Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Welcome, councillors, to the May General Committee meeting. I'd like to start by paying respects to the Kabi Kabi people, their elders, past president emerging, who were custodians and continue to be custodians of this place like us. There's a very long connection. We have all councillors in attendance. We then move on to confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move the confirmation of minutes from the previous committee? Thank you. Moves councillor Lorentson and seconder councillor Wilkie. Reviewing no discussion, I will put it to the vote. Those in favour? And that's carried unanimously. We don't have any presentations, but we do have a deputation. The deputation from Julianne Vogler in regard to the Upper Pinbarren Creek Road.
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 ¶
00:01:00 So if I can ask the deputy to come to the lectern and address council. Welcome. Juliana Fugler: Good day. Thank you for allowing me that I can talk about this long ongoing issue with Upper Pinbarren Creek Road. And I hope that you can take appropriate action after this. I would like to prefer not to be here, but it is... It is what it is, so I have to go ahead. So my heading is still helping for a positive, sustainable outcome for Upper Pinbarren Creek Road. Upper Pinbarren Creek Road is outside of Pomona with Kin Kin, so turn left, and I live up the hill in the forest. That's why I'm here in Australia, because I love nature and I care, and that's why I'm here. Upper Pinbarren Creek Road was established in 19, around 1912, and the property I live on, it's not, not always, I'm a little bit in and out, I'm sometimes overseas,
00:02:00 was a banana farm, the first banana farm in Queensland, and they built that road because they needed to get their bananas on the market. So it was a functional road, over 100 years it has functioned quite properly. Of course, we have flats, and this is just normal for this region, and then some boards are overflown, but it's just a matter of a few days. So my name is Juliana Fugler, I'm a resident, and I do care. Let me outline a little bit of, sort of a scenario, since when we have been approaching council to appropriately act to save this road. And to make it a functional road. In 2008, it was the start of the tilt of the road on top of the hill, this is where I live, has been changed.
6.1 DEPUTATION - UPPER PINBARREN CREEK ROAD Applicant: Juliane Vogler Speakers: Juliane Vogler ¶
00:03:00 A young supervisor said, nowadays we do it differently, I just learned it fresh from university. This road has not been built with a grader, because the first grader came to the Sunshine Coast obviously in 1935. So 20 years after. Then in 2009, there was the Easter flood. Staff came and approached the owner of the property, which is not very well, that's why I'm sort of filling in. Asked him for being able to take material out of the driveway to fix a canyon, emergency fix a canyon on the road. He agreed and said, yeah of course. If that's an emergency for tricking the road, go ahead. Just bring it back. Did not happen since then. So that was in 2009.
00:04:00 2015, some staff came and started to dig a drench between road and driveway. Bernard Yeager approached the police, and the police said this is a council matter. So he approached the council. And Tony Wellington at that time sent Bernard an SMS saying, staff has determined that work in the road is not being undertaken by council. So who was that? Question. In 2017, I was here for a few months. In Australia. And when I told me that this is not coming to a resultment. So I said okay, maybe I can try and get in contact with the council.
00:05:00 And that was when the first time I got in contact with Frank Wilkie. I rang him and two days later he was up there and had a look. Thank you. So we discussed the situation with the driveway. Words like tilt and camber come into play because the tilt has been changed. And when tilts of roads are going to be changed, that means a redirection of water. And every toddler knows water runs downhill. So it has a massive effect, what happens. And I consider graded driver as very highly skilled because they have to tune in. And it's maybe just a few millimeters to make a difference where the water is running towards. So then maintenance was a little bit on and off. And then in 2022, we had this millennium flood.
00:06:00 So in that region we had 1.5 meters in about three days. And the roads were quite good. But I didn't get the chance to talk to a grade operator. And they agreed. And it was a very highly skilled grade operator. Because the water flow was the right way as it was all 100 years before. In October 2022, I approached Frank Wilkie again. He came out again with Joe Teresevich. And I brought this ongoing issue because on and off. So there was still a gully between the driveway and the road. And brought other problems of the road to their attention. End of 2023, there were two new bridges built.
00:07:00 Millions of dollars. And I think it came out of the budget of catastrophic disaster. You have to tell me how that is called. Something. Money from the state. So it was late 23. On the 10th of January 2024, I had a meeting with the manager of maintenance, Alex Nibble. On the road. And pointing out there is a problem with a Ford, which is constantly overflowing. Because the green band is full. And I had a meeting with the manager of maintenance, Alex Nibble. There is a fall entry since 2022, which is like acting like a dam. It redirects the water back to the road. And he agreed in all that. We had a very efficient conversation. And on top of the hill, where the driveway is, he sort of said, we don't have to talk about this. I can see this. It's pretty obvious.
00:08:00 Yeah. If you have an eye and the skill for it, you know what's going on. Then in March 2024, there was an incident. It came to a court case. For an idea, it was not convicted. That court case was, in my opinion, totally unnecessary. But however, it was the case. And then April 24. So that is January. I had a meeting with Alex Nibble. And then April was maintenance due. And I had a meeting with the manager of maintenance. And then on the 23rd and 24th of April, staff has done really good work. Again, like it was. And it worked for 100 years. And we were so happy. So the driveway was not repaired. So this material is still not back. That's what was taken out in 2009.
00:09:00 But the road, the tilt of the road was back to as it used to be and as it worked. So that's what happened. This is what we want. A functional road. 23rd, 24. And then there was a day, Papi Kali Day, Anzac Day. And after Anzac Day, on the 26th, they came back and changed the tilt again. Redirecting water. 26th and 29th. And just recently, we got a text message from the council afterward. I'd met someone from Telstar. That in that time, the landline was destroyed. So what's going on? Why do they come back when the perfect work was done before?
00:10:00 This is what needs to be done. This is what needs to be invested in it. Who is it? Who comes and does the work? Is it the operator? Is that instructed by the council? Is there a supervisor who instructs what workers do? What happens with the quality control after performed maintenance work? This is all the questions I have. Thank you. July 24. So a few months after this on and off. Let's call it on and off. First it was gone. It was on. And then it was off again. We had, for almost eight months, stabilization work on the steep slopes of the road.
00:11:00 Eight months. Specialist teams. I guess that's millions of dollars. And at the end, that was February, March, when the top layers of the road were placed and the drainages, which I don't know who was doing this, a contractor or a maintenance crew. I have no idea. However, the maintenance. It was done. Resulted in severe washouts when we had a little bit more than 300 milliliters in three days on the 26th, 27th, and 28th of March. I'm not an engineer and I'm not specialized in roads, whereas I have to tell you I'm learning. When you drive this road up and down and I walk this road and I used to go by bike, by
00:12:00 push bike. Spending millions of dollars. And then the final bit is not done in a way that it facilitates the water flow. That we don't promote washouts. I don't understand this way of dealing with repairing this road. I do not understand. It has to be the last bit done. I don't understand. It has to be done accordingly. To facilitate water flow. That we don't have washouts. The road used to have no washouts before. So there was a very clever system of tilt, camber, drainage, pipes underneath. Depending. It's a windy, steep bit of the road.
00:13:00 How do I run with time? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You've got a little over two minutes. Okay. Juliana Fugler: So I'm asking you, please take action. Because it affects our mental health. In the meantime, my mental health as well. It consumes my life. This is my day off. On Thursday I will be here as well. This is the day I take leave. I would like to go for maybe a beach walk like other people do. So please do not ignore this situation. Please take action. Please take action. Please stop ongoing erosion. Please look into repair, maintain, and sustain. Noosa has a reserve status. I was very happy when I read the Kabi Kabi commitment. And they invite us to tread lightly on this continent. Yeah. And I ask you to stop this destruction of this old road.
00:14:00 And to make it, you know, a new one. And to make it a road functioning as it used to do all 100 years before. And I'm asking you to, on the top of the road, to make sure that it's not separating the driveway from the road. And the big gully is there. And I would be happy if, as a resident, we would be welcome to provide feedback. And I would be happy if, as a resident, we would be welcome to provide feedback. At an early stage. To be part of prevention. Sustainable. Maintaining the road as it used to be. Because at the moment it's really going downhill. I hope this is not a dream. I hope it's come true. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Juliana Fugler: Thank you.
00:15:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we then move on to items in section seven. And the first item is, you know, the road. And the first one is a report referred to the Planning and Environment Committee. It's a further report on MCU 210110. Applications for material transduced, resort complex and utility bar, food and drink outlet, outdoor sports and recreation and club. Minor extensions with distance up hours at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa, Eds. And we have the manager, the director, and the environment officer. And we have the manager, the director, and the environment officer. Thank you to the 12 here to brief us and to answer any questions. So Patrick are you doing the overview? I am, thank you councillor. Speaker 5: I'll take a little bit of your time just to run through the history of this one and probably doing a bit of reading if that's okay. So I'll just go back to the beginning and the application was lodged in June of 2021 over land that is located within Noosa Springs.
7 ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7.1 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 (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) ¶
00:16:00 The site is split zoned, most of the lower part of the site is zoned tourist accommodation with the remainder of the site zoned recreation and open space. Specifically the site is approximately 38,055 square metres in area of which 23,447 is zoned tourist accommodation with the remaining 14,608 zoned recreation and open space. The site is subject to the following overlays. The land is subject to acid sulphate soils. Biodiversity of waterways and wetlands overlay, bushfire hazard overlay and the landslide hazard overlay. The Noosa Springs Golf and Spa Resort and most of the associated car parking areas are located within the tourist accommodation zone. Four tennis courts, residual car parking areas are located within the recreation and open space zone with the remaining area being generally vegetated. The site slopes from east to west with natural topography modified by a series of platform each accommodating the existing park.
00:17:00 Including building, car park and tennis courts. The application is impact assessable and was subject to notification 395 property made submissions were received all objecting to the application. The application was first considered at by council at the July of 2023 Ground of meetings and at that time the officer of report recommended that the application be approved. However councillors were not supportive of the application and grounds of refusal were prepared reflecting the decision. At that time the applicant stopped the decision making period which meant that council was not able to finalise a decision on the application. A further report was prepared for the Planning Environment Committee on 7 November 2023. At that time the applicant had not amended the layout of the proposed development, however provided several written submissions which included an analysis of the submissions made during the notification period, a letter from a solicitor reviewing the proposed grounds of refusal and a further letter from the applicant's planning consultant seeking to justify grounds to support the development.
00:18:00 On 13 November the applicant made another change to the application to include an extension of the existing clubhouse. The change was another change as it introduced a new land use into the application. This meant that the application reverted to the confirmation stage and no decision was able to be made on the application at the November round. A report considering the proposal including the other change was prepared for consideration at the Planning Environment Committee meeting dated 11 June 2024 and at this meeting the matter was referred to the General Committee meeting. At the General Committee meeting it was agreed to defer the matter to a future meeting round as the applicant requested to extend the decision making period so it could enter into meaningful discussions about changes that might be made to the proposed resort hotel that are reasonable to address any valid planning concerns that councillors might also have about the development.
00:19:00 On 27 February this year the applicant made a minor change to the existing application reducing the proposal from a 106 bedroom resort to a 69 bedroom resort. In a letter supporting the amended application the applicant advises, amongst other things, that the minor change stems from an extension of the proposed development. The second change is that the proposed development will be extended to the recreation and open space and partly to the biodiversity waterways and wetlands overlay towards the east of the site. The changes being made to the development are detailed below including Pavilion 5 being removed from the top of the site towards the east with the stair and lift area reconfigured for Pavilion 4. The presidential suite amended from two deluxe rooms to two deluxe rooms with a reduction in terraced areas. Minor increase in the size of the amenities building which will provide wellness facilities that complement the recreation zone.
00:20:00 Change to the overall design of the open space areas with pathways and small deck areas provided. An increase in the size of one of the tennis courts so that it was an ITF pro tour sized tennis court and a reduction in the height of structures above the deck car park. The minor change plans form the basis for the current assessment noting earlier officers recommendations regarding previous versions of the development and noting the reduced footprint associated with the current minor change. The application is supported subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. The issues that are pertinent to the application are obviously primarily around land use being a split zone site. We have development that extends into the recreation and open space area in which the resort is an inconsistent use. The most recent change has reduced the extent of development within the recreation and open space zone
00:21:00 and it's also noted that the pool area has been decreased from 1157 square metres to 457 square metres in area. In terms of odour, an odour report was submitted with the application which was refined as a result of review by Council's external consultant. The report utilises accepted methodologies and our expert is satisfied that the use is suitably located within with the accommodation facilities located beyond the 2.5 odour unit line. Whilst parts of the redesigned pool and outdoor recreation area are within the 2.5 odour unit line, recommended conditions limit the use of the area so that it is not available for use at times when the 2.5 odour units are predicted to be exceeded. Notably, the buildings were previously 302 metres from the infrastructure within the sewage treatment plant.
00:22:00 They're now, sorry, they were previously 270 metres and they are now 302 metres, so an increase of 32 metres from the previous proposal. In terms of traffic and car parking, we have had an engaged traffic consultant who satisfied that the provision of 250 formalised spaces was appropriate for the initial 106 room proposal. The applicant has not reduced the amount of car parking for the 69 room proposal currently under consideration. There is also an additional 38 overflow car spaces provided, 19 in two locations, being 19 in two locations. In terms of bushfire, supporting documentation provided by the applicant and subsequent review by Council's consulting bushfire expert and environment officer have resulted in recommendations so that the risk of bushfire, from bushfire to the resort, was suitably mitigated. An emergency response plan including the evacuation plan was also provided and determined to include appropriate strategies.
00:23:00 The current proposal has increased the separation of the built form from the potential bushfire risk. In terms of biodiversity, through the year assessment process, amendments were made to the location of the tennis courts to preserve the map koala habitat vegetation. Officers were supportive of the intrusion into the biodiversity overlay associated with Pervine 5 on the basis of the nature of the vegetation in this location. The rehabilitations occurred throughout the site and the voluntary offset involving 120 koala habitat trees and 25 possum black bee trees. The current proposal has reduced the extent of intrusion into the biodiversity overlay. When considering the extent of the limited intrusion associated with pathways and the like, this intrusion has been reduced from 1,562 square metres to 720 square metres. Notably, the rehabilitation and voluntary offsets are to proceed as originally proposed.
00:24:00 The removal of Pervine 5 has provided the retention and retention of 38 trees that were proposed to be grievously removed. In terms of the tennis courts, they were relocated to ensure the protection of the map koala habitat. The tennis courts are situated on a platform above the existing car park, is where they are now proposed to be, and conditions have been recommended limiting the hours of use to mitigate potential odour impacts on users of the tennis courts and the hours of which lighting can be used. And also noting that one of the tennis courts has been increased in size. An acoustic review has also been undertaken throughout the process. That is placing limitations on when the tennis courts can be used. It states that the tennis courts are limited to two courts between the hours of 6pm to 9pm
00:25:00 and no use of the tennis courts after 9pm and 7am. There is a grease trap that needs to be extracted approximately once every one to two months. It's noted that the grease trap will result in noise above the prescribed background levels, more than three decibels. Our acoustic consultant is satisfied that this is reasonable based on the infrequency of the use and he's also proposing that a further acoustic report be provided with recommendations to further limit that impact. Some form of barrier, some form of attenuation to occur. The loading dock is an existing loading dock and it's proposed that waste is taken from. It's still proposed that waste be taken from that loading dock at the same frequency. That's every day for general waste and twice a week for recycled waste. There will be more waste that will leave the site than what is currently leaving the site.
00:26:00 It just means that the truck will be sent in more bins when it's there. In terms of site cover and plot ratio, the proposal as a whole is significantly under the amount of allowable plot ratio for the site. The tourist accommodation zone permits 15,240 square metres of plot ratio. The total amount that's proposed is 8,738. 3,000 of which is in the recreation and open space zone. Similarly, the site cover is significantly under the amount that's allowed across the site. 9,378 permitted across the whole tourist accommodation zone and 1,460 permitted in the recreation and open space zone,
00:27:00 which is a total of 10,838. 9,660 is proposed and that includes car parks and town escorts because those items are elevated, they've been included. The original proposal had some exceedance in building height. As you'll be aware, the topography is quite steep. For large buildings to come down that slope and to maintain the maximum height is quite challenging. The extent of building height exceedance is the same as what was originally proposed. The amended plans haven't resulted in any frustrations in the maximum building height. I think that covers, yes, that covers all the issues. And as I said previously, the officer recommendation is again to support that proposal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Ms. Councils, do we have any questions? Councillor Lorentson: I'll start. Unity Water. Why does Unity Water still strongly oppose this development
00:28:00 and what specific concerns remain despite the revised proposal? Speaker 5: Unity Water have made a number of deputations and written on recent letters to Council. Their position hasn't changed throughout. They would like to see a greater separation between the resort and the treatment plant because of concerns that an occupier of the resort will make a complaint, which will have implications upon how they manage their site and potential cost implications associated with that. Notably, the applicant has provided a odour report that has been reviewed by our consulting expert. And utilising the 2.5 odour report, they have provided a report that has been reviewed by our consulting expert. It's been proven that the 2.5 odour unit line, as being the acceptable line to delineate where development should occur,
00:29:00 are satisfied that the proposal is sufficient. The 2.5 odour unit line being the area beyond which it's been determined that odour won't be exceeded at 2.5 odour units more than 99.5% of the time. So, again, our consultants are satisfied and have made recommendations to conditions because some of the outdoor areas actually do go into and go beyond the 2.5 odour unit line. So, have sought that the use of those areas be limited to the hours, so that the hours when odour is most likely to be an issue, being in the early morning, noting with 99.5 percentile that the remaining 0.5 percent, I think, equates to 43 hours, across the whole year. There would be limited times on a daily or weekly basis where that might occur outside the odour unit line.
00:30:00 It's also noted that the separation distance of the building at 302 metres is larger or greater than some of the residents that are located within the oasis occupied by and standing by permanent residents. So, the opportunity for complaints to be made about odour is, in my mind, not exacerbated by this proposal with residents already within close proximity. Noting there's also recreation activities that can occur on the golf course and on the existing site that are in much closer proximity to the sewage treatment plant. A letter from Unity Water talked about 12 complaints over, I think, the last 28 or 29 years. There's no detail around where they've come from, specifically, and it's unknown whether those 12 complaints
00:31:00 were from one event, two events, were they from people that were within, walking within proximity to the site, and also where that there's a men's shed and a women's shed located within close proximity to the sewage treatment plant as well, closer than the accommodation that's to be completed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just so we can lump issues together, is there anyone else with questions around Unity Water? Yep. Councillor Wegener: I'm only going back to the original plan, prior to the use of Plan 2020, and you had a big development there that was organised, then you had ultimate development, you know, it was cut up. So then the 2020 plan, 2019, reassessed the area and said we want a five-star resort and we want it here, where before it was a much bigger property.
00:32:00 But I always can't grapple with the five-star development that goes on a biodiversity area on public-use land and is so close to the sewage treatment plant. And in the back of my mind, I'm always wondering, you know, perhaps, was that a mistake in the 2020 plan to actually allow a five-star resort there? Or what was it more assumed that it was? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The councillor, the question posed is one decision of the councillor, not the decision of the staff. Yeah. So, if there's not a question specifically related to Unity Water and other issues, can you part with me to think, if there is something specific you want to talk about, we can ask the staff and debate it? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question, Mr Chair, if I may. It relates to the ODI, 215 Comfort. Could you explain how that relates to the ultimate intended zoning for that parcel of
00:33:00 land, in relation to... Because the report says the tourist accommodation uses and open-space recreation uses are not intended for that property, are not cadastral. So, could you explain how the ODI is meant to determine the uses, is pivotal to determining the uses and the open zonings on that site, please? Speaker 5: That's good. So, at the time of the, the Noosaville 2020 coming in, and implementing the tourist accommodation zone, it was intended to have some form of separation from where the tourist accommodation zone would be, and where the tourist treatment point is. That was not defined by a surveyor, as a cadastral zone, to say the easternmost point is, and,
00:34:00 you know, a surveyor reference, to pin it down. If this, future applications, and this application have provided the opportunity for ground truth things to occur, as to where it's most suitable for the resort to be located. The tourist accommodation zone, as it's met at the moment, partially intrudes into the ODI line. So, the scheme says it's reasonable to have a resort within closer proximity of the sewer treatment plant than what's proposed in the current application. The current application hasn't sought to put built form in that area, accommodation in that area, and has maintained a suitable separation between the 2.5 ODI line. Mayor Wilkie: And, you're saying that already there are residential estates as part of this scheme, so within closer proximity to the sewer treatment plant, golfers on the course are often closer
00:35:00 to the STP, and you've also got the men and women shed in closer proximity to the STP than this current resort. Do we know if those complaints are the ones that have been made? Are they related to anyone from those locations? And if so, how are those complaints handled? Do they result in an upgrade of the STP? Speaker 5: Firstly, you're correct in terms of there being other accommodation and buildings that are used by the men and women shed, and recreation activities that occur in closer proximity. We don't have specific details of the complaints, because they appear to have been made to Unity Water, and not to Council. But suffice to say, there's no upgrades that have occurred that we are aware of, as a result of those complaints. And they have not advised us that that is the case in their communication as well. Mayor Wilkie: Is it the case that Unity Water have advised us that if there are complaints from this
00:36:00 resort, they may be obliged to upgrade their STP, and they will pass on costs to Unity? Speaker 5: That is the position. That's their argument? That's the position that they've taken. Yeah. And as you say, there's been 12 complaints in the past that haven't resulted in an upgrade to the treatment plan. They have spoken about the Maroomba. There's a treatment plan that required a $38 million upgrade in 2010. That was something that was being referred to in their deputations. That treatment plan is within 70 metres of permanent residence. I've sent you a document. I'm not sure whether you've got it. It might just provide some context. And just in terms of the complaints there, that stimulated works to that treatment plan.
00:37:00 So I might just get up, if that's okay. So this is the site that required a $38 million upgrade? Yeah. As you see, there's a, from infrastructure, there's a house within 70 metres. This line here is 300 metres. This is the separation that is proposed as part of this application. So in that, just showing you in context, the amount of permanent residence that we're in, proximity of the treatment plan that we are requiring for our separation. If you go to the next page, it just shows you the scale of this treatment plan. That's 53,000 square metres of area where the infrastructure is located. The next one shows that the treatment plan, if you just go around the infrastructure, is 22,000. So the scale of the infrastructure is much smaller on this site as well. So this is the Noosa SCV? This is the Noosa SCV, yeah. Speaker 3: And the previous was more on the Downs in Brisbane.
00:38:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. So just, again, I know you've awarded my deputation, so it's just important to clarify the difference between the two sites that they've been using as a benchmark, I suppose. Mayor Wilkie: That's all the questions I have for the meantime. About the odour, thank you Mr Chair. Anyone else have an odour-related one? Councillor Lorentson: I have a couple more questions with the unity water concerns. The first one is, under the environmental impact statement, section 3.10 of the buffer area, that was commissioned by Noosa Care, I think it was, I think it was, I think it was the council in 1995 when the sewage plant was last upgraded. And I'm reading this out of the letter that was sent to all the councillors from Unity Water. It actually states that the hotel guests, there needs to be a buffer zoning of more
00:39:00 than, sorry, within the 400 metre buffer zone that's required under the EIS. Can you explain or give this a little bit more context? Speaker 5: It clearly predates my time, and I don't have a copy of that document. I am aware through my review of this application that when Parkridge was approved, there had previously been a 600 metre buffer, and I believe that might have been in the scheme. And at that time, it was determined that there might have been a 600 metre buffer in the scheme, and based on the up rate that had occurred to the plant to go within that buffer, down to, I think it was approximately 400 metres. Again, as part of this application, we've had technical reports that have been prepared by the applicant, reviewed by our consultant, who are both satisfied, and Unity Water have not put forward any technical reporting, or undertaken any technical reporting through
00:40:00 this process. So at the moment, the veracity of data and information that we have certainly sits on the side of what the applicant has provided, and noting that the methodologies that they're undertaking and the principles that are applying are something that will be validated through the planning environment court. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if I can just follow up. Is it likely that those standard methodologies that are accepted by the court would not have existed when the 400 metre buffer was suggested? I would suggest that's the case. I would agree with you, yes. Councillor Lorentson: My last question in terms of just our discussion around contour lines. If Unity Water is correct, who will ultimately bear the costs of infrastructure upgrades if hotel guests do complain about odour issues?
00:41:00 Speaker 3: I'm not aware of the structure of the Unity Water. Yeah. Look, I guess it's a difficult answer to answer that question. I think it's a difficult question to understand, because like any complaint that requires an investigation, there's relevant factors and circumstances that need to be considered. As Patrick's alluded to, they've already received 12 complaints over since 1997, so 28 years. We aren't aware if that's resulted in any changes to their operation. So it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll have to make any amendments or changes to their operation. I guess they've come down to the fact that they'll have to make any changes to their operation and whether there's a failure from the licensee's perspective. And I guess, again, based on our position is we've had technical experts review this thoroughly and robustly, and we feel comfortable that the scientific assessment that's been undertaken through this process is robust enough to withstand complaint.
00:42:00 And if complaints are made through to Unity Water or through the regulator, they'll have to be able to look at the information that's been presented as part of this proper report and give way to that as part of their investigation. Councillor Lorentson: I don't know whether the Chair will allow this question, but we have referenced the $38 million upgrade down in Brisbane. Who bore the costs of that? Speaker 3: I'm not aware, but I assume it would be Unity Water who had to do that upgrade as part of a regulatory action by the State Government, I would assume. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I have a follow-up question to that then, please. When that upgrade was done, and this might be a question on notice, but was there then an increase to the entire Shire on the Unity Water cost to residents after that upgrade? Is there any way we can find that out? Speaker 3: But we haven't got that information specifically from Unity Water, and I guess it's a bit more
00:43:00 of a private matter for them in terms of how they passed on those costs. But obviously, it's part of a regulatory action. Given local governments are shareholders of Unity Water, they will probably have to rely on some of that. We need to also consider, again, what the historical circumstances were. Was the plant required for an upgrade? What was decision-making around the residential location of the proximity to the plant? There's a whole range of different factors, and that would have been probably worked through through a thorough investigation. Very hard to try and draw exact similarities between the two. I think the key takeaway is, from Patrick's comments, is that the circumstances on that site in Brisbane was significantly different to this one. That was a distance of 70 metres to where permanent residents were residing. This is proposed for a resort development, which involves temporary occupation, and is
00:44:00 consistent with the land use intents that Council has endorsed for that particular site. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Great. And we've exhausted that line of questioning. Is there any other questions that Councillors have? Councillor, do you want to? Councillor Finzel: Yes, through the Chair. In the correspondence we received from CEOs this morning, the concern seems to be that the combination of enforced reverse amenity and the potential increased ODA complaints could result in legal action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution, costly plant modifications and financial loss, resulting from illegal action. I know we've got a process that guests that have been conditioned can go to the hotel in a different way. What is the risk to Council through a civil case against even Council for approving this application? Speaker 3: My only comment would be that Council has based their assessment under the Planning Act based on the information lodged by the applicant
00:45:00 and we've robustly assessed that through an independent qualified expert who would likely be in the situation to support us in making a decision through a legal process anyway. So we've got a robust assessment undertaken from a qualified expert and that's the normal process you would undertake to evaluate the risk and whether or not the applicant is deemed appropriate. We've demonstrated their obligation under the Planning Act to provide technical material to assess against the relevant scheme provisions. Speaker 5: And just to reinforce the point from before, the tourist accommodation zone again goes into the photo buffer line. So our scheme has got to keep saying the resort is a consistent use in the tourist accommodation zone
00:46:00 and seeking that kind of development in the tourist accommodation zone and we've mapped it so that it actually intrudes into the buffer. But this application doesn't seek to develop the accommodation in that area. It's pulling the buildings away from that area. So I think it shows that due diligence has been done by the applicant and that they've responded to the reporting that's been undertaken by the consultants and reviewed by our consultant as to the suitable location for the building in terms of ODA. Speaker 3: It's also worth pointing out that Unity Water did not make any submission. Councillor Finzel: That was my next question through the Chair. What's the risk because there was not a properly formed submission made by Unity Water? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The legal aspect in the Planning Act is they can't appeal. Councillor Lorentson: They can't be added. They can't become submitters to the appeal.
00:47:00 Councillor Finzel: Right. Okay. Thank you for the question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Other questions? Councillor Wilson: Just a small one on noise. In the conditions number 13, the noise limit, there's a limit past 10pm where the noise level has to drop. But at the same time, the swimming pool is operating till midnight. Is there a risk there that, first of all, that noise limit would be adhered to? But also, how does that compare with other resorts that have a swimming pool at 10pm? Speaker 5: I think the condition around the swimming pool was a response to the ODA impact. I think it would be logical to amend that condition, to pull that back to 9pm or 10pm. That would make sense to do that,
00:48:00 just to ensure that there's no impact. Councillor Wilson: I'll keep going with this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is it still on noise? Yes. Okay. Councillor Wilson: With the waste issue, if we don't have a waste management plan yet, how can we assess what the noise impact would be on residents? Speaker 5: There's been a waste management strategy that's been provided by... expert in that area. And that has been able to be reviewed by our acoustic consultant. The hotel will generate waste, and that will be brought by a cart, an electric cart, down to the existing loading dock within the resort, stored in a bin storage area, and then collected on the same frequencies as is currently occurring.
00:49:00 So the consultants were satisfied that there was no increase in noise impacts resulting by the same activity occurring. It's acknowledged that they'll be there for marginally a longer period of time. From memory of my recollection, there are plastic bins that are reloaded and that minimises the noise impacts associated with collection of those bins. Councillor Wilson: So the... There will be more bins... that might be there for longer but could increase the amount of time that residents are exposed to noise. Speaker 5: Yeah. I would suggest it's negligible, noting not aware of any complaints that are occurring from waste collection at the moment, and that these dwellings within proximity to the site are located adjacent to the resort drive, along which a range of vehicles will travel to, I think, approximately 150 dwellings.
00:50:00 So the dwellings themselves will generate quite a lot of vehicle and also the different trucks that will be accessing that site, the maintenance and deliveries, and also garbage collection as well. So it's certainly not a matter of significance in terms of anything. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other noise-related questions? Okay. Any other topics or questions? No. Mayor Wilkie: I had a question in the report. You mentioned that there are 120 koala habitat trees to be planted as an offset. But could you explain, there's... This latest version of the application doesn't involve repairing koala habitat trees but there will still be an offset provided. Could you explain how that's come about, please? George, I think we're all going to go... There's a bit of history here that we might... Speaker 5: Yeah. In relation to the first application, Mayor Wilkie: the first design... Speaker 5: In its original form, the application was going to only construct
00:51:00 three tennis courts and they were going to be in an area that was mapped as koala habitat area and the matter was referred to the state consideration and the state was satisfied that they'd be removed and that a financial offset be paid, I think it was approximately $15,000. However, it was also in our biodiversity overlay area and we're wanting to make sure that we're mindful of the koala habitat values and we were not supportive of the tennis courts being located in that area and hence why the tennis courts have been relocated. There's now four tennis courts in response to submissions that were made and that area is now to be retained and protected through rehabilitation. Through the process, when Vivian 5 was proposed to be removed and there's vegetation removal that was to occur there, the applicant was proposing some offsets
00:52:00 of the koala habitat trees, 120 and then 25 black feed trees to be provided in locations on the golf course. They were reviewed, those locations were reviewed also to ensure that there's no enhanced bushfire risk associated with their planting and there's not and so that's... It's a voluntary offset at this stage. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Not required because of clearing the koala habitat. That is correct. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Other questions? Just in terms of the emergency response plan, again, we received emails from residents concerned or not having enough time to adequately provide objective input into the bushfire management plan they've raised quite a few concerns in terms of traffic and parking in particular
00:53:00 because they raised this last time the application came to council. They've made a request that should the application be approved the ERP should be reviewed and signed off by the emergency services and there's, you know, I think two... Last week staff put together an information survey for the ERP session and their concerns around bushfire is very real and they would like council to... So my question is will there be an opportunity if the application is approved for the ERP to be reviewed and signed off by emergency services? Speaker 5: Historically that had been the case that council would condition that reports would need to be approved by the emergency services. They don't undertake that activity anymore. Pretty much since my time at council eight, nine years
00:54:00 they will not do that. We've asked QFIS to look at things in the past and they've just extracted themselves in that part Speaker 4: of the process. There is opportunity to condition that those reports are submitted to QFES for their records and that's something that we do generally on all applications with a bushfire hazard assessment or evacuation plan. So council does try to give that opportunity to the third party to have input into those reports and at least have them on hand so they understand what's occurring in the shop. Councillor Lorentson: So that can be conditioned in this report? We have conditioned Speaker 5: already been conditioned that they be provided to the emergency services. A copy of the bushfire hazard assessment report and mitigation plan and evacuation procedure
00:55:00 listed within the decision notice must be provided to the nearest fire authority is existing proposed condition 82. Councillor Phillips: I have a quick question on that. When was the last time we checked in with QFES around providing that sort of information? As I understand they sort of come into a different umbrella now with fire management with QPS. So I just want to know when the last time we checked that they still wouldn't be involved in assisting reports around this? Yes. Speaker 5: It would have been within the last 12 to 24 months. Director Walsh: The infrastructure Deputy Mayor Stockwell: vector is showing a lot. Director Walsh: Disaster coordinator with council decided the state of arrangements with QPS and QFP are in a stable flux while they sort out the arrangements. And I just wanted to note that they said
00:56:00 it would be a couple of years before they actually confirmed all the different arrangements . So, our advice on lots of other things, the SES manager and the whole host of questions are in the picture. But I think it will be some time before we get clarity on the changes. As yet, they haven't changed any understanding arrangements. I trust that assists. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Director Walsh: I'll stop looking Councillor Lorentson: at the parking survey. I think that was carried out in January, February 2022. Has council or the applicant undertaken any more recent parking surveys? I just know someone who goes to Noosa Springs, it's almost impossible certain times of day to get parking. Speaker 5: So, at that time, the survey was reviewed
00:57:00 by our traffic consultant. He is someone who's very experienced in traffic matters and issues in the court. And he often questions that he did in this circumstance the methodologies that is being used by the applicant to determine the suitable amount of car parking. At the end, he was satisfied that 246 car spaces would be suitable. The applicant is providing 255 formalised spaces and another 38 overflow spaces. So, far exceeding the amount that was recommended. And with the reduction in the rooms from 160 to 69 bedrooms, that car parking is to remain as it currently is proposed. So, no reduction in the car parking that was originally proposed and supported for the 106 room development. Councillor Lorentson: Can the developer
00:58:00 come back to council at a later stage and put an application for further development on the site? My question is, are we actually assessing the 69 room development that has no opportunity for expansion? We're assessing a 69 room Speaker 5: development and every approval can be sought to be changed or modified, increased, decreased if it's a right of approval holder to do that. At the moment, the footprint as to where the hotel accommodation can occur is constrained by the existing buildings that are on the site. Should there be a future application that would come to council, it would be rigorously assessed and all the matters that we've considered around car parking and bushfire or ecology would again be considered.
00:59:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might move the staff recommendation with a small addition, please. And the addition is B, that the zoning and the strategic framework maps covering the site are reviewed as part of the next amendment of the Noosa Planning Scheme to provide a cadastrally based boundary to the tourism accommodation zone and an amended urban area boundary to reflect the approved plans. Mayor Wilkie: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, as we've just been discussing it, the addition to the staff recommendation is aimed at reducing the potential for council having to consider further developments, which was one of the concerns expressed by the submitters to the original application. I don't think I need to talk any more on that. I do need to explain why I am supporting the development
01:00:00 where previously in the initial general committee meeting I moved for the refusal. And Cathy, if I could have attachment to figure one up and I'll explain why. So, what we've seen since this was originally proposed is the removal of the eastern most wing. The eastern most wing is closest to the resort drive and closest to the surrounding residence. We have got advice from staff that the area or if you can see up there where the orange is the tourist accommodation zone, the green is the open space. If you go down now to figure two, the change proposal. So, you see that eastern area wing has been removed. In that area we've been advised that there's 38 trees that will now be retained that weren't retained
01:01:00 in the original proposal. That area contains quite a number of quite mature eucalypt trees. I talked about in the email I talked about DBH at 30 and 40 centimetres. That means the diameter of the tree at breast height. And it also talks as was in the original report that the environmental consultant didn't rank the area that was either in the original proposal or this one as having high conservation value. I need to say that that is most likely from a biodiversity conservation perspective. There was mention of the Kabi Kabi commitment earlier on. And the Kabi Kabi commitment actually starts with the words welcome to Noosa a place of great cultural and spiritual significance. This is a place of shadows from the guardian trees. And that stems from the Kabi Kabi
01:02:00 title applicants what the guardian trees meant within the context of Noosa. And he said it's the high places with the cypress pines. And there's actually quite a few cypress pines on this hill that will be retained now. It's actually when I went and did a drive around it it was one of the values that I saw in it. It actually retains this place of shadows. I know when Park Ridge went ahead there was a bushfire buff around the edge which actually took away some of this mature cypress pines. It was one of my significant concerns at the time. So one of those things is not only is the separation distance greater but also what is coming back into
01:03:00 is mapped on the existing view of the vegetation and we heard in earlier discussion last Tuesday that the impact on that biodiversity overlay has been approximately halved. The other one is the development into the open space zone. For some years even before this development after our occasion came to council is that it was appropriate to consider I'm sure the chairman won't give him any extra time today was that where the initial disturbance on the
01:04:00 tennis courts was. So if you do look at that that actually takes into where the pool is. And then you look at where the tourist accommodation zone is outside the 2.5 line and you switch that up to where the extension into the open space zone is and you notice that the area is about the same. So to me that is a logical compromise that we didn't have the information about the 2.5 line at the time of doing the zoning boundary and if we were to look at the best place to put it we probably would have put it where the buildings are now. So I believe that it is a reasonable compromise that the staff advice in regard to the technical aspects of ODA is something that we can't disagree with and that the court is unlikely to disagree with. So hence the change of my position. Who would like to speak next? Councillor Wilson: Can I move the amendment please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You may. Councillor Wilson: Sorry Cathy.
01:05:00 To 9pm. Yes please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have a second? Councillor Wilson: I'll second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Phillips. You wish to talk to your amendment. Councillor Wilson: I'll just read it briefly. It's a minor matter I know but I just think for noise within the hotel it's the hotel and the close surrounding residents that would be prudent to restrict the pool hours. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question to be consistent. I know the debate between 9pm and 10pm occurred with short tail letting. The Carlisle Hotel did it have a time limit on swimming pools? If you can't recall is that something we can have available on Thursday? Speaker 5: I can't recall right now. I'm sorry.
01:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else? Look, Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to support it. It's not only a noise mitigation measure but my understanding is limiting use of that facility beyond 9pm also limits the likelihood that they may be also exposed to odour because it's beyond yeah that's my understanding so I think it's a wise amendment. Councillor Wilson: Sorry, I should say 9pm. Oh, thank you. I thought I already put that in. Yeah, Juliana Fugler: it disappeared. Sorry. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. It's one seconder. We've got a Mayor Wilkie: seconder. Jess for us. Councillor Wilson: Jess. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Anyone else wish to talk to the amendment? Yeah, I'm happy to support it if it turns out that other approvals have gone to 10, I think
01:07:00 we should consider that as well. Councillor Wegener: You said 10 but it said 9. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, no, I'll support this now but if I, before Thursday, I find that we've set the I think we need to be consistent. Mayor Wilkie: Question for staff. The reason, could you just tell us again the reason using the courts restricted to 9pm? Speaker 5: That was acoustic consultant's recommendation. So two courts after 6pm till 9pm and four courts. Yes. Does it Mayor Wilkie: have any bearing on, does ODA have any bearing on that decision as well or have NILs been there? Speaker 5: Those areas it was after it was midnight. It was similar to the condition that was proposed. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 3: And just to confirm
01:08:00 on the question from Councillor Brian, the Carlisle Hotel has the use of the pools are limited from 6am to 9pm. So consistent with Councillor McAuliffe's recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the amendment? Well therefore would you like to close Councillor Wilson? I'll put the amendment all those in favour. That's unanimous. We go back to the substantive motion. Does anyone else like to talk to Director Walsh: that? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah Mr Chair. I'll support the amended motion. This application has come a long way since we first saw it. I'm particularly in favour of the reduction in scale. Also the fact that the applicant has listened and has seen fit to amend plans to no longer include any infrastructure
01:09:00 in an area of koala habitat. But the offset that was approved at the time by the State Government is they've still retained that. So there will still be 120 koala for me because normally you're used to seeing very clearly delineated zone markings on planning maps. But the intent of this was that that site was to be the zoning of that site was to be determined after where the contour line was has been determined. So I'm pleased that as a result of this application the amendment of the planning scheme will reflect the intention of the zoning. Also note that there are already residential permanent
01:10:00 residential homes within close proximity to the STP in this in the surroundings and the conditions basically have gone a long way to ensuring that there'll be no odour within inside the rooms and also use of the outdoor facilities will be limited to drastically reduce the likelihood that anyone would encounter odour while using those facilities on the 43 hours of the year when it's it potentially could occur. I also note that there have been 20 12 odour complaints since 1997. We don't know whether it's from the residential areas that are already closer to the STP or golfers using the course which is also close to the STP than this resort or the men and women's shed which is also close to the STP than this resort.
01:11:00 I think we've taken all reasonable precautions in regard to odour. That said, it still has been quite an unusual and complicated and protracted process and decision and I'm I will support it at this stage. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question around what was triggered by the Mayor's comment around clearly defined zoning. It's a question through the Chair to the staff. When it came to the assessment, can you explain the hotel application? Was it then assessed against open space recreation or the tourism visitor accommodation zone? Speaker 5: It's been assessed against poorly assessed against the scheme, including those zones.
01:12:00 As an impact accessible application. Just to make sure. Yes. Councillor Wilson: And just part of what you said earlier that the it's inconsistent use of the recreation open space. That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion. I am not going to support the application. I simply can't go past the letter that we received by the CEO, Anna Jackson of Unity Water, which highlighted unacceptable levels of risk. Unity Water is a major infrastructure provider and a key partner in our regions of sustainable development. When an organisation of this size and credibility delivers three formal deputations to council and then follows up with a direct letter from its CEO to all
01:13:00 councillors, I, for one, am going to listen. My question is why would they oppose a law or risk that I'm prepared to take? Councillor Finzel: It's conflicting. I don't know how to impose it because we've been told by staff that there was no proper form submission. Can we well, I feel then, based on that, can we get this referred to the next meeting to give us time to find out off Unity Water, like, if they're
01:14:00 so strongly opposed to it. I fail to understand why they didn't make a properly made submission. I think, given the complexities and the high importance of this application, perhaps I'd put forward the idea that we move this to the ordinary meeting to get some further information for clarity. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, are you moving? Councillor Finzel: Can I? I'll just, through the chair, have to hear from the staff. Speaker 5: When the, so Unity Water, whilst in proximity to the site, are not adjoining the site, so they did not automatically receive letters that an adjoining landowner would have received. So, notification went out. We had a lot of people within proximity to the site make a submission. Whether it was an error on their behalf, I'm not sure. But, you, we, we can't go back. They haven't made a submission so they don't have
01:15:00 appeal rights. Certainly, we tried to engage with them through the process. We saw the significance of, of, the odour on, on the development and sought to engage with them. Initially, I had prepared a report to, to bring to council but, we delayed that report coming to council because the, the then CEO actually wanted me to pursue further conversations with Unity Water. They, they expressed that they wanted to have meetings prior to that point in time but they never got organised. We'd put the, the request out there. They never got organised to attend or organise someone to attend that meeting. We had better traction with them after the request from our CEO at the time, Scott Watters. And we, they did a, they got a consultant to review and you'll find that's in my report. Their consultant reviewed the report. They didn't do any technical reporting and have since
01:16:00 made deputations and written a letter with similar substance throughout. Again, not undertaking any technical reporting themselves. Mayor Wilkie: Can I have some questions, Mr Chair? You may. When you say I haven't provided any technical reporting, that's in support of their position. That's correct. Can, what, what would a technical report, what sort of detail and data would a technical report typically include? It would, Their own odour modelling? Their own odour modelling Speaker 5: of, you know, from their site, which the applicants undertaken. So yeah, to determine what is the odour that's actually emanating from their site at the moment and what might they consider as a benchmark or suitable level. Mayor Wilkie: So, would it be fair to say through you, Mr Chair, that Unity Water have so far just provided assertions not backed by data? Speaker 5: Correct. Thank you. And it might also, Richard, you might want to validate this, but the letter from Unity Water is not part of the common material
01:17:00 of the application. So, the material that was provided as part of the application has been publicly available. It's informed people's submission. The letter to councillors is, the applicants haven't had an opportunity to respond to that. This issue is, I suppose, it's not a new issue but we've covered this ground before but again, I don't believe it forms part of the common material for which the application should be determined by. Speaker 3: And in that regard, just adding to Patrick's comments, there's obviously when we look at risks from a Unity Water perspective, there's also risks for a council in terms of making a decision based on the information it has before it in terms of the assessment of that and risks of a challenge or a legal process as well. So risk is something I guess when we make decisions we evaluate that through the context of what we're assessing against under the legislation that we're required to assess.
01:18:00 So that's a relevant factor for us to consider and councillors to consider as part of the decision. Mayor Wilkie: So just through you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair. Clarify what the director Speaker 3: was saying. I wouldn't say that the letter itself I guess is ultimately is the decision in terms of what we're deciding upon is that sound and basis and then our ability to defend the decision or seek to ratify that through a process. Thank you for help. Clarify. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask another question just in Thank you. Would you be able to tell me if Unity Water have ever done deputations about an application prior to this? Because they did do the two deputations. I'm just wanting to know similar to Councillor Lorentson
01:19:00 about the weight that they not necessarily the letter this morning but for me around that they are a major stakeholder and they have in my opinion it would be a is it rare that they would go as far as doing a deputation and the fact that they have. So have they done that before for an application? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I might answer that because others haven't been here. Deputations are a relatively recent inclusion into the standing orders and no, they haven't. Councillor Finzel: Through the chair I'd just like to seek clarification on that. I think deputations have always been in the standing orders. I think that we've adjusted and agreed to the times given people longer terms. Can we Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can check but I believe in the time that the legislation was amended it might have been in the 2016, 2020 where deputations were included. Can I Speaker 1: Can I just
01:20:00 Councillor Wilson: ask the question too that that might be the case that they haven't made a deputation to Noosa Council before but I think the question was broader about do they generally do that? And I don't really know the answer but I think this statement was more about it seems a big deal for a unity order to go and make a deputation to any council. But would we know? Councillor Lorentson: Through the chair Can I ask a question to Richard? Would the correct process given that the email was received very early today would the correct process be move a procedural motion defer the decision to ordinary to allow maybe the applicant an opportunity to review the contents of the letter? Is that so just in response to your concerns in terms of legal implications what is the correct process? Speaker 3: Through the chair so that is one opportunity
01:21:00 to do that is to defer. I guess what I would say though is that the material put forward by unity order in this recent letter is nothing different than what we've heard through deputations in terms of material review is that they principally don't want development near their treatment plant. The reality is Council has endorsed zoning within that area already, so landowners, knowing that zoning is outlined for that intended purpose, have purchased their own land for that particular reason. So going back again on the technical elements, there's been plenty of opportunity for Newby Wood to provide technical analysis and modelling, just like the applicant and council's experts have robustly evaluated. To date, four years down the track since this application was lodged, we haven't received technical evaluation from Newby Wood.
01:22:00 So my personal view is that further deferral is just further time for the applicant when there's been plenty of time available for Newby Wood to provide the technical robust assessment for the applicant to evaluate, and that hasn't happened to date. So I don't believe that it would assist... at all any further to give the applicant more time because of the view that their response has already articulated that they've done the technical assessment and Newby Wood haven't done that. Councillor Lorentson: So to clarify, there's nothing in the letter that's been sent to us that hasn't been previously stated by Unity Water through their deputations and many meetings with councillors through emails and in person? Speaker 3: Yeah, correct. There's just a general... There's just a general objection to the proposed development.
01:23:00 Councillor Lorentson: And the concerns in terms of risk. Yes. Thank you. Correct. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'd still... You've got that clear. Well, if you want to ask a question, because I'm about to move, like I think for the significance of the matter, including, you know, the motion that's been raised by Councillor Stockwell today, and what's before us, I'm just thinking a bit more time for me to even go through this, and I don't know about other councils. Can we move the motion? Are you moving a procedural motion? Not a procedural, just to move it because of the significance of the matter. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. To... At an ordinary meeting, you need to move a procedural... Councillor Finzel: Why does it have to be a procedural? Well, I'll partner for a minute on our council and... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just be aware that... Councillor Finzel: I'm waiting to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That the matter can be raised again at an ordinary meeting. It doesn't preclude further debate, but as we have heard all councillors' views around the table, it may assist Thursday night to...
01:24:00 Or Thursday afternoon to be moved. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to the motion. I'll approve it. Yeah. But it's very difficult. I feel as though we're pressured by lawsuits from either decision we make. They're both very... To approve it, we run into complaints from odour. We run into a potential quarry situation where we wish we didn't do it in the future because it costs a lot, and we wind up... I'm sorry. ...with a very expensive situation on our hands with the improvement to Unity Water. If we refuse it, then we will have experts that will have the applicants fighting us in court, and we'll be using our own experts concerning odour against us, which is a very tenuous situation. So, we're between a rock and a hard place, but I will...
01:25:00 I'll back it because... Okay. ...I think it's a very difficult situation. I think that a lawsuit is absolutely eminent if we... They've come so far. They really have, with the koala habitat. We have been getting... We've been making it much smaller than before. It's a very weak position to actually refuse that, as I feel. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak very quickly for the same reasons as Councillor Wegener. I'm going to vote against it. If you... Given that I just I can't help but think of long-term risks not to I can't help but think big picture about the potential of Unity Water having to do an upgrade and pass it on to our residents through a different means and I understand that that may not be exactly my lane but I do feel a real responsibility to hear I've really came in today to hear
01:26:00 everyone around the table so I could make a very informed decision and I feel like I have to still say I'm not prepared because of the risk that I feel is still doesn't sit well with me but I do appreciate where they have come and I appreciate what staff have put into the report as well I appreciate that the Councillor Wilson: applicant has made some inroads in reducing the amount of built format will be in the recreation and open space zone but it's still inconsistently used to have a resort in the zone we talk about defending the Noosa plan and therefore I want to keep strong on the zoning there and to be able to consider the relevant matters of residential Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Council, do you wish to talk about that?
01:27:00 Councillor Finzel: I'm just like if there I think there's you know risk of location on on either side of the argument I personally would like to have more time to like digest this but I don't know has anyone got any appetite I suppose I can put it the procedural motion to the vote to see if there's any appetite to to do that a Councillor Lorentson: procedural motion through the chair doesn't need to be seconded under our standing orders Councillor Finzel: I just feel like it's moved and seconded only the mover and the chair can speak
01:28:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: we'll just wait for that yeah we'll just wait for that yeah Councillor Finzel: I just think it's a really significant number I just think it's a really significant number Councillor Lorentson: it has to be seconded so I'll move it I'll second it thank you councillor Phillips Deputy Mayor Stockwell: councillor Finzel has to be given the opportunity to talk to you councillor Finzel has to be given the opportunity to talk to you so is that a deferral? so you have to move the deferral and the date Juliana Fugler: so is it deferred to 15th of March? Councillor Finzel: is that the ordinary meeting? I believe so yes I just think given the discussion around the table you know I personally am there's still a bit of further consideration to be made so just in terms of the significance of the matter before us and the
01:29:00 further consideration to be made so just in terms of the significance of the matter before us and the you know to also reflect the work that the applicant has put in to work hard to address the issues raised I would like to defer it to the ordinary meeting 15th of May 2025 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: and we have a seconder on that Councillor Finzel: a seconder question to the staff then does this pose any risk by moving it to the ordinary meeting? does this pose any risk by moving it to the ordinary meeting 15th of May 2025 in terms of the applicant? Speaker 3: no no still the ordinary meeting is the decision date at this stage so it could be deferred I guess I would say that grounds would be needed to be required if councillors have an alternate view to the recommendation so that would need to be put together as well after that meeting
01:30:00 Councillor Finzel: if that's the case is that enough time for the staff to put that together? if someone puts in a turn of action Speaker 3: yes you're based on feedback from councillors on their views yes you're based on feedback from councillors on their views yep we're happy to work with both parties on that basis yep we're happy to work with both parties on that basis Councillor Finzel: thank you no further questions Mr Chen? no further questions Mr Chen? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: sure Councillor Wilkie Mayor Wilkie: the question is this is going to the ordinary meeting anyway? question? yeah obvious and following up question to the director's comments if an alternative if this is refused grounds for a refusal have to be provided that could stand up in court is that correct? Councillor Finzel: yeah correct Deputy Mayor Stockwell: thank you So, I'm just looking. I believe in this motion only the mover can speak to it, so we'll put the motion. Those in favour? Go there. Those against? Okay. That is carried unanimously.
01:31:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Mr Chair. And apologies to the Chair, it does need to be seconded. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Our next item for debate is the Integrated Compliance and Enforcement Policy. It's referred from the Service and Organisation Committee dated 6th May. We'll have a briefing. Speaker 3: We're doing another duo. That's okay, Councillors.
7.2 Integrated Compliance & Enforcement Policy (REFERRED FROM sERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) ¶
01:32:00 So, Councillors, as mentioned at the Service and Organisation Committee, today we've got a report put forward for Council's adoption of the Integrated Compliance and Enforcement Policy. As previously outlined, the policy aims to enhance governance and provide a clear framework for Council to administer its regulatory functions in a safe, fair, unbiased way. And also to ensure the public's balance in a safe, fair, unbiased, balanced, consistent and transparent manner. Noosa Council is currently responsible for administering a range of laws and regulations as set out in the Local Government Act, including a Local, Wars and Federal and State legislation, which is principally designed around community safety and wellbeing of our community. And also that harm, including environmental harm, is prevented. The policy seeks to establish the best practice compliance approaches by applying the following nine principles to its regulatory framework. The policy follows a tiered compliance model, with enforcement action escalating based on
01:33:00 relevant factors to ensure a fair and just process, while maintaining discretion for officers to respond appropriately on each case. When determining appropriate action, Council considers factors such as risk level, nature and severity of the breach, likelihood of compliance, public interest and community impact and legal consideration. The policy was developed in collaboration with our governance branch, our branch managers and representatives of our internal compliance reference group. It's worth noting that similar policies exist with other local and state government authorities that undertake compliance and regulatory activities. As previously mentioned, the policy also addresses an existing policy gap we have and aims to improve governance and community awareness, and address risks relating to consistency in decision making and transparency. I think it's worthwhile also noting too, just based on some comments based at the last meeting,
01:34:00 that some key changes to the previous Sunshine Coast Regional Council policy from 2009, in terms of what's changed since that previous policy, which wasn't endorsed by Noosa Council, but was obviously carried through in terms of an awareness for staff, the policy obviously is more modernised, concise and more transparent. It provides and introduces new guiding principles and a tiered compliance model compared with the old policy. It clearly outlines key factors now considered by staff in making enforcement decisions, whereas the previous policy didn't. There's some refinement around the scope and purpose, expanding and updating the relevant legislative requirements, also reflecting Human Rights Act, which came in in 2019, and it's aligned with all of our updated policy documents. So if there's any further questions from councillors.
01:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: The Human Rights Act. Can you explain the process of review? My understanding is that the Act provides a framework, the Human Rights Act provides a framework for challenging decisions that may infringe on human rights. So if a resident feels that council's informant action has impacted on their rights, they can raise, this is my understanding and what I'm seeking clarification, how do they raise their concerns or seek review under Human Rights Act process and not through council? Speaker 3: Yes, correct. So just in the policy itself. Yes. So it actually requires what's called Human Rights Capability Statement. So it's talking about the policy is drafted, has gone through a process that's been evaluated against people's human rights. And so we work with our governance team, do a lot of that work.
01:36:00 When we prepare a report or material, it needs to be evaluated under the human rights requirements. If there's a separate matter and an allegation that human rights have been breached, there's a separate process for people to follow. This is just in reference to the policy is factored in human rights when it was being drafted. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Richard, just to clarify, I know this sort of document, we talked about the standing operating procedures, the SOPs that are coming, that sort of sit underneath this policy. I see you reference it in there. But when the road hits the rubber and it's online, can community access, sometimes I look at, I put my community hat on and just go how easy it is to like access how things link. Will this document sit with like a reference and a URL or something that just makes it easy for people to go this, because we reference it, standing operating procedures and like
01:37:00 how that underpins it? Speaker 3: Yeah. So look, standard operating procedures are internal documents and they go, they sit under this as essentially an umbrella. And they are more specific and relevant particular functions that staff undertake. The important thing will be is those standard operating procedures will need to adhere to this overarching policy. So it can't conflict with it. It just will provide some more specific steps and processes for staff to administer their functions that must be consistent with this policy. So we have a number of those already and they're essentially like internal operating procedures to help staff with consistency and clarity. More transparency in terms of how they're administering their functions. Particularly for pieces of legislation, they're very clear around what steps must be undertaken for council to discharge its statutory duties. But they're not externalised at all. They're just very much sort of operating instructions and procedures that staff follow.
01:38:00 So this is the public guiding document, I guess, that staff will need to follow and gives our community certainty around how we'll approach our decisions. Okay. Councillor Phillips: That makes sense. Follow-up question. Soon I'll talk about the roles and responsibilities for councillors. Prior to this document, is there any changes to the way our role as councillors steps? We stay away from operational matters. Can you just talk me through that there isn't changes to the way we do business as well and how that works for them? Speaker 3: Yeah. Correct. So councillors might have a different role. They might be aware that there's an existing governance framework that was endorsed by council, I think, in 2022, which essentially sets out the roles. And it does a range of things. But it also sets out the role of councillors. As I mentioned, a service organisation committee who are involved in strategic decision-making. And that operational-related matters are generally left to the organisations under the CEO to
01:39:00 administer. So it's really clear that the roles are separate between the two. So the role of the councillors and this policy. The policy doesn't seek to take away any current functions that councillors or staff undertake. It's just designed to be really clear around their roles and responsibilities. Because as we know to the community, they see us all as council. And sometimes that line can get a bit blurry. And so what we've designed to do with the policy is just make it really, really clear and explicit. It's already sort of referencing existing policies and procedures that are already in place. But it just provides some greater clarity for the community so that they're not confused when maybe thinking who can undertake what action or what's an operational decision versus what's maybe an advocacy or a strategic decision of council. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. I have an amendment to come. But I think I'll leave it for more questions at this stage. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson.
01:40:00 In terms of roles and responsibilities, Richard, is there opportunity maybe to add an extra sentence in there? Because I think the distinction needs to be made in terms of our roles, that we're here to represent the community, but that doesn't mean stepping into enforcement decisions. What I'd like is for the community to understand. My question is, okay, I'm going to pose this as a question. What are the potential consequences, legal or reputational, of councillors exceeding their prescribed roles in compliance matters? Speaker 3: Yeah. Through the Chair. So, look, there's a range of different elements there, and obviously with having an endorsed governance framework in place, that's really clear around splitting the roles for councillors between operational and strategic matters. So there are risks, and I'll say this from a community perspective, of the role of councillors
01:41:00 and operational staff. If there's mixed messages sent to the community members, they might be a bit confused and unsure of what the process is. There could be some legal consequences as a result of that, noting that we're all part of the one organisation. And if we take an action and there's been conflicting messaging or advice provided, that can have ramifications and prevent potential outcomes being explored. There's, look, potentially conduct-related matters, given there's roles and responsibilities are pretty clearly outlined as well, in terms of code of conduct and how officers and councillors conduct themselves. But I would say principally the biggest one would be around reputation and confusion and clarity for our community to understand who is the lead sort of area, I guess, to undertake those particular actions and activities around investigations and then compliance activity. Councillor Lorentson: So just for consideration, maybe, again, just one sentence or two sentences that we
01:42:00 can add to the report that actually explicitly states that there are legal, reputational consequences of a councillor exceeding or stepping into enforcement actions and so that community can... Good morning, Mr Chandler. Sounds like a direction. Sounds like we're debating. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Oh, I might... Can we have amendments? Okay. I might just think about it as an amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So would you like to move something, Councillor Phillips? No, you haven't got an amendment because we haven't got a motion. So you can move straight into yours as the originating motion, if you like. Councillor Phillips: And then make my amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Look, to avoid any confusion, Mr Chair, I'll move this motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So move the staff recommendation, Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder for that? Having a second. Councillor Finzel. Mayor Wilkie: I waive my right to speak, Mr Chairman. This was covered extensively last week. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would you like to move an amendment now, Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Thanks for clarifying.
01:43:00 I'd just like to move an amendment that item B to be added to read, that the wording in the draft policy provided at attachment one under roles and responsibilities, councillors, be amended to read, councillors, review and adopt council's integrated compliance and enforcement policy. Councilors may actively support and promote voluntary compliance through advocacy, education and community engagement. This includes encouraging understanding of relevant regulations and fostering cooperative relationships between the council and the community. I might take the word out however, and just for clear, councillors must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement actions. As outlined in council's endorsed governance framework, this includes but is not limited
01:44:00 to participation in investigations, insurance of penalty infringement notices, enforcement orders, remedial actions or prosecution decisions. These matters are to be managed independently by authorised council officers in accordance with legislation, sorry, legislative requirements and operational procedures. This separation ensures procedural fairness, protects the integrity of compliance processes, and upholds the principles of good governance. Do we have a second? Yes. Councillor Finzel: You can. Councillor Phillips: Sorry, I've seconded. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Okay. I'll keep this fairly brief, mate, because there's been discussion enough around it. What I'm trying to achieve is real clarity around our roles so that we don't, or in community, don't get confused with when we can't be involved. But also I believe that there should be part of this document is our role in advocating for
01:45:00 voluntary compliance. We're out in community every day and I believe that we do have a role in that community engagement and understanding there's this system that we can use to refer on, which we use, I think, around the table. We use it a lot to hand those matters into the right channels. And so what I'm hoping to achieve is just a real clear delineation between when we can be involved and when we can't. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Does anyone wish to talk to the amendment? Councillor Wilson: I'll support this. I think it's really good clarity in layman's terms that when a member of the public receives a compliance, it's a good thing. Sorry, enforcement notice that councillors can't override that notice before getting involved on their behalf. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question maybe to Jess or Richard?
01:46:00 Do we need to delete what's already been written? Can we have the amendment as an addition to what's already in the report? Is there duplication? Because I love the claim that it's a duplication. I think that's the clarity of Councillor Phillips's amendment and I do think it's in layman terms and when you go back to the purpose, it states it needs to be clear, but I don't know whether it should be in addition to instead of deleting the clause and we'd love your recommendation or advice. Yeah. Speaker 3: Through the chair, look, the amendment was slightly worded differently than what was originally proposed. I guess does a good job of clarifying and as Councillor Wilson mentioned in clear layperson's terms, I guess probably the previous wording was more technical. I guess the wording makes it really clear of what the role of councillors can do in terms
01:47:00 of promoting the work that the organisation does more broadly and steering the public into the right directions where they've got questions or concerns as opposed to getting involved in making decisions. And dealing with the particular elements of an investigational compliance proceeding. So I think the amendment has sort of distinguished the two roles really clearly of being involved in advocacy and education, but not being involved in operational related matters, which is dealt with by the staff. Mayor Wilkie: Question. The way it was originally written, doesn't it make it explicit that councillors should not be involved in advocacy? The second one says we can advocate on behalf of compliance, but doesn't say, make it specific that councillors must not advocate on behalf or represent parties.
01:48:00 I'm expressing, look I'll speak to it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that accurate, the question to the councillor? Speaker 3: I'm just having a look through that now in terms of what's changed. Councillors may actively support and promote voluntary compliance, so it's support and promote voluntary compliance for advocacy. So really the revision is only supporting advocacy for where there's promotion of voluntary compliance as opposed to compliance and enforcement matters. But in contrast with the original wording, which basically stipulates that there should be no, must not involve themselves in any advocacy on behalf of particular parties. Mayor Wilkie: I think that's an important distinction, so I'll speak to the amendment. I appreciate the addition, if that's what it could ultimately end up being.
01:49:00 We all think differently. And I think there's also benefit in the straight talking that's involved in what was there originally. Because it spells out, councillors must not involve themselves in negotiating and resolving outcomes with the grief parties, nor advocating on behalf of representing parties. And also councillors can assist, blah, blah, blah. And the second part moved by councillor Phillips expands on that and puts it in the more, I think they complement each other very well. So if this is approved, I would support a second amendment that allows the original wording to also be included. Because I think together it's very complete and clear. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask the question? Could we have a five minute break and I let that fall and come up with wording that everyone's happy with?
01:50:00 Yeah. Since now I've read it out. Or is that, I hear everyone's point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think, I think we can let it fall. Mayor Wilkie: What question, Mr Chair? If the mover of the amendment's in favour, we can just allow that to be included. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's more major than the standing orders. It's your call, Mr Chair. Councillor Lorentson: I think it's either way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The... Councillor Lorentson: We can... We can just chat. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can just do a subsequent amendment. We can still support. I've got a further addition to the concepts in one of councillor Phillips' paragraphs anyway. So I suggest we put this in if councillors want to put the staff recommendation back in. We'll do that as a second amendment. Mayor Wilkie: So what do you, what's your preferred outcome, councillor Phillips?
01:51:00 Councillor Phillips: I've, when I've read it out loud there, and then I was, the bit that probably I would have liked now I've seen it is also about the appropriate functional area. So there is a couple of things that potentially now I've heard everyone's point. I definitely want it to be clear. That was my, the point. So let's not... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Now you've answered the question. Yeah. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Speaker 2: No. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to support the amendment and foreshadow there'll be others coming. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Likewise. I go back to the purpose of the report is to provide clear guidelines. And I think that you've done that. But I would also like to see reinstated the original wording, which I think was actually contained different information and was actually quite clear.
01:52:00 And I think important information that the community needs to understand because our role is not in advocacy, in matters that are operational. And I think that distinction needs to be made clear. So happy to support understanding there will be further amendments. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I'm happy to support with the view and probably put some other wording in. Just like to raise, we have discussion at the SNL. We talked about understanding the community in terms of referring on. So I think part of this was to get clarification around, yeah, we can do advocacy. We can support that education. But delineating that idea of where there comes a point where councillors have to refer on. So I'm supportive of the wording before us. But I think maybe a little bit more clarification will be perfect.
01:53:00 Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think everyone, you said you didn't want to talk to the amendment. I'll hand back to Councillor Phillips to close. Councillor Phillips: To close quickly. I just want to highlight that it says support and promote voluntary compliance through advocacy. So that bit is really important. The voluntary bit is when we're out in community saying, no, this is our understanding because we know the intricacies. So it's about the voluntary compliance, which we spoke about in that report, being the most important thing we want from our community. And then there's those other steps. So that was kind of what I was aiming at. But I have nothing else to say. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll put the amendment, those in favour. That's unanimous. I'll move a subsequent amendment. Cathy, if you can bring up that little chat. Juliana Fugler: Do you want to add this in as well?
01:54:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'll move an amendment that reinstates the staff recommendations in terms of the clauses below the previous amendment. So I think it's good to start off with the positive as Councillor Phillips did and then put the staff wording below it. Okay. Thank you. And add the words after paragraph two as follows. And this is the... I'll read it out. However, Councils must not be involved in operational compliance or enforcement as outlined in Council's endorsed governance framework. This includes but is not limited to participation in investigations, issuers of penalty infringement notices, enforcement orders, remedial actions or prosecution decisions. These matters are managed independently by authorised Council officers in accordance with legislators' requirements.
01:55:00 Notwithstanding this, Councils can consider legal and prosecution matters as reported by staff through established council meeting processes. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: What do you mean by that last paragraph? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: When I read Councillor... Why is it necessary? When I read Councillor Phillips' outline of the positives of what we can do, one role we do have is when matters... I was thinking in the context of planning matters specifically that can go to two different courts. It's free to do. But it does get involved in the enforcement by making the decision to go to court. So it's just outlining that if staff think a Council decision is needed to progress enforcement action, then that is a role. Councillor Phillips: Question to staff. Does that come into this enforcement policy? I feel like that's not... The planning matters isn't what this document is set out to achieve. Speaker 3: No. It's all matters. I guess it's just highlighting that there are instances, and not very many, but instances where staff may report, and often it'll be through a confidential report on particular
01:56:00 compliance-related matters that have legal ramifications and cost ramifications. So it's not very common, but this would just reflect that there may be times where councillors may be involved in making a decision around potential legal or prosecution-related matters. So it's just not... Without it there, it's sort of absent, I guess, and people may ask the question of what that is. So this probably helps just to clarify in that legal context where certain matters might require a confidential report to council for a decision or information. Councillor Phillips: Just seeking further clarification. I'm looking at all the legislation that this refers to. I just... I can't quite work out when that is. I mean, that would come up in the 86 odd pieces of legislation you're dealing with.
01:57:00 This wouldn't come into Planning. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So does the Planning Act... I can't see it. ...be covered? Why doesn't the Planning Act be covered by this policy? Speaker 3: Yeah, yes. All, yeah, all legislation that we administer, yeah, including the Planning Act, yeah. So, yeah, the policy doesn't list every item of legislation that we regulate. As I mentioned in the report, it's more than 60 pieces of legislation that we regulate. And, again, the policy is designed to cover all of those different pieces of legislation. This is just merely, yeah, merely highlighting that there are some small instances where there might be reports in council where you need to make a decision or at least receive a briefing for noting as well. Councillor Wilson: Can I just question the wording too? I mean, I don't know. I'm just grammatically challenged with councillors must not involve themselves. And also, just from a community point of view, it's not necessarily that councillors would
01:58:00 involve themselves, but they might be requested to get involved as well, rather than just taking it upon ourselves to get involved. So, yeah, I'm not... If we could word that better, maybe. Speaker 3: Would it be, are unable to be involved in terms of... Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I think that's where the other day we were talking at the SNR about referring on, so that there's a point where we do advocate, we can do this, but at this point, our role then we refer on. I don't know if that helps anyone with trying to get some wording. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor Wilson, I think it's a valid grammatical correction, and it hasn't been taken in yet anyway. So, is that your intent? Would not be involved. Would be involved. Do we have a seconder for this version of the amendment?
01:59:00 I probably should have separated the two bits, but it includes the previous staff recommendation and the words in red. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, the amendment lapses for one and a seconder. So just to move things on, I'll try another one. Councillor Wegener: If I may, we have a question from the Chair. You know that I would like to... I bring a deferral of motion here. And I feel as though we're kind of sliding into this space that we get into at times where we're on the fly right now. Can I bring my deferral motion now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can move a procedural motion at any time you like.
02:00:00 Speaker 3: Would you like to? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wegener does. I'm going to just roll with it. You'll need to move the motion then. Councillor Wegener: I would like to defer the decision on this matter until a month from today for the next general meeting. I don't know the date of that one. And the reason is these are really important matters that really affect us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Excuse me. Yes. I think it goes to the general committee rather than the only committee. Councillor Wegener: These are really important matters that really, really do affect us. And when we start doing this, Do we need a seconder for this? I'm happy to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just looking at the word general committee meeting. And we'll stop. Are we happy that leads to standing orders? That's okay. Do we have a seconder?
02:01:00 I'm happy to second. Councillor Monaghan. Councillor Wegener: I think, Can I talk to it then? Yes. I think staff and most of the councillors are, are surprised at how once you start looking into this, it becomes really quite controversial. And we've cleared the immediate, but it's actually a really muddy water situation. I would like to actually have a workshop with this between now and then. And then Richard mentioned that this was in response to an Omnismen's report. And as of Saturday morning, we received a year long Omnismen's report. Concerning the bus stop espresso. But within. Order. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's nothing to do with this whatsoever. And councillor, you have been, you have been advised that you aren't to, to release confidential information in the public meeting.
02:02:00 Please retract the statement. Councillor Wegener: I retract the statement. My, my apology. Within this, this report that I would like to offer it on the record. Councillor Lorentson: Point of order. Point of order, I think it's acting on the record. And I think he's acting outside the jurisdiction of this breach of our standing orders. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so if you continue on this, you, you will be, will be of that, and. Yes, of course. Juliana Fugler: So the, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: the matter before us is a policy. It's not an individual matter. And the procedural motion you act could really only talk to the process of, the . Councillor Wegener: Well, I'd still like to make the procedural motion to defer it for a month, because I believe that we're kind of running on the floor here, and I think this is really important, and I would like further time to consider this. Councillor Lorentson: And I'll speak to it also. Can we all speak to procedural motions?
02:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, well, I was wrong. That's what I was reading before. It's only a dissent from the Chairman's ruling that doesn't get... Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I agree. I'm feeling a little bit... I don't support decisions made around this table without considered information, and time to digest the information. We're talking there are ethical risk and legal risk and implications that we need to understand. I'm concerned with just particular words, must and we should, et cetera, but I would concur with Councillor... Wegener would like a workshop to have some further discussion. This is an important piece of work, and I think there's still quite a bit of feedback and input around this table, and I don't think this is the correct forum to be having these actual discussions and information sessions. Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to it. I've gone through it with a fine-tooth comb and highlighters to make sure that today I'm ready to make a decision.
02:04:00 However, if I was in... If I was in the shoes, then I would hope that I'm supported in having some more time. So, for that purpose, I'm definitely going to happily have a workshop, and you can always learn more about legislation, I guess, so... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. Considering we haven't had a policy since 2014, is next month making any significant difference? There's no time and deadlines we're trying to meet here? Speaker 3: No. No, it won't. What I would say, though, is we just... We did have a workshop about this, and this document was circulated for more than a month, no comments were received, and, obviously, this has been recirculated with councillors, so I just would say that we have had a workshop and sought input from councillors on this particular report. But, you know, it's been 15 years since we haven't...well, 10 years since we haven't had a policy, so one more month is not necessarily a problem, if councillors wish to extend.
02:05:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, a question to Richard. I concur, we have had this report for us a month ago, but the amendments that have been made around this table have just been made around this table. And that's what I think the discussion today is, consideration of those amendments. Oh, thank you. Just the amendments that have been put in front of us, Richard, have you seen those amendments before? Speaker 3: I'll sort you out for good, Matt. Well, I think they've been made recently, over the last few days, so, obviously, councillor Jess's amendments and councillor Brian spoke to me about some suggested amendments as well. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Can I just ask a question? You may. Through the chair of the staff, they're not withstanding this, councillors consider legal and prosecution matters, as reported by staff through the established council and the meeting process, do you consider what's the value of having that included in the...
02:06:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, councillor, that's a result to an amendment that had lapsed, so we're now just talking about the motion to defer. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, but in terms of that, is that something we're going to discuss around the table? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, if the motion to defer is successful, then that's something we can discuss between now and the next meeting. Mayor Wilkie: I'll speak to the motion. As stated, we did have a workshop on this. We've had the material from the previous meeting. We've had the report since it came out 10 days ago. We are discussing amendments to that. That's the only thing that would seem to be contentious, and the council is struggling to understand the wording of parts of it, and that's good, doing due diligence, but I don't see why we need a whole month to get our hands around the wordings on the screen
02:07:00 before us. I think councillors can work... that meet, would like to, can work hard between now and Thursday night to understand the wording that's before us. I don't think a whole month is necessary. I would encourage councillors to use this time between now and Thursday to understand what's been put forward by Councillor Phillips. I don't think this is policy on the fly. These are quite... Um... From my perspective, they look like very clear amendments, so I won't be supporting it. I hope we can revisit this again at the ordinary meeting on Thursday this week, because we have had it for a good deal of time already, and as we heard, there was no feedback during that month, and the amendments are just the new material that's come into our possession, or, I don't know, our sphere of responsibility.
02:08:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilson, I wish to talk. Um... Yeah, I am of a similar view to Councillor Wilkie. Um... I think there is appropriate time between now and Thursday to review the suggestions. Um... I also understand staff's point that it was fairly well discussed and a good workshop and a long time to consider. Um... I also understand Councillor Phillips at the workshops, et cetera, and has turned it into the positive, which would lead me to... You know, think about, well, we're going to say what we can do rather than what we can't do. What else hasn't been lifted? But it... Whether that red goes in or not, it's not germane to the policy. But, um... I think I won't support it on the basis that I believe there is sufficient time between now and Thursday to get our collective heads around it.
02:09:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Did you have any... No one else? Councillor... Councillor Phillips: Have I spoken to the procedural motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did not. You might have only asked a question. Councillor Phillips: I did speak to it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Wegener: I would like to close. This is our job that we're talking about. This is what we do and I... I'm feeling chilled by it, I did when I first read it on the Council of Responsibilities. I was very, very chilled, chilling the definition of unlawful, and I'm glad that that's been dropped out, but I think that there's a lot of unpacking to do, and I think we actually need to actually brainstorm around the table to think about this, because I think that we might be limiting ourselves, and I won't go into any examples, but I think that we are potentially limiting ourselves. I would just love to think that this is, and of course we have an Ombudsman's report. I don't know if it's confidential. I don't believe it's confidential, but in the report itself, it mentions that there's lots of things to discuss in the findings that came about over the last year, and we haven't discussed them, and I'm a little bit hesitant on supporting a plan when this has not been impacted, and I don't think we can impact it by Thursday.
02:10:00 I don't see us getting together, having a meeting, having this brilliant minds around the table, hashing through our job description. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I ask a question? Councillor Phillips: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: He's closed the debate, so now all we can do is vote on it. Those in favour of the deferral motion for one month, that's Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson, Phillips, and Wegener. Those against, I think it might be in Stockwell that the deferral motion is carried. I think we've been going for long enough. But we need to go back. I mean...
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.
7.3 NOOSA RIVER RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITIES - UPDATE (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 6 MAY 2025) ¶
02:24:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, welcome back. Before we proceed to the next item, I do wish to just clarify an element that came up in the last debate when it inquired about whether the Director had seen the amendments. He did mention that he had seen the one from me, but it wasn't to infer that other councils had seen it. It was something that I had put to him, and it was only one minute before the meeting when I realised that it hadn't been circulated. That was just because of the timing issue that I was responding to.
02:25:00 We move on to item 3 in section 7, and that's the Noosa River Recreational Boating Facilities Update, and we have the Director of the Infrastructure, Shaun Walsh, here to give us an overview. Director Walsh: Good afternoon, Councillors. This report provides an update on the progress of recreational boating facilities in the Noosa River in response to the Maritime Safety Queensland Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecast from 2022. Progress, although limited, has been made on defining scope at three facilities, including the Noosa Woods Jetty, the Noosaville Boat Ramp, and the Hilton-Espenard-Tewantin-Doonella Bridge Boat Ramp. In addition, Council has been advised that funding is likely to be made available via Maritime Safety Queensland for recreational boating facilities on the Noosa River in the near future. And I'd like to actually throw to the CEO for an update on recent conversations with the General Manager for Maritime Safety Queensland on the status of that funding. Speaker 1: So, Councillors, I've had a catch-up with the General Manager, Kel Dhillon, as late as this morning about this.
02:26:00 So, his understanding is that $2.5 million is a commitment by the government, so he's now to become available to us. We've agreed that we'll sit down. He's got a few family issues at the moment. So, we've agreed that he'll come up to Noosa and we'll sit down and work through what that means, what it looks like. But it does look like that it's going to be available on land as well as in water. So, it's something that we can work towards in terms of – he's also certainly very cognisant of members of the community who have desires to have a particular area or area as the prioritised landing area or ramp, and that's something that we'll work through with him.
02:27:00 But the money is available. How it's used, how it's utilised, the management of that is something that we'll work through when it comes up here in a couple of weeks' time. Director Walsh: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I welcome questions, Councillors. So, we've got any questions? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: My first question is the report in front of us. Was that a direct response to a notified motion that was ratified in Council in October 2024? Director Walsh: The report was brought forward as a response to that notified motion, but work was ongoing from the report presented to Council in 2023. For instance, prior to that notified motion in October 2024, the brief for the Noosa Woods jetty had been released with a consultant who were working actively on the Noosaville boat ramp. And there was starting to be some early consideration of the Lake Doonella boat ramp. So, that's why I was pleased to actually bring forward the progress report because some progress had been made.
02:28:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. When I referred back to the notified motion, there were other actions that were identified in the notified report that weren't identified in the report in front of us. Can I ask, will there be, will there be later reports that will look at including some of the aspects that were omitted in the notified motion in future reports? Director Walsh: I don't consider the report actually omits those matters. It doesn't address it in detail. But, for instance, if we look at the notified motion from October 2024, it references the Thomas Street, Noosaville parking improvements and walkway repositioning. That's actually been considered in the Noosaville foreshore infrastructure master plan. Which will be coming to council at next month's meeting. Which has already been subject to significant debate.
02:29:00 In regard to item B, the Tewantin Lake Street parking enhancement installation for new floating walkway. That's referenced under the heading of Lake Street boat ramp and noting the need for a significant master plan to reconcile all the competing issues in that area. And that can certainly be considered as part of that master plan. In regard to the Hilton Esplanade Tewantin construction of a new two-lane facility. That's referenced again in the report on Hilton Esplanade Tewantin boat ramp. And the thought process that we have actually made an allocation for a forward planning and design budget allocation to advance design concepts. And that certainly will require further consideration by council and the community. The Noosaville Woods replacement of the jetty with the pontoon. That again is referenced under the Noosaville Woods heading as being a commission that's being underway at the moment. And that will be considered in that report. And then in regard to shortfalls and trailer parking. That's actually referenced in regard to Noosaville. And that will be coming up to council as part of the parking management plan.
02:30:00 And council's already had two workshops concerning the parking management plan. And the next iteration of those workshops is about the local area parking plans. Which includes recommendations on trailer parking at Noosaville. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I was referring specifically to A, from the notified motion that the report focuses on high priority recommendations made by the state in the 2022 Noosashire recreational boating facilities demand forecasting study. And I just, and this is not, this is a conversation. I'm not pulling you up or anything. But I just note in the report in front of us that is that we haven't considered like the top three or we haven't considered bits and pieces of the priority actions that were in the report. In the 2022 forecasting demand. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This is a critique of staff work, not a question. Okay, so no worries.
02:31:00 I'll let everyone speak. And I'll just come back to you with a couple of questions. Director Walsh: If I could clarify, that's why in the report, it also includes council's resolution with respect to June 2023. And that under 5.4 as well on that page of the report outlines council's resolutions with respect to the findings of the. Maritime Safety Queensland recreational and the report responds to that. So if you like, I'm actually responding to the previous council resolution and the previous council resolution gave direction to staff about what facilities to focus on. Councillor Lorentson: No worries. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I follow up on that one because it might be one that I've missed. In that resolution, did we talk about the existing jetty? A being converted to a pontoon and B being open to commercial and public jetty type uses? Director Walsh: The Maritime Safety Recreation Facility Study merely focused on the ability for deep draft vessels to actually pull into a jetty and or pontoon at Noosa Woods.
02:32:00 It did not reference whether it was used for commercial or public or other uses. It was more about recreational boating and the desire or the need for facilities which Deputy Mayor Stockwell: allow vessels with deep hulls. So if I can, the MSQ report recommended a site where the old Surf Life Savings Shed used to be, which is something that's been a concept that's been around for decades or more. In our options study, are we looking at a range of options or are we just looking at the existing jetty which is generally used for recreational and fishing? Director Walsh: So our council actually scheduled a session tomorrow at its discussion forum to give an update on where we're at with that draft study and it actually looks at three sites. Mayor Wilkie: A question, Mr Chair. The Hilton Esplanade, Tewantin, Dunell and Boat Ramp, you've mentioned there's a funding allocation in the budget coming up for design. Probably a question to the CEO. The $2.5 million allocation announced by the Transport Minister, Brent Mickelberg,
02:33:00 for on land and also waterside, is it on land and waterside? How will we see fit? Speaker 1: Currently, it says, this is verbatim, it says from the letter that I haven't witnessed, but this is my understanding, is $2.5 million. $2.5 million is boating infrastructure on Noosa River. Okay, that's extended. Mayor Wilkie: All right. So if we wished, we could use it to, for the design of the Dunell Street boat ramp? Yes. If we chose to, and perhaps even part of the construction? Speaker 1: My understanding is that MSQ have already done a concept of that particular site. Yeah. But I don't know what detail or what it actually includes. And they're quite aware that they haven't considered all of the environmental and eco issues that may be outside. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to clarify, Councillor Wilkie was talking about if we choose. If we choose. Is it my understanding that we may be consulted, but the decision will be one for the State Government?
02:34:00 In terms of where the funding is used? Speaker 1: Not at this point in time. Again, it just talks to boating infrastructure on Noosa River. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's not. It's not. Mayor Wilkie: Is it an allocation to Noosa Council to use as they see fit for boating? Speaker 1: Again, until I get clarification, I don't know. Councillor Lorentson: So can I ask a question? There was quite a bit of advocacy from the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance and also former State candidate and our former Mayor, Clare Stewart. Can I ask how much weight does that advocacy, because they were quite specific about where the $2.5 million fund is going to go? Is that relevant or is it not? So they actually broke down. The $2.5 million wasn't just plucked out of the air. It was actually put down $1.2 million for landside works, $1.3 million for waterside works,
02:35:00 and then they actually broke that down in terms of location and works. They provided a cost. They provided a cost breakdown to the Liberal Party. Does that carry any weight? Director Walsh: So Council staff weren't involved in any of those submissions and those costings, so I can't verify the accuracy or other of those costings. I will note that in addition to representations made by those parties, Council staff were also making representations to MSQ about onshore funding, and that's consistent with Council's resolution from June 2023, where there's actually a specific item. See about Council staff seeking discussions of increased funding from MSQ to fund onshore components of the break-ground facilities, because as outlined in that report, MSQ traditionally only fund over-water components on these type of facilities. So Council staff were also advocating for the MSQ to fund over-shore. So if you like, I think it's a combination of both political advocacy in the lead-up
02:36:00 to the state campaign, advocacy by particular community groups, as well as representations by staff to actually get a piece of the funding puzzle. So Council staff haven't been involved in any prioritisation of any side, and I think that still requires a further Council discussion and decision exactly about where Council perceives the priority for that investment is. Councillor Lorentson: And will that involve community consultation with key stakeholders? Director Walsh: We can. Again, we're still trying to get our head around the scope of the funding and what we can use it for. I'm still critically concerned for any co-contribution that Council needs to make in terms of staffing and co-contribution for design and infrastructure costs. We're running a very lean budget. There's no funding allocated for co-contribution. So that's why I'm sort of hedging my horses, if you like. I don't want to get too excited by this announcement until I've got much better clarity around the scope and the terms, because it's usual that the state government would have
02:37:00 terms around funding agreement, such as co-contribution, and being very specific about what we can spend the money on. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the jetty, I think on 20 June 2024 at public question time, a question was put to Council in terms of whether the $933,000 raised in our sustainable transport levy could be used towards the Noosa Woods jetty. Can you provide – can it be used towards the Noosa Woods jetty? And I'm just trying to reference again the response given to – Point of order. Councillor Wilson: That was answered at the meeting. And we're talking about operational expenses versus capital? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can't – I think it is – it is directly relevant.
02:38:00 Yeah. Yeah. I think – yeah. I think in terms of – is it – we're talking about progress. It relates to the progress, whether there'd be an option. And it did relate to statements by the Director in regard to budgetary limitations. So I think I'll accept it. Director Walsh: My recollection, which would be consistent, is the sustainable transport levy is meant for public transport and reduction of road congestion. So – and I suspect that that public question was – might have been focused more about commercial jetties. And I think I might have been concerned or maybe I said that use of the transport levy can't be used for commercial businesses and commercial purposes. Though, you know, we could certainly look at exploring its use for public transport as a congestion reduction. And we have to remember that the Noosa River Ferry kindly, which runs a fantastic service, is a commercial operator rather than a recognised TransLink public transport operator subsidised by the Queensland rate payer or taxpayer. So the circumstances are a little bit unusual in the Noosa River. I'd note that Council actually have a structured – a scheduled workshop in coming weeks about
02:39:00 use of the sustainable transport levy and projects to focus on in the next two years. And that would be a very good topic to discuss further at that workshop. Councillor Lorentson: So just to clarify, the $2.5 million election pledge by the LNP was or wasn't specifically for voting infrastructure. Does it exclude commercial levy? Does it include commercial or tourism related projects? Director Walsh: Again, we haven't been involved in specific advocacy to the state. I can't say what it does include or not include at this point. I look forward to having formal correspondence from the state government to confirm the funding arrangements. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You mentioned that in the near future we're receiving a briefing on the current status of the options report around the woods jetty. Is there a decision timeline? In terms of what options Council may or may not go with?
02:40:00 And are you proposing to come to a future Council meeting with those options? Director Walsh: There will need to be both some further broader community engagement about the steps, as well as a formal Council decision about which option you may wish to pursue. And then that would require possibly funding allocation as well, which would require budget deliberations as well. One option could be do nothing as well. You have to remember that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We can meet our key KPIs on that one for you. Councillor Wegener: Council Wigner. Looking very long term down the track, maybe we should change our cycling strategy to a walking, cycling, and boat pedalling, or paddling, or you know, river transport strategy. And then when I look at getting on the ferry down the South Hotel, the question is, are we limited to the three places that we've decided where we're looking at having a commercial vehicle?
02:41:00 Director Walsh: No, but it was always thought that this particular study for that study area between the South Hotel, you know, the old surf lot, boat ramp, and the public jetty, would provide a good catalyst and understanding for how you could apply the principles of public transport, public recreational boating, and commercial usage in other locations in the whole of Noosa River. So rather, than undertaking a study that embraces everything, you know, we had some funding allocation to look at one site and get a bit of a better understanding of all the implications, and then we could make a decision about, well, how do we then start applying that to other sites along the Noosa River? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'm just looking, I'm just wondering if it's a consideration, how small the South Hotel is and the boat ramp, how tight that is to get in and out of there and do a U-turn? Director Walsh: Yeah, so firstly we just want to clarify that we have engaged with Noosa Commercial Marine Operators, which operate the number of vessels in that location, so that's their body. That is a very valuable facility, and they can make the manoeuvring work, so we need to be really clear
02:42:00 about what their expectations are. But in terms of the future, you know, there are challenges, and there could be the opportunity to expand it, and that's also why we've selected a specific shoreline marine consulting consultant, who has actually designed and overseen building of jetties across the eastern seaboard, so that we haven't actually had an expert, because in our team we don't have a jetty expert who knows how to operate boats and how to build jetties and the like. So that has been part of their brief. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Pointed question, I suppose, is my recollection is councillors haven't been involved in any policy decisions, but they're the broader impact of the potential enlarged commercial public jetties, et cetera, in that area. In terms of the scope of the consultant, would he or she or they have been given any indication about the desire to maintain the low key recreational use currently made in the Woods Bay area from the park to the existing
02:43:00 Director Walsh: jetties? So we've given them, you know, various documents and information, and one of the stakeholders, for instance, they also engage with Noosa Parks Association, who were instrumental in achieving the Noosa Woods open space and its conversion from Caravan Park. So they've been given that information, but their brief is to look at all options and pros and cons. So a very neutral, objective perspective to inform a council decision moving forward. Councillor Phillips: I have a question, please. I think it was mentioned at SNO when I asked for the deferral to hear, and I think you mentioned something along the lines of it's very uncommon to hear about the deferral, and I think you mentioned something along the lines of it's very uncommon, or that MSQ would give on land and on water, so that's why we waited for some confirmation today. And now, given we have more assurity that that is covering that, when I look at this report and it's looking at progress, at what point is there a pause
02:44:00 to say, well, now we have that information, is there anything that is progressing, that is probably uptaking allocated funds when you talk about co-contribution? My question is, at what point could we pause and go, we've got this funding coming in, we might have to divert to make sure that we can actually see this through? Because I don't think these opportunities come up very often, is Director Walsh: what I'm thinking. So getting back to your first observation, it is a different approach of MSQ to fund onshore, and if you look at their website, there's actually a link which specifies that the practice is for local government to fund the onshore component, so that's their practice across the state, so this is fairly unusual. In the event that the funding is fully released and we get to use it, as we do with our program constantly, we will re-evaluate where our priorities are, and noting that this also coincides with your deliberation capital works program, there's a workshop on Friday to deliberate that. So I think the timing is really good for us to
02:45:00 re-evaluate where we're at, what funding allocations we've got, and if we need to direct funds to that source, we can. And in the event that the funding, $2.5 million or so, funds design costs, well, I can reallocate the money we've allocated in the forward design budget to other projects as well, so we won't be needlessly spending money, our own money, that we don't need to. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask what amount have we sort of set aside for the forward planning and design Director Walsh: budget to advance the design concept? My recollection is $50,000, and you have to remember that because our design work is capitalised, that covers staff time, as well as any external consultancy work. So, you know, it's an allocation to allow staff to work on it, and any support consultants. Councillor Lorentson: So a funding allocation has been made, and will that be presented to us as Director Walsh: part of our budget deliberations? Yeah, so what happens in the budget deliberations is that you're presented with an allocation that varies between $400,000 and $600,000
02:46:00 for forward design budget, and allows flexibility to staff to apply some design work, you know, to emergent tasks as issues arise. That forward design budget is monitored through the capital works executive, of which there are counsellors and the CEO who are representative of that executive. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. And the design concept is for Hilton Esplanade Tewantin Donello boat ramp? Director Walsh: That's what we've currently allocated, and that's for 2526. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Thank you. I'm happy to move the recommendation. Move Councillor Lonton. I'm happy to second. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lonton. I'll just speak briefly to the report. Funding has always been cited as the main obstacle to us improving use of boat ramps and trailer parking. I'm excited
02:47:00 that we now have confirmed $2.5 million, and what a great opportunity for us to start progressing improvements in terms of boat ramps and trailer parking. I do want to acknowledge that the work of the staff, as well as our boating community, and also the former state candidate who campaigned tirelessly to secure the $2.5 million investment, specifically for boating infrastructure and not for commercial tourism projects. It was secured to deliver real outcomes for local boaties, more trailer parks, safer ramps, swash down areas, and better facilities. I probably just want to highlight, now that we've got the funding, we're making a commitment to put some allocation towards the design concepts for the Hilton, Esplanade, Tewantin,
02:48:00 Dunela boat ramp. I want to highlight that we have an essential boating infrastructure challenge. There are 36 trailer parking spaces for nearly 5,000 registered boaters, and there's a lot of work to be done to make sure that all of the boating facilities are safe. Trailer parking in residential streets is not a sustainable solution. I'm excited, and I think this is a really good, positive step in the right direction. We've got the funding, we've got a site, and in my opinion, we've also got a community mandate, or at least a preferred location site, which is the Hilton, Esplanade, Tewantin, Dunela boat ramp. Again, excited to see this progress. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, look, we've been very fortunate in this Shire since the election. We've had a Deputy Premier and the Transport Minister have great regard for the needs of this Shire
02:49:00 and this community. Looking very much forward to discussion around the design concepts for the Hilton Terrace Dunela boat ramp, what may be possible there. And also, getting an understanding of how the funding from the Minister for Transport and MSQ may be used to provide better infrastructure for our community. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll talk. There's been a couple of different elements of community debate. There's been one of the elements which my question would suggest that I'm interested in is the, actually, that the options down the Western Woods. And as we're having, you know, my yearning was
02:50:00 to actually identify a council position on that now, but if the report is imminent, I think it's best to wait and seek a further report in the near future. I don't think, I recall putting in the capital works budget and then saying, you know, we've got to get this done in terms of the design down here. I don't think councils have had the opportunity to talk about priorities around that Western Woods area. And I think that's important once we have the consultancy information, because I for one agree with the views that the existing jetty location and the beach around there is probably should be protected for residents to enjoy low key recreational pursuits. I think, I know when my kids were young, we were down there a lot and lots of parties and lots of teaching how to fish and not catching anything down there. And I just think that's an important thing to lock in. And yeah, obviously, in the community, there's a range of different options available. So I think we stick with this one as a noting report, but subject to the way the consultants come up with in our
02:51:00 briefing in the near future, it may be something we request another report from in the near future to try and identify what the council's position is down at the Woods. Councillor Wilson: Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Phillips: I'll just say I'm just excited when we think anything where our assets can be maintained or upgraded in every aspect, really, to hear that we've got two and a half million to go to an asset that whether you use it or not, is to me just on the broader scale, it looks like it gives council a great standard of, you know, it's our reputation around the things we own and the things or the assets that our community own. And so I'm just excited that there's potential that we see an upgrade to something that has been, from the long life I've lived here, community have asked for some upgrade to something they use and love. And yeah, so I look forward to seeing the future where we have this delivered. Yeah.
02:52:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to speak? I'll cancel the launch and do you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: No, I'll say thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I'll put it to the council. Okay, we'll turn it over to the vote, those in favour. It's unanimous, we move, thank you, Director Shaw. And move on to the next item, which is a report direct to the General Committee. And we have the monthly financial performance report. And we have Pauline here to give us an effective summary and answer all our hard questions. Speaker 6: Thanks, councillors. Good afternoon councillors. So the financial performance for the month of April continues to be positive, with operating revenues outperforming forecasts and operating expenditures continuing to be below budget at this stage of the financial year. Operating revenue is $2.2 million above budget and is being driven predominantly through interest revenue of $2.1 million, $500,000 from sales of goods and services, $458,000 from other revenue, and $146,000 from grant programs.
8.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – APRIL 2025 ¶
02:53:00 This has been offset by lower-than-forecast rates revenue of $174,000 and fees and charges of $728,000. Operating expenditure is $293,000 under budget, with employee costs $654,000 under budget due to staff vacancies, savings in work cover premiums, and the forecast salary increase that was to commence in March this financial year still not yet taking effect due to the ongoing negotiations of Council-certified agreement. Once that's over, we'll be back to you. That's finalised. That back pay will be funded through those underspends, and so the Council won't necessarily require an additional budget for that. Materials and services is $605,000 over budget, with $760,000 of that relating to civil operations, $234,000 relating to holiday parks, which obviously has associated revenue with that, and street lighting for $161,000.
02:54:00 Finance costs are $225,000. Under budget, and that's due to the deferral of the Waste Capital Works program to next year. Overall Council's year-to-date operating position at April 2025 is $2.5 million above budget, and this will be used to fund emergent expenditure through to June 2025. Capital revenue is $9.7 million above budget due to the timing of receding of QA disaster funding and SEQ CSP funding in advance. Capital expenditure is behind budget, $48.7 million year-to-date, with $15.8 million relating to our base capital program, and $32.9 million relating to the disaster projects, which are funded by QRA, with the majority of this relating to the timing and scheduling of project delivery. Council is currently holding $114 million, with $25.5 million in cash, however this will diminish through to 30 June as business-as-usual operations occur.
02:55:00 And the capital program is delivered. Overall Council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that might arise between now and the end of the financial year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions, Councillor? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. Colleen, my favourite question that I ask every time, about the interest that were made, that were $1.2 million in interest from QRA funding that's in the bank account right now. But surely that's not the case. I've seen with Black Mountain Road being finished and finalised, and I would suspect there would be a payment going to that. Speaker 6: So yeah, there is an element of QRA funding, but not all of it is QRA funding. There's a large component that relates to the capital program that's yet to be delivered, so we hold funds to deliver our base capital program. We also hold funds for unspent levies and other grants that we have, as well as some internally restricted subsidies that we have for waste, which is multiple years.
02:56:00 So yes, there is an element of QRA, but there are other elements in our cash holdings besides QRA. Councillor Wegener: You noted you said that rates and rate revenues slightly down, is that? Speaker 6: Yes. So what we have seen come through is that Council's Board noted that several years ago we had quite some significant increases in our UCV values through the valuation from the Valuer General's Office. We have had some amendments to those valuations coming through, as well as some changes to some classifications for transit reviews. So we will be looking at that to correct that through the next rating cycle. Mayor Wilkie: Just a follow-up question. You mentioned there's some change in transitory accommodation categories. Does that mean transferring from transitory accommodation back to non-principal places? Speaker 6: Correct. So there's a change in use of some of the properties when we've done the assessment.
02:57:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yes. So are we able to quantify how many properties are no longer operating as STAs? From this data? Speaker 6: I'd have to take it on note and see if I can get that. I don't have that at the moment. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And a clarifying question. There's a breakout section about Tourism and Economic Development Investment Summary where it talks about employee costs. Is that talking about Council's Economic Development Start? Speaker 6: Correct. That would be what that represents. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Ms. O'Longton? I note at the very start of the report the asset sustainability ratio is behind budget. A few questions. What factors have contributed to the asset sustainability ratio dropping to 66.3% instead of a target, about 90%? And does a lower ratio indicate underinvestment in our critical infrastructure or asset maintenance?
02:58:00 Speaker 6: So just in context of what that ratio represents, it is essentially Council is required to or is preferable that Council commits at least 80% of our depreciation to renewal projects. As you'll see, it accumulates over the years. So as we deliver that program, it will go up. We're currently sitting at 66 with our target being 80%. With the delay in our capital program, that obviously has slowed that down. So depending on the remaining delivery of this financial year, we will likely get much closer to that. I will note that we have not included any of the QRA spent in that, so we haven't skewed the numbers. But depending on the remaining delivery of that program or whether we hit that 80%. Councillor Lorentson: So you mentioned delays in capital expenditure affecting the ratio. Which projects are being impacted? Speaker 6: There's a variety of different projects that are renewal across the board. I couldn't necessarily specifically pick one. One in particular that's driving it. But I think if I refer back to where I mentioned the capital program, I think we're $15 million behind that at the moment where we would like to be.
02:59:00 And a large majority of that is our renewal projects. We pretty much dedicate the majority of our program to renewal. Councillor Lorentson: My last question is the industrial action dispute. Has that impacted on delivering some of these projects? Speaker 6: I couldn't comment on the delivery of the capital program. There may be some element of that. I'm not sure if Shaun's aware of the capital program at all. And obviously civil operations is different. Director Walsh: Through the Chair. Most of the protected action has affected, you know, routine operations, day-to-day maintenance rather than the renewal program. It's more staffing and resourcing that's affected delivery of things like a beach access renewal program and various others. And also just project delays associated with things like the Nella Bridge project renewal, which is quite significant in some. It's millions of dollars on that alone. So the previous report to the SMO Committee for reference, the updated capital works program,
03:00:00 there was discussion about resourcing moving forward to try and resolve that, you know, carryover up and under scheme. And that'll be a matter for consideration in Council's budget for 2020. Thank you. Thanks, Pauline. Councillor Phillips: I have a question about the rates in arrears. Compared to other years, is there more in arrears at this point in the year? Speaker 6: It's slightly higher, probably about the same as last year. We haven't seen a huge uptick in that. We have a couple of debtors that we're chasing, more rates debtors that we're chasing at the moment. But as a general rule, no, it's not higher than it has been previously. Okay. That's interesting. Thanks. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Certified agreement, negotiations and wage increases. The report notes that there's 2.1 million underspend in wages due to vacancies.
03:01:00 Can you explain? There's an indication in the report that that may help offset some of the costs that may be incurred. Speaker 6: So in terms of the 2.1 million, there is also offsetting because there is obviously labour hire staff that are filling that hole. So the net amount of those two is about 600,000, 650,000, which is the year to date shortfall on our employee costs. And that would be what's utilised to fund the increase that's negotiated. So we've already budgeted that. Speaker 1: The whole process is still in negotiations. I prefer not to discuss it. Councillor Lorentson: No worries. Speaker 1: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Okay. Does someone wish to move the motion? Speaker 1: No. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconder? Seconder. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Thank you again for your very, very clear reports.
03:02:00 It sounds like we are doing very, very well. But I'm worried a little bit about what's coming down the track for us, as we all are. And I'd just please keep up the great work. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Campbell. I'd just like to just say just a couple of things. In closing, thank you, Pauline. Your reports are always really well presented, clear, and easy to read for not just us, but any resident who picks up the report will say the same. Question I forgot to ask, which I ask every meeting, is what keeps you up at night? And I'm going to answer that question myself. Lots at the moment. So I think when you work in local government, you actually start understanding the enormity of the business and risk, and how important it is to be future thinking, and how important
03:03:00 it is to have cash reserves, and how important it is to have the right staff in the right jobs performing. And to Council's credit, we do lots of things really well, and thank you again, but lots is keeping me up at night. I'm answering your question. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a very good reason why Noosa Council remains one of 20 out of 77 local governments to run surplus budgets. It's because of its adherence to sustainable financial practices, good, clean reporting, and responsible budgeting. I note the asset sustainability ratio, which is about our spending, our capital, and our budgeted spending for Capital Works. We've budgeted to spend 116.6% on our assets. We're at 66 at the moment. There's a target of 80.
03:04:00 There's a couple of months to go. There have been some weather events. But what this report doesn't also show is the work that is done on managing 130 million external Capital Works program that's funded by external funding, Queensland Reconstruction Authority. Even though it's been managed by contractors, Noosa Council is, for the first time that I can remember for the last couple of years, been responsible for two very significant Capital Works programs at the same time. So that's not in the report, but it's a sign that the organisation is, again, highly ambitious, punching well above its weight for a very small organisation, and weathering the challenges of financial irresponsibility. Thank you. Your report is key to keeping us on track. Councillor Wegener: Anyone else? Councillor Wegener. I'll throw my hat into it, keeping me awake at night.
03:05:00 I have slips. But I'm very happy to announce that we're committed to a surplus budget. Thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. We now ask the Manager of Environmental Services to come up to discuss the five-year review of the Environment Strategy. Welcome, Ben. Thank you, Chair. Oh, and Kim, the Director of Environment Sustainability, will join him. Speaker 2: So we had our annual review of our Environment Strategy, which has got four actions embedded in it. We've given a product summary of how we're tracking against each of those actions. We've given a summary of how we're tracking against each of those actions. We've given a summary of how we're tracking against each of those actions. Of the 42, we've got one scheduled for future, which is fish biomass sitting within Noosa River, which has been a component of the Noosa River Plan. So as that develops, we'll start to get some metrics around there.
8.2 NOOSA ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5-YEAR MONITORING REPORT ¶
03:06:00 There's two that need attention relating to agriculture, and they were always intended to be further on in the Environment Strategy as we're starting to develop plans through economic development and strategic planning and environment that will incorporate some of our metrics in there. Of the remaining 39 actions, we've got four that have been completed, 21 are on target, and 15 are progressing. And we've given a progressing rating for actions where they're moving in the right direction but have been delayed for particular reasons, and happy to take questions around those. Considering we've also got some four enabling, overarching enabling actions, and we've given a product summary as to how we're progressing on those. Implementation of the Environment Grants Program to support community projects and programs that lead to implementation of the Environment Strategy is on target. And we've provided a summary of the reporting year for our Environmental Grants and Climate
03:07:00 Change and Sustainability Grants. Enabling action number two, implementation of an Environment Sustainability Roundtable to provide a mechanism for local groups, local community groups, government stakeholders and experts to have an input into what's happening in the environment. Development of Council Policy is progressing, and I'll provide a note to say that terms of reference and a project plan for that will be presented to Council probably at the next Council meeting, not the one on Thursday, but the one coming up, the one after that. We're just working through terms of reference of that at the moment. Enabling, the third enabling action, supporting community environmental sustainable development networks and forums to build partnerships to drive. The implementation of the Environment Strategy is considered to be progressing. And again, that is attached to the Environment Sustainability Roundtable, which is coming up. And the final one, which is undertake monitoring programs required for evaluating and reporting on the success of implementation of the Environment Strategy is also progressing.
03:08:00 And so that's monitoring programs are always a work in progress as things change and more data becomes available to us. So we've provided a portfolio. We've provided a summary on how we're progressing for each of the enabling actions, gone into a little bit more detail about all the other actions, which are very Council-driven and Council-resourced. We've also provided an attachment for a summary of environmental grants and climate change and sustainability grants. There's two recommendations that we've put forward. One is relating to this report and the contents in this report. And the second one is proposing a mid-term review of the Environment Strategy, given that it's a 10-year strategy. And it's still good. Certain things have changed in the last five years. And a strategy that spans 10 years, there will always be changes along the way, which
03:09:00 is incorporating new technology. It might be a better way to be able to measure, track, implement different networks that we might be using and emerging trends, which may have emerged over the last five years as well. So in relation to that, we're not proposing a full-on rebuild of it. It's a review of the existing actions and whether any of those need amending and whether there's any emerging items that need to be considered by Council. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you very much for the report, Ben. There's a lot going on. There's 42 actions. Is this a question? Director Rawlings: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Four completed and 21 on target. To me, that looks like halfway through a 10-year program, you're 60 per cent are either on track or completed. But can you tell us, are there any programs that, in your mind, require the most attention
03:10:00 for a 10-year program? Is there a recalibration? Is there any one or two that come to mind that will lead to some sort of adjustment? Speaker 2: Look, the ones that are off track or we haven't progressed probably, which are relating to agriculture and – what was the other one? Agriculture and fishing. Yeah, they're ones that we haven't quite got a concept around as to how we're going to be able to get them to the level of the Council's level of influence. What can we do to be able to promote better metrics that we can measure that can say we're progressing in the right way for those? And they're reasonably new areas for Council to be able to step into as well. Probably the one that has our most attention at the moment is issues relating to the river,
03:11:00 and particularly the transition that we've got in between developing the Noosa River Management Plan on its own and incorporating that into the Resilient River Discatchment Action Plan program, which is just at that transition period at the moment where we're resourcing up the staff and getting frameworks together. So there's quite a few actions that are sitting within there, within that sphere, that will be delivered as a component of that. And I think we're on the right track for it. It's just a difficult period to be able to go through. Mayor Wilkie: And with MSQ stepping up for a lot of the on-water responsibility, that's taken a large element out of the Noosa River Plan, or Noosa Council's interest in the Noosa River Plan. Speaker 2: Can I respond to that? Director Rawlings: I think we... Mayor Wilkie: We have an advocacy role, but we're not looking at monitoring on-water activities in Noosa. Director Rawlings: No, but what I would say, Councillor Wilkie, is that we are currently recruiting, for that
03:12:00 matter. We are looking at that role, and we are finalising the approach with the State Government through Resilient Rivers about what that Catchment Action Management Plan will include. And I would suggest that's probably better to a separate conversation with Council, which we have planned, once that's in place, rather than at this point saying what's in and what's out. But that will absolutely take into account what's occurred in the last three or four years, and what's shifted from what our original aspirations were around. Yeah. And what's been done to the river, and whose roles what. It will absolutely be contemporary in that sense. Mayor Wilkie: Well, I guess I'm saying with MSQ stepping up, it has changed the game significantly. Director Rawlings: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Director Rawlings: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: Question, please, just around unspent grant funds, please. Are they reallocated, or take... What happens to those grant... Speaker 2: To the chair? ...unspent funds? Yeah. So there's two elements to that. One is the environmental grants, which are funded through the environment levy.
03:13:00 We haven't got unspent monies in those. There was a reallocation of $50,000 from the project into alliance grants. And so the books sort of balance. I think there's about a $50 excess for $150,000-odd of multi-year environment grants. So if there's an underspend in environment levy grants, that just transfers back into the environment levy pool. And so they're used for, you know, all the things in the environment levy. It might be land purchases. It might be environmental initiatives or follow subsequent grant rounds. The climate change and sustainability grants are general revenue. And so we did have an underspend in that with one particular project predominantly contributing the most of that, which they got a fair way down the path and realised that they couldn't put solar panels on a community building because structurally it couldn't. Couldn't take it. So those monies went back into general revenue.
03:14:00 It was too late in the piece to reissue those funds on that grant round. And I don't think we had a suitable candidate to be able to reissue those. So two different answers to the two different mining streams. Councillor Phillips: That's great. Thank you. No, that really clarifies it. And my last question is around the plastic-free Noosav. This probably comes off the last week's webinar. This is the last week's special meeting, which I won't bring up. I'm kidding. Sorry. Just to clarify, please, how is the tourism Noosav funding arrangement separate to the plastic-free Noosav? Speaker 2: Yeah. I can answer that from the project point of view. Sure. Yeah. So we assessed the plastic-free Noosav application separately without consideration of the tourism Noosav funding body. There was nothing in our guidelines and policy which precluded tourism Noosav from applying for those program funds. So we assessed it. And it matched very favourably with some of the objectives that sat within the environment
03:15:00 strategy. So they got the money. Director Rawlings: Okay. I'll just add to that. Any organisation that's eligible under our grants guidelines can apply for grant funding. That's community organisations, tourism organisations, depending on which grant program. So plastic-free Noosav. The plastic-free program is funded through our multi-year environment grants, which are a three-year program. They are in the final year of that three years. So our multi-year environment grants will come up again next year for consideration. Okay. Councillor Phillips: So how will potentially the roadmap from the year of tourism Noosav now align? Will it align at all? Or will we see that somehow? Director Rawlings: It is quite separate. Yeah. It's a grant. Separate program. And it's assessed separately. It's got its own... It's governed under our grants policy and our grants guidelines. It's got its own acquittal process as it is with any organisation, sporting organisation,
03:16:00 community organisation, anyone that... It's governed through the community... The grants program. You know, should council be looking at the sorts of programs that... The grants that tourism Noosav might be doing in the future through the roadmap, it could be considered in that context. But I wouldn't want to conflate those issues. They are quite separate. The funding agreement and the roadmap. And then the grant, which is project specific. It has very specific deliverables and its own timeframe. We need to, you know, just make sure that there's clear air between those two things because they are governed and under different processes. Great. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: We have lots of references to the Keeping It In Kin Kin projects, but do we have a plan for getting out of Kin Kin for the flying foxes, please?
03:17:00 Speaker 2: Look, flying foxes have always been contentious within the community, and all the roosts do create conflict. The one in Kin Kin is somewhat unique, where the majority of the habitat and the roost is in private land. There's only a small section of council managed land, being the riparian area. As the population increases, it does spill into larger areas of council. Look, council officers really appreciate the challenge of living next to a flying fox roost. You know, hence the development of the statement of management intent, as well as the particular flying fox management plans, of which there is one for Kin Kin. We understand that's a reasonably high-conflict area. Based on our statement of management intent, we've transitioned from a Stage 1, which is background monitoring, as a product summary, background monitoring and education,
03:18:00 and restricting access to areas, to Stage 2, which is a greater amount of community consultation, offering residents flying fox subsidy programs. As well as ensuring that our routine maintenance projects aren't happening in and around the roost to disturb the roost. We've got a range of longer-term actions that we do implement through there as well, in terms of vegetation management and weed management. This year, the population in Kin Kin for flying foxes has not changed markedly outside of the annual fluctuations that we'd expect. So there has been some increases in population through summer and autumn, as we'd expect for most of the populations. But it's not something which is markedly more worse, we feel, than what it was five years ago in terms of the population. With what we can do for residents, as I said, we're doing Stage 2, which is better vegetation management through there,
03:19:00 making sure that we're still managing in accordance with the statement of management intent. And we've also lifted our individual subsidies from $1,500 to $2,000. And it's quite prescriptive as to what each round of those we can apply, the activities that we can apply for. So if there's different activities that need rectification through advocacy from the community, then we can seek funds to be able to make sure that we've got grants that align to that as well. So the grants at this point have been water filtration units, and cleaning. Speaker 3: I'm not sure that it's got colours. Speaker 2: I think it's cleaning. And vegetation removal. So given most of the habitat is in private land, Council has got a policy written in the statement of management intent that we will not go onto someone's private land and do vegetation cleaning,
03:20:00 but we'll provide subsidies so that people can engage contractors to be able to do that safely. Yeah. So there's – look, I appreciate that flying foxes in the community is a – it's a contentious issue when, you know, property is back on. They're a protected species. They've got levels of protection. There's certain management actions that we went through when we developed the SOMI that we can and can't do. Dispersal is one that was debated with some vigour. And Noosa Council generally doesn't support dispersion. It's expensive. It's seen as a, you know, potentially short-term, because the roosts have demonstrated throughout Australia to fairly frequently come back. And you can make it somebody else's problem as well. And so if they took off from Kin Kin, they could land at Cooroy and create all sorts of issues there or somewhere else. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Question cancellation. The Burgess Creek catchment management plan.
03:21:00 There was another pledge by the LNP. They committed $100,000 for a critical study. Have we received any official confirmation from LNP regarding this funding? Speaker 2: We do. We have. We've been liaising with the department. We've had email clarification or email confirmation that we'll receive that funding. We're working with the department at the moment to be able to put some specifics around what the delivery will be. And so what they're looking for, what's going to suit our needs, what we've got the capacity to be able to do for $100,000. Given it's quite a small catchment, we still need to incorporate community engagement. We've got to be able to measure off environmental management, weed management, water quality and infrastructure requirements as well. So there's quite a lot of elements to be able to cover off for $100,000. And we're just working through the department at the moment just to be able to make sure that we've got the funding data agreement set. Councillor Lorentson: Probably a similar question that we asked with the pledge
03:22:00 with the $2.5 million with the boating infrastructure. Who determines how the funds are used? Again, there was context around that $100,000, how it was going to be used. Is that now irrelevant? And do discussions, as you mentioned, Ben, does Council lead the narrative now that the funding's used? Is that committed or does that get led by State? Director Rawlings: I'll respond to that and then you can add if you like, Ben. Like Ben said, we are working with the department on what the scope is. So they've been allocated the funding, but there are particular outcomes they want to achieve from that funding. Our original costings of the integrated water catchment management plan were greater than $100,000. Councillor Lorentson: That's $750,000, I think, two years ago. Director Rawlings: So... We do need to therefore re-look at scope to see what this $100,000 can actually deliver, as Ben said.
03:23:00 So that is, you know... There's a collaboration happening around that at the moment to say, well, these are the things we think are the priority. Can they fit within the scope? What can we manage? So, yes, there is a scoping down of what that project can be, given it's $100,000, not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Speaker 2: Yeah. And, look, in terms of the outcome and the detail that it goes into, that's probably where those decisions will be made. But rather than something which is very detailed and has detailed responses to what the risks and opportunities are in that integrated plan, it might make statements at a higher level and it might direct strategic directions into particular areas for infrastructure failure, as an example of more investigation needs to be done around these areas to ensure that infrastructure, you know, remains viable. OK. Councillor Lorentson: We have funded... I'm just trying to think. 23, Kim?
03:24:00 2023, 24, the University of Sunshine Coast. We funded a report on looking at erosion movements around the mouth of Burgess Creek. Two questions. Will that report help guide the scope? Because there's already been some investigatory work done in the space. And two, has that report ever been released to public? I haven't seen it. Director Rawlings: I'll have to take that on notice about that report. I know we did do a status update on that report back to Council. Maybe... I'd have to check the date. Maybe mid-last year or early last year. Councillor Lorentson: But the actual report, I don't think we ever had access to that. Director Rawlings: No. I'll have to take that on notice and follow up about the status of that report, whether it's been released. I'm not sure. Councillor Lorentson. But, yeah, there has been a lot of work done in that catchment over the last couple of years, as you know. There has. I do. So all of those things will be key inputs into what the scope
03:25:00 of the water catchment management plan is now and really needs to focus on where the gaps are because we have got a lot more information now and there has been a lot of work done in the last couple of years. So the best use of that investment will be in what are the gaps, what don't we know, and what we need to do going forward. Councillor Lorentson: And my last question. Integrated water catchment plan. So, again, going back a couple of years ago, there was appetite to fund that. We haven't. And I'm anticipating that cost has exacerbated over the last couple of years. How do we progress that? Will the environment... Ben, will you come to us as part of our budget deliberations and put that as an initiative for us to consider? Yeah. Speaker 2: Look, we haven't... We've got a working group on it, which is incorporating environment and infrastructure.
03:26:00 So we're getting technical officer input into what we consider to be the elements that we need to address. That will come to Council prior to being signed off. It's a significant government grant, so we need to make sure that Council's updated. We haven't considered making a budget bid to increase that amount. We're grateful that we've got $100,000, where we didn't have $100,000 a few months ago. So we're working with what we've got. It's money you don't have to spend. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much, Ben. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone want to move the microphone? We've got a question. Cancel. We're going to cancel. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Question. Looking at the round table coming up, and working with community groups, how do you see that? I would love to see them actually bringing a monetary value to what they're doing and to be more included in the actual,
03:27:00 you know, running to the environment machine. And like, for example, NICA. You know, they go off and they do their water monitoring and they bring that back, and they're not staffed, but they do a fantastic job. And is there other groups that we can really, both as a bush care group and things like that, how can we expand with, you know, our support for those groups doing stuff to help us out? Speaker 2: Yeah, we've got a... We're engaged with our network. We're probably not engaged on the formal sense in terms of a round table. And so round table, which is intended to be every six months for interested parties, will provide us with a kind of a strategic guidance on where we're headed. Probably to be able to engage properly with those groups is a lot more organic and day-to-day. So, you know, prior to coming in here, I was supposed to be in a NICA meeting. And it's just that, you know, ongoing touchpoints of all of our officers, you know, regularly engaging with those community groups
03:28:00 to make sure that they've got the support that they need to keep going. If there's a group that is facing some challenges and council is aware of it, we certainly offer our support so that they can move through those times and still deliver what their members want them to deliver. Yeah, so we're regularly engaging I can appreciate needing a formal network so that we can report on it and recognise it and celebrate it. Yeah, probably on a day-to-day basis. That's something which is kind of the nuts and bolts of work. Councillor Wegener: Leading on from that then, the destination management plan and the concept of being a regenerative community, being a regenerative tourist area. And I think that the community groups will be the ones to lead the charge, to lead the informing of the public.
03:29:00 Is that right? Are you looking at them as a conduit for your concept of a destination management, regenerative destination management plan to take hold in the community and find its roots? Director Rawlings: I think, Councillor Wegener, there's still some further discussion to be had around the destination management plan. That's something that's been planned with Council. But like any key strategy that Council does, fundamental to the delivery of our strategies, environment strategy, housing strategy, our community partnerships, they're embedded in our strategy. We couldn't achieve the things that we are achieving at the moment and this report with its 60-page attachment demonstrates how significant a community contribution our community organisations make. So I would think absolutely.
03:30:00 You know, partnership arrangements and having our key community organisations involved and aligned with where we're heading across all of our strategies is actually fundamental. And, you know, I think in many areas our community organisations do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of helping Council achieve the objectives that we set in the strategies. Councillor Wegener: Last thing. What was that? The David Attenborough movie. We had David Attenborough in the movie the other night talking about nets. And, you know, we have a lot of discussion of our shark nets. But could we have a no-net Noosav? No-net biosphere? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just throwing it out there. I don't think that's one of the staff to answer. It's a big one. It's a big one. We're about. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr Chair. Through the Chair and the staff, first I would thank you for the report. It is a big body of work.
03:31:00 I know it's a review against the contemporary threats and challenges moving forward. I know one of the threats I think about is our organic waste landfill, which is really important given we're looking at being a sustainable, you know, environment and tourism destination. Two things. Firstly, I'd like to hear what maybe your top two things that you consider are threats at the moment that are contemporary. But secondly, how does this environmental strategy going to play into and inform a strategy associated with DA conditions for organic waste as we develop our capacity to accept the organic waste stream? That's a big question. Do you want to answer that? So I think the second, Director Rawlings: the response to the second question is a combination of environment strategy and waste strategy
03:32:00 and legislative requirements. And it's kind of changing landscape around waste and organics and things. So I, you know, it probably needs broader discussion, Councillor Finzel, to be honest, to answer that question. You know, it'd be good to have Cairo in the room and actually sort of thrash that out about what is it, what are the targets we're going to set, what are the, you know, what are the parameters, what are the expectations and how we then flow that through our strategies into our regulatory conditioning, into DA processes and, you know, what sort of expectations we have. I think there's a fair bit of water to go under the bridge around that at the moment. We definitely have aspirations and strategic objectives around that. But we, you know, that whole idea of a more kind of pipeline of how that then lands on the ground really probably needs a bit more consideration and a bit more conversation. Councillor Finzel: And then in terms of what you think are some of those, like maybe the top two threats that you consider.
03:33:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, and Councillor Finzel, it's probably subjective to my view, so somebody might give you a different answer. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 2: Look, I think with the time that I've spent working in the environment field, which is close to three decades without question, climate change and population pressures on our biodiversity areas and our compromising our environmental values without question, and particularly in South East Queensland, they are the big two that require careful and strategic attention to and protection of the long-term protection of our conservation estate and the expansion of our conservation estate. To make sure that we are operating sustainably from a biodiversity, carbon and water perspective, which is something that we haven't picked up or we haven't quantified in the current environment strategy. We've got a target for conservation, which is fairly rudimentary in terms of how that was chosen.
03:34:00 But there's science out there now that says these are the targets that you should be hitting in these particular bioregions, which we can anchor some science to, to say Noosa within our boundaries. We've got sustainability, not for the next few decades until the planning scheme eventually pushes right up into Noosa and we have to change. But if we protect it right then for centuries and generations and generations to come for sustainability for genuinely what it is rather than something that we can do for a short period of time because that's sometimes how we think. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: One last question, Chair. The eastern beach is foreshore reserves management. There's a number of actions there. The wording says progress in implementing the plan includes. There's a range of actions there. Does this mean progress has been made in each of those actions? Speaker 2: Yes.
03:35:00 Yeah, that's correct. And not always are we seeing a lot of action. It might be development of background material. It might be communication with community members down there as a first point. We need to get that particular action moving. The eastern beach is foreshore reserves management plan is the implementation actions that come out of that. There's probably 70 or 80 of them. So it's a big body of work as well to be able to work through a prioritisation plan. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. There's five key overarching actions there for making progress in all of those. Speaker 2: That's correct. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: The fencing signage and assisting natural regeneration for recovery sites, meaning the dunes, that's probably a highly visible aspect of the plan that the plan seeks to address. How are we going in terms of resourcing for that action? Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very much embedded in the beach access infrastructure manual. So signage will be addressed there as well as...
03:36:00 Mayor Wilkie: Real fencing, real vegetation. Speaker 2: Yeah. And making sure that the best available access to the beach is the most appropriate. The most appropriate one as well. So currently we've got some beach accesses, which is where... You know, everyone's coming onto the beach at those points. And so they're the ones that people make decisions. Do I wander off into the dunes or do I go down to the beach line? Getting those right is seen as absolutely critical for the creep that then comes out if we don't have clearly defined beach accesses. And so the draft bane at the moment, which is around about 80% complete at the moment, is very prescriptive around tier one, two and three. What's going to be there? What are the environmental objectives? And what's the basic design of those beach accesses? Yeah, so it's a start. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Question? Yeah. So the report cites 20, 30 all food wasters diverted from landfill. It also identifies that some of the strategies
03:37:00 towards these targets is unable to be assessed due to insufficient monitoring data. Couple of questions. How are we currently progressing on meeting the NUSA's food waste reduction targets? Is 20, 30 realistic? Speaker 2: Sorry? Councillor Lorentson: Is 20, 30 target attainable? Director Walsh: Sorry, Chair. I really think that's a matter for funding from the state government through the NUSA. You know, we collect a lot of money on behalf of the state, and the commitment is for us to get that money back. Now, we're in the picture in terms of funding submissions. But, you know, that level of technology and waste separation, composting or whatever, is no gesture. It's expensive. And we're looking to the state for their assistance to help lead that project and achieve that goal. So it is achievable. And with that goal being in there, it's achievable with the right funding application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move to motion.
03:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, I have another question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. You can have a question at any time. Thank you. Just a follow-up. No, no. I haven't moved to the second, so you can do it after the talk. The report highlights a great amount of activity that has done over the five years. There's been a significant body of work done both by staff and as was highlighted, most of the stuff that gets done on the ground is a partnership with Council and the community, and it's been done. Now, we're fortunate to have hundreds, if not thousands, of people working across the various elements of the environment strategy at a community level, helping us to achieve the targets. I think the concept of having a five-year mid-term review is good, and you outlined in the report a range of different triggers that would warrant that. I actually think there's one more, and it relates to one of the reds. The red 414 was enhanced integrated catchment management of the Noosa River and Mary River subcatchment with a view of improving land use, wetland and riparian management practices
03:39:00 through landholder engagement on ground rehabilitation. Integrated catchment management is a way of operating. It's a much broader concept than what we have embodied recently. It's about a holistic, it's about bottom-up, it's about stakeholder-driven, and it's, I think, something we have to think about whether it's Council's role to do. In the Mary catchment, they have had an integrated catchment management body since 1994, so it's probably still the longest running and biggest one in Queensland, and they've got multi-million dollar budget. In Noosa, we haven't got the same momentum, and Noosa has opted through their own reviews to go a different direction. I think the concept of how we get integrated natural resource and environment management is one we have to think a lot about, and I don't think we'll get to the target in section 2.1, which is about maintaining and improving the health of our waterways, wetlands, and caverns if we don't do something about it. And I say that because
03:40:00 it's a multi-stakeholder approach, and it's an approach that gets stakeholders around the table so that you can manage conflict, whereas at the moment and previously, the Noosa River in particular is a source of conflict, and hence why I think when we get to the enable the action C, I don't think we've done it. I wouldn't agree that we've been progressive. And part of that is because change of staff over time. There was a real reason why B, which is the round table, and C was separated, because that was an arrangement agreed to by the sector. We started and we had every group, whether they were a bush care group, whether they were an unincorporated environment group, we had the Croy Residents Association, Noosa Shire Residents, anything that had a sustainable development focus. We had Indigenous, Kabi Kabi people come once or twice. We had Reef Check there. We had, I think AusFish might have come. We had numerous, quite other groups, and they come and
03:41:00 Council have an agenda. We might want to talk to them about one or two things, but they would also lay their own agenda and they'd work how they'd like to work together. So we had great projects like the Eastern Beaches bush care groups come together. We sort of lost that since COVID. And I think, and just before COVID, there was this thing where Council was trying to say, we think the community should run it, and the community was trying to say, no, we want Council to keep on leading it. I think we have to decide about who does. And I think it's germane to the achievement of not just that 2.1, but it's also around the ZEN and waste. It's about how do we get integrated environmental solutions to achieve our waste targets and our emissions reduction, which require a lot of work in the community to achieve behaviour change. And to me, that whole integrated and engaged and more collaborative approach on holistic options is something that we can think more about. You know, we do a good job in a project by project,
03:42:00 sector by sector, but we're not doing that well, in my opinion, on the integrated. But as I said, we're achieving great things. I won't be too negative, but I just think as part of that review, we have to think about how we operate. Now, Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Lorentson: thank you. Councillor Stockwell, and I appreciate how nicely you just asked me that question. In terms of progress, Noosa signed an MOU with Gympie on regional waste management. I just want to know what specific initiatives have resulted from the partnership. Director Rawlings: Noosa signed the MOU with Gympie Regional Council about waste. Is there any update on that? Any progress on that? Director Walsh: When we've been having discussions with the region, we've included Gympie as part of this. It's a bit, you know, challenging because Gympie has not played a service with any regional organisations. So, but there are particular attributes
03:43:00 they have in terms of space and particular waste streams that we can bring into the forum. So, I suppose we've taken a position that we're advocating for waste outcomes that Gympie can be involved in as part of the regional solution. And also note that some of their waste suppliers such as Corvettes, we have a number of commercial contracts with, so we're actually using Gympie suppliers. So, I'd say it's a healthy relationship but yet to, you know, have proper fruition in terms of its outcomes. Councillor Lorentson: Another question. How often do we meet with Gympie Mayor? Director Walsh: I'm not, I don't personally meet with the Gympie Mayor. Oh, Councillor Lorentson: okay. Or just with their, with their waste staff? Director Rawlings: Yeah, we have a quarterly, quarterly forum with Gympie, Sunshine Coast Council and us as an executive. So, all three CEOs and all three executives. And waste is a regular topic on that. They're, they're all strategic regional topics that are part of that agenda and,
03:44:00 you know, one quarter we meet at Gympie, one quarter we meet here, one quarter we meet at Sunshine Coast. So, that has been a continuous topic of conversation. Councillor Lorentson: Interesting. Thank you, Kim. Councillor Wegener: Let's talk to the next one. Yes. Brian, that was a, that was probably your most inspirational speech. Thank you. It was, and it's visionary and, you know, you're saying that we actually need a central glue to pull all these groups together and, and I think waste is doing it. They're, they're incredible. But, perhaps in the past there was, there was groups, probably the MPA that, for example, I think there's carbon sequence, key sequestration and biodiversity offsets. If that's something that groups can do, that individuals can do, they, they, they can be outside of council, but, for goodness sake, we don't need to squash them
03:45:00 when they're trying to do things, which, which can happen. I actually, you know, throw another great idea out there that we can't actually blow our own horn and get very good. That's not what we're good at. But if we work with, with other groups, but actually, maybe, perhaps, maybe Tourism Noosa becomes the cheerleader for pulling all the groups and then sharing this vision because of what we lack right now, I believe, is our, our lack of shared vision for a regenerative future in Noosa. And I just love what you're doing, by the way. Great work. The environment team is fantastic. And I think that, and Frank pointed out, the, the amount of success on the, on the ledger board there if you go through all 42 actions, it's phenomenal. So, keep up the great work. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Ms Bishop, for the motion. Councillor Larkin. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Probably want to talk about
03:46:00 the review period. So, we are at the halfway mark of the 10-year implementation. And I agree with you, Ben, we've got to assess progress, adapt to emerging environmental challenges and ensure that our approach is effective and relevant, et cetera. Probably a critical time to ask, you know, I think Councillor Finzel asked you what your biggest challenges or future plans are for future threats. I think the questions that I'm sort of asking is, and, and maybe part of the review is, we should start really, really thinking hard about how green we are as a council today compared to say five years ago or compared to 10 years ago. And how green does our future look. You know, biggest risk to me is landfill. Our landfill emissions account for 63% of Noosa Council's total emissions. There's a,
03:47:00 there's a clock ticking in terms of the landfill. It's close to reaching capacity. So that keeps me up at night. And the other big risk is plastics and microplastics and these emerging contaminants. And we saw that just recently with Cyclone Alfred. There's serious threats and the only way we change behaviour is we start walking the talk. And that goes back to my original question that we should be considering as part of the review is, how green are we today? And how green must we be if we're going to sing under the mantra different by nature? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I will close because there's one thing I think Councillor Wegner might be onto something. Councillor Wegener: And that's
03:48:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: in terms of my thinking and his thinking combining under the concept of, do we integrate around the concept of what is a regenerative future? Because I do think, you know, back prior to COVID, the conversation was shouldn't we have tourism in the room? And it's probably quite clear that that is now a big part of what the future involves. And having people both from those who see the regenerative future as something that's happening in terms of weeds and bushes along the coast too, those who've got a more strategic view about reducing emissions, having that conversation is likely to drive a lot more common purpose. And I think while not every environment decision can be done in a consensus fashion with all stakeholders, it is a good way to get change in the community. And I'll give you one example and that is the rejection of the Traverson Dam was as a result of all the relationships
03:49:00 done in the formation and delivery of the primary integrated cash management both the local, national and international networks that all came out telling the government they got it wrong. I'll put the vote. Those in favour? Let's you name us. I think that might be it isn't it? I know we've got a confidential. So I'll have a motion to move in the confidential session if someone wants to move what is on the board. Councillor Lorenton is moving. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254 J3G of the local government regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing a contract proposed to be made by council in item 9.1 contract number CN2503-1 provision of cleaning services for administration buildings, libraries and other facilities.
9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
03:50:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Wilson. There's no need for discussion. I think all in favour? That is carried. So if those who aren't Mayor Wilkie: staff in.
04:19:00 Speaker 1: I think they're still outside too, waiting to come back in. Councillor Lorentson: Are they? I don't know. They've been waiting at the door, I think. Speaker 1: I can hear them. Councillor Lorentson: No, I don't think they're still at the door.
04:20:00 I'll go and have a look. It's on. Speaker 1: They're waiting to come in. It's on. I'll give you a chance to have a conversation. Councillor Finzel: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Sorry. Okay, so, welcome back to the council meeting. We have a recommendation in front of us in terms of a confidential item. Mayor Wilkie: I can't see the recommendation. I can't see the recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, Cathy, if you could just bring up the recommendation, please. Do you need it?
9.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - CONTRACT NO: CN25031 - PROVISION OF CLEANING SERVICES FOR ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS, LIBRARIES AND OTHER FACILITIES. ¶
04:21:00 Mayor Wilkie: So, why are we going to read all of it? Just make it a bit smaller. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'll move it over on the other side. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would someone like to move the staff recommendation? I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie, seconder Councillor Finzel, did you wish to talk to her? I do not. Anyone wish to discuss? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And that brings us to the end of the meeting. The meeting closes at 4.52pm. Thank you, councillors. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr. CEO and staff. Thank you. Thank you.
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.