Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Good morning everyone to the planning and environment meeting. I declare the meeting now open at 9.30. I'd like to begin firstly with an acknowledgement to country. I respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional custodians of the lands and waters that formed the region that we've been in some. Council pays its respect to elders, past, present and future and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Mesa community. Attendance and apology. Welcome Mayor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Tom Wagner, which I've got to remember your surname. Welcome. I note there are no apologies and we have Councillor Finzel online. That's true. She's joining us as an observer. My first request before the meeting starts is that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off.
1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:01:00 And I also would like to remind councillors of their obligations under the Local Government Act to talk respectfully to staff and each other. We'll start with a confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder please? Thank you. Thank you Councillor Stockwell, seconder, councillor Wegener. No discussion all in favour? Thank you. Presentations and deputations? There are none. So we'll go straight to item 7, reports for consideration of the meeting. And we'll start with item 7.1, housing strategy, financial incentives for social and affordable housing. Welcome Anita and Rowena Skinner. Apologies Rowena. Thank you. Can I ask if you can just give us a summation of the report? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I have declared all confidence of interest in this matter as I am currently constructing a dwelling house and have been issued with an infrastructure charge notice.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
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 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶
00:02:00 As a component of the structure, it has been deemed to be capable of being used as a secondary dwelling. As this payment is outstanding, awaiting an imminent final inspection. As a component of the structure, it has been deemed to be capable of being used as a secondary dwelling. It may be perceived that I have a potential bias. Therefore I will choose to, as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered at both sides. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr Stockwell. I'll now ask for a summation of those that are reporting from us. Speaker 3: Three years ago, Ms. Council channelled the significant unanimous concern about the housing crisis into the preparation and adoption of the housing strategy,
7.1 HOUSING STRATEGY - FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR SOCIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ¶
00:03:00 stating Council's commitment to ensuring there is the right amount of housing of the right type and size in the right place and with the right tenure for our community. Since 2022, the housing crisis has only worsened, both locally and nationwide. Noosa Shire has a limited amount of developable land, unlike local governments with significant expansion areas. Noosa must achieve optimum outcomes from properties already within the urban boundaries, close to existing services, employment and transport. Amendments to the planning scheme to facilitate the implementation of the housing strategy. To facilitate a greater number of smaller dwellings while protecting the environment and residential amenity to community values have been proposed and modified following community consultation. They await ministerial approval.
00:04:00 Local developers and builders are encouraged to partner with the not-for-profit sector and deliver a portion of affordable rental housing. They will not do this if it does not stack up financially, and land costs and building costs are already at stake. It is preferable to see applicants follow the normal local development assessment process and abide by the planning scheme rather than bypass local government in favour of a cheaper state-facilitated assessment with reduced community input. Small secondary dwellings provide permanent rental accommodation or the means for extended families to stay together. They are probably the most sustainable form of development and removing the infrastructure charge will increase their popularity and improve transparency. This report makes recommendations around council development application fees, infrastructure charges and rates for social and affordable housing, as well as secondary dwellings in line with the housing strategy.
00:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Questions from councillors? Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for the report. Could you expand on some of the concessions being proposed to be given to applications that contain components of affordable housing? Speaker 3: Yes. We are proposing that when a not-for-profit community housing provider is able to provide a multi-dwelling development or a housing development which is entirely affordable rental premises, that there would be a wavering of the development application fees and that infrastructure charges would be postponed.
00:06:00 I think that that's a good point. For indefinitely, as long as the resultant housing remain affordable rental premises. We're also proposing to remove the infrastructure charges payable on a compliant secondary loan. And we are looking to, recommending that a rates donation also be provided to not-for-profit organisations that are providing affordable rental premises. Mayor Wilkie: Just on that, are there already rates donations being applied to some of these organisations? Speaker 3: There are. There are, that it is a little inconsistent at the moment, and part of this process would involve communication,
00:07:00 which makes it clearer for eligible organisations for what they could and could not apply for. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. And could you also explain the incentives for private industry applicants who are proposing developments that make entirely compatible? Yes. Speaker 3: So for developers who, for-profit developers who are interested in doing a component of affordable rental premises, such as 10% of their development or more, the fees and charges and infrastructure charges would be waived for that component of the proposal. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: A pro rata concession. That's right. Yes. And. And judging by the report, and you said it this morning, secondary dwellings play a significant
00:08:00 part in addressing the housing viability in Fort Booth, and it's proposed that we waive the infrastructure charges on that. How significant are the infrastructure charges for a secondary dwelling? Speaker 3: There are several thousand on a secondary dwelling, and secondary dwellings are small. They're typically no more than 65 square metres. And they remain as either rental premises or as extended family members, because they can't be separately titled. So they'll never be cut off and sold. So they are perpetually available as rental accommodation. So if we, if we're working on the figures we have at the moment, which is somewhere around 40 a year, maybe a bit more, then that amounts to around the 300,000 of the infrastructure
00:09:00 Mayor Wilkie: charges in the interests of providing incentives for more secondary dwellings. Speaker 3: Yeah. I can't find another council that's paying, that's charging infrastructure charges on secondary dwellings at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: Is that because in, in some sense a secondary dwelling can be perceived to be an extension of an existing house? Speaker 3: Correct. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Just. That'll do it for the time being. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Just a follow up in terms of the secondary dwellings. Concerns have been raised just in terms of potential long term impacts in terms of the character on, in terms of character impacts living in some of the regions. There's also questions on whether or not they're truly going to be used for affordable housing.
00:10:00 How are the plans for the future going to be used? Are we proposing to regulate secondary dwellings? A, so they don't impact on character. And B, to ensure they're actually used for their intended purpose. Speaker 3: Councillor, they have to, in terms of built form, they still have to abide by site cover, GFA, height, setbacks, or all the normal parameters that a house would have to abide by. Car parking has to be provided for. That is sufficient for both dwellings on site. So there needs to be at least two car parks there. The, in terms of their use, they are only approved as permanent residential. It's not allowed to be short term let, for instance. It's not allowed to be a B&B.
00:11:00 And Council is policing that and regulating that. Through the, through bridge and barrier with, and through the local wall. Councillor Lorentson: So, in the report, under finance, you've given an estimate of what the bills may cost Council. $203,520 annually. A few questions on that. You made a question for the CEO. Given the potential impact of strike action, and our upcoming tourism funding decision, is now the right time to be waiving fees and providing financial initiatives? Do we understand, in terms of impacts on rates, what impact this will have, compounded with all the other challenges that we have?
00:12:00 Speaker 1: Okay, so my understanding is that the money is, is not, is, is actually foregone, as such, as rather than be an income, it goes to infrastructure charges, which is a separate, I think it's not used for our normal operations of running our business. So, it won't necessarily affect those parts of it, but certainly in terms of future infrastructure works that need to be done across the shop. So, if we decide that, then that's, that bucket of money will have less in it. There's no question about that, but that's, that's a decision that we're putting to the Council to, to decide upon, as to, as to whether we're, we're, the incentive is enough that we can forego that money into our infrastructure charges, to provide the incentive for further secondary buildings and further, you know, social housing, you know, Shire, which is something that obviously is a, is a strong demand at the moment.
00:13:00 It's something that we're very conscious of trying to provide, and it's, it's our part that we can play in it, I guess, is, is what we're proposing. But again, it comes down to the decision. But in terms of the actual $300,000, it goes into our infrastructure charges, which is a separate, separate bucket. It doesn't necessarily affect our ongoing operations of the business. Councillor Lorentson: So it comes out of, not into, it's sort of... Speaker 1: No, it just doesn't go into, it's just, it's just foregone, foregone, um, uh, revenue. So that's... Forgot about infrastructure charges, probably, if you won't mind. So this is... Infrastructure charges money is used for, um, you know, uh, road supply pipes and roads Mayor Wilkie: and that sort of thing. Just a qualifying question, if I might share. So it, it's important to note that infrastructure charges cannot be used for wages. That's right. And so it really has very little bearing on the CEO. Speaker 1: In terms of, in terms of other, other issues we've got on the table, no, it, it, there's Councillor Lorentson: no bearing. Yeah. But it is a cost to Council. Speaker 1: It is a, it's a foregone cost. So it's a... Still a cost.
00:14:00 It's... So, uh, we don't have, we just don't, we're not taking in to deliver our infrastructure in the future. But it does, our, our infrastructure charges never do cover all of our, our infrastructure needs, to be honest with you, they're on top up but they're never, they're never substantial enough to actually do the... Do the full, the full count of work. Councillor Wegener: There's so many different questions right off the top of my head, but when we have The infrastructure charges, but there's just quite a few other charges involved, like if you're on a rural block, if you're going to put in a second septic tank, there's plumbing charges. Those aren't wrapped up in the infrastructure charges. Those are separate charges, electricity charges and so forth. But still, $7,000 is a substantial amount of savings for somebody putting in a septic well. Speaker 5: It could be cost prohibitive for them to do that, particularly as that is an affordable extension of an existing home that arguably has already paid infrastructure charges.
00:15:00 So it could be cost prohibitive and we're finding that some of them are going under the radar because of that lack of transparency, that they're actually doing a second septic well to avoid the cost. Speaker 3: And that in itself takes council resources to chase up and check. And confirm. I think additionally in relation to your question on tourism and hospitality, the tourism and hospitality sector, as well as council employees, will all benefit from additional affordable rental prices. Councillor Lorentson: The nature of them at 65 square metres, that in itself means how much you can actually rent a property for. So in terms of actually... ...achieving our intended purpose, which is affordable counselling, I think I agree with the secondary problems, but we've got our best chance with secondary problems.
00:16:00 Further questions around the table? Mayor Wilkie: Just for the benefit of those who might be listening, the donations policy is quite an interesting take on paying rates. Could you talk about how that works, please? It's essentially the waving of rates. It's not for profits. Speaker 5: Correct. Mayor Wilkie: It's seen as... Speaker 5: A donation. Mayor Wilkie: A donation by the government to those organisations. That's correct, isn't it? Speaker 5: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 5: But it's effectively a wavering of that. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 3: It's still... The rate is still noted and allocated, but then a matching donation is made to the organisation. And it is only the general rate. So any levies, waste levies... Mayor Wilkie: Madam Chair, unless anyone wants to move to the general...
00:17:00 Councillor Lorentson: I have a few more questions, if that's okay. My next question is, have we done enough to address financial barriers for affordable and social housing? And are we looking at perhaps streamlining processes to make the package more encouraging for foreign developers? Speaker 3: That's something we could look at down the track. Yeah. At the moment, it's a difficult thing to resource. And I couldn't... It's out of my area to make a commitment to resource streamlining of development assessment. But, you know, it's 12 months down the track if the relevant director has looked at their resources and thinks it's possible. Yeah. We may look at that as well. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of consultation, have we consulted or will we consult if we're looking at streamlining
00:18:00 processes? Will we engage with our businesses and town planners and community? Speaker 3: Yeah. We will do that. We already... In putting the housing strategy forward, three years ago, we already said we were going to... We were going to... Can we do that? We were going to consider all these fees and charges and rates. And that went out to community engagement. And prior to the housing strategy being adopted. If we... If we look at... At further modifications to the development assessment process, that again, would be something that we do in collaboration with the development industry. Speaker 5: One of the recommended additions here is that we do a... A communications package. Guidelines and fact sheets to accompany any of the changes that are made and disperse that
00:19:00 to the relevant industry groups. Speaker 3: We're doing... Council will remember that just a matter of two... Two weeks ago or something, they looked at the monitoring and the housing situation. And if we regularly monitor the situation and nothing is improving, then we will have to look at other things. Yeah. And I think one of the things... I think council said... Councillor Wegener: We were referring to the state, just the... The states looking at our housing going up because they're demanding that population goes up, housing goes up. Is that what you were just referring to? Speaker 3: I wasn't directly, but that is something that we have... We have targets that the state applies in terms of how... The number of dwellings... So we are monitoring yearly or every two years we'll probably be reporting to council on how those running targets are going.
00:20:00 Councillor Wegener: So this is a step in that direction? Speaker 3: That's right. Mayor Wilkie: So just to clarify what you said before, we're going to have to shy away from consultation on the housing strategy because the community said all levels of government ought to play a part in addressing the housing availability and affordability crisis. These actions were clearly articulated in the housing strategy. And this is delivering on the housing strategy which was unanimously adopted by this chancellor. So thank you for the work. Thanks for pushing on with it. It's important. Councillor Lorentson: It might be a little bit off track but I'm going to throw it in here as part of the housing strategy report. I'm just wondering, have we gone out and written to all our STA and empty holiday home owners and asked whether or not they would consider going into the permanent rental pool
00:21:00 given our affordable housing crisis? I know that last term, formerly, Claire wrote to all the vacant and STA homeowners and I think within a period of 60 days or some short timeframe there were 60 homes that were brought into the permanent rental home pool. So has that been considered or have we gone back out? Speaker 3: We haven't gone out again but we do monitor it. We monitor. There are always houses coming off the short stay sector and becoming permanent homes or becoming permanent rentals. Obviously they're not going the other way now because that's not allowable under the planning scheme. But as properties sell, the new owners have different intentions with the properties.
00:22:00 Our messaging has been quite consistent for the last few years about no new or additional short stay letting being supported. I don't, I'm not sure that there would be any value in writing to them again at this point. But I think that individually, that's certainly the messaging that we would put out. Speaker 5: It's true, Patrick and Richard's team as well and the local law, that's a really good monitoring process because as properties change ownership we do, I guess, through the rates process, ask what their intention is and many of them are coming off the STA. That's the intention of the new owner either to live in it permanently or permanently rent. So that's one of the monitoring. So it's kind of already happening but it also happens back the other way because there are those properties that have those interchangeable use rights as well.
00:23:00 But through the local law process is one mechanism we're monitoring that. And that will be brought into our housing monitoring program as well. Councillor Lorentson: I'm probably thinking more of vacant homes. There may be some consideration for new year Wilkie. Maybe consider writing to the vacant homeowners. Mayor Wilkie: Well I was going to say that as we heard as part of the operational review of the local law, over 300 approvals, short stay approvals have been relinquished by the owners for a variety of reasons. There's going to be a report to Council come on the fines of the operational review if I understand correctly. And I'm happy to write again to any STA owners seeing what their intentions are to back up the work the staff are already doing. Anything they require me to do, I'm happy to do in that regard. Speaker 6: Certainly. We're just noting in addition to that and to Neil Walker's points about the number of more than 300 that have pulled out of STA since the recent work from the team.
00:24:00 We also still have a number of those properties that we referred to previously that are still captured obviously from those original exemptions that they sort of applied for earlier. We would involve a fee on the basis that they would be maintained for long term residential occupations. So there's still a number of still opted to pull out of STA to allow people or firms to reside in those properties. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. A letter is a light touch compared to the regulatory approach but I'm prepared to do what it takes to... Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. I'm just saying that a letter is a light touch. Asking owners to consider doing that to help the greater good as opposed to a regulatory approach which has seen over 300 owners relinquish their approvals. But I'm happy to write the letter. Okay. Thank you.
00:25:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Any further comments from Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener? Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move it Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: As I said before, thank you for the report and the work the staff have done on this. While... We are doing the hard work in helping us deliver on the actions from the housing strategy which was unanimously endorsed by this councillor after the Shire Life community consultation. And it... The weighting of these infrastructure charges, in particular the secondary drawings, will help a great deal because you are... You have responded to a lot of feedback that we've received about the nature of the infrastructure charges and how they see that as an obstacle to secondary drawings. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: And I'll just add, you know, we keep saying this over and over again, the housing crisis isn't going to fix itself. And doing nothing is not an option. So thank you to this council.
00:26:00 We're just keeping up with the fight. Thanks. Speaker 4: Any further questions? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Can I add to that? Councillor Wegener: When I bought my house, my first house, my only house... My first house. My gosh, that $7,000 grant from the government to the first home buyers grant, you know, actually may just swung the dial completely in favor of buying a house for us. So cash incentives do absolutely work. And I'm proud of our councillor and good work for marching down this path with the housing strategy. And you've chosen the strategy of second houses and smaller dwelling houses. So thank you. And we're just following that path, aren't we? It's a really strong way to go. And I'm just glad that we're sticking to that. You know, you take your course of action and you stick to it and march along and keep going. So this is great. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: No further discussion.
00:27:00 All in favor, please. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, so long. Thank you. Welcome to the desk, our planning staff. I will note that this report has been referred to the general meeting because of the significance of the matter, but I will just open it up to discussion and questions. Thank you, Patrick, if you could give us a summary.
7.2 FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANICILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS ¶
00:28:00 Speaker 4: Thank you, Councillor. Mindful that it has been referred to the general committee meeting, I will provide an overview at probably a bit more higher level than what I'll provide at the general committee meeting, if that's okay. This is a matter that's been eyeing on for a number of years now. The application received in 2021 and first reported to Council in July of 2023. At that time, the report addressed a range of issues, including the site split zoning, the potential outer impacts of the nearby series treatment plant, bushfire risk ecology, car parking and built form. The officer recommendation was to approve the application. That wasn't supported. That wasn't supported by Council. There were some deputations that were made at that time by both residents and Unity Water. The matter was referred to the general committee meeting, at which time a motion was put forward to refuse the application. As we got to the ordinary meeting, the clock was stopped, so a decision wasn't able to
00:29:00 be made on the application at that time. It was again reported to Council in November of 2023. A report again recommending approval of the application. The matters that were proposed as grounds for refusal were further refined. There was no amended layout that was put forward at that time. And so when it went to the meeting in November, the applicant actually made another change prior to Council deciding it. So again, Council wasn't able to decide the application because the other change application was made. So it reverted to the start of the process. A further report was put to Council in June of 2024. And that was considering the other change at that time.
00:30:00 Council discussed the application. It was evident that there was still a lack of support for the proposal, is what it would appear. And then the applicant saw that the matter actually be deferred to a future Council meeting, to enable them to consult with both Unity Water and the community members, which was undertaken. And then in February of this year, February 27 of this year, a minor change application was made. And that's the application that is now before you. That minor change has removed Pavilion 5, which is the pavilion adjacent to the resort drive made changes to the size of the swimming pool and some other sort of minor changes throughout the site. Any increase in one of the tennis court sizes, tennis courts is included. A reduction in height of the structures above the car park. There were further reports and addendums to reports that were provided by the applicant.
00:31:00 So the report that's before you doesn't finalise the assessment of the other change because that was never determined by Council. And that other change was an exception. And that's the extension to the club building and the inclusion of the club use. It's the officer's position that that's a rather inconsequential change to the development and is supported. The current minor change involving the deletion of the Pavilion 5, again, supported by the officers, noting the improved outcomes in terms of ecology, in terms of bushfire, in terms of impacts, I suppose, on the surrounding area in terms of the built form. So, yeah, in summary, that's the nature of the report and how we've got there. Sorry, importantly, the change has reduced the scale of the development from 106 bedrooms to 69.
00:32:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to kick off and ask the first question that's been asked or so from the community. How is the application today considered minor, given the substantial or significant changes in terms of room sizes, scale and appearance of the project? Speaker 4: So a minor change is a term that's defined in the Planning Act and it sets out a number of elements to be considered. One of those is that it does not result in a substantially different development. There's other elements around that it doesn't include prohibited development or require referral for new grounds or referral to extra referral agencies. Or require public notification if public notification wasn't previously required.
00:33:00 I think the most relevant aspect of those elements is the substantially different development. And the DA rules prescribe those matters that may constitute a substantially different development. So there needs to be consideration because, as I said, the definition refers to may be considered to be a substantially different development. They are that it involves a new use, which this minor change does not. Results in the application applying to a new parcel of land, which it does not. Dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance. Now I think importantly, when you're dealing with a minor change or another change, you're dealing with a change. It's not going to be the same. There's going to be some difference about what is previously proposed and what's currently proposed. And often that is in terms of built form.
00:34:00 It's not considered that this is a dramatic change in built form. Noting that looking at just the resort element, that is the new structures that are proposed to be built. The reduction results in a 12.1% reduction in site cover. It's not a substantial change. And furthermore, a 21.4% reduction in coastal area. It's acknowledged that it's a change, but it's not considered to be a dramatic change. It doesn't remove a component that is integral to the operation of the development. Yes, it removes a wing. It removes some rooms. But it's still operating as a resort, providing accommodation and ancillary facilities. Does it significantly impact on traffic flow in the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site? Well, it's actually reducing the impact of traffic to the site.
00:35:00 Does it introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts? Again, the modification, the reduction does not do that. If anything, it reduces the impact. Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact of the development. No, it does not do that. And it impacts on infrastructure provisions. Again, the scaling back of the development does not do that. So, in summary, they're looking through the criteria that's required to determine whether it's a minor change or another change. We're satisfied that it is a minor change. Councillor Lorentson: And then I'm just raising some issues related to the development. There's been a reduction of cruise numbers, 106 to 69. The reduction is 35%. And concerns have been that the community facilities have not decreased in size.
00:36:00 Another question I want to ask is, can the applicant guarantee that there will be no further expansion beyond the current proposal? And I think that's a very important question. Are there any legal and binding mechanism to enforce this guarantee? Speaker 4: I've not had those discussions with the applicant as to whether they intend to expand it in the future. We need to assess what's in front of us at this point in time. I'd suggest that there's no binding mechanism to stop someone from their lawful right to seek a change to a development approval. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In the initial report, we had the discussion around the impact of the mapped areas, and the fact that they haven't been mentioned or haven't got any mixed-bounds descriptions
00:37:00 around them. And the consequence of that, if it was ever going to appear, would be that there's going to be a change in terms of how a planner should weigh that up with the intent of those zones? Speaker 4: It's a good question. And certainly the current planning scheme does not apply mixed-bounds to the zoning. So the planning scheme acknowledges that the site is suitable for development, and it acknowledges those uses that are preferred to occur. There needs to be an element of ground-truthing that is applied in determining whether the zoning should be where those areas should be. That is what has happened in this instance. It's my understanding that the zoning was applied initially to provide a separation between the sewage treatment plant and where the tourist accommodation use would occur. A significant aspect of the assessment of this development has involved the ground-truthing
00:38:00 in that regard, in terms of odour modelling. And as we've discussed at previous Council meetings, the 2.5 odour unit line has been considered to be the line that is suitable for where development should occur. Notably, the existing zoning protrudes outside that line. This development does not propose built form outside of the 2.5 odour unit line. It's brought it back inside the odour unit line. Importantly, there's other aspects that also need to be considered around biodiversity, bushfire. Yeah, those sort of matters also will determine where the footprint should be. And we've also undertaken those assessments through this application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And also in the initial report, you talked, you foreshadowed that if this was to be approved, it's likely that it would lead to a future amendment of the zoning map to reflect the approval. Would that be one way to achieve more certainty in terms of future uses as was the case?
00:39:00 Speaker 4: That's again a good point. That is true. That could occur. And that actually occurred at a site such as Carramar on Cooroy Hoosa Road. I'm not sure if you remember when we did an addition to that site. That resulted in some modification of the zoning sort of line with where the uses were approved and also where those environmental values were identified in that assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do any existing conditions push out of that tag? Or was that something we could have considered on the committee? Speaker 4: When you mean existing conditions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could we put in the... Well, it wouldn't be conditions, sorry. It would be in the motion rather than the conditions. The intent to in the future amendment of the planning scheme to consider the desirable footprint and therefore the zoning boundaries which may then be able to be meet and described. Speaker 4: That could be done. And I could provide some draft wording if councillors would like.
00:40:00 Speaker 6: I mean, what I would say is that we... With any... I don't know. I don't think we have a review of our planning scheme and updates to our planning scheme. We would be looking at any of those situations where there's no alignment, I guess, with particular boundaries between what's been approved or constructed in a period of time. So obviously through the periodic scheme reviews, they do look at the zoning line and make sure it's consistent with what's already approved or established, whether that be a decision of council or a decision of the court. So there's an opportunity to do that with the planning scheme. I don't think we have any of our future sort of planning scheme reviews to acknowledge that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, with the new design, the final thing's been taken up, so this is sort of like a triangular projection. In area where the tennis courts goes a little bit further than where the tennis courts are already disturbed, have you had a look at...
00:41:00 I think in the initial report there was some quantification of how many trees would have to go. Have we re-tuned that in terms of... Have we re-tuned that in terms of the new proposal as to what might be the impact on that, which may take a small corner of the biodiversity overlay? Speaker 4: What we've been able to determine at this point is that the level of intrusion in the biodiversity overlay has decreased from 1,562 square metres to 727 square metres. Within that reduction, there are some paths that are still proposed, but the vegetation needs to be retained. I have sought further information from the applicant in terms of the specific number of trees. I'm just waiting for that further information. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Hopefully we have it by Monday. Speaker 4: Yeah, hopefully we've got that, yeah. And just on that, those elements of, say, rehabilitation and offset planting, voluntary offsets, is
00:42:00 to remain as was originally proposed. That's all for me. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Let's go on from Brian's questions. So, historically, there was an overall master plan for the Springs area, and then a chunk of it was sold off, and I believe it was to Alstom or Parkridge? Which one of the names is right? Speaker 4: Well, it's the Parkridge development. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, the Parkridge development. And you just mentioned that the Meats and Bounds was in consideration of the Smell Line and the sewage treatment plant. And did that sell-off of the other estate change the master plan thinking, and then all of a sudden sort of forced the five-star hotel development to be closer to the sewage treatment plant? Speaker 4: So, it doesn't really come back to land ownership. It was essentially what it was approved for that dictated how that was to be used.
00:43:00 And the... There was two stages of that development, two different approvals. And the main element was done under a planning scheme which allowed, via the definition of multiple dwelling, for those dwellings to be used for either permanent or short-term accommodation. There was no limitation that was placed within conditions to only require it to be used for short-term accommodation. And hence, when it was developed, it enabled, you know, the purchasers to use it for either permanent or short-term. And as we've found out, it's been predominantly permanently occupied. So, when the Noosa Plan 2020 was developed, it was identified that there was still a need for further resort accommodation within that location. And the lot that we're currently reviewing as part of this assessment, prior to the Noosa Plan 2020, it was all like a recreation and open space zoning.
00:44:00 And it's the Noosa Plan 2020 at that time. We've changed to bring in the tourist accommodation zoning to bring effect to a resort being provided within this location. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So, the Noosa Plan 2020, you know, isn't reliant upon the former mousetrap plan. It was a re-mousetrap plan. That's correct, David. Speaker 4: That's correct, David. Councillor Lorentson: The Waste Management Plan. The question is, is there a need for a remousetrap plan within the area? Was there a discrepancy in the original application? The amended plan includes a waste management provision that seems a lot more than was contained in the original submission. Is that correct, Patrick? Speaker 4: When the waste management was considered initially, it didn't drill down to the volumes of waste that would be generated. This is an application for a resort.
00:45:00 It's not an application to dispose of waste. It's not an application to dispose of waste. I think it's important to understand that these land uses generate waste. We have resorts all throughout the Shire and what they're proposing here in terms of waste generation is not controversial. So, there was some discussion at a council meeting. I was asked questions by a community member who provided some information, which I sought from the applicant. It wasn't something that was readily provided as part of the application material, again, because we don't normally drill down into the details of waste management. What we're more concerned of is, where is it to be provided? Where is that facility to be provided on site? And is it functional? Can the trucks get in? Can they get out in a safe manner? And are there going to be any amenity impacts resulting from that waste collection? We've always been satisfied that that is the case, that both those elements have been satisfied.
00:46:00 I did provide a response to a community member based on some advice I was provided. And I did suggest to the applicant when they made this further change to the application, they should provide further detail about waste management. And hence, we've got a lot more detail and I suppose a lot more robust assessment of the waste generation. The report that's been provided does note that it... I wish I could find the exact wording. It does... The report that's been provided does note that it... That it supports the findings of the initial report that were provided that gave me the information to provide to the applicant, but it's now used updated modelling from the Sunshine Coast Council for waste generation. So I think that's part of the reason why there might be a discrepancy. But notwithstanding, it's not controversial. And again, we're satisfied with the methodologies and the location of the waste collection.
00:47:00 Thank you. Speaker 6: And further details can be worked through operational work stage, which is where the team focus on the detailed engineering and the elements of how to make that work at a detailed design phase. So this is just, as Patrick alluded to, making sure it can work, it's got sufficient space, those impacts are managed appropriately, and then the detailed work can be dealt with through the operational work stage. Councillor Lorentson: Will that also include garbage truck deliveries? Yes. Okay. Speaker 4: Yeah. So we've looked at where garbage trucks are to access the site and where to pick up the waste from. There's no change with this proposal. The waste collection is currently from the loading dock of the resort building that's on site, and that's where it's going to continue to occur from. So the applicant advises that there's waste collection every day.
00:48:00 There would be no need to... Currently, occurring every day, there would be no need to increase the frequency of collections. There'll just be more bins that are collected at the times that they're there. Councillor Lorentson: So there's more bins, is there more noise? Speaker 4: It'll be the same level of noise, but it would occur for a slightly longer period of time. And noting that it's an existing activity that takes place, but it's also properties nearby also have other noise generating activities that occur around them in terms of vehicles that access the long resort drive to access the 140 odd dwellings that are within the Park Ridge estate, and also activities of deliveries that are occurring to the current resort building. Councillor Lorentson: ODA concerns, complaints.
00:49:00 If an ODA complaint does arise, who's responsible for addressing them? The community, Water Council, or the developer? Speaker 4: Well, if there's an ODA complaint, it'll be in relation to the sewage treatment plant. It's a different thing. The sewage treatment plant has a duty to not cause ODA nuisance. It would be regulated under the EPA, the Environment Protection Act. Notwithstanding, it is proposed to include a condition that has a complaints management procedure for the resort to deal with complaints from guests. So the idea would be that guests would first liaise with the hotel to manage those complaints. It was previously proposed to have a condition that alerted guests to the fact that they were
00:50:00 near a sewage treatment plant, but with discussions with Unity Water and with the applicant was determined that that condition should be removed to not alert guests to the fact that there might be some ODA in the area. Again, noting that the ODA consultants have looked at this and determined that the building is sited in a manner that it achieves compliance with 2.5 ODA units at the 99.5 percentile, which means that in our intervals, 99.5 percent of the times from their modelling that they've undertaken, that the ODA will not exceed that 2.5 ODA unit measurement, which is considered to be a tolerable level. So 0.5 percent, I think it equates to across a whole year, potentially 40 hours. And while some of the facilities such as the pools and the tennis courts are outside that
00:51:00 2.5 ODA unit line, there have been conditions applied to limit the hours which they're used so that the level, the time when that 2.5 ODA unit concentration may be exceeded, they're not being used. And my understanding is the times when you're going to have an ODA impact is likely very early in the morning when I think it's very still and low temperature and probably unlikely that people would be outdoors. Councillor Lorentson: So given that there's so much modelling done around this and 99.5 percent, you know, it'll be at a tolerable level. Is there an ability that we can condition the application that requires the developer then to bear any risk or costs if there is a complaint and it does require future upgrades? If we're so certain that there's not going to be an issue, can that condition be included
00:52:00 or a noting report? Speaker 4: I don't think it would be reasonable to include it as a condition to require them to upgrade infrastructure for a series treatment plan. I'm not sure if I can go much beyond that. Councillor Lorentson: I don't disagree with that, but I keep coming back to the question that keeps getting asked in community is who will bear the cost if on that 0.5 percent chance there is an issue. Where does the onus fall? Will our rate come down? Will the cost be the cost? The end of the order? Just throwing that out. Speaker 6: Well, as technologies evolve, even with wastewater treatment plants, they're obviously getting more and more efficient over time with the way that they operate. Obviously, our experts have been looking at the order and applied, as Patrick mentioned,
00:53:00 a number of conditions, which the applicant is required to include, which includes things like a restriction of hours. Carbohydrates. There are a number of things that the client must be required to have. There's a number of elements that have been included as conditions to ensure that the developer takes on a significant obligation to manage the likelihood of risk. And then, also, the complaint management process as well, that the resort would need to take up with people using the facilities to make them aware of that process if they do need So there's pretty good mechanisms in place that have been designed to meet the reasonable and relevant test for conditions. Speaker 4: Also noting that the current proposal by the deletion of BN5 has increased the separation from the sewage treatment plant infrastructure from 270 metres to 302 metres.
00:54:00 And there are other dwellings within proximity of the sewage treatment plant existing at the moment, which would be within a similar radius from the infrastructure. Mayor Wilkie: And how do Park Bridge drives? Speaker 4: Park Bridge, since Odeonut Line, it's not like a straight line and depending on the topography, further separation might actually be worse off, depending. So I know... Is it the fairways? Not the ones that are near the loading dock, but there's some other ones that are near on the golf course. They're within quite... Mayor Wilkie: They're within the Odeonut Line? Speaker 4: No, they're within a similar distance. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Have there been complaints from them regarding that? Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'm not sure if you can answer this question, but again, I'm just sort of resurfacing a lot that has come to me through community.
00:55:00 In terms of... So construction stage, if approval goes ahead, what does construction look like? And I say this in reference to the existing businesses, the Pilates, the Harry's, tennis, etc. Will it be staged and will they be given the ability to continue with their business? Or is that a question I can just ask you offline? Speaker 4: Yeah. I probably need to get some details around that. I mean, the advice I've received from the applicant through the process is that the tennis court patrons will be able to come back to the tennis courts and continue their lessons once it's safe to do so and once the new tennis courts have been constructed. The Pilates studio, I've not received any advice from the applicant that that is to be changed in any way.
00:56:00 That's on a separate title of land adjacent to where the double, sorry, car park is proposed. But I could seek further information around that. Again, noting we need to be mindful of those aspects that we're assessing the application under. Councillor Lorentson: Which is quite separate. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Further questions? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. I think a lot of my questions have been answered. Just listening to the councillors. But just to clarify, the report says the zoning's not cadastral. I think that relates to what the questions that Councillor Stockwell was asking. Could you just clarify what you mean by not cadastral? Speaker 4: Yeah. So it would need to determine, say if it's a rectangle, I suppose, the points of each element of that rectangle. So it's fixed in terms of the survey? Yes. As to where the boundaries of the zoning are? Mm-hmm. Yeah.
00:57:00 That hasn't occurred. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So as you said before, the intention was when the tourist accommodation zone was added, that the open space rec zone was always to be on the SGP side of the ODA line. Speaker 4: As a buffer. Mayor Wilkie: And everything beyond that was meant to be a tourist accommodation. Speaker 4: It had to be ground truth. It hasn't been. It needed to be ground truth. And I think what the zoning has done, and what we're booked at, is the amount of, say, GFA that should be provided through the extent of area that is currently tourist accommodation zone. And this proposal does not exceed that GFA. It's substantially under, I think it's about 15,000 square metres that would be committed of GFA under the zoning. Currently it's around 10,000 that's been provided. And that's not just the new resort building. That's all the existing facilities included within that as well.
00:58:00 Mayor Wilkie: So that means, you know, there's some, there's a lot of changes. There's significant changes made. A reduction of rooms from 106 to 69. Reduction of pool size from 1,100 square metres down to 400 square metres. Speaker 4: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: So the impact is lessened. Speaker 4: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: So therefore, it makes the definitions of minor change. And if it, the opposite of what the case were, were the rooms to be increased from, from And car parking on site B, even though the number of rooms have been reduced by 47, the number of car parks to be provided on site has remained the same, is that correct? Speaker 4: That's correct. 250 bi-formalised car parks, which has been determined by our consultant to be the suitable number.
00:59:00 I think it was 246 that were required. There's also 38 additional car spaces provided by two overflow car spaces, areas of 19 car spaces each. Mayor Wilkie: And since 2019, there is genuine concern in the community about fire risk. Some people are genuinely triggered by the thought of being trapped. And again, issues of fire safety have been raised by members of the community through emails from all councillors at the seat. Can you explain how that's managed in this application? Speaker 4: I might defer to my expert here, but just as an opening point, noting that the... The impact, or the potential impact of bushfires is reduced through the current proposal because the separation distance from the buildings to the hazardous vegetation has been increased, but Will can talk to us in a bit more detail about that. Speaker 2: Yeah, I can just give you some more detail about that. The original design needed to meet a minimum setback requirement to achieve a radiant heat flux of less than 29 kilowatts, that's the standard requirement.
01:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: Which is a heat breaking hazard. Speaker 2: Correct. And that equates to a separation... So a distance of 15.7 metres from the hazardous vegetation, which is to the north of the site. The design exceeded this requirement by providing 21.9 metres, and in its current form, the latest design, we've now extended that into an addition of 38.4 metres. So we've now increased the separation distance, and now achieve a radiant heat flux of less than 10 kilowatts per square metre, so a significant benefit. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 2: For the people using the sites. Mayor Wilkie: And there's also concern about the road network and its capacity to handle people wanting to locate in the instance of a fire, can you talk us through what that is? Speaker 2: Absolutely, so there's, in relation to the Noosa Springs, there's a procedure in place to provide alternative evacuation routes from the unit state, if required, one of those routes would take vehicles out onto Indian Creek Road, the other would take traffic via Derawin Sports track and out to Indian Creek Road from there.
01:01:00 Both routes would only be implemented under the direction of Queensland Police Services, or QAPS. Mayor Wilkie: So these egresses exist currently, or they're just gated off? Speaker 2: Correct, correct. Mayor Wilkie: And... They would be open in the instance of... It need be. It needs to be. Speaker 4: And in terms of the hotel occupants, if there was a fire, there is, so they're now only subject to a heat rating, a heat flux rating of 10 kilowatts. 10 kilowatts. 10 kilowatts, which is quite low, they could evacuate into the, their evacuation plan is to go into the existing resort building, which is further away from the fire risk, so they wouldn't be needing to leave the site, and if things got completely, you know, diabolical, they can go out onto the golf course as well, there's an area that's sufficient for the residents to go to there, so, yeah.
01:02:00 Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You mentioned the DFA grass law area. It just reminded me that the current SEQ urban footprint follows the map boundaries, but there is an allowance for resorts to be outside the urban footprint up to a certain DFA, from memory, is this well within that? Speaker 4: This is actually in the state urban footprint, the same map. It's outside the urban footprint. It's within our urban boundary that's within. Ah, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I knew there was something there within that there. Speaker 4: Yeah, and it's within our urban boundary that's within, snaps around the tourist accommodation zone, and again, that was something that I, in my initial report, suggested that could be modified, subject to assessment of this application. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Any further questions?
01:03:00 Mayor Wilkie: Happy to move. It goes to the general manager. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Second. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. We'll move it to general manager. Oh, goodness, Karen. Sorry, Karen's here. Hey, Karen. Karen, you've got a question. Councillor Finzel: Yes, good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, everyone, for the report and for the feedback this morning. It's provided a lot of clarity. I just have a question around, you know, the concerns of the community and the focus on affordable housing. Anywhere through the process, and I have raised this question previously, around the capacity for any on-site staff accommodation. Speaker 4: Has that come up for any discussion or consideration? No, it hasn't formed part of the assessment of this application. I might need to come back to you, Councillor, just to get a clarity around where that would sit in terms of the table of assessment for tourist accommodation zone. Yes. Which does not seat for permanent residents.
01:04:00 So that could be problematic. But I might just send you an email, if that's okay, clarifying that point. I can send that to all councillors. Speaker 6: Councillor, one point that's of relevance and probably doesn't directly answer your question, but as part of the resort, what it would do is generate additional supply for high-end tourists to accommodate in, which potentially then could lead to, you know, less reliance on high-end holiday homes. So you might find that you might get more housing available as a result of tourist accommodation being taken up by a new resort. So there's a potential sort of overarching net benefit possible in that regard. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I'm just following on for that. Can I just ask one more question? Sure. And I have raised it before. It's around the disposal of organic waste. I'm just wondering, is that, would that be part of the detailed design phase for the waste management plan?
01:05:00 Or how would that be addressed? Speaker 4: Yes. It would generally be something that would be pursued through the operational works, more detailed design. I have raised it with the applicant. And so I would be seeking some feedback. And again, a general committee meeting may be able to provide you with some more specific details of their intent in that regard. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Council Finzel. Council Whitman? Councillor Wegener: A question. Just what you said there, Richard, about perhaps there won't be such a demand on the high-end SDAs because you'll have this as a resort. And I've always worried about the Airbnbs being able to lower their price just to absolutely keep going down and down in price because it's a house where this is a very expensive, you know, very expensive resort. Are there any other levers that Council can pull to try to support people using this high-end
01:06:00 resort and not using high-end houses in low residential neighbourhoods, low-density neighbourhoods? Just very close to being not on topic. Yes. Very close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: I will allow, as the Chair, I will allow the question just for discussion. Speaker 6: Yes. Look, Council, there are a number of different levers. Yes. I guess. In this regard, and again, trying to stay on topic, the benefit of having a specific tailored resort is it's zoned appropriately. So it's zoned for the particular activity. And the offering for guests and tourists is specific to what they're seeking as part of that holiday vacation. So obviously all of the surrounding facilities that they provide is probably what the larger draw is to pull people out from, say, a residential area where there is less of the high-end resort, and the ancillary activities and opportunities and transport that can be provided by an
01:07:00 integrated resort. So that would, I guess, be probably the strongest lever. There are other levers that Council is aware of around things like rates and other levies and things like that that can apply. But I would say in this particular case, the draw is the fact that this is a very tailored, customised resort designed to provide an overarching experience for guests, which is really why it would draw people to the resort. The facilities and there may be a premium. But as we know, people are prepared to pay that if they get the particular experience they're looking for. Councillor Wegener: You make a good golf tee time along with the package. Councillor Lorentson: So can I ask, we have a confirmation that it is a B2C resort. Do we know the star rating? Is it going to be topped? Speaker 4: Yes. The initial report spoke about it being a 106-feet-and-5-star resort. I haven't received any advice that that's changing. Councillor Lorentson: Can we get confirmation, please, before general meeting?
01:08:00 Thank you, Patrick. I don't think any further questions. We might... We've already moved it. No more discussion. All in favour, please. Thank you, Will. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Richard and Will for the discussion at general meeting next Monday. We will now move on to the report that was noted by the committee. Item 8.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Again, back at the desk, Richard and Patrick, if you can just run through the report in front of us. Speaker 4: Thank you. It's a monthly report detailing those applications that have been determined under delegation. As you'll see, there's 37 decisions that were made, 35 approvals and two refusals with two
8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶
01:09:00 applications to be decided by committee. It's a monthly report that was noted by council. Yeah, primarily applications relating to residential-type development this month. Additions to dwellings and new dwelling houses primarily being the form of development that was decided under delegation. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got one question. The two refusals are both on one side of the map of the proposal, and it was refused by the referral agency at Cooroibah. Is that correct? I'm just interested. Was that, for example, trying to move something closer to a national park where there's bushfire hazards at the end of the pavement? Speaker 4: I actually can't answer you that question off the top of my head. It might have been... We did have something that had issues with access. Speaker 1: Do you know what it was? Speaker 4: 50 Devenston Rough Drive? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't know.
8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MARCH 2025 ¶
01:10:00 I'll find out. Speaker 4: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was unusual for a setback to be presented by a referral agency, that's all. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: We have that 170 Eumundi Noosa Road, Eumundi Noosa-Noosa Road, Noosaville, reconfiguring of a lot one into seven lots. And that seems... On the Google Maps, that looks like a self-storage... Speaker 4: It's an industrial building. That's correct. That was constructed some time ago. And they never titled it at that point in time. And the current application sought to title the different tenancies within it. Councillor Wegener: So there's different... Is there still one lot for different tenancies? It's not going to turn into seven lots? Speaker 4: No. There'll be seven separate titles with common property. With common property. Titles, but it's not... Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Not seven different lots.
01:11:00 Speaker 4: Is it... Well, each lot... So it's an existing building with, you know, that's got separate sort of buildings within it. And each of those buildings is now a separate lot through a building format plan. Councillor Wegener: This seems very small, a small property for that. Speaker 4: Yeah. It would not be uncommon in the industrial areas to have multiple lots with common property, ranging from, you know, a hundred odd square metres up to a thousand square metres. Speaker 6: It just allows each tenancy to be freehold owned so different business owners can hold their particular lot whereas generally if it's not titled at all it's all one large lot so obviously one person would have to own all of it. So this just allows small businesses to own those tenancies in freehold but yet they have common property, car parking areas and the like where they share the cost of maintenance of those things.
01:12:00 Quite common in industrial states to have sort of a titling arrangement like this. Okay, so it's not that unusual. Thank you. Speaker 4: Just to go back to your question Councillor, on the report it says referral agency response but counselled with the referral agency. In that instance, so we were both assessment manager and referral agency, that's why there's two different ones on the list. And it was a development for a very large shed on a property boundary and it was refused due to amenity impacts. Mayor Wilkie: It's good to hear that's happening. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move it, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Seconder, Councillor Wegener. No further discussion, all in favour? Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: And we have... We have no confidential session which means the meeting is now closed at 9.45. 10.45. 10.45, excuse me.
01:13:00 At 10.45. I should take my glasses off alongside. And I'd like to just thank everyone present in the gallery and we meet again, general meeting, next Monday. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
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.
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.