make money, if you like, sometimes to make savings. So we're in that process as well. But it's one of those things that will come up as a budget discussion absolutely for 25-26. Director Walsh: Yeah, if I can add to that. We've spent a fair bit of time in the budget preparation
04:06:00 for 25-26 to better articulate some of these costs such as vegetation management and traffic control and line marking, which are really hitting our budget line really quite significantly at the moment, to actually have a better discourse with finance and the organisation about these costs, which are effectively reducing the capacity of the overall program. So line marking is internal? Some parts of it are externalised, but we do have some. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So one of the considerations we've got is to try and build our internal deliveries. Like in terms of arborists, they can be – I know we did at some stage have someone who had a bit of the – a few of the costs – but have we thought about this? Director Walsh: We do have some internal resources that apply to arborist tasks in terms of assessing the tasks actually during the work, and it's really good that you always maintain a baseline to be able to do reactive work. But when you look at the significant fluctuations of work that occurs, and then also combined with the proactive schedule, vegetation reduction on
04:07:00 the air traffic routes and the like, it's something that's highly fluctuating, and there's also economies of scale by contracting it out. So the model is a mixture of both. Councillor Finzel: Sorry, what was that? The model is? Director Walsh: Oh, the model is a mixture of both. You've got key expertise, you know, internally to actually lead the program and to guide it, but then you're actually contracting the vast majority of the work out. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Cash expense cover targets more than three months, and we've got 14.1 months of cash at the bank. Question – and probably a question that's coming out of community a lot in terms of our cash. What's the primary reason behind the surpluses, and how does Council determine what is the appropriate level of cash reserves needed for contingencies or future projects? It just seems it keeps going up and up and up and up. So, you know, a couple of other questions
04:08:00 thrown in with that one is, are we underestimating annual revenue? Are we overestimating annual expenditure? And should we be looking at maybe reviewing our budget forecasting methodologies? Speaker 7: Sure. So in terms of right now and what's being reported, we are at the peak of the cycle, so we've just collected six months' worth of rates, so we're at a high in the cycle, so it will come down as we go into June and July. In terms of the cover, at the moment that is currently calculated based on our entire cash holding. Now, within – in our cash holdings, we contain restricted cash reserves for our unspent levy funds, our unspent grant funds, our undelivered capital programs. So if we're behind in capital program, we're holding funds to pay for that. If that's not delivered in this year, we carry it to next year when we're going to deliver those funds. So without some of that surplus cash, we wouldn't be able to deliver those programs. We've also – in terms of what's an appropriate amount
04:09:00 of cash to be holding in surplus, it is recommended as part of our financial sustainability guidelines that we hold a minimum of three months' cash cover above our restricted. So take out your restricted components, and I think your report hasn't happened for a little bit, but we do a quarterly update on what cash reserves are being held by Council, and that breaks it down. It's not included in this report, but it will be included in the March quarter report in terms of what makes up our cash balances and why we hold them. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is it? Is it a difficult task? I'm just thinking – Yes. This – it is. No, it's not a difficult – I'm just thinking this graph could have three colours. Speaker 7: It's a little bit more – In terms of green. In terms – you've got to go through and reconcile all of the different programs and see where they're at and see – and allocate those out so they're capturing – otherwise I'm giving you a ballpark. So we do put quite a bit of effort into making sure that it is accommodating everything that we're aware of at that moment in time. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move the report. I'll second it. Thank you. Thank you for the report. It's excellent.
04:10:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Lorentson: I will just – in the space of continuous improvement, Pauline, and not a criticism. I love your reports, and I love the clarity and simplicity. Just – I think it's important to have a thought. It would be great to have the report. Maybe what I would like to see – I'll start from what I would like to see – is maybe when we're looking at employee expenses, a comparative chart. I'd like to see have we increased our employee costs over a period of a year, over the – what are we spending today compared to last year and the year before, and the reasons. I don't know whether that's – I don't know whether that's a audit and risk deep dive exercise or whether it's a financial reporting, but I would love to see maybe – I don't know – some analysis of some of the information, not on each section, but just a commentary on how does this fare
04:11:00 with costs this time last year, and what are the different circumstances or why? Why have we seen an increase in employee costs? Speaker 7: We can certainly look at what we can pull together for you. We can certainly potentially include a last year's column so you can see the year-to-date last year. Councillor Lorentson: That would be excellent, yeah. Speaker 7: But we just need to update some of the reports that we've got for that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's interesting, and I'm sure it's only a coincidence the first time the Co-Manager directed that. It's the first time the report's dipped into red in the investment return sector. Speaker 7: It's not quite true. It did happen in February 2022. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question, like the bond rate. Are we seeing that the bond rate in the market has a more pessimistic view of the future than what the bond rate reflects? Speaker 7: Not – yeah, in terms of common interest in terms of that dip down, it's actually
04:12:00 because of the way the formula calculates. It's using the high peak, and we've only just got the cash, so we haven't held that cash the whole way through. Oh, okay. So it's actually lower. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Exactly, yes. Speaker 7: So that's the way that the calculation is because we're at the peak of the cycle. In theory, it's projecting we should be higher. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speaker 7: But we are generally around 4.85 per cent return. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So while we're here. I'm with you. Definitely not. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I'm glad you retracted that. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, are we – Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we going to close that debate? Yes? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Just like I say, I don't mean to sound flippant about just saying the report is excellent because it is. The reasons why it's excellent is there is so much information in there. I commend it to anyone who's interested in council's financial position to read it. Councillor Nicola, who's a forensic accountant, she has no question. So if she's happy,
04:13:00 It's a good sign if you're a rate payer, but questions about cash at bank is like 14 months is a very good one, but as the report shows there's really only predicting a surplus of 2.4 million, it's not that much cash that's spared, it's constrained cash that's been responsibly managed and as you say it's been collected because we're at the height of the rate cycle. All the information is there, you've got the overs, the unders, the reasons why each individual department is over, why each individual department is under, so I commend you for the work you put into every monthly report and also for the way you take on board suggestions from councillors, such as the ones that come forward in this meeting, the collective sum of all councillors' requests are reflected in these, the graphics and the information provided.
04:14:00 So that's why I said the report was excellent and I commend any rate payer to read it. Thank you Mr Chair, I don't think much needs to be said about this, I think if there's any, a councillor may want to change some wording of the motion, that can be done on Thursday night, they're all there for residents to read if they're interested and I commend the councillors that have put in some of the work into getting these motions up. Councillor Wilson: Can we just clarify this?
8.6 PROPOSED MOTIONS FOR SUBMISSION TO ALGA NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2025 ¶
04:15:00 Thursday morning. Mayor Wilkie: Thursday, what did I say? Thursday morning. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, thank you councillor Wilson. I tried Frank. Thank you councillor Wilson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's getting late today. Does anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Finzel: Yes I actually do and I understand people on time restraints but I think it is respectful to give opportunity for people at which to say, given the volume of work undertaken by Councillor Lorentson and myself, to deliver these within a time frame and here at this meeting to get them in the report. I won't hold you up for long Councillor Frank. I'd just like to say that the reports that I'm putting up to the National Assembly I believe are important not only in our local Shire but they come at the forefront of the National Assembly as well, especially when we're talking about circular economy, recycling, road specifications, all the things that we've talked about throughout the meeting.
04:16:00 I believe are addressed in some of the motions that I myself will put up and Councillor Lorentson. So thank you for listening everybody. I'm looking forward to the recommendations coming before us. I believe they'll be moving along to help address your time frames due to your wording. I respect that. So thank you everybody for listening and let's hope we get some really good support at the National General Assembly for the work that we're doing. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. I will speak to the report. Firstly, it's important to note that these motions have no financial impact on Council. If approved, the costs for a Council attending the conference will be covered by the Council's mandatory representation funding. Also important to note that the costs for a Council attending the conference will be
04:17:00 Our community has made it clear that they expect Council to concentrate on its core businesses, roads, rubbish, rates and residents and as Councillor Finzel mentioned these motions do align with Council's core mandate and more importantly they require no additional resources or cost. The motions simply allow us as a Council to lend our voice and influence to state and federal matters of local significance. I'm going to run through just really, really quickly the three that I put together. First is wastewater and what I'm asking the National General Assembly is to commit to undertaking a feasibility study. On implementing a policy similar to the European Union's Urban Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Framework.
04:18:00 Basically, and I'll sum this up really quickly, is that the European Union have a goal to remove micropollutants from urban wastewater by 2045. And I'm going to reference what's been happening down along Sydney's northern beaches. Over the last week, there's been nine beaches that have been removed from urban wastewater by 2045. And it's a stark reminder of why treating wastewater to the absolute high standards is absolutely essential. Part of the coastline down in New South Wales, for those who aren't aware, have been closed because there's been a bunch of debris, including what's called tarballs, that have been washed ashore and they're surmising that it might be combinations of diesel and sewage. So in terms of the European Union, I will give you again a quick summation of their ambitious goals.
04:19:00 And the motion that I said is, you know, can we just look at what they're doing over there? And is there something we can learn from their zero pollution action plan? So by 2045 in Europe, urban wastewater treatment plants will be removed from their zero pollution action plan. They will be required to implement what's called quaternary treatment to remove all micropollutants, such as those from pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. This is in addition to existing requirements for removing biodegradable organic matter and nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Producers of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics will also contribute to the costs of advanced treatment under a polluted pay principle. So the measure aims to improve water quality, protect ecosystem, and support European Union's water sustainability and climate neutrality objectives.
04:20:00 Again, what I'm asking is that we just assess whether similar policy can apply here in Australia and whether we can learn anything from what's happening over in Europe. Second motion I have is, again, I start from a local perspective, what we need here in Noosa, and then see if it's got any impact. So I'm going to take a look at the application on a federal level in response to local issues. And the local issue in this motion is damaged roads that are caused by heavy vehicles, including, but not limited to, say, quarry trucks. My motion is a request to the National General Assembly to work with local governments to mandate what's called road user agreements with industry. And the purpose is to simply ensure fair cost distribution. And that is to ensure that the roads are able to be used, and to ensure that the distribution among road users, including those responsible for increased freight loads that damage local government roads.
04:21:00 The third motion is in response to meetings that I've had with local doctors here in Noosa. And basically, what they've asked is if Council can lend their voice in supporting their advocacy. And what they're advocating is that, that, you know, what they've said is, you know, it's been done. The federal government amended its national health law to allow doctors, retiring doctors, to establish an Australian medical reserve and also to have like a sub-register category that before you retire, you can volunteer. And part of that is just reduced, you know, barriers for retired doctors is stuff like registration and ongoing fees.
04:22:00 So this motion is simply, again, allowing us to support or lend our voice to help support a group of really great doctors advocating for, really positive changes in national health laws. Again, it's an opportunity and a privilege for us as councillors to advocate on either a state or federal level. And I jump on the opportunity every single year. Part of our job and it's part of our responsibility as councillors to, you know, lend our voice to any matter that has local relevance and also anything that's as national or state. Thank you very much. Councillor Finzel: So, excuse me, through the chair. Thank you, councillor Lorentson. I just would like the opportunity,
04:23:00 I see we've got seven minutes. So can I please just give a little added summary. When we're talking about- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Kinzel, Kinzel. What? We have got another item. And depending on what you're saying about your thoughts, I'd like to hear the motion. Councillor Finzel: Right, moving forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. So that, we'll put that motion. Oh, well, councillor, any other councillors wish to talk? Councillor Phillips: I won't, if I'm right. I'm happy to give councillor a bit more of my time if possible. I mean. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The standing order's done. It's a standing order. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, though. It's okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, councillor, will we? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. I'd just like to make the point that in promptly moving and seconding a motion, it's not precluding any councillor from speaking to it. I hope that impression is correctly received. And you can tell, by the way, the two councillors spoke about their motions,
04:24:00 how passionate they are about it. And it's commendable. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Question through the chair. Mayor Wilkie: No, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Okay. The debate's closed. Thank you. So, I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. So, that is the last item in open session. The next item is in confidential session. So, we will pass this. There's no one in the audience. But if we can cease the recording. We do need to move the motion that's up on the board. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move it, Mr. Chair. I'll move it, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to Section 254J3, List Alpha Reference of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 9.1 Contracts Renewal Delegation Retail Electricity for Street Lights and Large Sites.
9.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - Contracts Renewal Delegation – Retail Electricity for Streetlights and Large Sites ¶
04:25:00 Councillor Wilson: I'll second. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: All those in favour? Councillor Wegener? Yes.
04:38:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can turn the cameras back on. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, my dear.
04:39:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so we are considering the staff recommendation for item 9.1. Do we have a mover of the motion? Councillor Wilson: I'll move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Move Councillor Wilson, second Councillor Phillips. Do we wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Wilson: No, thank you. Speaker 3: No, anyone? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, thank you, Mr Chair. I'll then put the motion. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's carried unanimously. That brings us to the end of the meeting at 5.09pm. Thank you, Councillors. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Councillors.
10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.